My Article

Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 16 (2018) 513–528
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bab
Anaerobic digestion of crop residues: Technological developments and T

environmental impact in the Indian context
Muramreddy Jugal Sukhesh , Polisetty Venkateswara Rao
⁎
Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Water and Environment Division, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal 506004, India
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: India is an agrarian country generating surplus amounts of paddy, wheat, and maize crop residues at large scale,
Biogas which are not being managed properly. The anaerobic digestion is an efficient way of managing these residues in
Methane an environmentally friendly manner. It results in high calorific methane gas and fertile rich digestate. The
Anaerobic digestion current study focused on reviewing the availability, methane potential and technological developments to im-
Crop residues
prove the methane production of crop residues. The methane potential from the anaerobic digestion of surplus
India
Paddy
paddy, wheat, and maize residues in India is estimated as 18,677 Mm3/year (632 × 109 MJ/year). The methane
Rice potential of crop residues could substitute 52 Mt/year of coal utilisation that evades 46 Mt/year of net CO2
Wheat emissions from releasing into the atmosphere.
Maize
Corn
1. Introduction crop area under cultivation (percentage of gross area under various
crops is represented in Fig. 1). The area of cultivation for the crops of
Energy plays a vital role in fostering the development, and shortage paddy and wheat constitutes about 40% of the gross cropped area,
of energy jeopardizes the growth of the nation (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). whereas the cultivation of maize constitutes about 5% of the gross
In India, large fraction of energy demand was supported by imported cropped area (Cardoen et al., 2015a). These crops generate 3.2–4.5 t of
fossil fuels which is affecting the country's economy (NITI Aayog, residues per hectare of area under cultivation (Cardoen et al., 2015a). It
2015). The India Energy Security Scenarios (IESS) (NITI Aayog, 2015) is estimated (Hiloidhari et al., 2014) that 686 Mt of crop residues are
estimated that the share of fossil fuel imports may raise from 32% (in being generated annually and about 234 Mt (34%) of generated re-
the year-2012) to 59.3% (in the year- 2047). The Green House Gas sidues can be considered as surplus quantity. In another study, it is
(GHG) emissions may raise threefold from 1.7 t per capita (in the estimated that 611Mt of crop residues are being generated annually and
year–2012) to 5.8 t per capita (in the year- 2047) with the current use of 158 Mt (25%) of generated residues can be considered as surplus
fossil fuels which may affect the environment adversely (NITI Aayog, quantity (Cardoen et al., 2015a). Among the crops, paddy generates
2015). In this context, it is necessary to look for self-sustainable, en- 154 Mt/year of residue, which is the highest among the generated, and
vironmental friendly alternate source for energy demand for meeting resulting in 43.5 Mt/year of surplus residue after its primary use as
the needs of the country. animal feeding. The wheat crop contributes to the second largest gen-
Consistent growth of the agricultural sector in India causing the eration of residue, about 131 Mt/year, resulting in 28.4 Mt/year of
augmented generation of crop residues (Cardoen et al., 2015a) which surplus residue. Maize contributes to the generation about 35.8 Mt/year
need to be handled properly. The crop residues in India were estimated of residue, resulting in 9 Mt/year of surplus residue (Table 1)
to contain an energy potential of 4.15 EJ (Hiloidhari et al., 2014) that (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). All the three major crop residues collectively
could meet the partial energy demand if used properly (Balachandra, generating surplus crop residue about 80.9 Mt/year, which is a sig-
2011). Among the crop residues produced, paddy (Oryza sativa), wheat nificant quantity that needs to be handled properly.
(Tritium aestivum), and maize (Zea mays) occupy the majority of the The common practices of utilisation of crop residues include feeding
Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; C/N ratio, carbon/nitrogen ratio; BMP, biochemical methane potential; GHG, green house gas; IESS, India Energy Security
Scenarios; MT, million metric ton; VFAs, volatile fatty acids; L-AD, liquid state anaerobic digestion; SS-AD, solid state anaerobic digestion; NITI, National Institution
for Transforming India
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.sukhesh@gmail.com (M.J. Sukhesh).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2018.08.007
Received 2 June 2018; Received in revised form 12 August 2018; Accepted 13 August 2018
Available online 15 August 2018
1878-8181/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M.J. Sukhesh, P.V. Rao Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 16 (2018) 513–528
emission of smoke, dust along with greenhouse gases. The open burning
of one ton of paddy straw results in 1460 kg of CO2, 1.20 kg of CH4,
34.7 kg of CO, 3 kg of NOX, 2 kg of SO2, 13 kg of particulate matter and
fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) of 12.95 kg into the atmosphere (Gadde
et al., 2009a). The resulted toxic gases and particulate matter causes
respiratory ailments for the persons who are being exposed. The open
burning also leads to the death of microbial population, loss of plant
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium in the soil and
the elevation of soil temperature. Keeping in the view of detrimental
environmental effects, it is required to manage the crop residues in an
environmental friendly manner (Cardoen et al., 2015b).
Composition of crop residue decides the suitability for any alter-
native management option. The typical crop residue contains about
30–44% of cellulose, 30–50% of hemicellulose and 8–21% of lignin
(Chandra et al., 2012a). The available methods to manage the crop
residues are gasification, alcoholic fermentation (ethanol production)
and anaerobic digestion (AD) (Chandra et al., 2012a; Singh and Gu,
Fig. 1. Percentage (%) of gross area under different crops (Cardoen et al.,
2010). AD of crop residues scores better when compared to alcoholic
2015a).
fermentation as the process derives high net energy (Chandra, 2015;
Kaparaju et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009). The AD process is efficient as
Table 1 there is a possibility to degrade the cellulose up to 80% which is major
Gross and surplus residue potential of major crops In India. constituent in crop residues (Ress et al., 1998). In addition, the AD
Source: (Hiloidhari et al., 2014) process also controls direct emission of GHGs into the atmosphere (Liu
S. No Crop Gross potential (Mt) Surplus potential (Mt) et al., 2015; Senghor et al., 2017) and results in fertile rich digestate
that could improve the fertility and holding capacities of the soil
1 Rice 154.0 43.5
(Pathak et al., 2010) (Fig. 2). In Germany, more than 50% of the biogas
2 Wheat 131.1 28.4
3 Maize 35.8 9.0
is produced from energy crops using 700 AD plants (Li et al., 2011a).
From the experience of Germany, AD of crop residues could become a
sustainable option if appropriate strategies are developed in Indian
the cattle, using for domestic fuel, roof thatching, fencing and packa- context.
ging (Milhau and Fallot, 2013). In some areas of the country, residues AD can be defined as a biochemical process that converts the or-
are used directly for heating the water in boilers. Rice straw is widely ganic waste/residues to high calorific methane gas and fertile digestate
used as cattle feed in major parts of the country, whereas in Punjab, in the absence of oxygen (Fig. 3). However, the process suffers from the
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh people prefer wheat straw as cattle feed limitations such as slow biodegradability due to lignin content and
than rice straw (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). The highest surplus crop re- imbalanced nutritional composition in crop residues for widespread
sidues are generated in Uttar Pradesh (40 Mt) followed by Maharashtra application. The limitations can be overcome with appropriate pre-
(31 Mt) and Punjab (28 Mt) (Hiloidhari et al., 2014) as these states are treatment methods to improve the degradation of lignin coat and co-
having larger geographical area and plenty of water. The surplus re- digestion with the nitrogen rich animal manures to improve the nutri-
sidues generated in these states are either left uncollected or burnt tional balance (Fig. 4). Several pre-treatment methods and co-digestion
openly in the field itself (Cardoen et al., 2015a). It is reported substrates have been reported widely in the scientific literature to im-
(Hiloidhari et al., 2014) that 22% of rice straw and 10% of wheat straw prove the efficiency of the AD system (Abudi et al., 2016b; Wang et al.,
is burnt openly in Uttar Pradesh. This kind of open burning leads to the 2012). However, an overview of a specific focus on the AD of crop
Fig. 2. Advantages of the AD system.
514
Fig. 3. Typical flow diagram of the AD process.
Fig. 4. Strategies to improve the methane production in AD.
515
residues and recent technical developments in the scientific literature is over harvesting period (Amon et al., 2007). However, the methane
missing. The present paper is aimed to summarize the various influ- yield per hectare of cropland is high for harvested maize residue at the
encing factors in the AD of crop residues, to review the technological stage of full ripens due to the high quantity of residue generation per
developments and to estimate the environmental impact in the indian hectare at full ripeness (Amon et al., 2007). Furthermore, the har-
context. vesting type (mechanical/manual) influences the structure of residues.
The manual harvesting preserves the original structure of the harvested
2. Influencing factors in the AD of crop residues crop whereas mechanical harvesting shreds the crop residue to small
pieces, which is favorable for the better AD. Moreover, the climatic
AD is a complex biochemical process that decomposes organic conditions vary with the geographical location that affects the com-
matter by a variety of microorganisms under anaerobic environment in position, subsequently the methane production (Amon et al., 2007).
four phases (Fig. 3)(Mussoline et al., 2012b). The first phase is the Therefore, composition and structure had a significant role in the me-
hydrolysis during which complex polymers (carbohydrates, proteins, thane production of crop residues.
and lipids) present in organic matter gets converted to water-soluble Several researchers mathematically correlated the composition with
monomers (sugars, amino acids, and long chain fatty acids). The second the methane production (Table 3). A positive correlation of methane
phase is an acidogenic phase that converts formed monomers in the production in maize was observed with crude protein, crude fat and
hydrolysis phase into acids, alcohols, CO2 and H2. The third phase is the hemicellulose and negative correlation to the acid detergent lignin
acetogenesis that converts products of acidogenesis into acetic acid, H2, (ADL) (Amon et al., 2007; Dandikas et al., 2014; Rath et al., 2013). A
and CO2. The fourth phase is methanogenesis that takes up the gener- negative correlation of hemicellulose with methane production in ad-
ated products in earlier phase, i.e., acetic acid, H2, CO2 and converts dition to the lignin content was also reported (Bekiaris et al., 2015).
into energy rich methane gas. The efficiency of AD process depends on Variation of methane production with respect to composition was ob-
the syntrophic interrelation of these four phases. The process is influ- served in different works which may be due to variety of plant bio-
enced by factors such as composition, total solids (TS%) content, tem- masses considered (Bekiaris et al., 2015).
perature, microbial population, and nutritional balance. The detailed A strong negative relationship of methane production to the lignin
discussion of the influence of these factors on the AD system is dis- content was reported in several works (Li et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2015;
cussed with a special focus on paddy, wheat, and maize residues (pic- Triolo et al., 2011). The very low first-order rate constants (0.05–0.06
torially represented in the Fig. 5). 1/d) for methane production were reported for residues containing high
lignin content (Li et al., 2013). Lignin content in the crop residue causes
2.1. Influence of the composition of crop residues slow degradation rates. The slow degradation is due to the protective
covering of the lignin content to the cellulose and hemicellulose. In
Composition had a strong influence on biodegradability, and effi- order to depolymerize the lignin, extracellular enzymes requires
ciency of AD process (Amon et al., 2007). Typical crop residue consists oxygen, which will not be available in the AD system (Triolo et al.,
of cellulose, hemi cellulose and lignin in major proportion and little 2011). However, the depolymerization of lignin can be achieved with
amounts of proteins (3–4%) and fats (1–2%) (Chandra, 2015). Cellulose an appropriate pre-treatment method (Reilly et al., 2015). Several
is a linear polymer of cellulobiose units and hemicellulose is a branched physical (Chandra et al., 2012b; Ferreira et al., 2014, 2013), chemical
network of pentose and hexose units whereas, lignin is a three-dimen- (Khatri et al., 2015; Reilly et al., 2015; Song and Zhang, 2015; Yuan
sional network of phenyl propanoid units in the lignocellulosic biomass et al., 2015) and biological pre-treatment methods (Mustafa et al.,
(Martínez et al., 2005). The three components cellulose, hemicellulose, 2016; Zhao et al., 2014b; Zhou et al., 2017) have been proven to be
and lignin, are intermeshed with each other making as the complex effective to degrade the lignin content in crop residues. However,the
substrate to degrade biologically. Cellulose is linked physically with high-energy requirements and high costs associated with the pre-
hemicellulose whereas physically and chemically with lignin. Lignin is treatment methods preventing the practical field application (Abudi
linked chemically with hemicelluloses with ester or ether bonds. et al., 2016a, 2016b). A low cost and energy efficient pre-treatment
Table 2 shows the principal composition of paddy, wheat, and maize method is required to improve the lignin degradation in crop residues.
residues. It shows that cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin lies in the
range of 30–45%, 16–44%, and 1.9–34% respectively. 2.2. Influence of the total solids (TS) content
The time of harvest, harvesting pattern (mechanical/manual) and
silaging of crop residues influences the composition and methane pro- TS content represents dry matter excluding the moisture. Typically,
duction (Amon et al., 2007) (Fig. 5). The silaged maize residue pro- the AD system can be categorized into two systems based on TS content.
duced 25% of higher methane yield than non-silaged maize residue due The AD which is carried out at TS < 15%, termed as liquid state AD (L-
to the pre-decomposition of the crude fiber during silaging (Amon et al., AD), and > 15%, termed as solid state AD (SS-AD) (Xu et al., 2014).
2007). Maize residues which were harvested at the stage of milk ripe- The TS content of the AD system infuences its efficiency (Abbassi-
ness produced 16–27% of higher methane yield than maize residue Guendouz et al., 2012). TS content influences the rate of hydrolysis and
harvested at the stage of full ripeness due to changes in its composition gas-liquid transfer between the slurry phase and and gas phase. (Xu
Fig. 5. Influencing factors in AD of crop residues.
516
Table 2
Composition of rice straw, wheat straw, and maize straw.
Crop residue Cellulose (%) Hemicellulose (%) Lignin (%) C/N ratio Ref.
Rice straw 34.9 16.7 23.3 47.0 (Ye et al., 2013)

