Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

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

Research article

Evaluation of biomethane potential from by-products and agricultural T

residues co-digestion in southern Italy
Francesca Valentia, Simona M.C. Portoa, Roberta Selvaggib,∗, Biagio Pecorinob
a
Building and Land Engineering Section, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 100, 95123, Catania, Italy
b
Agricultural and Food Economics Section, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 100, 95123, Catania, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The suitability of the co-digestion of feedstock-mixtures (by-products and agricultural residues) depends on their
Biomethane potential (BMP) ability to produce biogas. In this study, the effects of mixing five feedstocks (citrus pulp, olive pomace, poultry
Citrus pulp manure, Italian sainfoin silage and opuntia fresh cladodes) on anaerobic digestion for biogas production have
Olive pomace been investigated by carrying out biomethane potential (BMP) tests on six different mixing ratios of the selected
Opuntia fresh cladodes
five biomasses.
Italian sainfoin silage
The BMP test results demonstrated that all the six studied feedstock-mixtures could be potentially used for
Biogasdoneright©
renewable energy generation by biogas plants. More in detail, two mixing ratios of the studied feedstock-mix-
tures showed the best biomethane potential of 249.9 and 260.1 Nm3CH4/tVS, respectively.
Since this research study made it possible to screen the suitability and technical feasibility of the feedstock-
mixtures analysed, the results provide the basis for subsequent pilot scale evaluation of anaerobic digestion in
Mediterranean area, where by-products and agricultural residues are profuse and necessary to produce advanced
biofuels.

