Cogent Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaen20

A review of response surface methodology for

biogas process optimization

Solal Stephanie Djimtoingar, Nana Sarfo Agyemang Derkyi, Francis Atta

Kuranchie & Joseph Kusi Yankyera

To cite this article: Solal Stephanie Djimtoingar, Nana Sarfo Agyemang Derkyi, Francis Atta
Kuranchie & Joseph Kusi Yankyera (2022) A review of response surface methodology for biogas
process optimization, Cogent Engineering, 9:1, 2115283, DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 02 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1091

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaen20
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | REVIEW ARTICLE

Received: 25 April 2022
Accepted: 11 August 2022
*Corresponding author: Solal
Stephanie Djimtoingar, Petroleum
and Energy Department, University of
Energy and Natural Resources, P.O.
Box 214, Sunyani, Ghana
E-mail: ssolal@outlook.com
Reviewing editor:
Harvey Arellano-Garcia,
Brandenburgische Technische
Universitat Cottbus-Senftenberg,
GERMANY
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
A review of response surface methodology for
biogas process optimization
Solal Stephanie Djimtoingar1*, Nana Sarfo Agyemang Derkyi1, Francis Atta Kuranchie2 and
Joseph Kusi Yankyera3
Abstract: This paper aimed at reviewing current researches on the use of Response
Surface Methodology in the optimisation of Biogas processes. It explored the per­
formance of RSM in biogas process optimization, the most effective technique and
the attendant effective software used in such processes. It attempted to review
literature in the area. 55 articles were systematically reviewed. The online data­
bases included were Google Scholar, Scopus and other statistics-based optimization
research databases with keywords from Response Surface Methodology in Biogas
Optimization. The review finds that RSM proves to be an effective statistical tool. It
has achieved optimum objectives for biogas production: increased biodegradability,
optimum biogas yield and methane production, increased Total Solid and reduced
Volatile Solids and an increased COD removal. The key advantage of RSM was found
to be a reduced number of experimental trials, making it time and cost-effective. 37
process parameters have been optimised using RSM, over the last two decades. Five
of these parameters are dominant. Namely,: Temperature, pH, Retention time, Pre-
treatment and Loading rate. The major challenges associated with the use of RSM in
biogas production process optimization are the limited experimental range.
Techniques to combine RSM with other optimization methods such as the Taguchi,
Kriging or the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) are being developed to address these

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Solal Stephanie Djimtoingar Stephanie, the main
author has a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical
Engineering from the University of Mines and
Technology and a Masters degree in Sustainable
Energy Management from the University of
Energy and Natural Resources, both in Ghana.
She is currently pursuing a PhD in Sustainable
Energy Engineering and Management at the
University of Energy and Natural Resources. She
specializes in bio-energy generation and waste
management. This paper is the first from her
PhD thesis, titled: “Evaluation and Optimization
of Biogas Production from Calotropis Procera”,
supervised by Prof. Nana Sarfo Derkyi Agyemang
and Dr. Francis Atta Kuranchie. Joseph Yankyera
Kusi is a PhD candidate in Sustainable Energy
Engineering and Management at the University
of Energy and Natural Resources. He has
a Bachelor degree in Renewable Energy
Engineering and a Master degree in Sustainable
Energy Management, both from the University of
Energy and Natural Resources.
As the world moves towards renewable energies
for a more sustainable environment, diverse clean
energy resources are being utilised. One of these
is biogas, generated through anaerobic digestion.
Biogas is obtained from organic materials, thus
biogas generation is not only a good source of
energy but also a waste management technique.
However, as any other biological process, anae­
robic digestion does not reach its maximum
potential. This is why for decades; scientists and
researchers have been working on mechanisms
that would result in optimum biogas production.
Various optimisation methods and techniques
have been developed over the years. One of these
techniques is the Response Surface Methodology
(RSM). The Response Surface Methodology is
a five-step method developed to study the impact
of factors on a specific variable and to estimate
the optimum condition. It is from this background
that the authors decided to review this optimiza­
tion method.

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

challenges. Design Expert software is the most used software because of its low
cost of use. However, Statistica offers a better efficiency.

Subjects: Renewable Energy; Energy & Fuels; Biotechnology

Keywords: biogas optimization; response surface methodology; review; anaerobic

digestion

1. Introduction
For centuries, fossil fuel has been the world’s main source of energy. However, due to the emission
of greenhouse gases (GHGs), one of the main causes of global warming, the negative impact of
fossil fuel use outweighs its benefits (Bessou et al., 2011). GHG emissions, coupled with other
problems such as environmental pollution (related to the use of fossil fuel), increased consump­
tion, declining land fertility, inefficient waste management, and deforestation which are the results
of mismanagement of natural resources all over the globe, have enjoined the United Nations (UN)
to put in place measures to mitigate them (Mkruqulwa et al., 2019; Nevzorova & Karakaya, 2020).
The seventeen (17) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim at ensuring a better and
a sustainable future for the world. Goal seven (7) focuses on the energy sector; it aims at achieving
global access to clean and affordable electricity by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Energy access is
crucial for food production, security, increased financial income, health and climate change.

Renewable energies, example, hydropower, solar power, wind power, and biofuel are the main
interests of the future energy sector (Mkruqulwa et al., 2019). Biogas production is most likely to be
preferred, not only because of its advantages in terms of cleanliness and sustainability but also
because it is produced from organic waste and therefore, it does not result in loss of food or
biodiversity (Balat & Balat, 2016; Vasavan et al., 2018). Biogas can be an important component of
the solution to meet the goals of the United Nations for sustainable development (Memon &
Memon, 2020). It can be used to generate electricity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Biogas
is a combination of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S), ammonia
(NH3), hydrogen (H2) and minor amounts of other gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
(N2) and oxygen (O2; Anunputtikul & Rodtong, 2004; Jorgensen, 2009; Mkruqulwa et al., 2019).
Biogas is produced by a biological process called anaerobic digestion (AD).

Anaerobic digestion, as defined by (Mukumba et al., 2016) and (Abdeshahian et al., 2016), is
a biological process that takes place in the absence of oxygen and results in the production of
methane through the decomposition of biomass. Biomass which is considered as an organic
matter, is a biodegradable portion of materials such as agriculture residues (vegetal and
animal), forest residues and waste (industrial and municipal; Umana et al., 2020). Organic
materials are made up of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen (Umana et al., 2020).
Anaerobic digestion is a good technology for waste management because it maximizes energy
production and minimizes the cost of treatment of organic materials (municipal solid waste,
food waste, animal manure, agricultural residues, sewage, industrial waste and human excre­
ment; Abdeshahian et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2015). It is also a great solution to wastewater
pollution which is one of the most important environmental problems in the world today
(Buaisha et al., 2020).

The third law of thermodynamics, however, states that no system has 100% efficiency. This
explains why for centuries, humanity has been working to increase the efficiency of chemical and
biochemical processes (to achieve 100% efficiency). In that attempt, “process optimization”
techniques have been generated. Process optimization has significant importance in industrial
processes and it is a well-accepted part of any industry, especially biotechnological firms where
the slightest change in a production process can have a significant impact on the product (Reddy
et al., 2008).

Page 2 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Since the discovery of biogas, there have been several pieces of research and experiments to
improve the efficiency of anaerobic digestion. These studies have led to improvements in both
production process and biogas quality (methane content increment and GHG reduction; Enitan-
folami et al., 2016). The process of optimising the biogas production parameters is complex due to
the many interactive effects of these parameters (Sathish & Vivekanandan, 2016). Response sur­
face methodology (RSM), for instance; a mathematical and statistical set of techniques used to
both design and build empirical models, examine the impact of the inputs and estimate the
optimal conditions is one such method (Muthuvelayudham et al., 2006; Rastega et al., 2011;
Sarabia & Ortiz, 2009). The purpose of RSM is to maximize a response (dependent variable) affected
by several input variables (independent variables; Bradley, 2009).

In an attempt to obtain maximum efficiency in biological processes, various optimisation

methods and techniques have been developed over the years. One of these techniques is the
Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The Response Surface Methodology is a five-step method
developed to study the impact of factors on a specific variable and to estimate the optimum
condition. Several parameters such as temperature, pre-treatment, pH can impact biogas produc­
tion, thus, could be adjusted to optimize the quantity and quality of biogas. This research reviews
current research on the use of Response Surface Methodology in the optimisation of Biogas
processes. It explores the performance of RSM in biogas process optimisation; the most effective
technique/methodology and the attendant effective software used in such processes. A total of 55
articles, published from 2000 to 2022, were systematically reviewed and included in the database.

2. Methodology
The study was guided by the process of bibliometric studies outlined by Akpoti et al. (Akpoti et al.,
2019). The literature database on Response Surface Methodology in Biogas optimization was
developed through a systematic search in online databases (using Google Scholar and Scopus).
A Boolean search by keywords and phrases were used to query through scientific research engines
and platforms. Initial search includes strictly biogas process parameters optimization. Then we
enlarged the database to statistical-based optimization research that includes Response Surface
Methodology. Keywords and expressions included biogas, process parameters, optimization and
Response Surface Methodology. All articles dealing with optimization of biogas process parameters
through response surface methodology from site-specific, sub-regional, country level to global
were included in the database. Each article was reviewed and the database was organized
according to the pre-established checklist to collect metadata (Table 1). The approach included
all “relevant” publications between the period 2000 and 2021. However, we referred to a few
articles prior to the year 2000 that are important to understanding concepts or methods. We
intentionally excluded the theoretical and mathematical formulations of the methods reported in
the papers assessed for readability and easy understanding. In total, 55 articles were system­
atically reviewed and included in the database. These papers concerned solely those published

Table 1. Checklist of meta-data for systematic review (adapted from (Akpoti et al., 2019))
Items Definition
Title Title of the article or document under review
Objective Objective of the study
Methodology Method used to meet the study objective
Process parameters Process parameters considered for optimization
Keys notes/summary Important findings from the study and limitations
Criteria Software/Computer program Information on model implementation and different
software used
Authors Author(s)
Document type Journal article, book chapter, conference paper, etc.

Page 3 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 1. Methodology adapted

in this article. Boalean Search by key

Required articles/
LITERATURE SEARCH Documents
AND CATEGORY
Derived information by
system modeled

Systematic review ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

between 2000 and 2021. A systematic review was conducted on the collected data (Figure 1), and
results are presented and discussed.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Concept of response surface methodology

Response surface methodology (RSM) is a mathematical and statistical set of techniques used to
both design and build empirical models, examines the impact of the inputs and estimates the
optimal conditions (Bradley, 2009; Muthuvelayudham et al., 2006; Rastega et al., 2011). It was
pioneered in 1951 by Box and Wilson (Box & Wilson, 1951), to imitate experimental responses
through second-degree polynomial (quadratic) models (Bashir et al., 2015; Bradley, 2009). RSM is
designed to optimize a response that is affected by multiple variables (Montgomery, 2017).

Considering two independent variables (x1 and x2) and an output or response variable (y;
equation 1), the response (y) will depend on the two variables (x1 and x2):

y ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 Þ þ ε (Equation 1)

ε is the error margin that could be observed in response y. Hence, the response surface is the
surface represented by equation 2 below:

η ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 Þ (Equation 2)

With η; the response surface area and x1 ; x2 , two independent variables.

The response surface is represented graphically most of the time, either as contour plots or in
a three-dimensional space (Bradley, 2009; Montgomery, 2017). Figure 2 indicates a typical repre­
sentation of a response surface. RSM is applied for optimising process parameters in many field
areas (chemical, biochemical, material science, wastewater treatment, etc.; Alikunju et al., 2017;
Bashir et al., 2015; Beevi et al., 2014; H. B. Nielsen et al., 2007; Jung et al., 2015).

A study by Bashir et al. (Bashir et al., 2015) found that 352 out of 3190 articles related to RSM
application in optimizing process parameters in the different research areas (Chollom et al., 2019);
with nearly ten (10) times increase in the number of articles were published between 2000 and
2013. This agrees with Aydar (Aydar, 2018) that RSM is one of the most popular analytical methods
for optimization. In recent times, RSM has been used in several industries to optimize process
parameters and to study the dynamic effects of input variables in biochemical and chemical
Page 4 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 2. A graphical represen­

tation of an RSM response
(Bradley, 2009).

reactions(Chelladurai et al., 2020). Breig and Luti (Breig & Luti, 2021) reviewed the application of
response surface methodology in microbial cultures and conclude that: in addition to offering the
possibility of investigating the parameters that affect the response and illustrating the relative
magnitude and interactions between them, RSM is a very useful tool for determining the optimal
conditions for increasing microbial production and for building mathematical models that predict
the output variable as a function of combinations of parameter levels. RSM is a very useful tool.

