Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Pollution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Review

Waste-to-energy nexus: A sustainable development*

Surbhi Sharma a, Soumen Basu a, Nagaraj P. Shetti b, Mohammadreza Kamali c,
Pavan Walvekar d, Tejraj M. Aminabhavi d, *
a
School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, 147004, India
b
Center for Electrochemical Science and Materials, Department of Chemistry, K.L.E. Institute of Technology, Hubballi, 580 027, Karnataka, India
c
KU Leuven, Department of Chemical Engineering, Process and Environmental Technology Lab, J. De Nayerlaan 5, 2860, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium
d
Department of Pharmaceutical Engineering, SET’s College of Pharmacy, Dharwad, 580 002, Karnataka, India

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

Article history: An upsurge in global population due to speedy urbanization and industrialization is facing significant
Received 9 May 2020 challenges such as rising energy-demand, enormous waste-generation and environmental deterioration.
Received in revised form The waste-to-energy nexus based on the 5R principle (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recovery, and Restore) is
1 August 2020
of paramount importance in solving these Gordian knots. This review essentially concentrates on latest
Accepted 20 August 2020
Available online 27 August 2020
advancements in the field of ‘simultaneous waste reduction and energy production’ technologies. The
waste-to-energy approaches (thermal and biochemical) for energy production from the agricultural
residues are comprehensively discussed in terms environmental, techno-economic, and policy analysis.
Keywords:
Waste
The review will assess the loopholes in order to come up with more sophisticated technologies that are
Energy not only eco-friendly and cost-effective, but also socially viable. The waste-to-energy nexus as a para-
Agricultural digm for sustainable development of restoring waste is critically discussed considering future
Biochemical advancement plans and agendas of the policy-makers.
Biogas © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pretreatment

1. Introduction prices, leading to fiscal concerns. The energy consumption is

The global population is continuously increasing at an alarming
rate as the world population is expected to rise from 7.7 billion (as
of 2020) to 9.7 billion in 2050, and to a massive figure of 11 billion
by the end of the century (UNDESA, 2019). The projection of the
rate of population growth by 2050 in various regions of the world is
displayed in Fig. 1. Of these, the population of sub-Saharan Africa is
estimated to reach two-folds by about 2050, while India is pre-
dicted to become the most populated country in the world by 2030
(UNDESA, 2019). Over-population, urbanization and industrializa-
tion are the fundamental reasons for these problems. Substantial
upsurge in global energy demand and solid-waste generation are
the two chief issues we will focus in this review.
Non-renewable traditional fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and
natural gas) have been exploited profusely to meet the ongoing
energy requirements (Mehta et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2019c,
2019b). The shortage of energy supply may cause the hike in fuel
* €rg Rinklebe.
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Jo
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aminabhavit@gmail.com (T.M. Aminabhavi).
dependent on the population, which is projected to escalate by 50%
by 2035 (UNDESA, 2018). Among the developing countries, India is
reported to consume ~9% of the total energy of the world and
stands third in the category of highest energy consumers after
China (23%) and USA (17%) (Wang et al., 2020), while China is also
the world’s top-most energy producer (Gielen et al., 2019).
Due to burning of fossil fuels, our planet is inundated with
grievous environmental stress including acid rain, global warming,
ozone layer depletion and climate change. The unrestrained CO2
emission has accentuated global warming and this is projected to
touch 500 ppmv (parts per million volume) by 2050, if the same
scenario persists. Therefore, the focus has shifted to search alter-
native sources of sustainable energies to combat these challenges
in order to reduce the negative impact. Green and renewable en-
ergy sources (hydro, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and
hydrogen) are mostly reasonable and environmentally friendly al-
ternatives to meet the sustainable development goals (Mishra et al.,
2020, 2018; Sharma et al., 2020).
Escalating the generation of solid waste is a consequence of
socio-economic development. Municipal solid wastes (MSW) are
generally hardly-biodegradable that take more time to be trans-
formed into natural compounds. MSW are originated from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115501
0269-7491/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501

2019), while per capita waste generation is estimated to be

Nomenclature 0.37 kg/day (Thapa et al., 2019). In addition, roughly 94% of waste
out of which around 70e75% is organic matter that is normally
thrown out perilously in the unrestrained open dumps with no
Abbreviations segregation (Ramachandra et al., 2018; Shah and Shah, 2019).
CHP Combined Heat and Power World’s most populous country, viz., China produced 234 million
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand tons of MSW in 2016 (J. Liu et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The rate of
CSBR Conical Spouted Bed Reactor MSW generation in the UK, USA, South Africa, Ghana and Nigeria is
CSTR Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor accounted to be 1.34, 2.13, 2.00, 0.09 and 0.58 kg/capita/day,
daf dry ash-free basis respectively (Ibikunle et al., 2019).
EJ Exajoule The composition of MSW basically depends on the economic
FW Food Waste growth, culture, and climate, all of which are variable in different
GDP Gross domestic product regions. In low- and middle-income nations, 40%e85% of organic
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time matter, while in high-income and affluent countries, MSW pri-
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene marily contains inorganic materials (Negi et al., 2019). Food waste
MJ Megajoule (FW) includes resources consumed by the people that are dis-
MPW Municipal Plastic Waste charged or degraded. FW in developing nations is generally corre-
MSW Municipal Solid Waste lated with the lifestyle, earnings, education, awareness, ethical
N/A Not Available values and infrastructures apart from the governmental policies to
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel regulate such activities (Loizia et al., 2019).
USD United States Dollar Apparently, MSW comprises of approximately 25e60% of the
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds food waste (Nghiem et al., 2017). Around 1.3 billion tons of FW is
VS Volatile Solid generated annually, which is roughly one-third of the overall food
produced for the humans (Zhang et al., 2019). In about 70 Asian
countries, the amount of urban food waste might increase to 416
million tons by about 2025 (Uçkun Kiran et al., 2014). Almost
0.5e0.8 kg/day food is wasted in Malaysia alone (Kasavan et al.,
2019). Nearly 88 million tons of FW is generated in the European
Union per year and 53% of FW comes from the households, while
~12% from the retails and food services (Schanes and Stagl, 2019).
Such a mounting waste generation at an alarming rate is the
bottleneck for the municipalities to appropriately collect, dispose
and manage the solid waste.
The agriculture sector has a significant position in the global
economy and contributes ~33% to the world GDP with a worldwide
employment of 26.81%, while 38.14% of the land is utilized for
agricultural purpose (Nazimudheen et al., 2020; Yilmaz et al., 2018).
The agricultural waste consists of residues in farming fields, animal
discard, and effluent from the agro-industries. Over three billion
tons of agricultural waste is produced globally, while in India more
than 600 million tons of agricultural residue is produced per year
(Nazimudheen et al., 2020). With the rice grains, >50% of non-
edible biomass is produced including stem, leaf blades and
sheaths apart from the post-harvest leftovers of the panicle. About
Fig. 1. Estimation of the percent population growth rate in various regions by 2050 731 million tons of rice straw is produced globally with 126.6
(reproduced from (UNDESA, 2019)).
million tons solely in India (Bhattacharyya et al., 2020).
The rice-wheat rotation cropping pattern occupies 10.3 million
domestic, commercial or industrial sectors including organic mat- hectares of the Indo-Gangetic plain of Southern Asia. Reportedly,
ter, plastics, metals, glasses, textiles, wood, rubber, leather and loose rice residue produced after the combined harvesting hinders
paper (Samarasiri et al., 2017). Economic conditions and living the tillage as well as seeding process (Jat et al., 2020). Approxi-
standards have affected the rate of waste generation in various mately 20 million tons of rice straw is generated within a short
countries around the world. The remarkable growth in MSW from period of 2e3 weeks for sowing of the successive wheat crops.
0.5 to 1.7 kg/person indicates the gravity of the situation (Ramayah Therefore, proper disposal of agricultural waste is quite a challenge
et al., 2012). Indeed, the waste volumes across the globe are for the farmers from the perspective of cost and labor. The crop
mounting more rapid than the speed of suburbanization. The residues are generally burnt as 75% of the rice straw is burnt in the
overall annual MSW generation levels at present are nearly 1.3 Punjab state of India (Kaur, 2020). Nearly 1.2 million hectares of
billion tons, which is almost 1.2 kg/person/day. By the end of 2025, croplands are burnt every year in the US with around 200,000 ha
this level is anticipated to reach 2.2 billion tons i.e., 1.42 kg/capita/ only in the Pacific Northwest region (Zhou et al., 2018). This type of
day (Negi et al., 2019). Around 9.5 billion tons MSW/year is esti- residue burning causes the release of a plethora of dangerous air
mated to be generated by 2050 (Chen, 2016). pollutants such as particulate matter, greenhouse gases, poly-
The growth rate of MSW generation in developing countries aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and elemental
such as India is 1.3% per year pointing towards the enlargement in as well as organic carbon (Bhattacharyya et al., 2020; Ravindra
socio-economic standards of the public. In India, approximately 90 et al., 2019).
million tons of MSW is generated per year presently (Ghosh et al., It is evident that inefficient waste management and imprudent
waste disposal (domestic/agricultural/industrial) would cause the
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501 3

release of contaminants into air, water and land jeopardizing the

environment (Kamali et al., 2019a; C. V. Reddy et al., 2020a; Sharma
and Basu, 2020). Utilizing the waste for energy generation would be
an interesting and stimulating approach for waste management
besides sustainable development (Srivastava et al., 2020). This
would help to vacate the landfills occupied by the waste to save the
substantial space (Negi et al., 2019). The wastes can be utilized to
obtain bioenergy in the form of biogas, bioethanol, and hydrogen
energy as these are environmentally compatible and can assist to
promote the economic status of the under-developed regions by
creating job opportunities (Banerjee et al., 2019). Bioenergy could
also be used for the co-generation of electricity as well as heat via
CHP systems (REN21, 2019).
The 5R’s of sustainable development are: Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle, Recovery, and Restore (Fig. 2) and these have the pivotal
role in moving from quintessential linear model of economy to a
much effective circular model. The conceptual arrangement of cir-
cular economy model is displayed in Fig. 3. The linear model is
about “make-use-throw” where disproportionate use of energy and
excessive waste generation causes degradation of the ecosystem
and loss of resources. The linear economy model calls for exhaus-
tion of resources, while the circular model is based on the notion of
restoration and regeneration, which encourages minimal use of
toxic chemicals, conservation of resources, utilization of renewable
sources, and eradicating waste. Fig. 3. Conceptual arrangement of the circular economy model.
The circular economy model can be accomplished with the
better infrastructure and designing superior products (Michelini
et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2020). Netherlands has targeted to ach- to tackle several pressing environmental problems simultaneously
ieve a complete circular economy by 2050 (Government of the i.e., waste management, energy generation and environmental
Netherlands, 2016). The country intend the transition to ‘circular pollution (Sharma et al., 2020). In the developed nations, utilization
agriculture’ system, which is in synchronization with the environ- of waste to produce energy, heat and fuel is more prominent than
ment by 2030, which includes reuse of waste streams and optimum the developing nations where collection, transportation and proper
utilization of biomass (Government of the Netherlands, 2019). The disposal of wastes are still the Gordian knots (Moya et al., 2017).
foundation for circular economy is therefore laid by the “waste- This review discusses the recently published reports on the
energy” nexus. For better sustainability, waste recycling and emerging trends of waste-to-energy nexus for circular economy
energy-generation should be linked in an industrial system. Waste- considering the main pillars of sustainability including technical,
energy nexus has therefore attracted its attention due to its ability environmental, social and economic factors (Kamali, 2020). To this
end, published reports of the ten-year (2010e2020) are critically
evaluated on the future developments as well as recommendations
in this rapidly growing area with a major emphasis on the
biochemical routes. The environmental, techno-economic, and
policy analyses are considered to address the scientific fraternity to
work on weak points to arrive at the practical solutions from the
practical perspective.

2. Waste-to-energy conversion techniques

Different types of wastes (solids or liquids) can be used for

Fig. 2. The 5R principle for sustainable development.
waste-to-energy conversion such as household wastes (Panigrahi
et al., 2020), agricultural wastes (Koti et al., 2016), discard from
the slaughterhouses (Bayr et al., 2012) and effluents from sugar,
dairy (Y. Yao et al., 2019a, 2019b), brewery (Al-Mohammedawi
et al., 2019), pulp and paper industries (Kamali et al., 2019b). The
agricultural waste is a significant energy source as it constitutes
many energy-rich components (1 kg crop residue comprises of 12.5
MJ/unit energy equivalents). In India, 234 million tons of agro-
waste is nearly available as surplus, which is equivalent to 4.5 EJ
(Pradhan et al., 2019). In Haryana and Punjab (Government of the
Netherlands, 2016) states of India, nearly 25 metric tons of
(Government of the Netherlands, 2019) rice and wheat (Grisales
Diaz and Olivar Tost, 2016) residues (Kiyasudeen S et al., 2016)
get burnt in-situ on an (Liu et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c) annual basis
causing a loss (Liu et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c) of approximately 31,
250, 000 million MJ energy (Jat et al., 2020). The techniques to
4 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
convert waste-to-energy and waste (Montanes Alonso et al., 2016)
management are (Reddy et al., 2019a, 2019b) broadly classified as
thermal and biochemical (see Fig. 4).
2.1. Thermal route
Thermal methods of waste-treatment involve decomposition of
organic matter at elevated temperatures. The major thermal tech-
niques include pyrolysis, incineration and gasification.
2.1.1. Pyrolysis
Thermal disintegration of solid materials in the absence of ox-
ygen at high temperatures (300e600
C) giving solid, liquid and
gaseous products is called pyrolysis (Sipra et al., 2018). The yield
and composition of the product mainly depend on the type of
feedstock, reactor used, temperature, and the catalyst (if any) as
listed in Table 1. Pyrolysis is (REN21,2019) the initial phase (Uckun
Kiran et al., 2014) of incineration (Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b) and
gasification (Song et al., 2018). The pretreatment of (Yang et al.,
2019a, 2019b, 2019c) the wastes is a must (Yang et al., 2019a,
2019b, 2019c) prerequisite and (Yao et al., 2019a, 2019b) mechan-
ical separation of glass, metals and inert materials is quite essential
in this step (Moya et al., 2017). The merit of pyrolysis over incin-
eration is that fewer quantities of (Zhao et al., 2017a, 2017b)
harmful gases such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SO2)
and dioxin are formed as a result of inert atmosphere used during
the pyrolysis, where volatilization of fly ash and heavy metals are
escaped (Song et al., 2018). The solid products attained after py-
rolysis of waste materials (agricultural discard, forestry waste, and
kitchen waste) are utilized in the CHP plants, because of high
calorific value as well as low proportion of the ash. The porosity of
the char can be enhanced by various activation routes and activated
biochar is widely used for carbon sequestration (Masek et al., 2019),
wastewater treatment (Siipola et al., 2020), and as a soil amend-
ment agent (Kamali et al., 2020) because of its porous structures.
Additionally, liquid and gaseous products can be transformed into
chemicals and fuels (Ding et al., 2019; Song et al., 2018).
2.1.2. Gasification
While pyrolysis is primarily employed to convert waste into
solid, liquid, and gaseous phases without any oxidant, gasification
aims at producing fuel gases with a high heating value via
controlled oxidation (Arena, 2012). This may be described as partial
oxidation of carbonaceous solid waste in the presence of a sub-
stoichiometric amount of oxidant (air, steam, or CO2) at high tem-
peratures (800e1200
C). The reactants first get converted into
Fig. 4. Approaches used for the conversion of waste-to-energy.
‘producer gas’ mainly composed of CO, H2, CO2, CH4, and H2O along
with other low molecular-weight hydrocarbon gases, ash, char
particles besides tar. The producer gas is transformed into syngas or
fuel gas after cleaning (Arena, 2012; Nobre et al., 2020). The gasi-
fication process reported in majority of the literature reports is
carried out without any catalysts. The syngas obtained is high on
calorific value, which can be utilized in different process equip-
ments (Arena, 2012). Besides, gasification is a quite compliant
method to use several types of materials and the conditions can be
varied for the selective isolation of gaseous products (Watson et al.,
2018).
Gasification for the production of N2-free syngas can be direct
(auto-thermal) and indirect (allo-thermal). In case of direct gasifi-
cation, a mixture of oxygen and steam is employed for partial
oxidation of waste and the energy to maintain high temperature as
supplied by the oxidation reaction. On the other hand, in indirect
gasification, heat energy is supplied via external sources by
employing heated bed materials by char combustion or utilization
of a plasma torch. The gasification reactions occur among the gases
excluding oxygen and devolatilized solid waste (char) (Arena,
2012). Two reactors were used in this case i.e., gasifier having a
steam supply and char combustor (Prabowo et al., 2014).
For efficacious gasification to proceed, a homogeneous carbon-
based feedstock with a high degree of calorific value is essential
(Nobre et al., 2020). Many materials could require pre-treatment
because of their extremely heterogeneous nature. Pretreatment
techniques like densification (Sarkar et al., 2014), pyrolysis
(Isaksson et al., 2014), torrefaction, and hydrothermal method
(Abdelrahim et al., 2020) have been suggested. The pre-treatment
assists to enhance the energy-efficiency of the process by
reducing the particle-size, ash and moisture content (Arena, 2012).
Furthermore, substrates having a higher quantity of nitrogen
and sulphur would cause the release of NOx/SOx and catalyst
poisoning. Sulphur is released as H2S, whereas nitrogen during
gasification is mostly in the form of organic complexes, which then
reacts with hydrogen to form NH3 and even HCN gases. Sewage
sludge and animal waste products consist of significant proportions
of sulphur, thereby catalyst poisoning and gas treating systems are
deliberated. Substrates with greater amounts of carbon as well as
oxygen (agricultural discard and MSW) release higher quantities of
CO2 and CO. At temperatures <600
C, CH4 can be produced, but its
content decreases when the temperature rises because of the
methane reforming and decomposition reactions (Watson et al.,
2018). Various reports on the gasification of waste materials un-
der different conditions using different gasifying agents are sum-
marized in Table 2.
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501 5

Table 1
Transformation of various wastes to useful products via pyrolysis.