1. Introduction cropping, by introducing sequential crops after ordinary autumn-winter

Renewable bioenergy is an interesting alternative to meet the world
energy requirements without extra economic burden and any sig-
nificant environmental impacts. Biogas as one of renewable energy
sources attracts increasing attention due to its capabilities of waste
treatment and energy recover (Esposito et al., 2012). A typical onsite
consumption of biogas regards its conversion to electrical and thermal
energy via a co-generation process (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991;
Shen et al., 2015). Recently, biogas is subjected to an up-grading pro-
cess that aims at biomethane production (Chinnici et al., 2018).
In Italy, which is the third world biogas producer, after China and
Germany, the biogas sector was significantly developed in the regions
of northern Italy, where the biogas is produced also by using dedicated
energy crops (i.e., maize silage) that arise social, economic and en-
vironmental problems related to the competition between food/no food
products (Fabbri et al., 2010, 2013; Sgroi et al., 2015; Santi et al.,
2015). As a consequence, recently, a new concept to produce biogas
was developed by Dale et al. (2016), well known as Biogasdoneright®
model.
Biogasdoneright® model is based on a system of sustainable in-
tensification of crop rotation and provides the development of double
cultivations. The sustainability of this model depends on the use of
digestate to both reduce, or complete replace chemical fertilizers re-
quired for cultivation, and limit soil consumption, soil erosion and
desertification. Moreover, it is possible to contribute for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and increasing soil organic matter by re-
cycling the nutrients (e.g., N, P and K) contained in by-products used
for biogas production (Dale et al., 2016; Valenti et al., 2016; Selvaggi
et al., 2018a, 2018b).
By following the Biogasdoneright® concept, it is necessary to eval-
uate the availability for biogas production of agro-industrial by-pro-
ducts that otherwise are currently intended for disposal. By-products
disposal leads to economic and environmental concerns mainly due to
high transportation costs of the wastes, lack of disposal sites and
technical difficulties to store for a long time organic wastes because of
fermentation processes (Valenti et al., 2017a). Therefore, the very
challenging goals fixed by the European Union focus on moving toward
high recycling targets, paving the road from a linear economy to a
circular economy as a real answer for the challenge of globalization
(EU, 2014). According to the food waste hierarchy (Papargyropoulou
et al., 2014), the first level of attention is directed toward the need to
prevent the formation of waste; the following next steps concern the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: francesca.valenti@unict.it (F. Valenti), siporto@unict.it (S.M.C. Porto), roberta.selvaggi@unict.it (R. Selvaggi), pecorino@unict.it (B. Pecorino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.098
Received 22 January 2018; Received in revised form 11 June 2018; Accepted 30 June 2018
0301-4797/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Valenti et al.
reuse or recovery and recycling of suitable materials and afterwards the
energy recovery through a thermochemical or biological process; only
at the end, when there are no more alternatives, it is allowed the dis-
posal of residuals into a landfill. Therefore, the goal of a correct waste
management is not only to reduce the disposed waste volumes, but also
to make use of it in various ways and among them for energy produc-
tion. In this context, growing concerns about energy security, en-
vironmental impact and increasing energy cost for wastewater treat-
ment have re-instated the anaerobic digestion process to the center of
the scientific spotlight, as a major renewable energy production tech-
nology and as one of the most promising technologies for waste man-
agement (Isci and Demirer, 2007; Fountoulakis et al., 2008; Khanal
et al., 2008; Dinuccio et al., 2010; Iacovidou et al., 2012; Jenicek et al.,
2013; Karthikeyan and Visvanathan, 2013; Nghiem et al., 2014; Girotto
et al., 2015; Pham et al., 2015; Sawatdeenarunat et al., 2015; Pellera
and Gidarakos, 2016; Pergola et al., 2018), only in the last few years,
little attention was given to the production of biogas by anaerobic di-
gestion (Barber, 2012).
Anaerobic co-digestion of different organic residues has been widely
investigated to enhance anaerobic digestion performance of biogas
production and total solids reduction (Liu et al., 2009; Gou et al., 2014;
Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014). In detail, co-digestion offers several benefits
over traditional monodigestion when applied (Pavan et al., 2007; Wang
et al., 2013), such as the optimisation of digester stoichiometry by
obtaining an optimum C:N ratio which can positively influence the
digestion process (Wickham et al., 2016).
Moreover, the economic viability of co-digestion can be sig-
nificantly enhanced through the contribution of supplementary revenue
from gate fees (i.e. commercial charges for waste disposal), and the
sustainability of waste management practise could be also improved
(Kim and Kim, 2010; De Luca et al., 2017).
In particular, co-digestion allows the diversion of agro-industrial
wastes from landfill, thus limiting greenhouse gas emission while fa-
cilitating energy recovery through biogas production (Holm-Nielsen
et al., 2009). Despite the attractive attempts to optimize co-digestion,
several technological challenges associated with its implementation still
persist (Giuliano et al., 2013; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014; Haider et al.,
2015; Koch et al., 2015). Usually, a main basic feedstock (e.g., animal
manure or sewage sludge) is mixed with a minor amount of a secondary
feedstock (e.g., crop residues, silage or food wastes) to feed the digester
(Lehtomaki et al., 2007; Aboudi et al., 2017; Kurahashi et al., 2017;
Zhang et al., 2017). Only a few studies have reported that multiple
feedstocks were used to carry out co-digestion (Callaghan et al., 2002;
Muradin and Foltynowicz, 2014; Wickham et al., 2016; Tasnim et al.,
2017; Valenti et al., 2018b). In particular, Tasnim et al. (2017) ran a co-
digestion on mixed cow manure, sewage sludge and water hyacinth that
had better gas production than the co-digestion of cow manure and
kitchen wastes. Callaghan et al. (2002) optimized a co-digestion process
using three feedstocks of cattle manure, chicken manure, and fruit/
vegetable wastes. Muradin and Foltynowicz (2014) studied the eco-
nomic performance of a commercial biogas plant receiving nine organic
residues (corn silage, potato pulp, spent vinessa waste, fruit and vege-
table pomace, cereals, plat tissue waste, municipal sludge and soya oil).
Wickham et al. (2016) evaluated the biomethane potential of sewage
sludge and organic waste co-digestion in different mixing ratio. Valenti
et al. (2018b) by applying batch and semi-continuous co-digestion ap-
proaches, investigate, for the first time, the effect of mixing six feed-
stocks (citrus pulp, olive pomace, whey, corn silage, cattle and poultry
manure) available in Sicily on methane production for bioenergy gen-
eration.
All these studies demonstrated successful biogas production from
multiple organic residues.
By considering diversity and availability of agricultural residues and
biomasses, more and more biogas plants intend to use multiple feed-
stocks to improve their digestion process performance and require lab-
scale testing approaches to determine the feasibility of such operations.
835
Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840
Biomethane potential (BMP) test as a simple lab-scale method has been
widely used to evaluate digestibility of feedstocks and conclude the
maximum methane yield of single, or few combined feedstocks
(Chynoweth et al., 1993; Angelidaki et al., 2009; Esposito et al., 2012;
Stromberg et al., 2015).
Several agricultural activities of the southern Italy generate multiple
agricultural residues with different quantities (Chinnici et al., 2015;
Valenti et al., 2018a; Selvaggi et al., 2018b). In this context in Sicily,
which is the largest island of the Mediterranean basin, the development
of the biogas sector could be fostered by using the huge number of by-
products available in this region (Selvaggi et al., 2018c). Therefore, the
study of possible anaerobic digestion of multiple feedstocks is urgently
needed to satisfy the electricity demand of the agricultural sector in
Southern Italy. This study aims to screen five Mediterranean biomasses
with regards their potential use as co-substrates for further biogas
production. In detail, poultry manure, Italian sainfoin silage (Hedy-
sarum Coronarium L.) and opuntia fresh cladodes and, among the main
available agro-industrial by-products, olive pomace and citrus pulp,
have been selected for testing six different feedstock-mixtures. BMP
assessment and co-substrate characterisation are conducted for com-
parative analyses with varying compositions. Moreover, this study
could allow the definition of preferred mixing conditions to enhance
biogas production of anaerobic co-digestion of multiple feedstocks by
finding out the suitable mixing ratio. The adopted approach and the
obtained results could facilitate developing biogas production in Med-
iterranean area as well as in other regions with different sources of
organic residues.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Feedstocks and seed
By analysing both the by-products and agricultural residues actually
used by the biogas plants and their availability within the study area,
i.e. Sicily, five feedstocks were selected as possible matrices for co-di-
gestion process. All the considered biomasses, i.e., olive pomace
(without olive mill wastewater), citrus pulp, Italian sainfoin silage,
opuntia fresh cladodes and poultry manure were collected in Sicily by
the Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment of Catania
University and shipped to the Research Center for Animal Production
(Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali - C.R.P.A.) of Emilia-Romagna
region in coolers.
Among the agro-industrial by-products, citrus pulp and olive po-
mace (three phase) were selected as co-substrates since they are highly
available due to the relevant production of citrus fruits and olives
cultivation in the Mediterranean areas (Pergola et al., 2013; Cerruto
et al., 2016; Valenti et al., 2016, 2017b; 2017c, 2017d).
A blender was used to reduce particle size of individual samples.
After size reduction, all samples were kept frozen prior to use. The
characteristics of individual feedstocks were listed in Table 1.
The seed was the liquid filtrate after liquid/solid separation of the
anaerobic digestion effluent from a commercial anaerobic digester lo-
cated in Emilia-Romagna region. The adopted feeds for this digester
were cattle manure and agricultural residues. The characteristics of
seed were also listed in Table 1.
Six feedstock-mixtures (FMs) of the selected five biomasses were
prepared for the BMP test based on the current feedstock-mixture used
in biogas plants within Mediterranean areas, and taking into account
the amounts and the availability of the considered agricultural residues
and by-products (Table 2).
The characteristics of each FM were reported in Table 3.
2.2. Biomethane potential experimental equipment and protocol of
feedstock-mixtures (FMs)
The Biomethane Potential (BMP) test is a biological test that allows
F. Valenti et al. Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840