RSM, as illustrated by Figure 2, is a multi-stage method, which uses experimental designs for
fitting first-order or second-order polynomial models (Bartz-Beieslstein et al., 2010). The most
important step of RSM is the Design of Experiments (DoE). The success of the mathematical
model for the correctness of the response surface construction is highly dependent on the selec­
tion of experimental design (Aydar, 2018). The DoE also aims at finding the variables with a higher
impact on the response (in cases where the number of input variables is considerable; Aydar,
2018). Makela, in his review study, defined the experiment design (or design of experiment) as “a
collection of tools used for studying the behavior of a system” (Makela, 2017). RSM is
a combination of experimental designs and a strategy to develop a new dataset by first-
or second-order polynomial equations in a systematic test method (Ramaraj & Unpaprom,
2019). RSM analysis is predominantly done with symmetrical experimental designs which are
Doehlert Design (DD), Central Composite Design (CCD), the Box-Behnken Design (BBD), and a three-
level full factorial design (Bezerra et al., 2008). Each of the experimental designs has its advan­
tages and limits (Chollom et al., 2019).

RSM offers an advantage over traditional optimization methods concerning the number of
experiments and the multifactorial interactivities over a response (Tetteh et al., 2017). Two other
advantages of RSM are that: by allowing the identification of optimal conditions, RSM offers an
assessment of the sensitivity of these optimum conditions to the variations of the experimental
variables it quantifies the response-input variable relationship (Kilickap, 2010) and the possibility of
making projections, which allow visual interpretations of that relationship (Rastega et al., 2011).
The greatest advantage of RSM remains the time and cost savings due to the reduced number of
experimental trials (Boyaci, 2005).

However, Bas and Boyaci (Bas & Boyaci, 2007) revealed the main limitation of RSM, namely its
confinement to fitting the data to a second-order polynomial equation. Some complex data are
not compatible with a second-order polynomial model. Breig and Luti (Breig & Luti, 2021) con­
firmed the challenge identified by Bas and Boyaci, and pointed at two other disadvantages in using
RSM, which are: the limited experimental range of this methodology and the need to use the
steepest descent technique to transfer the optimal area to supply the combinations of parameters
when doing the preliminary approximation of parameters. Techniques for merging RSM and other

Page 5 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 3. Steps of response • Identification of the problem

surface methodology. • Determination of the dependent variable (s)
Screening • Determination of independent variables
Study • Decision of factor levels

Selection of Full Factorial Central Box-Behnken Doehlert

Experimental Design Composite Design Design Design
Design

Three level: Five level: Three level: Factor levels up

Decision of
factor levels 3k (− , − , , + , + ) (-1, 0, +1) to 2k - 1

• First order polynomial (linear) equation: = ∑ +

• Second order polynomial (quadratic) equation: = ∑ +
Running of ∑ + ∑ +
Experiment

• Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Evaluation Of • Optimal conditions
Fitted Model

Interpretation
and validation
of Model
Contour Plot 3-D Plot

optimization methods are being studied in order to overcome the challenges stated above (Breig &
Luti, 2021).

3.2. Steps of response surface methodology

The response surface methodology is a statistical procedure for optimizing one or more responses
affected by more than one factor (independent variable). RSM is based on surface placement,
therefore, its success depends solely on understanding the topography of the response surface
(e.g., maximum local, minimum local and ridgelines) and being able to identify the area where the
optimal condition occurs (Bradley, 2009). It is a strong tool for process optimization, as it has been
used to evaluate the overall effect of various factors on process parameters various fields of study:
clinical and biological sciences, social sciences, nutrition sciences, physics and engineering
sciences. The methodology is a heuristic optimization, meaning there is no certainty of reaching
the optimal response in a finite time during an RSM optimization process (Bartz-Beieslstein et al.,
2010). RSM, however, as mentioned earlier, follows specific steps to arrive at the desired result.
Figure 3 presents these different steps while this section discusses them.

3.2.1. The screening study

The screening study, as shown in Figure 4, consists of the identification of the problem, the
determination of the response variable (s), the determination of input variables, and the decision
of factor levels (Figure 4; Ranganath, 2015). After the determination of the response (s) and its
input variables, the level of influence of each of the variables on the response(s) is estimated using
linear and quadratic models such as full factorial or fractional factorial designs (Olivero et al.,
1998).

Page 6 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 4. Steps of the screening

process.

Independent variables or factors are the variables that are subject to manipulations in order to
study their impact on a specific response. The factor levels represent the number of settings of the
factor that is considered in the experiment; they are the different values that the factor can
assume (Bezerra et al., 2008). For example, an experiment to investigate the impact of pH on
fermentation, where five (5) different pH values were considered; here pH is a factor and its five (5)
values are the factor levels.

3.2.2. Selection of experimental design

According to the definition of Montgomery (Montgomery, 2017), a Statistical design of experiments
refers to the planning process of the experiment in order to collect appropriate data and analyse
them by statistical methods, allowing valid and objective conclusions to be drawn. The main
purpose of the DoE is to find appropriate experimental designs, by selecting the points where
the response will be monitored (Bradley, 2009). Montgomery (Montgomery, 2017) lists several
desirable features to consider when deciding on a design for a response surface. The choice of an
experimental design depends mostly on:

● The type of variables (quantitative or qualitative)

● The type of experiment (process or mixture)
● The number of variables
● The range of the study
● The limitations of the variables

A number of experimental designs exist (Figure 6), but only four are mostly used in RSM, namely:
Central Composite Design (CCD), Box-Behnken Design (BBD), Full Factorial, and Optimal Designs.
The choice of designs is also based on the required experimental points and the numbers of runs
(Breig & Luti, 2021) As shown in Figure 5, the Central Composite Design (CCD) is the most used
design followed by the Box-Behnken Design (BBD), then the Full Factorial and Optimal Designs. This
section will discuss each of these experimental designs.

4. The central composite design (CCD)

Also known as the Box-Wilson central composite design, it is the most commonly used experi­
mental design for fitting polynomial equations (Montgomery, 2017). CCD is made up of a three-
level factor (two-level full or fractional factorial design and a central point which is the middle

Page 7 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 5. Proportional distribu­

tion of the experimental
designs used in the articles
read. 28%
3%

5%

2%

67%

CCD BBD D-Optimal Full Factorial

Figure 6. List of experimental

designs. Factorial
Full Factorial
Design
Design
Placket
Burman
2-level Central
Factorial Composite
Mixture
Design
Design
3-level Box-Behnken
Factorial Design
Taguchi

D-optimal
Fractional
Factorial
Design

SCREENING OPTIMIZATION/RSM

level) augmented by a star point denoted α increasing the factor levels to 5 (Olawoye, 2016; Witek-
Krowiak et al., 2014). The star point gives more flexibility to the experimental design by estimating
the curvature (Nnaemeka et al., 2022; Nooraziah & Tiagrajah, 2014; Yılmaz & Şahan, 2020).

Even though CCD requires fewer runs than the full factorial design (FFD), it gives the same
amount of information (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014). Depending on the position of the star points,
three different types of central composite designs are distinguished:

● The Circumscribed Central Composite (CCC) where the star points are located outside the experi­
mental domain. CCC requires five levels per factor and is a rotatable design (the variance of response
at any point is only dependent on the distance between that point and the center point) Handbook
of Statistical Methods, 2013). Rotatability is also called iso-variance per rotation (Ait-Amir et al.,
2015).

Page 8 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table 2. Characteristics of the CC designs

Type of Central Rotatability Number of α Experiment
Composite points at the
Design center
p ffiffiffiffiffi
Circumscribed Rotatable 1 α¼ 4
Nf

qffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Face-centered Orthogonal 1 Nf �N Nf
α¼ 2

p ffiffiffiffiffi p ffiffiffiffiffi
Inscribed Rotatable and 4
Nf þ 4 2k α¼ 4
Nf
orthogonal

● The Inscribed Central Composite (CCI) is regarded as a CCC design reduced to fit within the
experimental domain (Ait-Amir et al., 2015). It is used in situations where there are limits on factor
levels; thus, it requires the same number of factor levels as CCC design and each factor level is by α
Central Composite Designs (CCD), 2013). CCI is both rotatable and orthogonal.
● The Face-Centred Composite (CCF): star points are located at the middle of each face of the
experimental domain with α ¼ �1 (Ait-Amir et al., 2015). It requires three-factor levels and is an
orthogonal design (the effect of any factor across the experimental domain, nullifies the effects of
the other factors) Handbook of Statistical Methods, 2013).

According to Witek-Krowiak et al. (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014), to choose the right type of CCD, it is
very important to consider the region of operation and the region of interest. Table 2 describes the
characteristics of the various CC designs where Nf , N and k are the numbers of trials per fractional
factorial experiments, the total number of trials, and the number of factors, respectively.

5. The box-behnken design (BBD)

BBD was created in 1960 by Box and Behnken as a replacement to the FFD, which required a large
number of experiments (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014). BBD is, therefore, more economical and more
efficient than FFD especially when it comes to large experimental numbers (Bezerra et al., 2008)
and slightly more labor efficient than CCD. The experimental points of BBD are located on
a hypersphere halfway from the center point which offered it the advantage of pointing out the
limits of the experimental boundaries (Bezerra et al., 2008; Ramaraj & Unpaprom, 2019).

The two major challenges with BBD are that it can only be used to fit the quadratic model and
take a minimum of three-factor levels (Ramaraj & Unpaprom, 2019; Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014).
BBD can be rotatable or near rotatable when there are more than three-factor levels and if points
are added at the center (Ait-Amir et al., 2015; Guthrie et al., 2013).

6. The full factorial design (FFD)

Even though it is less used as compared to the CCD and the BBD, the full factorial design is one of
the most common designs. This design only works with a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of

Page 9 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

five (5) independent variables (Bradley, 2009; Leiviska, 2013) because it requires a high number of
experiments (Bezerra et al., 2008). The large number of experiments required is because the design
takes into consideration all possible interactions between the factors (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014).
Although FFD can only fit second-order polynomials, Khattree and Rao (Khattree & Rao, 2003a)
affirmed that it may have problems fitting second-order and higher models. Box and Behnken
created the central composite design to counter the cost and time limitations related to FFD.

7. Optimal designs
Optimal design matrices are a non-orthogonal set of computer-based experimental designs which
are used in cases where the other factorial and fractional factorial designs cannot be applied
(Leiviska, 2013) and are distinguished by adding by the addition of alphabetical prefix:

● D-optimality design
● E-optimality design
● G-optimality design
● V-optimality design
● I-optimal design
● T-optimal design

In this paper, the D-optimal design is discussed. It is the most used optimal design (Atkinson &
Fedorov, 1975; Khattree & Rao, 2003a; Rockafellar, 2015; Simons & Chernoff, 1976). Most optimal
designs deal with the proper value of the matrix XT X. The “D” in D-optimal stands for
“Determinant”. That is, in the D-optimal design, the objective is to maximize the determinant
XT X (De Aguiar et al., 1995; Bradley, 2009; Copelli et al., 2018) and minimize the variance of the
parameters.

The advantage of the D-optimal design is that it can be used for any experimental purpose
(screening, RSM), it can fit any model (first-order, second-order, cubic), and it works with a large
number of experimental runs (“D-Optimal designs,” 2013). Table 3 below, summarizes the different
experimental design characteristics.

7.0.3. Running of experiment

An experiment as defined by the Design Institute for Six Sigma (Hromi, 1957) is a procedure or
analysis that results in the acquisition of data. After the input variables are found and the
experimental design is selected, experiments must be planned. Experiments are very important;
therefore, they have to be rationally planned (Olivero et al., 1998). The number of experiments
depends on the type of experimental design selected (refer to Table 7). In microbial production,
experiments are run in replicates for more precision and accuracy.

7.0.4. Selection of model

The response function (f) largely depends on the nature of relationship between the response and
the independent variables and the class of experimental design selected must fit an experimental
model. In the application of RSM in practice, it is required to build an experimental model for the
actual response surface. The model is built on the actual data of the process or system and is
a regression model (empirical model; Sarabia & Ortiz, 2009). A regression model uncovers the
relationships between the response and the set of independent variables in a fixed data set and
predict the optimal response to different combinations of the process variables (Nor & Wan, 2020).
Regression models are generated using the least square method which is a multiple linear
regression which minimizes the sum of squares distances between the actual and the predicted
data (Nor & Wan, 2020; Sarabia & Ortiz, 2009).

