b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Methane production from solid-state anaerobic digestion

of lignocellulosic biomass

Lo Niee Liew, Jian Shi, Yebo Li*

Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development
Center, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691-4096, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Four lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks including corn stover, wheat straw, yard waste and
Received 15 June 2011 leaves were evaluated for methane production via solid-state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD).
Received in revised form Results showed that the highest methane yield was attained for corn stover (81.2 L kg
1
13 August 2012 volatile solids (VS)), followed by wheat straw (66.9 L kg
1 VS), leaves (55.4 L kg
1 VS) and
Accepted 5 September 2012 yard waste (40.8 L kg
1 VS) at a substrate to inoculum (S/I ) ratio of 2. The methane
Available online 1 October 2012 production during SS-AD of tested lignocellulosic biomass followed the first-order kinetics
model with correlation coefficients (r2) of 0.91e0.98. The main contributor to methane
Keywords: production during SS-AD of corn stover and wheat straw was the degradation of cellulose
Solid-state anaerobic digestion and hemicellulose while the degradation of extractives was more predominant in yard
Biogas waste and leaves. An inverse linear relationship was obtained between the methane yield
Corn stover and the lignin content and a positive linear relationship was found between the methane
Wheat straw yield and the enzymatic digestibility of the lignocellulosic biomass.
Municipal solid waste ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction feedstocks in AD. Lignocellulosic biomass, including energy

Anaerobic digestion (AD) refers to a process where organic
matter is decomposed synergistically by a microbial consor-
tium in an oxygen free environment to produce methane and
carbon dioxide (CO2), namely biogas. Biogas has been regarded
as a promising alternative source of energy and it can be used
for the following applications: generation of heat or electricity
from burned biogas, liquefaction of biogas into methanol and
chemical feedstocks, compression of biogas to be used as
a source of car fuel similar to that of compressed natural gas
(CNG), and purification of biogas to be fed into gas distribution
grids [1,2]. AD provides not only an alternative source of
energy but also an alternative route to divert organic wastes
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills [3,4].
A wide range of organic materials, such as food waste,
municipal waste, and animal manure, have been used as
crops, agricultural and forestry residues, and the organic
fractions of municipal wastes, have lately gained more
attention as suitable feedstocks for AD because of their
abundant availability and the increased needs for bioenergy
[5]. The methane yield during AD is affected by the composi-
tion and biodegradability of lignocellulosic biomass. Biode-
gradability of lignocellulosic biomass during AD is, however,
impeded by the recalcitrant nature attributed to the lignin
shield around carbohydrates (cellulose and hemicelluloses)
and the highly crystalline cellulose [4]. Factors affecting
anaerobic biodegradability of lignocellulosic biomass include
lignin content, cellulose and hemicellulose content, cellulose
crystallinity, pore volume, particle size, total surface avail-
ability for enzymatic reactions, and the structural character-
istic of lignin [6,7]. Rate of hydrolysis has been regarded as
a limiting factor in AD of lignocellulosic biomass [8].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 330 263 3855.

