Biomass 4 (1984) 127-142

B i o g a s - F a c t or F a n t a s y

D. A. J. Wase
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, P.O. Box 363,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

and

C. F. Forster
Departmentof Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, P.O. Box 363,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

(Received: 20 April 1983)

ABSTRACT

The possibilities o f increased use of anaerobic digestion as an effluent

treatment process arise from the introduction of improved reactor designs.
This article examines critically factors influencing the economic use o f the
process. The choice of digester is therefore considered in relation to the
waste itself, and problems in its supply, handling and transportation.
Limitations concerning thermodynamic efficiency, scrubbing costs,
flammability, compressibility and storage are discussed in terms o f
economics, as are subsequent applications including diesel or automotive
use and electricity generation. It is concluded that whilst the future for
anaerobic processes in certain specific areas is encouraging, the current
lack o f precision in costing methods requires attention.

Key words: biogas, methane, anaerobic, digesters, economics.

INTRODUCTION

The anaerobic digestion o f organic wastes to produce methane has been

practised for some considerable time. More recently it would appear
127
Biomass 0144-4565/84/$03.00-© Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd,
England, 1984. Printed in Great Britain
128 D. A. J. Wase, C. F. Forster

that digestion has reached a 'golden age' and today the literature
abounds with new designs and new applications. In the main, these are
aimed at
(1) utilising wastes not previously considered as anything but waste,
for example domestic refuse and surplus vegetation, or
(2) achieving faster reaction rates by improved or significantly modi-
fied reactor designs.
These designs (e.g. the anaerobic expanded bed or the upflow sludge
blanket; USB) are currently being evaluated for the treatment of
industrial effluents which hitherto have been discharged to sewers. 1'z
However, even these philosophies are not new; reports of the full-scale
treatment of organic liquors by anaerobic digestion occur in 1967 for
contact digesters 3 and in 1972 for upflow filters. 4 One is tempted to ask
therefore why, if the proposition is so attractive, have not more such
systems been built. One answer might be that these earlier designs were
inapplicable, another that conventional energy costs have been too low
and another that insufficient thought has been given to gas utilisation
and to the true costs of the processes involved in utilising the gas. All
too often the potential value of the gas (based on an average calorific
value and an average price per energy unit) is quoted without consider-
ing the costs necessary to realise this potential. This is not to say that
biogas should not or cannot have a role in the future, rather it is saying
that the process should be viewed neither with wild enthusiasm nor
severe scepticism but with a realism based on a sound understanding of
the process, operated as it would have to be in practice, and of the
practical problems of using the resultant gas. This paper examines these
problems and attempts to re-assess the future for anaerobic digestion.

PROBLEMS OF GAS UTILISATION

Whilst much attention has been paid to the production of biogas, rela-
tively little information, apart from its use within a sewage works,
exists about its economic usage. This is largely because of the emphasis
of investigations: pure scientists are apt to dismiss their biogas as a 'high
grade fuel" and leave it at that. However, if the biogas is to be costed
positively in an overall energy balance sheet for a comparison of treat-
 Biogas - f a c t or f a n t a s y 129

ment processes, then the effective utilisation of the gas is an absolute

necessity. This in turn, depends on the types of considerations which
are discussed below.

Choice o f digester configuration: nature of waste

Wastes range from dilute solutions and suspensions to solids with a high
BOD. Generally, digesters of the contact type having retention times of
the order of days are required for slurries; whilst the performance of
these reactors on sewage sludges is relatively well documented, s informa-
tion on other wastes is m u c h more sparse. This can lead to inadequate
data being available for design purposes. For instance, in the relatively
new installation treating slurry at Bore Place Farm, Kent, UK, it has
been claimed that the design retention time of 15 days was too short
and that for effective stabilisation and gas production as m u c h as 25
days was necessary. 6
In contrast, m a n y of the newer anaerobic digestion processes currently
being developed for liquid wastes appear to be suitable for both con-
centrated and dilute wastes. 2,7 These, typically, having holding times of
24 h or less. 2 In addition, hybrid types of plants where liquefaction and
gas production are separated are also currently being investigated, but
little information is as yet available on their performance.

