Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7994–7999

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

A study of enhancing the biogas production in anaerobic digestion

Vijin Prabhu A. a, Sivaram A.R. b, Prabhu N. c, Sundaramahalingam A. d,⇑
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam 532127, Andhra Pradesh, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Academy of Maritime Education and Training, Chennai 603112, Tamilnadu, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, EGS Pillay Engineering College, Nagapattinam 611002, Tamilnadu, India
d
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam 638401, Tamilnadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anaerobic digestion is one of the main strategies for waste management that eliminates waste and pro-
Available online 13 February 2021 duces biogas simultaneously. Biogas is an alternative source of renewable energy consisting mainly of
methane and carbon dioxide. This is suitable for transport applications, energy production and cooking.
Keywords: The present study provides a comprehensive overview on biogas production enhancement techniques in
Methane yield anaerobic digestion from various biomass wastes. Co-digestion, two phase digestion, recirculation of
Biogas yield slurry, thermal pretreatment, alkaline pretreatment, acid pretreatment, ultrasound pretreatment,
Anaerobic digestion
hydrothermal pretreatment and milling pretreatment are some of the techniques used to improve the
biogas production. Comparatively co-digestion significantly improves the biogas production than the
other processes which gives the biogas production of 531 Lkg 1VS with 52% cow manure and 48% food
wastes in a 30-day hydraulic retention period. Pre-treatment before anaerobic digestion increases the
biogas yield, especially hydrothermal pretreatment of rice straw increases the yield of biogas from 140
to 315.9 Lkg 1VS. In addition, thermal and mechanical pretreatment of barley straw increases the biogas
production by 40.8% and 50.2% respectively. Information on different biomass waste components is
important for the efficient implementation of anaerobic digestion and maintaining the key parameters
within the desired range will also boost the biogas production.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Materials, Manufacturing, and Machining for Industry 4.0.

1. Introduction Biomass feedstock and biological degradable component of

Renewable energy resources, including the esteemed wind,
solar, sea, hydro, geo, and biomass sources, account for about
14% of world’s primary energy consumption, with the biomass
contributing for about 10% [1]. Biomass is a living and freshly dead
bio-material from plants or livestock used as foods or as a biomass
carbon source for agricultural processing. The increasing quantities
of renewable carbon resources have made the production of bio-
mass as a growing industrial field. The fact that Biomass can be
converted to different functional sources of energy such as steam,
oil, biogas, hydrogen, electricity, and other biofuels-such as metha-
nol, ethanol or biodiesel which are known to provide a replace-
ment for fossil fuels for transportation is considered a useful
option in the global sector. The most commonly used biofuel in
the automotive sector is bioethanol [2].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sundaraero.89@gmail.com (A. Sundaramahalingam).
wastes are often regarded as a mature that could be processed
for biogas production by commercially viable anaerobic digestion
method. The production of biogas eliminates the emission of
methane into the atmosphere and contribute to a net emission
reduction of greenhouse gases [3]. Biogas can be generated in
many ways such as from plants, trees, grass, seeds, solid fruit
and vegetable waste, manure from animal farms, algae, sludge,
sewages, and agro-food and even organic urban solid waste mate-
rial (MSW) [4].
Macias-Corral et al. (2008) examined the implementation of the
pilot dual-phase anaerobic digestion method to use cattle manure,
the organic fraction of the urban solid waste and cotton gin waste.
This study shows the use of effluent filtrate in influential feed
material is beneficial for biogas production. [5]. The microorgan-
isms are tested for dependence of consortium of specific variables
such as pH, temperature, HRT, C-N, particle-size, and charging
rates of biomass materials. The decrease in part size greatly influ-
enced the efficiency of the reaction because of the improved bio

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.1009
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing, and Machining for Industry 4.0.
A. Vijin Prabhu, A.R. Sivaram, N. Prabhu et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7994–7999

accessibility of the substratum [6]. Motte et al. (2015) performed a

slow anaerobic fermentation process in a conventional biogas
plants for a large 30–50 days HRT to analyze the feasibility of
anaerobic digestion process to produce energy from biomass waste
and also the specific strategies for increasing the production of bio-
gas was discussed.