E-mail address: li.851@osu.edu (Y. Li).
0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.014
126 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2
Although there is a general agreement in the literature that
the presence of lignin increases the resistance of lignocellu-
losic materials to anaerobic biodegradation, the quantitative
relationship between biodegradability and lignin content is
still not well understood and data are inconclusive. A few
studies reported a strong negative linear correlation between
lignin content and biodegradability of lignocellulosic biomass.
For instance, Chandler and co-workers [9] studied the AD of
a variety of herbaceous materials, animal manures, and
newspaper and found an inverse linear relationship between
lignin content and volatile solids (VS) destruction with
a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.94. However, in another study
by Bjorndal and Moore [10], a relatively weak inverse linear
relationship (r2 ¼ 0.75) between lignin content and VS
destruction was derived from short-term (48 h) digestion of
over 100 different lignocellulosic biomass samples by rumen
microorganisms. According to Tong et al. [11], a poor linear
correlation (r2 ¼ 0.59e0.69) was observed between methane
conversion efficiency and lignin content of seven types of
lignocellulosic biomass, including corn stover, two batches of
wheat straw, napier grass, wood grass, newspaper, and white
fir, at a total solids (TS) content of less than 1%.
A wide array of lignocellulosic biomass has been tested as
feedstocks for AD. However, most of these studies on how the
composition of lignocellulosic biomass (such as lignin
content) affects methane yield were limited to liquid AD
which operates at a TS content of 15% or less. Solid-state
anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) is generally operated at a TS
content of 20% or higher [12]. Lignocellulosic biomass feed-
stocks are suitable for SS-AD mainly due to their availability
and low moisture content [13]. Compared to liquid AD, the
major advantages of SS-AD include the reduction in reactor
volume, minimal agitation, fewer moving parts, and lower
energy input for heating due to a smaller operating volume
[14]. Furthermore, the problems encountered in liquid AD,
such as floating and stratification of fibers and disposal
of large amounts of liquid effluent, can be addressed in
SS-AD [15].
Use of lignocellulosic biomass as a feedstock for AD is
greatly influenced by feedstock accessibility and availability
due to economic concerns of feedstock collection and trans-
portation [4,14]. Corn stover and wheat straw are common
agricultural byproducts and largely available in areas of
widespread corn and wheat production. Yard waste and
leaves are the major lignocellulosic waste streams generated
from households. Although they can be composted, the
energy stored in yard waste and leaves is lost in the form of
respiration heat [16]. Use of yard waste and leaves may
improve the overall economics of SS-AD due to the low or
negative costs associated with these feedstocks [2,4,17].
Although, a number of lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks
have been evaluated for methane production from liquid AD
[18,19], the suitability of lignocellulosic biomass as feedstocks
for SS-AD and factors affecting methane production during
SS-AD have been less studied [14]. Therefore, the objectives of
this study were to determine: 1) the methane yield during SS-
AD of corn stover, wheat straw, yard waste, and leaves at
different substrate to inoculum (S/I ) ratios; and 2) the effect of
the composition and enzymatic digestibility of lignocellulosic
biomass on methane yield from SS-AD.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Feedstock and inoculum
Four types of lignocellulosic biomass were studied including
corn stover, wheat straw, leaves, and yard waste. Both corn
stover and wheat straw (winter wheat) were collected in
October 2009 from farms operated by the Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center (OARDC) in Wooster, OH,
USA. Fallen tree leaves (mainly maple) were collected in
October 2010 from the OARDC campus in Wooster, OH, USA.
Fresh yard waste (a blend of grass clippings and bushes) was
obtained in October 2010 from a local composting site in
Wooster, OH, USA. Composition analysis of the feedstocks
used in this study showed a general agreement with the
composition data on corn stover, wheat straw, yard waste and
leave as reported elsewhere [20e22]. All feedstocks were oven
dried at 40  C for 48 h in a convection oven (Precision Thelco
Model 18, Waltham, MA, USA) to attain a moisture content of
less than 10%. The oven-dried samples were then ground to
pass through a 9 mm screen with a grinder (Mackissik, Parker
Ford, PA, USA) and stored in air tight containers for later use.
Effluent from a mesophilic liquid AD system fed with
municipal waste (operated by quasar energy group in Akron,
OH, USA) was used as inoculum in this research. The effluent
was kept in air-tight drums at 4  C in a walk-in cooler. Prior to
use, the inoculum was starved for 1 week and incubated at
37  C with constant mixing to reactivate microbiological
activity and remove the easily degradable VS.
2.2. Solid-state anaerobic digestion
Four S/I ratios of 2, 3, 4, and 5 were tested at a fixed initial TS
content of 22% for all reactors. The inoculum and lignocellu-
losic biomass feedstocks were mixed by a hand-mixer (Black
& Decker, 250-watt mixer, Towson, MD, USA) and deionized
water (DI) was added when necessary to adjust the TS content
to 22%. Well-mixed materials were loaded into a 1 L glass
reactor and incubated in a walk-in incubation room for up to
30 days at 37  1  C. Duplicate reactors were run for each
condition. Inoculum without any feedstock addition was used
as a control. Biogas generated was collected in a 5 L Tedlar gas
bag (CEL Scientific, Santa Fe Springs, CA, USA) attached to the
outlet of the reactor. Biogas composition and volume were
measured every 2 days during the 30-day SS-AD.
2.3. Enzyme hydrolysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks
Corn stover, wheat straw, yard waste, and leaf samples were
further milled to pass through a 20 mesh (w1 mm) screen
using a Thomas Wiley Laboratory Mill (Model No. 4, Thomas
Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA). Cellulase (Spezyme CP) with
activity of 50 FPU mL
1 (3434 carboxymethyl cellulose units
(CMCU) mL
1) was obtained from Genencor, a Danisco Divi-
