Received: 13 June 2020 Revised: 27 September 2020
DOI: 10.1002/er.6120
REVIEW PAPER
Materials for the design and construction of household
biogas digesters for biogas production: A review
KeChrist Obileke1 | Helen Onyeaka2 | Nwabunwanne Nwokolo1
1
Departments of Physics, Faculty of
Science and Agriculture, University of
Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa
2
School of Chemical Engineering,
University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, UK
Correspondence
KeChrist Obileke, Departments of
Physics, Faculty of Science and
Agriculture, University of Fort Hare,
Private Mail Bag X1314, Alice 5700,
South Africa.
Email: kcobileke@yahoo.co.uk
OR IG IN ALI TY ST A TE ME NT
This study entitled “Materials for the design and con-
struction of household biogas digesters for biogas produc-
tion: A review”, is a review manuscript authored by
*
KeChrist Obileke, Helen Onyeaka, and Nwabunwanne
Nwokolo. No study has reviewed the materials for the
construction of biogas digester as well as their impact on
gas yield. However, temperature has a major effect on
these materials of construction/fabrication for biogas
digester as well as the biogas yield.
1 | INTRODUCTION
There is an increasing worldwide interest in renewable
energy sources. Biogas production is growing steadily, as
Int J Energy Res. 2020;1–19.
Accepted: 6 October 2020
Summary
This article reviews the various materials used for the construction and fabrica-
tion of biogas digesters. The reviewed materials include bricks, cement, plas-
tics, reinforced fiber, and metals, which find its application in household
biogas digester design. The review aims to provide and help energy engineers
and researchers as well as stakeholders in the selection of an appropriate mate-
rial for the construction and fabrication of biogas digesters. More also, the pre-
sent study will present information on the challenges associated with each
material and how to minimize it to enhance the development of biogas
digesters technology. Detailed information on the gas yields resulting from the
biogas digesters constructed and fabricated using bricks, cement, plastics, and
metals as well as material used for biogas storage are reviewed. Though, find-
ings show that most local and household biogas digesters were constructed
with bricks and cement due to their rigidity, robustness, and lifespan. How-
ever, in areas where logistics and transportation may prove challenging, the
likely substitute is soft bag digester owing to the light weight.
KEYWORDS
biogas, biogas digesters, construction, materials, temperature
more people are setting up biogas plants to produce bio-
gas. Interest in biogas technology has increased due to
environmental pollution caused by the use of conven-
tional energy sources.1 The production of biogas occurs
in an airtight enclosed container called biogas digester.
Biogas digester is usually constructed to enhance anaero-
bic digestion of organic waste that results in biogas yield.2
Various materials such as concretes/bricks, plastics,
reinforced fiber and metals have been used for the con-
struction of biogas digesters.3-5 However, there are still
technical and economic barriers associated with the con-
struction of biogas digesters, which impede their develop-
ment. These barriers need to be overcomed in order to
ensure more use of biogas digester technology. Biogas
digester durability and cost have a direct link on the
materials of construction. Hence, there is a need to
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 OBILEKE ET AL.
conduct a study to review material used for the construc-
tion of biogas digesters as this will improve biogas tech-
nology. However, materials for the construction of
household digesters depend on geological, hydrological,
local conditions, and availability.6 Essentially, bricks,
cement and metals are mostly used in the construction of
biogas digester. With technological advances, different
materials with improved properties and lower costs have
been introduced. For instance, in India, underground
biogas digester is very popular, and it was reported that
bricks and cement are usually used as the material for
the construction of these biogas digesters. In 1960, Chi-
nese engineers designed and constructed biogas digesters
from cheaper and available materials, apart from nylon
and neoprene that are expensive.6
Previous studies have reviewed and discussed the per-
formance of various types of biogas digesters, which
include fixed dome, floating drum, and balloon type.
However, no study has reviewed the materials for the
construction of biogas digester as well their impact on
gas yield. Therefore, our study fills this knowledge gaps
existing in biogas technology, hence making it easier to
consider the appropriate material for biogas digester
design. This study aims to do a review of the various
types of material used for the design and construction of
biogas digesters, as well as to determine their impact on
the performance of biogas digester. The merit and
demerit, as well as the biogas yield reported by the usage
of these materials by various authors, have also been dis-
cussed in this review. Detailed knowledge of these type of
materials used for the construction of biogas digesters
will be helpful to energy engineers, stakeholders,
researchers, and academic contributions to the develop-
ment of biogas technology and renewable energy at large.
Therefore, the objective of the study is to perform a litera-
ture review on the production of biogas using various
materials such as bricks/cement plastics, reinforced fiber,
and metal.
2 | B ACKGROUND
DEVELOPMENT OF BIOGAS
DIGESTER
Before reviewing the materials for the construction of
biogas digester, which is the main focus of this study, it is
necessary to discuss the background development of bio-
gas digester. It is evident that biogas has been in exis-
tence since 3000 years ago for heating bath water in
Assyria. Sewage tanks were used as biogas digesters years
around 2000 to 3000 ago, according to the Chinese litera-
ture.7 However, some historical development has taken
place as regards to biogas digesters. First, in the 17th
century, flammable gas was developed from purifying
organic matter by Jan Baptita Van Helmont. In 1776,
there is a report by Count Alessandro showing the direct
relationship between the quantity of organic waste
decomposed and the quantity of flammable gas gener-
ated.8,9 Also in 1808, Sir Humphry Davy reported that
methane is a gas that is generated during anaerobic
digester of animal manure. Toward 1859, the first biogas
digester was designed, constructed, and installed in Bom-
bay, and then this concept was brought to the United
Kingdom. The biogas produced was then used for light
street lamps purposes and also as a source of energy,
especially during the Second World War. Since then,
numbers of biogas digesters have been designed, con-
structed, and installed to generate biogas using different
feedstocks. For instance, the use of farm manure to gen-
erate biogas was developed in Bombay. Recently, devel-
opment has reached other part of the world as regards to
biogas digesters. Although the research in biogas digester
started in India in 1939, it was in 1951 that it was first
utilized.
Studies and research in biogas digesters have contrib-
uted positively in meeting the global energy needs partic-
ularly in the rural areas of some countries, such as in
China,10 India,11 Nepal,12 Bangladesh13 as well as Viet-
nam.14 Over 40 million household biogas digesters were
installed in China by the end of 201015,16 with biogas out-
put of 15.5 m.3 Wang et al17 reported that the number of
biogas digester increased from 10 million to 40 million
from 2000 to 2017. Similarly, in India, more than 4 mil-
lion biogas digesters were installed as of 2010.18 Moving
forward, almost 240 000 tons of fuel wood was saved in
Nepal due to installation of about 200 000 biogas
digesters.19 Considering the huge number of biogas
digester in Vietnam, Nguyen20 revealed that 200 000
digesters were constructed and installed. The develop-
ment of biogas digester is not new in Bangladesh, as
40, 000 of the reactor were installed and tested using cow
dung and poultry litter as substrate.13 Importantly, Africa
is not left behind in biogas technology, as 53 617 biogas
digesters were said to be installed in the continent in
2009.21 This increase in number, as well as the global
application of biogas, among many others factors, moti-
vated the present study.
3 | BIOGAS DIGESTER DESIGNS
OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS OF
C O NST R UC T I O N
The biogas digester is known as any structure that is
capable of facilitating the decomposition of organic waste
to produce methane gas.22 As earlier mentioned, biogas
OBILEKE ET AL. 3

digesters can be designed and constructed using bricks,
cement, concrete, plastics, reinforced fiber, and metal.
There have been many studies on the three common
designs of biogas digesters, which include the fixed dome,
floating drum, and the balloon or rubber bag digesters.
However, this section will discuss these designs briefly
and thereby providing the type of materials used for their
construction as well as their merit and demerit, which
are not commonly reported in most studies. Table 1 pre-
sents the three designs types of biogas digester, the mate-
rial used for their construction as well as their advantages
and disadvantages.
3.1 | Fixed dome biogas digester
This type of biogas digester is usually constructed under-
ground and are usually called the “Chinese” or “hydraulic”
digesters. The biogas digester is designed in such a way that
the digester is filled with the inlet pipe until the level
reaches the bottom level of the expansion chamber. The
biogas produced is accumulated in the upper part of the
digester called the gas storage and are trapped under an air-
tight cover placed over the digester. Figure 1 presents the
fixed dome biogas digester.
3.2 | Floating drum biogas digester
The design of the floating drum biogas digester consists
of the gas holder, a cylindrical tank, a gas meter, a feed
pit, and an outlet pit.26 The design of the floating drum
digester is made in such a way that drum is like an
upside-down pot and it floats on top of the digesting
sludge, which captures the gas. The gas produced from
this type of digester is trapped under a floating cover,
which rises and falls on a central guide. Figure 2 shows
the floating drum biogas digester.
3.3 | Balloon biogas digester
The fabrication of the balloon biogas digester is made in
such a way that the gas produced is stored in the upper
part of the balloon. The inlet and outlet are attached
directly to the skin of the balloon. For this type of digester,
safety valves are required as the gas pressure can be
increased by placing weights on the balloon. One factor to
be taken while selecting material for such digester is that
it must be weather and UV resistance and specially stabi-
lized. Figure 3 shows the balloon biogas digester.
4 | MATERIALS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF BIOGAS
4.1 | Bricks/cement biogas digesters
Various studies have made use of bricks and cement as
the basic material in the design and construction of dif-
ferent types of the biogas digester. Fixed dome biogas
digester originally developed in China is one of the most
common designs completely built using bricks, cement,
and concretes.6 This digester consists of a cylindrical
digester chamber, inlet, and outlet chambers.28,29 Some
other designs, such as in-situ concrete digester and float-
ing drum digester are partly constructed using cement
and concrete. In the case of an in-situ concrete digester, a

TABLE 1 Different types of design of biogas digester with their respective materials and advantages and disadvantages

Materials used for

Type of design construction/fabrication of
of biogas various designs of biogas
digester digester
Fixed dome Bricks/cement/concrete/
digester plastic or reinforced fiber
Floating drum Metal (mild steel), reinforced
digester fiber plastics, high density
polyethylene (HDPE) mixed
material, bricks or
reinforced concrete used for
digester wall
Balloon digester Reinforced plastics, red mud
plastic (RMP), high strength
PVC polyester fabric
Advantages
Low initial cost and long
useful life span, save spaces
and well insulated
Easy to operate and
understand, gas tightness is
not a problem, provide gas
at a constant pressure
Low cost, ease of
transportation, high digester
temperature
Disadvantages References
23
Gas leaks occur frequently,
high technical skills
required
24
Steel drum is relatively
expensive, short life span
and rusting (corrosion)
occurs frequently
23
Low gas pressure and scum
cannot be removed during
operation.
4 OBILEKE ET AL.

