Fuel 358 (2024) 130298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

A review on recent technological breakthroughs in anaerobic digestion of

organic biowaste for biogas generation: Challenges towards sustainable
development goals
K. Archana a, A.S. Visckram a, P. Senthil Kumar c, *, S. Manikandan a, A. Saravanan a,
L. Natrayan b
a
Department of Biotechnology, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai 602105, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai 602105, India
c
Centre for Pollution Control and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Technology, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry 605014, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biogas production by anaerobic digestion is a potential technique for waste management and reduce carbon
Biogas footprint. Heat capacity and fuel efficiency of biogas make it as an interesting alternative to the depleting
Anaerobic digestion nonrenewable fuels. The full potential of anaerobic digestion is not realized yet due to operational difficulties,
Pretreatment methods
government policies and people acceptance. This review focuses on the bottle necks in the biogas production
Microalgal
technology and highlights some of the recent technology that can be adopted to achieve circular economy in
Facilitated transport
biogas sector. In a waste to energy perspective, the presence of recalcitrant lignocelluloses in the available
biowaste is discussed. Various pretreatment techniques used to convert these recalcitrant materials to suit
anaerobic digestion are compared. Microalgal culture techniques for waste treatment and biogas upgradation are
seen as a promising strategy towards clean energy. In many cases the impurities present in the biogas limit its
usage. Hence, more emphasis for biogas upgradation by adopting advanced methods like facilitated transport in
a nanocellulose membrane is needed. Implementation of biogas as an alternative to fossil fuels has both tech­
nological and policy related barriers. Biogas helps to attain sustainability development goals proposed by the
United Nations. This review discusses the technological aspects of biogas production alongside the application of
biogas to attain sustainability in the fuel sector. In various sections, we highlight the technical difficulties in
biogas production, solutions for those problems, and potential of biogas technology in achieving sustainable
goals.

1. Introduction
Development of sustainable energy resources is essential in an
environmental protection perspective to reduce the greenhouse gas
emission and to effectively utilize the organic waste accumulated
globally [75,80]. The demand for energy is growing globally due to
growing population. Fossil fuels are exhaustive and can potentially
damage the environment in plethora of ways. Biogas is one of the clean
and economically viable solutions to the fuel problems currently faced
by us [53]. Organic waste can be an-aerobically digested to produce
biogas. Biogas consists of 50–75 % methane, 25–50 % carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other gases like hydrogen sulphide (H2S), ammonia, oxygen.
The major constituent of biogas is methane and it can effectively replace
fossil fuels in both heat and power generation. Further it can also be used
as transportation fuel. Biogas production is a zero waste technology, as
methane produced is used as fuel and the digested material or digestate
is used as crop manure [45].
Organic matter rich agricultural waste, municipal waste and indus­
trial waste are widely used for biogas production. Apart from this, en­
ergy crops like hemp can be added to increase methane yield [16].
Agricultural waste is the widely available organic substrate for biogas
production. Globally 5.5 billion tons of agricultural waste is generated
annually [27], India and China are the highest contributors with 500
million tons [18], and 860 million tons [10] respectively. Municipal
waste is constituted by food residues and household wastes. Globally,
1.3 billion tons of municipal waste is generated every year [12]. These