sion (Palo Alto, CA, USA). All enzymatic hydrolysis experi-
ments were run in duplicate following the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Laboratory Analytical
Procedures (LAP) [23]. The hydrolysis was conducted using
a rotary shaker (150 rpm for 72 h) at 50  C with 0.05 M citrate
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2
buffer, a pH of 4.8, solid loading of 2%, and cellulase loading of
10 FPU g
1 solid. The hydrolyzate sample was filtered through
a 0.2 mm nylon membrane filter for sugar analysis by HPLC as
described in Section 2.4. The overall sugar (glucose or xylose)
yield of enzymatic hydrolysis was defined as:
Mglucose þ Mxylose
Digestibilityð%Þ ¼  100
fg  Mglucan þ fx  Mxylan
where Mglucose and Mxylose are the amount of glucose and
xylose released by enzymatic hydrolysis, Mglucan and Mxylan
are the amount of glucan and xylan in the raw materials, and
fg and fx are the conversion factors for polysaccharides to
monomeric sugars (180/162 for glucan to glucose and 150/132
for xylan to xylose, respectively) [24].
2.4. Analytical methods
The extractive content of the feedstock and material taken
from the reactor at the beginning and end of the SS-AD
process was measured according to the NREL Laboratory
Analytical Procedures [25]. Extractive-free solid fractions were
further fractionated using a two-step acid hydrolysis method
based on NREL Laboratory Analytical Procedures [26]. Mono-
meric sugars (glucose, xylose, galactose, arabinose, and
mannose) and cellobiose in the acid hydrolyzate were
measured by HPLC (Shimadzu LC-20AB, MD, USA) equipped
with a Biorad Aminex HPX-87P column and a refractive index
detector (RID). Deionized water at flow rate of 0.6 mL min
1
was used as the mobile phase. The temperatures of the
column and detector were maintained at 80  C and 55  C,
respectively.
The TS and VS contents of feedstocks, inoculum, and
digestate taken at the beginning and end of the AD process
were analyzed according to the Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater [27]. Total carbon and
nitrogen contents were determined by an elemental analyzer
(Elementar Vario Max CNS, Elementar Americas, Mt. Laurel,
NJ, USA). Total volatile fatty acids (TVFA) and alkalinity were
measured using a 2-step titration method [28]. Samples for pH,
TVFA, and alkalinity measurements were prepared by diluting
a 5-g sample with 50 mL of deionized water and subsequently
filtering it using cheese cloth. The filtrate was then analyzed
using an auto-titrator (Mettler Toledo, DL22 Food & Beverage
Analyzer, Columbus, OH, USA). The TVFA/alkalinity ratio was
calculated to determine the risk of acidification, a measure of
the process stability [29]. The volume of biogas collected in
a Tedlar bag was measured with a drum-type gas meter (Rit-
ter, TG 5, Bochum, Germany) and the composition of biogas
(CO2, CH4, N2, and O2) was analyzed using a GC (Agilent
Technologies, HP 6890, DE, USA) equipped with a 10-ft stain-
less steel column 45/60 Molecular Sieve 13 and a Thermal
Conductivity Detector. Helium at a flow rate of 5.2 mL min
1
was used as a carrier gas. The temperature of the detector was
set at 200  C. The temperature of the column oven was initially
programmed at 40  C for 4 min, then elevated to 60  C at
20  C min
1 and held for 5 min.
Methane yield expressed in L kg
1 VSfeedstock was calcu-
lated as the volume of methane gas produced per kg of VS
loaded into the reactor at start-up corrected by subtracting the
127
methane volume obtained from the control reactor with just
inoculum [30]. Methane productivity of lignocellulosic
biomass is expressed in Vmethane/Vwork: volume of methane
gas produced (Vmethane) per unit working volume of reactor
(Vwork).
2.5. Statistical analysis
Statistical significance was determined by analysis of variance
(ANOVA) using SAS software (Version 8.1, SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA) with a threshold p-value of 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Composition of inoculum and lignocellulosic
biomass
Table 1 shows the TS, VS, bulk density, carbon and nitrogen
content, extractives, lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, pH,
TVFA, and alkalinity, of the inoculum and lignocellulosic
biomass tested in this study. It is noted that leaves had
a slightly lower VS content than that of corn stover, wheat
straw, or yard waste; while the nitrogen content in the leaves
was higher than the other feedstocks. Although all feedstocks
were ground through a 9 mm screen, the bulk density of the
ground lignocellulosic biomass varied substantially. Yard
waste had the highest bulk density of 252.0 g L
1, followed by
leaves (154.9 g L
1), and corn stover (84.3 g L
1); whereas wheat
straw had the lowest bulk density of 62.3 g L
1.
Among the four types of feedstocks, the cellulose content
of corn stover (33.7%) and wheat straw (32.3%) were relatively
higher, followed by yard waste (21.7%) and leaves (12.2%).
Similar results were obtained for hemicellulose content
among the feedstocks tested (corn stover e 19.1%, wheat
straw e 17.9%, yard waste e 14.2%, and leaves e 10.6%). The
highest lignin content was found in yard waste (26.02%) fol-
lowed by leaves (23.1%). Relatively lower lignin content was
noted in corn stover (15.2%) and wheat straw (17.4%). Another
component that is worth mentioning is the extractives. Leaves
contained the highest amount of extractives (34.9%, water and
ethanol solubles combined) followed by yard waste (17.8%),
wheat straw (13.4%), and corn stover (9.9%). In general,
extractives constitute compounds such as free sugars, oligo-
mers, and organic acids [31], which are easily degradable and
can potentially contribute to biogas generation [11,32].
3.2. Biogas production
The total methane yields in terms of L kg
1 VS during 30 days
of SS-AD are presented in Fig. 1. Overall, the methane yield
obtained from SS-AD of these lignocellulosic biomass
increased with decreasing S/I ratio. Among the four S/I ratios
tested, the highest total methane yield was obtained at an S/I
ratio of 2 for all the feedstocks tested. Corn stover gave the
highest total methane yield of 81.2 L kg
1 VS, followed by
wheat straw (66.9 L kg
1 VS), yard waste (40.8 L kg
1 VS), and
leaves (55.4 L kg
1 VS). However, the total methane yields
observed at an S/I ratio of 3 for all feedstocks, except leaves,
were not significantly different (p-value, 0.67, 0.85, 0.16, and
128 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2