Table 1
Characteristics of individual feedstocks.
Manure Italian sainfoin silage Opuntia fresh cladodes Olive pomace Citrus pulp Seed

a
pH 6.42 ± 0.09 5.28 0.13 4.57 ± 0.02 5.94 ± 0.03 4.01 ± 0.05 7.9 ± 0.0
TS (%) a 31.20 ± 1.00 22.90 ± 0.30 7.20 ± 0.00 54.70 ± 0.70 20.10 ± 0.60 6.1 ± 0.1
VS (%) a 69.70 ± 2.40 88.00 ± 0.30 79.50 ± 0.40 95.3 ± 0.20 62.40 ± 2.70 71.6 ± 0.3
Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (wt%, DMb) a
6.00 ± 0.30 2.00 ± 0.10 1.20 ± 0.10 1.40 ± 0.00 1.40 ± 0.10 6.8 ± 0.0
Ammonia nitrogen (wt%, DMb) a 1.1 ± 0.00 0.20 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 3.8 ± 0.1
TOC (wt%, DMb) a 42.7 ± 1.30 48.00 ± 0.60 41.1 ± 1.40 61.2 ± 0.10 36.4 ± 0.70 43.8 ± 2.1
C:N ratio a 7.14 ± 0.52 24.65 ± 1.84 34.34 ± 1.70 44.67 ± 1.08 36.35 ± 1.98 6.5 ± 0.3
Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) (wt%, DMb) 30.50 69.10 17.20 65.30 22.80 –
Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) (wt%, DMb) 17.00 58.90 15.60 52.40 21.30 –
Lignin (ADL) (wt%, DMb) 2.60 15.40 2.80 22.40 15.40 –

a
Data are the average of three replicates with standard errors, except for the inoculum, where analyses were repeated twice.
b
DM means dry matter.

Table 2
Mass ratios of different feedstocks in FMs.
FM 1 FM 2 FM 3 FM 4 FM 5 FM 6

a
Citrus pulp (%w/w, DM ) 20.0% 40.0% 30.0% 25.0% 25.0% 15.0%
Italian sainfoin silage (%w/ 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0%
w, DMa)
Poultry manure (%w/w, 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0%
DMa)
Opuntia fresh cladodes (%w/ 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 30.0%
w, DMa)
Olive pomace (%w/w, DMa) 40.0% 20.0% 30.0% 25.0% 25.0% 15.0%

a
DM means dry matter.

to evaluate, by conducting a batch test, the maximum amount of me-

thane and/or biogas that can be produced from analysed matrices. The
BMP test was modified based on the methods from UNI EN ISO 11734/
2004 framework (ISO 11734, 1995), developed and described as fol-
lows.
The BMP static test (batch or discontinuous analysis) is carried out
by simulating, in a controlled environment, what usually could happen
in a real-scale anaerobic digester.
Fig. 1. BMP experimental equipment, designed by CRPA Lab. *source: CRPA
Each feedstock-mixture was initially chemically characterised and
SpA.
subsequently mixed with the seed, coming from a commercial anae-
robic digester and containing a diversified microflora, and a salts so-
lution (to prevent the acids production and to supply the essential The content of biogas produced was measured by using two
micronutrients for correct developing of the bacterial consortium). The methods, i.e., manometer method and mass method, and the methane
seed was pre-digested with the aim to reduce the production of non- content in the produced biogas was analysed.
specific gas, by decreasing its influence on the final results, without In the first case the produced biogas is measured within the digester
adding any nutrients, at about 35 °C ± 2 °C for 7 days. To avoid the (in the headspace) by considering the pressure increase due to the
inoculum inhibition the substrate for the BMP test was prepared by production of both carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).
mixing each FM and seed at a VS ratio of 1:2. The seed was also used as In the second case, the produced biogas is measured during the gas
the control. analysis. The gas composition is measured by a sensor for thermal
Each feedstock-mixture was placed in a small digester, a glass bottle dispersion mass. This sensor measures fluid mass flow rate by means of
with a total volume of about 2200 ml (filled to about 70%), placed in a the heat transferred from a heated surface to the flowing fluid. In detail,
thermostat cabinet, by keeping constant temperature of about 38 °C, the heat is transferred to the boundary layer of the fluid flowing over
during the digestion process (Fig. 1). All tests ran in triplicates. the heated surface. By adopting this method, the volume of the biogas

Table 3
Characteristics of FMs.
FM 1b FM 2b FM 3b FM 4b FM 5b FM 6b

pH 5.5 ± 0.0 5.2 ± 0.0 5.3 ± 0.0 5.7 ± 0.0 5.6 ± 0.0 5.6 ± 0.0
TS (%) 33.8 ± 0.2 26.8 ± 0.1 23.6 ± 0.3 31.8 ± 0.0 27.4 ± 0.2 26.3 ± 0.3
VS (%) 88.5 ± 0.3 81.5 ± 0.5 85.9 ± 0.4 84.0 ± 0.3 81.8 ± 0.5 83.4 ± 0.4
Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (wt%, DMa) 1.9 ± 0.1 2.0 ± 0.1 2.1 ± 0.0 2.5 ± 0.0 2.5 ± 0.1 2.2 ± 0.1
Ammonia nitrogen (wt%, DMa) 0.1 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0
TOC (wt%, DMa) 53.7 ± 1.9 46.2 ± 1.4 48.7 ± 0.5 46.3 ± 0.9 46.1 ± 0.3 45.8 ± 0.4
C:N ratio 28.4 ± 0.6 23.0 ± 1.7 23.2 ± 0.3 18.2 ± 0.4 18.2 ± 0.4 20.7 ± 0.7

a
DM means dry matter.
b
Data are the average of three replicates with standard errors.