2. Anaerobic digestion mechanism and process

Anaerobic digestion contains a sequence of biological proce-

dures during which the microorganisms split the biodegradable
contents in the absence of oxygen. Biowaste has been decomposed
into three phases: hydrolysis (Liquefaction), acidic genesis (Pro-
ducing Acid), and methanogenesis (Producing Biogas). Hydrolysis
is the mechanism by which the organic substance is broken down Fig 2. Anaerobic digestion – lab scale experimental setup [8].
in functional molecules. These molecules react with acids and
forms acetic acid during the second phase. In the last phase
the large changes in the methane production that are normal with
methane gas is extracted from the acids. The flow diagram of
co-digestion are to be handled by the current anaerobic digester
Anaerobic digestion process employed by Zhang et al. (2013) is
system. Zhang et al. (2013) analyzed cattle manure and food waste
shown in Fig. 1.
anaerobic co-digestion and observed an improvement in methane
production with 2:1 food waste to cattle manure ratio. At this ratio,
2.1. Experimental setup
388 mLg 1VS of methane is produced resulting in increased yield
of 41.1 percent. The average methane production in co-digestion
The experimental setup used by Vijin Prabhu et al. (2019) for
improved by 55.2 percent at 10 gVSL 1d 1 organic loading rate,
anaerobic digestion of prosopis juliflora and cow manure is shown
equivalent to the methane generation of 317 mL g 1VS in
in Fig. 2. In this work, a batch testing was performed in a laboratory
semi-continuous modes [10]. At 35 and 55 °C, Bayr et al. (2012)
scale digester and the biogas is stored in a water displacement
investigated the co-digestion of making and killing of waste on a
setup. The digestion is performed at 37 °C and measurements were
lab-scale, which had been semi-continuously supplied with contin-
made till significant amount of biogas production is observed [8].
uously moving reactors (CSTRs). A total of 10 distinct waste
slaughter plant fractions were characterized, with high lipid and
2.2. Biomass resources
protein content and 262–572 dm3CH4kg 1VS methane capacity is
observed [11]. Chen et al. (2014) assessed the use of green waste
In recent years, the over-use of energy resources has increased
and food waste at six mixing ratios for biogas production. As the
with urbanization and rapid industrialization. This results in exces-
ratio of food waste to green waste of 40:60, the desired ratio of
sive solid and liquid waste generation and it affects the environ-
optimum biogas output was calculated. After 24.5 digestive days,
ment and ecology severely. Table 1 shows the regional supply of
the methane yield was about 90% and the total methane yield is
solid waste from the industry, agriculture, and community.
272.1 mLg 1VS [12]. Anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure was
Methane production anaerobic digestion of these wastes is
used for various feed products, such as prosopis juliflora
regarded as a three-in-one process; energy release as methane,
caps, water hyacinth, dry leaves and observed 96.99 L/kg and
environment conservation through reduction of wastes and con-
67.66 L/kg biogas and methane yields respectively [13].
taminants and getting sufficient quantity of byproducts for manure
and animal feed [9].
3.2. Two-phase digestion
3. Methods to improve anaerobic digestion process
The process of acid formation is isolated from the stage of
3.1. Co-digestion methane formation by two-step digestion. This machine just
requires a tiny amount of heat which makes it easy to track. How-
Co-digestion is termed as combined anaerobic digestion in a ever, for small-scale rural applications, two-stage digestion cannot
single digester with multiple biological wastes. Co-digestion is be economical. Such processes are also labeled phases to ensure
used to improve the production of methane through products that better digestion [14]. The anaerobic digestion with two-stage will
are difficult to digest (i.e. feed stocks) or gives very low yields. The be more efficient than the conventional single stage method. Schie-
method of co-digestion that increments methane production (and vano et al. (2014) analyzed four distinct substrates under nine dif-
avoids materials that could impede the generation of methane) ferent laboratory conditions. The recovered energy is 9–19
must be taken into account to choose suitable feedstock. Also, MJkg 1VS which is 8–43% higher than the single stage method

Fig 1. Anaerobic digestion process flow diagram [7].