30.2 17.6 31.9 60.5 (Yan et al., 2015)
Wheat straw 45.6 33.4 6.4 – (Xavier et al., 2015)
38.6 25.1 7.3 (Saady and Massé, 2015)
Maize straw 32.8 44.1 1.9 59.1 (Cuetos et al., 2013)
38.8 29.5 7.1 34.9 (Yuan et al., 2015)
Table 3 et al., 2010) as there is no need of mixing. The amount of water re-
Effect of composition of crop residue on methane yield. quired is also less in SS-AD compared to L-AD which requires more
Substrate No of Methane yield (Ym) R2 Ref.
water to maintain the low TS content. Moreover, the problems such as
samples floating and stratification in digester cannot be found in SS-AD and
handling of sludge is easier due to its low water content (Li et al.,
Energy crops 41 Ym = 371 + 0.13 × HC 0.80 (Dandikas et al., 2011a). Even though SS-AD is advantageous, certain complications
− 2 ADL 2014)
Maize 12 Ym = 19.05 × CP + – (Amon et al.,
associated with high TS loading need to be addressed. The complica-
27.73 CF + 1.8 × C + 2007) tions such as low hydrolysis, limited substrate availability to microbes
1.7 × HC and low gas-liquid transfer need to be addressed for efficient use of SS-
Energy crops 10 Ym = −2.58 × L + 0.76 (Triolo et al., AD in crop residues. Further, cost to benefit analysis under SS-AD needs
460.6 2011)
to be evaluated for practical implementation in the Indian context.
Crop residues 14 Ym = 113.14 × (C/L 0.78 (Liu et al., 2015)
ratio) − 26.62
2.3. Influence of temperature
Ym – yield of methane; C-cellulose; HC – hemicellulose; L-lignin; ADL-acid
detergent lignin; CP-crude protein CF-crude fat; R2 –correlation coefficient; C/L
Temperature affects the microbial communities present in the AD
ratio- cellulose to lignin ratio.
system leading to variations in methane production (Chae et al., 2008).
The microbial communities in the AD system can be categorised into
psychrophilic (< 20 °C), mesophilic (20–45 °C), thermophilic
et al., 2014) reported that the rate of methane production is increased
(45–60 °C) and hyperthermophilic (> 60 °C) based on temperature.
with an increase in TS (%) upto a threshold limit of 20%, thereafter
Among them, mesophilic and thermophilic temperature conditions are
decreased. The decreased methane production at higher TS(> 20% TS)
commonly adopted for AD process (Liu et al., 2017). AD at mesophilic
was attributed to mass diffusion limitation causing accumulation of
temperature conditions is more stable and less sensitive to the tem-
hydrolysed products (i.e. sugars) due to product type inhibition of hy-
perature fluctuations, whereas AD at thermophilic conditions is highly
drolysis. It is also hypothesised that different inhibition mechanisms
unstable and sensitive to the temperature fluctuations due to high
play roles at different ranges of TS% (Abbassi-Guendouz et al., 2012).
metabolic growth rates. (El-Mashad et al., 2004).
For the case of 10% ≤ TS ≤ 25%, the low rate of hydrolysis is the
The effect of temperature on methane production is uncertain due to
reason for low methane production. For the case of TS ≥ 30%, the
changes in the growth of microbial communities as different organisms
limitation of liquid-gas transfer of CH4, CO2, and H2 gases is the reason
have different comfortable temperatures. For instance, the AD of
for low methane production.
composted rice straw obtained maximum methane production at 35 °C
TS content affects the efficiency of the AD system. The AD of palm
(in the temperature range of 30–45 °C) (Yan et al., 2015) whereas corn
oil residues (analogous to crop residues) has resulted in higher methane
stover obtained maximum methane production at 44 °C (in the tem-
production at a TS of 16% compared to TS of 25% and 35% (Suksong
perature range of 35–44 °C) (Liu et al., 2017). On the other hand, SS-AD
et al., 2017). The low methane production at higher TS is due to low
of rice straw at mesophilic conditions (35 °C) resulted in higher me-
mass transfer coefficient (Abbassi-Guendouz et al., 2012), the formation
thane production (123.5 mL of CH4/g VS) compared to thermophilic
of dead zones in the reactor (Sawatdeenarunat et al., 2014) and low
conditions (55 °C) (76.3 mL of CH4/g VS) (Lianhua et al., 2010). The
microbial activity due to low water content (Suksong et al., 2017).
observed low methane production at thermophilic conditions (55 °C) is
Moreover, the TS content had a significant interactive relationship with
due to the accumulation of VFAs. The accumulated VFAs resulted in
operational temperature. For instance, with an increase in TS content
increased acidity that inhibited the methanogens. In contradiction to
from 22% to 27% at thermophilic temperatures (55 °C), the methane
this, corn stover (at TS 22%) at thermophilic conditions (55 °C) im-
production was decreased by 29.8% (Li et al., 2011b). But, for the same
proved the biogas production by 36% compared to mesophilic condi-
increase in TS content at mesophilic (35 °C) conditions decrease in
tions (37 °C) (Li et al., 2011b). However, from an economic point of
methane production was not observed indicating a possible interactive
view, mesophilic conditions are preferable due to the low consumption
relationship between TS content and temperature.
of energy compared to high energy consumption to maintain the ther-
Currently, most of the AD plants in India are operated at liquid state.
mophilic temperature (Yan et al., 2015).
However, the SS-AD is common in Europe where crop silages are gen-
AD at mesophilic conditions results in higher methane production
erally used as a feedstock (Kalamaras and Kotsopoulos, 2014). More
than ambient conditions. Methane production from rice straw was in-
than 60% of recently installed anaerobic digesters in Europe were based
creased by 53% when operating temperature increased from ambient
on SS-AD (Karthikeyan and Visvanathan, 2013; Li et al., 2011b) be-
(25 °C) to mesophilic (35 °C) (Acharya, 1935). AD of rice straw at me-
cause of certain advantages. The major advantages include smaller re-
sophilic (35 °C) temperature resulted in an increase in methane pro-
actor volume for the same loading of volatile solids, low investment
duction by 31–33% than ambient conditions (25 °C) in both liquid and
costs for the same production of methane and do not require mixing in
solid state digestions (Lianhua et al., 2010). In addition to this, quicker
the digester (Brown et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2014). The SS-AD of corn
energy recovery is possible at mesophilic temperature due to the high
stover, switch grass and wheat straw yielded 2–7 folds of the higher
rate of methane production compared to low ambient temperature. The
volumetric methane production than the liquid state-AD (Brown et al.,
quicker energy recovery also facilitates the efficient use of digester
2012). SS-AD also avoids the requirement of extra energy (Lianhua
space compared to ambient conditions. However, the sufficiency of
517
improved methane yield obtained for enhancing the temperature from methanogenesis at initial and growing stages and hydrogenotrophic
ambient to mesophilic conditions needs to be investigated to guarantee methanogenesis at stabilization stage. Moreover, in SS-AD of corn
the economic viability of the temperature raise. stover, higher cellulolytic and xylanolytic bacteria (10–50 times) were
found to be flourishing under thermophilic conditions due to increased
2.4. Influence of inoculum (microbial population) hydrolysis compared to mesophilic conditions (Shi et al., 2013). The
increased hydrolytic bacteria caused higher degradation of cellulose
Inoculum is the seed with high, active microbial population and low and hemicellulose at thermophilic conditions (Shi et al., 2013). Hence,
biodegradable matter. It facilitates with quick start-up and reduces the an appropriate, active microbial population is required for stable and
digestion time. The appropriate quantity of inoculum is essential for efficient performance of the AD system that can be sourced by favorable
efficient performance of the AD system (Li et al., 2011b). The low in- environmental conditions for their growth in the system.
oculum content (high S/I ratios) results in the accumulation of VFAs
(acidification) subsequently inhibits the methanogenic population (Xu 2.5. Influence of nutritional balance
et al., 2016), (Zhou et al., 2017). In the AD of corn stover, rapid acid-
ification was obsrved with the accumulation of VFA at low inoculum Nutritional balance influences the methane production in the AD
content (high S/I ratio) (Li et al., 2011b). Inoculum content also in- system and can be represented with carbon to nitrogen (C/N ratio),
fuences the mass transfer of the substrate to microbial mass. In the AD phosphorous and other trace elements. Generally, the manures are
of rice straw, a low inoculum proportion caused poor mass transfer with having the C/N ratio of 4–34, vegetable waste of 8–36, kitchen waste
low methane production (Zhou et al., 2017). Hence, appropriate in- 26–30 and crop residues of 40–151 (Siddique and Wahid, 2018).
oculum content is required for the stable and optimal production of However, the optimal C/N ratio for efficient AD system is 20–30
methane in the AD system. (Suksong et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2015; Yen and
The optimal requirement of inoculum depends on substrate type and Brune, 2007). The high C/N ratio in AD system causes the accumulation
operating conditions (Li et al., 2011b). At mesophilic conditions, higher of volatile fatty acids (VFA) whereas low C/N ratio causes high total
inoculum content favored the methane production, whereas in ther- ammonia nitrogen (TAN) in the digester that leads to low methane
mophilic conditions higher inoculum content retarded the methane production (Wang et al., 2012). The optimal C/N ratio can be achieved
production in AD of corn stover (Li et al., 2011b). The specific reason if substrates containing low and high C/N ratios are mixed (Wang et al.,
attributed for this effect is the low tolerance limit of free ammonia 2012) at appropriate proportions. Several researchers optimised the C/
(4 N g /L) of thermophilic bacteria with the supply of high inoculum. N ratio in improving the methane production of crop residues. High
Because the high ammonium nitrogen carried with the high quantity of methane production with C/N ratio of 29.6 in the AD of composted rice
inoculum supplementation into the digester inhibited thermophilic straw was obtained with the addition of urea (Yan et al., 2015). In
methanogens that have a low tolerance for ammonia. It is also observed another study, the improved methane production was obtained with an
that the diluted inoculum facilitates the higher substrate loadings with optimal C/N ratio of 20–25 in the anaerobic co-digestion of waste paper
improved methane production compared to concentrated inoculum mixed with algal sludge (Yen and Brune, 2007).
(Zhou et al., 2017). The supplementation of high inoculum (low S/I The presence of other nutritional elements such as phosphorous
ratio of 2) resulted in high methane production in AD of corn stover and plays an important role in the AD of crop residues. The addition of
wheat straw (Liew et al., 2012). In this case, the corn stover and wheat phosphorous in AD of rice straw accelerated the digestion process that
straw resulted in 81.2 mL of CH4/g VS and 66.9 mL of CH4/g VS re- caused 7–10 days of earlier appearance of the methane production
spectively (at S/I ratio of 2). The addition of inoculum fetches moisture peaks (Lei et al., 2010). The presence of trace elements such as Fe, Ni,
that benefits quick mass transfer and microbial growth. For instance, Co, Zn, W, and Se had a significant role in maintaining the stability and
the additional moisture content improved the mass transfer of VFAs to efficiency in the AD of crop residues (Demirel and Scherer, 2011). The
methanogens in the AD of rice straw that improved the methane pro- depletion of trace elements affects the methane production phase that
duction (Zhou et al., 2017). Hence, maintaining an appropriate in- may lead to souring of the AD system (Demirel and Scherer, 2011). The
oculum content plays a significant role in the AD of crop residues. depletion of iron (Fe) and nickel (Ni) caused the accumulation of VFAs
In addition to the initial inoculum dosage, the richness and diversity during AD of wheat stillage (Schmidt et al., 2014). In this case, the
of microbial population over the time plays a significant role in the depletion of Fe affected the methanogenic population and propionate
stability and efficiency of the AD system (Song and Zhang, 2015). The oxidizing bacteria (Schmidt et al., 2014). The daily addition of Co, Ni,
microbial population in the AD system mainly constitutes with two Mo, Se in the AD of Napier grass, caused 40% improvement in methane
anaerobic microbial groups: bacteria and archae (nearly 100%) (Griffin production (Wilkie et al., 1986). The improved methane production
et al., 1998). Nutritional balance (Briones et al., 2014), pre-treatment was attributed to higher conversion of VFA to methane with the addi-
and environmental conditions such as pH (Zhou et al., 2016) and tion of the micro nutrients. Similarly, the addition of Fe, Ni, and Co
temperature (Pap et al., 2015) affects the richness and diversity of these caused 35% of improvement in biogas production in the AD of corn
microbial groups. In anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and pig residues (maize) (Hinken et al., 2008). However, the quantity of addi-
manure, hydrogenotrophic methanogenic genus Methanothermobacter tion is also important as it retards the methane production and may
was predominant with more rice straw addition due to increase in C/N inhibit the process if excessively added. For instance, a higher con-
ratio (Zhou et al., 2016).The increase of temperature (from 35 °C to centration of Ni (greater than 1 g/m3) inhibited methanogens during
44 °C) in L-AD of corn stover, the population of hydrogenotrophic AD of sewage sludge (Ashley et al., 1982). The trace elements can also
methanogens are increased compared to acetotrophic methanogens, be supplemented with the co-digestion of wastewater sludge and an-
(Liu et al., 2017). imal manures that contains trace elements naturally (Demirel and
High acetotrophic methanogens (methanosarcinales) were found at Scherer, 2011). Therefore, the nutritional balance in the AD system
mesophilic conditions, and high hydrogenotrophic methanogens (me- plays a key role that affects the methane production. However, the
thanomicrobiales and methanobacteriales) were found at thermophilic research work to draw the concise conclusions about the impact of trace
conditions in co-digestion of rice straw, clay residues and pig manure elements lacks in the literature, which needs to be extended in future
(Jiménez et al., 2014). In SS-AD of composted rice straw, acetoclastic research work.
methanogens (Methanosarcina) were dominant at initial and growth
stages whereas hydrogenotrophic methanogens (Methanoculleus) were 3. Improving the methane production from crop residues
dominant at stabilization period (Yan et al., 2015). It indicates that
methane production was mainly contributed by acetoclastic The AD of crop residues is having certain barriers for their efficient
518
degradation leading to the low methane production. The barriers in- 3.2. Fungal pre-treatment
clude recalcitrant lignin coat, nutritional imbalance, and the optimal
microbial population requirement. The lignin coat is a protective hy- The growth of fungi on lignocellulose mass effectively degrades the
drophobic layer, prevents the accessibility of carbohydrates such as lignin coat with slight degradation of carbohydrates (cellulose &
cellulose and hemicellulose for biological degradation. One percent of hemicellulose) (Zhou et al., 2015). It is observed that the best fungal
lignin presence in crop residues can reduce the methane production by pre-treatment has a higher selectivity for lignin degradation than car-
3% (Chandler et al., 1980). An appropriate pre-treatment method bohydrate degradation (cellulose and hemicellulose) (Zhou et al.,
breaks the lignin coat and facilitates the microbial action on carbohy- 2015). It is due to the growth of fungal hyphae on the surface of lig-
drates. However, careful selection of the pre-treatment method among nocellulose mass preventing the accessibility of these carbohydrates
the available physical, chemical and biological methods is required in (Zhao et al., 2014a; Zhou et al., 2015).
economic perspective. The physical pre-treatment methods such as The careful selection of fungal type is important for effective lignin
steam explosion, microwave irradiation are effective in lignin de- degradation as it varies intragenerically and intraspecifically among
gradation, and requires high energy input making them more ex- different categories of fungi (Zhou et al., 2015). Among the fungal
pensive. The chemical pre-treatment methods such as acids, alkali, groups, white rot fungi (basidiomycetes) are most efficient fungal
ozone or ammonia pre-treatments causes secondary pollution to the groups for AD (Rouches et al., 2017) that has high selectivity for lignin
environment, corrosion to the equipment, and releases toxic furfural degradation and consumes little cellulose and hemicellulose. However,
and phenolic compounds that harms the microbial communities brown rot fungi consumes high cellulose and hemicellulose (Zhao et al.,
(Jönsson and Martín, 2016). Biological pre-treatment methods such as 2014a). The white rot fungi (basidiomycetes) releases lignolytic en-
fungal treatment and aeration requires mild operating conditions and zymes such as lignin peroxidase and manganese peroxidase that breaks
are environmental friendly. Moreover, the AD of crop residues has the lignin network (Zhao et al., 2014a). Ceriporiopsis subvermispora ,a
operational difficulties such as clogging of pumping tubes, floatation of white rot fungi degrades 40% of the lignin in 42 days with low cellulose
biomass, stratification and scum formation due to bulky nature of crop degradation about 5% (Zhao et al., 2014a).
residues (Li et al., 2011a). These difficulties in the AD system can be The secretion of lignocellulosic enzymes depends on the type of
partially overcome with the recirculation of liquid fraction of digestate fungal strain, nature of the lignocellulosic structure, and on culture
back into the AD system. The following section discusses the effec- conditions (Wymelenberg et al., 2010; Grigoriev et al., 2011; Mustafa
tiveness of biological pre-treatment methods such as aeration, fungal et al., 2016). The fungal strains suitable for one substrate may not be
pre-treatment, and recirculation of the liquid fraction of digestate in the suitable for other substrates for effective degradation (Zhou et al.,
AD of crop residues. 2015). The fungal pre-treatment of wheat straw with polyporus brumalis
improved the methane production by 20% (Rouches et al., 2015)
whereas the fungal pre-treatment of yard trimmings improved the
3.1. Aeration methane production by 154% (Zhao et al., 2014b). Similarly, fungal
pre-treatment of rice straw caused lignin degradation by 33% leading to
Aeration is the supply of oxygen for certain time period either be- improvement in methane production by 120% (Mustafa et al., 2016).
fore AD process which can be referred as composting (Zhou et al., 2017) Rice straw when fungal pre-treated with Pleurotus ostreatus and Tri-
or during AD process (Jagadabhi et al., 2010). As mentioned earlier, the choderma reesei caused an increase in methane production by 120% and
lignin coat protects the cellulose and hemicellulose from degradation. 78.3% respectively compared to untreated rice straw (Mustafa et al.,
Aeration mineralises the lignin content that facilitates the hydrolysis of 2016).
cellulose and hemicellulose (Fu et al., 2014). The key mechanism in the The fungal pre-treatment can be performed under both solid and
process is that the aerobic microorganisms release hydrolytic enzymes submerged states. The solid state fermentation secrets concentrated
(cellulases, proteases) that decompose the lignocellulose structure enzymes along mycelia and are close to their substrate causing effective
(Charles et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2017). Aeration of rice straw de- degradation of lignocellulose. Moreover, diffusion of oxygen is more in
composed the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin by 64.5%, 7.5% and solid state fermentation that favors the oxidative degradation of lig-
13.6% respectively (Yan et al., 2015). The additional benefits of aera- nocellulose. Hence, solid-state fermentation is a better choice compared
tion are it controls in the formation of toxic substances such as lactic to submerged state fermentation (Zhou et al., 2015). Solid-state fer-
acid and ethanol (Zeng and Deckwer, 1996) and promotes the lipid mentation requires low aeration, low heating, and minimal water
production that favours synthesis of the cell membrane or anaerobes consumption. It also allows higher feedstock loads and facilitates at-
(Ghaly and El-Taweel, 1995). The generated heat during aeration is also tachment of enzymes to the substrates (Rouches et al., 2015) resulting
sufficient to maintain thermophilic temperature at start-up without the in maximum degradation. The improved degradation of lignocellulose
requirement of the external heat source (Charles et al., 2009). mass causes high methane yield. However, the fungal pre-treatment
It is reported (Jagadabhi et al., 2010) that aeration improves the requires longer degradation times. The longer duration times can be
production of VFAs in the AD system. It also facilitates the accessibility avoided by conducting fungal pre-treatment during the storage of crop
of VFAs to methanogens (Nguyen et al., 2007) for improved methane residues. The careful attention is required for the selection of strain,
production. Aeration of 5 mL O2/g. VS of corn straw under thermophilic duration of pre-treatment and appropriate culture condition for effi-
(55 °C) conditions had resulted in 16% of improvement in methane cient use of the method.
production (Fu et al., 2014). Pre-aeration of rice straw for two days at
mesophilic conditions (35 °C) had also improved the volumetric me- 3.3. Recirculation of liquid fraction of the digestate
thane production (at an S/I ratio of 4 and TS content of 16%) (Zhou
et al., 2017). It also needs to be considered the period of aeration, The stability and efficiency of the AD system depends upon the
which plays a significant role in the degradation of lignocellulose bio- syntrophy in interlinked hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and
mass. Pre-aeration for too longer periods consumes substrates (Oxidised methanogenesis phases. Sometimes, syntrophy is disturbed due to ei-
to carbon dioxide) which would otherwise be utilized for methane ther slow hydrolysis or fast hydrolysis causing either shortage of VFAs
production (Charles et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2017). Comprehensively, it or accumulation of VFAs respectively affecting the activity of metha-
is observed that, even though pre-aeration was found to be improving nogens (Schievano et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2017). The supply of mi-
the methane production, an energy balance needs to be conducted to crobial population plays a key role than the supply of buffering capacity
verify its viability for practical application. in improving the methane production (Charles et al., 2009). The growth
of methanogenic microbial population is slower compared to
519
Fig. 6. Recirculation of liquid fraction of digestate.a. recirculation of digestate in L-AD system b. recirculation of digestate in integrated L-AD and SS-AD System
acidogenic microbial population leading to imbalanced microbial po- 4.1. Paddy