Table 1 e Characteristics of inoculum and lignocellulosic biomass.

Parameters Inoculum Corn stover Wheat straw Yard waste Leaves

TS % 10.6  0.0 97.0  0.1 97.8  0.0 98.0  0.4 95.9  0.1
VS % 6.9  0.0 92.6  0.0 92.6  0.0 94.6  0.0 89.2  0.0
Bulk density, g L
1 ND 84.3  1.9 62.3  1.4 252.0  4.0 154.9  2.6
Carbon content, %a 4.6 42.6 45.8 49.0 48.8
Nitrogen content, %a 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1
Extractives, %b ND 9.9  0.7 13.4  0.0 17.8  0.9 34.7  1.8
Lignin, %b ND 15.2  0.2 17.4  0.3 26.0  0.0 23.1  0.3
Cellulose, %b ND 33.7  0.2 32.3  0.2 21.7  1.6 12.2  0.7
Hemicellulose, %b ND 19.1  0.5 17.9  0.2 14.2  0.1 10.6  0.3
pH 8.5  0.0 ND ND ND ND
TVFA, g L
1 7.5  0.9 ND ND ND ND
Alkalinity, CaCO3, g L
1 18.3  0.3 ND ND ND ND

Data shown are the average and standard deviation based on duplicate runs; ND ¼ not determined.
a On basis of total dry weight.
b On basis of the TS of sample.