Two types of experimental models are used in response surface optimization: the first-order
multiple linear model or orthogonal model which is used when there are two independent vari­
ables as formulated in Equation 3:
Page 10 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table 3. Different experimental designs and their characteristics

Experimental Characteristics
Design
DOEHLERT DESIGN ● It allows a sequential approach to the k is the factor number of the central point
response surface cp is the replicate number of the central
point
● It simplifies the study of a restricted
zone by changing the dimensions of
the initial simplex
● It is associated with the loss of infor­
mation due to alignments in the area

OPTIMAL DESIGN ● It is important when the experimen­

tal cost is high or there are con­
straints on factor settings
● It requires fewer runs than standard
factorial designs
● The design space is constrained

FFD ● It has an unrestricted number of fac­

tors and factor levels
● It is labor-intensive
● It is the most secured design

BBD ● It can accommodate a minimum of

three (3) factors
● It has 3 levels of factors (upper level,
lower level, center point)
● It requires several experiments
according to N ¼ 2kðk 1Þ þ cp
● All levels of factors should be set only
at three levels (−1, 0, +1) with equi­
distant intervals between these levels

CCD ● It can accommodate a minimum

number of two (2) factors
● It has five (5) levels of factors
● It requires an experiment number
according to N ¼ k2 þ 2k þ cp ,
● All its factors are studied in five levels
ð α; 1; 0; þ1; þαÞ
● It involves three types of composite
designs (Circumscribed, face-
centered, and inscribed)

y ¼ β0 þ β1 x1 þ β2 x2 (Equation 3)

Where y is the response and x1 and x2 are the independent variables. This model only fits a 2-level
Factorial and reduces the variance of the regression factors. However, most times, the curvature of
the response surface is so strong that a first-order model is not adequate. Thus, the need for
a second-order multiple linear model or quadratic model, which is the most, used in RSM problems.
Equation 4 presents a second-order model with k-independent variables (regressors) and β set of
unknown parameters.

Page 11 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

y ¼ β0 þ ∑ ki¼1 βi xi þ ∑ ki¼1 βii x2i þ ∑ ki¼1 ∑ ki¼2 βij xi xj (Equation 4)

Second-order models are more flexible. They can fit Central Composite Designs, Box-Behnken
Designs and 3-level factorial Designs. It is also easier to estimate the unknown parameters β in
quadratic models. These models are good in solving real response surface dilemmas.

7.0.5. Evaluation of the fitted model

It is necessary to check the fitness of a model for two main reasons: to guarantee that it gives an
accurate approximation of the actual system and to Check that no assumptions in the least
squares regression are violated (Sarabia & Ortiz, 2009). Two major ways of accessing the fitness
of a model are discussed here: the Regression Analysis and the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a set of analytical tools and models that are used to find the
differences between the means of a variable in a multi-variable experiment (Iversen & Norpoth,
1987). David M. Lane (Lane, 2015) refers to the Analysis of Variance as a statistical method used to
differentiate between two or more means. It identifies and measures the impact of different input
variables on a given response (Hoefsloot et al., 2009) and it is assumed that the value measured is
a function of the overall mean, the impact of the measured variable on the system’s response and
the residual error (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014). The primary objective of the analysis of variance is
to identify the factor that has the greatest impact on the results of the study (most significant) on
the experimental response. It additionally determines the significance of the experimental results.
ANOVA follows the same steps as a statistical t-test, except that the t score obtained is converted
into a p-value for the ANOVA test (Sawyer, 2009). An ANOVA test could be “one-way” (the
experimental design has only one factor) or “two-way” (the experiment is affected by two factors)
while a factor could also be a “between-subject” factor (the factor levels are used on different
subjects) or a “within-subject” factor (when different factor levels are used on the same subjects;
Lane, 2015). The more complex case of multifactor designs with combinations of between-subject
and within-subject factors have been discussed by (Chinneck, 2007), (Penny & Henson, 2007),
(Sawyer, 2009) and (Lane, 2015). The model is considered to have a good fit to the dataset when it
shows a non-significant lack of fit and a significant regression (Bezerra et al., 2008).

With the regression analysis, the fitness of a model is checked from its coefficient of correlation
(R) and its coefficient of determination (R2). The coefficient of correlation (R) is the acceptability of
the relationship between predicted and actual values obtained in a statistical experiment. The
value obtained for the coefficient of correlation (R) explains the accuracy between the predicted
and the actual values. The values of R lie between −1 and +1; a positive value of R translate
a similar or identical relation between the two variables. A negative value, however, explains
a dissimilarity. The coefficient of determination (R2) also called R square method is the fraction
of the total variation of the dependent variable that is predicted from the independent variable.
This method is used to predict the outcomes of a model. Since the coefficient of determination (R2)
is the square of the coefficient of correlation (R), the values of R2 lie between 0 and 1. A value of
coefficient of determination of 0 means that the dependent variable is not predictable from the
independent variable while a value of 1 translates that the dependent variable is predictable from
the independent variable without any error. Values between 0 and 1 indicate the extent of
predictability of the dependent variable.

7.0.6. Interpretation and validation of the model

To achieve the optimal solution, the original design should take a specific direction. Linear models
generate surfaces that are used to indicate that direction (Bezerra et al., 2008). The dimensions of
the critical point can be computed by the first value of the derivative of the function (Bezerra et al.,
2008): The first step involves calculating the first derivative and identifying all the zeros within the
experimental region, then the possibility of the existence of a saddle point is explored through the
calculation of the second derivative (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014). If the two derivatives are equal to
null, a graphical representation of the model will be used to determine the local extreme (Witek-
Krowiak et al., 2014). The previous procedure is valid only for single response optimisation.
Page 12 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 7. Different critical

points on a response surface
plot (Jin et al., 2017, July).

However, the optimal region can be found by visual inspection of the surfaces while the visualisa­
tion of the predicted model equation can be obtained by plotting the response surface (contour
and 3-D plot; Bezerra et al., 2008). The critical points of the second-order models can be defined as
maximum, minimum, or saddle (Figure 7).

7.1. Process Parameters for anaerobic digestion

Although the volume and the quality of biogas mainly depend on the nature of the feedstock
(Dobre et al., 2014; Qiao et al., 2011), other environmental factors also influence biogas production.
These factors include: comminution, dry matter content, digestibility, stirring, and acidification pH,
C/N ratio, digester temperature, retention time (hydraulic retention time; HRT and solids retention
time; SRT), pressure in the digester, pH of the reactor (which depends on the temperature), organic
loading rate (OLR), the volatile fatty acid (VFA) content . . . (Dobre et al., 2014; Rahim & Ahmed,
2015; Sukor, 2017). Thirty seven (37) parameters were identified in the articles reviewed
(Appendix 2), but only the five (5) must occurring (Figure 8) of these parameters were considered
and discussed in the current study.

7.1.1. Digestion Temperature

Temperature is a very significant factor in methane formation as bacteria are highly responsive to
temperature changes. A wide range of temperatures is possible, generally between 3°C and 70°C
(Hoerz et al., 1999). Three temperature ranges are generally distinguished: the psychrophilic
temperature range (10–20°C), the mesophilic temperature range (20–40°C), and the thermophilic
temperature range (40–70°C). The selection of a temperature range is made after considering the
nature of inoculums to be used (Sukor, 2017). The temperature affects the efficiency of the system,
methane production, and fermentation (Rajati et al., 2014). Table 1 presents optimum tempera­
tures obtain in reviewed papers. Based on the results in Table 4, it could be pointed that the
optimum temperature for biogas production lies in the mesophilic temperature range with some
extend to the thermophilic range (35–45°C). The temperature, however, depends on the type of

Figure 8. Five active process Temperature

parameters subjected to varia­
tions in articles of interest. Ph

Hydraulic retention time

Pre-treatment

Loading rate

0 5 10 15 20 25

Page 13 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

feedstock and has a great effect on the Carbon-to-Nitrogen ratio: temperature affects the deple­
tion of carbon and nitrogen that could cause an inhibitory effect on the anaerobic digestion.

7.1.2. pH
pH is one of the major parameters regulating anaerobic (Vijin Prabhu et al., 2021). The pH of the
substrate is determinant of the quantity of methane produced. Based on the reviewed literature,
as shown in Table 5, the optimal pH lies in between the acidic and the neutral range (pH 5–7).
However, according to (Ozmen & Aslanzadeh, 2009), the pH of a substrate decreases during the
fermentation process and increases after the fermentation process. It is thus concluded that for
optimum anaerobic digestion and biogas production, the suitable pH should range between 5 and
7. A higher or lower pH could be detrimental to the whole process. An acid solution (hydrochloric
acid (HCl), nitric acid (HNO3), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), or acetic acid (CH3COOH)) could be added to
the substrate to increase the pH level while a basic solution (sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium
hydroxide (KOH), ammonia (NH3), or ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH)) is added to decrease the pH
level. However, the quantity of solution needed to increase or decrease the pH depends on the
initial pH of the substrate. Co-digestion is also a good alternative to regulate the pH of substrates.

7.1.3. Hydraulic retention time

Hydraulic retention time refers to the theoretical duration for which a particle or volume of liquid
added to a digester remains there (Nijaguna, 2006). It can be simplified as the length of time the
volatile solid remains in the reactor (Dobre et al., 2014). It has a mathematical formula as:

Vr
HRT ¼ ðDaysÞ (Equation 5)
Vs

Table 4. Examples of optimum temperature

Substrate
Temperature
Biomass from cassava
and solid waste from
vineyards
Corn ethanol distillery
wastewater
Grass silage
Poultry dropping and
pawpaw peels
Rice straw
Co-digestion of Prosopis
juliflora seeds, water
hyacinth, dry leaves, and
cow manure
Tannery wastewater
Waste food materials
Green algae
Dairy effluents
Optimum Optimum Response Reference
35 °C ± 0.5 346.28 mL CH4/g VS (Mkruqulwa et al., 2019)
added
37 °C 551 mL CH4 g-1 VS (Gyenge et al., 2014)
added
37.3 °C 3410.25 CC (Alfarjani et al., 2013)
36.84 °C 3991.77 10−4 m3/VS (Dahunsi et al., 2016)
50 °C 0.72 m3 biogas yield (Sathish & Vivekanandan,
2014)
35.557 °C Actual methane yield (Vijin Prabhu et al., 2021)
(AMY) of 396.0 ± 6 L/
kgVS, anaerobic
biodegradability of
76.6%, and the TS
reduction of 41.1%
35.5–37 °C 200–217 mL biogas/g VS (Mpofu & Oyekola, 2019)
108–118 mL CH4/g VS
69–74% VS, 54–57% TS
47–48% COD reduction
44.03 °C 80% of CH4 (Pati et al., 2019)
37 °C 346 ml biogas yield (Zaidi et al., 2019)
35 °C 40% sludge ratio, with (Nouri et al., 2020)
the removal of 47.7%
volatile solids and
266.5 ml per gram of
removed volatile solids

Page 14 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table 5. Examples of optimum pH

Substrate
Secondary Tannery
sludge (STNS)
Liquid swine manure and
sugar beet molasses
De-oiled jatropha
Slaughterhouse
wastewater (SWW)
Flower waste
Co-digestion of Prosopis
juliflora seeds, water
hyacinth, dry leaves, and
cow manure
Co-digestion of waste
food materials and cow
dung
Rice Straw
Optimum pH Optimum Response Reference
6.5–6.6 200–217 mL biogas/g VS (Mpofu & Oyekola, 2019)
108–118 mL CH4/g VS
69–74% VS, 54–57% TS
47–48% COD reduction
5.32 31.9 L/d biogas (Wu et al., 2013)
production rate o
29.33% hydrogen
content
1.52 mol-H2/mol-sugar
hydrogen yield
6.5 307.4 ± 4.5 mL H2 (G. G. Kumar et al., 2014)
cumulative hydrogen
production
6.84 85.03 and 72.10% (Bustillo-lecompte &
Maximum TOC and TN Mehrvar, 2017)
removals
19.54 mg/L minimum TSS
residual
116.56 mL/min
maximum biogas yield
7.2 Highest biogas yield of (Gopal et al., 2021)
568 ml CH4/g Vs
7.034 Actual methane yield (Vijin Prabhu et al., 2021)
(AMY) of 396.0 ± 6 L/
kgVS, anaerobic
biodegradability of
76.6%, and the TS
reduction of 41.1%
7.02 The response at the (Pati et al., 2019)
optimum conditions is
17.33 ml
7.5 The highest level of (Sathish & Vivekanandan,
biogas 0.72 m3 2014)

Where Vr is the digester volume in m3 and Vs is the quantity of overlay loaded per unit of time
in m3/t (Dobre et al., 2014). The hydraulic retention time has a significant effect on the digester’s
performance (Ezekoye et al., 2011) and depends on two factors: the process temperature and the
substrate type. Table 6 gives a summary of studied substrates and their obtained hydraulic
retention times. From the reviewed articles, it is a clear difference between the hydraulic retention
time of solid and liquid feedstock has been observed. The optimal hydraulic retention for liquid
feedstock is shorter (hours) compared to that of solid feedstock (days). It is thus concluded that
the optimal hydraulic retention time for liquid feedstock ranges between 15 and 46 hours while
that of solid feedstock lasts between 30 and 40 days.