Supply of feed

All too often digester systems are evaluated, either in practice or as

a desk exercise, with a constant sludge loading-rate. This is rarely
achieved in practice. Shock-loading can produce the problem of excess
acid production leading to a sour or 'stuck' digester, something which is
well d o c u m e n t e d in the sewage-treatment industry, and even if such
extreme conditions are not produced, the wide variability in both the
quality and the quantity o f the feedstock can so unbalance the micro-
bial flora as to produce a significant reduction in the operational per-
formance in relation to a steady-state mode of o p e r a t i o n ) This situation
could well occur in the newer applications of anaerobic digestion, such
as food industry wastes which are both seasonal and highly variable.
However, although the differences in performance between steady-
state and unsteady-state operation have been demonstrated, various
anaerobic digestion processes have been shown to be more resilient
130 D. A. 3". ICase, C. F. Forster

than might, at one time, have been expected. Work carried out on
small-scale digesters 9 (15-150 litres) degrading agricultural wastes
suggests that these digesters have been completely stable in spite of
wide variations in loading and short periods of no loading, in one case
up to about six weeks. A 13 m 3 digester operating on piggery waste
was also indirectly subjected to intermittent running because various
stirring methods were tested and no problems occurred. 1° In addition,
a USB plant treating effluent from p o t a t o processing was said to be
capable o f 'campaign operation' in that, once an acclimatised sludge had
been obtained, the reactor could be shut down for periods of up to
eight months. Even after this extended period, no loss in biological
activity was experienced, and start-up was said to be fast when the
system was next required.l
Nevertheless, breakdowns are likely to be of much greater conse-
quence when one or two small intensively used devices (such as might
be found in food processing or the chemical industry) suffer failure.
Even with contact digesters of the sort designed for intensive farms
there is the likelihood of breakdowns and blockages particularly
because of the nature o f the waste being digested. Although this is well
documented and ought to be considered at the design stage, in practice
it can still cause problems if stringent management o f the digester is not
maintained. Animal wastes contain plant fibres, cereal grains, animal
hairs and husks which can easily clog pipes and pumps. It is clearly
important, therefore, to investigate the effects on gas production that
periods o f no loading or significantly reduced loading will have on the
digesters. This means some specific research needs to be carried out to
determine h o w large-scale digesters (for example, 450 m 3 for slurry
from 4000 pigs on a Yorkshire farm 6) react to the problems that are
likely to occur when digesters are employed on farms or in an industrial
capacity. In other words, it is necessary to discover h o w versatile the
anaerobic digester is. It should be noted that it is not sufficient simply
to apply the wastewater industries' technology to the situation, because
the configuration, scale, cost and purpose of many future digesters are
likely to be significantly different.

Waste handling and transportation

An enormous amount o f data has been collected on the subject of using

digestion as a large-scale supplier of energy. However, such important
 Biogas - fact or fantasy 131

TABLE 1
Possible Annual Energy Production by Anaerobic Digestion from Already Occurring
Organic Waste12

Calorific value ( TJ) Medium fuel oil

equivalent (m a)

Municipal refuse 1-0 × 10 4 2-45 x lOs

Cattle manure 3.0 x 104 7.35 x lOs
Poultry manure 1.8 x 104 4.41 x l0 s
Pig slurry 1-2 x 104 2.94 x l0 s
Sewage sludge 1.4 x 104 3-43 x l0 s
Total 8.4 x 104 2.058 x 106

factors as collection, transportation and storage of the waste are often

overlooked.
One of the advantages of anaerobic digestion is that digesters can be
operated on a very wet feed. The vast majority of sewage sludges and
animal wastes are around 90% water which makes transportation by
road tanker, for example, totally uneconomic due to the low energy per
unit volume of the waste and the fuel costs involved for the tankers.
Many reports base their calculations upon the quantities of energy that
are available from existing wastes. Data presented in this form and
those given in Table 1 take no account of the problems outlined above
and therefore are o f limited use when assessing the viability of anaerobic
digestion.