pulation more specifically at higher substrate loadings. The recircula-
tion of methanogen rich digestate solves the problem of poor metha- Paddy is the largely cultivated food crop in India generating highest
nogenic population in the AD system. It improves the nutritional quantity of crop residue (Mussoline et al., 2012b). The yield of one kg
balance, moisture content and reduces the lag phase time required for of grain from paddy generates 1.7 kg of straw and husk (Hiloidhari
initial startup time. et al., 2014). The paddy is largely being cultivated in West Bengal,
The recirculation of the digestate promotes the mass transportation Andhra Pradesh and Punjab (Gadde et al., 2009b). In northern parts of
and redistribution of enzymes in the AD system (Lü et al., 2008). India, paddy is being cultivated on a rotation basis with the wheat crop.
However, the direct application of the digestate occupies the space of The actual utilisation of the paddy residue is diverse throughout the
the reactor earmarked for the feedstock. The liquid portion of digestate country. In some parts of India, wheat straw is preferred as animal
obtained with liquid-solid separation can be mixed with the fresh fodder than rice straw. The farmers also leave the harvested crop in the
feedstock for recirculation into the AD system (Fig. 6a). The re- field itself which is burnt subsequently (Gadde et al., 2009b). The open
circulation of digestate improves pH, alkalinity, methanogenic popu- burning of rice straw results in the emission of GHGs such as carbon
lation and nutrients (Nordberg et al., 2007; Peng et al., 2016; Pezzolla dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and nitrous oxide which are af-
et al., 2017). The recirculation also allows to increase the organic fecting the environment (Gadde et al., 2009a).
loading rate subsequnetly improves the methane production (Nordberg A wide range in experimental methane yields (193–535 mL of CH4/
et al., 2007). The recirculation in the AD of wheat straw improved the g VS) has been observed in AD of paddy residues (Table 4). The wide
methane production by 21% with the enrichment of nutrients and mi- range in methane production is due to different operating conditions,
crobial population (Peng et al., 2016). The recirculation improved the pre-treatment methods and co-substrates used in the studies.As already
buffering capacity in SS-AD of fungal pre-treated rice straw (Lianhua mentioned, co-digestion with nitrogen rich manures and pre-treatment
et al., 2010) and digestate quality (Pezzolla et al., 2017). Sometimes the methods improves the methane production. The co-digestion of rice
recirculation of concentrated digestate results in the accumulation of straw with nitrogen rich manure (dairy manure, chicken manure, and
VFAs leading to a drop in pH causing inhibition to methanogens swine manure) improved the methane production about 33–43% (Wang
(Nordberg et al., 2007). The problem can be solved by diluting the li- et al., 2013). The improved methane production is due to the sy-
quid fraction of digestate with water instead of full leachate re- nergistic effect between nitrogen rich manures and rice straw. Rice
circulation that dilutes the accumulated VFAs.(Nordberg et al., 2007). straw when pre-treated with fungi increased the methane production
The solid-state anaerobic digestion(SS_AD) which is suitable for about 31–46% (Ghosh and Bhattacharyya, 1999). The acid pre-treat-
high solid crop residues requires large quantity of inoculum for quick ment (HCl) of rice straw was found to be better compared to alkali pre-
start-up and control (Xu et al., 2016). A novel process has also been treatment (NaOH) that caused 43% of higher methane production than
developed (Y. Li et al., 2014b) with the integrated design of L- AD and alkali pre-treatment (Wang et al., 2015). The alkali pre-treatment
SS-AD systems, which are built together in stages (Fig. 6b.). Leachate (NaOH) of rice straw was found to be better compared to hydrogen
from L-AD was used as inoculum for SS-AD system causing improved peroxide pre-treatment (H2O2) that caused 20% of higher methane
stability and optimal performance. Therefore, the recirculation of lea- production (Abudi et al., 2016b). The improved methane production
chate fraction with good buffering capacity causes better stability and may not suffice to cover the extra expenses incurred with pre-treatment
improves methane production if the appropriate quantity of leachate is (Abudi et al., 2016a). The combined co-digestion and pre-treatment
applied. may sometimes make the process economically feasible (Abudi et al.,
2016a). The rice husk was shown to be improved biogas production
4. Methane production of crop residues with co-digestion of poultry droppings that acted as a nitrogen source
(Okeh et al., 2014). It is estimated that 100-ha of paddy field could
The methane production of crop residues in various scientific stu- generate 105 m3 of CH4 per year that could yields 328 MW h of elec-
dies and their critical observations are discussed in the following sec- trical energy (Mussoline et al., 2012a). The various pre-treatment
tions. methods and co-digestion substrates for improving the methane
520
Table 4
Summary of experimental conditions and methane production in AD of paddy residues.
Substrate Co-substrate Pre-treatment Mode Operating Methane Remarks Ref.
conditions production
Rice straw Food waste Size reduction 0.5–1 cm and Batch Mesophilic, food 535 mL of CH4/g High methane production (Chen et al.,
alkaline pre-treatment of rice waste to rice straw of VS obtained with butyric acid 2015)
straw ratio -3.88 and S/I fermentation.
ratio -0.5 based on
VS,
Rice straw Kitchen waste and Size reduction- < 1 mm Batch Mesophilic, ratio of 383 mL of CH4/g VFAs accumulation was (Ye et al., 2013)
pig manure kitchen waste, pig VS of methane observed at high kitchen
manure, and rice waste loading (> 26%).
straw is 0.4:1.6:1
(C/N ratio-21.7)
Rice straw Chicken manure Size reduction 2–3 cm Batch Mesophilic, TS-8%, 378 mL of CH4/g Co-digestion of substrates (Zhang et al.,
rice straw to chicken of VSremoved improved the stability 2014)
manure ratio – 50:50
Rice Husk Food waste Size reduction < 10 mm Batch Mesophilic, C/N 307 mL of CH4/g Co-digestion avoided VFAs (Haider et al.,
ratio 20, S/I ratio VSa inhibition 2015)
0.25.
Rice straw – Size reduction- < 2 mm, alkali, Batch Mesophilic, alkali- 287 mL of CH4/ Acid pre-treatment resulted (Wang et al.,
acid pre-treatments NaOH acid-HCl g COD(HCl) in higher methane yield 2015)
193 mL CH4/g compared to alkali pre-
COD (NaOH) treatment
Rice straw Sewage sludge Size reduction – 2 mm Batch Thermophilic, two 266 mL of CH4/g Two stage system resulted in (Kim et al.,
stage system, sewage of VS higher methane yield 2013)
sludge-150 mL and compared to one stage system
rice straw- 27 g, TS-
17%.
Rice straw – Size reduction, fungal pre- Batch Mesophilic, solid 263 mL of CH4/g Fungal pre-treatment (Mustafa et al.,
treatment state conditions, VS enhanced the methane yield 2016)
moisture content by 120%.
75%, 20 days
Rice straw – Size reduction and pre-aeration Batch Mesophilic, TS-16%, 234 mL of CH4/g Pre-aeration and inoculum (Zhou et al.,
for 2 days at 35 °C I/S ratio of 2 VS dilution improved the 2017)
hydrolysis.
Rice straw – Size reduction, extrusion pre- Batch Mesophilic, OLR is 227 mL of CH4/g Extrusion pre-treatment of (Chen et al.,
treatment 50 kg/m3 and I/S VS rice straw reduced the 2014)
ratio of 2.5 digestion time.
Rice Husk Food waste Size reduction < 10 mm Plug flow Mesophilic, C/N 245 mL of CH4/g Inhibition VFAs was observed (Jabeen et al.,
ratio 28, OLR of 5 kg VSa at high OLR 2015)
VS/m3/day
Rice straw Pig manure Size reduction- 1 mm Batch, Mesophilic, rice 220–247 mL of Stable biogas production was (Li et al., 2015)
continuous straw:pig manure 1:1 CH4/g VSa found at an OLR of 6–8 kg
on VS basis 6–8 kg VS/m3/day
VS/m3/day
Rice straw – Size reduction, composting Batch Mesophilic, C/N 194 mL of CH4/g Composting enhanced the (Yan et al.,
ratio of 30 VSa biodegradation. 2015)
Rice straw Cow manure Size reduction- 1 mm Batch, Mesophilic, rice 193 mL of CH4/g Stable biogas production was (Li et al., 2015)
continuous straw:Cow manure VS found at an OLR of 3–6 kg
1:1 on VS basis 6 kg VS/m3/day
VS/m3/day
Rice straw Pig manure, clay Size reduction Batch Thermophilic – 1.38 g CH4- Presence of high amount of (Jiménez et al.,
residues 20.1 g VSS/L of COD/ g VSS/day clay residue reduced the 2014)
manure + 10.18 g methane production
VSS/L of straw
+ 3.05 g VSS/L of
clay residue
Rice straw Pig manure, clay Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, manure 1.31 g CH4- Clay residues had higher (Jiménez et al.,
residues (28.35 g VSS/ L) + COD/ g VSS/day influence on methane 2014)
straw (17.6 g VSS /L) production compared to rice
+ clay residue (8.3 g straw
VSS/L)
Rice straw Goat manure (GM) Size reduction-2–3 cm Batch Mesophilic, GM:rice 8584 mL of CH4a Co-digestion of substrates (Zhang et al.,
straw ratios of 30:70 in 55 days improved the biogas 2013)
and 50:50, TS-8%, (30:70) 8633 mL production due to improved
700 mL working of CH4a in 55 nutrient balance.
volume days (50:50)
Rice straw Dairy manure Size reduction-2–3 cm Continuous Mesophilic, TS-8%, 286 mL of CH4/ All co-digestion proportions (J. Li et al.,
rice straw to dairy L/daya in the improved the biogas 2014)
manure ration of 5:5 first stage of production, except 9:1
on a mass basis, stabilization
TCL-treatment cycle length, OLR-organic loading rate, S/I ratio = substrate to inoculum ratio, TS-total solids, VS- volatile solids, VSS- volatile suspended solids
(VSS).
a
Reported biogas yield was converted to methane yield with the conversion factor of 0.55 (methane content-55%).
521
production from paddy residues are comprehensively reported in Jharkhand, Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh (Cardoen
Table 4. et al., 2015a).
A wide range in experimental methane yields (81–383 mL of CH4/g
4.2. Wheat VS) have been observed for AD of maize residues (Table 6). To improve
the methane production, sevaral pre-treatment, and co-digestion stra-
Wheat is a second most cultivated food source in India that occupies tegies were widely reported for maize residues in the literature (Zhou
about 16% of the gross crop area (27, 505 K Ha) (Cardoen et al., et al., 2014). Corn straw when pre-treated under thermophilic (55 °C),
2015a). The yield of one kg of grains from wheat crop generates about microaerobic conditions (5 mL of oxygen load/ g VS) have shown en-
1.8 kg of residues (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). In terms of area of cultiva- hanced methane production by 16.24% (325.7 mL of CH4/g VS) due to
tion, it generates about 4.5 t of residues per hectare. After its primary improved hydrolysis rate (Fu et al., 2014). The ammonia pre-treatment
utilisation such as cattle feed and domestic use, the wheat crop gen- of corn stover improved the biogas production about 26.70% (Yuan
erates 28 Mt of surplus residues annually (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). The et al., 2015). In addition to the improved biogas production, the am-