7.1.4. Pre-treatment
The presence of lignocellulose matter in the feedstock slows down the digestion process. That is
why it is recommended to pre-treat substrate before anaerobic digestion (Bala & Mondal, 2019).
Pretreatment is meant to break down complex matters into smaller and simpler substance (Bala &
Mondal, 2019), thus increases the surface area and surface porosity of the substrate for an
increased accessibility for microorganisms and therefore boost biogas production (Memon &
Memon, 2020). Pretreated raw materials require lesser processing time than non-pretreated
ones (Aziz et al., 2019). There are varieties of pretreatment techniques, which are categorized in
groups; these are physical, chemical, thermal, mechanical, and biological pretreatment processes
(Bala & Mondal, 2019). Some studies combine two or more pretreatment techniques (Murugan &
Sivasamy, 2016; Olatunji et al., 2022). From the reviewed articles (Table 7), it was observed that

Page 15 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table 6. Optimum hydraulic retention times

Substrate Optimum Hydraulic
Retention Time
SWW
High-load compost
leachate
Wastewater from the
bagasse-based pulp and
paper industry
Volatile fatty acids
Co-Digestion of Food
Waste with Sewage
Sludge
Starchy sediment
Corn-chaff and cow dung
digestate
Optimum Response Reference
15 h 5,800 mL/d biogas (Chollom et al., 2019)
production
80.8% COD removal
46 h 84 % COD removal (Elyasi et al., 2015)
76 mL/mg h biogas
production rate
23 h 84.3% COD removal (Taylor et al., 2015)
230.9 mg/l h COD
removal rate
21.2 l/d biogas
production
22 h 102 mL/L/h biogas (Amani et al., 2012)
production rate
38.8 days 16% increase in biogas (Abdul Aziz et al., 2022)
yield
of 81.5% COD efficiency
69.2% VS efficiency
30 days 403 ml/g TVS of biogas (Srivichai & Thongtip,
added 2021)
65.07% TVS removal
37 days Highest biogas yield of (Iweka et al., 2021)
6.19 L

there is no specific optimum pretreatment type or conditions for all raw materials (the optimum
pretreatment condition of wheat straw is very different for that of cow dung). The pretreatment
type and conditions depend on the type of raw materials

7.1.5. Organic loading/loading rate

The loading rate is the ratio at which organic matter is supplied to the digester (Jorgensen, 2009).
It can also be defined as the number of feedstock introduced per unit volume of the digester
capacity per day (Ozmen & Aslanzadeh, 2009). Overfeeding or underfeeding a digester can cause
low biogas and methane production; this is why it is important to optimize the loading rate. The
optimum loading rate is different for each type of feedstock. Table 8 summarizes a list of selected
optimum loading rates.

7.2. Some experimental design software

A wild range of statistical software are used today to perform the design of experiment (DOE) as
shown in Figure 9. This paper discusses five (5) of these: Design Expert, Minitab, Statistica, Matlab,
and Statgraphics Plus.

7.3. Design expert

The most widely used software (102 out of 200 papers used Design Expert) is a Stat-ease Inc.
software package designed to conduct DOE. It supports a wide range of experiments (comparison
testing, screening characterization, optimizing, designing robust parameters, and combining and
mixing designs) in a user-friendly interface (Khattree & Rao, 2003b) and offers test models that
allow the testing of as many as fifty (50) factors. An ANOVA is used to establish the importance of
these factors. The impact of these factors on the outcomes is identified with the help of graphical
tools.

The Design expert offers eleven (11) graphs that analyze the output of the residuals. The main
interactive effects between factors as well as the effects of each of them can be determined by the
software. The optimum operating parameters of processes can also be calculated with the help of
an optimization feature (Purusottam, 2019). Unlike most software of the same kind, Design Expert

Page 16 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table 7. Examples of optimum pre-treatment conditions

Substrate Pre-treatment Optimum Optimum Reference
Type Pretreatment Response
Conditions
The organic fraction Biological 4.72 g/L NaOH dose 169.5% enhanced (Bala & Mondal,
of municipal solid Thermochemical 180 °C temperature biogas yield 2019)
waste (OFMSW) 30.3 min pre-
treatment time
Excess sludge Alkaline 11.8 pH 64, 84% Reduction (Murugan &
Mechanical 21 days SRT in volatile solids Sivasamy, 2016)
78.5% reduction in
proteins and
carbohydrates
15% enhanced gas
production
Waste activated Photo-Fenton 725 g H2O2/kg TS 75.7% total VS (Heng et al., 2017)
sludge 80 H2O2/Fe2+ molar reduction
ratio 81.5% COD removal
40 min irradiation 0.29–0.31 m3/kg
time VSfed.d biogas
production rate
Food waste Alkaline, pH 9 alkalinepre- The production of (Menon et al., 2016;
ultrasonication treatment at 130 °C biogas increased by
And thermal for 50 min 100% with full
Thermal pre- utilisation of the
treatment 30 min COD in 25 days,
ultra-sonication with no
pre-treatment significant
downtime
Asparagus Stover Alkaline 19d pre-treatment 277.86 mL/g VS (Sun et al., 2017)
time biogas
4.2%NaOH yield
concentration 74 g
dose of water

Table 8. Examples of optimum loading rate

Substrate
SWW
Palm oil mill effluent
(pome)
co-digestion of cabbage,
cauliflower, and
restaurant food waste
Optimum Optimum Response Reference
Loading rate
3.5 kg.m−3.d−1 5,800 mL/d biogas (Chollom et al., 2019)
production
80.8% COD removal
15.6 g COD/L.d−1 0.31 LCH4g-1 (Chan et al., 2015)
CODremoved methane
yield
67.5% purity of methane
0.06 kg ofVS/m3 h for the High biodegradability (Beniche et al., 2021)
CCF and FWmixture (98%), a methane yield
of475 mLSTP CH4/g VS

provides response transformations for particular cases. The package costs less than $1000 for
a single copy.

7.4. Minitab
Minitab is one of the oldest statistical software. It traces its origin from the mid-80s. This software
package developed by Barbara F. Ryan can summarize data, produce graphs, and conduct regres­
sion analysis, analysis of variance, control charting. It can support basic factorial designs, frac­
tional factorial designs, response surface designs, and Plackett–Burman designs. The response
surface support includes Box-Behnken and all forms of central composite designs. However,

Page 17 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Figure 9. Statistical software

used in the reviewed articles. DOE++

mothur

Dx-7

optimtool

Modde

matlab

statistica

minitab

design expert

0 10 20 30 40

Minitab does not support sequential experimentation data or data dealing with constrained
process spaces.

It is very easy to convert a factorial design to a response surface design. The software also
supports interaction graphs involving qualitative factors (very helpful when reading results from
such analyses). Minitab has a very convenient optimization section which is easy to use and allows
the user to specify the objectives for each response. The results are represented in tabular form
and functions which are easy to interpret. The software also supports results overlay. It allows the
user to define the axes as well as the optimum values for input parameters. Minitab also supports
foldover designs (resolution III to resolution IV; Khattree & Rao, 2003b). The minimum cost for
a single-user commercial license for Minitab is $1200 with no annual renewal fee.

7.5. Statistica
It is one of the most powerful and expensive suites of analytical software packages with costs
exceeding $2000 and an annual renewal fee for complete modules. The software which was
created by StatSoft company and purchased by Dell in 2014 provides a procedure for data analysis,
data management, statistics, data mining, machine learning, text analysis, and data display (Anon,
2012). Even though it offers great capacities for design generations, it requires considerable study
and practice for full utilization due to the lack of integration of the algorithm design options.

The software offers good tools and graphics for the determination of the source of lack of fit in
statistical models. It has a different way of treating qualitative data as opposed to other software.
It is also easy to generate foldover designs with Statistica which provides a “square plot” to
visualize the results. Statistica provides understandable support for Box-cox transformations, but
considerable manipulations of the spreadsheet are necessary before incorporating these transfor­
mations in an analysis (Khattree & Rao, 2003b).

The main Statistica package has simple statistics (t-test, correlation, descriptive statistics) and
graphing capabilities (bar charts/histograms, trend charts, mean charts, scatter charts, box plots,
probability plots, matrix plots) and other statistical capabilities (canonical, cluster, discriminant,
factor, log-linear, non-linear, non-parametric, regression, reliability, survival and time series. There
are no experimental design or quality control graphing capabilities; Stein et al., 1997). However,
generating some experiments is more intensive with Statistica as compared to other software
(Khattree & Rao, 2003b).

7.6. Matlab
The Matrix Laboratory (Matlab), developed by Mathworks, is a programming software in a high-
level language designed to perform quick and easy calculations (Okereke & Keates, 2018). It
Page 18 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

provides an innovative interface for design, experimental exploration, and solutions to problems
(Colgren, 2007). All data in Matlab are in a matrix form. There is no limitation to the number of
rows and columns; the variables can have any number of columns and rows. These variables are
called matrix variables and can be any variable in an actual situation (scalars, vectors, or matrices;
Okereke & Keates, 2018). The software can be used in all areas of numerical mathematics, as it
offers a large library of mathematical functions covering arrays and tables, 2D and 3D graphs and
plots and algebra (Colgren, 2007). Matlab has built-in graphs to visualize data and features that
create custom graphs. It is widely used in the fields of science and engineering (physics, chemistry,
mathematics, and all engineering fields). It is also used in many other fields such as signal flow
and communications, image and video editing, monitoring systems, test and measurement, IT
finance, bioscience (Colgren, 2007). With its programming environment, Matlab offers support for
improving the quality of coding, its ease of maintenance, and minimized failures. It also has tools
for creating applications and can be integrated into external applications and languages such as C,
Java, .Net and Microsoft Excel (Colgren, 2007).

7.7. Statgraphics
Statgraphics, developed in the early 1980s by renowned Dr. Neil W. Polhemus to teach advanced
statistics, was the first computer-based data analysis software. It is a suite of five data analysis
products, namely:

● Statgraphics Centurion 18: It is the latest version of the windows desktop software, capable of
running more than procedures comprising data visualization, data analysis, ANOVA, design of
experiments, statistical data control. Statgraphics Centurion costs a minimum of $765 a year for
a single user license
● Statgraphics Stratus is a browser-based software that runs on PC, Mac, Linux, phones, and tablets for
data analysis. The challenge is the need for internet access.
● Statgraphics Sigma Express is the Microsoft Excel add-in for quick access to Six Sigma systems on
Microsoft Excel’s interface
● Statgraphics Statbeans is a set of JavaScript beans (these are reusable software components written
in Java) that can be integrated into applications or slotted onto web pages
● Statgraphics Net Web Services designs for website programmers so they can easily run Statgraphics
services straight from their homepages

Statgraphics has been employed in a variety of studies related to health and nutrition, chemistry,
pharmacology, medical devices, automotive, mining, environmental studies, and more. It also has
an R interface that allows users to extend the use of the software.

7.8. Multi response surface optimization

There are cases when more than one response is under study. These cases are called multi-
response optimisation. One of the most popular and useful techniques for solving multi-response
optimization problems is the simultaneous optimization method characterized by the concept of
the desirability function (Akçay & Anagün, 2013; A. A. Kumar et al., 2013). The desirability function
is defined by the following equations:

�Y m �m1
D¼ d
i¼1 i
(Equation 6)

Where di represents the desirability of i-th response (Witek-Krowiak et al., 2014).

� � 1
Or DðYÞ ¼ d1 ðy1 Þk1 � d2 ðy2 Þk2 � . . . � dX ðyX ÞkX i i
∑ k
ðEquation 7Þ

Page 19 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Where yi denotes the determined value of response i, di ðyi Þ is the converted desirability value of
the i-th response, and ki represents the relative importance of response i compared to others
(Akçay & Anagün, 2013).

The technique was developed by Derringer and Suich in 1980 and consists of converting each
response into a desirability function (A. Kumar et al., 2013). The desirability function ranges from
0 � di � 1; when di ¼ 0, it means that the response is in an unacceptable region; thus, its value is
unacceptable. However, if di ¼ 1, it signifies that the response is at its maximum (Witek-Krowiak
et al., 2014).