Biogas F I G U R E 1 Fixed dome biogas

digester (modified from Florentino
200325) [Colour figure can be viewed at
Outlet tank wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Inlet tank

Gas holder

Digester chamber

Biogas F I G U R E 2 Floating drum biogas

digester (modified from Florentino25)
Outlet

Inlet tank Outlet tank

Floating gas
outlet

Slurry Partition
Wall

Biogas F I G U R E 3 Balloon biogas

digester (modified from Plochi
and Heiermann27) [Colour
figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
BIOGAS
Slurry Slurry
Inlet Outlet
Dung + Water = SLURRY

small-bolted steel panel is erected and concrete is cast
around it to form the digester. An in-situ concrete
digester is made up of a belly, neck, plastic fibre gas-
holder, an inlet pit and an outlet pit.30 The floating drum
developed in India in the 1960s consists of a dome-
shaped digester chamber and a floating drum that holds
the gas. It is built underground using concrete, and the
drum is usually made of steel or PVC.31
In a recent study, the actual operating conditions of a
10m3 Nepali Fixed Dome biogas digester were investigated
OBILEKE ET AL.
within the context of the rural area of Cameroon. The
Nepali fixed dome digester chamber walls, inlet chamber,
an outlet chamber were built from bricks and cement mor-
tar. However, the inlet chamber was connected to the
digester chamber via a PVC pipe inclined at an angle of
45 to the vertical. The bricks were locally made out of a
mixture of cement and sand while the dome was made
from a mixture of cement, concrete, and sand all locally
sourced. The result obtained showed that the digester
operating temperature was influenced by variation in
ambient temperature, indicating a lack of thermal insula-
tion. Additionally, the average operating temperature of
26 C recorded was far below the optimum mesophilic
range of 30 C to 35 C. Hence, an external heating source
may be required because operating below this temperature
conditions can negatively influence the technical perfor-
mance of the digester.32
Another study monitored the bio-slurry temperature
inside an unstirred, unheated 6m3 fixed dome biogas
digester built from bricks. The digester was constructed
underground to minimize temperature fluctuation and
for it to be heated by solar radiation falling on the sys-
tem's specific location. Results obtained showed that the
average daily operational temperature of the digester
ranged between 10.32 C and 29.80 C from May to
December 2015. More also, the bio-slurry microorganism
was found to be less effective during the early morning
and evening hours when the operating temperature was
below 20 C.33 This will consequently cause a drop in bio-
gas production during those hours, because of the micro-
organism sensitivity to temperature fluctuation. To
maintain a stable mesophilic temperature range that sup-
ports the activities of microorganism brings the need for
additional heating.
To curb the effect of temperature fluctuation associated
with brick built biogas digesters, Mukumba et al34 assessed
the performance of a brick-built biogas digester insulated
with sawdust. The study found that the insulated digester
produced higher biogas of methane content of 50% as
F I G U R E 4 Bricks/cements biogas
digester34 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
5
compared to an average methane content of 38% obtained
without insulation. Improvement in the percentage yield of
methane achieved is attributed to a more stable operating
temperature of 30 C attained with the help of insulation.
Before insulation, the operating temperature fluctuated
between 8 C and 40 C hindering the optimal performance
of methane-producing microbes.
The use of bricks, cement, and concretes in the con-
struction of all the parts of a biogas digester, particularly in
fixed dome design holds some disadvantages. Its walls are
prone to cracking because of differential stabilization of the
structure as well as temperature fluctuation. This cracking
usually results in leakages, which poses a great challenge to
the use of this material for digester construction.4,30 Hence,
to minimize this setback, bricks of high quality formed from
well-burnt clay is needed as well as highly skilled labor for
the construction. More also, the standard surface finish of a
biogas digester constructed using bricks and cement inhibits
the agitation process within the digester.35 This, in turn,
causes a solid deposition on the walls, thus, leading to diffi-
culty in maintenance. Due to these challenges associated
with the use of bricks, cement and concrete, alternative
construction materials have been introduced in recent
years. Figure 4 shows a biogas digester constructed with
bricks and cement.
4.2 | Plastics biogas digesters
Plastics have been in widespread use in the field of biogas
engineering for a long time. Its use in the fabrication of bio-
gas digesters is common in countries such as China, India,
Vietnam, Kenya, Bolivia, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Tanza-
nia.3,4,36 The fabrication of biogas digesters using plastics is
said to be because of high labor cost as well as leakages
associated with the use of bricks, cement and concrete in
convectional biogas digesters.37 According to Kumar and
Bai,38 biogas digesters fabricated using plastics are charac-
terized to be a non-corrosive, good insulator, cheaper and
Pressure gauge
Inlet pipe
Outer digester wall
Stirring rod inlet
6 OBILEKE ET AL.
easy to fabricate and maintain. Different types of plastics
have been used for fabricating biogas digesters. These plas-
tics include polyethylene(PE), polyvinylchloride (PVC),
polystyrene (PS), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and
many others.3
In a recent study, polyvinylchloride (PVC) material
was used in the fabrication of a flexible low-cost biogas
digester fed with poultry waste and pig manure. The
study was aimed at determining the best mixing ratio for
optimum biogas production. This was found to be 1:3:6
for poultry waste, pig manure, and water. The study rec-
ommended that the flexible biogas digester design is best
suited for low-income farmers.39
To overcome the problem of corrosion and bulkiness
of convectional biogas digesters made from bricks/
cement. Okoroigwe et al40 conducted a study on the
design, construction, and performance evaluation of
1200 L plastic biogas digester. The plastic design was
aimed to be a viable substitute for bricks/cement and
metal designs. It was reported in the study that the
designed and fabricated biogas digester showed no signs
of corrosion and leakage. The author recommended the
use of plastics as an appropriate material for household
biogas digester construction based on its low cost. An
investigation on the effect of some environmental factor
affecting the rate of biogas production was carried out
using a 25 L plastic biogas digester. It was revealed in the
study, that pH of 7.4 and mean temperature of 30 C
favored optimum biogas production.41
Chhipa et al42 carried out an experiment in a biogas
digester fabricated using polyethylene terephthalate. The
study revealed the utilization of starch powder as a good
additive for maintaining pH level. Another study investi-
gated the design and fabrication of 3.60 m3 household
plastic biogas digester loaded with kitchen waste and cow
dung. About 0.601 to 0.505 m3/day of biogas produced
from the waste was found to be sufficient for cooking, for
a household of three to four persons. Based on the type of
material used for the construction of the biogas digester
F I G U R E 5 Plastic above ground
and underground biogas digester47
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
in the study, the slurry temperature was higher during the
evening as a result of the ease in the transfer of heat
through the digester.43 Temperature is the major parameter
affecting biogas production. Therefore, the effect of temper-
ature on the rate of digestion and biogas production using
cow dung, cowpea and cassava peeling was studied by
Ukpai et al.44 It was reported in the study that biogas pro-
duction is dependent on the operating temperature of the
digester and the nature of feedstock or substrate used.
However, higher temperature shortens the retention time
but leads to an increase in biogas production.
According to Ukpai et al,44 when there is a high tem-
perature, the mechanical transport and handling of the
biogas digester are easier. This might be attributed to the
less viscosity of the slurry as well as few pathogens that
can survive at this temperature, which makes digestion
much more sanitary than digestion at the other tempera-
ture. Agrahari and Tiwari45 carried out a comparative
study of biogas production using cow dung and kitchen
wastes in a portable floating type biogas digester. The
study observed that kitchen waste performed better in
term biogas production. More also, the solid content of
kitchen waste was found to be lesser than that of cow
dung. This enhanced the activities of the microorganism
more in the kitchen waste compared to cow dung.
In order to recycle animal wastes and reuse empties
plastic storage container like a small biogas digester
heated by solar energy to produce biogas, Kassem and
Fouda46 conducted a study on animal and plastic wastes
for biogas production. The study became necessary as a
result of the animal wastes from cattle and buffalo, which
is a major problem farmer faced in Egypt as well as
deposits from plastics storage containers that cause envi-
ronmental pollution. The biogas digester was designed
and installed as above ground and underground. It was
reported in the study that as the hydraulic retention time
increases, biogas yield also increases in both systems.
Hence, the study is evident that hydraulic retention time
is an important factor, which affects biogas production.
OBILEKE ET AL.
Similarly, a comparative study on the performance of
an aboveground and underground biogas digester was
investigated. The study combined the features of two mate-
rials of construction, and the digester chamber was fabri-
cated using plastic while the inlet and outlet chamber was
constructed using bricks and cement as shown in Figure 5.
The findings showed that insulation provided in the under-
ground biogas digester helped to achieve a more stable
internal temperature for the biogas digester.47 To consider
the feasibility study of a low-cost Flexi digester model for
energy generation. A study suggested a Flexi mobile biogas
digester model which is user friendly, transportable and
allows adequate gas production.48 Plastic biogas digesters
are less prone to leakages and corrosion that is common to
bricks/cement and metallic biogas digesters. More also,
biogas digesters made from plastics are more portable, and
it does not come with the need for ground excavation.16
Plastics are light in weight and possess a good
strength to weight ratio, very cost-effective as well as
good electrical insulators. However, the use of plastics
also has some disadvantages. Plastic biogas digesters do
not allow efficient agitation of the substrate, which hap-
pens to be one of the factors affecting biogas production.
Mutungwazi et al30 study reported that the only extent of
agitation possible with plastic biogas digesters is through
the upward and downward motion of the gasholder and
the inflow of the new substrate feed. This has the ten-
dency of not sufficing the maximum benefits of agitation
realized. The durability of plastic biogas digester exposed
to the aggressive slurry, mechanical stress, and UV radia-
tion, vary with plastic types and on the production pro-
cesses employed by the manufacturer. The other
disadvantage is that there is no provision for temperature
stability or control, hence, the process of insulation is
limited because of the constant movement of the gas-
holder. The physics behind this limitation is that heat
gained by the slurry during the daylight is lost to the
environment through the circumference of the gasholder
dipping in the slurry. Another challenge associated with
plastics biogas digesters is its short lifespan and limited
use in large-scale applications.3 Figure 2 shows a plastic
biogas digester installed above ground and underground.
4.3 | Reinforced fiber biogas digester
The use of reinforced fibre in fabrication of biogas
digester came to existence because of the limitations asso-
ciated with the use of bricks and concretes. Based on this,
biogas digester made from reinforced fibre material has
found their way into the construction of biogas digester
system.6,48 The main advantage of reinforced fiber
digester is its good airtightness, simplicity, maintenance
ease, and high gas production. However, its limitation
7
involves high cost as well as fluctuation in prices and the
secondary pollution after breakdown.49-51 Furthermore,
short lifespan that lasts less than 3 years contributes to
the drawback in the use of this material. Reinforced fiber
digester is made from unsaturated polyester resin and
high-quality glass fibre cloth. Ran et al,52 Tu 201053 stated
that the manufacturing process of reinforced fiber for
digester design involves hand lay-up, sheet molding com-
pound, Resin transfer molding and filament winding. To
ensure tightness, the inner surface of the biogas digester
is painted with gel-coated resin. The volume of the
reinforced biogas digester ranges between 2.5 and 10m3;
however, the most common volumes of the reinforced
fiber digester are 4.6 - 8m3 with thickness from 6 to
8 mm and tensile and flexural strength of 93.5 and
109 MPa, respectively.54,55 Reinforced fiber biogas digesters
are commonly in small scale. Scaling up is usually diffi-
culty due to possibility of breaking during enlargement.10,13
Research has shown that methane content of biogas pro-
duced from reinforced fiber digester is about 15.3% higher
compared to bricks/cement biogas digesters.3
A comparative study on the design of biogas
digester with reinforced fiber and conventional digester
was conducted by Yang et al56; Zhang et al.57 The per-
formance monitoring shows that reinforced fiber bio-
gas digester resulted in a biogas percentage yield of
30.6% and methane content of 4% to 12%. A rotary stir-
ring was installed in a reinforce fiber digester to test its
performance. A three-fold increase in biogas yield was
observed with the stirring technology as compared to
the technology without stirring.58 The increase is
because of the stirring, which enhanced the production
of methane production through the decomposition of
solids inside the digesters.
A similar study involving the use of stirrer in the rein-
force fiber biogas digester was conducted by Menkiti and
Victor.59 The study aimed to compare the performance of
reinforced fiber digester with metallic digester of similar vol-
ume (0.35 m3) using poultry as substrate. The result of the
study shows that a cumulative biogas yield of 2.28 m3 was
obtained for the metallic digester and 1.33 m3 for the
reinforced fiber digester during the 45 days of monitoring.
This might be attributed to the fact that metal conducts more
heat than reinforced fiber digester. The study recommended
further research on reinforced fiber digesters to test its effi-
ciency in term of biogas production using different waste
substrates. Figure 6 shows a reinforced biogas digester.
4.4 | Metallic biogas digester
Metals, especially mild steel, are selected as a material for
the construction of biogas digesters on the basis of their
high strength and corrosion resistance ability.60
8 OBILEKE ET AL.
FIGURE 6 Reinforced biogas digester3 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
A recent study showed that fabricated metallic biogas
digester could serve as an alternative to other materials
of construction. The study showed that the acid concen-
tration enabled by the metal affected biogas production.61
Akinnuli and Olugbade62 study were focused on develop-
ment and performance evaluation of piggery and water
hyacinth for biogas production using metallic biogas
digester. It was observed from the study that biogas pro-
duced was flammable and the material for construction
was relatively of low cost. The study recommended the
production of biogas as a panacea in solving the preva-
lent environmental issues because of waste disposal.
To assess the suitability, durability, and stability of
biogas digester as well as to sustain the pressure gener-
ated, Eze et al63 designed and constructed biogas digester
using galvanized metal. It was evident from the study
that the use of high gauge 16 galvanized metal in the fab-
rication of biogas digester proves to be successful. The
metallic material used for the construction was able to
sustain the pressure within the digester and to prevent
gas leakages. The study revealed that if the capacity of
biogas digesters were to be scaled up, it would be suffi-
cient in cooking because of change in the quantity of the
gas. This might be because of the higher strength prop-
erty exhibited by the material.
Furthermore, a metallic biogas digester was used to
investigate the effect of cow liquor waste and cassava
waste in the production of biogas. The study showed that
cassava waste, which could not produce biogas, could be
made to be a cheap source of biogas by inoculating it
with cow liquor waste.64 The effect of the waste combina-
tion on the onset of biogas flammability as well as opti-
mizing the biogas yield produced by cow dung and
poultry waste was studied. The biogas digester used in
the study was a metallic prototype fed with cow dung
and poultry waste for 25 days of retention time. The
study reported that blending cow dung with poultry
waste significantly reduces the time lag between gas pro-
duction and the onset of gas flammability. The reduction
might be attributed to the low nitrogen content of the
waste combination as well as the factors, which favor fast
flammable gas production.65
Preliminary studies on biogas production from blends
of palm oil sludge (POS) with some agro-based wastes
(cassava waste water) were conducted using a metallic
biogas digester. It was reported in the study that palm oil
sludge alone was unable to produce quantifiable biogas;
however, the co-digestion of POS with cassava waste
water produced a flammable biogas production.66 Some
other studies compared the performance of plastic and
metallic digesters.
Jekayinfa et al,67 recommended metallic biogas
digesters as appropriate for the production of biogas from
cow dung at mesophilic temperature. The objective of the
study was to determine the significant role in destroying
and converting municipal and agricultural wastes into
useful fuel used in homes and on the farm for moving
equipment by supplying fuel power. However, it was
observed in the study that iron filing facilitates the
growth of methanogenic bacteria, which feeds on the
acid, and break down the substrate. The use of the iron
filing in metallic biogas digester for the production of bio-
gas tends to be a new application in the field of biogas
technology. Figure 7 shows a biogas digester constructed
with metal.
Having reviewed the various materials used for the con-
struction and fabrication of biogas digester, Table 2 pre-
sents the summary of different construction materials for
biogas digester with their advantages and disadvantages.
4.5 | Selection of construction materials
for biogas digester
This is a major factor to consider while designing a biogas
digester. This section presents the individual building
materials used for the construction of biogas digesters.
These include:
4.5.1 | Clinker bricks
The clinker bricks play a very important role as a major
raw material in the construction of biogas digesters. Any
type of bricks can be used for floating gas holder biogas
digester. For fixed model biogas digester, surfaced
cement mortar holding bricks are needed. Bricks should
be of high quality, usually, the best quality available in
OBILEKE ET AL. 9

F I G U R E 7 Metallic biogas
digester59 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Stirrer

Inlet chamber

Outlet chamber

Digester chamber

TABLE 2 Selected materials used for the construction of biogas digesters with their advantages and disadvantages6