Biogas properties

A whole range of problems stems from the properties of the gas itself,
in particular its composition (see Table 2). Although m a n y types of
wastes produce biogas within this general wide range of compositions,
even wider variations in carbon dioxide content, particularly if the
system is self-scrubbing, ~3 are not unknown. Other gases sometimes
found include nitrogen in small quantities, ammonia, water and volatile
organics. This means that there can be a variation in the calorific value
of the gas, which could restrict its use as an additive to North Sea gas
within the National Grid System.
132 D. A. J. lease, C. F. Forster

TABLE 2
Typical Digester Gas Composition 14

Gas CH4 CO2 H2S H2

% by volume 54-80 20-45 1-10 0-10

Hydrogen sulphide is corrosive to metals, particularly iron and steel,

and this should be remembered in potential applications, particularly
when digesting less traditional wastes such as farm slurries and high
sulphate industrial wastes where the possibility exists of producing
concentrations of hydrogen sulphide in excess of 1000ppm. In such
cases, gas desulphurisation might be necessary, the technology being
based on the formation of metal sulphides. However, this would in-
crease costs. It can be seen therefore that it is vital that the composition
o f the gas being produced from a particular waste be known. This is
especially important if the gas is to be employed for general domestic
use when the hydrogen sulphide concentration becomes a relatively
important consideration.
The carbon dioxide content of the gas is less of a problem; providing
it is less than 45% by volume it is not necessary, for most applications
o f digester gas, to remove it. Three exceptions to this are:
(1) if the gas were to be liquefied when the carbon dioxide would
freeze out and block the equipment,
(2) if the gas were to be delivered to a public gas network, and
(3) automotive use.
The simplest way to remove the carbon dioxide is to wash it with water
when the gas is under pressure. The carbon dioxide dissolves into the
water leaving relatively pure methane. Reducing the pressure causes the
carbon dioxide to come out of solution and hence the water can be
reused by recirculation. However, the wash water needs to be pressurised
and therefore it may be cheaper to use caustic.
An examination o f the techniques used for estimating the costs of
gas cleaning showed that the use o f published data could be misleading.
Two methods were compared, one direct (Sullivan et al. 15) and one
 Biogas - fact or fantasy 133

based on cost differences (Hashimoto and Chen16). The former gives

the capital cost (C) for the removal of sulphide separately as:

C (for C O 2 ) = 14-35G

In C (for H2S) = 5-955 -- 0.162 In G + 0.0247 (In G) 2

where G is the daily methane production (m 3 day-l).

Hashimoto and Chen, on the other hand, give equations which relate
the capital costs (C) to the digester volume ( V ) f o r various process
combinations:
(A) Digestion with H2S/moisture removal C = 2970V °'7
(B) A + compression/storage C = 4140V °'7
(C) B + CO2 removal C = 5320V °'7
It seemed therefore that it should be possible to use these equations
to estimate the costs of the specific processes; for example, ( C - B)
ought to give the cost of carbon dioxide removal.
Both methods were used to estimate the cost of gas cleaning for the
system described by Lettinga 17 which produced 2268 m a of methane
per day and had a digester volume of 667 m 3. A comparison of the costs
(converted to sterling and indexed to 1982 Q2) (Table 3) shows that
they are very different.
In an attempt to resolve this anomaly, data for a gas scrubbing
system installed at Colchester, Essex, UK (D. J. Picken, personal com-
munication) were examined. This showed a unit cost of £34.61 m -3
day -~. Not only does this suggest that the Hashimoto and Chen
approach is likely to be the more suitable, it also shows the dangers of

TABLE 3
Gas Cleaning Cost Estimations

Method Total cost (£) Unit cost ( £ m -3 day-lJ

Sullivan et al. Is 25 947 11.44

Hashimoto and Chen16(C -- B) 87 865 38.74
134 D. A. J. ;Case, C F. Forster

using generalised formulae without additional checks. In other words,

great care needs to be taken when the estimation of costs is being made.