8. Conclusion
This paper provides a review of the Response Surface Optimization Technique. It concludes that
Response surface methodology is a valuable statistics-based optimization method that has helped
in many industries and various research fields, especially in the bio-energy field. A total of 55
articles, published from the year 2000 to the year 2022, have been studied using systematic review
method. These articles used RSM to optimize biogas production. The review finds that RSM proves
to be an effective statistical tool. It has achieved optimum objectives for biogas production:
increased biodegradability, optimum biogas yield and methane production, increased Total Solid
and reduced Volatile Solids and an increased COD removal.

The greatest advantage of RSM, from the study, is a reduced number of experimental trials, thus,
making it time and cost-effective. For the studied papers, thirteen-seven (37) process parameters have
been optimized using RSM, over the last two decades. Five (5) of these parameters run active through
them as the key process parameters optimized using RSM. Namely,: Temperature, pH, Retention time,
Pre-treatment and Loading rate. The reason for the limited use of other parameters is as a result of
their lesser impact on the biogas production process. The study identifies the major challenges
associated with the use of RSM in biogas production process optimization as a limited experimental
range and the need for the steepest descent technique in transferring the optimal area to supply the
combinations of parameters during preliminary approximation of parameters. In order to overcome
these challenges, techniques to combine RSM with other optimization methods such as the Taguchi,
Kriging or the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) are being developed. Design Expert software has been
found to be the most used software because of its low cost of use. However, Statistica offers a better
efficiency; great tools and graphics for the determination of the source of lack of fit in statistical
models. It also uses diverse approaches in treating qualitative data as opposed to the other software.
3
Acknowledgements Mechanical Engineering Department, Ho Technical
The authors wish to acknowledge the constructive com­ University, Ho, Ghana.
ments of colleagues Donald Kouman, Khadija Sarquah,
and Ismail Kone who helped in the improvement of the Disclosure statement
manuscript. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research. Citation information
Cite this article as: A review of response surface metho­
Author details dology for biogas process optimization, Solal Stephanie
Solal Stephanie Djimtoingar1 Djimtoingar, Nana Sarfo Agyemang Derkyi, Francis Atta
E-mail: ssolal@outlook.com Kuranchie & Joseph Kusi Yankyera, Cogent Engineering
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5754-4525 (2022), 9: 2115283.
Nana Sarfo Agyemang Derkyi1
E-mail: nana.derkyi@uenr.edu.gh References
Francis Atta Kuranchie2 Abdeshahian, P., Shiun, J., Shin, W., Hashim, H., &
E-mail: francis.kuranchie@uenr.edu.gh Lee, C. T. (2016). Potential of biogas production from
Joseph Kusi Yankyera3 farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renewable and
E-mail: yankyera.joseph@uenr.edu.gh Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 714–723. https://doi.
1 org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.117
Regional Centre for Energy and Environmental
Sustainability (RCEES), School of Engineering, University Ait-Amir, B., Pougnet, P., & El Hami, A. (2015). Meta-model
of Energy and Natural Resources (UENR), Sunyani, development. In A. El Hami & P. Pougnet (Eds.),
Ghana. Embedded Mechatronic Systems, 2, 151–179. Elsevier.
2 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-78548-014-0.50006-2
Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of
Engineering, University of Energy and Natural Resources Akçay, H., & Anagün, A. S. (2013). Multi response optimi­
(UENR), Sunyani, Ghana. zation application on a manufacturing Factory.