0.05 for corn stover, wheat straw, yard waste, and leaves,
respectively) from yields obtained at an S/I ratio of 2. Total
methane yields decreased by 35e40% for corn stover and
leaves as the S/I ratio increased from 2 to 4, while only 10e20%
reductions in total methane yield were observed for wheat
straw and yard waste. When the S/I ratio was increased to 5,
the total methane yields were very low for all tested feed-
stocks, indicating reactor failure.
Higher S/I ratios could contribute to organic overloading,
which may be indicated by the presence of higher concen-
tration of organic acids [33]. In a study conducted by Hashi-
moto [34] on liquid AD of wheat straw in batch operations at
35  C, a significant reduction in total methane yield was
observed at S/I ratios above 4. Gunaseelan [35] observed an
increase in methane yield with decreasing S/I ratios in liquid
AD of Parthenium hysterophorus L., a terrestrial weed. Reported
suitable S/I ratios for liquid AD range from 0.5 to 2.3 [19,33,36].
Based on this study, the best (or optimal) S/I ratio for SS-AD of
lignocellulosic biomass (corn stover, wheat straw, yard waste,
and leaves) is around 2, which is within the range obtained
from liquid AD studies.
Compared to total methane yields reported from liquid AD,
those obtained from SS-AD of lignocellulosic biomass in this
study were lower. For example, Zheng and co-workers
reported a total methane yield of 125e160 L kg
1 VS during
liquid AD of corn stover loaded at 50e80 g TS L
1 [37]. Tong
et al. [11] reported the biochemical methane potential of corn
stover and wheat straw to be 360 L kg
1 VS and 332 L kg
1 VS,
respectively, at <1% TS loading using a nutrient enriched
medium. Owens and Chynoweth [38] determined the
biochemical methane potential of yard waste and leaves as
143 L kg
1 VS and 123 L kg
1 VS, respectively. The lower
methane yields during SS-AD could be attributed to mass
transfer limitations as a result of high TS contents. However,
since SS-AD operates at high TS content (2e5 times typical TS
in liquid AD), which results in a smaller reactor volume, the-
methane yield per unit reactor volume is higher during SS-AD
[39].
Fig. 2 shows the daily methane yield observed during the
30-day SS-AD period at S/I ratios of 2 and 5. At an S/I ratio of 2,
the daily methane yields for SS-AD of corn stover, wheat
straw, and yard waste were less than 1 L kg
1 VS during the
initial 4 days and peaked at 8e12 days. The highest daily
methane yield of 11.8 L kg
1 VS was obtained from SS-AD of
corn stover and was about 2e4 times higher than that of yard
waste and leaves. However, for leaves, higher daily methane
production of about 2 L kg
1 VS was observed during the initial
4 days of SS-AD and the peak methane production occurred at
day 6. This result is likely due to the higher content of easily
digestible extractives in leaves compared to other feedstocks
(Table 1). At a high S/I ratio of 5, daily methane production was
very low and no clear peaks were seen during the 30-day SS-
AD, which is in line with the very low total methane yield
(Fig. 1) and indicative of upset of the SS-AD process.

3.3. First-order kinetic model of methane production

First-order kinetic models have been used to characterize the

methane production of lignocellulosic biomass in liquid AD
[11,19,30,33,40]. The first-order kinetic model shown in equa-
tion (1) can be linearized as shown in equation (2).

Fig 1 e Total methane yield obtained during 30-day SS-AD dM

¼ kM (1)
of tested feedstocks at different S/I ratios. dt
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2 129

a simple first-order kinetic model. However, it appears that the

methane production during SS-AD of leaves exhibited a bi-
phase profile with a lower linear correlation (r2 ¼ 0.91) than
other feedstocks. It is speculated that the presence of fast and
slow digestible components in leaves, for example, easily
digestible extractives and relatively resistant structural carbo-
hydrates, may lead to two or more conversion phases during
AD [40]. The conversion constant (k) for tested feedstocks
ranged from 0.1193 to 0.1318 (data not shown), in general
agreement with those reported elsewhere for liquid AD [11].

3.4. Degradation of cellulose, hemicellulose, and

extractives
b
Degradation of cellulose, hemicellulose, and extractives during
30-day SS-AD at an S/I ratio of 2 is presented in Fig. 4.
Compositional analysis was performed on samples obtained at

Fig. 2 e Daily methane production during 30-day SS-AD of

lignocellulosic biomass at S/I ratios of (a) 2 and (b) 5.

 
Mu
ln ¼ kt (2)
M
b
Nomenclature:
t ¼ time in term of day
Mu ¼ methane yield obtained in 30 days, L kg
1 VSfeedstock
Mt ¼ methane yield obtained at time t, L kg
1 VSfeedstock
M ¼ methane yield potential remained at time, M ¼ Mu
Mt

As shown in Fig. 3, there is a linear relationship between the

logarithmic methane production and reaction time in SS-AD of
corn stover, wheat straw, and yard waste (r2 between 0.96 and
0.98) indicating that the methane production follows the

Fig. 4 e Degradation of a) cellulose, b) hemicellulose, and c)