Gas flammability

The problems of flammability are well known but often overlooked. In

summary, no air must be allowed to mix with the digester gas because
of the increased explosion risks and the lowered calorific value. The
explosive range is typically 6-12% by volume with air. Therefore, leak-
age of gas into air is more dangerous than leakage of air into gas. The
most important consideration with the siting of plant, and gas holders
in particular (especially as they are usually under a pressure of a few
inches WG and gas to air leakage will therefore occur) is to site the
device so that there is adequate ventilation if a leak should occur, bear-
ing in mind that the heavier biogas will flow along the ground and be
trapped by obstructions. Although the lower limit of explosion is stated
to be around 6% v/v with air, gas concentrations as low as 1.25% v/v
should be considered dangerous. One potentially hazardous operation is
when the digesters are opened for inspection or cleaning purposes for
it is necessary at one stage to replace the gas in the holders by air. The
procedure to follow involves pumping into the holder the exhaust
gases from a turbine or gas engine. When the methane content is suffi-
ciently low, the inert gas is replaced by air.
Standard safety fittings should be included in the digester design.
These include flametraps on the gas inlet and outlet pipes, condensate
traps with the piping inclined so condensing water can run into them,
and a pressure relief valve which is sited such that venting to the atmo-
sphere is done safely. If the use of anaerobic digesters becomes wide-
spread, safety regulations will have to be laid down, most probably
following the Code of Practice that has recently been published, la All
this will, of course, further increase the capital cost.

Gas compressibility

The energy content per unit volume of methane is relatively low

(37-3MJ/m3), when compared with butane (110MJ/m a) or propane
(85.8 MJ/m3), and therefore larger volumes of gas are necessary to
provide the same amount of heat or motive power. The obvious solu-
 Biogas - f a c t or fantasy 135

tion is compression. However, volatile organics, carbon dioxide and

hydrogen sulphide must first be removed. Dohne 19 points out that
bottles for m o t o r vehicles, typically of capacity 0.05 m 3 and 63 kg
weight will carry only 1 2 m 3 of methane (1 atm, 20°C) at 2 0 0 a t m
pressure equivalent to 3-5 gal petrol. The weight of the bottle clearly
reduces the efficiency of the vehicles and at 1982 prices, the cost of
compression alone is £1.65gal -~ of petrol equivalent, not including
compressor or gas production costs. Liquefaction (in the UK) not only
requires a special Home Office licence on account of the dangers; it is
also claimed to be out o f the question on economic grounds, except for
units providing millions of cubic metres per week, when Wheatley ~4
reasons that it would be possible to use existing natural gas technology.

Gas storage

As previously mentioned, the heat output per unit volume is low in

comparison with m a n y other flammable gases, and so liquefaction is
very improbable, and compression very costly. For m a n y applications,
both storage cost and safety considerations will limit the storage
capacity.
Under ideal conditions, digesters run at a few inches water gauge and
the gas produced is stored at low pressure. Problems arise in storage
because a digester will produce around one and a half times its volume
o f gas per day and in some cases it may not be practicable to store
more than a day's production. The majority of the current literature on
the subject of gas storage recommends storing about a day's usage of
gas. Dohne 19 recommends that if gas utilisation is well balanced, the
storage of half a day's production should be sufficient. A crucial point
in the application of anaerobic digesters for energy production arises
here in that most, if not all, of the systems envisaged require a constant
use for the gas produced, so that only a fraction will have to be stored.
It may be possible with careful planning to balance out consumption
variations during the day so that the gas can be used constantly,
although this will prove difficult and for many industries may not be
practical.
The effects that compression and storage can have on the total capital
costs are shown in Fig. l, and specific cost data for various gas storage
systems have been given by Dohne 19 and for a single specific case
136 D. A. J. Wase, C. F. Forster

600

500

~00

B
x

v'l 300
I---

200

100

i ! I i #

200 ~ 00 600 B00 1000

DIGESTER VOLUME(m 3 )
Fig. 1. Capital costs for biogas processing (indexed from Hashimoto and Chenl6):
(A) H2S and moisture removal, (B) A + compression/storage, (C) B + CO2 removal,
 Biogas - f a c t or f a n t a s y 137

(500m 3 storage) by Lettinga. ~7 The two compare quite reasonably.