Reactant Technique Catalyst Catalysis conditions Pyrolysis conditions Yield Ref.

LDPE Microwave- Zeolite HY Zeolite Temperature ¼ 500
C; oil ¼ 56.53 wt%; Ding et al.
assisted HY:LDPE ¼ 1:10 Heating rate ¼ 50e60
C/min; gas ¼ 41.80 wt%; (2019)
pyrolysis Temperature ¼ 450
C Time ¼ 20 min coke ¼ 0.80 to 1.66 wt%
LDPE Microwave- NiO and HY NiO: HY: LDPE ¼ (1 Temperature ¼ 500
C; oil ¼ 48.08e51.23 wt%; Ding et al.
assisted e5): 15:150 Heating rate ¼ 50e60
C/min; gas ¼ 47.77e50.46 wt (2019)
pyrolysis Temperature ¼ 450
C Time ¼ 20 min %;
coke ¼ 0.80 wt%
Pinewood sawdust CSBR based N/A N/A Temperature ¼ 500
C; oil ¼ 55.2e71.6 wt% Alvarez et al.
and rubber from co-pyrolysis Heating rate ¼ 103e104
C/s; Gas ¼ 9e10 wt% (2019)
truck tyres Biomass/tyre mixing ratios ¼ 100/0, 75/25, 50/50, Char ¼ 18.1e35.9 wt%
25/75, and 0/100; (biomass þ tyre) feed rate ¼ 1 g/
min;
N2 flow rate ¼ 8 L/min;
Time ¼ 30 min
FW Microwave- N/A N/A Temperature ¼ 400
C Bio-oil ¼ 30.24 wt% Kadlimatti
assisted N2 flow rate ¼ 50 mL/min et al. (2019)
pyrolysis Time ¼ 30 min
Microwave power ¼ 450 W
Horse manure Microwave- coconut shell- Biomass/activated Single mode microwave; Bio-oil~20 wt%; Mong et al.
assisted based activated carbon ratio ¼ 1:1 Temperature ¼ 450
C; Biogas~10 wt%; (2020)
pyrolysis carbon N2 flow rate ¼ 1 L/min; Biochar~60 wt%
Time ¼ 40 min/batch
Rice husk Fixed-bed N/A N/A Tubular glass fixed bed reactor; Bio-oil~45 wt%; Fermanelli
pyrolysis Temperature ¼ 550
C; Biogas~13 wt%; et al. (2020)
N2 flow rate ¼ 60 mL/min; Biochar~42 wt%
Wheat straw Fixed-bed N/A N/A Time ¼ 10 min Bio-oil~58 wt%; Fermanelli
pyrolysis Biogas~14 wt%; et al. (2020)
Biochar~28 wt%
Peanut shells Fixed-bed N/A N/A Temperature ¼ 500
C; Bio-oil~51 wt%; Fermanelli
pyrolysis N2 flow rate ¼ 60 mL/min; Biogas~21 wt%; et al. (2020)
Time ¼ 10 min Biochar~29 wt%
Pine needles Non-catalytic N/A N/A Semi-batch reactor; Bio-oil ¼ 43.5 wt%; Kumari and


pyrolysis Temperature ¼ 550 C; Biogas ¼ 28.2 wt %; Mohanty
Time ¼ 45 min; Biochar ¼ 28.3 wt% (2020)
N2 flow rate ¼ 100 mL/min
Pine needles Catalytic HZSM-5 zeolite HZSM-5/Biomass Semi-batch reactor; Bio-oil ¼ 35.2 wt%; Kumari and
pyrolysis ratio ¼ 1:2 Temperature ¼ 550
C; Biogas ¼ 38.7 wt %; Mohanty
Time ¼ 45 min; Biochar ¼ 26.1 wt% (2020)
N2 flow rate ¼ 100 mL/min
Spirulina platensis Solar Hydrotalcite N/A Transparent quartz reactor; Bio-oil ¼ 35.94% with Barbosa et al.
microalgae catalytic Transmittance ¼ 0.94; solar flux radiation ¼ 700 21.71% hydrocarbon (2020)
2
pyrolysis e850 W/m ); fraction
Temperature ¼ 500 ± 20
C;
Vacuum condition

2.1.3. Incineration scope of this review.

The combustion of organic substances in waste materials at high
temperatures between 750 and 1000
C is called incineration.
Nearly 70% of the total waste mass reduction and 90% of total waste
volume reduction can be done on the basis of composition and
degree of recovery of some materials (Tozlu et al., 2016). Along with
flue gas, incineration produces bottom ash and fly ash containing
toxic organic and inorganic substances (heavy metals) (Wang et al.,
2019a, 2019b). The emission of detrimental air pollutants such as
SOx, COx, NOx, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and particulate matter
is a huge drawback of this technique (Khan and Kabir, 2020).
Dong et al. (2018) suggested that incineration of MSW is quite
better than all other techniques due to its efficient flue gas cleaning
system. In food waste, ammonia acts as a reducing agent to restrain
the release of NOx at high-temperature area of the primary and
secondary incineration (Chung et al., 2016). Both incineration fly
ash (Kan et al., 2020) and bottom ash (Zhu et al., 2019) have been
utilized in civil engineering applications. Reportedly, ~130 million
tons of MSW is combusted globally/year generating electricity and
steam for district heating (Somorin et al., 2017; X. Yao et al., 2019a,
2019b); more detailed discussion of this technique is beyond the
2.2. Biochemical route
Solid waste management via biochemical route is quite an
appealing alternative as it can convert the waste to various forms of
bioenergy such as biogas, bioethanol and bio-hydrogen. Suitable
feedstock for these processes is broadly waste from the kitchen
(Panigrahi et al., 2020), agriculture (Bader et al., 2020), and in-
dustries (Al-Mohammedawi et al., 2019). Pretreatment of biomass
before its conversion to bioenergy is an essential step to improve
the yields. The pre-treatment methods have been discussed prior to
comprehensive analysis of biogas, bioethanol and bio-hydrogen
production.
2.2.1. Pre-treatment of biomass
Lignocellulosic biomass has the maximum abundance out of all
the raw materials across the globe having an annual yield of over
220 billion tons (Yang and Wang, 2019). Lignocellulose is a poly-
carbohydrate complex consisting of lignin, cellulose, and hemi-
cellulose. The proportion of components of lignocellulose in cell
6 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501

Table 2
Conversion of various wastes to syngas via gasification.

Reactant Oxidant Catalyst Reactor Gasification conditions Producer gas Tar yield Ref.

Yield Composition

Pine waste biomass Air N/A Bubbling Sample feed 2.3 m3/kg CO ¼ 17.4; CO2 ¼ 13.9; N/A Nobre
fluidized bed rate ¼ 409 ± 46 g/h daf; H2 ¼ 6.5; CH4 ¼ 4.5 vol %, dry et al.
gasifier Temperature ¼ 800
C; basis (2020)
Equivalence
ratio ¼ 0.25;
Time ¼ 60e140 min
Pellets with (95% Pine Air N/A Bubbling Sample feed 2.4 m3/kg CO ¼ 13.5; CO2 ¼ 14.2; N/A Nobre
waste þ 5% RDF fluidized bed rate ¼ 409 ± 46 g/h daf; H2 ¼ 8.3; CH4 ¼ 3.9 vol %, dry et al.
char) gasifier Temperature ¼ 850
C; (2020)
Equivalence
ratio ¼ 0.25;
Time ¼ 60e140 min
Pellets with (90% Pine Air N/A Bubbling Sample feed 2.5 m3/kg CO ¼ 14.4; CO2 ¼ 13.8; N/A Nobre
waste þ 10% RDF fluidized bed rate ¼ 409 ± 46 g/h daf; H2 ¼ 7.9; CH4 ¼ 4.2 vol %, dry et al.
char) gasifier Temperature ¼ 850
C; (2020)
Equivalence
ratio ¼ 0.25;
Duration ¼ 60
e140 min
Landfill waste (65 wt Steam N/A Horizontal tube Temperature ¼ 800
C; 0.83 g/g-fuel CO ¼ 20.6; CO2 ¼ 20.7; ~0.06 g/g- Zaini et al.
%) þ beech wood reactor N2 flow of 160 mL/min; daf H2 ¼ 42.6; CxHy ¼ 15.9 vol% fuel daf (2020)
(35 wt%) Pre-heated steam flow
rate ~ 0.5 g/min;
Duration ¼ 30 min
Landfill waste (65 wt Steam N/A Horizontal tube Temperature ¼ 800
C; 1.2 g/g-fuel daf CO ¼ 10.4; CO2 ¼ 25.0; 0.014 g/g- Zaini et al.
%) þ beech wood reactor N2 flow of 160 mL/min; H2 ¼ 53.5; CxHy ¼ 11.1 vol% fuel daf (2020)
biochar (35 wt%) Pre-heated steam flow
rate ~ 0.5 g/min;
Duration ¼ 30 min
MPW Steam CaO Fluidized bed MPW: CaO ¼ 1: 1 mass 3.12 Nm3/kg N/A N/A Lazzarotto
reactor ratio; et al.
N2 flow rate ¼ 500 mL/ (2020)
min;


Heating rate ¼ 30 C/
min;
Steam flow
rate ¼ 0.3 kg/h;
Temperature ¼ 900
C;
Duration ¼ 90 min
Unripe coconut husk Humidified air N/A Bubbling N2 purging gas; N/A CO ¼ 31.74; CO2 ¼ 6.78; N/A Ram and
fluidized bed Humidified air H2 ¼ 27.5; CH4 ¼ 34.43 vol% Mondal
gasifier equivalence (2019)
ratio ¼ 0.1;
Temperature ¼ 850
C;
Duration ¼ 30 min
Pulp and paper waste Humidified air N/A Bubbling N2 purging gas; N/A CO ¼ 33.27; CO2 ¼ 2.40; N/A Ram and
water impregnated fluidized bed Humidified air H2 ¼ 55.55; CH4~8.58 vol% Mondal
coconut husk gasifier equivalence (2019)
ratio ¼ 0.1;
Temperature ¼ 850
C;
Duration ¼ 30 min
Pulp and paper waste Humidified air: N/A Bubbling N2 purging gas; N/A CO ¼ 39.80; CO2~4.9; N/A Ram and
water impregnated CO2 ¼ 1:1/2 (by fluidized bed Humidified air H2 ¼ 53; CH4~5 vol% Mondal
coconut husk volume) gasifier equivalence (2019)
ratio ¼ 0.1;
Temperature ¼ 850
C;
Duration ¼ 30 min
MSW Steam Calcined 30 kWth Bubbling N2 flow rate ¼ 0.009 0.95e1.0 Nm3/ CO ¼ 5.4; CO2 ¼ 10.6; 7 g/N m3 Martínez
limestone as fluidized bed Nm3/min; kg daf H2 ¼ 64.1; CH4 ¼ 11.6 vol%, dry gas et al.
CO2 sorbent gasifier Steam/carbon dry (2020)
ratio ¼ 1.4;
Sorbent/biomass
ratio ¼ 1.98;
Temperature ¼ 700
e706
C;
Solids residence
time ¼ 75 min
Palm kernel shell Air N/A Electrically Feedstock 56.2 wt% ~
CO20; CO2 ¼ 19.3; H2 ~7.5; ~0.4 wt% Basha et al.
(90%) þ Polystyrene heated batch mass ¼ 100 g; CH4 ¼ 19.8 vol% (2020)
plastic (10%) downdraft Air flow rate ¼ 2.5 L/
gasifier min;
Temperature ¼ 800
C;
Equivalence
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501 7

Table 2 (continued )

Reactant Oxidant Catalyst Reactor Gasification conditions Producer gas Tar yield Ref.

Yield Composition

ratio ¼ 0.17;
Time ¼ 10 min
Poultry litter Air N/A Bubbling Fuel flow 1.247 Nm3 dry N2 ¼ 62.8; CO ¼ 11.39; 4.25 g tar/ Katsaros
fluidized bed rate ¼ 0.548 kg/h; N2 free/kg CO2 ¼ 11.59; H2 ¼ 10.15; kg et al.
reactor Air flow rate ¼ 7.6 L/ feedstock daf CH4 ¼ 2.12 vol%, dry feedstock (2020)
min; daf
N2 flow rate ¼ 4.4 L/
min;
Gasifier
temperature ¼ 750
C;
Fluidization medium
temperature ¼ 160
C;
Equivalence
ratio ¼ 0.21
Beech wood Air N/A Bubbling Fuel flow 0.948Nm3 dry N2 ¼ 61.48; CO ¼ 12.82; 7.44 g tar/ Katsaros
fluidized bed rate ¼ 0.546 kg/h; N2 free/kg CO2 ¼ 12.65; H2 ¼ 7.15; kg et al.
reactor Air flow rate ¼ 7.6 L/ feedstock daf CH4 ¼ 3.73 vol%, dry feedstock (2020)
min; daf
N2 flow rate ¼ 4.4 L/
min;
Gasifier
temperature ¼ 750
C;
Fluidization medium
temperature ¼ 160
C;
Equivalence
ratio ¼ 0.225
Poultry litter þ Beech Air N/A Bubbling Fuel flow 0.983 Nm3 dry N2 ¼ 63.42; CO ¼ 10.65; 6.1 g tar/ Katsaros
wood fluidized bed rate ¼ 0.559 kg/h; N2 free/ CO2 ¼ 12.59; H2 ¼ 10.15; kg et al.
reactor Air flow rate ¼ 8.2 L/ kgfeedstock daf CH4 ¼ 3.21 vol%, dry feedstock (2020)
min; daf
N2 flow rate ¼ 3.8 L/
min;
Gasifier
temperature ¼ 750
C;
Fluidization medium
temperature ¼ 160
C;
Equivalence
ratio ¼ 0.21