major wheat cultivating states are Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, monia pre-treatment reduced the digestion time from 52 days to 37
Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan (Cardoen et al., 2015a). days in producing 90% of biogas potential.
The conversion of wheat straw to methane is energetically most The combined effect of pre-treatment and co-digestion was also
efficient process (Kaparaju et al., 2009). The methane production of reported in the literature. The pre-treatment along with co-digestion of
wheat straw was found to be improved with various pre-treatment corn stover with food waste improved the methane production by
conditions, co-digestion substrates which are in the range of 67–380 mL 12.2% at C/N ratio of 20 compared to mono-digestion of corn stover
of CH4/g VS (Table 5). The wide variation of methane production is due (Zhou et al., 2014). The co-digestion of cornstalk (60%) with vermi-
to various pre-treatments, co-digestion substrates and experimental compost (40%) caused improvement in methane production due to a
conditions. The co-digestion of untreated wheat straw with cattle reduction in crystallinity (Chen et al., 2010). Anaerobic co-digestion of
manure at 40:60 ratio resulted in improved methane production of corn straw with blue algae (at C/N ratio of 20) improved the methane
191 mL of CH4/g of VS (Krishania et al., 2013). The additional alkali production about 46% compared to mono-digestion of blue algae
and combinational calcium hydroxide and sodium carbonate pre- (Zhong et al., 2013). Co-digestion of corn stover with chicken manure
treatments improved the methane production by 94–99% (370–380 mL improved the methane production that resulted in the energy of
CH4/g of VS) (Krishania et al., 2013). Pre-treatment of wheat straw 8.0 MJ/Kg VS due to their synergistic effect (Y. Li et al., 2014a).
with H2O2 caused the degradation of hemicellulose by 12.5–45.2%, However, the co-digestion of maize residues with swine manure had not
cellulose by 9.3–30.2% and lignin by 5.4–21.9% and improved the shown any synergistic effect in semi-continuous experiments (Cuetos
soluble fraction by 30.5–77.3%. Among the tested concentrations of et al., 2011). Hence, it is required to select an appropriate pre-treatment
H2O2 (1%, 2%, 3% and 4%), wheat straw pre-treated with 3% of H2O2 method and co-digestion substrate to improve the methane production.
caused highest methane production (Krishania et al., 2013). The me-
thane production was increased from 84.3 mL of CH4/g VS (untreated) 5. Energy potential and carbon dioxide emission reduction in the
to 128.4 mL of CH4/g VS with 3% of H2O2 pre-treatment. Wheat straw AD of crop residues
co-digestion with cattle manure at 40: 60 ratio improved the methane
production to 320.8 mL of CH4 /gVS. Pre-treatment with steam explo- The cumulative energy potential from surplus crop residues and
sion method improved the methane production from 233 mL of CH4/g corresponding CO2 emission reduction with the AD of paddy, wheat,
VS to 296 mL of CH4/g VS (improved by 27%) (Ferreira et al., 2014). and maize residues were estimated. The CO2 emission reduction was
It is also crucial to consider net energy balance for practical im- calculated based on the assumption that produced energy with the AD
plementation for chosen pre-treatment (Ferreira et al., 2014). The mi- of crop residues substitutes the coal consumption.
crowave pre-treatment of wheat straw improved the methane produc- The methane potential from the AD of surplus paddy, wheat, and
tion with structural modifications in wheat straw (Jackowiak et al., maize residues is estimated as 18,677 Mm3/year (Table 7). The corre-
2011). However, the improved methane production could not com- sponding energy potential is estimated to be 670 × 109 MJ. Further, the
pensate the energy consumed for the microwave pre-treatment net energy potential was estimated as 632 × 109 MJ after the deduction
(Jackowiak et al., 2011). The operating conditions of the AD process of energy consumption for shredding (207 MJ/ton) of crop residue (Adl
also influences the AD performance. The co-digestion of wheat straw et al., 2012) before feeding into the AD system. Other energy require-
(9% on fresh matter basis) with cattle manure (91% on fresh matter ments such as mixing, feeding the feedstock and withdrawal of digested
basis) under thermophilic (50 °C), liquid state conditions (TS:14.8%) material were neglected due to their low energy requirement. The coal
resulted in methane production of 351 mL of CH4/g VS (Xavier et al., substitution was estimated based on the assumption that the generated
2015). Whereas, the co-digestion of wheat straw with cow feces under methane in the AD of crop residues is utilized for thermal heating
psychrophilic, solid state (TS-27%) conditions (20 °C), resulted in (instead of coal) according to the method prescribed (Eq. (1)) in (Yanli
187 mL of CH4/g VS which is comparatively lower due to high substrate et al., 2010).
loadings and low operating temperature (Saady and Massé, 2015).
(B × P × Qb × Eb)
Hence, proper pre-treatment method,co-digestion substrate, and oper- Coal substitution (t) =
ating conditions plays a significant influence on the improvement of Qc × Ec (1)
methane production. where, B is surplus crop residue (t), P is methane potential (m3/t), Qm is
calorific value of methane (35.9 MJ/m3), Em is efficiency of methane
4.3. Maize (Corn) for thermal heating (0.9), Qc is calorific value of coal (20,900 MJ/ton),
Ec is efficiency of coal for thermal heating (0.6). From the above
Maize is the third most cultivated cereal crop in India accounting equation (Eq. (1), the coal substitution was found to be 52 Mt. The
about 5% of the gross crop area (8103 K Ha) (Cardoen et al., 2015a). corresponding CO2 emissions with the coal substitution is estimated
One kg of harvested corn generates about 2.3 kg of maize residue in- based on the assumption that combustion of coal was taken in an en-
dicating highest quantity when compared to paddy (1.7 kg) and wheat vironment of excess air (Eq. (2)) (Yanli et al., 2010).
(1.8 kg) (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). The cultivation of maize generates 35
44
Mt of residue /year, and 9 Mt surplus after its primary use as animal CO2 emissions = P × (C p Cs ) × × Co
12 (2)
feeding in India (Hiloidhari et al., 2014). It is largely being cultivated in
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, where, P is quantity of coal (t), Cp is percentage of carbon in coal (60%),
522
Table 5
Summary of experimental conditions and methane production in AD of wheat residues.
Substrate Co-substrate Pre-treatment Mode Operating Methane production Remarks Ref.
conditions
Wheat straw Cattle manure Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, cattle 380 mL of CH4/g VS Pre-treatment improved (Krishania et al.,
(2–3 mm), (Ca(OH)2- manure-60%, total the CH4 yield 2013)
Na2CO3) solids -10%,
inoculum of 10%,
3% Ca(OH)2 + 3%
Na2CO3, Time- 48 h
Wheat straw Cattle manure Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, cattle 370 mL of CH4/g VS The increase of CH4 yield (Krishania et al.,
(2–3 mm), alkali manure of 60%, total by 94% with alkali pre- 2013)
solids -10%, treatment of wheat straw
inoculum -10%,
NaOH – 2%
Wheat straw Cattle manure Briquetting-20 mm Continuous Thermophilic, wheat 351 mL of CH4/g VS Co-digestion improved (Xavier et al.,
straw – 9%, cattle the methane yield by 2015)
manure-91% 33%
Wheat straw Chicken manure Size reduction Batch Mesophilic,TS-8%, 345 mL of CH4 /g of Co-digestion with (Zhang et al.,
2–3 cm wheat straw to VSremoved chicken manure 2014)
chicken manure improved the stability
ratio -50:50 on a dry
basis
Wheat straw Cattle manure Size reduction Batch WS: CM ratio 40:60, 320 mL of CH4/g VS Pre-treatment and co- (Song and Zhang,
20–30 mm and H2O2 inoculum-200 gr, digestion at 40: 60 2015)
total solids-8%, 3% improved the CH4
H2O2 production
Wheat straw - Size reduction (3,2, Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio 307–335 NmL of CH4/g VS Combined size reduction (Reilly et al., 2015)
1.25 mm) and 0.66 based on VS and enzymatic treatment
enzymatic improved the CH4
production
Wheat straw – Size reduction (3,2, Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio 301–320 mL of CH4/g VS Cost effective pre- (Reilly et al., 2015)
1.25 mm) and alkali 0.66 based on VS for all particle sizes treatment with particle
size reduction to 3 mm
compared to enzymatic
pre-treatment
Wheat straw Sewage sludge Size reduction - Continuous Mesophilic, OLR-2 g 296 mL of CH4/kg VS Co-digestion of sewage (Peng et al., 2016)
3 mm VS/L/day, sludge and digestate
recirculation of liquor recirculation
digestate improved the CH4
production
Wheat straw – Steam explosion and Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio- 293–323 mL of CH4/g VS Impregnation had (Ferreira et al.,
water impregnation 0.5 based on VS negligible effect on 2014)
methane production
Wheat straw – Steam explosion Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio- 288–296 mL of CH4/g VS Steam explosion (Ferreira et al.,
0.5 based on VS improved the methane 2014)
production by 24–27%
Wheat straw – Size reduction- Batch Mesophilic I/S ratio 280 mL of CH4/g VS Pre-treatment improved (Nkemka and
10–20 mm, steam, -2. the methane yield by Murto, 2013)
enzymatic 57%
Wheat straw - Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio 268 N mL of CH4/g VS Size reduction had (Reilly et al., 2015)
(3,2,1.25 mm) 0.66 based on VS negligible effect on
methane production
Wheat straw Cattle manure Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, cattle 241 mL CH4/g VS Co-digestion of wheat (Krishania et al.,
(2–3 mm) manure of 60%,total straw and cattle manure 2013)
solids -10%, improved the methane
inoculum- 10%, production
Wheat straw Dairy manure(DM) Size reduction – Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio- 234 mL of CH4/g VS Co-digestion of wheat (Wang et al., 2012)
and chicken manure 2–3 cm 0.5, DM/CM ratio of straw with two manure
(CM) 50:50 based on VS improved the biogas
production compared
with single manure
Wheat straw – Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio- 232–245 mL of CH4/g VS Size reduction had (Ferreira et al.,
3–5 cm and < 1 mm 0.5 based on VS negligible effect on 2014)
methane production
Wheat straw Dairy Manure Size reduction Sequential Psychrophilic (20 °C) 193 mL of CH4/g VS Psychrophilic dry AD is (Saady and Massé,
batch S/R-1.7, OLR-3.7, as efficient compared to 2015)
TS-27%, TCL-21 days mesophilic dry AD.
Wheat straw Urea Size reduction and Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio 165 mL of CH4/g VS Alkali pre-treatment (Chandra et al.,
alkali 1 based on VS, C/N improved the methane 2012c)
ratio 25.0, NaOH- production by 111.6%
4%,
Wheat straw Cattle manure Size reduction- Continuous Temperatures- 37, 130–210 N mL of CH4/g VS Co-digestion with cattle (Risberg et al.,
10 mm and steam 44, 55 °C, OLR-0.28 g manure and pre- 2013)
explosion VS/L/day, a steam treatment by Steam
explosion at 210 °C, explosion had not
10 min, retention improved the methane
time-25 days production
Wheat straw Cattle manure Batch 125 mL of CH4/g VS
(continued on next page)
523
Table 5 (continued)