Dohne's data for low pressure storage approximate to the relationship
Cost (in DM) = 12 195V °'46s
which for a storage volume of 500m 3 gives a cost (converted and
indexed) of £66 500 which compares well with Lettinga's figure of
£53 000, when judged against some of the other costing data presented
in this paper.

PROBLEMS IN APPLICATIONS

Problems in gas burning

The simplest way to use digester gas is for heating purposes by burning
it in a boiler. The gas is usually unscrubbed and a typical boiler consists
of a cylindrical vessel filled with water into which heat is transferred
from a series of high temperature tubes. When digester gas is used
instead of North Sea gas, the burner has to be modified because the
biogas has a low calorific value, a very low flame speed (around 0.3 m/s)
and a fairly high specific gravity of 0.85. The burner modifications are
simply to reduce the gas pressure at the burner nozzle to prevent flame
blow-off, to use a larger gas jet in the air injector to obtain the correct
mixture and to size the burner correctly so it delivers the design heat
input. If the gas is used for this purpose it is not uncommon for surplus
gas to be burnt off in an excess gas burner. Utilisation of digester gas
in this way is cheap but not very efficient.

Problems in utilisation in a diesel engine

If the gas is being considered for a more sophisticated use than in a

simple boiler/space-heating system, its use in a dual fuel engine tends to
be the preferred choice. This is based on thermal efficiencies.2° These
are essentially mechanical injection diesel engines with a gas mixing
apparatus connected to the air intakes. A combustible air/gas mixture
is introduced into the cylinders and this undergoes compression. A
small charge of diesel oil then ignites the compressed air/gas mixture.
This igniting charge of diesel oil contributes about 5-10% of the total
138 D.A.J. Wase, C. F. Forster

power of the engine; the rest is provided by the digester gas. The com-
pression ratio of these engines is around 12 or 15 to 1, compared with
about 8 to 1 for the petrol engine. Thus the power output and thermal
efficiency of the engine are improved and the diesel engine is 30-35%
efficient, around 10% greater than the petrol engine. As a fuel, digester
gas has a high ignition temperature (around 700°C), and its low flame
speed means that the ignition needs to be well advanced; also the limits
of flammability are rather narrow. For a digester gas comprising 65-
70% methane, and allowing for the small ignition charge, an air/gas
mixture of 12-+ 3% gas is required. Clearly the purchase and operation
of such engines demands technical and financial resources only avail-
able from a large concern.

Problems in electricity generation

Dual fuel engines can be coupled to air compressors or used to drive

generators. Both these processes find application in large effluent
treatment works, where efficiency is improved by using waste heat
from compressors and engines to heat digesters. However, the
economics of electricity generation at the sewage works are marginal,
and most of the cost arises from costs of generating equipment.
The unit costs of electricity generation have been examined in some
detail by Thompson and Larkin 2° in 1976. The cost data obtained by
these workers (indexed to 1982 Q2) are shown in Fig. 2 which includes
both operating and capital repayment costs. This shows that, as long as
the indexing is correct, the generation of electricity from biogas is
worthwhile. However, this is in contradiction to the findings of a study
at Colchester Sewage Works, Essex, UK, which shows that the costs of
generation compared unfavourably with purchase from the public
supply. Further studies are therefore needed to resolve these conflict-
ing assessments. As the cost of electricity generation rises so the cost of
generating equipment will also rise, and so the economics of this
operation will remain finely balanced. Further problems arise even if
the economics are more favourable. For instance, the giant Minworth
works at Birmingham, UK, generates its own electricity, and now buys
only a little from the National Grid (at a relatively high price); neverthe-
less, this must be available as a standby. Similar problems would apply
on the farm: enough mains electricity must: be consumed to justify the
retention of mains connections and wiring, and the cost of generation
equipment of suitable size is high (see Dohne19). Another problem
 Biogas - fact or fantasy 139