836
F. Valenti et al.
Fig. 2. BMP average values of FMs with standard deviation.
produced was computed and the quality of the biogas, in terms of
contents (e.g., methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide), was
analysed.
The biogas composition is strictly correlated with the chemical
characteristics of each substrate contained in the tested feedstock-
mixture and with the physic-chemical parameters of the test. Usually,
the methane content ranged between 50% and 80% by volume, the
content of carbon dioxide between 20% and 50%, and low concentra-
tions of hydrogen, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and other trace gases
could be in. During the BMP test the measurement was analysed con-
tinuously and the total amount of biogas produced was computed and
reported in a cumulative production curve, which also provides key
information about the degradation rate (ISO 11734, 1995).
Chemical parameters of the substrates before and after the BMP test
were monitored as well.
2.3. Analytical methods
A range of parameters was measured for each feedstock and then for
each considered FM before and after BMP experiment. They have been
chemically characterised, according to the standard methods (APHA,
1998), for the parameters of: pH, total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS),
total nitrogen Kjeldahl (NTK), ammonia nitrogen (NeNH4 +), organic
carbon content (TOC) and also for fiber content, i.e., NDF, ADF, ADL. In
detail, Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) is the insoluble neutral detergent
fiber, consisting of all the components of the cell wall, i.e., lignin,
hemicellulose and cellulose, or also hemicellulose and ADF. Acid De-
tergent Fiber (ADF) is insoluble acidic fiber, mainly consisting of cel-
lulose, lignin and a variable content of silica. Acid Detergent Lignin
(ADL) is the residue of ADF content after a very strong acid attack, it is
lignin, a polymer of phenolic compounds which is part of the cell wall.
The measurement of the biomethane potential was carried out by fol-
lowing the method developed by CRPA Lab and the obtained results
were expressed in normal cubic meters of methane per ton of volatile
solids (Nm3CH4/tVS). The VS reduction, in terms of degradability of the
organic substance, was computed by taking into account the ratio be-
tween the amount of the produced biogas and the amount of VS loaded.
Table 4
BMP results a.
FM 1 FM 2
3
BMP (Nm CH4/tVS) 243.6 ± 2.5 236.7 ± 13.5
CH4 (%) 63.4 ± 2.8 60.6 ± 0.7
Kmax (days) 3.1 ± 0.3 3.02 ± 0.1
VS reduction (%VS) 45.4 ± 3.2 50.4 ± 1.9
H2S (ppm) 302.8 ± 15.6 376.1 ± 24.2
a
Data are the average of three replicates with standard errors.
Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Feedstock-mixture characteristics
The primary characteristics of each analysed feedstock were re-
ported in Table 1.
In detail, olive pomace demonstrated a good moisture content, in
fact the percentage of total solids (TS) was approximately 54.7% and
about its 95.3% consists of organic substance (volatile solids - VS) with
a pH value of about 5.9. The total nitrogen resulted equal to 1.4% of TS
and the content of organic carbon was 61% of TS. In this feedstock, the
fibers (NDF) represented 65.3% of TS, probably due to the presence of
the pits.
The pH of citrus pulp is basically acid and was equal to 4. As shown
in Table 1, citrus pulp had good content of moisture and TS equal to
about 20%; the ash content represents approximately 38% of TS, the
organic carbon 36.4% of TS and the nitrogen content was equal to
1.4%. The fiber (NDF) represents 22.8% of TS.
The results of the analysed samples of Italian sainfoin silage, which
is characterised with an inhomogeneous size, showed that the TS con-
tent was equal to 23% and VS content to 88% of TS. Nitrogen and
carbon contents were equal to 2% and 48% of TS, respectively. The
fiber analysis showed fiber content (NDF) equal to 69% of TS and lignin
content of 15% of TS.
The samples of analysed opuntia fresh cladodes showed an acid pH,
about 4.6. Moreover, it was demonstrated to have a dry substance of
only 7% of the given samples, a VS content of 79.5% of TS, the nitrogen
and carbon contents of 1.2% and 41% of TS, respectively. The fiber
content results (NDF) was low, about 17% of TS.
The analysis of poultry manure, coming from laying chicken farm,
showed a dry matter content of 31%, VS content of 70% of TS, total
nitrogen content equal to 6% of TS in which 1% was represented of
ammonia nitrogen. Moreover, the fiber content (NDF) was equal to
30.5% of TS and the measured PH was 8.4.
Then, as reported in Table 2, six feedstock-mixtures were selected
for BMP test. The first three mixes (FM1, FM2, FM3) have been defined
assuming a fixed percentage, i.e., 10%, of poultry manure, which is not
abounded in Sicily, and a fixed percentage of Italian sainfoin silage and
opuntia fresh cladodes (i.e., 30% for both), such as alternative bio-
masses. The remaining percentage of these first three feedstock-mix-
tures, was considered equal to 60%, divided between the two by-pro-
ducts, i.e., olive pomace and citrus pulp, which are taken into account
alternatively on the basis of their seasonal availability.
In order to consider the case in which the by-products were not
abounded, in FM6 the percentage of by-products was considered equal
to 30%, and the quantity of Italian sainfoin silage and opuntia fresh
cladodes was proportionally increased (i.e., 60%for both), by main-