Page 20 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283
Mathematical and Computational Applications, 18(3),
531–538. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca18030531
Akpoti, K., Kabo-bah, A. T., & Zwart, S. J. (2019).
Agricultural land suitability analysis: State-of-the-art
and outlooks for integration of climate change
analysis. Agricultural Systems, 173(February),
172–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.02.013
Alfarjani, F., Aboderheeba, A. K. M., & Benyounis, K.
(2013). Modelling anaerobic digestion process for
grass silage after beating treatment using design of
experiment. In I. Dincer, C. O. Colpan, & F. Kadioglu
(Eds.), Causes, Impacts and Solutions to Global
Warming (pp. 675–695). Springer Science & Business
Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7588-0
Alikunju, A. P., Joy, S., Rahiman, M., Rosmine, E.,
Antony, A. C., Solomon, S., Saramma, K. M. A. V., &
Mohamed, K. P. K. A. A. (2017). A statistical approach
to optimize cold active β-galactosidase production by
an arctic sediment pscychrotrophic bacteria, entero­
bacter ludwigii (MCC 3423) in cheese whey. Catalysis
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-017-2257-4
Amani, T., Nosrati, M., & Mousavi, S. M. (2012). Response
surface methodology analysis of anaerobic syn­
trophic degradation of volatile fatty acids in an
upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor inoculated with
enriched cultures. Biotechnology and Bioprocess
Engineering, 17(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12257-011-0248-7
Anon. (2012). Statsoft Statistica: a guide - Statistics Views.
Statsoft Company. https://www.statisticsviews.com/
details/tools/13a69fb94dc/Statsoft-Statistica
-a-guide.html
Anunputtikul, W., & Rodtong, S. (2004). Laboratory scale
experiments for biogas production from cassava
tubers. School of Biology, Institute of Science,
Suranaree University of Technology. http://sutir.sut.
ac.th:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/1001
Atkinson, A. C., & Fedorov, V. V. (1975). Optimal design :
Experiments for discriminating between several
models. Biometrika, 62(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/
10.1093/biomet/62.2.289
Aydar, A. Y. (2018). Utilization of response surface meth­
odology in optimization of extraction of plant
materials. Statistical Approaches with Emphasis on
Design of Experiments Applied to Chemical Processes,
157–169. https://doi.org/10.5772/65616
Aziz, M. A., Anuar, K., Elsergany, M., Anuar, S., Jorat, M. E.,
Yaacob, H., Ahsan, A., & Imteaz, M. A. (2019). Recent
advances on palm oil mill effluent (POME) pretreat­
ment and anaerobic reactor for sustainable biogas
production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, February, 109603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.109603
Bala, R., & Mondal, M. K. (2019). Study of biological and
thermo-chemical pretreatment of organic fraction of
municipal solid waste for enhanced biogas yield.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(22),
27293–27304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-
05695-w
Bartz-Beieslstein, T., Chiarandini, M., Paquete, L., &
Preuss, M. (Ed.). (2010). Experimental methods for the
analysis of optimization algorithms (pp. 311–336).
Berlin: Springer.
Bas, D., & Boyaci, I. H. (2007). Modeling and optimization i:
Usability of response surface methodology. Journal
of Food Engineering, 78(3), 836–845. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.11.024
Bashir, M. J. K., Amr, S. S. A., Aziz, S. Q., Aun, N. C.,
Sethupathi, S., Technology, G., Tunku, U., &
Rahman, A. (2015). Wastewater treatment processes
optimization using response surface methodology
(RSM) compared with conventional methods. Review
and Comparative Study Department of Environmental
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering School of Civil
Engineering, Enginee. Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, 23(2), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.5829/
idosi.mejsr.2015.23.02.52
Beevi, B. S., Jose, P. P., & Madhu, G. (2014). Optimization of
process parameters affecting biogas production from
organic fraction of municipal solid waste via anae­
robic digestion. International Journal of
Bioengineering and Life Sciences, 8(1), 43–48. waset.
org/Publication/9997252
Beniche, I., Hungría, J., El Bari, H., Siles, J. A., Chica, A. F., &
Martín, M. A. (2021). Effects of C/N ratio on anaerobic
co-digestion of cabbage, cauliflower, and restaurant
food waste. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 11
(5), 2133–2145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-
00733-x
Bessou, C., Ferchaud, F., Gabrielle, B., & Mary, B. (2011).
Biofuels, greenhouse gases and climate change.
Sustainable Agriculture Volume, 2, 365–468. https://
doi.org/10.1051/agro
Bezerra, M. A., Santelli, R. E., Oliveira, E. P., Villar, L. S., &
Escaleira, L. A. (2008). Response surface methodol­
ogy (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical
chemistry. Talanta, 76(5), 965–977. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.talanta.2008.05.019
Box, G. E. P., & Wilson, K. B. (1951). On the statistical
attainment of optimum conditions. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society Series B, 13, 1–45. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00067.x
Boyaci, I. H. (2005). A new approach for determination of
enzyme kinetic constants using response surface
methodology. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 25(1),
55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2005.04.001
Bradley, N. (2009). Response surface methodology.
Comprehensive Chemometrics, 1, 345–390. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-044452701-1.00083-1
Breig, S. J. M., & Luti, K. J. K. (2021). Response surface
methodology: A review on its applications and chal­
lenges in microbial cultures. Materials Today:
Proceedings, 42, 2277–2284. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.MATPR.2020.12.316
Buaisha, M., Balku, S., & Özalp-Yaman, Ş. (2020). Heavy metal
removal investigation in conventional activated sludge
systems. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 6(3), 470–477.
https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091484
Bustillo-lecompte, C. F., & Mehrvar, M. (2017). Treatment of
actual slaughterhouse wastewater by combined anae­
robic–aerobic processes for biogas generation and
removal of organics and nutrients: An optimization
study towards a cleaner production in the meat pro­
cessing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141,
278–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.060
Central Composite Designs (CCD). (2013). In NIST/
SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. https://
www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section3/
pri3361.htm
Chan, Y., Chong, M., & Law, C. (2015). Optimization of
thermophilic anaerobic-aerobic treatment system for
Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). Frontiers of
Environmental Science & Engineering, 9(2), 334–351.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0626-4
Chelladurai, S. J. S., Murugan, K., Ray, A. P., Upadhyaya, M.,
Narasimharaj, V., & Gnanasekaran, S. (2020).
Optimization of process parameters using response
surface methodology: A review. Materials Today:
Proceedings, 37(Part 2), 1301–1304. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.466
Cheong, W. L., Jing Chan, Y., Joyce Tiong, T., Chan Chong,
W., Kiatkittipong, W., Kiatkittipong, K., Mohamad, M.,
Page 21 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283
Hanita Daud, I. W. K. S., Mutiara Sari, M., & Wei Lim, J.
(2022). Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with
Sewage Sludge. Simulation and Optimization for
Maximum Biogas Production” Water, 14(7), 1075.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071075
Chinneck, J. W. (2007). Feasibility and Infeasibility in
Optimization:: Algorithms and Computational
Methods (Vol. 118). Springer Science & Business
Media.
Chollom, M. N., Rathilal, S., Swalaha, F. M., Bakare, B. F., &
Tetteh, E. K. (2019). Comparison of response surface
methods for the optimization of an upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket for the treatment of slaughterhouse
wastewater. Environmental Engineering Research, 25
(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.366
Colgren, R. (2007). Introduction to MATLAB. Basic
MATLAB ® ®
, Simulink ®
, and Stateflow , 1–42.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781600861628.0001.0042
Copelli, D., Falchi, A., Ghiselli, M., Lutero, E., Osello, R.,
Riolo, D., Schiaretti, F., & Leardi, R. (2018). Sequential
“asymmetric” D-optimal designs: A practical solution
in case of limited resources and not equally expen­
sive experiments. Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems, 178, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.CHEMOLAB.2018.04.017
Dahunsi, S. O., Oranusi, S., Owolabi, J. B., &
Efeovbokhan, V. E. (2016). Comparative biogas gen­
eration from fruit peels of Fluted Pumpkin (Telfairia
occidentalis) and its optimization. Bioresource
Technology, 221, 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2016.09.065
De Aguiar, P. F., Bourguignon, B., Khots, M. S.,
Massart, D. L., Phan-Than-Luu, R., & Leardi, R. (1995).
D-optimal designs. Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems, 30(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0169-7439(94)00076-X
Dobre, P., Nicolae, F., & Matei, F. (2014). Main factors
affecting biogas production - an overview. Romanian
Biotechnological Letters, 19(3), 9283–9296.
Elyasi, S., Amani, T., & Dastyar, W. (2015).
A comprehensive evaluation of parameters affecting
treating high-strength compost leachate in anaero­
bic baffled reactor followed by
electrocoagulation-flotation process. Water, Air, and
Soil Pollution, 226(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-
014-2279-0
Enitan-folami, A. M., Adeyemo, J., Swalaha, F. M., &
Kumari, S. (2016). Optimization of biogas generation
using anaerobic digestion models and computational
intelligence approaches. August 2019 https://doi.org/
10.1515/revce-2015-0057
Ezekoye, V., Ezekoye, B., & Offor, P. O. (2011). Effect of
retention time on biogas production from poultry
droppings and cassava peels. Nigerian Journal of
Biotchnology, 22, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.4314/NJB.
V22I0
Gopal, L. C., Govindarajan, M., Kavipriya, M. R.,
Mahboob, S., Al-Ghanim, K. A., Virik, P., Ahmed, Z., Al-
Mulhm, N., Senthilkumaran, V., & Shankar, V. (2021).
Optimization strategies for improved biogas produc­
tion by recycling of waste through response surface
methodology and artificial neural network:
Sustainable energy perspective research. Journal of
King Saud University - Science, 33(1), 101241. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101241
Guthrie, W., Filliben, A., & Tarvainen, T. (2013). NIST/
SEMATECH e-handbook of statistical methods.
Process Modeling.
Gyenge, L., Ráduly, B., Crognale, S., Lányi, S., &
Ábrahám, B. (2014). Cultivating conditions optimiza­
tion of the anaerobic digestion of corn ethanol dis­
tillery residuals using response surface methodology
+. Central European Journal of Chemistry, 12(8), 68–
876. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11532-014-0542-2
Handbook of Statistical Methods. (2013). In NIST/
SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. https://
www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section7/pri7.
htm#Rotatability
Heng, G. C., Isa, M. H., Lim, J. W., Ho, Y. C., & Zinatizadeh,
A. A. L. (2017). Enhancement of anaerobic digestibil­
ity of waste activated sludge using photo-Fenton
pretreatment. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 24(35), 27113–27124. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11356-017-0287-5
Hoefsloot, H. C. J., Vis, D. J., Westerhuis, J. A., Smilde, A. K.,
& Jansen, J. J. (2009). 2.23 - Multiset data analysis:
ANOVA simultaneous component analysis and
related methods. In Steven D. Brown, T. Romá, & W.
Beata (Eds.), Comprehensive Chemometrics (Vol. 2,
pp. 453–472). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
044452701-1.00054-5
Hoerz, T., Krämer, P., Klingler, B., Kellner, C., Wittur, T.,
Klopotek, F. V., Krieg, A., & Euler, H. (1999). Biogas
digest volume II biogas-Application and Product
Development Information and Advisory Service on
Appropriate Technology. German Agency for
Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Eschborn. Germany.
Hromi, J. D. (1957). Some concepts of experimental
design. Corrosion, 13(11), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.
5006/0010-9312-13.11.61
Iversen, G. R., & Norpoth, H. (1987). Analysis of variance
(quantitative applications in the social science). SAGE
Publications. first
Iweka, S. C., Owuama, K. C., Chukwuneke, J. L., &
Falowo, O. A. (2021). Optimization of biogas yield
from anaerobic co-digestion of corn-chaff and cow
dung digestate: RSM and python approach. Heliyon, 7
(11), e08255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.
e08255
Jin, C., Ge, R., Netrapalli, P., Kakade, S. M., & Jordan, M. I.
(2017, July). How to escape saddle points efficiently.
In International Conference on Machine Learning
(pp. 1724–1732). PMLR.
Jorgensen, P. J. (2009). Biogas - green energy process.
design. energy supply. environment (A. B. Nielsen &
F. Bendixen, Eds.). Digisource Danmark A/S.
Jung, K., Kim, W., Park, G. W., Seo, C., Chang, H. N., & Kim,
Y. C. (2015). Optimization of volatile fatty acids and
hydrogen production from Saccharina japonica:
Acidogenesis and molecular analysis of the resulting
microbial communities. Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology, 99(7), 3327–3337.
Khattree, R., & Rao, C. R. (2003a). Industrial experimen­
tation for screening. Handbook of Statistics, 22.
https://www.biblio.com/9780444506146
Khattree, R., & Rao, C. R. (2003b). Statistics in industry
(Vol. 22). Gulf Professional Publishing. https://
www.biblio.com/9780444506146
Kilickap, E. (2010). Modeling and optimization of burr
height in drilling of Al-7075 using Taguchi method
and response surface methodology. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 49(9–12), 911–923. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00170-009-2469-x
Kumar, A., Kumar, V., & Kumar, J. (2013). Multi-response
optimization of process parameters based on
response surface methodology for pure titanium
using WEDM process. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68(9–12),
2645–2668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-
4861-9
Kumar, G., Sivagurunathan, P., Peter, S. K., & Lin, B. C.
(2014). Modeling and optimization of biohydrogen
production from de-oiled jatropha using the
response surface method. Arabian Journal for Science
Page 22 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283
and Engineering, 40(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13369-014-1502-z
Lane, D. M. (2015). Introduction to ANOVA (analysis of
variance). In G. Ritzer (Ed.),The Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781405165518.wbeosa055.pub2
Leiviska, K. (2013). Introduction to experiment design. In
Handbook of Experimental Methods for Process
Improvement (pp. 1–16). Control Engineering
Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-
6025-8_1
Makela, M. (2017). Experimental design and response
surface methodology in energy applications:
A tutorial review. Energy Conversion and
Management, 151(September), 630–640. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.09.021
Memon, M. J., & Memon, A. R. (2020). Wheat straw opti­
mization via its efficient pretreatment for improved
biogas production. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 6
(6), 1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-
03091528
Menon, A., Ren, F., Jing-Yuan, W., & Giannis, A. (2016).
Effect of pretreatment techniques on food waste
solubilization and biogas production during thermo­
philic batch anaerobic digestion. Journal of Material
Cycles and Waste Management, 18(2), 222–230.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-0395-6
Mkruqulwa, U., Okudoh, V., & Oyekola, O. (2019).
Optimizing methane production from Co - digestion
of cassava biomass and winery solid waste using
response surface methodology republic of South
Africa. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 11(9), 4799–
4808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00801-y
Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and analysis of
experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 8th editio.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527809080.cataz11063
Mpofu, A. B., & Oyekola, P. J. W. O. O. (2019). Anaerobic
digestion of secondary tannery sludge : optimisation
of initial pH and temperature and evaluation of
kinetics. Waste and Biomass Valorization. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12649-018-00564-y
Mukumba, P., Makaka, G., & Mamphwell, S. (2016).
Anaerobic digestion of donkey dung for biogas
production. South African Journal of Science, 112(7–
8), 1–4.
Murugan, P. D. D., & Sivasamy, M. S. A. (2016).
Optimization and biokinetic studies on pretreatment
of sludge for enhancing biogas production.
International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 14(4), 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13762-016-1191-0
Muthuvelayudham, R. V., Jiang, T, C., Schuster, T., Li, G.-X.,
Daniel, P. T., & Lü, J. (2006). Fermentative production
and kinetics of cellulase protein on Trichoderma ree­
sei using sugarcane bagasse and rice straw. African
Journal of Biotechnology, 5(20), 1873–1881. https://
doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0063
Nevzorova, T., & Karakaya, E. (2020). Explaining the dri­
vers of technological innovation systems : The case
of biogas technologies in mature markets. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 259, 120819. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2020.120819
Nielsen, H. B., Uellendahl, H., & Ahring, B. K. (2007).
Regulation and optimization of the biogas process :
Propionate as a key parameter. Biomass and bioe­
nergy, 31(11-12), 820–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2007.04.004
Nijaguna, B. (2006). Biogas Technology. New Age
International. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=
QfLDbf3qbcEC
Nnaemeka, S., Christopher, U., Enweremadu, C.,
Nnaemeka Ugwu, S., & Chintua Enweremadu, C.
(2022). Environmental technology (Print)
(Optimization of iron-enhanced anaerobic digestion
of agro-wastes for biomethane production and
phosphate release Optimization of iron-enhanced
anaerobic digestion of agro-wastes for biomethane
production and phosphate release. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09593330.2022.2061379
Nooraziah, A., & Tiagrajah, V. J. (2014). A study on
regression model using response surface
methodology. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 666
(September), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.
scientific.net/AMM.666.235
Nor, W., & Wan, N. (2020). Response Surface Methodology
(Rsm): Learn and Apply. School of Chemical and
Energy Engineering, BMU,17/2/2020. February. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/339301705
Nouri, N., Asakereh, A., & Soleymani, M. (2020).
Investigating the interaction effects of inoculation
and temperature on biogas production from dairy
industry effluent in anaerobic digestion process.
Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 52(1), 79–
93. https://doi.org/10.12691/rse-5-1-5
Okereke, M., & Keates, S. (2018). A brief introduction to
MATLABTM. In Finite Element Applications. Springer
Tracts in Mechanical Engineering, 9783319671246,
27–45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-67125-3_2
Olatunji, K. O., Ahmed, N. A., Madyira, D. M.,
Adebayo, A. O., Ogunkunle, O., & Adeleke, O. (2022).
Performance evaluation of ANFIS and RSM modeling
in predicting biogas and methane yields from Arachis
hypogea shells pretreated with size reduction.
Renewable Energy, 189, 288–303. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2022.02.088
Olawoye, B. (2016). Comprehensive handout on Central
Composite Design (CCD). July, 1–47. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/308608329_A_
COMPREHENSIVE_HANDOUT_ON_CENTRAL_
COMPOSITE_DESIGN_CCD
Olivero, R. A., Nocerino, J. M., & Deming, S. N. (1998).
Experimental design and optimization. In
Chemometrics in Environmental Chemistry-Statistical
Methods (pp. 73–122). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49148-4-3
Ozmen, P., & Aslanzadeh, S. (2009). Biogas production
from municipal waste mixed with different portions of
orange peel. University of Boras.
Pati, A. R., Saroha, S., Behera, A. P., Mohapatra, S. S., &
Mahanand, S. S. (2019). The anaerobic digestion of
waste food materials by using cow dung : a new
methodology to produce biogas. Journal of the
Institution of Engineers (India): Series E, 100(1), 111–
120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40034-019-00134-4
Penny, W., & Henson, R. (2007). Analysis of variance.
Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of
Functional Brain Images, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-012372560-8/50013-9
Purusottam, M. (2019). Factors affecting Design of Experiment
(DOE) and softwares of DOE. https://www.slideshare.net/
DauRamChandravanshi1/factors-affecting-design-of-
experiment-doe-and-softwares-of-doe/22
Qiao, W., Yan, X., Ye, J., Sun, Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, Z.
(2011). Evaluation of biogas production from differ­
ent biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal
pretreatment. Renewable Energy, 36(12), 3313–3318.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.002
Rahim, O. M. A., & Ahmed, A. I. (2015). Biogas production
from poultry manure. August.
Page 23 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283
Rajati, H., Ardjmand, M., & Rajati, F. (2014). A review of
biogas production methods from wastes and sewage
and the process explanation. Archives of Hygiene
Sciences, 3(3), 140–151.
Ramaraj, R., & Unpaprom, Y. (2019). Optimization of pre­
treatment condition for ethanol production from
cyperus difformis by response surface methodology. 3
Biotech, 9(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-019-
1754-0
Ranganath, M. S. (2015). Surface roughness prediction
model for CNC turning of EN-8 steel using response
surface methodology. International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 5
(6), 135–143. https://www.researchgate.net/publica
tion/279061190_Surface_Roughness_Prediction_
Model_for_CNC_Turning_of_EN-8_Steel_Using_
Response_Surface_Methodology
Rastega, S. O., Mousavi, S. M., Shojaosadati, S. A., & Sheibani, S.
(2011). Optimization of petroleum refinery effluent
treatment in a UASB reactor using response surface
methodology. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 197,
26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.09.052
Reddy, L. V. A., Wee, Y., Yun, J., & Ryu, H. 2008. Optimization
of alkaline protease production by batch culture of
Bacillus sp . RKY3 through Plackett – Burman and
response surface methodological approaches.
Bioresource technology, 99(7): 2242–2249. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.05.006
Rockafellar, R. T. (2015). Convex Analysis. Princeton
University Press, 1983, 425–432. https://doi.org/10.
1515/9781400873173-011
Sarabia, L. A., & Ortiz, M. C. (2009). Response surface
methodology. Comprehensive Chemometrics, 1(May),
345–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044452701-
1.00083-1
Sathish, S., & Vivekanandan, S. (2014). Optimization of
different parameters affecting biogas production
from rice straw : An analytical approach.
International Journal of Simulation: Systems, Science
and Technology,15, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.5013/
IJSSST.a.15.02.11
Sathish, S., & Vivekanandan, S. (2016). Parametric optimiza­
tion for floating drum anaerobic bio-digester using
response surface methodology and artificial neural
network. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(4),
3297–3307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.010
Sawyer, S. F. (2009). Analysis of variance: the fundamen­
tal concepts. Journal of Manual & Manipulative
Therapy, 17(2), 27E–38E. https://doi.org/10.1179/jmt.
2009.17.2.27e
Shen, Y., Linville, J. L., Urgun-demirtas, M., Mintz, M. M., &
Snyder, S. W. (2015). An overview of biogas production
and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) in the United States : Challenges and opportu­
nities towards energy-neutral WWTPs. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 346–362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.129
Simons, G., & Chernoff, H. (1976). Sequential analysis and
optimal design. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 71(353), 242. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2285778
Srivichai, P., & Thongtip, S. (2021). Optimization of mixing
speed and retention time affecting biogas production
from starchy sediment using response surface
methodology. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and
Technology, 43(3), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.
14456/sjst-psu.2021.101
Stein, P. G., Matey, J. R., & Pitts, K. (1997). A review of
statistical software for the apple macintosh.
American Statistician, 51(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00031305.1997.10473593
Sukor, Z. (2017). Factors affecting production of biogas
from organic solid waste via anaerobic digestion
process : A review. Solid State Science and
Technology, 25(1), 28–39. http://journal.masshp.net
Sun, C., Liu, R., Cao, W., Li, K., & Wu, L. (2017). Optimization of
sodium hydroxide pretreatment conditions to improve
biogas production from asparagus stover. Waste and
Biomass Valorization, 10(1), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12649-017-0020-0
Taylor, P., Sridhar, R., Sivakumar, V., &
Thirugnanasambandham, K. (2015). Response surface
modeling and optimization of upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor process parameters for the treatment of
bagasse based pulp and paper industry wastewater.
Desalination and Water Treatment, 57(2015), 37–41.
March https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.999712
Tetteh, E. K., Rathilal, S., & Chollom, M. N. (2017). Pre-
Treatment of industrial mineral oil wastewater using
response surface methodology. WIT Transactions on
Ecology and the Environment, 216(23), 181–191.
https://doi.org/10.2495/WS170171
Ugwu, S. N., & Enweremadu, C. C. (2022). Optimization of
iron-enhanced anaerobic digestion of agro-wastes
for biomethane production and phosphate release.
Environmental Technology, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09593330.2022.2061379
Umana, U. S., Ebong, M. S., & Godwin, E. O. (2020).
Biomass production from oil palm and its value
chain. Journal of Human, Earth, and Future, 1(1),
30–38. https://doi.org/10.28991/hef-2020-01-01-04
United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustain
able-development-goals/
Vasavan, A., Goey, P., De, Oijen, J., & Van. (2018).
Numerical study on the autoignition of biogas in
moderate or intense low oxygen dilution nonpremixed
combustion systems. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
energyfuels.8b01388
Vijin Prabhu, A., Antony Raja, S., Avinash, A., &
Pugazhendhi, A. (2021). Parametric optimization of
biogas potential in anaerobic co-digestion of biomass
wastes. Fuel, 288(September), 119574. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119574
Witek-Krowiak, A., Chojnacka, K., Podstawczyk, D.,
Dawiec, A., & Pokomeda, K. (2014). Application of
response surface methodology and artificial neural
network methods in modelling and optimization of
biosorption process. Bioresource Technology, 160,
150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.
021
Wu, X., Lin, H., & Zhu, J. (2013). Optimization of contin­
uous hydrogen production from co-fermenting
molasses with liquid swine manure in an anaerobic
sequencing batch reactor. Bioresource Technology,
136, 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2013.02.109
Yılmaz, Ş., & Şahan, T. (2020). Utilization of pumice for
improving biogas production from poultry manure by
anaerobic digestion: A modeling and process opti­
mization study using response surface methodology.
Biomass & Bioenergy, 138(January), 105601. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105601
Zaidi, A. A., Khan, S. Z., & Shi, Y. (2019). Optimization of
nickel nanoparticles concentration for biogas
enhancement from green algae anaerobic digestion.
Materials Today: Proceedings, 39, 1025–1028. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.762
Page 24 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Appendix A
Table A1. ~TC~
Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software
method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(1) The organic Anaerobic ● NaOH dose ● Biogas yield Box- To carry out (Bala & Mondal, 2019) Design-
fraction of digestion Behnken effective pre- Expert
● Temperature ● Soluble
municipal Design treatment of
solid waste ● Time Chemical urban wastewater
(MSW) Oxygen by biological and
Demand thermochemical
means.
● Volatile Fatty
Acid
● Phenolic con­
tent