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: senthilchem8582@gmail.com, senthilkumarp@pondiuni.ac.in (P. Senthil Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130298
Received 24 February 2023; Received in revised form 21 September 2023; Accepted 2 November 2023
Available online 6 November 2023
0016-2361/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Archana et al.
are highly rich in organic content and possess greater methanogenic
value. Industrial by-products, residues and waste are the components of
industrial waste. Though industrial waste is rich in organic content, they
have chemically unpredictable components. Chemical composition of
the substrate is crucial in determining the quality and quantity of
methane produced during anaerobic digestion. Salt tolerant halophyte
plants are recently used for biogas production. Plants like Salicornia
europaea, Tripolium pannonicum etc are cultivalted in saline areas as a
salt water treatment effort and also yield biomass that can be used in AD
process [5,25]. [93] identified cassava peels along with fruit and vege­
table waste as an alternate biowaste to be used in places of South Africa
with less cattle manure availability.
AD is a microbiological process and hence the microorganism in the
inoculum is a variable parameter in biogas production process. Geneti­
cally modified microorganism consortia are lining up to be used in AD
process. In vitro synthetic enzymatic pathway is one of the recent de­
velopments in strain development using molecular methods for
enhanced biogas production [85]. Acclimatizing inoculums to the pre­
vailing climatic condition of the region is another technique for efficient
performance of AD process [56]. Biogas production process involves
three stages viz pre-production stage (biomass selection, pretreatment
and plant design), production stage (process parameters) and post­
production stage (upgradation techniques and marketing). Advance­
ments in these areas will be discussed in upcoming sections of this
review.
Biogas composition greatly depends on the choice of feedstock,
operational conditions and the type of plant used. Of these, feedstock
availability is the main deciding parameter as the other two can be
manipulated to a greater extent to get favorable results. Biogas contains
impurities like nitrogen (upto 15 %), carbon monoxide (<0.6 %), oxy­
gen (upto 3 %), ammonia, H2S, siloxanes, hydrocarbons and water
[108]. The presence of these impurities limits its application and de­
creases the heat content of biogas. Further, they also lead to pulmonary
diseases in humans if left untreated before usage. H2S is a potential
nerve poison, and it can damage the environment by causing acid rain.
Being a corrosive agent, H2S can damage the pipelines and absorbents
used [78]. Siloxanes are volatile silicon containing compounds which
are deleterious to the equipment used in AD process. Ammonia is toxic
to the anaerobic bacteria in the digester and when released it causes
health problems to humans. Water scrubbing is a widely used technol­
ogy for removing H2S. The main purpose of biogas upgradation is to
Fig. 1. Percentage contribution of different biowaste sources used for biogas production globally [39].
2
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
remove CO2 using various techniques like absorption and adsorption
which are discussed later in this review.
The biodegradability of the biowaste determines its potential to be
used as feed for AD. The World energy council has predicted that more
than 6 million tons of waste will be produced per day by 2025. This
waste, when left untreated in a landfill, can contribute to greenhouse
gases. Hence generation of energy from biowaste is needed to reduce the
carbon footprint. Production of energy and value-added products from
this waste can tackle waste related problems faced at present. Fig. 1
shows the global share of various biomass used for biogas production. Of
these, using animal manure for biogas production results in socio- eco­
nomic and environmental advantages by removal of pathogens,
improved usage of animal manure as fertilizer, and more importantly
production of green renewable fuel. The European renewable energy
council has advised replacing 27–30 % of energy consumption with
renewable sources by 2030. Biogas has the potential to help us achieve
this target globally. This review paper is aimed to provide an insight into
biogas production process, upgradation techniques and usage for
microalgae for biogas upgradation. Further, application of facilitated
transport of carbon dioxide for improving biogas quality and the role of
biogas production towards attainment of sustainability development
goals are discussed.
This article is structured to address the major limitations in complete
conversion of available biomass for biogas production. The advanced
line of techniques involving nanocarbons for the degradation of ligno­
cellulosic material are discussed in the later sections. Further, a
comprehensive analysis on the impact of biogas usage in achieving
sustainable goals is done. Conclusively, positive effects of biogas pro­
duction and its usage as a replacement for conventional fuel systems on
resource recuperation and the circular economy are discussed.
2. Biogas generation from lignocellulosic biowaste
Agricultural wastes contain a substantial amount of lignocellulosic
material which are a potential source for biogas production. Plant cells
contain cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin components as their struc­
tural components. The ratio of these three chemical constituents may
vary according to their type, age and other growing conditions. But a
considerate quantity of plant biomass is of lignocellulosic type. This
lignin can inhibit the degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose, which
are the prime source of energy for biogas producing microorganisms.
K. Archana et al. Fuel 358 (2024) 130298