7995
A. Vijin Prabhu, A.R. Sivaram, N. Prabhu et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7994–7999

Table 1
Total availability of biomass wastes in million tonnes/year [9].

Wastes MSW Sewage Manure Agricultural residues Biomass

India 135.5 44.9 653 200 140
Brazil 44 1.4 470 47 496.8
Sudan 2.3 8.02 68 8.1 192.3
USA 148 16 306 573 427
Sweden 5.3 0.0.6 13.2 12.6 14

[15]. Zuo et al. (2014) tested high humidity vegetable wastes as a
substrate for the production of biogas in a two stage anaerobic
digester. The analysis was done at 1.7 g VSL 1d 1 of organic load-
ing with 0, 0.6, 1 and 1.4 recirculation rates. By increasing the pH
value from 5.1 to 6.7, the volumetric biogas yield is improved from
0.27 LL 1d 1 to 0.97 LL 1d 1 [16]. The treatment of liquid and solid
waste of olive mill was performed in a laboratory scale by Fezzani
et al. (2010) in a two sequencing semi-continuous digesters (Fig. 3)
at a mesophile temperature of (37 ± 2 °C) to examine the potential
use and benefits of double phase anaerobic digestion. The double
step anaerobic digestion method demonstrated better results in
terms of methane productivity, phenol removal efficiency and
effluent quality comparing to the single stage setup [17].
4. Pretreatment
Food stocks are also pretreated to increase the yield of methane
during anaerobic digestion. Pretreatment splits the complicated
organic structure down into smaller, more natural molecules [18].
Meanwhile the appropriate moisture content, treatment time and
ambient conditions for NaOH pretreatment were observed to be
88%, 3 days and 20 °C respectively. Consequently, 86% less time
and 66.7% fewer NaOH was observed in the wet state pretreat-
ment. Analysis of chemical and chemical structural composition
shows that 9.3–19.1% reduction in cellulose, total lignin, and hemi-
cellulose and 27.1–77.1% improvement in hot water extractives
helped to enhance the production of biogas [19]. Sambusiti et al.
(2013) worked on alkaline wheat straw and sorghum pretreatment
at 40 °C, adding 1% and 10% gNaOH/gTS in batch mode. In contrast
to the untreated substrate, there was the highest rise in methane
yield (up to 32%) at 40 °C, with sorghum doped with 10% NaOH.
Meanwhile, for wheat straw 43% increased methane yield (43%)
was observed [20]. Chandra et al. (2012) has conducted an exper-
imental batch methane fermentation test on NaOH pretreated rice
straw substrates at 37 °C and found 23.91% more methane yield
than that of the untreated substrate [21].
4.2. Thermal pretreatment

4.1. Alkaline pretreatment
Zheng et al. (2009) investigated the use of NaOH wet state corn
stover pretreatment. Results showed that 72.9% more biogas yield
was observed with 2% NaOH dosage and a 65 gL 1 of loading rate.
Ferreira et al. (2013) measured the oxidative methane poten-
tials of steam explosive wheat straw in a pilot plant using various
temperature-time combinations. The optimum thermal pretreat-
ment was obtained for 1 min and 220 °C (3.5 severity factor),
thereby increasing methane output by 20 percent in compliance

Fig 3. Two phase digester [17].