Material for
construction Advantages Disadvantages References
68,69
Poly vinyl chloride (PVC) Less weight and easily portable Short life span of plastics
70
Polyethylene (PE) Cheaper when compared to PVC -
69
Neoprene and rubber Weather resistance elastic Expensive, low pressure and less life
span
6
Bricks, cements and Everlasting and less maintenance costs Difficult to clean and occupies more
concretes space
71
Bamboo and wood support Locally available material Easily to break
69
Metal (steel drum) Produce gas at a constant flow as well as leak Corrosion and heavy weight of gas
proof holder

the market is usually recommended. Hence, the bricks
have to be well burnt and compacted, regular in shape
as well as should not have cracks or broken parts if to
be used for biogas digester construction. The clinker
bricks must be chosen in accordance with the design
specification of the builder. Most clinker bricks are of
the dimension of 23 × 10.5 cm. Before using bricks for
biogas digester, especially for the fixed dome, it must be
soaked in clean water for a few minutes. Hence, wet
bricks have the tendency to absorb water from mortar,
which is needed for proper setting. Although there are
many types of bricks, however, clinker bricks are usu-
ally suitable for this purpose because of the following
properties:
• They have low moisture content under 3%
• They have low water intake and high resistivity
• They show weather resistance and can tolerate acid,
pollution and fire
• They demonstrate low thermal conductivity of
0.67 W/ (m. K)
• They are cheaper than other type of bricks
• They have a thermal mass of 1360 KJ/(m3 K).
4.5.2 | Concrete stone (13 mm)
Concrete stones are regarded as the cheapest construc-
tion material for biogas digester and it works well pro-
vided it is compacted to eliminate air pocket (5% air voids
in concrete = 50% less in strength). The concrete stone of
13 mm is usually used for the building of the concrete
slab as well as the entire structure of the bricks/cement
biogas digesters. The stone must be clean. Biogas
digesters walls tends to be thicker when concrete stones
are used and this requires more cement. Concrete stone
are used for construction of biogas digesters as a result of
its tensile strength and free of organic material. Other
properties that contributes to the use concrete stone for
this purpose includes:
• High compressive strength and durability
• Purpose of versatility
• Low tensile strength
• Affordability
• Fire resistance
• Thermal mass of 2060 KJ/(m3. K)
• Thermal conductivity of 0.8 to 1.7 W/ (m. K)
10
4.5.3 | Portland cement concrete
Portland cement concrete (PCC) is also used in the con-
struction of the concrete slab, inlet, and outlet chamber
as well as for plastering purposes. If it is stale, that is
lumpy, and then a richer mortar mixture is necessary.
Cement is usually sold in 50 k bags 0.04 m3. Owing to its
low thermal conductivity property of 0.29 W/(m.K), PCC
is usually employed as a better material as opposed to
other types of cement. However, PCC gradually loses its
binding power during prolonged storage. Therefore, it is
better to use fresh cement for better result. Locally avail-
able PCC of 42.5 grade is recommended for the construc-
tion of biogas digester. The cement mortar should be of
the same strength as the bricks or stones it binds
together. The ratio of sand to cement depends on the
quality of these materials. Generally typical ratio is 1:9
for good quality cement and sand right down to 1:4 for
poor quality cement and sand. The following properties
of PCC make it advantageous for the construction of bio-
gas digesters:
• Density of 2240-2400 kg/m
• Compressive strength of 20 to 40 MPa
• Flexural strength of 3 to 5 MPa (300 to 700 psi)
• Tensile strength of 2 to 5 MPa
4.5.4 | Sand
Sand (SiO2) is a desirable building material with a diame-
ter of 0.0625 to 2 mm. The major role of sand in the
building of the biogas digester is to facilitate the produc-
tion of good casting. It possesses properties useful in
strengthening the biogas digester as well as the concrete
slab. The all-purpose sand is washed coarse sand used for
underlayment of bricks, pavers, and flagstones. Conse-
quently, the type of sand particularly used for construc-
tion is clean all-purpose sand. The sand used for the
construction of biogas digester must be free from vegeta-
ble matter and mud and so on. Poor quality sand is a
common problem in certain areas and causes weak
masonry work, which only lasts for a short time before
breaking. For the construction of biogas digester, sand
that is free of earth and clay is recommended. The sand
used is of the ASTM C 33 specification and have the fol-
lowing properties:
• Flow ability
• Strong and durable
• Clean and coarse
• Deformation
• Thermal stability
OBILEKE ET AL.
4.5.5 | Pipe (PVC)
The polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is used for the inlet and
outlet construction of the biogas digester as well as the
digester chamber for the plastic digesters. The main rea-
son for its usage of PVC in biogas digester construction is
because of its cost-effectiveness. Due to its easy degrada-
tion, the lifespan of the material is very short, and it usu-
ally has some dents and holes in less than 2 years, which
is a setback of using the material. For the inlet and outlet
pipe, 15 cm diameter higher thickness PVC pipe may be
used for the purpose of connecting the inlet to the
digester. However, PVC of 4 to 6 mm thick is rec-
ommended for this purpose. The choice of pipe was based
on its physical properties and other properties, which are
useful in design and construction.
These properties are shown in Table 3.
4.5.6 | Gravel/broken stone.
This is recommended for the construction material for
the biogas digester, provided it is free from vegetable mat-
ter and soil.
4.5.7 | Pre-cast concrete ring
The wall of the biogas digester is often constructed using
pre-cast concrete rings and are easily obtainable at a
lower cost. They are suitable, and where there are large
enough diameter and free voids, joints are cemented.
However, if the rings are heavy, it may well be necessary
to use lifting equipment to set into position.
4.5.8 | Mild steel bars
For the construction of the cover of the outlet tank and
also the digester chamber, mild steel bars are usually used.
Mild steel should meet the engineering standard for this
purpose. Mild steel like other metals used for the construc-
tion of biogas digesters must be free from heavy rust.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the biogas yield resulting
from digesters built using these materials at varying con-
ditions for mono-digestion and co-digestion mode of
feeding.
It is evident from Tables 4 and 5 that biogas can be
produced by mono-digestion or co-digestion in any bio-
gas digester constructed from bricks/cement, plastic,
and metallic designs. Anaerobic digestion of more than
one substrate (co-digestion) established positive syn-
ergy in the biogas digester, thereby providing more
OBILEKE ET AL. 11

TABLE 3 The properties of the pipe used for biogas digester construction

Mechanical properties Electrical properties Thermal properties


Tensile strength at 20 C = 52 MPa
Elongation at break = 50-80%

Impact strength at −20 C = 20 KJ/m
Elastic tensile module = 3.0 to 3.3
GPa
Poisson ratio = 0.4
Shear modulus = 1.0 GPa
Volume resistivity = 2 × 10 Ώ
14
Softening point = 80-84 C
Surface resistivity = 1013-1014 Ώ Thermal conductivity = 0.16 W/(m. K)
2
Dissipation factor (power factor) = 0.01 Specific heat capacity = 1.000 J/ (kg. K)
(0.12)
Coefficient of thermal expansion = 7
× 10−5 K

TABLE 4 Biogas yield from mono-digestion of different materials of construction understudied

Hydraulic
Types of Size of biogas retention Temperature
material used digester Biogas yield (mL/gVS) time (HRT) ( C) pH References
3 41
Plastic 0.02 m Cow dung = 12 20 30 7.4
Metal (galvanized 1.37 m3 Cow dung = 700 12 37.7 7.6 63

metal)
72
Concrete - Cattle dung = 3410 7 29-31 6.9-7.66
43
Plastic - Cow pea = 100 28 - -
45
Plastic - Cow dung = 410 47 - 7.2
45
Plastic - Kitchen waste = 250 52 - 7.3
Brick/cement 1.00 m3 Donkey dung = 3800 28 - 7.0-7.5 73

Plastic (high density 2.50 m3 Cow dung = 3950 18 20-35 6.9-7.2 47

polyethylene)
Plastic 2.00 m3 Cow dung = 4450 56 - 6.6-7.5 74

Metal 0.35 m3 Poultry waste = 2280 45 24.5-32 8.01-9.67 59

Reinforced fiber 0.35 m3 Poultry waste = 1330 45 24.5-32 7.92-9.57 59

Metal 0.26 m3 Cow dung = 5200 30 32.3 7.30-8.20 67

45
Plastic (polyethylene) - Cow dung = 18 15-17 - 7.2
Plastic (polyethylene) - Kitchen waste = 0.18 m3 2-15 - 7.3 45

Metal - Cow dung = 0.0000192 m3 15 - 6.25 61

Plastic 1.20 m3 Cow dung = 2420 21 - - 40

3 40
Plastic 1.20 m Piggery waste = 760 21 - -
Plastic 1.20 m3 Poultry dropping = 1910 21 - - 40

balanced nutrient as well as buffering capacity to
maintain an optimum pH capable of enhanced anaero-
bic digestion system. This is the reason that there is
more biogas yield in the co-digestion compared to
mono-digestion. Another factor responsible for a better
biogas yield in the co-digestion is that it enhances the
performance of the biogas digester, which produces
more biogas. This can be found in the co-digestion of
donkey manure + vegetable waste of 12.89 m3 from
metallic design and poultry wastes + pig manure of
biogas yield of 6.66 m3 reported from plastic design.
The low biogas yield observed in mono-digestion
results of biogas production in Table 4 is attributed to
in balanced nutrient and the recalcitrant compound in
the feedstock. Apart from the high cost of construction
associated with digester from brick/cement, the plastic
design is said to be affordable and suitable for the co-
digestion mode of feeding.
12 OBILEKE ET AL.