2.1. Sources and properties
There is a disproportion between the available organic waste and
biogas produced from it. The major reason for this scenario is the
presence of recalcitrant and complex biomolecules like lignocellulose in
organic waste. Energy crops are added to the waste as an approach to
increase the number of biopolymers that can be easily digested by mi­
crobes during anaerobic digestion. However, the usage of agricultural
land, water and other resources for the production of energy crops is
debatable as it competes with food crop production. Hence effective
utilization of lignocelluloses in the available bio-waste is needed to in­
crease the methanogenic capacity of the AD process.
Lignocellulose consists of lignin- a complex heterogenous phenolic
polymer [96] and cellulose cross linked by hemicellulose which is made
of pentoses and hexoses. This structural complexity makes the cellulose
and hemicelluloses inaccessible to microbes for hydrolysis during AD.
Hydrolysis is the initial step in AD [29]. Microbial enzymes hydrolyse
complex bio polymers like proteins, carbohydrates and fats are con­
verted to simple monomers like amino acids, sugars and long chain fatty
acids respectively. Generally, methanogenesis is the rate limiting step in
the AD process [68]. This is due to the slow growth rates of metha­
nogens. Further, acute changes in pH, temperatures and presence of
inhibitors can affect the growth of methanogens. Under circumstances
where the initial substrate is rich in lignocelluloses, the initial hydrolysis
step turns out to be rate limiting. This can lead to the failure of the AD
process. Table 1 presents lignin content in various feedstocks used for
biogas production and the effect of pretreatment on methane yield. In
this section, various sources of lignocellulosic material and their prop­
erties are discussed.
2.2. Process mechanics, biogas generation parameters, lignocellulosic bio-
waste recalcitrance
Operational parameters of biogas production include but not limited
to feed stock, co digestion, pretreatment of feed stock, reactor parame­
ters, pH, temperature and retention time [23]. Optimization of these
parameters can result in increased methane production. A wide range of
reactor designs are available to perform anaerobic digestion. The choice
of reactor depends on the application and feed stock used. Anaerobic
contact process, anaerobic membrane reactor, anaerobic sequencing
batch reactor, batch system anaerobic reactor, continuous stirred tank
reactor, granular sludge bed reactor, fixed bed reactors, plug flow
reactor, tubular reactor are mostly used for the production of biogas and
methane [92].
AD reactors can operate in batch or continuous mode. Continuous
mode is highly preferred for its constant biogas supply potential. Fig. 2
shows that four steps of AD i.e., hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis
and methanogenesis occur at same point of time in single stage digesters.
Single stage digesters are easy to set up and operate. But higher methane
yield is obtainable from two or three stage digesters [82]. In two stage
digesters, hydrolysis, acetogenesis and acidogenesis take place in the
first digester. The contents from first digester are fed to second digester
where methanogenesis occur. This accounts for the complexity associ­
ated with multi stage digesters. Irrespective of the number of digesters
used, recirculating a part of effluent to the initial digester resulted in
more process efficiency by retaining microbial content and increasing
liquid retention time [21].
Right choice of inoculum, proper substrate inoculum ratio and
appropriate temperature conditions are needed for a successful AD
process. The type of inoculum used depends on the substrate composi­
tion. Very low substrate inoculum ratio potentially results in incomplete
digestion, whereas a high substrate inoculum ratio leads to poor sub­
strate utilization [124]. Based on the temperature employed, AD process
is termed as psychrophilic, mesophilic, thermophilic or extremophiles.
Under psychrophilic conditions, substrate degradation is slowed down
owing to the fact that hydrolytic enzyme activity increases with
increasing temperature to a certain extent. Methane production in
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions are comparable. However,
mesophilic condition is highly preferred over thermophilic as the later is
unstable and energy intensive.
Anaerobic digestion is favored in a pH range of 5.5 to 8.5. Meth­
anogenic bacteria are highly sensitive to pH conditions under 6.3 and
above 7.8. Improper metabolization of volatile fatty acids produced
from acidogenesis step decrease the pH below 3. Similarly, accumula­
tion of ammonium ions and cations like K+, Cd2+ can lead to increased
pH. Both these conditions will lead to AD process failure. pH fluctuations
in the digester can be controlled manually by modifying operation pa­
rameters or by using automated pH controller.
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) is the average time that the liquid
phase of anaerobic digestion is retained in the digester. HRT is crucial to
obtain stable and optimal performance of AD. HRT depends on the type
of reactor, substrate used, and other operational parameters. HRT is a
vital checkpoint to the growth of microbes. Retention time should be
appropriate so that the number of dead microorganism at any given time
is less than the amount of microorganism reproduced. HRT varying for
different substrate is reported by many researchers. [86] studied the
effect of HRT on methane production in a mixture of olive mill waste­
water, cheese whey and liquid cow manure as substrate in a two-stage
continuous stirred tank reactor. Of the 5 HRTs used in the experiment
(5, 3, 2, 1 and 0.75 days) 0.75 days for acidogenic reactor and 25 days
for methanogenic reactor was reported to yield maximum methane.
Further, they reported that a higher HRT for acidogenic reactor resulted
in more volatile fatty acid production. This is due to the presence of
more lipids in the substrate mixture they used. [43] reported a stable
biogas production rate after 44 days in a semi continuous aerobic
digester with cow dung as substrate. In a study by [51], retention time