taining fixed the amount of considered poultry manure (i.e., 10%).
Other two feedstock-mixtures were considered (FM4, FM5), by
taking into account the areas of South-Eastern Sicily where livestock
farming are highly developed. In these two FMs the amount of poultry
manure was increased to 20%, the total percentage of Italian sainfoin
silage and opuntia fresh cladodes was considered fixed to 30%, and the
remaining 50% was equally divided between citrus pulp and olive po-
mace.
FM 3 FM 4 FM 5 FM 6
236.7 ± 13.5 260.1 ± 7.9 246.3 ± 21.3 237.1 ± 4.7
60.6 ± 0.1 59.4 ± 0.4 60.9 ± 0.3 58.3 ± 0.4
3.0 ± 0.1 3.5 ± 0.1 3.4 ± 0.2 3.6 ± 0.1
47.5 ± 2.8 53.8 ± 1.9 49.0 ± 4.2 50.7 ± 0.9
397.4 ± 30.8 492.7 ± 5.9 316.8 ± 12.4 523.6 ± 36.7
837
F. Valenti et al.
Fig. 3. Accumulated methane production of the BMP test.
Fig. 4. FMs daily production of methane.
Fig. 5. Production peak - Kmax in days.
After the FMs definition, each one was characterised as reported in
Table 3.
FM1, in which the olive pomace represents 40% of the total mixture,
was characterised of the highest content of dry matter and of organic
substance, equal to 34% and 88.5% of TS, respectively. In FM 4 and FM
5, where the poultry manure percentage was equal to 20% of the total
838
Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840
mixture, the total nitrogen content was higher than that computed in
the other FMs, equal to 2.5% of TS.
3.2. BMP test on mixed feedstocks
The BMP test of the six FMs showed no significant differences in
terms of methane specific production. By considering the three re-
plicates, the produced methane ranged between 236.7 Nm3CH4/tVS for
FM3 to 260.1 Nm3CH4/tVS for FM4 (Fig. 2).
The average results with standard deviations of the FMs methane
production were also reported in Table 4.
In detail, the specific production of methane for FM1 was equal to
243.6 Nm3CH4/tVS with a VS reduction of about 45.4%, and conse-
quently methane production of 72.8 Nm3CH4/t (Table 4).
By reducing the percentage of olive pomace by 20% (compared to
FM1) and increasing that one of citrus pulp by 20%, FM2 showed a
specific production of methane equal to 249.9 Nm3CH4/t VS (slightly
higher than FM1) and VS reduction equal to 50.4%; with a consequent
methane production of 54.5 Nm3CH4/t, lower than FM1 due to the
higher moisture content of this feedstock-mixture.
As regard FM3, the methane production was measured equal to
236.7 Nm3CH4/t VS, and 66.3 Nm3CH4/t, by considering a VS
F. Valenti et al.
Table 5
a
Characteristics of FMs after BMP test (digestate).
FM 1 FM 2
TS (%) 3.8 ± 0.0 3.8 ± 0.3
VS (% dry basis) 68.0 ± 2.0 67.8 ± 1.1
Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (wt%, dry basis) 7.0 ± 0.0 6.5 ± 0.5
Ammonia nitrogen (wt%, TKN basis) 3.9 ± 0.1 4.0 ± 0.2
P (wt%, dry basis) 1.1 ± 0.0 1.1 ± 0.0
K (wt%, dry basis) 7.7 ± 0.4 6.1 ± 0.4
TOC (wt%, dry basis) 38.1 ± 1.4 39.5 ± 2.8
C:N ratio 5.8 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1
a
Data are the average of three replicates with standard errors.
reduction of 47.5%.
By comparing FM4 with FM3, which was characterised by the re-
duction of the olive pomace and citrus pulp amount by 5% and the
increase of the poultry manure percentage from 10% to 20% in weight
(without opuntia fresh cladodes), the results of BMP test revealed the
highest potential, equal to 260.1 Nm3CH4/tVS which corresponds to
69.4 Nm3CH4/t with a VS reduction of 53.8%.
In FM5, where Italian sainfoin silage content has been eliminated,
the specific production of methane resulted equal to 246.3 Nm3CH4/
tVS, and to 55.1 Nm3CH4/t, by considering a VS reduction of 49%.
The last analysed FM, the FM6, showed a specific production of
methane equal to 237.1 N Nm3CH4/tVS with a VS reduction of 50.7%.
The production of methane per ton, about to 46.7 Nm3CH4/t was the
lowest, due to the low VS content of opuntia fresh cladodes (Table 4).
The reactors were cultured at 38 ± 1 °C for 27 days. The total
amount of methane produced from each analysed FM was reported in
Fig. 3.
As shown in Fig. 3 no significant differences were reported by trend
production of FMs.
The process was triggered quickly, thanks to the microbial flora
contained by the inoculum, and the production of biogas immediately
started, from the beginning first days of the BMP test.
The cumulative biogas production curve, as shown in Fig. 3, al-
lowed to identify two different phases. The first is characterised by an
intense growth, and during the second phase a reduction of speed-
production was recorded. Usually, another phase could be recorded, it
is characterised by obtaining the horizontal asymptote, which re-
presents the maximum value of production.
The daily methane production for all FMs was analysed and re-
ported in Fig. 4.
Moreover, as reported in Fig. 5, the peak value of the production,
which corresponds to the Kmax value, was observed after three days.
The gas analysis on the produced biogas by FMs, showed an average
methane content of about 60.5%; for FM1, which is characterised by the
highest percentage of olive pomace, the methane content was increased
to 64.4%, due to the olive pomace lipid content, which plays a role
influencing in changes of the methane content. In fact, is well known
that under anaerobic conditions, lipids are first hydrolyzed to glycerol
and free long chain fatty acids (LCFAs) by acidogenic bacteria; the
glycerol is then converted to acetate by acidogens, and the LCFAs are
degraded to acetate and hydrogen through the beta-oxidation pathway