conditions
Size reduction Mesophilic, cattle Acid pre-treatment (Krishania et al.,

(2–3 mm) and acid manure-60%,total reduced the CH4 2013)
solids -10%, production
inoculum -10%, 2%
H2SO4 -121 °C, time-
30 min, pressure of
100 kPa
Wheat straw Urea Size reduction and Batch Mesophilic, S/I ratio- 94 mL of CH4/g VS Hydrothermal pre- (Chandra et al.,
hydrothermal 1 (based on VS), C/N treatment improved the 2012c)
ratio 25.0, temp- methane production by
200 °C, 10 min, 20.0%
1.5 MPa
Wheat straw – Size reduction-9 mm Batch Mesophilic, 67 mL of CH4/g VS Cellulose and (Liew et al., 2012)
TS = 22%, S/I hemicelluloses are main
ratio = 2 contributors for methane
yield
Wheat straw Dairy manure Size reduction- Continuous Mesophilic, TS- 10,519 mL of CH4a after 47 Improved biogas (J. Li et al., 2014)
2–3 cm 8%,wheat straw to days of digestion production, except of 9:1
dairy manure ration ratio
of 5:5 on a mass
basis, working
volume -800 mL
Wheat straw Goat manure (GM) Size reduction Batch Mesophilic, 7020 mL of CH4a in 55 days Co-digestion with goat (Zhang et al.,
2–3 cm GM:Wheat straw manure improved the 2013)
ratios of 30:70,TS- stability
8%, working
volume -700 mL
VSS-volatile suspended solids, BMP- biochemical methane potential, TS-total solids; VS- volatile solids, OLR-organic overloading rate.
a
Table 6
Summary of experimental conditions and methane production in AD of maize (corn) residues.
Conditions
Corn stalk Chicken manure Size reduction 2–3 cm Batch Mesophilic, TS-8%, 383 mL CH4 /g of Co-digestion improved (Zhang et al.,
cornstalk to chicken VSremoved the stability 2014)
manure ratio of
50:50 on dry matter
basis
Corn straw – Size reduction - 5 mm, Batch Mesophilic, I/S ratio- 325 mL of CH4/g of VS Pre-treatment improved (Fu et al.,
thermophilic (55 °C) micro- 0.5 based on TS, (TMP) the hydrolysis and 2014)
aerobic pre-treatment (TMP) Shaking speed- reduced lag phase time
130 rpm, oxygen
load - 5 mL/g of VS
Corn Stover Chicken manure Size reduction- < 30 mm Batch Mesophilic, C/N 281 mL of CH4/g of VS Biodegradability of 62% (Y. Li et al.,
ratio -20, Loading- 2014a)
3 g VS/L, S/I ratio
0.5
Corn stalk Vermi compost Size reduction corn stalk- Batch Mesophilic, 259 mL of CH4/g TS Co-digestion with (Chen et al.,
10–20 mm; vermi compost- Inoculum-400 g vermicompost improved 2010)
0.8 mm Vermi compost - the biodegradability
40%, TS- 6%
Corn Stover – Size Batch Mesophilic, 4% 256 mL of CH4 /g VS Ammonia pre-treatment (Yuan et al.,
reduction- < 5 mm,ammonia NH3,70% moisture improved the biogas 2015)
pre-treatment content, Inoculum- production by 26.70%
15 [MLSS] g/l,
Corn straw Blue algae Size reduction- 5–10 mm Continuous Mesophilic, C/N 234 mL of CH4 /g VS Co-digestion with corn (Zhong et al.,
ratio -20, OLR- 6 g straw improved the 2013)
VS/L, HRT-10 days methane production by
46%.
Corn Stover Chicken manure Size reduction- < 30 mm Continuous Mesophilic, C/N 223 mL of CH4/g of VS Stable methane (Y. Li et al.,
(CS) (CM) ratio -20, CM: CS - production at OLR of 4 g 2014a)
1:1.4, TS- 12%, OLR VS/L
-4 g VS/L
Maize residues Poultry blood Size reduction-3 mm Batch Mesophilic, 200 rpm, 188 mL of CH4/g VS Co-digestion of maize (Cuetos et al.,
I/S ratio-1–2 maize leaves with poultry blood 2013)
to poultry blood improved the methane
mixture -70:30 on VS yield
basis
(continued on next page)
524
Table 6 (continued)