Table 1
Lignin content in various biomass used for biogas production and the effect of pretreatment on methane yield.
Item Lignin Methane production without Methane production after Pretreatment adopted Reference
content pretreatment pretreatment

Sugarcane bagasse 27 % 105.6 mL/g 299.3 mL/g Ethanolic ammonia pretreatment [90]
Hardwood sawdust 88.5 mL/g 248.2 mL/g Hydrothermal pretreatment [6]
Switchgrass 21.1 102.44 mL/g 178.31 mL/g Microbial pretreatment by ensiling [122]
Wheat straw 15 % 108.72 % 214 mL/g Calcium hydroxide/cellulase [61]
pretreatment
Wheat straw 26 % 27.12 mL/g 43.15 mL/g Acid Pretreatment with HCl [98]
Yard trimmings 24 % 80 mL/g 210 mL/g Peroxone pretreatment process [67]
Grass 8.0 % 164.06 mL/g 179.38 mL/g Alkali pretreatment with NaOH [35]
Barley straw 20.7 % 0.18 mL/g 15.2 mL/g TS Bacterial pretreatment [83]
Oat straw 25 % 202 mL/g 264 mL/g Novel extrusion pretreatment [52]
Rice straw 15 % 72 mL/g 125.77 mL/g Co-digestion with cow dung [48]
Municipal solid 17 % 301.9 mL/g 407.1 mL/g Alkali pretreatment with NaOH [30]
waste
Cow dung 11 % 136 mL/g 225 mL/g Ca(OH)2 pretreatment [77]

3
K. Archana et al. Fuel 358 (2024) 130298

Fig. 2. Four steps in anaerobic digestion of waste products with the list of microorganisms involved in each step.

Fig. 3. Chemical composition of lignocelluloses along with the factors contributing for its recalcitrant nature.