(syntrophic acetogenesis) (Weng and Jeris, 1976; Long et al., 2012).
The chemical characteristics evaluated for all FMs digestate were
reported in Table 5 with the related standard deviation.
As shown in Table 5, all the digestates reported similar chemical
characteristics, without significant differences.
The analysis of TS and VS content, showed VS/TS averaged ratio of
about 67–68%, with ash content equal to 32–33% of TS. The carbon
content resulted was about 38–40% of TS, corresponded to 55–60% of
VS. By considering the nitrogen content, it was found around 6.5–7% of
TS. This value is higher than that could be found in poultry or cattle
manure (i.e., 5–5.5% TS or 4–4.5% TS), but lower if compared with
839
Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840
FM 3 FM 4 FM 5 FM 6
4.0 ± 0.1 3.8 ± 0.0 3.8 ± 0.0 3.9 ± 0.0
69.3 ± 0.2 68.1 ± 0.2 67.5 ± 0.1 68.2 ± 0.5
5.8 ± 0.3 6.8 ± 0.2 7.0 ± 0.1 6.5 ± 0.2
3.8 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.1 3.9 ± 0.1
1.1 ± 0.0 1.3 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.0 1.1 ± 0.1
5.8 ± 0.7 6.7 ± 0.8 7.6 ± 0.6 7.2 ± 0.3
39.7 ± 0.6 41.4 ± 0.7 41.9 ± 1.3 41.9 ± 0.8
6.8 ± 0.5 6.1 ± 0.3 6.0 ± 0.3 6.4 ± 0.3
nitrogen content of pig effluent i.e., 8% TS. Moreover, for all FMs, the
digestate was found to have a high fertilizing capacity due to the high
concentration of ammonia nitrogen (i.e., 3.5–4% TS), which corre-
sponds to about 60–70% of the total available nitrogen.
The computed values of the phosphorus and potassium were, re-
spectively, around 1.1–1.2% and 6.5–7% of TS, and C/N ratio, as re-
ported in Table 5, was around 6–7 for all digested FMs.
4. Conclusions
This study applied a BMP testing approach to evaluate the technical
feasibility of co-digestion of five biomasses typical of Mediterranean
conditions (i.e., citrus pulp, olive pomace, poultry manure, opuntia
fresh cladodes and Italian sainfoin silage). The BMP tests investigated
six FMs with different mixing ratios and showed that all FMs had po-
tential to be used as feedstock for biogas plant. The results of this study
demonstrated the technical feasibility of co-digestion of multiple feed-
stocks in a wide range of mixing ratios.
In order to choose the most suitable feedstock-mixture for enhan-
cing biogas production, it would be appropriate to combine the BMP
results with a continuous anaerobic digestion testing approach.
The anaerobic digestion process could be applied to the best feed-
stock-mixtures which showed a greater and constant production over
time (i.e., FM2 and FM4). Moreover, it would be useful to examine in
detail the biogas production trend during the entire anaerobic digestion
process, by analysing the responses of anaerobic microorganisms to
different scenarios and the corresponding effects on biogas production
quality.
Acknowledgement
This research was conducted within the framework of the research
project INNO-BIOMED (CUP E62F15000380005), financially supported
by Italian Ministry of Agriculture (MiPAAF). The authors gratefully
acknowledges support from CRPA Lab at C.R.P.A. SpA (Centro Ricerche
Produzioni Animali) of Emilia-Romagna region.
References
Aboudi, K., Alvarez-Gallego, C.J., Romero-Garcia, L.I., 2017. Influence of total solids
concentration on the anaerobic co-digestion of sugar beet by-products and livestock
manures. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 438–445.
Angelidaki, I., Alves, M., Bolzonella, D., Borzacconi, L., Campos, J.L., Guwy, A.J.,
Kalyuzhnyi, S., Jenicek, P., van Lier, J.B., 2009. Defining the biomethane potential
(BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays.
Water Sci. Technol. 59, 927–934.
APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American
Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Barber, W.P.F., 2012. Influence of changing drivers on realising the value of sewage
sludge as a resource. Water Pract. Technol. 7.
Callaghan, F.J., Wase, D.A.J., Thayanithy, K., Forster, C.F., 2002. Continuous co-digestion
of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass
Bioenergy 22 (1), 71–77.
Cerruto, E., Selvaggi, R., Papa, R., 2016. Potential biogas production from by-products of
citrus industry in Sicily. Quality-Access to Success 17, 251–258.
Chinnici, G., D'Amico, M., Rizzo, M., Pecorino, B., 2015. Analysis of biomass availability
F. Valenti et al.
for energy use in Sicily. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1025–1030.
Chinnici, G., Selvaggi, R., D'Amico, M., Pecorino, B., 2018. Assessment of the potential
energy supply and biomethane from the anaerobic digestion of agro-food feedstocks
in Sicily. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 6–13.
Chynoweth, D.P., Turick, C.E., Owens, J.M., Jerger, D.E., Peck, M.W., 1993. Biochemical
methane potential of biomass and waste feed stocks. Biomass Bioenergy 5, 95–111.
Dale, B.E., Sibilla, F., Fabbri, C., Pezzaglia, M., Pecorino, B., Veggia, E., Baronchelli, A.,
Gattoni, P., Bozzetto, S., 2016. BiogasdonerightTM: an innovative new system is
commercialized in Italy. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 10, 341–345.
De Luca, A.I., Iofrida, N., Leskinen, P., Stillitano, T., Falcone, G., Strano, A., Gulisano, G.,
2017. Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for
agricultural sustainability: insights from a systematic and critical review. Sci. Total
Environ. 595, 352–370.
Dinuccio, E., Balsari, P., Gioelli, F., Menardo, S., 2010. Evaluation of the biogas pro-
ductivity potential of some Italian agro-industrial biomasses. Bioresour. Technol.