(2) Grass silage Anaerobic ● Beating time ● Biogas yield Face- To investigate the (Alfarjani, Aboderheeba, & Design-
digestion centered effect of beating Benyounis, 2013) Expert
● Temperature
Composite treatment on
Design grass silage, and
develop
mathematical
models to predict
biogas
productivity from
grass silage.
(3) Poultry Anaerobic ● Temperature ● Biogas yield Central To assess the (Dahunsi, Oranusi, Design-
dropping and digestion (0C): x1, composite biogas production Owolabi, & Efeovbokhan, Expert
pawpaw rotatable potential of Carica 2016)
peels
● pH design papaya peelings
● Retention time in co-digestion
(days) with poultry
manure.
● Total solids (g/
kg)
● Volatile solids
(g/kg): x5

(4) Excess Anaerobic ● pH ● Biogas yield Central To study the (Murugan & Sivasamy, Minitab
sludge digestion Composite impact of 2016)
● Sludge
Design different pre-
Retention Time treatment
(SRT) techniques on
biogas yield.
(5) High-load Anaerobic ● Chemical ● Chemical oxy­ Central To study the (Elyasi, Amani, & Dastyar, Dx-7
compost lea­ digestion Oxygen gen demand Composite treatability of 2015)
chate Demand (COD) removal Design windrow compost
leachate using an
of Affluent ● Biogas produc­ ABR reactor and
● Hydraulic tion rate also to investigate
Retention Time the COD removal
efficiency and
● COD/Nitrogen biogas production
ratio rate (BPR).

(Continued)

Page 25 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table A1. (Continued)

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(6) Rice straw Anaerobic ● Temperature, ● Biogas yield Central To improve the (Sathish & Vivekanandan, Design-
digestion Composite biogas yield of 2014) Expert
● pH
Design anaerobic
● Substrate digestion of rice
concentration straw.
● Agitation time

(7) Saccharina Anaerobic ● Methanogenic ● Volatile fatty Central To optimise the (Kwonsu Jung, Kim, &
japonica digestion inhibitor acids yield Composite yield of volatile Park, 2015)
concentration Design fatty acids from
● Hydrogen pro­ the anaerobic
● Temperature duction digestion of rice
straw.
(8) Azolla pin­ Anaerobic ● Pinnata bio­ ● Biogas Central To investigate (V. Kumar, Kumar, Kumar, Design-
nata bio­ digestion mass loading production Composite anaerobic & Singh, 2020) Expert
mass Design digestion of Azolla
● Substrate ● Chemical pinnata biomass
● Temperature Oxygen to improve biogas
Demand reduc­ production.
tion

(9) Waste acti­ Anaerobic ● Quantity of ● Decay and Central To determine the (Heng, Isa, Lim, & Ho, Design-
vated sludge digestion H2O2 dehydration of Composite effects of the 2017) Expert
waste activated Design quantity of H2O2,
● Molar propor­ H2O2/Fe2+ molar
tion of H2O2/ sludge
ratio, and
Fe2+ ● Elimination of exposure time on
Mixed liquor the decay and
● Exposure time
volatile sus­ dehydration of
wastewater.
pended solids
● Reduction of
capillary suc­
tion time
● Chemical
Oxygen
Demand and
exposure Time
Reduction

(10) Wheat Anaerobic ● NH3 ● Methane Yield Central To optimise the (Lymperatou, Gavala, & Design-
straw digestion Concentration Composite pre-treatment of Skiadas, 2019) Expert
Design wheat straw by
● Duration of soaking it in
gas aqueous
● Solid-to-liquid ammonia to
improve the
ratio
methane yield.

(11) Food waste Anaerobic Pre-treatment ● Food waste Face- To improve the (Menon, Ren, & Apostolos, Minitab
digestion techniques like: solubility centered solubilisation of 2015)
● Alkaline Composite food waste for
● Biogas Yield Design methane
● Ultrasonication production.
● Thermal

(Continued)

Page 26 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(12) Raw vege­ Anaerobic ● WaP (Waste ● Biogas Yield Central To evaluate some (Mukhopadhyay, Sarkar, & Design-
table wastes digestion Plastic) composite process Dutta, 2013) Expert
rotatable parameters for
● Height to dia­ design efficient biogas
meter (H/D) production from
Ratio raw plant waste
and plastic waste.
● Water Content
(WAC)
● Digestion Time
(DT)

(13) Rice straw Anaerobic ● Temperature ● Volatile fatty Box- To optimise the (Kwonsu Jung Et Al., 2015) Mothur
digestion acids produc­ Behnken yield of volatile
● Substrate
tion Design fatty acids from
concentration the anaerobic
● pH variables digestion of rice
straw.
(14) Waste food Anaerobic ● pH ● Biogas produc­ Box- To try to digest (Pati, Saroha, Behera, Design-
materials digestion tion Behnken food waste and Mohapatra, & Mahanand, Expert
● Temperature
Design produce biogas 2019)
● Solid-to-Water using a new
Ratio technique that
does not directly
involve bacteria
(15) Petroleum Anaerobic ● Influent che­ ● Chemical Central To further (Rastega, Mousavi, Design-
refinery digestion mical oxygen Oxygen Composite investigate the Shojaosadati, & Sheibani, Expert
effluent demand Demand Design phenomenon of 2011)
oil refinery
● Hydraulic Removal
effluent removal
Retention Time ● Biogas in a UASB
Production bioreactor.
● Up-flow velo­
city

(16) Sewage Anaerobic ● Temperature ● Biogas Yield Box- To optimise the (Shehu Et Al., 2012) Matlab
sludge digestion Behnken heat and alkali
● Proportion of
Design decomposition of
NaOH sewage sludge for
● Time a better biogas
yield
(17) Bagasse Anaerobic ● Chemical oxy­ ● Percentage of Box- To study the (Taylor, Sridhar, Design-
based pulp digestion gen demand Chemical Behnken anaerobic Sivakumar, & Expert
and paper of influent Oxygen Design degradation of Thirugnanasambandham,
industry bagasse effluent N.D.)
● hydraulic Demand
wastewater from the pulp and
retention Time Removal paper industry
● Temperature
● Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
Removal Rate
● Biogas Yield

(Continued)

Page 27 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table A1. (Continued)

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(18) Asparagus Anaerobic ● Pre-treatment ● Biogas Central To study the (Sun, Liu, Cao, Li, & Wu, Design-
stover digestion time Production Composite interactions 2017) Expert
Design between the
● NaOH factors and
concentration optimise the
● Water dose sodium hydroxide
pre-treatment
conditions when
the asparagus
cane sample is
used as feedstock
to increase the
biogas yield.
(19) Rice mill Anaerobic ● Temperature ● Chemical Box- To study the (Karichappan Design-
effluent digestion Oxygen Behnken efficiency of seed Thirugnanasambandham Expert
● Alkalinity dose
Demand (COD) Design sludge for biogas & Sivakumar, 2014)
● Flow rate generation from
Removal
rice mill effluent
● Biogas using an
Production anaerobic sludge
up-flow
bioreactor.
(20) Anaerobic ● pH ● Dry Cell Weight To effectively (Ushani, Kavitha, Johnson, Design-
Wastewater digestion disrupt the flocs Yeom, & Banu, 2016) Expert
● Temperature
sludge with an anionic
● Incubation surfactant, to
time improve the
efficiency of the
pre-treatment by
using immobilised
bacterial cells.
(21) Palm oil Anaerobic ● Feed flow rate ● Total chemical Face- To investigate the (Zinatizadeh Et Al., 2006) Design-
mill effluent digestion oxygen centered performance of a Expert
● Up-flow
demand (TCOD) Composite reactor in
Velocity Design anaerobic
removal, solu­
digestion of pre-
ble chemical treated palm oil
oxygen mill effluent.
demand (SCOD)
food-to sludge
● Solid Retention
Time (SRT)

(22) Secondary Anaerobic ● Temperature ● Biogas yield To improve the (Mpofu & Oyekola, 2019) Design-
Tannery digestion operating Expert
● Initial pH ● Total methane
sludge (stns) temperature of
yield the reactor and
● Reduction of the pH by using
volatile solids adapted inoculum
in an attempt to
● Decrease of reduce the
total solids expected
inhibition of NH3,
● Reduction of
H2S and/or
Chemical metals
Oxygen
Demand

(Continued)

Page 28 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(23) Food waste Anaerobic dry ● Mixture ratio ● Methane yield Central To optimize the (Cho Et Al., 2013) Design-
and manure co-digestion Composite anaerobic dry co- Expert
● Particle size
Design digestion of food
waste and
manure.
(24) Volatile Anaerobic ● Propionate, ● Volatile Fatty Central To optimise (Amani, Nosrati, & Design-
fatty acids syntrophic butyrate, acet­ Acid removal Composite methoxy polyp Mousavi, 2012) Expert
degradation ate, m/a Design size, entrapment
● Biogas efficiency and
● Hydraulic Production Rate percentage drug
retention time loading.
(HRT)