4
K. Archana et al.
for methanogenic phase as low as 8 days was found to decrease the
digestion stability of food waste.
Organic loading rate (OLR) refers to the amount of substrate added to
the digester per day per unit volume. OLR is inversely related to HRT
and ideally a high operating OLR is preferred for greater AD efficiency.
However, overloading the digester is reported to create process distur­
bances and leads to non-proportional growth of microorganisms in AD
[84]. As mentioned in the previous section, various biomasses can be
used for AD process. However, the physical and chemical properties of
the biomass influence the microbial action in both positive and negative
scales. Lipids and proteins have relatively higher methane production
potential than cellulose and lignin [58]. Lipids get converted to Long
Chain Fatty Acids (LCFA) quickly and are accumulated. This accumu­
lated LCFA acts as process inhibitor in plethora of ways. LCFA poten­
tially damages bacterial cell walls and renders nutrients unavailable for
microbes to act upon. Further lipids at higher concentrations lead to
foaming, sludge formation, clogging of pipes and pose many operational
difficulties to the AD plant. Lignin on the other hand is recalcitrant to
anaerobic digestion. Table 1 helps us to understand the ubiquitous na­
ture of lignin in the wide range of substrate used in AD. Lignin is re­
ported as the second most abundant source of carbon in plants next to
cellulose [95]. Lignin is a non-carbohydrate hetero polymer formed as a
result of oxidative polymerization of p-coumaryl alcohol, coniferyl
alcohol, and sinapyl alcohol [32] and hence it cannot be used as a carbon
source in anaerobic digester. Clostridium, Acitovibrio celluliticus, Staphy­
lococcus, Bacteriodes are the major microbial communities acting on
complex carbohydrates under anaerobic conditions. These microbes
lack the enzymes required for lignin degradation. In lignocellulosic
fraction of biomass, lignin is present in the outer layer while cellulose is
present with in lignin shell. Hemicellulose is present within cellulose
and between lignin-cellulose layers. Fig. 3 correspond that chemical
composition of lignocelluloses along with the factors contributing for its
recalcitrant nature. Ether bond is formed between lignin carbon and
cellulose or hemicelluloses carbon. Glycosidic linkage is formed be­
tween lignin and cellulose molecules [47]. This structural and chemical
complexity accounts for the recalcitrant nature of lignocelluloses.
2.3. Physical, biological, chemical, and oxidative lignocellulosic pre-
treatments
Pre-treatment is essential to release cellulose and hemicellulose from
lignocelluloses by disrupting its structure. A careful choice of pre-
treatment method is necessary to avoid any deleterious effect on the
microbe in the digester. Current technologies available for treating
lignocellulosic material for biogas production are classified into four
types as physical [105], chemical [100], physiochemical [14] and bio­
logical [110]. Further, combination of one or more technologies can be
used to get better degradation of lignocelluloses materials. Table 2
presents data on different pretreatment technologies and their principle,
effects and application for biogas production.
3. Enhanced biogas production by microalgal culture
Microalgae treatment offers a viable solution to treat anaerobic
sludge before using it for biogas production. Sludge consists of humic
substances, ammonia, sulphide and heavy metals in considerable
amounts. These can act as inhibitors of AD process particularly by
negatively influencing methanogenesis [13,60]. Sludge contains a
higher nitrogen content ranging from 5 to 9 % of dry weight [57].
Disposal of effluent from this sludge can pose a serious threat to the
environment by causing eutrophication. Microalgae, when cultivated on
nitrogen and humus rich sludge, grow profusely and accumulate more
protein in its biomass. Further the collected microalgae can be co
digested with the sludge.
5
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
3.1. Microalgae for treating anaerobic digestion sludge and improving
biogas
Anaerobic digestion of sludge from wastewater treatment plant is
necessary to reduce the organic content of the sludge because the
effluent from the treatment plant is released to the environment. Con­
ventional sludge digestion process is energy intensive. However, it can
be modified as a self-sustainable method by producing energy from the
organic matter in the sludge. As discussed earlier, the components of
sludge are not anaerobic digestion friendly. Microalgae based sludge
treatment is a breakthrough in wastewater management efforts.
[11] studied microalgal production using secondary wastewater
effluent and the subsequent production of methane by co digestion of
microalgae with the sludge. Microalgae genus Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus
sp. and Stigeoclonium sp. were used in their study. The microalgae sp
were cultured in a closed photobioreactor with an alternating dark light
period of 12 h. The photobioreactor was operated in semi continuous
mode with a HRT of 8 days. From the study, they found that nitrogen as
ammonium ion was sequestered by microalgae and nitrate consumption
happened after complete exhaustion of ammonium in wastewater. Sce­
nedesmus sp was profusely grown and resulted in 90 % and 87 % removal
of ammonium ions and phosphate ions respectively. Methane produc­
tion was 64 % higher in pretreated microalgae: sludge co digestion tank.
However, methane yield was 50 % lesser in anaerobic digestion of un­
treated micro algae.
[87] chose Chlorella sp microalgae to utilize sludge nutrients and
reported a total nitrogen removal of 80–90 g Nitrogen/Kg of microalgae.
Harvested Chlorella was co digested with wastewater sludge in AD and
resulted in 65–90 % specific methane production (mL methane/g/feed).
Methane production was reported to increase with microalgae pre­
treatment before introducing into the AD system. The reject water from
the process measured a very low transmittance of light and found suit­
able to be released into the environment. [97] ran a pilot scale micro­
algae and primary sludge co-digestion unit for one year. They reported a
high degree of sludge nutrient utilization and microalgal growth. The
plant operated at 35 ◦ C and HRT of 30 days resulted in a methane yield
of 370 mL/g per feed.
3.2. Biogas upgrading techniques, microalgae culture, and sludge
management
With the increased environmental awareness, biogas is a widely
accepted alternate and environmental friendly source of fuels. However,
biogas produced using currently available technologies has impurities
like CO2, H2S, N2 and O2. Also biogas is saturated with water vapor.
Collectively, these limit the application of the biogas produced. By
adopting proper upgradation techniques, biogas remains a promising
alternative to fossil fuels. Biogas upgradation refers to the separation of
methane from other impurities mentioned above. The 100 % concen­
trated methane is termed biomethane and it can be used in gas distri­
bution network. Adsorption and membrane separation are employed as
mechanisms in the biogas upgrading process [38].
In absorption techniques, a gaseous phase is used as scrubber to
absorb the impurities like CO2 and H2S. Methane should not be absorbed
by the scrubber. Hence, the scrubber should be carefully chosen to
obtain higher solubility of the impurities. When raw biogas comes in
contact with the scrubber phase, CO2 with higher solubility than
methane is absorbed by the scrubber and removed in the liquid phase.
Methane rich gas is collected at the end of the process. Based on the type
and nature of scrubber used, absorption process can be classified into
physical and chemical scrubbing. In physical absorption process, a
chemically non-reactive scrubber is used. Water is the widely used
scrubber in physical absorption process because of higher solubility of
CO2 and H2S than methane [49]. Raw biogas is introduced from the
bottom of a column and water enters the column from top in a counter
current fashion. Raw biogas is pressurized to around 9–12 bars at the
 K. Archana et al.
Table 2
Different pretreatment technologies and their principle, effects and applications for biogas production.
Methods Type of Principle Effect of the technique Disadvantage References Recent studies
pretreatment