TABLE 5 Biogas yield from co-digestion of different materials of construction understudied

Hydraulic
Types of Size of biogas retention Temperature
material used digester Biogas yield (mL/gVS) time (HRT) ( C) pH References
61
Metal - Combined wastes = 0.0305 15 - 5.30
Plastic (PVC) 0.60 m3 Poultry waste + pig 30 31.6 7.6 39

manure = 6660
Metal 0.13m3 Abattoir cow liquor waste + 25 27-40 4.57 64

cassava waste = 30
65
Metal - Cow dung + poultry waste = 300 25 28-43 -
3 75
Plastic 1.2 m Cow dung + dry hog + poultry 19 - -
dropping = 18
Metal 0.20 m3 Blends of palm oil sludge + 25 22.1-30.5 3.0-6.6 66

cassava waste water = 400

Plastic 0.02 m3 Cow dung + poultry waste = 370 30 - 5.6-6.6 42

(polyethylene
terephthalate)
Plastic 3.60 m3 Kitchen waste + cow dung = 600 28 6.71-6.81 28-35 43

Bricks/cement 1.00 m3 Donkey manure + vegetable 30 - 6.8-7.5 76

waste = 12 890
Plastic 0.20 m3 Cattle dung + buffalos 42 - 7.10 46

wastes = 155

T A B L E 6 Summary of cost of
Size of digester (m3) Material for construction Total cost (USD) References
material for the construction of biogas
81
6 Bricks/cements 450-470 digester
75
Plastic 1350
52,53
Reinforced fiber 258-400
80
Metallic 560–600

(The cost excludes labor, construction, and installation of biogas digester and land)