7996
A. Vijin Prabhu, A.R. Sivaram, N. Prabhu et al.
with untreated straw [22]. Menardo et al. (2012) optimized
methane production in anaerobic digestion, heating between
90 °C and 120 °C, with four field by-products (wheat, barley, rice
straw, and maize) subjected to various thermal treatments. Results
indicated that barley straw show 60% higher methane yield than
the other substrates [23].
4.3. Ultrasound pretreatment
Quiroga et al. (2014) researched ultrasound effects on the
methane yield in co-digestion of biomass blend of animal manure
(70%), food waste (20%) and sludge (10%) in continuously stirred
tank reactor. The tests were conducted in thermophilic and meso-
philic conditions. The results revealed that ultrasound sonicated
mixture produces 67% and 37% more yield in the above conditions
than the non-sonicated mixture [24]. The effect of varying glycerin
levels in the ultrasound treatment of cattle manure or livestock
mixtures was studied by Castrillón et al. (2011). The strongest find-
ings have been achieved under thermophilic conditions using son-
iccated blends of field manure with glycerin applied up to 6
percent (348 L methane kg 1 COD removed) [25].
4.4. Acid pretreatment
Devlin has investigated the impact of acid (pH 6–1) pretreat-
ment with HCl on subsequent digestion and dewatering of waste
activated sludge (WAS). Acid dosing optimization was carried out
taking account of the digestibility advantages and the necessary
acid level. The most successful pretreatment of pH 2 has been con-
cluded. Acid treated biomass in batch digestion produces same
methane yield after 13 days compared with untreated WAS when
digested for 21 days. In semi-continuous digestion, (12 days
hydraulic retention time of 35 °C), 14.3% more methane yield than
the untreated WAS [26].
4.5. Thermo-alkaline pretreatment
Sambusiti et al. (2013) performed thermo-alkaline pre-treats at
40 °C and 100 °C at 30 min and 1%, and 10% NaOH dosage. The
tested pre-treatments resulted in organic matter solubilization
with maximum concentration obtained at 100 °C for wheat straw
and 40 °C for sorghum forage with 10% NaOH dosage. In this state
of pretreatment, high hemicellulose reduction was also discovered
(63% for both substrates). Although, the methane production was
improved by 32% and 67% for sorghum and wheat straw at a tem-
perature of 40 °C with 10% NaOH compared to untreated substrates
[20]. Zhong et al. (2014) investigated anaerobic degradation of
streptomycin bacterial residues, bioenergy recovery and solutions
with hazardous waste treatment in lab-wide digesters at 35 °C,
at different organic loading rates (OLRs). At OLRs below 2.33 gVS
L 1d 1 the effective production of methane and the digestion of
biomass can be accomplished. The digestion efficiency was greatly
improved for thermal-alkaline pretreatment with 0.10 NaOH/TS at
70 °C for 2 h. The volumetric reactor efficiency and basic methane
Table 2
Production of biogas from different pretreatment.
Biomass waste Dairy manure
Pretreatment Fine Coarse Unscreened
fraction fraction manure
pretreatment
Biogas yield (Lkg 1VS) 436 404 366
Methane yield (Lkg 1VS) – – – –
Increase in biogas yield (%) – 31
Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7994–7999
yield of the bacterial streptomycin pretreated residue improved by
22.08–27.08% compared with untreated streptomycin bacterial
waste with thermal-alkaline pretreatments [27].
4.6. Hydrothermal pretreatment
Qiao et al. (2011) used hydrothermal pretreatment to improve
digestion and to maximize the production of biogas from munici-
pal solid wastes like cow manure, pig manure, urban sewage
sludge, food waste and fruit/vegetable wastes. Because of the
hydrothermal pretreatment (170 °C at 1 h), the biomass produces
significant improved biogas yield of 7.8, 13.3, 18.5, and 67.8%, for
cow manure, pig manure, sewage sludge and fruit/vegetable waste.
Consequently, the food waste shows 3.4% reduced biogas produc-
tion [28]. Chandra et al. (2012) experimentally analyzed the
untreated and hydrothermal pretreated rice straw substrates with
NaOH addition (at 200 °C for 10 min). Results showed a 225% rise
in biogas output compared with untreated substrate in hydrother-
mal pretreatment [21].
4.7. Milling pretreatment
Motte et al. (2014) has studied the impact of milling pretreat-
ment in solid state anaerobial digestion with raw lignocellulosic
residues. Over 62 days (6 dates of sampling), the various milled
sizes of straw particles (0.25 mm, 1 mm, and 10 mm) were tested
in three batch reactors. The study concluded that fine-milling
enhances the accessibility to and conversion rate of substrates.
Conversely, the reaction efficiency was impaired by a decrease in
particle size due to the increased bioaccessibility of the substrates
[29]. Hajji and Rhachi (2013) have identified the effect of particle
size on municipal solid waste output in anaerobic digestion. Four
particle sizes (10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, and 100 mm) were tested
in an experimental reactor in mesophilic conditions (40 °C) and
with a retention period of 21 days. Pre-processing the substrates
by reducing the particle size has increased process efficiency and
20% increase in biogas yield was observed for the 10 mm particle
size [30].
5. Results and discussions
The production of biogas and increase in yield from different
pretreatment and co-digestion of biomass is shown in Tables 2
and 3. It has been observed that the average biogas yield of 531
Lkg 1VS was obtained with 52% co-digestion of dairy manure
and 48% of food waste. For this method, the hydraulic retention
period was 30 days. During anaerobic digestion process, the anaer-
obial bacteria quickly transform digested and extractive inoculum
into biogas at the start of anaerobic digestion, which is then
digested into slower-rates for cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin.
Improper selection of codigestion materials ratio causes the fer-
mentative, methanogenic, hydrolytic and acetogenic bacteria,
causes poor methanic yield and digestive failure are often found
in the digester. In the same digester, digestion of more than one
70% Cattle manure Barley straw Wheat straw Rice straw
Ultrasound Thermal Mechanical Anaerobic NaOH
120 °C 0.5 cm filter
– – – 140
240
40.8 54.2 – 32 23.9
7997
A. Vijin Prabhu, A.R. Sivaram, N. Prabhu et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7994–7999