Physical Mechanical size Reduce the crystallinity of cellulose fibers. 10–30 mm after chipping Energy requirement for size [8] Mechanical pre-treatment of Sargassum fulvellum microalgae
reduction Eliminate mass and heat transfer limitation. 0.2 – 2 mm after milling reduction is more resulted in increased methane production by 52.34 % than
or grinding without treatment [9].
Ultrasonication Cavitation cleaves the complex lignocelluloses Reduce the hydrolysis High energy requirement [55] [22] used ultrasound pre-treatment to increase methane
using shear forces time by 80 % yield (107.28 mL methane/g VS) by 4 folds (26.72 mL
methane/g VS) in brewer’s spent grains.
[34] studied dual frequency ultrasound combined with alkali
treatment on corn stalk resulted in 56.6 % increase in
methane production than the control without pretreatment.
Chemical Alkali Increase cellulose swelling, decrease the Perform partial hydrolysis Method is ineffective for higher [109] [63] reported 65.48 % increase in methane content from AD
pretreatment degree of polymerization and crystallinity. of lignocelluloses lignin content biomass. of food waste pretreated with Calcium hydroxide. This
Increases lignin breakdown by destructing High chemical load treatment has found to increase the solubility of organic
links between lignin and other polymers Toxicity to microbes materials.
Sunflower stalk and head with higher lignin content of 10.48
% and 20.36 % respectively showed a decreased lignin
content of 7.19 % and 18.74 % respectively after treatment
with Sodium hydroxide [125]
Acid Hydrolysis of hemicelluloses by disruption of Enzymatic hydrolysis of Lignin is not affected by acid [59] 13.2 to 28.9 % increase in biogas production was reported by
pretreatment Vander Waal forces, hydrogen and covalent lignocelluloses is pretreatment. [31] after pretreatment of municipal waste with
bonds increased Microbial load is affected hydrochloric acid and acetic acid. 15.2 % lignin removal and
6