5 | COST OF MATERIALS USED
F O R TH E C O N S T R U C T I O N O F
BIOGAS DIGESTER
The overall cost of building a digester is directly linked to
the cost of the construction materials. Adeoti et al77
reported that construction cost for biogas digesters
amount up to 65% while installation, labor, and land for
the remaining 35%. The high cost is because of the use of
cement and steel. A similar study revealed that the cost
of household biogas digester in India was between 5 and
10 times higher than a similar biogas digester in China
which was about 2 to 4 times bigger in size. The reason
for the difference is based on the fact that biogas digesters
in Indian are constructed mostly with bricks, whereas in
China, biogas digesters are constructed with locally avail-
able cement stones and the mixture of quicklime, sand
and clay. In Kenya, the cost of constructing an 8 m3
digester is about 1605 USD while that of Vietnam is
about 91 USD.73 A document revealed that in
South Africa and Rwanda, the cost of construction mate-
rial for a 6m3 fixed dome digester was about 450 to
470 USD [Biogas for better life 2007]. In another study
conducted in South Africa, Mukumba et al78 reported an
amount of 300 USD for the cost of material for the con-
struction of fixed dome digester using bricks and cement.
Considering the cost of material for the fabrication of
2m3 balloon biogas digester, a total cost of 450 USD on
the average was reported.79 The cost survey reveals that
the construction of reinforced fiber biogas digester cost
around 258.11 USD to 400 USD.52,53 The cost of material
for the construction of 6m3 biogas digester constructed
with metal is approximately in the range of 560 to
600 USD.80 Table 6 summarizes the cost of materials for
the construction/fabrication of 6m3 biogas digester on the
average.
OBILEKE ET AL.
6 | B IO GA S S T AN D AR D S Y S T E M
Biogas standardization is important for quality control in
the fabrication and building of biogas digesters. This
section is necessary because the review focuses on the
material for the design and construction of household
biogas digesters. China has a very comprehensive biogas
standard system when compared to other countries. This
is because other countries have not yet launched biogas
standards, since after China launched theirs in 1983 as its
first. Although in Asian countries, such as Nepal,
Bangladesh, Indonesia, and so on, standardization of bio-
gas technology to improve the design of biogas digester
using various materials of construction has been
established. Hence, this makes quality control easier.17
Numerous biogas digesters came from China in the early
days. The early biogas standards are mostly targeted at
household or family scale biogas digester because of the
role of household digesters in rural biogas industry in
early days. The type of digester, construction and opera-
tion, as well as maintenance, is considered in the biogas
system standardization. Previous construction of biogas
digesters lacks sustainability as a result of the absence of
well researched and standardized biogas digester technol-
ogy appropriate for the household users.82 An examina-
tion to enhance the adoption of biogas in Sub Saharan
Africa was carried out, and the findings showed that bio-
gas system standard and quality control are necessary fac-
tors to aid in the achievement of the aim. To enhance the
quality control of biogas, there is the need to address the
construction standard of biogas digesters.83 Looking back
in China, Jiang et al84 reported that biogas industries
have promoted the use of standardized engineering
equipment and materials for the construction of biogas
digesters through the initiative of biogas standard system.
Toward this initiative, Cheng et al3 showed the potential
constraint in promoting reinforced fiber material of con-
struction, which is an incomplete standardization system.
Due to this, recommendation and suggestion were made
on the improvement of this system. Germany published
the detailed guideline on the safe use of material for the
construction of biogas technology.85 Comparing biogas
technology in well-developed countries in Europe, house-
hold biogas digester is specific because of their applica-
tion in the intensive farm for power generation in
Europe.86 In term of biogas engineering standard, China
dominated the biogas standard and the number accounts
for approximately 1/3 of the total biogas standard.82
Wang et al17 reported that biogas standard system in
other developing countries is difficult to match with the
Chinese biogas standard pace. However, the good news is
that other countries are trying to introduce biogas stan-
dard system from China.87 For instance, in Bangladesh,
13
Chinese reinforced fiber plastic biogas digester has been
introduced in large quantity and this meets the demand
in the market.
7 | ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT OF
M A TER IA L S U S E D FO R T H E
CONSTRUCTION OF BIOGAS
DIGESTERS
The various materials used for the construction of biogas
digesters are faced with climate change as a major envi-
ronmental factor. Bilen et al88 ascertained that in the
past, unsustainable energy consumption has contributed
to the current global warming. Biogas digester con-
structed or fabricated with bricks, plastics, reinforced
fiber, and metals have the tendency and potential to
reduce the pressure on the environment, thereby reduc-
ing deforestation and greenhouse gas emission as well as
soil erosion.71 Global warming is contributed mostly
through greenhouse gases (GHG) which are emitted to
the atmosphere mainly from fossil fuel such as coal, oil,
natural gas, and nuclear energy. Methane and carbon
dioxide are the major contributors to the greenhouse
effect that results in global warming. Cuellar et al89 con-
firmed that methane is 21 times higher than carbon diox-
ide. From previous studies, it has become evident that
methane and carbon dioxide are the major contributors
to the greenhouse effect. Based on this, the potential of
methane is 21 times higher than that of carbon dioxide in
terms of global warming91, and this might depend on the
material used for the biogas digester construction. Biogas
leakage occurs due to the design and material used for
construction. Yang et al90 mentioned that 10% of biogas
digesters contribute to methane leakage. The cover of the
biogas digester is used to store the produced biogas and
to prevent the emission of odor and gases such as H2S,
CH4, NH4, N2O, CO2, and a volatile organic compound.
Regarding household biogas digesters constructed with
bricks/cement, Dubois et al91 stated that small digesters of
6 to 10 m3 reduce GHG emissions between 23% and 53%
when compared with household without biogas. Although,
this depends on the condition of the digester, technical
assistance, and operator ability.92 However, incorrect opera-
tion, lack of maintenance, and methane leakages make
digester of such design possible to contribute to GHGs. A
report revealed that a high rate of methane leakage of
increases GHG emission by 17% to 40%.93 Importantly, low-
cost household biogas digesters constructed with bricks/
cement are known to emit higher GHG. However, they are
an economically feasible solution, especially in developing
countries. In another study, in which brick/cement were
used for the digester construction, a net saving in the range
14
− 17 to −70 kg CO2-eq/t was achieved with the base case
value reported as −39 kgCO2-eq./t. The study revealed that
the GHG emissions were as a result of the CH4 losses
(41 kg CO2-eq/t) and CHP flue gases (3 kgCO2-eq/t) as well
as the N2O emission (12 kgCO2-eq/t).93
The evaluation of GHG emission of household plastic
biogas digester was conducted by Haryanto and
Cahyani.94 The study aimed to collect information on the
quantity of material used to construct the digester along
with emission factor of each material. The emission
reduction was calculated from LPG saving due to use of
biogas in fuelling the kitchen stove. The findings showed
the GHG emission of 306.36 kg CO2eq, which comprises
of 295.52 kg CO2 eq for digester construction and
10.84 kg CO2 eq for biogas production. Based on the
author's calculation, a typical plastic household digester
has the potential to reduce GHG emission by 1161.36 kg
CO2 eq/year. Pilz et al95 reported that plastic biogas
digesters help to reduce GHG emission as well as save
energy when compared with other materials. The report
indicated that GHG emission increases by 110 Mt CO2-
equivalent per year.
Biogas digester constructed using reinforced fiber
material contributed in mitigating against climate change
through methane emission reduction, which has been one
of the most potent GHGs. A reinforced biogas digester sys-
tem installed in isolated communities of the Peruvian
Amazon was capable of consuming an average of 18 m3 of
biogas digester per day and 6570 m3 of biogas annually.
The system was reported to consist of over 60% of methane
gas that was not emitted to the environment.96
The digestion of bio-waste—GHG emissions and miti-
gation were conducted by Daniel-Gromke et al97 in a
metallic biogas digester. The study revealed that GHG
emissions could be minimized if the technology and
operation of the digester are adjusted accordingly. In the
study, GHG emission is possible through open digestate
storage tank, insufficient air supply, and post composting
of the digestate. From the study, the emission of CH4 and
N2O was in the range of 300 to 1000 kWel, were deter-
mined with 1760 gCH4 per ton of biowaste and 2.1 g of
N2O per ton of bio-waste treated at the facility.
TABLE 7 Summary of GHG emission from materials for the construction of biogas digesters
Brick/cement digester Plastic digester
GHG emission ranges GHG emission = 295.52 kg
from −17 to −70 kg CO2 eq/t; Reduces GHG
CO2-eq/t; emission by 1161.36 kg
CH4 emission = 41 kg CO2-eq/year and
CO2-eq/t and N2O increases GHG emission
emission = 12 kg CO2 by 110 Mt CO2-eq/year
-eq/t
OBILEKE ET AL.
Table 7 summarizes the data for these GHG emissions.