Table 3
Production of biogas from co-digestion.

Biomass waste 70% Cattle manure 32% FW 48% FW FW OFMSW CGW

Co-digestion 20% food waste 10% sewage sludge 68% dairy manure 52% dairy manure Cattle manure Cow manure Cow manure
Biogas yield (Lkg 1VS) – – 455 531 388 – –
Methane Yield – – – – – 172 87
Increase in biogas yield (%) 31 67 – 41.1 – –

form of substrate may create positive digestive synergistic effect.
The rice straw hydrothermal pretreatment also raises the output
[5]
of biogas from 140.0 to 315.9 Lkg 1VS. The findings reveal that
co-digestion and pre-treatment reduce the retention time and
increase the biogas production. Different considerations, including
[6]
improvements in the physical and chemical characterizations, pH,
Na + levels, lignine decomposition toxicity, and TS intensity in the
fermentation process, can properly explain the complex pretreat-
[7]
ment effects on lignocellulosic biomass biogas fermentation.
6. Conclusion [8]
This review indicates that there is a great potential to enhance
[9]
the biogas output under field conditions. The biogas production
could be improved by the use of certain organic and inorganic
compounds. Co-digestion, two phase digestion, recirculation of [10]
slurry, thermal pretreatment, alkaline pretreatment, acid pretreat-
ment, ultrasound pretreatment, hydrothermal pretreatment and [11]
milling pretreatment are some of the techniques used to improve
the biogas production. Information on different biomass waste
components is important for the efficient implementation of [12]
anaerobic digestion and maintaining the key parameters within
the desired range will also boost the biogas production. Results [13]
show that co-digestion of different wastes will considerably boost
waste treatment efficiency. The average biogas production was 531
Lkg 1VS with 52% cow manure and 48% food wastes with a 30-day
[14]
hydraulic retention period. Before Anaerobic digestion, pre-
treatment accelerates the biomass pre-hydrolysis and HRT reduc- [15]
tion significantly and will result in cost-saving of biogas plants
without sacrificing the quantity and quality of biogas. The
hydrothermal pretreatment of rice straw increases the yield of bio- [16]
gas from 140.0 to 315.9 Lkg 1VS. Thermal and mechanical pre-
treatment of Barley straw increases the biogas production by [17]
40.8% and 50.2% respectively. Surprisingly, most of these tech-
niques are tested in laboratory scale only, if it is implemented in
field conditions, more results on biogas production will be [18]
observed.
Declaration of Competing Interest [19]
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [20]
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
[21]
References
[1] B. Antizar-Ladislao, J.L. Turrion-Gomez, Second-generation biofuels and local
bioenergy systems, Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining. 2 (2008) 455–469, https:// [22]
doi.org/10.1002/bbb.
[2] T. Searchinger, R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S.
Tokgoz, D. Hayes, T.H. Yu, Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases
greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change, Science (80-) [23]
319 (2008) 1238–1240, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151861.
[3] H. Fredriksson, A. Baky, S. Bernesson, Å. Nordberg, O. Norén, P.-A. Hansson, Use
of on-farm produced biofuels on organic farms – evaluation of energy balances [24]
and environmental loads for three possible fuels, Agric. Syst. 89 (1) (2006)
184–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.009.
[4] A. Hilkiah Igoni, M.J. Ayotamuno, C.L. Eze, S.O.T. Ogaji, S.D. Probert, Designs of
anaerobic digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid-waste, Appl.
Energy. 85 (6) (2008) 430–438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2007.07.013.
M. Macias-Corral, Z. Samani, A. Hanson, G. Smith, P. Funk, H. Yu, J. Longworth,
Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the
effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (17)
(2008) 8288–8293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.057.
J.C. Motte, R. Escudié, J. Hamelin, J.P. Steyer, N. Bernet, J.P. Delgenes, C. Dumas,
Substrate milling pretreatment as a key parameter for Solid-State Anaerobic
Digestion optimization, Bioresour. Technol. 173 (2015) 185–192, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.015.