Fig. 3 e Logarithmic plot of methane production versus extractives during 30 days of SS-AD at an S/I ratio of 2
time for different lignocellulosic biomass at an S/I ratio of 2. (based on 100 g initial TS).
130 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2

the beginning and day 30 of the SS-AD process. Changes in the

a
composition were expressed as the weight of each compound
measured based on an initial loading level of 100 g TS. The
highest cellulose degradation of 41% was observed during SS-
AD of corn stover (Fig. 4a) followed by wheat straw (36%),
leaves (16%), and yard waste (6%). A similar trend was noted in
hemicellulose degradation. The highest hemicellulose removal
was noted with SS-AD of corn stover (34%) followed by wheat
straw (35%), leaves (21%), and yard waste (7%) (Fig. 4b).
It was noted that the degradation of cellulose and hemi-
cellulose was somewhat negatively related to the lignin
content of the lignocellulosic biomass. The higher cellulose
and hemicellulose degradation in corn stover and wheat straw
was associated with relatively lower lignin content compared
to that of yard waste and leaves. Lignin is one of the key
contributors to biomass recalcitrance and one of the primary
substrate features impacting enzymatic conversion of cellu-
losic biomass [6]. Due to its protective sheathing and hydro-
phobic nature, lignin retards cellulose accessibility to enzymes
b
and microbial attacks thus leading to low cellulose and hemi-
cellulose degradation [41]. The cellulose and hemicellulose
degradation results combined with the observation that lignin
content negatively relates to methane yield indicate that lignin
is one of the key factors controlling the performance of SS-AD
of lignocellulosic biomass. However, further study is required
to clarify how the compositional and structural differences in
lignocellulosic feedstocks affect methane production during
SS-AD due to the complexity of the reaction system.
A different trend was observed in the degradation of
extractives among the four feedstocks (Fig. 4c). The highest
extractives degradation of 57% was observed during SS-AD of
leaves followed by yard waste (56%), corn stover (14%), and
wheat straw (0%). The high levels of extractives degradation of
leaves and yard waste corresponded with the high daily
methane yield observed during the early phase (initial 4 days)
of SS-AD, which is supported by findings that extractives are
Fig. 5 e Relationship between total methane yield and a)
easily degradable [11,32]. Due to the relatively low cellulose
lignin content and b) enzymatic digestibility.
and hemicellulose degradation, it is likely that degradation of
extractives was the main contributor to the total biogas
generation from leaves and yard waste. However, it is not
possible to directly correlate methane yield with the contri- hemicellulose. Furthermore, organic compounds other than
bution of extractives or cellulose and hemicellulose due to the cellulose and hemicellulose in some lignocellulosic biomass,
heterogenic nature of lignocellulosic biomass. for example, extractives in leaves, may also contribute to
methane production. Although results showed that lignin
3.5. Relationship between methane yield and the content and enzymatic digestibility affected the methane
composition and enzymatic digestibility of lignocellulosic yield from SS-AD, it is not yet possible to predict the perfor-
biomass mance of the AD process solely based on the composition or
enzymatic digestibility due to the heterogenic nature of
In this study, a strong inverse linear relationship was lignocellulosic biomass and the complicated nature of AD
observed between the methane yield and lignin content of reactions. Future study is therefore necessary to investigate
tested feedstocks with a (r2 ¼ 0.95) (Fig. 5a). Since lignin the controlling factors, such as operational temperature,
content has been regarded as a key factor affecting the particle size of lignocellulosic biomass, and age of lignocellu-
enzymatic digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass [7,41], the losic biomass, that determine the methane yield of SS-AD of
digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass was tested at a cellu- lignocellulosic biomass and to improve methane yield.
lase loading of 10 FPU g
1solids and plotted against methane
yield. Fig. 5b reveals a strong linear relationship between
methane yield and enzymatic digestibility of tested feedstocks 4. Conclusions
(r2 ¼ 0.99). However, it should be noted that the high methane
yield associated with low lignin content is dependent on both Among the four tested lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks, the