walls varies depending on the plant type, kind, and origin. Lignin is
a complex 3-D crosslinked aromatic polymer made up of phenyl-
propane monomers constituting roughly 15e25% of the total
feedstock dry matter. Cellulose is a polysaccharide formed with
anhydroglucopyranose units connected via ether bonds in a linear
chain. It is the major constituent of the plant biomass containing
30e60% of the total feedstock dry matter. Hemicelluloses are
similar to cellulose, but unlike cellulose they are mostly branched
polymers comprising of the shorter chains and more than one type
of sugar. The fraction of hemicellulose in the total feedstock dry
matter vary from 20 to 40% and these have an amorphous structure
making it more likely to get hydrolyzed when compared to cellu-
lose (Carrier et al., 2011; Kotarska et al., 2019). The pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass is vital for overcoming its recalcitrance to-
wards hydrolysis. Pre-treatment breaks the lignocellulosic matrix,
reduces the crystallinity of cellulose, and enhances the fraction of
the amorphous cellulose (Sharma et al., 2020). The type of waste
material or feedstock is the basis for selecting the suitable pre-
treatment approach because of different physico-chemical fea-
tures (Achinas and Euverink, 2016). Various pre-treatment
methods have been reported in the literature.
2.2.1.1. Physical methods. Size-reduction (Wu et al., 2020), pyrolysis
(Wang et al., 2016), pulsed-electric field (Safavi and Unnthorsson,
2018), microwave irradiation (B.-H. Zhao et al., 2017a, 2017b) and
non-thermal irradiation (Wu et al., 2020) are among the main
physical methods for the pre-treatment of biomass. Size of the
biomass can be reduced via ball milling or grinding, which
enhances the surface area and decreases the size. The breaking
down of lignocellulosic biomass into smaller particles may affect
crystallinity of cellulose (Silva and Rouau, 2011; Wu et al., 2020).
However, this technique is costly, arduous, time-consuming and
energy-exhaustive (Veluchamy et al., 2019). Mechanical extrusion
is another technique, which includes shearing and mixing of
biomass at high temperatures, leading to physical and chemical
distortion of the biomass. Pyrolysis includes heating the biomass at
high temperatures of 500e800
C in an almost anaerobic condition,
which renders the decomposition of cellulose (Wang et al., 2016).
Pulsed-electric field is another method, which exposes biomass
to a high voltage (~5.0e20.0 kV/cm) for very small intervals (109-
103 sec), leading to breaking of cellulose into sugars. Microwave
irradiation causes the internal heating of feedstock by attacking
polar bonds via vibration. This makes lignocellulosic substrate
splintered and viable for the enzymatic attack (Bichot et al., 2020).
2.2.1.2. Physico-chemical methods. This category includes steam
explosion, ammonia treatment and wet oxidation. In steam ex-
plosion, hydrothermal and sudden pressure changes are employed,
which bursts the fiber walls. This treatment is influenced by tem-
perature, size, residence time and moisture (Lizasoain et al., 2017;
Padilla-Rasco n et al., 2020). Pretreatment processes using liquid
ammonia have also been explored (Oladi and Aita, 2017). Ammonia
fiber explosion (AFEX) is employed at ambient conditions, which is
influenced by the instantaneous high pressure exploding the
structure. This method is suitable for the feedstock comprising of
fibers such as sugarcane bagasse (Z. Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b).
8 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Ammonia recycle percolation (ARP) is employed at high tempera-
ture and recoverable ammonia flows through the reactor. ARP
removes lignin with no traces of sodium and sulphur (Kim et al.,
2006). Wet oxidation is another technique that treats the biomass
in air/oxygen with water or HCl or alkali or hydrogen peroxide at
high temperatures (An et al., 2019; Morone et al., 2017). The
hemicellulose is broken down into monomers, lignin is removed
and cellulose crystallinity is reduced, but this process is not
possible on industrial scales due involvement of capital costs
(Banerjee et al., 2009).
2.2.1.3. Chemical methods. These methods employ acids such as
H2SO4 (Neves et al., 2016) or a base like NaOH (Sharma et al., 2019)
for the disruption of hemicellulose and lignin. Acid treatment
breaks the glycosidic linkage of the polysaccharide. Base degrades
the side chains of esters and glycosides subsequently causing the
modification of lignin structure as well as solubilizes the hemicel-
lulose and reduces crystallinity of cellulose. This method is feasible
on industrial scale since chemicals can be stored for long periods in
addition to being comparatively economical. However, the need for
substantial washing to remove acid or salt contents before pro-
ceeding further is quite a tedious step (Rastogi and Shrivastava,
2017).
2.2.1.4. Biological methods. This method employs the microorgan-
isms for disintegrating lignocellulosic materials. Different fungi
(Alexandropoulou et al., 2017) and bacterial strains (Ushani et al.,
2017) have been investigated for the disintegration of lignin and
hemicelluloses. These methods are not energy-exhaustive and
operate under mild conditions without requiring any external
chemicals; no toxic chemicals are released in the environment by
this approach. The side products obtained after the biological
pretreatment may not impede subsequent hydrolysis. Even though
slow hydrolysis rate of the biological method is its shortcoming,
which makes it incompetent for large industrial-scale applications
(Rastogi and Shrivastava, 2017).
2.2.2. Anaerobic digestion/biomethanation
In anaerobic digestion, the substrate is decomposed in the
absence of oxygen to produce biogas, which mostly comprises of
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Food waste particularly
consists of a significant percentage of organic matter making the
anaerobic digestion viable. Roughly 0.1 m3 of CH4 gas is produced/
kg of the food waste. The removal of food waste from the landfills
can reduce the leak of leachate into groundwater saving thereby,
the price of leachate management and decreasing the harmful
impact on the environment (Eriksson et al., 2015). It was reported
that 2.04 kW h of electricity could be generated using 1 m3 of
biogas obtained via anaerobic digestion (35% efficacy), which is
equivalent to 21 MJ of energy (Murphy et al., 2004). Biogas is
employed for heating, cooking, electricity, steam generation and as
vehicle fuels. The feedstock for aerobic digestion comprises of
MSW, agricultural discard, fruit and vegetable waste (Ullah Khan
et al., 2017). The problem of crop residue burning can be solved
by efficiently utilizing it for the biogas production (Kumar et al.,
2019).
The anaerobic digestion comprises of three steps: hydrolysis,
acidogenesis and methanogenesis (Koyama et al., 2017). The first
step is hydrolysis of substrate (organic/lignocellulosic), which is
facilitated by bacteria to transform it into simpler units like amino
acids, monosaccharides and fatty acids. The second step encom-
passes acidogenesis, which is the transformation of broken mate-
rial to organic acids (volatile fatty acids) and other simple products
like H2 and CO2 (Molino et al., 2013). The third and final step is
where methanogens transform the organic acids to CH4 gas (Fig. 5).
Studies have reported four stages of anaerobic digestion consisting
of hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis.
However, digestion of certain solid substrates cannot be rationally
explicated by the three-stage theory (Li et al., 2015). Hydrolysis has
been reported to be the rate-limiting step for anaerobic digestion
since it depends on the type of feedstock (T. Liu et al., 2019a, 2019b,
2019c). It is suggested that pre-treatment of ligno-cellulosic
biomass prior to digestion process augments the digestibility of
substrates, reduce the digestion time and improve the biogas yields
(T. Liu et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Phuttaro et al., 2019).
A microbial consortium consisting of diverse species of organ-
isms for hydrolysis, acidogenesis and methanogenesis is account-
able for biogas generation. Various bacteria have been recognized
to be involved in hydrolysis as well as acidogenesis such as Clos-
tridium (Ecem Oner€ et al., 2018), Pseudomonas (Iwasaki et al., 2019)
and Bacillus (Guo et al., 2017). Methanogenesis is carried out by
archaea, where the main microbes found responsible are Meth-
anobacterium, Methanoregula (Liu et al., 2017), Methanomicrobia,
and Methanococci (Feng et al., 2015). Sufficient knowledge and
comprehension of microbes are essential for inoculation of the
specific microorganism to obtain superior results (Ghosh et al.,
2020). The digestants procured as by-products are rich in nutri-
ents and can be employed as fertilizers. Parameters such as pH,
temperature, ammonia-level, reactor-type, type of co-substrates,
and microbes, etc., influence the productivity of anaerobic diges-
tion and their optimization is thereby imperative.
A superior methanogen activity is obtained at the minimum pH
of 6.5, while it is hindered in the pH range of 5.0e6.5 as hydro-
genogenesis is dominant (Wang et al., 2014). However, a small
range of pH 6.8 to 7.2 can be ideal for anaerobic digestion. An overly
alkaline pH results in the degeneration of microbial granules
hampering the success of the process (Kiyasudeen S et al., 2016).
Moreover, anaerobic digestion mostly takes place at the mesophilic
(30e40
C) and thermophilic (50e60
C) conditions, but none of
them is wholly preferable (Yao et al., 2019a, 2019b). Thermophilic
digestion has advantages since it facilitates comparatively greater
metabolic rate, better pathogen deactivation, greater decrease of
volatile solids in addition to superior biogas yields (Yao et al., 2019a,
2019b). Furthermore, there is a need for extra energy for heating
the digester (Montan ~e
s Alonso et al., 2016). On the other hand,
lower concentration of volatile fatty acids in the final discharge
besides the maintenance of greater organic loading rate has been
the merit of mesophilic digestion (Bayr et al., 2012). Diverse sub-
strates undergoing mesophilic or thermophilic digestion exhibit
differing degradation kinetics because of different reaction paths
and microorganisms involved (Li et al., 2015). Hydrolysis is recog-
nized as the limiting step when biomass is ligno-cellulosic, whereas
methanogenesis is the rate determining step when the biomass is
organic matter (Yao et al., 2019a, 2019b).
One pivotal parameter in determining the success of anaerobic
digestion process is the ammonia level. The total ammonia nitrogen
is (NH3(aq) þ NHþ 4 ), which is associated with high pH and tem-
perature (Wijesinghe et al., 2019). If free NH3 (as a result of
degradation of protein components rich in N2) is present in high
concentration, then it can be toxic to the activity of methanogenic
microbes. The NH3 toxicity (particularly NH3eN) is known to be a
prime reason for failure of digestion process. Generally, NH3 con-
centrations above 3 g NHþ 4 -N/L could prove as an impediment for
the process (Yang et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The NH3-level can be
maintained by a decrease in pH, increase in C/N ratio, decreasing
the temperature of the reactor or dilution. (Yang et al., 2019a,b,c).
The C/N ratio is the key parameter to control anaerobic digestion
process and a reflection of nutrient levels of the substrate (Yan
et al., 2015). The inappropriate C/N ratios may cause the release
of total ammonia nitrogen and/or amassing of volatile fatty acids in
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Fig. 5. Various steps involved in anaerobic digestion.
the digester, which could inhibit the digestion process. Feedstocks
having an extremely low C/N ratio intensify the risk of ammonia
inhibition causing toxicity to methanogens. On the other hand, a
high C/N ratio encourages lower rate of protein solubilization
causing low total ammonia nitrogen and fatty acid concentrations
in the system. However, a disproportionately high C/N ratio leads to
the supply of inadequate nitrogen for maintenance of cell biomass
and quick degradation of nitrogen by microbes, resulting in poor
biogas yield (Yan et al., 2015). For proper bacterial growth, studies
suggest the C/N ratio range of 20/1 to 30/1 with an optimum of 25/1
for bacterial growth; however it depends on the feedstock
(Wijesinghe et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2015).
The chief modes of the process are batch, continuous one-stage
and two-stage processes with various methanogens. The two-stage
processes have exhibited relatively better performance with
respect to effluent quality, CH4 yield, depletion of volatile solids in
addition to process stability (Montan ~e
s Alonso et al., 2016). The co-
digestion of waste is a good alternative since it promises improved
efficacy of degradation of substrates and energy output (Huang
et al., 2016). It also permits complete capture of CH4 from waste
to eventually utilize it for producing biogas. The co-digestion waste
should be done with other wastes that have optimal lipid content
and nitrogen level (Sun et al., 2014). The co-digestion of feedstock
having lower C/N ratio with the one having higher C/N ratio would
help in balancing for optimal methane and biogas yield
(Kiyasudeen S et al., 2016).
Representative literature reports on anaerobic digestion are
summarized in Table 3. Suksong et al. (2020) studied the biogas
production using empty fruit bunches via coupled liquid and solid-
state anaerobic digestion. Palm oil mill effluent acted as a feedstock
for liquid anaerobic digester yielding 329.5 mL CH4/g of volatile
solids. The concoction of discharge from the liquid anaerobic
digester and empty fruit bunches was utilized as a solid-state
anaerobic digester giving maximum yield of 134.9 mL CH4/g of
volatile solids at optimal conditions. Ghosh et al. (2020) investi-
gated biogas production by co-digesting organic part of MSW with
the sewage sludge at various ratios. The MSW consisted of 65% of
organic waste, ~25% of paper waste, plastic, metal, textile and 10%
inert materials. The total yield was 586.2 mL biogas/g VS with a
maximum CH4 concentration of 69.5% at an optimal ratio of 40:60
(w/w). The mono-digested sample of organic fraction of MSW
manifested the biogas as well as CH4 yield of 220.5 mL/g VS and
24.03 mL/gVS, respectively. The co-digestion showed a remarkable
increase of 2.66-times in biogas production and 15-times in CH4
yield compared to mono-digested MSW.
Shahbaz et al. (2019) utilized MSW and FW for the biogas pro-
duction by co-digestion wherein co-digestion at mesophilic
9
conditions could maintain optimal C/N ratio (Panigrahi et al., 2020).
Examined the anaerobic digestion of food waste and yard waste at
varying food/microorganism ratios. The yard waste was given
thermal pretreatment via microwave to get rid of the recalcitrants.
The maximum CH4 yield was 431 mL/g VSadded at a food/microor-
ganism ratio of 1.5. Liu et al. (2020) investigated the biogas and
methane production by sewage sludge, raw, alkaline-thermally
pretreated. The anaerobic digestion was carried out in continuous
stirred tank reactors. At an HRT of 25 days, the alkaline-thermally
pre-treated sludge produced the highest CH4 and biogas yields of
234.9 ± 13.0 mL/g and 321.9 ± 10.3 mL/g of volatile solids. The CH4
production enhanced when HRT decreased from 25 to 15 days.
The concomitant release of gases such as NOx, SOx, and highly
corrosive H2S during the anaerobic digestion polluted the envi-
ronment (Zhu et al., 2009) as slow decomposition of particulate
organic feedstock causing long residence time and poor efficacy are
the shortcomings of this process (Appels et al., 2013). It was sug-
gested that high salt content in food waste could impede anaerobic
digestion due to the presence of sodium ions (Zhao et al., 2017a,
2017b). Nonetheless, anaerobic treatment in combination with a
suitable post-treatment method is indeed a workable and afford-
able technique for sustainable management.
2.2.3. Aerobic composting
Aerobic composting is the microbial decomposition of organic
waste in the presence of oxygen transforming to CO2, H2O, heat and
a solid material known as compost (humus). This compost is non-
odorous as well as pathogen-free, which can serve as a good fer-
tilizer (Chand Malav et al., 2020; Jurado et al., 2014). It is an
appealing biological waste management methodology that signif-
icantly reduces huge volumes of landfill waste (Wang et al., 2017).
The wastes utilized for composting consist of organic matter
including animal manure (Gu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020),
agricultural waste (Chen et al., 2019), FW (Wang et al., 2017), ligno-
cellulosics (Jurado et al., 2014), MSW (Kazemi et al., 2016), and
sewage sludge (Zhang et al., 2018). Aerobic composting has been
reported as an excellent choice for controlling pathogens and
antibiotic pollution in the animal manure (Zhang et al., 2020).
Aerobic composting is a self-heating process occurring via the
action of diverse categories of bacteria (e.g., Actinobacteria, Firmi-
cutes, Proteobacteria) and fungi (e.g., Ascomycota) (Jurado et al.,
2014). This process generally takes place in two stages: the first
stage is bio-oxidative, which has three phases viz., mesophilic,
thermophilic, and cooling (Kazemi et al., 2016). Initially, mesophilic
bacteria and fungi govern the process consuming the degradable
matter. As the temperature rises and reaches thermophilic phase,
the corresponding thermophilic microbes degrade the cellulose,
10 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Table 3
Biogas production by various substrates via anaerobic digestion.
Feedstock
Palm oil mill effluent
Mixture of effluent from liquid anaerobic digester þ empty fruit
bunches
Co-digestion of OFMSW and sewage sludge
Mono-digestion of OFMSW
Co-digestion of MSW and FW
Co-digestion of food waste and yard waste
Raw sewage sludge
Thermally pretreated sludge
Alkaline-thermally pretreated sludge
hemi-cellulose, and fats by suppressing the pathogens. The final
phase involves cooling and the deficit of biodegradable material
causes decline in microbial activity due to which temperature falls.
The second stage of aerobic composting is the maturing stage
(Kazemi et al., 2016). It has been reported that composting has
better efficiency for degrading organic matter compared to anaer-
obic digestion. In fact, carbon degradation in composting is twice
higher than that in the anaerobic digestion (Lin et al., 2014).
Important design factors of composting to allow adequate
growth of microbial community with robust enzymatic activities
include C/N ratio, moisture content, and aeration rate apart from
the type of bulking agent in the composting pile. These parameters
control the degradation of organic waste, thereby maturing the
compost (Kazemi et al., 2016). The desired temperature in this
process is reached by the management of pile properties and pile
configuration (depth and shape) in addition to oxygen level (nat-
ural aeration or forced aeration) (Li et al., 2013). A C/N ratio of
25e35 is considered ideal and pH between 7 and 8 are suggested to
be optimum for aerobic composting (Torres-Climent et al., 2015).
The optimum aeration rate is dependent on the composition of
waste materials, ventilation methods besides the oxygen demand
of bacteria (Yuan et al., 2016). The mature compost is useful in soil
amendment to augment the plant growth and soil fertility in
addition to improving soil functioning for carbon sequestration.
However, the utilization of an unstable and immature compost may
fix nitrogen in the soil and hamper the plant growth by competing
for O2 in rhizosphere and releasing noxious substances (Yuan et al.,
2016).
Composting would be practically simpler and suitable option in
rural and urban locations for waste management, since burden of
enormous volumes of waste on landfills is reduced (Chand Malav
et al., 2020). However, bad-odor, release of greenhouse gases and
NH3 is a big issue with aerobic composting (Chen et al., 2020).
Research in this domain has been largely focused on to lessen the
emissions of greenhouse gases and the odor.
2.2.4. Bioethanol production
The waste/biomass can be converted into ethanol via
biochemical pathways. Bioethanol is a sustainable and appealing
substitute for gasoline owing to its high octane number, higher
flammable temperature compared to petroleum fuels (Gavahian
et al., 2016b). Blending bioethanol with gasoline reduces green-
house gas emissions and other harmful gases, indicating its sus-
tainable nature (Gavahian et al., 2016b). In the biochemical route of
converting waste to bioethanol, biomass contains sugar molecules
such as sugarcane (Narra et al., 2015), agricultural discard and
forestry waste (Sivarathnakumar et al., 2019) as well as algal
biomass (Alfonsín et al., 2019). The major steps for ethanol pro-
duction are appropriate pretreatment of the feedstock, followed by
Digester Methane yield (mL/g Biogas yield (mL/g Ref.
VS) VS)
Liquid anaerobic digester 329.5 N/A Suksong et al. (2020)
Solid-state anaerobic 60.9 N/A Suksong et al. (2020)
digester
Batch anaerobic digester 377 586.2 Ghosh et al. (2020)
Batch anaerobic digester 24.03 220.5 Ghosh et al. (2020)
Batch anaerobic digester 474.4 827 Shahbaz et al. (2019)
Solid-state anaerobic 431 N/A Panigrahi et al.
digester (2020)
CSTR 98.9 ± 7.1 147.9 ± 6.1 Liu et al. (2020)
CSTR 192.6 ± 13.7 275.8 ± 12.3 Liu et al. (2020)
CSTR 234.9 ± 13.0 321.9 ± 10.3 Liu et al. (2020)
enzymatic/acid hydrolysis, microbial fermentation into ethanol and
finally distillation of the fermented broth to procure fuel-grade
bioethanol (Gavahian et al., 2016a; Koti et al., 2016) as displayed
in Fig. S1.
Saccharification is the primary step where hydrolysis of the
feedstock is done to obtain fermentable sugar solution. The glyco-
sidic linkages of cellulose and hemicellulose get broken during the
hydrolysis to release simpler hexose and pentose sugars such as
glucose, arabinose, mannose, galactose, and xylose (Kim et al.,
2011). This step is essential as the microbes employed later dur-
ing the fermentation are capable of only digesting simpler sugar
molecules derived from the breakdown of complex carbohydrates.
The hydrolysis process using dilute sulfuric acid is performed either
prior to enzymatic hydrolysis or for direct transformation of ligno-
cellulose into the resultant sugars (Srilekha Yadav et al., 2011). The
hemicellulose part undergoes depolymerization at lower temper-
ature compared to cellulose fraction. At higher temperature or
extended retention time, monosaccharides thus formed would
undergo further hydrolysis to new compounds. Therefore, hydro-
lysis is generally conducted in two steps; the first one at moderately
milder settings, which hydrolyze the hemicellulose portion, while
the second step is of enzymatic or dilute acid hydrolysis at high
temperatures to hydrolyze cellulose (Srilekha Yadav et al., 2011).
The subsequent step is fermentation during which pentose and
hexose sugars obtained are transformed into bio-ethanol by the
fermentation agent such as yeast for e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae
(Neves et al., 2016), Kluyveromyces sp. (Narra et al., 2015), Pichia
stipites (Koti et al., 2016) or bacteria for e.g., Zymomonas mobilis
(Wirawan et al., 2020). Third and the final step is distillation or
dehydration of the fermented broth to recover ethanol. The bio-
ethanol concentration in the broth depends on the substrate be-
sides fermentation conditions. The levels of ethanol ought to be
>99% in order to be a fuel-grade product. Distillation is conducted
multiple times to achieve higher fractions of bioethanol (Gavahian
et al., 2016b). However, traditional distillation has a drawback to
offer ethanol with a poor energy efficacy due to the formation of
azeotrope with water. This step is highly energy-intensive (using up
to 40% of total energy requirement of bioethanol production);
moreover, production cost is mainly impacted by this step
(Gavahian et al., 2016a, 2016b). In this sense, alternative techniques
for distillation on the basis of equipment configuration and physi-
cochemical properties of the mixture of ethanol and water have
been sought. Many methods have been investigated to combat this
challenge including heat-integrated distillation (Grisales Díaz and
Olivar Tost, 2016), feed-splitting distillation (Tavan and
Shahhosseini, 2016), ohmic-assisted distillation (Gavahian et al.,
2016b), and membrane technology (Subaer et al., 2020).
In order to improve the efficacy of bioethanol production by
ligno-cellulosic biomass, integration of saccharification and
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
fermentation were suggested. In simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation (SSF), a single reactor is employed for saccharification
of biomass and instantaneous fermentation of sugar. The merit of
this method is that there is no amassing of inhibitory sugars as they
instantly get transformed into ethanol. The other benefits of SSF are
the need to low cost equipment, easy operation and less suscepti-
bility to the contamination (Kadhum et al., 2019). But, drawbacks of
this technique are optimization of process parameters (Shadbahr
et al., 2017). Further, simultaneous saccharification and co-
fermentation (SSCF) is another method, which is a concoction of
microbial incorporation of sugars released previously during the
pre-treatment step and hydrolytic processes of lignocellulosic
feedstock. SSCF helps to reduce inhibition of saccharification
caused by glucose and xylose to increase the production of bio-
ethanol. Less operation time, cost-effectiveness, and minimal
contamination-risk are some of the benefits of SSCF (L. Liu et al.,
2019a, 2019b, 2019c).
Table 4 summarizes various reports on the production of bio-
ethanol using diverse substrates. Narra et al. (2015) utilized ligno-
cellulosic biomass for bioethanol production pretreated by acid
treatment as well as by SSF via Kluyveromyces sp. Under sterile
conditions. The highest yield of ethanol obtained from rice straw,
wheat straw and sugarcane bagasse were achieved, respectively
23.23, 18.29 and 17.91 g/L under optimum conditions (60 h; 10%
solid loading; enzyme loading ~9 FPU/g substrate). Neves et al.
(2016) utilized the native and bioethanol-extracted sugarcane
bagasse as a raw material for producing ethanol by fermentation
via Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Steam explosion pre-treatment was
carried out under auto-hydrolysis and dilute acid hydrolysis
(H3PO4 þ H2SO4) conditions and the former was the best method.
Separate hydrolysis and fermentation yielded ethanol (25 g/L) in
greater amounts compared to SSF (18 g/L) and pre-hydrolysis fol-
lowed by SSF (pSSF) (16 g/L). Nonetheless, pSSF procured total
ethanol productivity of 0.58 g/L/h.
Sivarathnakumar et al. (2019) employed pre-treated woody
stem Prosopis juliflora for producing ethanol, where Kluyveromyces
marxianus was employed for separating the hydrolysis and
fermentation steps. The maximum yield of bioethanol of 21.45 g/L
was obtained at 41
C and pH of 4.9 at the substrate and inoculum
concentrations of 5% (w/v) and 3% (v/v), respectively (Naresh
Kumar et al., 2020). Utilized deoiled algal biomass residue (domi-
nated by Chlorella sp. And Scenedesmus sp.) for producing bio-
ethanol, where feedstock was pretreated via several routes.
Physicochemical pretreatment included acid treatment with sub-
sequent autoclave treatment, while enzymatic pre-treatment
encompassed loading by the commercial-grade a-amylase and
cellulose. Hybrid pre-treatment involved the addition of 20% of
deoiled algal biomass to water and autoclaving in acidic conditions.
Fermentation of hybrid pre-treated feedstock by Saccharomyces
cerevisiae resulted in a maximum yield of bioethanol
(0.145 ± 0.008 g/g substrate at pH 5.5). Alfonsín et al. (2019) pro-
duced bioethanol from an industrial algae waste Eucheuma Den-
ticulatum Spinosum, where the feedstock was first pre-treated and
subsequently hydrolyzed in acidic conditions. Optimal H2SO4 con-
centration and acid/dried algae weight ratio were found to be 9%
and 7%, respectively, but fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae
gave the maximum bioethanol yield of 11.6 g/g of algae.
In another study, sugarcane bagasse was utilized for bioethanol
production using Saccharomyces cerevisiae, wherein steam-assisted
sequential salt-alkali pretreatment was done (Jugwanth et al.,
2020). The response surface methodology (RSM) was employed
for the optimization of temperature, enzyme loading and yeast titre
giving 4.88 g/L of bioethanol at the optimum conditions (yeast titre
of 1 time, enzyme loading of 100 U/g and 39
C temperature).
However, the widely used yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae did not
11
convert pentose sugars (xylose) to ethanol impacting ethanol yields
undesirably (Rech et al., 2019). Microorganisms such as Pachysolen
tannophilus (El Harchi et al., 2018), Candida shehatae (Koti et al.,
2016), and Pichia stipites (Jutakridsada et al., 2019) have been re-
ported to effectively consume pentose sugars. The mixed microbe
cultures (L. Liu et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c) or genetically modified
microbes having the potential of assimilating both hexoses and
pentoses could also solve this problem (Koti et al., 2016). Spathas-
pora hagerdaliae UFMG-CM-Y303 could successfully convert xylose
into bioethanol under microaerophilic conditions. The former
strain yielded 4.25 g/L from sugarcane bagasse at pH 5 (Rech et al.,
2019). (Koti et al., 2016) investigated various mutant strains of
pentose fermenting yeast Pichia stipitis NCIM 3498 and Candida
shehatae NCIM 3501 for ethanol production from wheat straw. The
enzymatic and acid hydrolysis was performed separately after
alkali-pretreatment. The UV and ethidium bromide mutagenesis in
the strains considerably improve the results. The maximum bio-
ethanol yields were obtained with enzymatic hydrolysis (36 h) and
acid hydrolysis (48 h) in Pichia stipitis (PSUV9) and Candida she-
hatae (CSEB7), respectively (Table 4).
2.2.5. Bio-hydrogen production
Hydrogen is a clean source of energy in the secondary form
producing water as the primary product post-combustion. The
energy content of hydrogen is quite high ~122 kJ/g and the energy
yield in H2 fuel is 2.75-times greater than the hydrocarbon fuels.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have thrice the efficacy compared to the
gasoline engines (Sharma et al., 2020). Hydrogen as a fuel source
finds wide applications in electricity generation, transport systems
(Wadjeam et al., 2019), hydrogenation of fats and oils (Konkol et al.,
2016), desulfurization of gasoline (Abbasov et al., 2017), and steel
processing (Allen and Nelson, 2019). Nonetheless, hydrogen pro-
duction is mainly from the fossil fuels. The conventional methods
used for hydrogen production are steam reforming of hydrocarbons
(Wu et al., 2015), water electrolysis (Gaoqiang Yang et al., 2019),
gasification (Yuksel et al., 2019), and non-catalytic partial oxidation
(Guiberti et al., 2016).
Photocatalysis has also been explored extensively for the pro-
duction of hydrogen (Mishra et al., 2019a; Rao et al., 2019; C. V.
Reddy et al., 2020b; K. R. Reddy et al., 2019a, 2019b; N. L. Reddy
et al., 2019a, 2019b; N. R. Reddy et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c).
However, conventional route is costly, energy-intensive, inefficient
and non-friendly with the environment (Sharma et al., 2020).
Biological approach for hydrogen production encompasses mainly
fermentation (dark, photo and combined dark-photo fermentation)
(Fig. S2). Prior to fermentation process, suitable pre-treatment is
vital for better productivity.
2.2.5.1. Dark fermentation. It is the acidogenic fermentation of
substrates enriched with carbohydrates in dark and anoxygenic
conditions for producing hydrogen. Several microorganisms have
been investigated for dark fermentation such as Bacillus cereus
(Dinesh et al., 2019), Thermoanaerobacterium spp. (Yin et al., 2020),
Clostridium butyricum (Mishra et al., 2016), and Clostridium aceto-
butylicum (Zagrodnik and Łaniecki, 2017a). Hydrogen production is
dependent on temperature and pH as well as the type of biocatalyst
and feedstock employed. The optimal temperature for this process
depends on the type of substrate in addition to biocatalyst. The H2
generation rate using thermophilic bacteria was reported to be
superior than mesophilic bacteria possibly because of thermody-
namics of thermophilic conditions (Sharma et al., 2020). Acidic pH
facilitates hydrogen production as the methanogenesis is inhibited
below 6 in both mesophilic and thermophilic environments (Wang
et al., 2014). The optimum pH for kitchen and lignocellulosic waste
lies within 4.5e7 and 6.5e7, respectively, whereas neutral pH is
12 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501