101, 3780–3783.
Esposito, G., Frunzo, L., Giordano, A., Liotta, F., Panico, A., Pirozzi, F., 2012. Anaerobic
co-digestion of organic wastes. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 325–341.
EU, 2014. < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:aa88c66d-4553-11e4-
a0cb-01aa75ed71a1.0022.03/DOC_1&format=PDF > . Acessed in November 2016.
Fabbri, C., Soldano, M., Piccinini, S., 2010. L’agricoltore crede nel biogas e i numeri lo
confermano. Inf. Agrar. 30, 63–71.
Fabbri, C., Labartino, N., Manfredi, S., Piccinini, S., 2013. Biogas, il settore è strutturato e
continua a crescere. Inf. Agrar. 11, 11–16.
Fountoulakis, M.S., Drakopoulou, S., Terzakis, S., Georgaki, E., Manios, T., 2008.
Potential for methane production from typical Mediterranean agro-industrial by-
products. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 155–161.
Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., Cossu, R., 2015. Food waste generation and industrial uses: a
review. Waste Manag. 45, 32–41.
Giuliano, A., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., Cavinato, C., Cecchi, F., 2013. Co-digestion of
livestock effluents, energy crops and agro-waste: feeding and process optimization in
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 612–618.
Gou, C.L., Yang, Z.H., Huang, J., Wang, H.L., Xu, H.Y., Wang, L.K., 2014. Effects of
temperature and organic loading rate on the performance and microbial community
of anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and food waste. Chemosphere
105, 146–151.
Haider, M.R., Zeshan, Yousaf, S., Malik, R.N., Visvanathan, C., 2015. Effect of mixing
ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum ratio on
biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 190, 451–457.
Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Al Seadi, T., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., 2009. The future of anaerobic
digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 5478–5484.
Iacovidou, E., Ohandja, D.G., Voulvoulis, N., 2012. Food waste co-digestion with sewage
sludgeerealising its potential in the UK. J. Environ. Manag. 112, 267–274.
Isci, A., Demirer, G.N., 2007. Biogas production potential from cotton wastes. Renew.
Energy 32, 750–757.
ISO 11734, 1995. Water Quality – Evaluation of the ‘‘Ultimate’’ Anaerobic
Biodegradability of Organic Compounds in Digested Sludge – Method by
Measurement of the Biogas Production, ISO Guideline 11734. European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels.
Jenicek, P., Kutil, J., Benes, O., Todt, V., Zabranska, J., Dohanyos, M., 2013. Energy
selfsufficient sewage wastewater treatment plants: is optimized anaerobic sludge
digestion the key? Water Sci. Technol. 68, 1739–1743.
Karthikeyan, O.P., Visvanathan, C., 2013. Bio-energy recovery from high-solid organic
substrates by dry anaerobic bio-conversion processes: a review. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. 12, 257–284.
Khanal, S.K., Rasmussen, M., Shrestha, P., Van Leeuwen, H.J., Visvanathan, C., Liu, H.,
2008. Bioenergy and biofuel production from wastes/residues of emerging biofuel
industries. Water Environ. Res. 80, 1625–1647.
Kim, M.-H., Kim, J.-W., 2010. Comparison through a LCA evaluation analysis of food
waste disposal options from the perspective of global warming and resource recovery.
Sci. Total Environ. 408, 3998–4006.
Koch, K., Helmreich, B., Drewes, J.E., 2015. Co-digestion of food waste in municipal
wastewater treatment plants: effect of different mixtures on methane yield and hy-
drolysis rate constant. Appl. Energy 137, 250–255.
Kurahashi, K., Kimura, C., Fujimoto, Y., Tokumoto, H., 2017. Value-adding conversion
and volume reduction of sewage sludge by anaerobic co-digestion with crude gly-
cerol. Bioresour. Technol. 232, 119–125.
Lehtomaki, A., Huttunen, S., Rintala, J.A., 2007. Laboratory investigations on co-diges-
tion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production:
effect of crop to manure ratio. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51 (3), 591–609.
Long, J.H., Aziz, T.N., Reyes, F.L., Ducoste, J.J., 2012. Anaerobic co-digestion of fat, oil,
and grease (FOG): a review of gas production and process limitations. Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 90 (3), 231–245.
Liu, K., Tang, Y.Q., Matsui, T., Morimura, S., Wu, X.L., Kida, K., 2009. Thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of garbage, screened swine and dairy cattle manure. J. Biosci.
Bioeng. 107 (1), 54–60.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Güiza, M.S., Fonoll, X., Peces, M., Astals, S., 2014. A
critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36, 412–427.
Muradin, M., Foltynowicz, Z., 2014. Potential for producing biogas from agricultural
waste in rural plants in Poland. Sustainability 6 (8), 5065–5074.
Nghiem, L.D., Nguyen, T.T., Manassa, P., Fitzgerald, S.K., Dawson, M., Vierboom, S.,
840
Journal of Environmental Management 223 (2018) 834–840
2014. Co-digestion of sewage sludge and crude glycerol for on-demand biogas pro-
duction. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 95, 160–166.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, K., Wright, J., Ujang, N., Bin, Z., 2014. The
food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115.
Pavan, P., Bolzonella, D., Battistoni, E., Cecchi, F., 2007. Anaerobic co-digestion of sludge
with other organic wastes in small wastewater treatment plants: an economic con-
siderations evaluation. Water Sci. Technol. 56, 45–53.