Conditions
Maize residues Poultry blood Size reduction-3 mm Continuous Mesophilic, HRT- 165 mL of CH4/g of VS VFAs accumulation (Cuetos et al.,
days36. OLR-3.1 g caused inhibition at OLR 2013)
VS/L/day, TS-12.6%, of 3.1 g VS/L/day.
Maize-60% based on
VS
Corn stover – Size reduction Batch Mesophilic TS 81 mL of CH4 / g of VS Cellulose and (Liew et al.,
= 22%,S/I ratio hemicelluloses are 2012)
= 2, mainly contributed
methane yield
Corn stalks Goat manure Size reduction 2–3 cm Batch Mesophilic, GM: corn 8812 mL of CH4a in 55 Co-digestion improved (Zhang et al.,
(GM) stalks ratio is 70: days the biogas production 2013)
30,TS-8%, working
volume -700 mL
Corn stalk Dairy manure Size reduction-2–3 cm Continuous Mesophilic, TS-8%, 10,685 mL of CH4/g TSa Optimal biogas yield (J. Li et al.,
corn stalk to dairy after 47 days of digestion obtained at corn stalk to 2014)
manure ration of 5:5 dairy manure ratio of 5:5
on a mass basis, (mass basis)
working volume -
800 mL
MLSS = mixed liquor suspended solids; HRT = hydraulic retention time, TS = total solids, VS- volatile solids.
a
Table 7
Energy potential and CO2 emission reduction scenario with AD of crop residues.
Crop Surplus CH4 potential Methane Energy potential Net energy Coal substitution CO2 emission Net CO2 emission
residue quantity (Mt) (m3/ton) potential (Mm3) (× 109 MJ) potential (× 109 (Mt) reduction (Mt) reduction (Mt)
MJ)
Paddy 43.50 231a 10,049 360 352 27.1 41 25