However, it will be interesting to look briefly at methane
emission, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emission as
the major GHG associated with biogas digesters.
7.1 | Methane emissions
In the construction of biogas digester, methane emission
is considered as a major concern. Any material for the
construction/fabrication of biogas digester has the ten-
dency to release methane during incomplete combustion
of biogas. The global power warming of methane is calcu-
lated to be 28 to 36 times higher than CO2.
7.2 | Nitrous oxide
N2O is regarded as an important GHG besides CH4 and
CO2. However, the impact of nitrous oxide depends on
the climate metrics. Hence, N2O impact exceeds that of
CO2 and CH4 when the considered metric is global tem-
perature change potential with a time horizon of
100 years (namely GTP-100).101
7.3 | Carbon dioxide emissions
Carbon dioxide is regarded as biogenic gas that impact
on climate. With a focus on carbon dioxide, the combus-
tion of biogas results in methane oxidation and conver-
sion to CO2 at the rate of 83.6 kg per GJ for biogas of 65%
CH4 and 35% CO2.102 Meyer-Aurich et al103 calculated
the total GHG emission from biogas digester to be in the
range of 0.10 and 0.40 kg CO2-eq/kWhel.
8 | BIOGAS STORAG E MATERIAL
The type and nature of the material used to store biogas
are often a major concern because of the combustibility
associated with methane as well as the risk of storage at
Reinforced fiber digester Metallic digester References
97,93-95 98-
GHG emission: 20.5-29.7 GHG emission of CH4 and ;
kgCO2eq/kg and global N2O was in the range of 100
warming potential (GWP) 300-1000 kWel and global
of −1.4 and 2.65 kg warming potential (GWP)
CO2eq/kg of 44.6 kg CO2 eq per ton
for N2O and CH4
OBILEKE ET AL.
high pressure which is also high.104 It is recommended
that biogas should be stored using material that is com-
patible with the pressure of the gas, such as the pressur-
ized tank. This factor needs to be considered and is very
necessary. The biogas storage facilities can be operated at
low, medium, or high pressure as presented in Table 8.
Table 8 presents the type of materials commonly used for
biogas storage design and their respective pressure range
limit. Therefore, correct selection of material for biogas
storage facility brings about the substantial contribution
to the efficiency, reliability, and safety of the biogas
digester.106
From Table 8, it was observed that steel, rubber,
plastic and vinyl material could be used to store
gases of low-pressure range of 0.138 to 0.414 bar.
This is available in floating drum biogas digester,
which is commonly made of steel, fibreglass as well
as flexible fabric.107 The advantage of these materials
for gas storage is that it do not react with H2S in the
biogas, and this is integral to the digester, according
to Olugasa et al.104 For the medium pressure range
of 1.05 to 1.97 bar, steel material is recommended as
a suitable material for biogas storage (see Table 5).
However, compression of biogas is needed for this
pressure range value and material used. Therefore,
compressing biogas to this pressure range requires
about 5kWh per 1000 ft3 of energy requirement.108
For biogas of high-pressure range of 200 to 300 bar
can be stored using alloy as a suitable material with
the energy requirement of about 0.31kWh/m.3 As a
result of the high cost associated with this high-
pressure range, alloy material is employed for biogas
storage used in agricultural biogas digesters. One
precaution or factor to be considered for the high-
pressure biogas with alloy material is that the biogas
must be cleaned and enriched before it can be
stored. Normally the gas is stored in steel cylinder as
those used for the storage of commercial gases. The
storage facility designed using steel material must be
fitted with safety devices such as pressure relief
valves.
T A B L E 8 Biogas digester storage material option with their
individual pressure range105
Range of value for
pressure (bar) Type of materials
Low (0.138–0.414) Steel, rubber, plastic, and
vinyl
Medium (1.05–1.97) Steel
High (200-300 bar) Alloy
15
8.1 | Properties of materials for biogas
storage
The material used for the design of biogas storage must
exhibit the following properties:
• Pressure resistant
• Ultra-violent
• Temperature and weatherproof.
9 | AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH
Previous studies on the materials used for the construc-
tion/fabrication of household biogas digesters have
mostly focused on the designs using bricks/cement,
plastics, reinforced fiber and metals as discussed earlier.
Our studies focused on the summary review of these
common materials used for biogas digesters construc-
tion, which can be available on a single paper. How-
ever, for a flexible balloon biogas digester, the materials
needed are plastic lining, acrylic tubing, irrigation pipes,
Teflon tape, and adhesive and sticker tapes. As regard
to fixed dome digester; cement, bricks, sand, gravel are
required mostly. Studies have shown that fixed dome
and floating drum digesters can be constructed out of
more local materials but very expensive. Therefore, the
authors would want to suggest the following further
research work to be done:
i. Further investigation is needed into the potential of
local material that can be used to produce low-cost
flexible balloon-type digesters as well as fixed dome
digesters.
ii. Also, there is need to conduct research into the possi-
ble starter culture and substrates for digester which
includes animal and agro-industrial wastes as well as
waste-water with high microbial burden using the
various types of materials reviewed.
iii. Further work should be done on the suitable mate-
rial used for the design of storage tank and compres-
sor/pump in order to obtain higher gas pressure
values necessary to enhance and facilitate higher
mass of gas for a particular design volume of the
digester
iv. The gas scrubbing and easy cleaning of the collector
chamber depend on the type of material used for its
design and construction. Hence, further research
needs to be in this area to determine the suitable
material to be used for this purpose.
16
1 0 | C O N C L U S IO N S
In the present study, it can be seen that biogas digesters
constructed from different materials are efficient in the
treatment of organic waste to generate biogas as well as
nutrient-rich effluent. However, this review article has
successfully summarized the common various materials
for the construction of biogas digester. The objectives of
the review paper were met by reviewing previous studies
on biogas production through the process of anaerobic
digestion, which takes place inside the biogas digester of
different materials. The selection for the material for bio-
gas digester has to deals to with availability of material,
cost of material, ease of operation, cost of maintenance
and feasibility of insulation. Having reviewed and
observed the material used for the construction of biogas
digesters in this study, the conclusion is reached that bio-
gas digester design with bricks/cement was found to be
the prevalent material for the construction of household
biogas digester. This was made possible because of its
longer life span, robustness and rigidity, easy mainte-
nance and cleaning.
Recommendation
The temperature, which is a major parameter to consider
in biogas technology, has a direct effect on the brick/
cement, plastic, reinforced fiber and metal material of
construction of biogas digesters. However, to have a
household biogas digester capable of obtaining a higher
slurry temperature in the absence of electrical heating, a
bricks/cement digester is recommended as it can be eas-
ily insulated. Finally, the study recommends more
research to be conducted in the design and construction
of biogas digesters from other materials.
D IS C L O S U R E
The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the
collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writ-
ing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the
results.
D E C LA R A T I O N O F CO M P E T I N G I N T E R E S T
We declare that this manuscript is original, has not been
published before, and is not currently being considered
for publication elsewhere. We know of no conflicts of
interest associated with this publication, and there has
been no significant financial support for this work that
could have influenced its outcome. As the corresponding
author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and
approved for submission by all the named authors.
OBILEKE ET AL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This review was made possible through the financial sup-
port received from GMRDC of University of Fort Hare,
South Africa.
A U T HO R S R ES E A RCH IN TE RE ST
All the authors have worked previously toward the publi-
cation of the other manuscripts in this area, as seen
below.
• Anaerobic digestion: Technology for biogas production
as a source of renewable energy—A review
• Bioenergy from bio-waste: a bibliometric analysis of
the trend in scientific research from 1998 to 2018.
• Comparative Study on the Performance of Aboveground
and Underground Fixed-Dome Biogas Digesters.
Dr. KeChrist Obileke has a Chemical Engineering
degree and a PhD in Physics. His research interest
includes renewable energy focusing on biomass gasifica-
tion and biogas digesters at the University of Fort Hare
South Africa, where he is based.
Dr. Helen Onyeaka has an industrial microbiology
degree and a PhD in Chemical Engineering. She is a lec-
turer at the University of Birmingham, UK and her
research involves the use of microorganisms in the pro-
duction renewable energy.
Dr. Nwabunwanne Nwokolo is a post-doctoral
research fellow at the University of Fort Hare
South Africa with PhD in Physics and her area of
research is biomass gasification and biogas digesters.
A U T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S S T A T E M EN T
Conceptualizing, formal analysis, resources and
writing—original drafting of the article: K.O., writing,