C. Zhang, J. Li, C. Liu, X. Liu, J. Wang, S. Li, G. Fan, L. Zhang, Alkaline
pretreatment for enhancement of biogas production from banana stem and
swine manure by anaerobic codigestion, Bioresour. Technol. 149 (2013) 353–
358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.070.
A. Vijin Prabhu, P. Jeba, U. Arunachalam, R. Babu, The anaerobic co-digestion of
prosopis juliflora pods and cow manure, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9
(2019) 446–451.
D.R. Kashyap, K.S. Dadhich, S.K. Sharma, Biomethanation under psychrophilic
conditions: a review, Bioresour. Technol. 87 (2) (2003) 147–153, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00205-5.
C. Zhang, G. Xiao, L. Peng, H. Su, T. Tan, The anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and cattle manure, Bioresour. Technol. 129 (2013) 170–176, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.138.
S. Bayr, M. Rantanen, P. Kaparaju, J. Rintala, Mesophilic and thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of rendering plant and slaughterhouse wastes,
Bioresour. Technol. 104 (2012) 28–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2011.09.104.
X. Chen, W. Yan, K. Sheng, M. Sanati, Comparison of high-solids to liquid
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and green waste, Bioresour. Technol. 154
(2014) 215–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.054.
A. Vijin Prabhu, R. Manimaran, S. Antony Raja, P. Jeba, Biogas production from
anaerobic co-digestion of Prosopis juliflora pods with water hyacinth, dry
leaves, and cow manure, Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 42
(3) (2020) 375–386, https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1587084.
B.T. Nijaguna, Biogas Technology, New Age International Pvt Ltd Publishers,
New Dehli, India, 2007.
A. Schievano, A. Tenca, S. Lonati, E. Manzini, F. Adani, Can two-stage instead of
one-stage anaerobic digestion really increase energy recovery from biomass?,
Appl Energy 124 (2014) 335–342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.03.024.
Z. Zuo, S. Wu, W. Zhang, R. Dong, Performance of two-stage vegetable waste
anaerobic digestion depending on varying recirculation rates, Bioresour.
Technol. 162 (2014) 266–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.156.
B. Fezzani, R. Ben Cheikh, Two-phase anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill
wastes in semi-continuous digesters at mesophilic temperature, Bioresour.
Technol. 101 (6) (2010) 1628–1634, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2009.09.067.
Santosh Yadvika, T.R. Sreekrishnan, S. Kohli, V. Rana, Enhancement of biogas
production from solid substrates using different techniques – a review,
Bioresour. Technol. 95 (1) (2004) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2004.02.010.
M. Zheng, X. Li, L. Li, X. Yang, Y. He, Enhancing anaerobic biogasification of corn
stover through wet state NaOH pretreatment, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (21)
(2009) 5140–5145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.05.045.
C. Sambusiti, F. Monlau, E. Ficara, H. Carrère, F. Malpei, A comparison of
different pre-treatments to increase methane production from two
agricultural substrates, Appl. Energy. 104 (2013) 62–70, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.060.
R. Chandra, H. Takeuchi, T. Hasegawa, Hydrothermal pretreatment of rice
straw biomass: a potential and promising method for enhanced methane
production, Appl. Energy. 94 (2012) 129–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.01.027.
L.C. Ferreira, A. Donoso-bravo, P.J. Nilsen, F. Fdz-polanco, S.I. Pérez-elvira,
Bioresource Technology Influence of thermal pretreatment on the biochemical
methane potential of wheat straw, Bioresour. Technol. 143 (2013) 251–257,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.065.
S. Menardo, G. Airoldi, P. Balsari, The effect of particle size and thermal pre-
treatment on the methane yield of four agricultural by-products, Bioresour.
Technol. 104 (2012) 708–714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.10.061.
G. Quiroga, L. Castrillón, Y. Fernández-Nava, E. Marañón, L. Negral, J.
Rodríguez-Iglesias, P. Ormaechea, Effect of ultrasound pre-treatment in the
anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge,
Bioresour. Technol. 154 (2014) 74–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2013.11.096.