enzymatic digestibility and the availability of cellulose and methane yields of crop residues (corn stover and wheat straw)
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2
were much higher than those obtained from yard waste and
leaves during SS-AD at TS of 22%. The highest methane yield
for all feedstocks was obtained at an S/I ratio of 2. The
methane production during SS-AD of lignocellulosic biomass
followed the simple first-order kinetics model with correlation
coefficients of 0.91e0.98. The main contributor to methane
production during SS-AD of corn stover and wheat straw was
the degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose as shown by
the substantial degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose
(34%e41%) for corn stover and wheat straw compared to yard
waste and leaves (6%e21%) during 30 days of SS-AD. However,
the main contributor to methane production during SS-AD
of yard waste and leaves was most likely degradation of
extractives as indicated by the relatively higher degradation of
extractives compared to corn stover and wheat straw. An
inverse linear relationship was obtained between the
methane yield and the lignin content, while a positive linear
relationship was obtained between methane yield and enzy-
matic digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass.
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center (OARDC) SEEDS Program (2008-043) and
the Ohio Third Frontier Program (10-059). The authors would
like to thank Mrs. Mary Wicks (Department of Food, Agricul-
tural and Biological Engineering, OSU) for reading through the
manuscript and providing useful suggestions.
references
[1] Roubaud A, Favrat D. Improving performances of a lean burn
cogeneration biogas engine equipped with combustion
prechambers. Fuel 2005;84(16):2001e7.
[2] Ghosh S, Henry MP, Sajjad A, Mensinger MC, Arora JL. Pilot-
scale gasification of municipal solid wastes by high-rate and
two-phase anaerobic digestion (TPAD). Water Sci Technol
2000;41(3):101e10.
[3] Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P. Anaerobic digestion of
organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements
and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2000;74(1):3e16.
[4] Frigon JC, Guiot SR. Biomethane production from starch and
lignocellulosic crops: a comparative review. Biofuel Bioprod
Biorefin Biofpr 2010;4(4):447e58.
[5] Montoneri E, Savarino P, Bottigliengo S, Boffa V, Prevot AB,
Fabbri D, et al. Biomass wastes as renewable source of energy
and chemicals for the industry with friendly environmental
impact. Fresenius Environ Bull 2009;18(2):219e23.
[6] Himmel ME, Ding SY, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR,
Brady JW, et al. Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants
and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 2007;315(5813):
804e7.
[7] Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M,
et al. Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2005;96(6):
673e86.
[8] Adney WS, Rivard CJ, Ming SA, Himmel ME. Anaerobic
digestion of lignocellulosic biomass and wastes. Cellulases
and related enzymes. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1991;30(2):
165e83.
131
[9] Chandler JA, Jewell WJ, Gossett JM, Vansoest PJ, Robertson JB.
Predicting methane fermentation biodegradability.
Biotechnol Bioeng 1980;22:93e107.
[10] Bjorndal KA, Moore JE. Prediction of fermentability of
biomass feedstocks from chemical characteristics. In:
Smith WH, editor. Biomass energy development. New York:
Plenum Press; 1985. p. 447e54.
[11] Tong XG, Smith LH, Mccarty PL. Methane fermentation of
selected lignocellulosic materials. Biomass 1990;21(4):
239e55.
[12] Guendouz J, Buffiere P, Cacho J, Carrere M, Delgenes JP. Dry
anaerobic digestion in batch mode: design and operation of
a laboratory-scale, completely mixed reactor. Waste Manag
2010;30(10):1768e71.
[13] Yu Z, Schanbacher FL. Production of methane biogas as fuel
through anaerobic digestion. In: Singh OV, Harvey SP,
editors. Sustainable biotechnology. Netherlands: Springer;
2010. p. 105e27.
[14] Li YB, Park SY, Zhu JY. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for
methane production from organic waste. Renew Sustain
Energ Rev 2011;15(1):821e6.
[15] Chanakya HN, Srikumar KG, Anand V, Modak J, Jagadish KS.
Fermentation properties of agro-residues, leaf biomass and
urban market garbage in a solid phase biogas fermenter.
Biomass Bioenerg 1999;16(6):417e29.
[16] Koch K, Lubken M, Gehring T, Wichern M, Horn H. Biogas
from grass silage e measurements and modeling with ADM1.
Bioresour Technol 2010;101(21):8158e65.
[17] Jagadish KS, Chanakya HN, Rajabapaiah P, Anand V. Plug