Pellera, F.M., Gidarakos, E., 2016. Effect of substrate to inoculum ratio and inoculum type
on the biochemical methane potential of solid agroindustrial waste. J. Environ.
Chem. Eng. 4, 3217–3229.
Pergola, M., D'Amico, M., Celano, G., Palese, A.M., Scuderi, A., Di Vita, G., Pappalardo,
G., Inglese, P., 2013. Sustainability evaluation of Sicily's lemon and orange produc-
tion: anenergy, economic and environmental analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 128,
674–682.
Pergola, M., Piccolo, A., Palese, A.M., Ingrao, C., Di Meo, V., Celano, G., 2018. A com-
bined assessment of the energy, economic and environmental issues associated with
on-farm manure composting processes: two case studies in South of Italy. J. Clean.
Prod. 172, 3969–3981.
Pham, T.P.T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G.K., Mahmood, R., Balasubramanian, R., 2015.
Food-waste-to-energy conversion technologies: current status and future directions.
Waste Manag. 38, 399–408.
Santi, G., Proietti, S., Moscatello, S., Stefanoni, W., Battistelli, A., 2015. Anaerobic di-
gestion of corn silage on a commercial scale: differential utilization of its chemical
constituents and characterization of the solid digestate. Biomass Bioenergy 83,
17–22.
Sawatdeenarunat, C., Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Oechsner, H., Khanal, S.K., 2015. An-
aerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and opportunities. Bioresour.
Technol. 178, 178–186.
Selvaggi, R., Valenti, F., Pappalardo, G., Rossi, L., Bozzetto, S., Pecorino, B., Dale, B.E.,
2018a. Sequential crops for food, energy and economic development in rural areas:
the case of Sicily. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 12, 22–28.
Selvaggi, R., Pappalardo, G., Chinnici, G., Fabbri, C.I., 2018b. Assessing land efficiency of
biomethane industry: a case study of Sicily. Energy Pol. 119, 689–695.
Selvaggi, R., Chinnici, G., Pappalardo, G., 2018c. Estimating willingness to pay for di-
gestate: evidence from an economic experiment from Sicilian farmers. Qual. Access
Success 19 (S1), 489–493.
Sgroi, F., Di Trapani, A.M., Foderà, M., Testa, R., Tudisca, S., 2015. Economic perfor-
mance of biogas plants using giant reed silage biomass feedstock. Ecol. Eng. 81,
481–487.
Shen, Y., Linville, J.L., Urgun-Demirtas, M., Mintz, M.M., Synder, S.W., 2015. An over-
view of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants
(WWTP) in the United States: challenges and opportunities toward energy-neutral
WWTP. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 346–362.
Stromberg, S., Nistor, M., Liu, J., 2015. Early prediction of biochemical methane potential
through statistical and kinetic modelling of initial gas production. Bioresour.
Technol. 176, 233–241.
Tasnim, F., Iqbal, S.A., Chowdhury, A.R., 2017. Biogas production from anaerobic co-
digestion of cow manure with kitchen waste and Water Hyacinth. Renew. Energy
109, 434–439.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and
Reuse/Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Valenti, F., Porto, S.M., Chinnici, G., Cascone, G., Arcidiacono, C., 2016. A GIS-based
model to estimate citrus pulp availability for biogas production: an application to a
region of the Mediterranean Basin. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 10, 710–727.
Valenti, F., Porto, S.M.C., Chinnici, G., Selvaggi, R., Cascone, G., Arcidiacono, C.,
Pecorino, B., 2017a. Use of citrus pulp for biogas production: a GIS analysis of citrus-
growing areas and processing industries in South Italy. Land Use Pol. 66, 151–161.
Valenti, F., Arcidiacono, C., Cascone, G., Porto, S.M., 2017b. Quantification of olive po-
mace availability for biogas production by using a GIS-based model. Biofuels,
Bioprod. Biorefining 11 (5), 784–797.
Valenti, F., Porto, S.M., Chinnici, G., Cascone, G., Arcidiacono, C., 2017c. Assessment of
citrus pulp availability for biogas production by using a GIS-based model the case
study of an area in southern Italy. Chem. Eng. Trans. 58, 529–534.
Valenti, F., Porto, S.M.C., Cascone, G., Arcidiacono, C., 2017d. Potential biogas produc-
tion from agricultural by-products in sicily: a case study of citrus pulp and olive
pomace. J. Agr. Eng. 48 (4), 196–202 art.no 727.
Valenti, F., Liao, W., Porto, S.M.C., 2018a. A GIS-based spatial index of feedstock-mixture
availability for anaerobic co-digestion of Mediterranean by-products and agricultural
residues. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 12 (3), 362–378.
Valenti, F., Zhong, Y., Sun, M., Porto, S.M.C., Toscano, A., Dale, B.E., Sibilla, F., Liao, W.,
2018b. Anaerobic co-digestion of multiple agricultural residues to enhance biogas
production in Southern Italy. Waste Manag. 78, 151–157.
Wang, M., Sahu, A.K., Rusten, B., Park, C., 2013. Anaerobic co-digestion of microalgae
Chlorella sp. and waste activated sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 142, 585–590.
Weng, C., Jeris, J.S., 1976. Biochemical mechanisms in methane fermentation of glutamic
and oleic acids. Water Res. 10 (1), 9–18.
Wickham, R., Galway, B., Bustamante, H., Nghiem, L.D., 2016. Biomethane potential
evaluation of co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic wastes. Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegrad. 113, 3–8.
Zhang, J., Loh, K.C., Lee, J., Wang, C.H., Dai, Y., Tong, Y.W., 2017. Three-stage anaerobic
co-digestion of food waste and horse manure. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7.