Wheat 28.40 221a 6300 226 220 16.9 26 15
Maize 9.00 258a 2328 84 81 6.3 9 6
Total 80.9 18,677 670 653 52 76 46
a
Values adopted from (Chandra, 2015) and converted to methane production of fresh mass based on the assumption that crop residues are having TS = 85% and
VS = 80%
Cs is percentage of unburned carbon (10%);Co is carbon oxidation rate feasible if the governing states adopt an appropriate policy for their
(80%). The amount of CO2 emissions that could be avoided from re- effective use. It was observed that the generated methane from anae-
leasing into environment with coal substitution was found to be 76 Mt. robic digestion could substitute 52 Mt/year of coal utilisation that could
From the Eq. (2) the net CO2 emissions reduction is estimated after the avoid 46 Mt/year of net CO2 emissions from releasing into the atmo-
deduction of CO2 emissions of vehicle during transportation of residues sphere.
to the AD plant. The vehicle for transportation of crop residue was
assumed to carry 2 t of crop residues over a haul distance of 5 km with a Acknowledgments
mileage of 35 km/L of diesel. It was assumed that one liter of diesel
utilisation by the transporting vehicle emits 2.6 kg of CO2 into the at- The authors wish to thank Department of Biotechnology-
mosphere while estimating net CO2 emission (Canada, 2016). After Government of India for funding this work (Sanction order No: BT/
subtracting the CO2 emissions for transportation of residues, the net PR6328/GBD/27/387/2012) and Department of Civil Engineering,
CO2 emission was found to be 46 Mt. Based on these estimations, it can National Institute of Technology, Warangal for providing support to
be observed that the AD of crop residues can significantly avoid the CO2 carry out present work.
emissions while contributing for the energy generation.
References
6. Conclusions
Abbassi-Guendouz, A., Brockmann, D., Trably, E., Dumas, C., Delgenès, J.-P., Steyer, J.-P.,
Escudié, R., 2012. Total solids content drives high solid anaerobic digestion via mass
The current study reviewed the technological developments to im- transfer limitation. Bioresour. Technol. 111, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prove the low degradability,and poor nutritional balance in AD of biortech.2012.01.174.
Abudi, Z.N., Hu, Z., Sun, N., Xiao, B., Rajaa, N., Liu, C., Guo, D., 2016a. Batch anaerobic
paddy, wheat, and maize residues. The selection of appropriate sub- co-digestion of OFMSW (organic fraction of municipal solid waste), TWAS (thickened
strate for co-digestion of crop residue, application of appropriate pre- waste activated sludge) and RS (rice straw): influence of TWAS and RS pretreatment
treatment techniques such as fungal pre-treatment, aeration, mod- and mixing ratio. Energy 107, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.
141.
ifications to conventional process such as solid-state anaerobic diges-
Abudi, Z.N., Hu, Z., Xiao, B., Abood, A.R., Rajaa, N., Laghari, M., 2016b. Effects of pre-
tion, and recirculation of liquid leachate improves the efficiency of AD. treatments on thickened waste activated sludge and rice straw co-digestion: experi-
The effective usage of surplus crop residues of paddy, wheat, and maize mental and modeling study. J. Environ. Manag. 177, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.
in India for AD had net energy potential of 632 × 109 MJ/year. 1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.028.
Acharya, C.N., 1935. Studies on the anaerobic decomposition of plant materials: the
However, the collection and transportation of these residues for anae- anaerobic decomposition of rice straw (Oryza sativa). Biochem. J. 29, 528–541.
robic digestion process remains a challenge and may be practically Adl, M., Sheng, K., Gharibi, A., 2012. Technical assessment of bioenergy recovery from
525
cotton stalks through anaerobic digestion process and the effects of inexpensive pre- Fu, S.-F., Wang, F., Yuan, X.-Z., Yang, Z.-M., Luo, S.-J., Wang, C.-S., Guo, R.-B., 2014. The
treatments. Appl. Energy 93, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11. thermophilic (55°C) microaerobic pretreatment of corn straw for anaerobic digestion.
065. Bioresour. Technol. 175C, 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.
Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Zollitsch, W., Mayer, K., Gruber, L., 2007. Biogas 072.
production from maize and dairy cattle manure-influence of biomass composition on Gadde, B., Bonnet, S., Menke, C., Garivait, S., 2009a. Air pollutant emissions from rice
the methane yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. straw open field burning in India, Thailand and the Philippines. Environ. Pollut. 157,
agee.2006.05.007. 1554–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.01.004.
Ashley, N.V., Davies, M., Hurst, T.J., 1982. The effect of increased nickel ion con- Gadde, B., Menke, C., Wassmann, R., 2009b. Rice straw as a renewable energy source in
centrations on microbial populations in the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. India, Thailand, and the Philippines: overall potential and limitations for energy
Water Res. 16, 963–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(82)90030-6. contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass- Bioenergy 33, 1532–1546.
Balachandra, P., 2011. Modern energy access to all in rural India: an integrated im- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.07.018.
plementation strategy. Energy Policy 39, 7803–7814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Ghaly, A.E., El-Taweel, A.A., 1995. Effect of micro-aeration on the growth of Candida
enpol.2011.09.026. pseudotropicalis and production of ethanol during batch fermentation of cheese
Bekiaris, G., Triolo, J.M., Peltre, C., Pedersen, L., Jensen, L.S., Bruun, S., 2015. Rapid whey. Bioresour. Technol. 52, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(95)
estimation of the biochemical methane potential of plant biomasses using Fourier 00026-B.
transform mid-infrared photoacoustic spectroscopy. Bioresour. Technol. 197, Ghosh, A., Bhattacharyya, B.C., 1999. Biomethanation of white rotted and brown rotted
475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.050. rice straw. Bioprocess Eng. 20, 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004490050594.
Briones, A., Coats, E., Brinkman, C., 2014. Should we build “obese” or “lean” anaerobic Griffin, M.E., McMahon, K.D., Mackie, R.I., Raskin, L., 1998. Methanogenic population
digesters? PLoS One 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097252. dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and
Brown, D., Shi, J., Li, Y., 2012. Comparison of solid-state to liquid anaerobic digestion of biosolids. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 57, 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
lignocellulosic feedstocks for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 124, 379–386. 0290(19980205)57:3<342::AID-BIT11>3.0.CO;2-I.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.051. Grigoriev, Igor V., Cullen, Daniel, Goodwin, Stephen B., Hibbett, David, Jeffries, Thomas
Canada, N.R., 2016. Learn the facts: fuel consumption and CO2. Auto$mart 2, 1–2. W., Kubicek, Christian P., Kuske, Cheryl, Magnuson, Jon K., Martin, Francis,
Cardoen, D., Joshi, P., Diels, L., Sarma, P.M., Pant, D., 2015a. Agriculture biomass in Spatafora, Joseph W., Tsang, Adrian, Baker, Scott E., 2011. Fueling the future with
India: part 1. Estimation and characterization. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 39–48. fungal genomics. Mycology 2, 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501203.2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.003. 584577.
Cardoen, D., Joshi, P., Diels, L., Sarma, P.M., Pant, D., 2015b. Agriculture biomass in Haider, M.R., Zeshan, Yousaf, S., Malik, R.N., Visvanathan, C., 2015. Effect of mixing
India: part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts. Resour. Conserv. ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum ratio on
Recycl. 101, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.002. biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 190, 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chae, K.J., Jang, A., Yim, S.K., Kim, I.S., 2008. The effects of digestion temperature and biortech.2015.02.105.
temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of Hiloidhari, M., Das, D., Baruah, D.C., 2014. Bioenergy potential from crop residue bio-
swine manure. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. mass in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2006.11.063. rser.2014.01.025.
Chandler, J.A., Jewell, W.J., Gossett, J.M., 1980. Predicting methane fermentation bio- Hinken, L., Urban, I., Haun, E., Urban, I., Weichgrebe, D., Rosenwinkel, K.H., 2008. The
degradability. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Biotechnology in Energy valuation of malnutrition in the mono-digestion of maize silage by anaerobic batch
Production and Conservation, No. 10, pp. 93–107. tests. Water Sci. Technol. 58, 1453–1459. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.491.
Chandra, R., 2015. Second generation biofuel production: biomethane and bioethanol Jabeen, M., Yousaf, S., Haider, M.R., Malik, R.N., 2015. High-solids anaerobic co-diges-
production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes biomass. Renew. Energy tion of food waste and rice husk at different organic loading rates. Int. Biodeterior.
Akshaya Urea 8. Biodegrad. 102, 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.03.023.
Chandra, R., Takeuchi, H., Hasegawa, T., 2012a. Methane production from lignocellulosic Jackowiak, D., Bassard, D., Pauss, A., Ribeiro, T., 2011. Optimisation of a microwave
agricultural crop wastes: a review in context to second generation of biofuel pro- pretreatment of wheat straw for methane production. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
duction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.035. 6750–6756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.107.
Chandra, R., Takeuchi, H., Hasegawa, T., 2012b. Hydrothermal pretreatment of rice straw Jagadabhi, P.S., Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2010. Effect of micro-aeration and leachate
biomass: a potential and promising method for enhanced methane production. Appl. replacement on COD solubilization and VFA production during mono-digestion of
Energy 94, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.027. grass-silage in one-stage leach-bed reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2818–2824.
Chandra, R., Takeuchi, H., Hasegawa, T., Kumar, R., 2012c. Improving biodegradability https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.083.
and biogas production of wheat straw substrates using sodium hydroxide and hy- Jiménez, J., Guardia-Puebla, Y., Romero-Romero, O., Cisneros-Ortiz, M.E., Guerra, G.,
drothermal pretreatments. Energy 43, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy. Morgan-Sagastume, J.M., Noyola, A., 2014. Methanogenic activity optimization
2012.04.029. using the response surface methodology, during the anaerobic co-digestion of agri-
Charles, W., Walker, L., Cord-Ruwisch, R., 2009. Effect of pre-aeration and inoculum on culture and industrial wastes. Microbial community diversity. Biomass- Bioenergy 71,
the start-up of batch thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.10.023.
Bioresour. Technol. 100, 2329–2335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11. Jönsson, L.J., Martín, C., 2016. Pretreatment of lignocellulose: formation of inhibitory by-
051. products and strategies for minimizing their effects. Bioresour. Technol. https://doi.
Chen, G., Zheng, Z., Yang, S., Fang, C., Zou, X., Luo, Y., 2010. Experimental co-digestion org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.009.
of corn stalk and vermicompost to improve biogas production. Waste Manag. 30, Kalamaras, S.D., Kotsopoulos, T.A., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure and
1834–1840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.03.014. alternative crops for the substitution of maize in South Europe. Bioresour. Technol.
Chen, X., Zhang, Y.L., Gu, Y., Liu, Z., Shen, Z., Chu, H., Zhou, X., 2014. Enhancing me- 172, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.005.
thane production from rice straw by extrusion pretreatment. Appl. Energy 122, Kaparaju, P., Serrano, M., Thomsen, A.B., Kongjan, P., Angelidaki, I., 2009. Bioethanol,
34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.076. biohydrogen and biogas production from wheat straw in a biorefinery concept.
Chen, X., Yuan, H., Zou, D., Liu, Y., Zhu, B., Chufo, A., Jaffar, M., Li, X., 2015. Improving Bioresour. Technol. 100, 2562–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.
biomethane yield by controlling fermentation type of acidogenic phase in two-phase 011.
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rice straw. Chem. Eng. J. 273, 254–260. Karthikeyan, O.P., Visvanathan, C., 2013. Bio-energy recovery from high-solid organic
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.067. substrates by dry anaerobic bio-conversion processes: a review. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Cuetos, M.J., Fernández, C., Gómez, X., Morán, A., 2011. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9304-9.
manure with energy crop residues. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 16, 1044–1052. Khatri, S., Wu, S., Kizito, S., Zhang, W., Li, J., Dong, R., 2015. Synergistic effect of alkaline
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-011-0117-4. pretreatment and Fe dosing on batch anaerobic digestion of maize straw. Appl.
Cuetos, M.J., Gómez, X., Martínez, E.J., Fierro, J., Otero, M., 2013. Feasibility of anae- Energy 158, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.045.
robic co-digestion of poultry blood with maize residues. Bioresour. Technol. 144, Kim, M., Liu, C., Noh, J., Yang, Y., Oh, S., Shimizu, K., Lee, D., Zhang, Z., 2013. Hydrogen
513–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.129. and methane production from untreated rice straw and raw sewage sludge under
Dandikas, V., Heuwinkel, H., Lichti, F., Drewes, J.E., Koch, K., 2014. Correlation between thermophilic anaerobic conditions. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 38, 8648–8656. https://
biogas yield and chemical composition of energy crops. Bioresour. Technol. 174, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.04.079.
316–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.019. Krishania, M., Vijay, V.K., Chandra, R., 2013. Methane fermentation and kinetics of wheat
Demirel, B., Scherer, P., 2011. Trace element requirements of agricultural biogas diges- straw pretreated substrates co-digested with cattle manure in batch assay. Energy 57,
ters during biological conversion of renewable biomass to methane. Biomass- 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.028.
Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.022. Lei, Z., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., Sugiura, N., 2010. Methane production from rice straw with
El-Mashad, H.M., Zeeman, G., van Loon, W.K.P., Bot, G.P.A., Lettinga, G., 2004. Effect of acclimated anaerobic sludge: effect of phosphate supplementation. Bioresour.
temperature and temperature fluctuation on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of Technol. 101, 4343–4348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.083.
cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 95, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. Li, D., Liu, S., Mi, L., Li, Z., Yuan, Y., Yan, Z., Liu, X., 2015. Effects of feedstock ratio and
2003.07.013. organic loading rate on the anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of rice straw and pig
Ferreira, L.C., Donoso-Bravo, A., Nilsen, P.J., Fdz-Polanco, F., Pérez-Elvira, S.I., 2013. manure. Bioresour. Technol. 187, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
Influence of thermal pretreatment on the biochemical methane potential of wheat 2015.03.040.
straw. Bioresour. Technol. 143, 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013. Li, J., Wei, L., Duan, Q., Hu, G., Zhang, G., 2014. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion
05.065. of dairy manure with three crop residues for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol.
Ferreira, L.C., Nilsen, P.J., Fdz-Polanco, F., Pérez-Elvira, S.I., 2014. Biomethane potential 156, 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.064.
of wheat straw: influence of particle size, water impregnation and thermal hydrolysis. Li, Y., Park, S.Y., Zhu, J., 2011a. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production
Chem. Eng. J. 242, 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.041. from organic waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 821–826. https://doi.org/10.
526
1016/j.rser.2010.07.042. Risberg, K., Sun, L., Levén, L., Horn, S.J., Schnürer, A., 2013. Biogas production from
Li, Y., Zhu, J., Wan, C., Park, S.Y., 2011b. Solid-state anaerobic digestion of corn stover wheat straw and manure – impact of pretreatment and process operating parameters.
for biogas production. Trans. ASABE 54, 1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.13031/ Bioresour. Technol. 149, 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.054.