review, and editing: N.N., methodology, writing, and
proof reading of manuscript: H.O.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the cur-
rent study are not publicly available, because some of the
datasets are still to be used for future publications but are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
ORCID
KeChrist Obileke https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5416-2377
RE FER EN CES
1. Luostarinen S, Normak A, Edström M. Baltic manure WP6
energy potentials. Overview of biogas technology. Knowledge
report; 2011.
OBILEKE ET AL.
2. Spuhler D. Anaerobic digestion (small scale). Sustain Sanit
Water Manag. 2014;1-10.
3. Cheng S, Li Z, Mang HP, Huba EM. A review of prefabricated
biogas digesters in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2013;28:738-
748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.030.
4. Cheng S, Li Z, Mang H, Huba E, Gao R, Wang X. Develop-
ment and application of prefabricated biogas digesters in
developing countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014;34:387-400.
5. International Stainless Steel Forum (ISSF). Stainless steel in
biogas production. A sustainable solution for green energy.
Rue Colonel Bourg 120, 1140; Brussels, Belguim; ISSF; 2012.
6. Rajendran K, Aslanzadeh S, Taherzadeh MJ. Household bio-
gas digesters—A review. Energies. 2012;5:2911-2942.
7. Dekker M, Lewis C. Biomass: Applications, Technology, and
Production. New York, NY: Plenum pres; 1983.
8. Lusk P. Anaerobic Digestion and Opportunities for Interna-
tional Technology Transfer. The Third Biomass Conference of
the Americas. Montréal, Québec. UK: Pergamon Press; 1997:
1211-1220.
9. Fergusen T, Mah R. Methanogenic bacteria in anaerobic
digestion of. Biomass. 2006;49:16-17.
10. Chen Y, Hua W, Feng Y, Sweeney S. Status and prospects of
rural biogas development in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev.
2014;39:679-685.
11. Singh KJ, Sooch SS. Comparative study of economics of differ-
ent models of family size biogas plants for state of Punjab,
India. Energy Convers Manag. 2004;45:1329-1341.
12. Forte AJ. A glimpse into community and institutional biogas
plants in Nepal. http//my.ewb-usa.org/theme/library/myewb-
usa/project-resources/technical/2-1440-a-glimpse-into
community-and-institutional-biogas-plants-plants-in-nepal.
pdf; 2011. Accessed July 7, 2015.
13. Khan UK, Mainali B, Martin A, Silveira S. Techno-economic
analysis of small scale biogas based polygeneration systems:
Bangladesh case study. Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2014;7:
68-78.
14. An BX, Preston TR, Dolberg F. The introduction of low-cost
polyethylene tube bio-digesters on small scale farms in Viet-
nam. Livest Res Rural Dev. 1997;11(1):11. http://www.lrrd.org/
lrrd9/2/an92.htm Accessed August 10, 2020.
15. Feng Y, Guo Y, Yang Y, Qin X, Song Z. Household biogas
development in rural China: on policy support and other
macro sustainable conditions. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014;16:
679-685.
16. Suroop D, Ali ZMB, Pravesh R. Energy to waste through bio-
gas to improve energy security and to transform Africa land-
scape. Curr Option Green Sustain Chem. 2019;18:79-83.
17. Wang X, Yan R, Zhao Y, et al. Biogas standard system in
China. Renew Energy. 2020;157:1265-1273.
18. Schmidt T, Dabur S. Explaining the diffusion of biogas in
India: a new functional approach considering national bor-
ders and technology transfer. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 2013;
16(2):171-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-013-0058-6.
19. Barnhart S. From household decisions to global networks:
biogas and the allure of carbon trading in Nepal. Prof Geogr.
2014;66(3):345-353.
20. Nguyen VCN. Small-scale anaerobic digesters in Vietnam—
development and challenges. J Vietnamese Environ. 2011;1(1):
12-18.
17
21. Ghimire PC. SNV supported domestic biogas programmes in
Asia and Africa. Renew Energy. 2013;49:90-94.
22. Board N. Handbook on Biogas and Its Application. India:
National Institute of Industrial; 2000:1-5.
23. Kumar A, Sharma A. Advancement in biogas digester- chap-
ter in green energy and technology, 2015; doi: https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-81-322-2337-5-14
24. Mostajir B, Floc'h EL, Mas S, et al. A new transportable
floating mesocosm platform with autonomous sensors for
real-time data acquisition and transmission for studying
the pelagic food web functioning. Limnol Oceanogr
Method. 2013;11(7):394-409. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.
2013.11.394.
25. Florentino H. Mathematical tool to size rural digesters. Sci
Agric (Piracicaba, Braz). 2003;60:185-190.
26. Istok JD. Push-pull tests for site characterization. Lecture
Notes in Earth System Sciences. Vol 444. Berlin, Germany:
Springer; 2013.
27. Plochl M, Heiermann M. Biogas farming in central and
Northern Europe: a strategy for developing countries. Agric
Eng Int. 2006;8(8):79-84.
28. Nzila C, Dewulf J, Spanjers H, Tuigong D, Kiriamiti H,
van Langenhove H. Multi criteria sustainability assessment
of biogas production in Kenya. Appl Energy. 2012;93:
496-506.
29. Sasse L, Kellner C, Kimaro A. Improved Biogas Unit for Devel-
oping Countries. Nairobi, Kenya: (Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. Vieweg Sohn
Verlagsgesellschaft Braunschweig; 1991.
30. Mutungwazi A, Mukumba P, Makaka G. Biogas digester types
installed in South Africa: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev.
2018;81:172-180.
31. Garfí M, Martí-Herrero J, Garwood A, Ferrer I. Household
anaerobic digesters for biogas production in Latin America: a
review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016;60:599-614.
32. Mungwe JN, Colombo E, Adani F, Schievano A. The fixed
dome digester: an appropriate design for the context of sub-
Sahara Africa. Biomass Bioenergy. 2016;95:35-44.
33. Nekhubvi V, Tinarwo D. Long-term temperature measure-
ment: biogas digesters fermenting slurry. J Energy South Afr.
2017;28:99-106.
34. Mukumba P, Makaka G, Shonhiwa C. An assessment of the
performance of a biogas digester when insulated with saw-
dust. Int J Energy Power Eng. 2015;4:24-31.
35. Singh SP, Vatsa DK, Verma HN. Problems with biogas plants
in Himachal Pradesh. Bioresour Technol. 1997;59:69-71.
36. Rakotojaona L. Domestic biogas development in developing
countries. http://www.eneaconsulting.com/wpcontent/uploads/
2015/05/Open-ideas-Domestic-biogas-projects-in-developing-
countries, 2013; Accessed May 27, 2020
37. Deng L, Liu Y, Zheng D, et al. Application and development
of biogas technology for the treatment of waste in China.
Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2017;70:845-851. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2016.11.265.
38. Kumar KV, Bai RK. Plastic bio-digester—a systematic study.
Energy Sustain Dev. 2005;9(4):40-49.
39. Anaswara MG. Design and fabrication of low cost biogas
digester using poultry waste and pig manure. Int Res J Eng
Technol. 2015;2(4):1923-1929.
18
40. Okoroigwe EC, Iloeje OC, Enibe SO, Eze JI. Design, construc-
tion and performance evaluation of 1200 L plastic bio-
digester. Niger J Solar Energy. 2006;16:176-186.
41. Eze JI. Some factors affecting biogas production. Niger J Solar
Energy. 2003;14:111-114.
42. Chhipa RC, Chourasia BL, Verma KK. Study of biogas pro-
duction from wastes “cow dung and poultry waste”. Int J Adv
Eng Sci Res. 2014;1(4):35-44.
43. Nwankwo CS, Eze JI, Okoyeuzu C. Design and fabrication of
3.60m3 household plastic bio-digester loaded with kitchen
waste and cow dung for biogas generation. Sci Res Essay.
2017;12(4):130-141. https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE2017.6516.
44. Ukpai PA, Agbo PE, Nnabuchi MN. The effect of temperature on
the rate of digestion and biogas production using cow dung, cow
pea and cassava peeling. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2015;6(1):1255-1260.
45. Agrahari RP, Tiwari GN. Comparative study of biogas produc-
tion: utilization of organic waste. Int J Environ Resour (IJER),
2014;3(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.14355/ijer.2014.0301.01.
46. Kassem H, Fouda TZ. Animal and plastic wastes for biogas
production. Third Int Environ Forum, Environ Pollut Probl
Solut Tanta Univ Egypt. 2016;9:405-408.
47. Obileke KC, Mamphweli SN, Meyer EL, Makaka G,
Nwokolo N, Onyeaka H. Comparative study on the perfor-
mance of above ground and underground fixed dome biogas
digesters. Chem Eng Technol. 2020;43(1):68-74. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ceat201900378.
48. Jiang X, Sommer SG. Christensen KV. A review of the biogas
industry in China. Energy Policy. 2011;39:6073-6081.
49. Wu J, Li F. Commercialization model of rural biogas and its
inherent driving forces analysis. J Anhui Agric Sci. 2008;36
(810):551-557.
50. Tian D. Strength and weakness analysis between FRP digester
and concrete digester during construction and use. Modern
Agric Sci Technol. 2010;9:269.
51. Wang C, Xing Y. Application situation and related data analy-
sis on FRP digester. Mod Agric. 2011;4:79-81.
52. Ran Y, Peng D, Wang C, et al. Classification of commercial
biogas digester and comparison with traditional process.
China Biogas. 2012;30:51-54.
53. Tu Y. Development and utilization of commercial household
digester. Sun Energy. 2010;1:49-51.
54. Liu Y, Wang H, He H, Xi L. Quality performance and biogas-
producing efficiency of 8m3 biogas digesters made of glass
fiber reinforced plastic. Acta Agric Boreali Occidentalis Sinica.
2010;19:197-201.
55. Chen B, Xu Q, Qian W. Design of 6m3 rural household FRP
digester. Energy Environ. 2004;3:74-76.
56. Yang P, Qiu L, Wang L, Wang J. Characteristic and demon-
stration on rotational- flowed FRP digesters. Renew Energy.
2005;6:39-41.
57. Zhang W, Song H, Yin F, Xu Q, Yin Y. The operation results
of 4m3 commercialized household biogas digester made of
glass fiber reinforced plastic. Renew Energy. 2004;1:31-33.
58. Zhang D, Household XZ. GRP methane pit rotary stirring
technology. Renew Energy Resour. 2010;28:127-129.