Table 4
Bioethanol production by the various substrates.

Substrate Pretreatment Fermentation strain Overall ethanol Ref.

concentration (g/L)

Rice straw Acid treatment Kluyveromyces sp. 23.23 Narra et al. (2015)
Wheat straw Acid treatment Kluyveromyces sp. 18.29 Narra et al. (2015)
Sugarcane bagasse Acid treatment Kluyveromyces sp. 17.91 Narra et al. (2015)
Sugarcane bagasse Steam explosion Saccharomyces cerevisiae 25 Neves et al. (2016)
Wheat straw Alkali treatment Pichia stipites NCIM 3498 (mutant strain 12.15 ± 0.57 Koti et al. (2016)
PSUV9)
Wheat straw Alkali treatment Candida shehatae NCIM 3501 (mutant 9.98 ± 0.81 Koti et al. (2016)
strain CSEB7)
Ulva rigida Thermal acid hydrolysis Pachysolen tannophilus 11.92 ± 0.10 El Harchi et al. (2018)
Eucalyptus globulus Kraft pulping Pichia stipites NRRL Y-7124 17.50 ± 0.09 Branco et al. (2020)
Rise husk Acid treatment Pichia stipites ATCC 58785 3 Bader et al. (2020)
Sugarcane bagasse Steam explosion Spathaspora hagerdaliae UFMG-CM-Y303 4.25 Rech et al. (2019)
Woody stem Prosopis Auto hydrolysis þ acid Kluyveromyces marxianus 21 Sivarathnakumar et al.
juliflora treatment þ ultrasonication (2019)
Sugarcane bagasse Steam-assisted sequential salt-alkali Saccharomyces cerevisiae 4.88 Jugwanth et al. (2020)
pretreatment