8
3

I I I I I

100 ZOO 300 t~O0 500

SIZE (kW)
Fig. 2. Unit costs for power generation (A) (indexed from Thompson and
Larkin 2°) compared with the current industrial tariff (B).

which can affect the economics of electricity generation is over-produc-

tion. F o r example, if a farmer were only able to utilise 10-20% of his
energy o u t p u t the entire cost o f generation would have to be set against
this fraction, since, in the UK, there would be no outlet for the un-
wanted energy.* This is not the case in other countries (e.g. Germany). 19

Problems in gas utilisation in automobiles

Methane is an excellent fuel for the spark ignition engine in that it has a
very high anti-knock performance, it is lead-free and there are few com-
bustion problems in high compression engines. It is also relatively easy
to convert existing petrol-driven engines to run on methane, the cost for
a van being £400 (D. J. Picken, personal communication). Therefore the
feasibility of using digester gas to power automobiles arises.

* Changes in UK legislation do now permit extraneous electricity to be 'sold' to

the National Grid. However, biogas users have yet to do this.
140 D. A. J. Wase, C. F. Forster

There are three possible ways in which digester gas can be used:
( 1) at ordinary pressures,
(2) as a compressed gas, and
(3) as a liquid.
It has already been mentioned that option (3) is dangerous and likely to
be uneconomic. Option (1) is the least convenient for utilisation as the
volume of gas required to travel even short distances becomes sub-
stantial, 0.75 m 3 = 1 litre of petrol. The CO2 and H2S contents are
usually removed by washing, and gas in this form has been used to
power m o t o r buses, cars and small agricultural vehicles when it was
carried in collapsible bags, usually above the roof. Option (2) also
requires scrubbing before compression (to 150 bar). An examination of
this method of using the gas is currently under way at the Colchester
Sewage Works operated by the Anglian Water Authority, the vehicles
carrying one or two cylinders of methane (capacity = 31.5 litres;
pressure = 189 bar). An economic study of the process indicates that,
assuming the biogas to have zero cost, the unit price (p/m 3) becomes
less than that for duty free UK petrol when the usage of gas is greater
than 40 000 m3/year (D. J. Picken, personal communication).

DISCUSSION

It can be seen, from the points raised in this paper, that the production
and utilisation of biogas are constrained by a series of operational
factors which in turn affect the economics of any such proposal. For
instance, storage problems dictate that the gas should be stored at
minimal pressure, that only about 24 h supply be stored, and that it be
used as generated, whilst inconsistencies in waste production rates and
breakdowns suggest that the rate of gas production is unlikely to be
constant. In addition, heat losses and the temperature of the feedstock
dictate that the maximum amount of gas production is likely to be in
summer when demands for space-heating are likely to be minimal. How-
ever, there are situations where many of these problems can be mini-
mised, and it is the purpose of this paper to draw attention to some of
these so that realism will prevail in the promotion of anaerobic digestion
as an energy-producing process.
At current prices of energy and with currently available technology,
it is generally agreed that waste materials dry enough to burn will
 Biogas - f a c t or f a n t a s y 141