flow digestors for biogas generation from leaf biomass.
Biomass Bioenerg 1998;14(5e6):415e23.
[18] Gunaseelan VN. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane
production: a review. Biomass Bioenerg 1997;13(1e2):83e114.
[19] Turick CE, Peck MW, Chynoweth DP, Jerger DE, White EH,
Zsuffa L, et al. Methane fermentation of woody biomass.
Bioresour Technol 1991;37(2):141e7.
[20] Shi J, Ebrik M, Yang B, Wyman CE. The potential of
cellulosic ethanol production from municipal solid waste:
a technical and economical evaluation. Berkeley, CA:
Development of Technology, University of California Energy
Institute; 2009.
[21] O’Keefe DM, Chynoweth DP, Barkdoll AW, Nordstedt RA,
Owens JM, Sifontes J. Sequential batch anaerobic composting
of municipal solid waste (MSW) and yard waste. Water Sci
Technol 1993;27(2):77e86.
[22] Lissens G, Klinke H, Verstraete W, Ahring B, Thomsen AB.
Wet oxidation pre-treatment of woody yard waste:
parameter optimization and enzymatic digestibility for
ethanol production. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2004;79:
889e95.
[23] Selig M, Weiss N, Ji Y. Laboratory analytical procedure (LAP):
enzymatic saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass.
Golden, CO, USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
2008. Report No.: NREL/TP-510-42629.
[24] Zeng MJ, Mosier NS, Huang CP, Sherman DM, Ladisch MR.
Microscopic examination of changes of plant cell structure in
corn stover due to hot water pretreatment and enzymatic
hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 2007;97(2):265e78.
[25] Sluiter A, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D.
Laboratory analytical procedure (LAP): determination of
extractives in biomass. Golden, CO, USA: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2008. Report No.: NREL/TP-
510e42619.
[26] Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D,
et al. Laboratory analytical procedure (LAP): determination of
structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. Golden, CO,
USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2008. Report
No.: NREL/TP-510e42618.
132 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 2 5 e1 3 2
[27] Eaton A, Clesceri L, Greenberg A. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 21st ed. Washington,
DC: APHA, AWWA and WEF; 2005.
[28] McGhee TJ. A method for approximation of the volatile acid
concentrations in anaerobic digesters. Water Sew Work 1968;
115:162e6.
[29] Anderson GK, Yang G. Determination of bicarbonate and
total volatile acid concentration in anaerobic digesters using
a simple titration. Water Environ Res 1992;64(1):53e9.
[30] Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L,
Campos JL, Guwy AJ, et al. Defining the biomethane
potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops:
a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci Technol
2009;59(5):927e34.
[31] Chen SF, Mowery RA, Scarlata CJ, Chambliss CK.
Compositional analysis of water-soluble materials in corn
stover. J Agri Food Chem 2007;55(15):5912e8.
[32] Zheng Y, Pan Z, Zhang R, El-Mashad HM, Pan J, Jenkins BM.
Anaerobic digestion of saline creeping wild ryegrass for
biogas production and pretreatment of particleboard
material. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(4):1582e8.
[33] Chynoweth DP, Turick CE, Owens JM, Jerger DE, Peck MW.
Biochemical methane potential of biomass and waste
feedstocks. Biomass Bioenerg 1993;5(1):95e111.
[34] Hashimoto AG. Effect of inoculum substrate ratio on
methane yield and production-rate from straw. Biol Wastes
1989;28(4):247e55.
[35] Gunaseelan VN. Effect of inoculum substrate ratio and
pretreatments on methane yield from Parthenium. Biomass
Bioenerg 1995;8(1):39e44.
[36] Neves L, Ribeiro R, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Enhancement of
methane production from barley waste. Biomass Bioenerg
2006;30(6):599e603.
[37] Zheng MX, Li XJ, Li LQ, Yang XJ, He YF. Enhancing anaerobic
biogasification of corn stover through wet state NaOH
pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(21):5140e5.
[38] Owens JM, Chynoweth DP. Biochemical methane potential of
municipal solid-waste (MSW) components. Water Sci
Technol 1993;27(2):1e14.
[39] Richards BK, Cummings RJ, Jewell WJ, Herndon FG. High
solids anaerobic methane fermentation of sorghum and
cellulose. Biomass Bioenerg 1991;1(1):47e53.
[40] Jewell WJ, Cummings RJ, Richards BK. Methane fermentation
of energy crops e maximum conversion kinetics and in-situ
biogas purification. Biomass Bioenerg 1993;5(3e4):261e78.
[41] Chang VS, Holtzapple MT. Fundamental factors affecting
biomass enzymatic reactivity. Appl Biochem Biotechnol
2000;84-6:5e37.