suitable in case of animal compost (Santiago et al., 2019). In addi-
tion, productivity of hydrogen generation is governed by hydraulic
retention time, organic loading rate and inoculum source (Santiago
et al., 2019).
However, H2 yield is very low in dark fermentation because
hydrogen consuming bacteria reduce H2 to CH4 and organic acids.
Only about 33% of COD gets converted to hydrogen and organic
acids obtained as side-products that get accumulated. Nonetheless,
the product yield can be upgraded by suppressing methanogenic
activity by limiting H2-consuming bacteria and growing H2-pro-
ducing bacteria (Sharma et al., 2020). Nevertheless, pretreating
inoculums by an appropriate technique can help to inhibit H2
consuming bacteria, such as heat treatment (Turhal et al., 2019),
dilute acid treatment, aeration (Guang Yang et al., 2019a, 2019b,
2019c), ultra-sonication, microwave (Kannaiah Goud and Venkata
Mohan, 2012), treatment by sodium 2-bromoethanesulfonic acid
(Zhuang et al., 2012) and electroporation (Karim et al., 2019) have
been practiced. The poor yield of hydrogen by dark fermentation is
the main drawback of this process.
2.2.5.2. Photofermentation. This process includes fermentation of
organic matter in the presence of photosynthetic non-sulphur
bacteria to give H2 and CO2 under the sunlight without oxygen.
The absorbed light-energy enables photosynthetic bacteria to
complete the conversion of the substrate (Elkahlout et al., 2017).
Thus, photofermentation exceeds the yield efficacy when
compared to dark fermentation (1 mol of H2/mol) as the substrate
conversion in the former is brought to completion. Various mi-
croorganisms have been explored for photo fermentation such as
Rhodobacter sphaeroides (Sargsyan et al., 2016), Rhodobacter sulfi-
dophilus (Maeda et al., 2003), Rhodobacter capsulatus (Elkahlout
et al., 2017), Rhodospirillum rubrum (Dadak et al., 2016) and Rho-
dopseudomonas palustris (Hitit et al., 2017).
The rate of photo-fermentative hydrogen production is depen-
dent on the substrate, light intensity and strain type. Also, waste-
waters from different sources diverge in clarity and turbidity, which
require diverse light intensities. Suitable wavelengths in the range
of 400e1000 nm are efficacious for hydrogen production as highly
turbid media may not allow proper penetration eventually
reducing the efficacy of light conversion (Sharma et al., 2020). The
productivity of photofermentation in the temperature range of
31e36
C at pH 6.8e7.5 was maximum. Photosynthetic bacteria
contains hydrogenase as well as nitrogenase enzymes, but the
latter had the major role in hydrogen production (Yang et al., 2015).
Also, Fe and Mo are essential co-factors for H2 generation via
nitrogenase, but hydrogen formation via nitrogenase enzyme is
irreversible. The activity of nitrogenase is inhibited in the presence
of O2 or NH3 or when high N/C ratios were used. Therefore,
ammonium-limited and non-oxygenic conditions are essential for
better productivity (Sharma et al., 2020), but drawbacks of this
technique are inefficient light-conversion capability and excessive
energy-demand by nitrogenase enzyme. However, photo-
fermentation in combination to dark fermentation may have
promising results and sustainable in terms of waste management
and cost.
2.2.5.3. Integrated dark and photo-fermentation. Individual
fermentation processes (both dark and photo) have a downside
that organic acids get accumulated causing poor hydrogen yield,
resulting in high costs. Combining dark and photo fermentation in a
single or two-stage reactor is beneficial as the effluent of dark
fermentation is utilized as a substrate for photo fermentation. The
general equations of dark fermentation and photo fermentation are
presented in Eq. (1), and Eq. (2), respectively. In dark fermentation,
the highest yield is 4 mol H2/mol glucose if only acetic acid is
produced as a by-product (Eq. (1)). In photo fermentation, acetic
acid produces 8 mol of H2 (Eq. (2)). Thus, integrated fermentation
whether single-stage or two-stage gives cumulative theoretical
yield of 12 mol H2/mol glucose as the by-product formed in dark
fermentation is used as the substrate in the integrated process. In a
two-stage sequential fermentation, the first step is dark fermen-
tation by anaerobic bacteria generating H2 and short-chain organic
acids such as lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, etc., and alcohols.
In the second stage, photo fermentation by photosynthetic bacteria
converts organic acids to H2. In case of single-stage fermentation,
co-culture of bacteria is done, which reduces side products. A
single-stage process is comparatively simpler and has many ben-
efits over the two-stage approach. The acidification due to dark
fermentation can be adjusted by alkalinization during the course of
photo-fermentation and thereby, no external pH correction is
required. Also, there is no need for an intermediary dilution stage
(Hitit et al., 2017; Seifert et al., 2018).
C6H12O6 þ 2 H2O / 4 H2 þ 6 CO2 þ 2CH3COOH (1)
2CH3COOH þ 4 H2O þ light energy / 8 H2 þ 4 CO2 (2)
Reports from various sources on bio-hydrogen production by
dark/photo/integrated fermentation processs are summarized in
Table 5. The treatment of corn starch with co-culture of Clostridium
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
acetobutylicum (dark fermentation) and Rhodobacter sphaeroides
(photofermentation) at the OLR of 0.375 g starch/L/day and pH 7 in
a repeated fed-batch reactor provided 2.62 mol H2/mol hexose.
Additionally, at pH 6.5 hydrogen production was inhibited due to
the production of fatty acids predominantly (Zagrodnik and
Łaniecki, 2017a). The treatment of starch with the same co-
culture of Clostridium acetobutylicum and Rhodobacter sphaeroides
at pH 7.0 provided 5.11mol H2/mol hexose (Zagrodnik and Łaniecki,
2017b).
In another study, diluted effluents from chewing gum factories
were employed for the integrated fermentation. The digested
sludge was the inoculum source for dark fermentation and the run-
off contained volatile organic acids that were subsequently utilized
for photofermentation by Rhodobacter sphaeroides O.U.001. The
collective yield of 6.7 L H2/L of non-diluted waste was achieved
after the two-stage integrated fermentation (Seifert et al., 2018).
Dinesh et al. (2019) utilized rice straw hydrolysate and rice husk
hydrolysate for hydrogen production in neutral pH to carry out the
reaction in batch experiments. The dark and photofermentation
were carried out by Bacillus cereus (KR809374) and Rhodop-
seudomonas rutila, respectively to obtain the yield of 1.82 ± 0.04
and 1.73 mol H2/mol glucose was obtained by rice straw and rice
husk hydrolysate, respectively. However, the production cost of
hydrogen from food waste is greater compared to market price. This
process has to be more cost-effective and reduction in the price of
photobioreactor (Sharma et al., 2020). A holistic approach is crucial
to make bio-hydrogen production viable at large-scale.
3. Environmental analysis
From an environmental view-point, incineration is the most
incompatible waste management approach as it causes greater
emission of hazardous air contaminants such as SOx, COx, NOx,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and particulate matter compared to
pyrolysis, gasification, and anaerobic digestion. Additionally, heavy
metals released in fly ash and bottom ash cause land and water
pollution. Highly carcinogenic dioxins are discharged from the
incineration, which is threatening; noise pollution from incinera-
tion plants is also greater than pyrolysis, gasification, and anaerobic
digestion plants (Khan and Kabir, 2020).
The major environmental concerns for anaerobic digestion
comprise of the release of highly corrosive H2S along with SOx,
greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O) (Zhu et al., 2009). Composting also
faces the odor-issue due to NH3, H2S, and VOCs (Chen et al., 2020).
In case of anaerobic digestion, emissions are largely from organic
residues in digestate. However, the reported greenhouse gaseous
emissions from the anaerobic digestion and composting vary
widely from different laboratories (Lin et al., 2018). In case of bio-
hydrogen production, fermentation is environmentally lesser
feasible than gasification of waste materials (Tian et al., 2019). In
any case, techno-economic and policy analysis must be considered
along with environmental analysis prior to any decision making
before implementing any of the waste-to-energy technique
commercially.
4. Trends and perspectives
4.1. Techno-economic analysis
Techno-economic considerations are essential for designing
waste-to-energy processes on a practical level in terms of long-
term, economically viable and environmentally sustainable
perspective. The technical assessment of a process takes account of
maintenance and skill requirement, ease of setting up, as well as
the inherent risks (Shah et al., 2016). The economic analysis of a
13
process includes capital costs (construction and installation),
operating costs (labor, utility and maintenance), production costs
and profit earnings (Sharma et al., 2020). Costs depend on the
location, type of feedstock, supply logistics, conversion technique
along with production scale. Biomass-derived fuels are reportedly 2
to 4-times costlier compared to fossil fuels (Mussatto and Bikaki,
2016).
Techno-economic analysis for waste-to-energy systems has to
be considered. For instance, analysis for bioenergy on the basis of
gasification-pelletization system (Pradhan et al., 2019) revealed
that gasification of agro-waste pellets is cost-competitive for en-
ergy applications. The gasifier-based cooking system manifested
annual saving of 2222 USD over LPG-based and 422 USD over
wood-based cooking at a pellet price of 114 USD/ton. In another
techno-economic study on microwave vacuum pyrolysis (Lam et al.,
2019), production costs of bio-oil (having higher heating values
than diesel and gasoline) were lower than diesel cost.
Among the biochemical techniques, composting has generally
lower capital cost, but higher operating cost compared to anaerobic
digesting. However, economic preference depends on plant scale in
addition to valorization of the end products. Anaerobic digestion
can be more suitable for centralized treatment for e.g., sewage
sludge, while aerobic composting is favorable for a decentralized
treatment such as on-farm animal mature (Lin et al., 2018). It was
suggested that capital investments for ligno-cellulosic ethanol
production are 2 to 3-times higher than the first-generation bio-
fuels derived from edible biomass due to expensive pretreatment
techniques, which are essential to get rid of the recalcitrants from
ligno-cellulose (Mussatto and Bikaki, 2016). Also, H2 production via
most of the current routes, excluding pyrolysis, is comparatively
higher than the traditional approaches for fuel production (Sharma
and Kaushik, 2017). It was reported that gasification, pyrolysis, and
anaerobic digestion are ~33%, 65%, and 111% more sustainable ap-
proaches considering economic, social, and environmental factors
when compared to incineration (Khan and Kabir, 2020). Addition-
ally, viability of technology integration was investigated, which
revealed a reduction of 68% cost in the digestate management after
the incorporation of thermochemical treatment (incineration of
anaerobic digestate) in the organic fraction MSW (Robles et al.,
2020).
In any case, lack of processing data, process equipment cost, and
economic uncertainties are the major challenges for accurate
techno-economic assessment of the bioenergy systems. It is
imperative to conduct a detailed techno-economic analysis
considering all the cost drivers and other parameters prior to
commercial deployment of the most holistically viable waste-to-
energy technique.
4.2. Policy analysis
The policy-makers have begun to shift the policy framework
from resource-exhausting society to a suitable waste management
hierarchy of reduce, reuse, and recycle (Joshi and Visvanathan,
2019). An integration of a sustainable materials management
approach with contemporary waste management systems has been
suggested. Recycling policies should be strategized after discerning
between the materials and their respective ecological impacts
(Anshassi et al., 2019).
The growing cognizance about bioenergy has led the govern-
ments towards stern policy-making and adaptation of these tech-
nologies. The United States of America plans to substitute 20% of
transport fuel with biofuel by about 2022 (Saladini et al., 2016).
Indonesia has set the target of substituting 15% gasoline by ethanol,
while 12 bioethanol plants are already installed in Thailand, which
is projected to produce about 2.6 million liters of ethanol per day
14 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501

Table 5
Different approaches on fermentative bio-hydrogen production.

Substrate Inoculum source Fermentation process Overall H2 yield Maximum H2 Ref.

production rate

Citrus wastewater Anaerobic sludge pretreated by Dark fermentation 2.24 mmol H2/g e Karim et al. (2019)
electroporation COD
Cassava starch wastewater and Buffalo dung None Dark fermentation 165 ± 25.16 mL 839 mL H2/L/d Wadjeam et al.
H2/g CODremoved (2019)
Sequential dilute acid and enzymatic hydrolysis Anaerobic sludge Dark fermentation 282.17 mL H2/g 3175 mL H2/L/d Gonzales et al.
pretreated oil palm empty fruit bunch total sugar (2019)
Waste from chewing gum production Mixed bacterial culture and Sequential dark and 6.7 L H2/L non- e Seifert et al.
Rhodobacter sphaeroides O.U.001 photo fermentation diluted effluent (2018)
Rice straw hydrolysate Bacillus cereus (KR809374) and Sequential dark and 1.82 mol H2/mol e Dinesh et al.
Rhodobacter sphaeroides photo fermentation glucose (2019)
Rice husk hydrolysate Bacillus cereus (KR809374) and Sequential dark and 1.73 mol H2/mol e Dinesh et al.
Rhodobacter sphaeroides photo fermentation glucose (2019)
Paperboard mill wastewater Anaerobic sludge and Purple non- Sequential dark and 788.6 ± 238.4 mL 1.07 ± 0.28 L H2/ Elsharkawy et al.
sulphur bacteria photo fermentation H2/g COD L/d (2020)
Potato starch, Glucose Clostridium butyricum and Single stage dark and 6.4 ± 1.3 mol H2/ e Hitit et al. (2017)
Rhodopseudomonas palustris photo fermentation mol glucose
Corn starch Clostridium acetobutylicumand Single stage dark and 2.62 mol H2/mol 1.6 mL H2/L/h Zagrodnik and
Rhodobacter sphaeroides photo fermentation hexose Łaniecki (2017a)
Starch Clostridium acetobutylicumand Single stage dark and 5.11 mol H2/mol 15.9 ± 0.9 mL H2/ Zagrodnik and
Rhodobacter sphaeroides photo fermentation hexose L/h Łaniecki (2017b)

(Zhou and Thomson, 2009). reformed regulations for waste management.