supply energy more economically by that route, and should not be

wetted, hence to grow and harvest materials specifically for biogas
production is unattractive in economic terms. Normally, therefore,
digestion should be considered only if some of the following criteria
apply:
(1) A wet waste material is available with negligible transport or
storage costs.
(2) Its current disposal costs can be reduced by anaerobic digestion.
(3) Facilities exist for using the gas.
(4) There is a source of low-grade heat available.
(5) The use of anaerobic digestion reduces the environmental impact
(e.g. odours) of the wastes.
The types of waste which fit these criteria are in the main associated
with agriculture, food processing and, occasionally, chemical industries.
In agriculture, the viability tends to hinge on the scale of operation. In
addition, it is essential to have capable staff, a feedstock which does not
fluctuate too widely in quantity or quality and a standby supply of
electricity at a realistic price. Given these conditions, a biogas/electricity
generation programme could just be economic. Other alternatives can,
however, be considered. One possibility is the direct usage of the
heating power of the gas for the drying of crops (green forage and
cereals). 19
Better propositions often exist in the food industry, where trade
effluent charges are currently still rising above the inflation rate.
Often, low-grade heat is available from the main process, and one of the
newer types of digester operating on a waste stream will upgrade this
directly to gas which can be used as oil-equivalent, whilst offering sub-
stantial reductions in effluent BOD and hence trade effluent charge.
Recent accounts of anaerobic digestion indicate that its application to
breweries, dairies, distilleries and canneries is either under way or being
seriously considered. 1'2'21'22 Uses for the gas other than heating oil-
equivalent are also often available in industry. Any industry using
electric delivery vans, for instance, with their need for recharging, is
just as likely to be able to tolerate the frequent replenishing of gas-bags
and their relatively short trip availability.
So, in conclusion, the future for anaerobic digestion appears to be
promising in specific areas. It is never going to be a major alternative
power producer, but where conditions exist for it to be economic, the
142 D.A.J. Wase, C. F. Forster

technique can and should be exploited. To facilitate this, however, it is

essential that the methods for assessing the economics be made more
precise.

REFERENCES

1. Lettinga, G., van Velsen, A. F. M., Hobma, S. W., de Zeeuw, W. and Klapwijk,
A. (1980). Biotechnol. Bioeng., 22, 699-734.
2. Burgess, S. (1983). Paper to be presented at Inst. Wat. Pollut. Control Seminar,
Birmingham, March; to be published in WaterPollut. Control.
3. Stander, G. J. (1967). Proc. 22ndlnd. Waste Conf. Purdue Univ., 892-907.
4. Taylor, D. W. and Burm, R. J. (1972). A. 1. Chem. E. Symp. Series, 129,
30-7.
5. Ainsworth, G. (1967). Process Biochem., 2 (8), 11-14.
6. Anon. (1981). Farmers Weekly, 94 (1), 48.
7. Forster, C. F. and Wase, D. A. J. (1983).Environ. Pollut. SeriesA, 31, 57-66.
8. Rockey, J. S. and Forster, C. F. (1982). Environ. Technol. Letters, 3, 487-95.
9. Summers, R. and Bousfield, S. (1976). Process Biochem., 11 (5), 3-6.
10. Mills, P. J. (1978). ADAS Seminar Report, Anaerobic Digestion of Farm
Wastes, MAFF, Coley Park, Reading, 43-9.
11. van Bellegem, T. M. (1980). Biotechnol. Letters, 2,219-24.
12. Hawkes, D. L. and Horton, R. (1980). Energy World (June), 10-15.
13. Godwin, S. J., Wase, D. A. J. and Forster, C. F. (1982). Process Biochem.,
17 (4), 33-6.
14. Wheatley, B. I. (1980). In: Anaerobic Digestion, D. A. Stafford, B. I. Wheatley
and D. E. Hughes (eds.), Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 415-28.
15. Sullivan, J. L., Peters, N. and Ostrorski, C. M. (1981). Resource Rec. and
Conserv., 5,319-31.
16. Hashimoto, A. G. and Chen, Y. R. (1980). In: Anaerobic Digestion, D. A.
Stafford, B. I. Wheatley and D. E. Hughes (eds.), Applied Science Publishers,
London, pp. 449-66.
17. Lettinga, G. (1979).1nd. Wastes (Jan./Feb.), 18-41.
18. Anaerobic Digestion: A Code of Practice on Safety in and around Anaerobic
Digesters, British Anaerobic and Biomass Association Ltd, 1982.
19. Dohne, E. H. (1980). In: Anaerobic Digestion, D. A. Stafford, B. I. Wheatley
and D. E. Hughes (eds.), Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 429-48.
20. Thompson, L. H. and Larkin, A. A. (1976). U.K. Public Works Congress, 1976,
F1-F28.
21. Anderson, G. K., Duarte, A. C. and DonneUy, T. (1981). Tribune du Cebedeau,
34, 459-73.
22. Braun, R. and Huss, S. (1982). Process Biochem., 16 (7), 25-7.