(25) Canola Co digestion ● Temperature ● Methane pro­ Box- To optimise (Safari, Abdi, Adl, & Design-
residues and duction Behnken biogas production Kafashan, 2017) Expert
● Mixing time
cattle dung Design from canola
● Inoculum per­ residues and
centage and cattle manure.
Total Solid

(26) Cow dung Co digestion ● Coffee Pulp ● Biogas yield Box- To investigate the (Selvankumar & Design-
and coffee Behnken biogas generation Govindaraju, 2017) Expert
● Cow Dung
pulp Design potential of coffee
● Incubation pulp (CP) and cow
time dung (CD).
● Temperature

(27) Liquid Co- ● pH ● Biogas Central To study and (Wu, Lin, & Zhu, 2013) Design-
swine man­ fermentation Production Rate Composite optimise the Expert
● Hydraulic
ure and (BPR) Design operational
sugar beet Retention Time conditions for the
molasses ● Total Solids
● Hydrogen production of
Content Content (HC) hydrogen from
sugar beet
● Hydrogen
molasses, co-
Production Rate fermented with
(HPR) pig manure.
● Hydrogen yield
(HY)

(28) Combine ● The flow rates ● Overall water Box- To investigate the (Bustillo-Lecompte & Design-
Slaughterho­ Anaerobic- treatment effi­ Behnken effects of influent Mehrvar, 2016) Expert
● The pH
use Aerobic ciency (Total Design pH, flow rate and
Wastewater Process ● The influent TOC
Organic Carbon
(SWW) Total Organic concentration,
and Total and their
Carbon con­
Nitrogen interactive effects
centration
removal and on the efficiency
minimized Total of combined
Suspended anaerobic-aerobic
processes on
Solid)
biogas yield for
● Biogas yield slaughterhouse
wastewater
treatment

(Continued)

Page 29 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table A1. (Continued)

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(29) Palm Oil Combine ● Mixed Liquor ● Reduction of Central To design and (Chan, Chong, & Law, Design-
Mill Effluent Anaerobic- Volatile organic matter composite monitor the 2014) Expert
(POME) Aerobic Suspended (chemical oxy­ rotatable anaerobic and
Process design aerobic
Solids concen­ gen demand
(CCRD) thermophilic
tration in (COD), bio­ treatment of
Anaerobic chemical oxy­ palm oil mill
compartments gen demand effluent in the
(BOD) and total integrated
● Organic load­
suspended anaerobic-aerobic
ing rates in bioreactor with
Anaerobic solids (TSS)
regards to the
Compartment concentrations) simultaneous
effects of the
three process
parameters.
(30) Digested Fermentation ● Undigested ● Single-cell pro­ Central To use undigested (Jalasutram & Kataram, Doe++
and undi­ poultry litter tein production Composite poultry litter (UPL) 2013)
gested poul­ Concentration Design as a substrate for
try litter the generation of
● Yeast Extract single-cell protein
Concentration (SCP) through the
use of a yeast
● pH
extract.

(31) Cold active Fermentation ● pH ● Cold active β- Central To screen for the (Alikunju Et Al., 2017) Design-
β-galactosi­ galactosidase Composite most relevant Expert
● whey
dase production Design influencing
● tryptone factors affecting
the production of
cold-active β-
galactosidase by
a culture of
Enterobacter
ludwigii (MCC
3423) batches
and to optimise
further the levels
of the relevant
variables
screened.
(32) Spent tea Fermentation ● Temperature, ● Dilute acid and Box- To optimise the (Germec, Bader, & Turhan, Design-
leaves pre-treatment alkaline pre- Behnken conditions for 2018) Expert
time treatment con­ Design dilute acid and
alkaline pre-
● Solid-to-liquid ditions of Spent
treatment of
Ratio tea leaves spent tea leaves.
● Dilute acid or
alkaline ratio

(Continued)

Page 30 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(33) Acid pre- Fermentation ● Time of ● Ethanol yield Central To study ethanol (Paulraj & Debraj, 2017) Statistica
treated Food fermentation Composite production from
waste hydro­ Design acid-pre-treated
lysate
● Immobilized food waste
bead ratio hydrolysate using
Saccharomyces
cerevisiae 74D694
immobilised
under different
conditions in a
batch experiment.
(34) Laminaria Fermentation ● Hydrochloric ● Hydrogen pro­ Box- To improve the (Kyung-Won Jung, Kim, Design-
japonica acid (HCL) duction Behnken production of Kim, & Shin, 2011) Expert
Concentrations Design fermentative
hydrogen
● Heating peroxide (FHP)
temperatures from Laminaria
japonica using
● Reaction times
combined pre-
treatment
techniques (acid þ
thermal).
(35) De-oiled Fermentation ● Substrate ● Biohydrogen Central To optimise the (G. Kumar, Statistica
jatropha concentrations production Composite hydrogen Sivagurunathan, Peter, &
Design fermentation Lin, 2014)
● Temperatures process from de-
● pH oiled Jatropha
waste
(36) Fermentation ● Initial pH ● Lab/PNSH bac­ Central To perform the (Laocharoen, Reungsang, Design-
Rhodobacter terial ratio Composite bio-augmentation & Plangklang, 2015) Expert
● Light Intensity
sphaeroides Design of Rhodobacter
kku-ps5 (bio- ● Mo
● Initial Cell sphaeroides KKU-
hydrogen) Concentration Concentration PS5 with
Lactobacillus
delbrueckii ssp to
produce
hydrogen.
(37) Fresh com­ Fermentation ● Leachate ● Bio-Hydrogen D-Optimal To study the (Liu Et Al., 2011) Design-
post lea­ volume Production Design. applicability of Expert
chate bio-hydrogen
● Glucose con­ generation using
centration fresh compost
leachate as a
nutrient source.
(38) Sugar cane Fermentation ● Fermentation ● Ethanol Yield Box- To optimise the (Maiti, Rathore, & Minitab
molasses time Behnken process Srivastava, 2011)
Design parameters of
● pH ethanol
● Initial Total production from
Reducing sugarcane
molasses by
Sugar (TRS)
Zymomonas.
● Temperature
● Concentration
in Sugar Cane
Molasses

(Continued)

Page 31 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table A1. (Continued)

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(39) Cyperus Fermentation ● Solid/Liquid ● Sugar Yield Box- To examine the (Ramaraj & Unpaprom, Design-
difformis Ratio Behnken potential of 2019) Expert
Design yellow nutsedge
● Concentration for bioethanol
of NaOH generation.
● Proportion of
H2O2
● Duration (H)

(40) Potato Fermentation ● Potato Waste ● Biohydrogen Central To optimise (Sekoai, Ayeni, & Statistica
waste Concentration production Composite biohydrogen Daramola, 2017)
Design production from
● pH potato waste
● Temperature
● Fermentation
time

(41) Mutant Fermentation ● Temperature ● Elastase Central To optimise the (Qi-He, Hui, Hai-Feng, Hui, Statistical
strain production Composite culture conditions & Guo-Qing, 2007) Analysis
● Fermentation
zjuel31410 Design of Bacillus Software
of bacillus time ● Cell growth licheniformis
licheniformis ● Shaking speed ZJUEL31410, and
to analyse the
● Inoculating effect of growth
volume factors and
● Seed age elastin on
elastase
● Medium production and
Volume cell growth.

(42) Marine Fermentation ● F. Bombycis ● Macrolide Box- To improve the (H. Chen Et Al., 2013) Minitab
bacterium Compound Behnken production of a
● Soluble starch
Production Design 24-membered
● (NH4)2SO4 ring macrolide
compound.
(43) succino­ fermentation ● Glucose ● Succinic acid Central To investigate the (Zhang, Li, Zhang, Wang, Design-
genes strain production Composite optimisation of & Xing, 2012) Expert
● Yeast extract
BE-1 Design succinic acid
● Magnesium fermentation with
carbonate A. succino-genes
strain BE-1
(44) Cordyceps Fermentation ● Concentration ● Yield of Endo- Box- To optimise the (Liang, Zhang, Zhang, Statistical
Militaris of sucrose Polysaccharide Behnken fermentation Zhang, & Lü, 2012) Analysis
Design environment that Software
● peptone influenced the
● MgSO4·7H2O endo-
polysaccharide
yield of cultured
Cordyceps
militaris N102
mycelia.

(Continued)

Page 32 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(45) Palm oil Fermentation ● The pH ● Hydrogen Central To determine the (Cheong Et Al., 2022)
mill effluent (anaerobic) production Composite optimal
● Temperature
(POME) Design conditions for
● Chemical
● Hydrogen pro­ hydrogen
Oxygen duction rate production and
Demand (COD) the maximum
rate of hydrogen
production from
palm oil mill
effluent.
(46) Sugar Beet Hydrolysis ● The size of ● Enzymatic Central To study the yield (Babbar, Dejonghe, Sforza, Design-
Pulp particles Pectic Composite of POS (Enzymatic & Elst, 2017) Expert
Oligosaccharid­ Design Pectic
● The enzyme Oligosaccharides)
proportions es (POS) yield
from sugar beet
● The time pulp (SBP)
depending on
required to
parameters such
convert the as enzyme
Sugar Beet pulp concentration,
pectin to Pectic particle size and
Oligosaccharid­ conversion time.
es

(47) Bacillus sp. Hydrolysis ● Corn Starch ● Production of Central To identify and (Reddy, Wee, Yun, & Ryu, Design-
Rky3 alkaline pro­ Composite optimize the 2008) Expert
● Yeast Extract
tease Design significant
● Corn steep variables for
liquor alkaline protease
production using
● Inoculum Size Bacillus sp. RKY3.

(48) Food Anaerobic ● Hydraulic ● Methane flow Box- To develop the (Abdul Aziz et al., 2019) Design
Waste with digestion Retention time Behnken simulation model Expert v13
● Chemical
Sewage Design to determine the
Sludge
● Sludge recycle Oxygen feasibility of the
ratio Demand (COD) biogas generation
● Water to feed ● Volatile solids from the ACD of
FW with SS and
ratio
examining the
● Sewage sludge effect of HRT,
to food waste water to feed
ratio ratio (kg/kg),
sludge recycle
ratio and SS to FW
ratio (kg/kg) on
the methane
flow, chemical
oxygen demand
(COD) and volatile
solids (VS)
removal
efficiencies

(Continued)

Page 33 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

Table A1. (Continued)

Substrate Production Process Dependent Design The objective Reference Software

method parameters variable Method of the study
(aerobic or
anaerobic
digestion)
(49) Okra waste anaerobic co- ● Codigestion ● Biomethane Central To analyze the (Ugwu & Enweremadu, Design
and pig digestion ratio yield Composite influence of 2022) Expert
manure Design variables such as
● Percentage of ● P release co- digestion, iron
polypyrrole nanocomposite
magnetite (PPy/Fe3O4),
nanocompo­ humic acid and
sites (Ppy/ arsenic oxide on
biomethane yield
Fe3O4)
and phos- phorus
● Percentage of release from okra
antagonists waste and pig
(humic acid manure
and arsenic
acid)

(50) Green Anaerobic ● Temperature ● Biogas yield Central To optimize nickel (Zaidi et al., 2019) Design
algae digestion Composite nanoparticles Expert
● Initial pH
Design concentration for
● Nickel nano­ an optimum
particles con­ biogas yield
centration

(51) Corn chaff Anaerobic co- ● Mixture ratio ● Biogas yield Central To optimize (Iweka et al., 2021)
and cow digestion Composite biogas production
● Hydraulic
dung Design from biomass
retention time wastes through
anaerobic
digestion using
CCD of RSM, and
python coding
(52) Dairy Anaerobic ● Sludge ● Biogas yield To study the (Nouri et al., 2020)
industry digestion percentage interaction effect
● Volatile solid
effluent of sludge
● Temperature removal percentage and
temperature at
the level of one
percent on the
volumetric indices
of biogas
production
(53) Prosopis Anaerobic Co- ● pH ● Methane yield Central To produce the (Vijin Prabhu et al., 2021) Design
juliflora digestion Composite biogas by Expert
● Temperature ● Biodegradability
seeds, water Design anaerobic
hyacinth, dry ● TS reduction degradation of
leaves, and Prosopis juliflora
cow manure pods, water
hyacinth, dry
leaves
(54) Flower Anaerobic ● pH ● Biogas yield To augment the (Gopal et al., 2021)
waste digestion biogas production
● Temperature
from flower waste
● Substrate through
concentration optimization and
pretreatment
● Agitation time techniques

Page 34 of 35
Djimtoingar et al., Cogent Engineering (2022), 9: 2115283
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2115283

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Engineering (ISSN: 2331-1916) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 35 of 35