In India, the MSW management and handling regulation puts
emphasis on categorizing the waste into ‘biodegradable’, ‘non-
biodegradable’, and ‘hazardous’ in bags that are color-coded before
handing over to the waste-collectors (Ong et al., 2018). Moreover,
Mega Food Parks are built for linking agro and food industries to
minimize the waste and the value. In addition to national policies,
Asian countries are committed to many international develop-
mental goals to develop effective policies for waste management.
The countries that have signed the international treaty of Kyoto
Protocol have a higher likelihood of diverting solid waste away
from landfills contributing to ~11e13% of global emission of global
greenhouse gases (Joshi and Visvanathan, 2019).
By implementing several programs by the Indian government
under ‘Waste-to-energy’ mission around 5 million family biogas
plants have been set up under the biogas development program.
The National Thermal Power Corporation has been directed to
blend crop residue pellets (~10%) with coal for power generation to
tackle the crop residue burning issue (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019).
As per the literature reports, anaerobic digestion is the most
suitable and preferred option for sustainable management of
organic waste such as FW as well as electricity generation in
developing countries from a policy-making viewpoint. Govern-
ments should consider encouraging this system with establishing
more projects at a local level, which would aid in creating jobs and
cost-reduction (Khan and Kabir, 2020).
Nonetheless, accurate, detailed, and in-depth analysis of the
current waste management strategies is significant for further
technological advancements. The successful implementation of
long-run sustainable development needs technical and policy-
based commitments, financial investments, and most importantly
support and involvement of the public.
4.3. Practical implications
The challenges faced at present revolve around the lack of a
holistic approach for decision-making. Majority of studies are still
at the bench or pilot scales and more efforts emphasizing ‘scale-up’
of these technologies are needed. Integration of these techniques at
proper situations could be more helpful. Moreover, the optimal
technique for managing a waste material depends largely on its
type and literature survey may help policy-makers to come up with
Reliable and reproducible data are lacking regarding the tech-
nologies employed. Most of the assumptions while performing the
analysis is either not presented or vary largely in literature. Much
more transparent approach is required where researchers, policy-
makers, and public participate together to make the entire waste-
to-energy scenario more economically and environmentally
viable from a real-world perspective.
5. Conclusions
The escalating waste generation, environmental pollution and
upsurge in energy-requirements are the foremost global concerns.
In order to deal with these impediments, the employment of waste
materials for producing bioenergy or valuable products is the need
of the modern era. The waste-to-energy nexus founded on the 5R
principle (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recovery, and Restore) is the
basis of sustainable development. This helps in shifting from the
linear system, which is based on “make-use-throw” approach to a
much more reasonable circular system grounded on the “make-
use-recycle-reuse” approach.
This review presents an overview of the current status of
research efforts revolving around ‘simultaneous waste reduction
and energy production’ techniques. The waste materials including
MSW, FW, agricultural residue, and industrial effluents can be
treated by several methods. Thermal methods (pyrolysis, inciner-
ation and gasification), biochemical route (anaerobic digestion,
aerobic composting, bioethanol production, and fermentative bio-
hydrogen production) along with pre-treatment technologies have
been thoroughly reviewed.
Majority literature suggests the preference of anaerobic diges-
tion over other methods in view of environmental and techno-
economic sustainability. Incineration, on the other hand, is least
preferable from an environmental-perspective due to release of
toxic gases and heavy metals at a threatening level. However, lack
of studies considering all the major factors (social, economic, and
environmental) for waste-to-energy conversion at a large scale is
quite evident. Public participation is the most essential factor in
determining the success of this paradigm. Improvement in envi-
ronmental education, motivating youngsters to and creating
awareness at the ground level regarding the importance of proper
waste disposal is crucial.
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Establishing stronger policies and projects at a local level could
create jobs and attract more support from people, especially
youngsters. Advanced research and a proper emphasis on making
these techniques more economically feasible and eco-friendly are
imperative for reaching the target of sustainable development and
a healthy modern society.
Declaration of competing interest
All the authors declare that we don’t have any conflict of
interests.
Acknowledgements
Ms. Surbhi Sharma is grateful to UGC, New Delhi, India for a
research fellowship.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115501.
References
Abbasov, V.M., Ibrahimov, H.C., Mukhtarova, G.S., Rustamov, M.I., Abdullayev, E.,
2017. Adsorptive desulfurization of the gasoline obtained from low-pressure
hydrocracking of the vacuum residue using a nickel/bentonite catalyst. En-
ergy Fuels 31, 5840e5843. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00081.
Abdelrahim, A., Brachi, P., Ruoppolo, G., Fraia, S., Di Vanoli, L., 2020. Experimental
and numerical investigation of biosolid gasification: equilibrium-based
modeling with emphasis on the effects of different pretreatment methods.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59, 299e307. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b03902.
Achinas, S., Euverink, G.J.W., 2016. Consolidated briefing of biochemical ethanol
production from lignocellulosic biomass. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 23, 44e53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejbt.2016.07.006.
Al-Mohammedawi, H.H., Znad, H., Eroglu, E., 2019. Improvement of photo-
fermentative biohydrogen production using pre-treated brewery wastewater
with banana peels waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44, 2560e2568. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.223.
Alexandropoulou, M., Antonopoulou, G., Fragkou, E., Ntaikou, I., Lyberatos, G., 2017.
Fungal pretreatment of willow sawdust and its combination with alkaline
treatment for enhancing biogas production. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 704e713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.006.
Alfonsín, V., Maceiras, R., Gutie rrez, C., 2019. Bioethanol production from industrial
algae waste. Waste Manag. 87, 791e797. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2019.03.019.
Allen, Q.S., Nelson, T.W., 2019. Microstructural evaluation of hydrogen embrittle-
ment and successive recovery in advanced high strength steel. J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 265, 12e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.09.039.
Alvarez, J., Amutio, M., Lopez, G., Santamaria, L., Bilbao, J., Olazar, M., 2019.
Improving bio-oil properties through the fast co-pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
biomass and waste tyres. Waste Manag. 85, 385e395. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2019.01.003.
An, S., Li, W., Liu, Q., Xia, Y., Zhang, T., Huang, F., Lin, Q., Chen, L., 2019. Combined
dilute hydrochloric acid and alkaline wet oxidation pretreatment to improve
sugar recovery of corn stover. Bioresour. Technol. 271, 283e288. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.126.
Anshassi, M., Laux, S.J., Townsend, T.G., 2019. Approaches to integrate sustainable
materials management into waste management planning and policy. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 148, 55e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.011.
Appels, L., Houtmeyers, S., Degre ve, J., Van Impe, J., Dewil, R., 2013. Influence of
microwave pre-treatment on sludge solubilization and pilot scale semi-
continuous anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 598e603. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.007.
Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasifi-
cation. A review. Waste Manag. 32, 625e639. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2011.09.025.
Bader, N. Ben, Germec, M., Turhan, I., 2020. Scheffersomyces stipitis biofilm reactor
for ethanol production from acid-pretreated/detoxified and glucose- or xylose-
enriched rice husk hydrolysate under a continuous process. Biomass Convers.
Biorefinery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00611-6.
Banerjee, S., Kaushik, S., Tomar, R.S., 2019. Global Scenario of Biofuel Production:
Past, Present and Future. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-14463-0_18.
Banerjee, S., Sen, R., Pandey, R.A., Chakrabarti, T., Satpute, D., Giri, B.S., Mudliar, S.,
2009. Evaluation of wet air oxidation as a pretreatment strategy for bioethanol
production from rice husk and process optimization. Biomass Bioenergy 33,
15
1680e1686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.09.001.
Barbosa, J.M., Andrade, L.A., Vieira, L.G.M., Barrozo, M.A.S., 2020. Multi-response
optimization of bio-oil production from catalytic solar pyrolysis of Spirulina
platensis. J. Energy Inst. 93, 1313e1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.joei.2019.12.001.
Basha, M.H., Sulaiman, S.A., Uemura, Y., 2020. Co-gasification of palm kernel shell
and polystyrene plastic: effect of different operating conditions. J. Energy Inst.
93, 1045e1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.09.005.
Bayr, S., Rantanen, M., Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2012. Mesophilic and thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of rendering plant and slaughterhouse wastes. Bio-
resour. Technol. 104, 28e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.104.
Bhattacharyya, P., Bhaduri, D., Adak, T., Munda, S., Satapathy, B.S., Dash, P.K.,
Padhy, S.R., Pattanayak, A., Routray, S., Chakraborti, M., Baig, M.J.,
Mukherjee, A.K., Nayak, A.K., Pathak, H., 2020. Characterization of rice straw
from major cultivars for best alternative industrial uses to cutoff the menace of
straw burning. Ind. Crop. Prod. 143, 111919. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.indcrop.2019.111919.
Bhuvaneshwari, S., Hettiarachchi, H., Meegoda, J., 2019. Crop residue burning in
India: policy challenges and potential solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health
16, 832. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050832.
Bichot, A., Lerosty, M., Radoiu, M., Me chin, V., Bernet, N., Delgene s, J.-P., García-
Bernet, D., 2020. Decoupling thermal and non-thermal effects of the micro-
waves for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment. Energy Convers. Manag. 203,
112220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112220.
Branco, R.H.R., Ama ^ndio, M.S.T., Serafim, L.S., Xavier, A.M.R.B., 2020. Ethanol pro-
duction from hydrolyzed kraft pulp by mono- and Co-cultures of yeasts: the
challenge of C6 and C5 sugars consumption. Energies 13, 744. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en13030744.
Carrier, M., Loppinet-Serani, A., Denux, D., Lasnier, J.-M., Ham-Pichavant, F.,
Cansell, F., Aymonier, C., 2011. Thermogravimetric analysis as a new method to
determine the lignocellulosic composition of biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 35,
298e307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.067.
Chand Malav, L., Yadav, K.K., Gupta, N., Kumar, S., Sharma, G.K., Krishnan, S.,
Rezania, S., Kamyab, H., Pham, Q.B., Yadav, S., Bhattacharyya, S., Yadav, V.K.,
Bach, Q.-V., 2020. A review on municipal solid waste as a renewable source for
waste-to-energy project in India: current practices, challenges, and future op-
portunities. J. Clean. Prod. 123227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123227.
Chen, H., Awasthi, S.K., Liu, T., Duan, Y., Ren, X., Zhang, Z., Pandey, A., Awasthi, M.K.,
2020. Effects of microbial culture and chicken manure biochar on compost
maturity and greenhouse gas emissions during chicken manure composting.
J. Hazard Mater. 389, 121908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121908.
Chen, Y.-C., 2016. Potential for energy recovery and greenhouse gas mitigation from
municipal solid waste using a waste-to-material approach. Waste Manag. 58,
408e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.007.
Chen, Yanrong, Chen, Yaoning, Li, Y., Wu, Y., Zeng, Z., Xu, R., Wang, S., Li, H., Zhang, J.,
2019. Changes of heavy metal fractions during co-composting of agricultural
waste and river sediment with inoculation of Phanerochaete chrysosporium.
J. Hazard Mater. 378, 120757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120757.
Chung, J. Do, Hyun, J.H., Song, J.H., 2016. Optimization of the food waste water
incineration with respect to CO and NOx emission characteristics. J. Mater.
Cycles Waste Manag. 18, 455e459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-016-0477-0.
Dadak, A., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M., Younesi, H., Najafpour, G., 2016. Exergy-
based sustainability assessment of continuous photobiological hydrogen pro-
duction using anaerobic bacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum. J. Clean. Prod. 139,
157e166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.020.
Dinesh, G.H., Nguyen, D.D., Ravindran, B., Chang, S.W., Vo, D.V.N., Bach, Q.V.,
Tran, H.N., Basu, M.J., Mohanrasu, K., Murugan, R.S., Swetha, T.A., Sivapraksh, G.,
Selvaraj, A., Arun, A., 2019. Simultaneous biohydrogen (H2) and bioplastic
(poly-b-hydroxybutyrate-PHB) productions under dark, photo, and subsequent
dark and photo fermentation utilizing various wastes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.09.036.
Ding, K., Liu, Shasha, Huang, Y., Liu, S., Zhou, N., Peng, P., Wang, Y., Chen, P., Ruan, R.,
2019. Catalytic microwave-assisted pyrolysis of plastic waste over NiO and HY
for gasoline-range hydrocarbons production. Energy Convers. Manag. 196,
1316e1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.07.001.
Dong, J., Tang, Y., Nzihou, A., Chi, Y., Weiss-Hortala, E., Ni, M., 2018. Life cycle
assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy tech-
nologies: theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants. Sci. Total
Environ. 626, 744e753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.151.
€
Ecem Oner, B., Akyol, Ç., Bozan, M., Ince, O., Aydin, S., Ince, B., 2018. Bio-
augmentation with Clostridium thermocellum to enhance the anaerobic
biodegradation of lignocellulosic agricultural residues. Bioresour. Technol. 249,
620e625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.040.
El Harchi, M., Fakihi Kachkach, F.Z., El Mtili, N., 2018. Optimization of thermal acid
hydrolysis for bioethanol production from Ulva rigida with yeast Pachysolen
tannophilus. South Afr. J. Bot. 115, 161e169. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sajb.2018.01.021.
Elkahlout, K., Alipour, S., Eroglu, I., Gunduz, U., Yucel, M., 2017. Long-term biological
hydrogen production by agar immobilized Rhodobacter capsulatus in a
sequential batch photobioreactor. Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 40, 589e599. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00449-016-1723-5.
Elsharkawy, K., Gar Alalm, M., Fujii, M., Afify, H., Tawfik, A., Elsamadony, M., 2020.
Paperboard mill wastewater treatment via combined dark and LED-mediated
fermentation in the absence of external chemical addition. Bioresour. Technol.
295, 122312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122312.
16 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Eriksson, M., Strid, I., Hansson, P.-A., 2015. Carbon footprint of food waste man-
agement options in the waste hierarchy e a Swedish case study. J. Clean. Prod.
93, 115e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.026.
Feng, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Quan, X., 2015. Enhanced production of methane from
waste activated sludge by the combination of high-solid anaerobic digestion
and microbial electrolysis cell with ironegraphite electrode. Chem. Eng. J. 259,
787e794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.08.048.
Fermanelli, C.S., Co  rdoba, A., Pierella, L.B., Saux, C., 2020. Pyrolysis and copyrolysis
of three lignocellulosic biomass residues from the agro-food industry: a
comparative study. Waste Manag. 102, 362e370. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2019.10.057.
Gavahian, M., Farahnaky, A., Sastry, S., 2016a. Multiple effect concentration of
ethanol by ohmic-assisted hydrodistillation. Food Bioprod. Process. 100, 85e91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2016.06.002.
Gavahian, M., Farahnaky, A., Shavezipur, M., Sastry, S., 2016b. Ethanol concentration
of fermented broth by ohmic-assisted hydrodistillation. Innovat. Food Sci.
Emerg. Technol. 35, 45e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2016.04.001.
Ghosh, P., Kumar, M., Kapoor, R., Kumar, S.S., Singh, L., Vijay, V., Vijay, V.K., Kumar, V.,
Thakur, I.S., 2020. Enhanced biogas production from municipal solid waste via
co-digestion with sewage sludge and metabolic pathway analysis. Bioresour.
Technol. 296, 122275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122275.
Ghosh, P., Shah, G., Chandra, R., Sahota, S., Kumar, H., Vijay, V.K., Thakur, I.S., 2019.
Assessment of methane emissions and energy recovery potential from the
municipal solid waste landfills of Delhi, India. Bioresour. Technol. 272, 611e615.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.069.
Gielen, D., Boshell, F., Saygin, D., Bazilian, M.D., Wagner, N., Gorini, R., 2019. The role
of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strateg. Rev.
24, 38e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006.
Gonzales, R.R., Kim, J.S., Kim, S.H., 2019. Optimization of dilute acid and enzymatic
hydrolysis for dark fermentative hydrogen production from the empty fruit
bunch of oil palm. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2191e2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.08.022.
Government of the Netherlands, 2019. Plan of Action - Supporting the Transition to
Circular Agriculture.
Government of the Netherlands, 2016. A Circular Economy in the Netherlands by
2050.
Grisales Díaz, V.H., Olivar Tost, G., 2016. Ethanol and isobutanol dehydration by
heat-integrated distillation. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 108, 117e124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2016.07.005.
Gu, W., Lu, Y., Tan, Z., Xu, P., Xie, K., Li, X., Sun, L., 2017. Fungi diversity from different
depths and times in chicken manure waste static aerobic composting. Bio-
resour. Technol. 239, 447e453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.047.
Guiberti, T.F., Garnier, C., Scouflaire, P., Caudal, J., Labegorre, B., Schuller, T.,
Darabiha, N., 2016. Experimental and numerical analysis of non-catalytic partial
oxidation and steam reforming of CH4/O2/N2/H2O mixtures including the
impact of radiative heat losses. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41, 8616e8626. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.009.
Guo, J., Huang, Y., Chen, C., Xiao, Y., Chen, J., Jian, B., 2017. Enhanced anaerobically
digested swine wastewater treatment by the composite of polyaluminum
chloride (PAC) and Bacillus megatherium G106 derived EPS. Sci. Rep. 7, 8605.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09044-0.
Hitit, Z.Y., Lazaro, C.Z., Hallenbeck, P.C., 2017. Hydrogen production by co-cultures of
Clostridium butyricum and Rhodospeudomonas palustris: optimization of yield
using response surface methodology. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 6578e6589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.122.
Huang, X., Yun, S., Zhu, J., Du, T., Zhang, C., Li, X., 2016. Mesophilic anaerobic co-
digestion of aloe peel waste with dairy manure in the batch digester:
focusing on mixing ratios and digestate stability. Bioresour. Technol. 218,
62e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.06.070.
Ibikunle, R.A., Titiladunayo, I.F., Akinnuli, B.O., Dahunsi, S.O., Olayanju, T.M.A., 2019.
Estimation of power generation from municipal solid wastes: a case Study of
Ilorin metropolis, Nigeria. Energy Rep. 5, 126e135. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egyr.2019.01.005.
Isaksson, J., Åsblad, A., Berntsson, T., 2014. Pretreatment methods for gasification of
biomass and FischereTropsch crude production integrated with a pulp and
paper mill. Clean Technol. Environ. Pol. 16, 1393e1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10098-014-0815-7.
Iwasaki, M., Qi, G., Endo, Y., Pan, Z., Yamashiro, T., Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.,
Ihara, I., Umetsu, K., 2019. Quantity changes in Pseudomonas species in dairy
manure during anaerobic digestion at mesophilic and thermophilic tempera-
tures. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 21, 423e432. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10163-018-0800-z.
Jat, H.S., Jat, R.D., Nanwal, R.K., Lohan, S.K., Yadav, A.K., Poonia, T., Sharma, P.C.,
Jat, M.L., 2020. Energy use efficiency of crop residue management for sustain-
able energy and agriculture conservation in NW India. Renew. Energy 155,
1372e1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.046.
Joshi, P., Visvanathan, C., 2019. Sustainable management practices of food waste in
Asia: technological and policy drivers. J. Environ. Manag. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.079.
Jugwanth, Y., Sewsynker-Sukai, Y., Gueguim Kana, E.B., 2020. Valorization of sug-
arcane bagasse for bioethanol production through simultaneous saccharifica-
tion and fermentation: optimization and kinetic studies. Fuel 262, 116552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116552.
Jurado, M., Lo pez, M.J., Sua
rez-Estrella, F., Vargas-García, M.C., Lo pez-Gonza lez, J.A.,
Moreno, J., 2014. Exploiting composting biodiversity: study of the persistent
and biotechnologically relevant microorganisms from lignocellulose-based
composting. Bioresour. Technol. 162, 283e293. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2014.03.145.
Jutakridsada, P., Saengprachatanarug, K., Kasemsiri, P., Hiziroglu, S., Kamwilaisak, K.,
Chindaprasirt, P., 2019. Bioconversion of saccharum officinarum leaves for
ethanol production using separate hydrolysis and fermentation processes.
Waste and Biomass Valorization 10, 817e825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-
017-0104-x.
Kadhum, H.J., Mahapatra, D.M., Murthy, G.S., 2019. A comparative account of
glucose yields and bioethanol production from separate and simultaneous
saccharification and fermentation processes at high solids loading with variable
PEG concentration. Bioresour. Technol. 283, 67e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2019.03.060.
Kadlimatti, H.M., Raj Mohan, B., Saidutta, M.B., 2019. Bio-oil from microwave
assisted pyrolysis of food waste-optimization using response surface method-
ology. Biomass Bioenergy 123, 25e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2019.01.014.
Kamali, M., 2020. Guest editorial: an opinion on multi-criteria decision-making
analysis for sustainability-based spatial planning practices . Time to Improve ?
J. Settlements Spat. Plan. 1e3. https://doi.org/10.24193/JSSPSI.2020.6.01K (in
press).
Kamali, M., Gameiro, T., Costa, M.E., Capela, I., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2019a. Enhanced
biodegradation of phenolic wastewaters with acclimatized activated sludge e a
kinetic study. Chem. Eng. J. 378, 122186. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2019.122186.
Kamali, M., Jahaninafard, D., Mostafaie, A., Davarazar, M., Gomes, A., Paula, D.,
Tarelho, L., Dewil, R., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020. Scientometric analysis and sci-
entific trends on biochar application as soil amendment. Chem. Eng. J. 395,
125128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.125128.
Kamali, M., Suhas, D.P., Elisabete, M., Capela, I., 2019b. Sustainability considerations
in membrane-based technologies for industrial e ffl uents treatment Contam-
inants of Emerging Concern. Chem. Eng. J. 368, 474e494. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2019.02.075.
Kan, L., Shi, R., Zhao, Y., Duan, X., Wu, M., 2020. Feasibility study on using incin-
eration fly ash from municipal solid waste to develop high ductile alkali-
activated composites. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120168. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.120168.
Kannaiah Goud, R., Venkata Mohan, S., 2012. Regulating biohydrogen production
from wastewater by applying organic load-shock: change in the microbial
community structure and bio-electrochemical behavior over long-term opera-
tion. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 17763e17777. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2012.08.124.
Karim, A., Islam, M.A., Mohammad Faizal, C.K., Yousuf, A., Howarth, M., Dubey, B.N.,
Cheng, C.K., Rahman Khan, M.M., 2019. Enhanced biohydrogen production from
citrus wastewater using anaerobic sludge pretreated by an electroporation
technique. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58, 573e580. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.iecr.8b03586.
Kasavan, S., Mohamed, A.F., Abdul Halim, S., 2019. Drivers of food waste generation:
case study of island-based hotels in Langkawi, Malaysia. Waste Manag. 91,
72e79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.055.
Katsaros, G., Pandey, D.S., Horvat, A., Aranda Almansa, G., Fryda, L.E., Leahy, J.J.,
Tassou, S.A., 2020. Experimental investigation of poultry litter gasification and
co-gasification with beech wood in a bubbling fluidised bed reactor e effect of
equivalence ratio on process performance and tar evolution. Fuel 262, 116660.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116660.
Kaur, S., 2020. Public preferences for setting up a biomass power plant to combat
open-field burning of rice crop residues: a case study of district Sangrur, Punjab,
India. Biomass Bioenergy 138, 105577. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2020.105577.
Kazemi, K., Zhang, B., Lye, L.M., Cai, Q., Cao, T., 2016. Design of experiment (DOE)
based screening of factors affecting municipal solid waste (MSW) composting.
Waste Manag. 58, 107e117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.029.
Khan, I., Kabir, Z., 2020. Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the devel-
oping economies: a multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment. Renew.
Energy 150, 320e333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.132.
Kim, N.-J., Li, H., Jung, K., Chang, H.N., Lee, P.C., 2011. Ethanol production from
marine algal hydrolysates using Escherichia coli KO11. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
7466e7469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.071.
Kim, T.H., Lee, Y.Y., Sunwoo, C., Kim, J.S., 2006. Pretreatment of corn stover by low-
liquid ammonia recycle percolation process. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 133,
41e58. https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:133:1:41.
Kiyasudeen S, K., Ibrahim, M.H., Quaik, S., Ahmed Ismail, S., 2016. Prospects of
Organic Waste Management and the Significance of Earthworms. Springer In-
ternational Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24708-3.
Konkol, M., Wro  bel, W., Bicki, R., Gołe˛ biowski, A., 2016. The influence of the
hydrogen pressure on kinetics of the canola oil hydrogenation on industrial
nickel catalyst. Catalysts 6, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal6040055.