2013.39010. Rouches, E., Zhou, S., Steyer, J.P., Carrere, H., 2015. White-rot fungi pretreatment of
Li, Y., Zhang, R., Liu, G., Chen, C., He, Y., Liu, X., 2013. Comparison of methane pro- lignocellulosic biomass for anaerobic digestion: impact of glucose supplementation.
duction potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Process Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2016.02.003.
Bioresour. Technol. 149, 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.063. Rouches, E., Dignac, M.F., Zhou, S., Carrere, H., 2017. Pyrolysis-GC-MS to assess the
Li, Y., Zhang, R., He, Y., Zhang, C., Liu, X., Chen, C., Liu, G., 2014a. Anaerobic co-di- fungal pretreatment efficiency for wheat straw anaerobic digestion. J. Anal. Appl.
gestion of chicken manure and corn stover in batch and continuously stirred tank Pyrolysis 123, 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2016.10.012.
reactor (CSTR). Bioresour. Technol. 156, 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Saady, N.M.C., Massé, D.I., 2015. Impact of organic loading rate on the performance of
biortech.2014.01.054. psychrophilic dry anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and wheat straw: long-term
Li, Yebo, Zhu, Jiying, Wan, Caixia, 2014b. Combined Liquid to Solid -Phase Anaerobic operation. Bioresour. Technol. 182, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.
Digestion for Biogas Production from Municipal and Agricultural Wastes. 01.065.
Lianhua, L., Dong, L., Yongming, S., Longlong, M., Zhenhong, Y., Xiaoying, K., 2010. Sawatdeenarunat, C., Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Oechsner, H., Kumar Khanal, S., 2014.
Effect of temperature and solid concentration on anaerobic digestion of rice straw in Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and opportunities.
South China. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 7261–7266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene. Bioresour. Technol. 178, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.103.
2010.03.074. Schievano, A., D’Imporzano, G., Malagutti, L., Fragali, E., Ruboni, G., Adani, F., 2010.
Liew, L.N., Shi, J., Li, Y., 2012. Methane production from solid-state anaerobic digestion Evaluating inhibition conditions in high-solids anaerobic digestion of organic fraction
of lignocellulosic biomass. Biomass- Bioenergy 46, 125–132. https://doi.org/10. of municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 5728–5732. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.014. 1016/j.biortech.2010.02.032.
Liu, C., Wachemo, A.C., Tong, H., Shi, S., Zhang, L., Yuan, H., Li, X., 2017. Biogas pro- Schmidt, T., Nelles, M., Scholwin, F., Pröter, J., 2014. Trace element supplementation in
duction and microbial community properties during anaerobic digestion of corn the biogas production from wheat stillage – optimization of metal dosing. Bioresour.
stover at different temperatures. Bioresour. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Technol. 168, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.124.
biortech.2017.12.076. Senghor, A., Dioh, R.M.N., Müller, C., Youm, I., 2017. Cereal crops for biogas production:
Liu, X., Bayard, R., Benbelkacem, H., Buffière, P., Gourdon, R., 2015. Evaluation of the a review of possible impact of elevated CO2. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.
correlations between biodegradability of lignocellulosic feedstocks in anaerobic di- org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.082.
gestion process and their biochemical characteristics. Biomass- Bioenergy 81, Shi, J., Wang, Z., Stiverson, J.A., Yu, Z., Li, Y., 2013. Reactor performance and microbial
534–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.06.021. community dynamics during solid-state anaerobic digestion of corn stover at meso-
Lü, F., He, P.J., Hao, L.P., Shao, L.M., 2008. Impact of recycled effluent on the hydrolysis philic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 136, 574–581. https://doi.
during anaerobic digestion of vegetable and flower waste. Water Sci. Technol. 58, org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.073.
1637–1643. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.511. Siddique, M.N.I., Wahid, Z.A., 2018. Achievements and perspectives of anaerobic co-di-
Martínez, Á.T., Speranza, M., Ruiz-Dueñas, F.J., Ferreira, P., Camarero, S., Guillén, F., gestion: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Martínez, M.J., Gutiérrez, A., Del Río, J.C., 2005. Biodegradation of lignocellulosics: JCLEPRO.2018.05.155.
microbial, chemical, and enzymatic aspects of the fungal attack of lignin. Int. Singh, J., Gu, S., 2010. Biomass conversion to energy in India-a critique. Renew. Sustain.
Microbiol. 195–204 (https://doi.org/im2305029)(pii). Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.013.
Milhau, A., Fallot, A., 2013. Assessing the potentials of agricultural residues for energy: Song, Z., Zhang, C., 2015. Anaerobic codigestion of pretreated wheat straw with cattle
what the CDM experience of India tells us about their availability. Energy Policy 58, manure and analysis of the microbial community. Bioresour. Technol. 186, 128–135.
391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.028.
Mussoline, W., Esposito, G., Lens, P., Garuti, G., Giordano, A., 2012a. Design considera- Suksong, W., Jehlee, A., Singkhala, A., Kongjan, P., Prasertsan, P., Imai, T., O-Thong, S.,
tions for a farm-scale biogas plant based on pilot-scale anaerobic digesters loaded 2017. Thermophilic solid-state anaerobic digestion of solid waste residues from palm
with rice straw and piggery wastewater. Biomass- Bioenergy 46, 469–478. https:// oil mill industry for biogas production. Ind. Crops Prod. 95, 502–511. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.07.013. org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.11.002.
Mussoline, W., Giovanni, E., Giordano, A., Lens, P., 2012b. The anaerobic digestion of rice Triolo, J.M., Sommer, S.G., Møller, H.B., Weisbjerg, M.R., Jiang, X.Y., 2011. A new al-
straw – a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 895–915. https://doi.org/10. gorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during anaerobic digestion: in-
1080/10643389.2011.627018. fluence of lignin concentration on methane production potential. Bioresour. Technol.
Mustafa, A.M., Poulsen, T.G., Sheng, K., 2016. Fungal pretreatment of rice straw with 102, 9395–9402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.026.
Pleurotus ostreatus and Trichoderma reesei to enhance methane production under Wang, D., Ai, P., Yu, L., Tan, Z., Zhang, Y., 2015. Comparing the hydrolysis and biogas
solid-state anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy 180, 661–671. https://doi.org/10. production performance of alkali and acid pretreatments of rice straw using two-
1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.135. stage anaerobic fermentation. Biosyst. Eng. 132, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Nguyen, P.H.L., Kuruparan, P., Visvanathan, C., 2007. Anaerobic digestion of municipal biosystemseng.2015.02.007.
solid waste as a treatment prior to landfill. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 380–387. https:// Wang, H., Lehtomäki, A., Tolvanen, K., Puhakka, J., Rintala, J., 2009. Impact of crop
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.12.018. species on bacterial community structure during anaerobic co-digestion of crops and
NITI Aayog, 2015. A Report on Energy Efficiency and Energy Mix in the Indian Energy cow manure. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 2311–2315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
System (2030) Using India Energy Sesurity Scenarios, 2047. biortech.2008.10.040.
Nkemka, V.N., Murto, M., 2013. Biogas production from wheat straw in batch and UASB Wang, X., Yang, G., Feng, Y., Ren, G., Han, X., 2012. Optimizing feeding composition and
reactors: the roles of pretreatment and seaweed hydrolysate as a co-substrate. carbon-nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of
Bioresour. Technol. 128, 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.117. dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 120, 78–83. https://doi.
Nordberg, Åke, Jarvis, Åsa, Stenberg, B., Mathisen, B., Svensson, B.H., 2007. Anaerobic org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.058.
digestion of alfalfa silage with recirculation of process liquid. Bioresour. Technol. 98, Wang, X., Yang, G., Li, F., Feng, Y., Ren, G., Han, X., 2013. Evaluation of two statistical
104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.11.027. methods for optimizing the feeding composition in anaerobic co-digestion: mixture
Okeh, O.C., Onwosi, C.O., Odibo, F.J.C., 2014. Biogas production from rice husks gen- design and central composite design. Bioresour. Technol. 131, 172–178. https://doi.
erated from various rice mills in Ebonyi state, Nigeria. Renew. Energy 62, 204–208. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.006. Wilkie, A., Goto, M., Bordeaux, F.M., Smith, P.H., 1986. Enhancement of anaerobic me-
Pap, B., Györkei, Á., Boboescu, I.Z., Nagy, I.K., Bíró, T., Kondorosi, É., Maróti, G., 2015. thanogenesis from napiergrass by addition of micronutrients. Biomass 11, 135–146.
Temperature-dependent transformation of biogas-producing microbial communities https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-4565(86)90043-0.
points to the increased importance of hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis under Wymelenberg, A. Vanden, Gaskell, J., Mozuch, M., Sabat, G., Ralph, J., Skyba, O.,
thermophilic operation. Bioresour. Technol. 177, 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Mansfield, S.D., Blanchette, R.A., Martinez, D., Grigoriev, I., Kersten, P.J., Cullen, D.,
j.biortech.2014.11.021. 2010. Comparative transcriptome and secretome analysis of wood decay fungi postia
Pathak, H., Mohanty, S., Jain, N., Bhatia, A., 2010. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium placenta and phanerochaete chrysosporium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76,
budgets in Indian agriculture. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 86, 287–299. https://doi.org/ 3599–3610. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00058-10.
10.1007/s10705-009-9292-5. Xavier, C.A.N., Moset, V., Wahid, R., Møller, H.B., 2015. The efficiency of shredded and
Peng, X., Nges, I.A., Liu, J., 2016. Improving methane production from wheat straw by briquetted wheat straw in anaerobic co-digestion with dairy cattle manure. Biosyst.
digestate liquor recirculation in continuous stirred tank processes. Renew. Energy 85, Eng. 139, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.07.008.
12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.023. Xu, F., Wang, Z.-W., Tang, L., Li, Y., 2014. A mass diffusion-based interpretation of the
Pezzolla, D., Di Maria, F., Zadra, C., Massaccesi, L., Sordi, A., Gigliotti, G., 2017. effect of total solids content on solid-state anaerobic digestion of cellulosic biomass.
Optimization of solid-state anaerobic digestion through the percolate recirculation. Bioresour. Technol. 167, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.114.
Biomass- Bioenergy 96, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.11.012. Xu, F., Wang, F., Lin, L., Li, Y., 2016. Comparison of digestate from solid anaerobic di-
Rath, J., Heuwinkel, H., Herrmann, A., 2013. Specific biogas yield of maize can be pre- gesters and dewatered effluent from liquid anaerobic digesters as inocula for solid
dicted by the interaction of four biochemical constituents. Bioenergy Res. 6, state anaerobic digestion of yard trimmings. Bioresour. Technol. 200, 753–760.
939–952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9318-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.103.
Reilly, M., Dinsdale, R., Guwy, A., 2015. Enhanced biomethane potential from wheat Yan, Z., Song, Z., Li, D., Yuan, Y., Liu, X., Zheng, T., 2015. The effects of initial substrate
straw by low temperature alkaline calcium hydroxide pre-treatment. Bioresour. concentration, C/N ratio, and temperature on solid-state anaerobic digestion from
Technol. 189, 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.150. composting rice straw. Bioresour. Technol. 177, 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Ress, B.B., Calvert, P.P., Pettigrew, C.A., Barlaz, M.A., 1998. Testing anaerobic biode- biortech.2014.11.089.
gradability of polymers in a laboratory-scale simulated landfill. Environ. Sci. Technol. Yanli, Y., Peidong, Z., Wenlong, Z., Yongsheng, T., Yonghong, Z., Lisheng, W., 2010.
32, 821–827. https://doi.org/10.1021/es970296h. Quantitative appraisal and potential analysis for primary biomass resources for
527
energy utilization in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 3050–3058. https://doi. Zhao, J., Zheng, Y., Li, Y., 2014b. Fungal pretreatment of yard trimmings for enhance-
org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.054. ment of methane yield from solid-state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 156,
Ye, J., Li, D., Sun, Y., Wang, G., Yuan, Z., Zhen, F., Wang, Y., 2013. Improved biogas 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.011.
production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Zhong, W., Chi, L., Luo, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Z., Wu, W.M., 2013. Enhanced methane
Manag. 33, 2653–2658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.014. production from Taihu Lake blue algae by anaerobic co-digestion with corn straw in
Yen, H.-W., Brune, D.E., 2007. Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper to continuous feed digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 134, 264–270. https://doi.org/10.
produce methane. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1016/j.biortech.2013.02.060.
biortech.2005.11.010. Zhou, Q., Shen, F., Yuan, H., Zou, D., Liu, Y., Zhu, B., Jaffu, M., Chufo, A., Li, X., 2014.
Yuan, H., Li, R., Zhang, Y., Li, X., Liu, C., Meng, Y., Lin, M., Yang, Z., 2015. Anaerobic Minimizing asynchronism to improve the performances of anaerobic co-digestion of
digestion of ammonia-pretreated corn stover. Biosyst. Eng. 129, 142–148. https:// food waste and corn stover. Bioresour. Technol. 166, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.09.010. 1016/j.biortech.2014.04.074.
Zeng, A.-P., Deckwer, W.-D., 1996. Bioreaction techniques under microaerobic condi- Zhou, S., Raouche, S., Grisel, S., Navarro, D., Sigoillot, J.C., Herpoël-Gimbert, I., 2015.
tions: from molecular level to pilot plant reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 51, 2305–2314. Solid-state fermentation in multi-well plates to assess pretreatment efficiency of rot
https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(96)00087-5. fungi on lignocellulose biomass. Microb. Biotechnol. 8, 940–949. https://doi.org/10.
Zhang, T., Liu, L., Song, Z., Ren, G., Feng, Y., Han, X., Yang, G., 2013. Biogas production 1111/1751-7915.12307.
by co-digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoS One 8, 1–8. https:// Zhou, S., Nikolausz, M., Zhang, J., Riya, S., Terada, A., Hosomi, M., 2016. Variation of the
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066845. microbial community in thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pig manure mixed with
Zhang, T., Yang, Y., Liu, L., Han, Y., Ren, G., Yang, G., 2014. Improved biogas production different ratios of rice straw. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 122, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.
from chicken manure anaerobic digestion using cereal residues as co-substrates. 1016/j.jbiosc.2016.02.012.
Energy Fuels 28, 2490–2495. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef500262m. Zhou, Y., Li, C., Nges, I.A., Liu, J., 2017. The effects of pre-aeration and inoculation on
Zhao, J., Ge, X., Vasco-Correa, J., Li, Y., 2014a. Fungal pretreatment of unsterilized yard solid-state anaerobic digestion of rice straw. Bioresour. Technol. 224, 78–86. https://
trimmings for enhanced methane production by solid-state anaerobic digestion. doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.104.
Bioresour. Technol. 158, 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.029.
528
View publication stats

My Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

My Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

My Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 16 (2018) 513–528

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology

Anaerobic digestion of crop residues: Technological developments and T

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Fig. 2. Advantages of the AD system.

Fig. 3. Typical flow diagram of the AD process.

Fig. 4. Strategies to improve the methane production in AD.

Fig. 5. Influencing factors in AD of crop residues.

Rice straw 34.9 16.7 23.3 47.0 (Ye et al., 2013)

acidogenic microbial population leading to imbalanced microbial po- 4.1. Paddy

Substrate Co-substrate Pre-treatment Mode Operating Methane production Remarks Ref.

Size reduction Mesophilic, cattle Acid pre-treatment (Krishania et al.,

Substrate Co-substrate Pre-treatment Mode Operating Methane production Remarks Ref.

Paddy 43.50 231a 10,049 360 352 27.1 41 25

View publication stats

You might also like