7998
A. Vijin Prabhu, A.R. Sivaram, N. Prabhu et al.
[25] L. Castrillón, Y. Fernández-Nava, P. Ormaechea, E. Marañón, Optimization of
biogas production from cattle manure by pre-treatment with ultrasound and
co-digestion with crude glycerin, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (17) (2011) 7845–
7849, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.05.047.
[26] D.C. Devlin, S.R.R. Esteves, R.M. Dinsdale, A.J. Guwy, The effect of acid
pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion and dewatering of waste activated
sludge, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (5) (2011) 4076–4082, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.043.
[27] W. Zhong, Z. Li, J. Yang, C. Liu, B. Tian, Y. Wang, P. Chen, Effect of thermal-
alkaline pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of streptomycin bacterial
residues for methane production, Bioresour. Technol. 151 (2014) 436–440,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.100.
7999
Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7994–7999
[28] W. Qiao, X. Yan, J. Ye, Y. Sun, W. Wang, Z. Zhang, Evaluation of biogas
production from different biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal
pretreatment, Renew. Energy. 36 (12) (2011) 3313–3318, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.002.
[29] A. Vijin Prabhu, S. Antony Raja, C. Lindon Robert Lee, P. Jeba, Effect of effluent
in continuous type anaerobic digestion, Pakistan J. Biotechnol. 15 (2018) 647–
652.
[30] A. Hajji, M. Rhachi, The influence of particle size on the performance of
anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste, Energy Procedia. 36 (2013) 515–
520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.059.