Kotarska, K., Dziemianowicz, W., Swierczy  ska, A., 2019. Study on the sequential
n
combination of bioethanol and biogas production from corn straw. Molecules
24, 4558. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24244558.
Koti, S., Govumoni, S.P., Gentela, J., Venkateswar Rao, L., 2016. Enhanced bioethanol
production from wheat straw hemicellulose by mutant strains of pentose fer-
menting organisms Pichia stipitis and Candida shehatae. SpringerPlus 5, 1545.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3222-1.
Koyama, M., Yamamoto, S., Ishikawa, K., Ban, S., Toda, T., 2017. Inhibition of
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
anaerobic digestion by dissolved lignin derived from alkaline pre-treatment of
an aquatic macrophyte. Chem. Eng. J. 311, 55e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2016.11.076.
Kumar, S., Gandhi, P., Yadav, M., Paritosh, K., Pareek, N., Vivekanand, V., 2019. Weak
alkaline treatment of wheat and pearl millet straw for enhanced biogas pro-
duction and its economic analysis. Renew. Energy 139, 753e764. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.133.
Kumari, P., Mohanty, B., 2020. Comparison of HZSM-5 catalyzed and non-catalyzed
bio-oil produced using fast pyrolysis from pine needles. Biomass Bioenergy 139,
105641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105641.
Lam, S.S., Wan Mahari, W.A., Ok, Y.S., Peng, W., Chong, C.T., Ma, N.L., Chase, H.A.,
Liew, Z., Yusup, S., Kwon, E.E., Tsang, D.C.W., 2019. Microwave vacuum pyrolysis
of waste plastic and used cooking oil for simultaneous waste reduction and
sustainable energy conversion: recovery of cleaner liquid fuel and techno-
economic analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 115, 109359. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109359.
Lazzarotto, I.P., Ferreira, S.D., Junges, J., Bassanesi, G.R., Manera, C., Perondi, D.,
Godinho, M., 2020. The role of CaO in the steam gasification of plastic wastes
recovered from the municipal solid waste in a fluidized bed reactor. Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 140, 60e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.04.009.
Li, Q., Qiao, W., Wang, X., Takayanagi, K., Shofie, M., Li, Y.-Y., 2015. Kinetic charac-
terization of thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digestion for coffee
grounds and waste activated sludge. Waste Manag. 36, 77e85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.016.
Li, Q., Wang, X.C., Zhang, H.H., Shi, H.L., Hu, T., Ngo, H.H., 2013. Characteristics of
nitrogen transformation and microbial community in an aerobic composting
reactor under two typical temperatures. Bioresour. Technol. 137, 270e277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.092.
Lin, L., Xu, F., Ge, X., Li, Y., 2018. Improving the sustainability of organic waste
management practices in the food-energy-water nexus: a comparative review
of anaerobic digestion and composting. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 89,
151e167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.025.
Lin, L., Yang, L., Xu, F., Michel, F.C., Li, Y., 2014. Comparison of solid-state anaerobic
digestion and composting of yard trimmings with effluent from liquid anaer-
obic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 169, 439e446. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2014.07.007.
Liu, J., Li, Q., Gu, W., Wang, C., 2019a. The impact of consumption patterns on the
generation of municipal solid waste in China: evidences from provincial data.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16, 1e19. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph16101717.
Liu, Jianwei, Dong, L., Dai, Q., Liu, Y., Tang, X., Liu, Junxin, Xiao, B., 2020. Enhanced
anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge by thermal or alkaline-thermal pre-
treatments: influence of hydraulic retention time reduction. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 45, 2655e2667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.198.
Liu, L., Zhang, Z., Wang, J., Fan, Y., Shi, W., Liu, X., Shun, Q., 2019b. Simultaneous
saccharification and co-fermentation of corn stover pretreated by H2O2
oxidative degradation for ethanol production. Energy 168, 946e952. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.132.
Liu, T., Zhou, X., Li, Z., Wang, X., Sun, J., 2019c. Effects of liquid digestate pretreat-
ment on biogas production for anaerobic digestion of wheat straw. Bioresour.
Technol. 280, 345e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.147.
Liu, Y., Zhu, Y., Jia, H., Yong, X., Zhang, L., Zhou, J., Cao, Z., Kruse, A., Wei, P., 2017.
Effects of different biofilm carriers on biogas production during anaerobic
digestion of corn straw. Bioresour. Technol. 244, 445e451. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.171.
Lizasoain, J., Trulea, A., Gittinger, J., Kral, I., Piringer, G., Schedl, A., Nilsen, P.J.,
Potthast, A., Gronauer, A., Bauer, A., 2017. Corn stover for biogas production:
effect of steam explosion pretreatment on the gas yields and on the biodeg-
radation kinetics of the primary structural compounds. Bioresour. Technol. 244,
949e956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.042.
Loizia, P., Neofytou, N., Zorpas, A.A., 2019. The concept of circular economy strategy
in food waste management for the optimization of energy production through
anaerobic digestion. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 14766e14773. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-018-3519-4.
Maeda, I., Miyasaka, H., Umeda, F., Kawase, M., Yagi, K., 2003. Maximization of
hydrogen production ability in high-density suspension ofRhodovulum sulfi-
dophilum cells using intracellular poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) as sole substrate.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 81, 474e481. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.10494.
Martínez, I., Grasa, G., Calle n, M.S., Lo pez, J.M., Murillo, R., 2020. Optimised pro-
duction of tailored syngas from municipal solid waste (MSW) by sorption-
enhanced gasification. Chem. Eng. J. 401, 126067. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2020.126067.
Masek, O., Buss, W., Brownsort, P., Rovere, M., Tagliaferro, A., Zhao, L., Cao, X., Xu, G.,
2019. Potassium doping increases biochar carbon sequestration potential by
45%, facilitating decoupling of carbon sequestration from soil improvement. Sci.
Rep. 9, 5514. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41953-0.
Mehta, A., Mishra, A., Basu, S., Shetti, N.P., Reddy, K.R., Saleh, T.A., Aminabhavi, T.M.,
2019. Band gap tuning and surface modification of carbon dots for sustainable
environmental remediation and photocatalytic hydrogen production e a re-
view. J. Environ. Manag. 250, 109486. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2019.109486.
Michelini, G., Moraes, R.N., Cunha, R.N., Costa, J.M.H., Ometto, A.R., 2017. From linear
to circular economy: PSS conducting the transition. Procedia CIRP 64, 2e6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.012.
Mishra, A., Basu, S., Shetti, N.P., Reddy, K.R., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2019a. Photocatalysis
17
of graphene and carbon nitride-based functional carbon quantum dots. In:
Nanoscale Materials in Water Purification. Elsevier, pp. 759e781. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813926-4.00035-5.
Mishra, A., Mehta, A., Basu, S., Malode, S.J., Shetti, N.P., Shukla, S.S., Nadagouda, M.N.,
Aminabhavi, T.M., 2018. Electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries. Mater. Sci.
Energy Technol. 1, 182e187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2018.08.001.
Mishra, A., Mehta, A., Basu, S., Shetti, N.P., Reddy, K.R., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2019b.
Graphitic carbon nitride (geC3N4)ebased metal-free photocatalysts for water
splitting: a review. Carbon N. Y. 149, 693e721. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.carbon.2019.04.104.
Mishra, A., Shetti, N.P., Basu, S., Raghava Reddy, K., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2019c. Carbon
cloth-based hybrid materials as flexible electrochemical supercapacitors.
ChemElectroChem 6, 1e17. https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.201901122.
Mishra, A., Shetti, N.P., Basu, S., Reddy, K.R., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020. Recent de-
velopments in ionic liquid-based electrolytes for energy storage super-
capacitors and rechargeable batteries. In: Green Sustainable Process for
Chemical and Environmental Engineering and Science. Elsevier, pp. 199e221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817386-2.00007-X.
Mishra, P., Thakur, S., Singh, L., Ab Wahid, Z., Sakinah, M., 2016. Enhanced hydrogen
production from palm oil mill effluent using two stage sequential dark and
photo fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41, 18431e18440. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.138.
Molino, A., Nanna, F., Ding, Y., Bikson, B., Braccio, G., 2013. Biomethane production
by anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Fuel 103, 1003e1009. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2012.07.070.
Mong, G.R., Chong, C.T., Ng, J.-H., Chong, W.W.F., Lam, S.S., Ong, H.C., Ani, F.N., 2020.
Microwave pyrolysis for valorisation of horse manure biowaste. Energy Conv-
ers. Manag. 220, 113074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113074.
Montan ~es Alonso, R., Solera del Río, R., Pe rez García, M., 2016. Thermophilic and
mesophilic temperature phase anaerobic co-digestion (TPAcD) compared with
single-stage co-digestion of sewage sludge and sugar beet pulp lixiviation.
Biomass Bioenergy 93, 107e115. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2016.05.028.
Morone, A., Chakrabarti, T., Pandey, R.A., 2017. Assessment of alkaline peroxide-
assisted wet air oxidation pretreatment for rice straw and its effect on enzy-
matic hydrolysis. Cellulose 24, 4885e4898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-
1451-2.
Moya, D., Alda s, C., Lo
pez, G., Kaparaju, P., 2017. Municipal solid waste as a valuable
renewable energy resource: a worldwide opportunity of energy recovery by
using Waste-To-Energy Technologies. Energy Procedia 134, 286e295. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.618.
Murphy, J., McKeogh, E., Kiely, G., 2004. Technical/economic/environmental analysis
of biogas utilisation. Appl. Energy 77, 407e427. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2003.07.005.
Mussatto, S.I., Bikaki, N., 2016. Technoeconomic considerations for biomass frac-
tionation in a biorefinery context. In: Biomass Fractionation Technologies for a
Lignocellulosic Feedstock Based Biorefinery. Elsevier, pp. 587e610. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802323-5.00025-6.
Naresh Kumar, A., Chatterjee, S., Hemalatha, M., Althuri, A., Min, B., Kim, S.-H.,
Venkata Mohan, S., 2020. Deoiled algal biomass derived renewable sugars for
bioethanol and biopolymer production in biorefinery framework. Bioresour.
Technol. 296, 122315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122315.
Narra, M., James, J.P., Balasubramanian, V., 2015. Simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation of delignified lignocellulosic biomass at high solid loadings by a
newly isolated thermotolerant Kluyveromyces sp. for ethanol production. Bio-
resour. Technol. 179, 331e338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.116.
Nazimudheen, G., Sekhar, N.C., Sunny, A., Kallingal, A., B, H., 2020. Physiochemical
characterization and thermal kinetics of lignin recovered from sustainable
agrowaste for bioenergy applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.172.
Negi, H., Agrawal, R., Verma, A., Goel, R., 2019. Municipal Solid Waste to Bioenergy:
Current Status, Opportunities, and Challenges in Indian Context, New and
Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier
B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-64191-5.00014-6.
Neves, P.V., Pitarelo, A.P., Ramos, L.P., 2016. Production of cellulosic ethanol from
sugarcane bagasse by steam explosion: effect of extractives content, acid
catalysis and different fermentation technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 208,
184e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.085.
Nghiem, L.D., Koch, K., Bolzonella, D., Drewes, J.E., 2017. Full scale co-digestion of
wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities. Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev. 72, 354e362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.062.
Nobre, C., Longo, A., Vilarinho, C., Gonçalves, M., 2020. Gasification of pellets pro-
duced from blends of biomass wastes and refuse derived fuel chars. Renew.
Energy 154, 1294e1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.077.
Oladi, S., Aita, G.M., 2017. Optimization of liquid ammonia pretreatment variables
for maximum enzymatic hydrolysis yield of energy cane bagasse. Ind. Crop.
Prod. 103, 122e132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.02.023.
Ong, K.L., Kaur, G., Pensupa, N., Uisan, K., Lin, C.S.K., 2018. Trends in food waste
valorization for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels: case study
South and Southeast Asia. Bioresour. Technol. 248, 100e112. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.076.
Padilla-Rasco n, C., Ruiz, E., Romero, I., Castro, E., Oliva, J.M., Ballesteros, I.,
Manzanares, P., 2020. Valorisation of olive stone by-product for sugar produc-
tion using a sequential acid/steam explosion pretreatment. Ind. Crop. Prod. 148,
112279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112279.
18 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Panigrahi, S., Sharma, H.B., Dubey, B.K., 2020. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
with pretreated yard waste: a comparative study of methane production, ki-
netic modeling and energy balance. J. Clean. Prod. 243, 118480. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118480.
Phuttaro, C., Sawatdeenarunat, C., Surendra, K.C., Boonsawang, P., Chaiprapat, S.,
Khanal, S.K., 2019. Anaerobic digestion of hydrothermally-pretreated lignocel-
lulosic biomass: influence of pretreatment temperatures, inhibitors and soluble
organics on methane yield. Bioresour. Technol. 284, 128e138. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.114.
Prabowo, B., Umeki, K., Yan, M., Nakamura, M.R., Castaldi, M.J., Yoshikawa, K., 2014.
CO2esteam mixture for direct and indirect gasification of rice straw in a
downdraft gasifier: laboratory-scale experiments and performance prediction.
Appl. Energy 113, 670e679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.022.
Pradhan, P., Gadkari, P., Mahajani, S.M., Arora, A., 2019. A conceptual framework and
techno-economic analysis of a pelletization-gasification based bioenergy sys-
tem. Appl. Energy 249, 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.129.
Ram, M., Mondal, M.K., 2019. Investigation on fuel gas production from pulp and
paper waste water impregnated coconut husk in fluidized bed gasifier via hu-
midified air and CO2 gasification. Energy 178, 522e529. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2019.04.165.
Ramachandra, T.V., Bharath, H.A., Kulkarni, G., Han, S.S., 2018. Municipal solid
waste: generation, composition and GHG emissions in Bangalore, India. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 1122e1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.085.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., Lim, S., 2012. Sustaining the environment through recy-
cling: an empirical study. J. Environ. Manag. 102, 141e147. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.025.
Rao, V.N., Reddy, N.L., Kumari, M.M., Cheralathan, K.K., Ravi, P., Sathish, M.,
Neppolian, B., Reddy, K.R., Shetti, N.P., Prathap, P., Aminabhavi, T.M.,
Shankar, M.V., 2019. Sustainable hydrogen production for the greener envi-
ronment by quantum dots-based efficient photocatalysts: a review. J. Environ.
Manag. 248, 109246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.07.017.
Rastogi, M., Shrivastava, S., 2017. Recent advances in second generation bioethanol
production: an insight to pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation
processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80, 330e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.05.225.
Ravindra, K., Singh, T., Mor, S., 2019. Emissions of air pollutants from primary crop
residue burning in India and their mitigation strategies for cleaner emissions.
J. Clean. Prod. 208, 261e273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.031.
Rech, F.R., Fontana, R.C., Rosa, C.A., Camassola, M., Ayub, M.A.Z., Dillon, A.J.P., 2019.
Fermentation of hexoses and pentoses from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysates
into ethanol by Spathaspora hagerdaliae. Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 42, 83e92.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-2016-y.
Reddy, C.V., Reddy, I.N., Harish, V.V.N., Reddy, K.R., Shetti, N.P., Shim, J.,
Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020a. Efficient removal of toxic organic dyes and photo-
electrochemical properties of iron-doped zirconia nanoparticles. Chemosphere
239, 124766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124766.
Reddy, C.V., Reddy, K.R., Harish, V.V.N., Shim, J., Shankar, M.V., Shetti, N.P.,
Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020b. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs)-based efficient
heterogeneous photocatalysts: synthesis, properties and its applications in
photocatalytic hydrogen generation, CO2 reduction and photodegradation of
organic dyes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45, 7656e7679. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.02.144.
Reddy, K.R., Reddy, C.V., Nadagouda, M.N., Shetti, N.P., Jaesool, S., Aminabhavi, T.M.,
2019a. Polymeric graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4)-based semiconducting
nanostructured materials: synthesis methods, properties and photocatalytic
applications. J. Environ. Manag. 238, 25e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2019.02.075.
Reddy, N.L., Rao, V.N., Vijayakumar, M., Santhosh, R., Anandan, S., Karthik, M.,
Shankar, M.V., Reddy, K.R., Shetti, N.P., Nadagouda, M.N., Aminabhavi, T.M.,
2019b. A review on frontiers in plasmonic nano-photocatalysts for hydrogen
production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44, 10453e10472. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.02.120.
Reddy, N.R., Bhargav, U., Kumari, M.M., Cheralathan, K.K., Shankar, M.V., Reddy, K.R.,
Saleh, T.A., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020c. Highly efficient solar light-driven photo-
catalytic hydrogen production over Cu/FCNTs-titania quantum dots-based
heterostructures. J. Environ. Manag. 254, 109747. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2019.109747.
Ren21, 2019. Renewables 2019: Global Status Report. REN21, the Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21st Century [WWW Document]. accessed 10.28.19.
http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2019_full_report_en.
pdf.
Robles, I., O’Dwyer, E., Guo, M., 2020. Waste-to-Resource value chain optimisation:
combining spatial, chemical and technoeconomic aspects. Water Res. 178,
115842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115842.
Safavi, S.M., Unnthorsson, R., 2018. Enhanced methane production from pig slurry
with pulsed electric field pre-treatment. Environ. Technol. 39, 479e489. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1304455.
Saladini, F., Patrizi, N., Pulselli, F.M., Marchettini, N., Bastianoni, S., 2016. Guidelines
for emergy evaluation of first, second and third generation biofuels. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 66, 221e227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.073.
Samarasiri, B.K.T., Samarakoon, S.W., Rathnasiri, P.G., Gunawardena, S.H.P., 2017.
Mechanistic model for electricity generation via biomethane production
through anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste
generated in Sri Lanka. In: 2017 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference
(MERCon). IEEE, pp. 407e412. https://doi.org/10.1109/MERCon.2017.7980519.
Santiago, S.G., Trably, E., Latrille, E., Buitron, G., Moreno-Andrade, I., 2019. The hy-
draulic retention time influences the abundance of Enterobacter, Clostridium
and Lactobacillus during the hydrogen production from food waste. Lett. Appl.
Microbiol. 69, 138e147. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.13191.
Sargsyan, H., Gabrielyan, L., Trchounian, A., 2016. The Distillers Grains with Solubles
as a Perspective Substrate for Obtaining Biomass and Producing Bio-Hydrogen
by Rhodobacter Sphaeroides. Biomass and Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2016.03.042.
Sarkar, M., Kumar, A., Tumuluru, J.S., Patil, K.N., Bellmer, D.D., 2014. Gasification
performance of switchgrass pretreated with torrefaction and densification.
Appl. Energy 127, 194e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.027.
Schanes, K., Stagl, S., 2019. Food waste fighters: what motivates people to engage in
food sharing? J. Clean. Prod. 211, 1491e1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.11.162.
Seifert, K., Zagrodnik, R., Stodolny, M., Łaniecki, M., 2018. Biohydrogen production
from chewing gum manufacturing residue in a two-step process of dark
fermentation and photofermentation. Renew. Energy 122, 526e532. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.105.
Shadbahr, J., Khan, F., Zhang, Y., 2017. Kinetic modeling and dynamic analysis of
simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose to bioethanol. En-
ergy Convers. Manag. 141, 236e243. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2016.08.025.
Shah, A., Baral, N.R., Manandhar, A., 2016. Technoeconomic Analysis and Life Cycle
Assessment of Bioenergy Systems, pp. 189e247. https://doi.org/10.1016/
bs.aibe.2016.09.004.
Shah, K.V., Shah, D.D., 2019. An approach towards sustainable municipal solid waste
management in India. In: Ghosh, S.K. (Ed.), Waste Management and Resource
Efficiency. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 1067e1076. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-7290-1_88.
Shahbaz, M., Ammar, M., Zou, D., Korai, R.M., Li, X., 2019. An insight into the
anaerobic Co-digestion of municipal solid waste and food waste: influence of
Co-substrate mixture ratio and substrate to inoculum ratio on biogas produc-
tion. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 187, 1356e1370. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12010-018-2891-3.
Sharma, M., Kaushik, A., 2017. Biohydrogen economy: challenges and prospects for
commercialization. In: Biohydrogen Production: Sustainability of Current
Technology and Future Perspective. Springer India, New Delhi, pp. 253e267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3577-4_12.
Sharma, S., Basu, S., 2020. Highly reusable visible light active hierarchical porous
WO3/SiO2 monolith in centimeter length scale for enhanced photocatalytic
degradation of toxic pollutants. Separ. Purif. Technol. 231, 115916. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115916.
Sharma, S., Basu, S., Shetti, N.P., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020. Waste-to-energy nexus for
circular economy and environmental protection: recent trends in hydrogen
energy. Sci. Total Environ. 713, 136633. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.136633.
Sharma, S., Nandal, P., Arora, A., 2019. Ethanol production from NaOH pretreated
rice straw: a cost effective option to manage rice crop residue. Waste and
Biomass Valorization 10, 3427e3434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-
0360-4.
Siipola, V., Pflugmacher, S., Romar, H., Wendling, L., Koukkari, P., 2020. Low-cost
biochar adsorbents for water purification including microplastics removal.
Appl. Sci. 10, 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030788.
Silva, G.G.D., Rouau, S.G.X., 2011. Successive centrifugal grinding and sieving of
wheat straw. Powder Technol. 208, 266e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.powtec.2010.08.015.
Sipra, A.T., Gao, N., Sarwar, H., 2018. Municipal solid waste (MSW) pyrolysis for bio-
fuel production: a review of effects of MSW components and catalysts. Fuel
Process. Technol. 175, 131e147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.02.012.
Sivarathnakumar, S., Jayamuthunagai, J., Baskar, G., Praveenkumar, R.,
Selvakumari, I.A.E., Bharathiraja, B., 2019. Bioethanol production from woody
stem Prosopis juliflora using thermo tolerant yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus
and its kinetics studies. Bioresour. Technol. 293, 122060. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122060.
Somorin, T.O., Adesola, S., Kolawole, A., 2017. State-level assessment of the waste-
to-energy potential (via incineration) of municipal solid wastes in Nigeria.
J. Clean. Prod. 164, 804e815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.228.
Song, Q., Zhao, H. yu, Xing, W. long, Song, L. hua, Yang, L., Yang, D., Shu, X., 2018.
Effects of various additives on the pyrolysis characteristics of municipal solid
waste. Waste Manag. 78, 621e629. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2018.06.033.
Srilekha Yadav, K., Naseeruddin, S., Sai Prashanthi, G., Sateesh, L., Venkateswar
Rao, L., 2011. Bioethanol fermentation of concentrated rice straw hydrolysate
using co-culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia stipitis. Bioresour.
Technol. 102, 6473e6478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.019.
Srivastava, R.K., Shetti, N.P., Reddy, K.R., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2020. Sustainable energy
from waste organic matters via efficient microbial processes. Sci. Total Environ.
722, 137927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137927.
Subaer, Haris, A., Irhamsyah, A., Permatasari, A.D., Desa, S.S., Irfanita, R., Wahyuni, S.,
2020. Pervaporation membrane based on laterite zeolite-geopolymer for
ethanol-water separation. J. Clean. Prod. 249, 119413. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119413.
Suksong, W., Tukanghan, W., Promnuan, K., Kongjan, P., Reungsang, A., Insam, H., O-
Thong, S., 2020. Biogas production from palm oil mill effluent and empty fruit
bunches by coupled liquid and solid-state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour.
 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501
Technol. 296, 122304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122304.
Sun, Y., Wang, D., Yan, J., Qiao, W., Wang, W., Zhu, T., 2014. Effects of lipid con-
centration on anaerobic co-digestion of municipal biomass wastes. Waste
Manag. 34, 1025e1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.018.
Tavan, Y., Shahhosseini, S., 2016. Feed-splitting as energy-saving technique in the
heterogeneous distillation of ethanol-water azeotropes. Energy Technol. 4,
424e428. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201500287.
Thapa, B., Patidar, S.K., Khatiwada, N.R., Kc, A.K., Ghimire, A., 2019. Production of
ethanol from municipal solid waste of India and Nepal. In: Waste Valorisation
and Recycling. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 47e58. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-13-2784-1_5.
Tian, H., Li, J., Yan, M., Tong, Y.W., Wang, C.-H., Wang, X., 2019. Organic waste to
biohydrogen: a critical review from technological development and environ-
mental impact analysis perspective. Appl. Energy 256, 113961. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113961.
Torres-Climent, A., Martin-Mata, J., Marhuenda-Egea, F., Moral, R., Barber, X., Perez-
Murcia, M.D., Paredes, C., 2015. Composting of the solid phase of digestate from
biogas production: optimization of the moisture, C/N ratio, and pH conditions.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 46, 197e207. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00103624.2014.988591.
€
Tozlu, A., Ozahi, E., Abuşoʇlu, A., 2016. Waste to energy technologies for municipal
solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.097.
Turhal, S., Turanbaev, M., Argun, H., 2019. Hydrogen production from melon and
watermelon mixture by dark fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
18811e18817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.10.011.
Uçkun Kiran, E., Trzcinski, A.P., Ng, W.J., Liu, Y., 2014. Bioconversion of food waste to
energy: a review. Fuel 134, 389e399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.074.
Ullah Khan, I., Hafiz Dzarfan Othman, M., Hashim, H., Matsuura, T., Ismail, A.F.,
Rezaei-DashtArzhandi, M., Wan Azelee, I., 2017. Biogas as a renewable energy
fuel e a review of biogas upgrading, utilisation and storage. Energy Convers.
Manag. 150, 277e294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.035.
UNDESA, 2019. Growing at a Slower Pace, World Population Is Expected to Reach
9.7 Billion in 2050 and Could Peak at Nearly 11 Billion Around 2100 [WWW
Document]. accessed 12.30.19. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/
news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html.
UNDESA, 2018. UN DESA Begins a New Partnership to Explore Sustainable Water
and Energy Solutions [WWW Document]. accessed 4.27.20. https://www.un.
org/development/desa/capacity-development/2018/03/12/un-desa-begins-
new-partnership-to-explore-sustainable-water-and-energy-solutions/.
Ushani, U., Kavitha, S., Johnson, M., Yeom, I.T., Banu, J.R., 2017. Upgrading the hy-
drolytic potential of immobilized bacterial pretreatment to boost biogas pro-
duction. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7819-2.
Veluchamy, C., Kalamdhad, A.S., Gilroyed, B.H., 2019. Advanced pretreatment stra-
tegies for bioenergy production from biomass and biowaste. In: Handbook of
Environmental Materials Management. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 1507e1524. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73645-7_45.
Wadjeam, P., Reungsang, A., Imai, T., Plangklang, P., 2019. Co-digestion of cassava
starch wastewater with buffalo dung for bio-hydrogen production. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 44, 14694e14706. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.04.138.
Wang, F., Zhang, D., Wu, H., Yi, W., Fu, P., Li, Y., Li, Z., 2016. Enhancing biogas pro-
duction of corn stover by fast pyrolysis pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 218,
731e736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.025.
Wang, K., Yin, J., Shen, D., Li, N., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of food waste for volatile
fatty acids (VFAs) production with different types of inoculum: effect of pH.
Bioresour. Technol. 161, 395e401. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2014.03.088.
Wang, P., Hu, Y., Cheng, H., 2019a. Municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration fly ash
as an important source of heavy metal pollution in China. Environ. Pollut. 252,
461e475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.082.
Wang, Q., Jiang, X., Yang, X., Ge, S., 2020. Comparative analysis of drivers of energy
consumption in China, the USA and India e a perspective from stratified het-
erogeneity. Sci. Total Environ. 698, 134117. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.134117.
Wang, X., Pan, S., Zhang, Z., Lin, X., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., 2017. Effects of the feeding
ratio of food waste on fed-batch aerobic composting and its microbial com-
munity. Bioresour. Technol. 224, 397e404. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2016.11.076.
Wang, Z., Li, N., Pan, X., 2019b. Transformation of Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX)
corn stover lignin into microbial lipids by Rhodococcus opacus. Fuel 240,
119e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.11.081.
Watson, J., Zhang, Y., Si, B., Chen, W.T., de Souza, R., 2018. Gasification of biowaste: a
critical review and outlooks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 83, 1e17. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.003.
Wijesinghe, D.T.N., Dassanayake, K.B., Sommer, S.G., Scales, P., Chen, D., 2019. Biogas
improvement by adding Australian zeolite during the anaerobic digestion of C:
N ratio adjusted swine manure. Waste and Biomass Valorization 10, 1883e1887.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0210-4.
Wirawan, F., Cheng, C.-L., Lo, Y.-C., Chen, C.-Y., Chang, J.-S., Leu, S.-Y., Lee, D.-J., 2020.
Continuous cellulosic bioethanol co-fermentation by immobilized Zymomonas
mobilis and suspended Pichia stipitis in a two-stage process. Appl. Energy 266,
114871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114871.
Wu, X., Chen, L., He, W., Qi, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., Su, X., Deng, M., Wang, K., 2020.
Characterize the physicochemical structure and enzymatic efficiency of
19
agricultural residues exposed to g-irradiation pretreatment. Ind. Crop. Prod.
150, 112228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112228.
Wu, Y.-W., Chung, W.-C., Chang, M.-B., 2015. Modification of Ni/g-Al 2 O 3 catalyst
with plasma for steam reforming of ethanol to generate hydrogen. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 40, 8071e8080. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.04.053.
Yan, Z., Song, Z., Li, D., Yuan, Y., Liu, X., Zheng, T., 2015. The effects of initial substrate
concentration, C/N ratio, and temperature on solid-state anaerobic digestion
from composting rice straw. Bioresour. Technol. 177, 266e273. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.089.
Yang, G., Wang, J., 2019. Ultrasound combined with dilute acid pretreatment of
grass for improvement of fermentative hydrogen production. Bioresour. Tech-
nol. 275, 10e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.013.
Yang, Guang, Yin, Y., Wang, J., 2019a. Microbial community diversity during
fermentative hydrogen production inoculating various pretreated cultures. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 44, 13147e13156. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.03.216.
Yang, Gaoqiang, Yu, S., Kang, Z., Dohrmann, Y., Bender, G., Pivovar, B.S., Green, J.B.,
Retterer, S.T., Cullen, D.A., Zhang, F.-Y., 2019b. A novel PEMEC with 3D printed
non-conductive bipolar plate for low-cost hydrogen production from water
electrolysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 182, 108e116. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2018.12.046.
Yang, H., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Feng, J., Yan, W., Guo, L., 2015. Coexpression of Mo- and
Fe-nitrogenase in Rhodobacter capsulatus enhanced its photosynthetic
hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40, 927e934. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.11.087.
Yang, Z., Wang, W., Liu, C., Zhang, R., Liu, G., 2019c. Mitigation of ammonia inhi-
bition through bioaugmentation with different microorganisms during anaer-
obic digestion: selection of strains and reactor performance evaluation. Water
Res. 155, 214e224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.048.
Yao, X., Guo, Z., Liu, Y., Li, J., Feng, W., Lei, H., Gao, Y., 2019a. Reduction potential of
GHG emissions from municipal solid waste incineration for power generation
in Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 241, 118283. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.118283.
Yao, Y., Li, H., Qiu, L., Shi, J., Chen, S., Qiu, Y., Yu, X., Qiang, H., Yang, Y., 2019b.
Facilitated methanogenesis involved in anaerobic digestion of dairy manure by
soil. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117640.
Yilmaz, E., Wzorek, M., Akçay, S., 2018. Co-pelletization of sewage sludge and
agricultural wastes. J. Environ. Manag. 216, 169e175. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2017.09.012.
Yin, T., Cao, G., Ren, H., Xing, D., Xie, G., Liu, B., 2020. Thermoanaerobacterium sp.
Strain RBIITD as a dominant species in accelerating thermophilic dark
fermentation start up through pH and substrate concentration regulation.
Bioresour. Technol. 310, 123426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123426.
Yuan, J., Chadwick, D., Zhang, D., Li, G., Chen, S., Luo, W., Du, L., He, S., Peng, S., 2016.
Effects of aeration rate on maturity and gaseous emissions during sewage
sludge composting. Waste Manag. 56, 403e410. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2016.07.017.
Yuksel, Y.E., Ozturk, M., Dincer, I., 2019. Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated
system using waste material gasification for hydrogen production and lique-
faction. Energy Convers. Manag. 185, 718e729. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2019.02.033.
Zagrodnik, R., Łaniecki, M., 2017a. Hydrogen production from starch by co-culture
of Clostridium acetobutylicum and Rhodobacter sphaeroides in one step
hybrid dark- and photofermentation in repeated fed-batch reactor. Bioresour.
Technol. 224, 298e306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.10.060.
Zagrodnik, R., Łaniecki, M., 2017b. The effect of pH on cooperation between dark-
and photo-fermentative bacteria in a co-culture process for hydrogen produc-
tion from starch. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 2878e2888. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.150.
Zaini, I.N., Gomez-Rueda, Y., García Lo  pez, C., Ratnasari, D.K., Helsen, L., Pretz, T.,
€nsson, P.G., Yang, W., 2020. Production of H2-rich syngas from excavated
Jo
landfill waste through steam co-gasification with biochar. Energy 207, 118208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118208.
Zhang, D., Luo, W., Li, Y., Wang, G., Li, G., 2018. Performance of co-composting
sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid waste at different pro-
portions. Bioresour. Technol. 250, 853e859. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2017.08.136.
Zhang, L., Li, L., Sha, G., Liu, C., Wang, Z., Wang, L., 2020. Aerobic composting as an
effective cow manure management strategy for reducing the dissemination of
antibiotic resistance genes: an integrated meta-omics study. J. Hazard Mater.
386, 121895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121895.
Zhang, Y., Ravi, S.K., Tan, S.C., 2019. Food-derived carbonaceous materials for solar
desalination and thermo-electric power generation. Nanomater. Energy 65,
104006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2019.104006.
Zhao, B.-H., Chen, J., Yu, H.-Q., Hu, Z.-H., Yue, Z.-B., Li, J., 2017a. Optimization of
microwave pretreatment of lignocellulosic waste for enhancing methane pro-
duction: hyacinth as an example. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 11, 17. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11783-017-0965-z.
Zhao, J., Liu, Y., Wang, D., Chen, F., Li, X., Zeng, G., Yang, Q., 2017b. Potential impact of
salinity on methane production from food waste anaerobic digestion. Waste
Manag. 67, 308e314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.016.
Zhou, A., Thomson, E., 2009. The development of biofuels in Asia. Appl. Energy 86,
S11eS20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.028.
Zhou, L., Baker, K.R., Napelenok, S.L., Pouliot, G., Elleman, R., O’Neill, S.M.,
20 S. Sharma et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115501

Urbanski, S.P., Wong, D.C., 2018. Modeling crop residue burning experiments to
evaluate smoke emissions and plume transport. Sci. Total Environ. 627,
523e533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.237.
Zhu, B., Gikas, P., Zhang, R., Lord, J., Jenkins, B., Li, X., 2009. Characteristics and
biogas production potential of municipal solid wastes pretreated with a rotary
drum reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 1122e1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2008.08.024.
Zhu, W., Teoh, P.J., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Yang, E.-H., 2019. Strategic utilization of
municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash for the synthesis of lightweight
aerated alkali-activated materials. J. Clean. Prod. 235, 603e612. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.286.
Zhuang, L., Chen, Q., Zhou, S., Yuan, Y., Yuan, H., 2012. Methanogenesis control using
2-bromoethanesulfonate for enhanced power recovery from sewage sludge in
air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 7, 6512e6523.