59. Menkiti NI, Ndirika VIO. Comparative evaluation of fibre
glass reinforced plastic and metal biogas digesters. Int J Eng
Sci. 2015;4(5):38-44.
60. Olojede MA, Ogunkunle O, Ahmed NA. Design and construc-
tion of air proof metallic digester for biogas production from
varied co-digestion of selected agricultural residues with cattle
OBILEKE ET AL.
dung. International Conferenceon Global Sustainability &
Chemical Engineering(ICGSCE); 2019; Germany; 1-11, 1378.
61. Ukpai C, Okorie N, Oriaku O, Isu J, Peters E. The production
of biogas using cow dung and food waste. Int J Mater Chem.
2017;7(2):21-24. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijmc.20170702.01.
62. Akinnuli BO, Olugbade TO. Development and performance
evaluation of piggery and water hyacinth waste digester for bio-
gas production. Int J Eng Innovat Technol. 2014;3(10):271-276.
63. Eze JI, Ogbonnia CD, Uzodinma EO, Oparaku NF. Applica-
tion of metal biogas digesters for biogas production. Niger J
Solar Energy. 2005;19(2):220-224.
64. Uzodinma EO, Ofoefule AU. Effect of abattoir cow liquor
waste on biogas yield of some agro-industry wastes. Niger J
Solar Energy. 2015;19(1):48-54.
65. Uzodinma EOU, Ofoefule JI, Eze JI, Onwuka ND. Optimum
mesophilic temperature of biogas production from blends of
agro based wastes. Trend Appl Sci Res. 2006;2(1):39-44.
66. Uzodinma EOU, Ofoefule AU, Eze JI, Onuwuka ND. Prelimi-
nary studies on biogas production from blends of palm oil
sludge with some agro-based wastes. Niger J Solar Energy.
2007;18:116-120.
67. Jakayinfa SO, Adebayo O, Ogunkunle SA, Kareem C,
Olaleye C, Okoya J. Design and construction of a metallic bio-
digester for the production of biogas from cow dung.
LAUTECH J Eng Technol. 2014;8(2):182-187.
68. Lansing S, Botero RB, Martin JF. Waste treatment and biogas
quality in small-scale agricultural digesters. Bioresour Technol.
2008;99:5881-5890.
69. Lansing S, Martin JF, Botero RB, da Silva TN, da Silva ED.
Methane production in low-cost, unheated, plug-flow
digesters treating swine manure and used cooking grease. Bio-
resour Technol. 2010;101:4362-4370.
70. Ferrer I, Gamiz M, Almeida M, Ruiz A. Pilot project of biogas
production from pig manure and urine mixture at ambient
temperature in Ventanilla (Lima, Peru). Waste Manag Oxf.
2009;29:168-173.
71. Gautam R, Baral S, Herat S. Biogas as a sustainable energy
source in Nepal: present status and future challenges. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev. 2009;13:248-252.
72. Eze JI, Uzodinma EO, Okoroigwe EC. Monitoring and evalua-
tion of 10m3 biogas digester demonstration plant at Nsukka,
Nigeria. Niger J Solar Energy. 2007;19(1):63-67.
73. Mukumba P, Makaka G, Mamphweli S. Anaerobic digestion
of donkey dung for biogas production. S Afr J Sci. 2016;9(10):
112. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20160013.
74. Sangeetha C, Bala MK, Cox MGDM, De Hass TCA. A study
on flexi mobile digester using cow dung for energy produc-
tion. Paper presented at: Proceedings of International Confer-
ences on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering
(AARCV 2012). Paper ID EVNVII8, 1.
75. Okoroigwe EC, Agbo SN. Gas evaluation effect on the quality
of gas production in a biogas digester. Trend Appl Sci Res.
2007;2(3):246-250.
76. Mukumba P, Makaka G, Mamphweli S, Mutungwazi A.
Anaerobic co-digestion of donkey manure (DM) with vegeta-
ble waste (VW) for optimum biogas production. Paper pres-
ented at: 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition;
12-15 June, 2017; Stockholm, Sweden.
77. Adeoti O, Ilori MO, Oyebisi TO, Adekoya LO. Engineering
design and economic evaluation of a family sized biogas pro-
ject in Nigeria. Technovation. 2000;20(2):103-108.
OBILEKE ET AL.
78. Mukumba P, Makaka G, Mamphweli S, Misi S. A possible
design and justification for a biogas plant at Nyazura Advent-
ist High School, Rusape, Zimbabwe. J Energy South Afr. 2013;
24(4):12-21.
79. Ghiandelli M. Development and implementation of small bio-
gas balloon digester in Bali, Indonesia. Master of Science The-
sis, KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management
STOCKHOLM, 2017.
80. Tufar F, Avsar Y. Economic analysis of biogas production
from small scale anaerobic digestion system from cattle
manure. Environ Res Technol. 2019;2(1):6-12.
81. Biogas for better life. Biogas for Better Life—An African Ini-
tiative; 2007.
82. Ejigu F. Bio-Slurry in Ethiopia: What it Is & how to Use it,
Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD) and National Bio-
gas Program Ethiopia Coordination Office. Ethiopia: Addis
Ababa; 2010.
83. Bekchanov M, Mondal MAH, de Alwis A, Mirzabaev A. Why
adoption is slow despite promising potential of biogas technol-
ogy for improving energy security and mitigating climate
change in Sri Lanka? Renew Sust Energ Rev, 2019;
105378e390, 105, 378, 390.
84. Jiang X, Sommer SG, Christensen KV. A review of the biogas
industry in China. Energy Policy. 2011;39(10):6073e6081.
85. Bontempo G, Maciejczyk M, Wagner L, Findeisen C, Fischer M,
Hofmann F. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Biogas Technology.
Freising, Germany: German Biogas Association; 2016.
86. Zheng L, Chen J, Zhao M, et al. What could China give to and
take from other countries in terms of the development of the
biogas industry? Sustainability. 2020;12(4):1-21.
87. M.O.A. NDRC, National Rural Biogas Development 13th five-
year plan National Development and reform commission
(NDRC) and Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), 2017. Beijing
88. Bilen K, Ozyurt O, Bakırcı K, et al. Energy production, con-
sumption, and environmental pollution for sustainable devel-
opment: a case study in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2008;
12:1529-1561.
89. Cuéllar AD, Webber ME, Cow P. The energy and emissions
benefits of converting manure to biogas. Environ Res Lett.
2008;3:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002.
90. Yang J, Chen W, Chen B. Impacts of biogas projects on agro-
ecosystem in rural areas: a case study of gongcheng. Front
Earth Sci. 2011;5:1-6.
91. Dubois O, Pirelli T, Peressotti A. Biomass anaerobic digestion
and gasification in non-OECD countries—an overview. Sub-
stit Nat Gas Waste. 2019;39:343-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-815554-7.00013-1.
92. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013. Mitigation
of greenhouse gas emission in livestock production: a review
of technical for non-CO2 emission.
93. Slorach PC, Jeswani H, Cuellar-Franca R, Azapagic A. Envi-
ronmental sustainability of anaerobic digestion of household
food waste. J Environ Manag. 2019;236:798-814. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.001.
94. Haryanto A, Cahyani D. Greenhouse gas emission of house-
hold plastic biogas digester using life cycle assessment
approach. Earth Environ Sci. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science; 2018; England; 258. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1755-1315/258/1/012015.
19
95. Pilz H, Brandt B, Fehinger R. The impact of plastics on life
cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission in
Europe. Summary Report, 2010.
96. Acosta F, Peru SNV, Veen M, Peru SNV. Rural electrification
with biogas in isolated communities of the Peruvian Amazon.
Prod Biogas Curr Future Dev. 2014.
97. Daniel-Gromke J, Liebetrau J, Denysenko V, Krebs C. Diges-
tion of bio-waste—GHG emissions and mitigation potential.
Energy Sustain Soc. 2015;5:3.
98. IPCC. Climate Change 2007, Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
of WG 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
99. Bechman J, Carme H, Stephanie B. Environmental analysis of
innovative sustainable composite with potential use in avia-
tion sector—a life cycle assessment review. Sci China Technol
Sci. 2017;60(9):1301-1317.
100. Le Duigou A, Davies P, Baley C. Environmental impact analy-
sis of production of flax fiber to be used as composite material
reinforcement. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy. 2011;5:1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1166/jbmb.2011.1116.
101. Iordan C, Lausselet C, Cherubini F. Life-cycle assessment of a
biogas power plant with application of different Climate met-
rics and inclusion of near-term climate forcers. J Environ
Manag. 2016;184:517-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2016.10.030.
102. Nielsen M, Nielsen OK, Plejdrup M. Danish emission inventory
for stationary combustion plants. Scientific Report from DCE—
Danish Centre for Environment and Energy; No. 102; 2014.
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR102.pdf (Accessed January 2018).
103. Meyer-Aurich A, Schattauer A, Hellebrand H, Klauss J,
Pl Eochl H, Berg W. Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas
mitigation potential of biogas production from resources. Renew
Energy 2012, 37, 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.
06.030.
104. Olugasa TT, Odesola IF, Oyewola MO. Energy production
from biogas: a conceptual review for use in Nigeria. Renew
Sust Energ Rev. 2014;32:770-776.
105. Kapdi SS, Vijay VK, Rajesh SK, Prasad R. Biogas scrubbing,
compression and storage: perspective and prospectus in
Indian context. Renew Energy. 2005;30:1195-1202.
106. Al Seadi T, Dominik R, Prassl H, Kottner M, Finsterwalder T.
Biogas Handbook. Niels Bohrs, Denmark: University of South-
ern Denmark Esbjerg; 2008.
107. Krich K, Augenstein D, Batmale JP, Beenmann B, Rutledge B,
Salour D. Upgrading dairy biogas to biomethane and other
fuels. In: Andrew K, ed. Biomethane From Dairy Waste—A
Sourcebook for the Production and Use of Renewable Natural
Gas in California: Clear Concepts. California; 2005:47-69.
108. Ross CC, Drake TJ, Walsh JI. Handbook of Biogas Utilization.
2nd ed. Atlanta, US: Department of Energy; 1996.
How to cite this article: Obileke KC, Onyeaka H,
Nwokolo N. Materials for the design and
construction of household biogas digesters for
biogas production: A review. Int J Energy Res. 2020;
1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6120