15.5 % higher methane production was obtained from AD of

Hydrogen H2O2 under alkaline conditions dissociates to
peroxide yield hydroperoxyl anion which further reacts
to form hydroxyl radicals. These radicals
reacts with lignin to produce oxidation
products
Physio-Chemical Steam explosion High pressured(5–50 atm) saturated steam at a
temperature of 160–280 ◦ C is used to expand
lignocelluose material. This causes fibres to
separate and disintegrate
Microwave Collision between ions and polar molecules
radiation happen as a result of electric and magnetic
field.
Dissolute cellulose in ionic fluids.
Biological Microbiological White rot fungi Phanerochaete chrysosporium is
a lignin degrading enzyme producer.
Micro aerobic A limited amount of O2 is supplied during
pretreatment pretreatment increases Firmicutes
concentrations. These secrete extracellular
Enables complete
availability of cellulose in
lignocelluloses.
Physical disruption
Hydrolysis and
hemicelluloses
solubilisation is achieved
Lignocellulose dielectric
properties are exploited to
achieve desired results
XDC 2 is a lignocelluloses
degrading microbial
consortium developed
Increases methane yield
by hydrolysis of
hemicelluloses and lignin
Result in carbohydrate loss due to
higher removal rates of
hemicelluloses and cellulose
depolymerization
Incomplete destruction of lignin
carbohydrate complex resulting
in precipitation of soluble lignin
Work well in lab scale. Scaling up
to industrial projects is currently
limited by technology and cost.
Rate of treatment is very slow to
suit industrial applications.
Excessive oxygen will become
detrimental to the growth and
activity of methane producing
sulphuric acid pretreated wheat plant
[120] 83.4 % increased biogas production from cladodes of cactus.
Alkaline hydrogen peroxide pretreatment was done for
cladodes of cactus which are rich in lignin. Alkaline
hydrogen peroxide treatment resulted in lignin
disintegration by 28.89 % [17]
[3] [64] identified Instant Catapult steam explosion as a viable
technique for processing corn stock. The pretreatment
resulted in modification of microstructure and increased
enzyme digestibility.
[113] [19] studied the mode of action of microwave grass biomass
meant for industrial purposes. Successfully optimized the
conditions for industrial applications
[44] [66] used 6 environmental samples to enrich microbial
consortia for degrading lignocelluloses in mesophilic and
thermophilic conditions. They identified Pseudoxanthomonas
as the primary lignocellulose degrading bacteria.
[115] Microaerobic pretreatment using Bacillus subtilis with an
oxygen load of 5 mL/g of VS resulted in 17.35 % higher
methane yield (W. [116].

Fuel 358 (2024) 130298

enzymes capable of degrading lignocelluloses bacteria
K. Archana et al.
entry point and the scrubber water can be reused. Compression of raw
biogas and continuous circulation of water are energy consuming.
Organic solvents like methanol or dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol
can be used instead of water as scrubber. Regeneration of spent scrub­
bers requires high temperature in case of organic scrubbing. Chemical
absorption uses reactive compounds as scrubber. Generally amine based
substances like monoehanolamine, diethanolamine, diglycolamine are
used. CO2 molecules are captured efficiently because the amines have
higher CO2 loading capacity. However, regeneration of absorbents is
energy intensive as it involves breaking chemical bonds. [40] con­
structed a pilot scale biogas upgradation plant using amine absorption
unit combined with a gas steam boiler. Energy required for the boiler
was produced from a small amount of biogas generated. Further they
report amine absorption technique as highly effective with >99.5 % CO2
removal and 89 % methane recovery.
Adsorption uses micro porous solid matrix on which the biogas im­
purities adhere or bind. It is a surface phenomenon demanding large
surface area per unit mass of adsorbent used. Based on the nature of
force involved, the process can be physisorption involving weak Vander
Waal’s interaction or chemisorption involving strong chemical bonds.
Adsorbent can be easily regenerated in physisorption by increasing or
decreasing pressure. H2S is removed by adsorption on inner surface of
activated carbon. Another conventional method used Sodium Hydroxide
washing. Iron oxide is also used as desulpherizing agent. H2S is mostly
precipitated in an aqueous metal solution.
Pressure swing adsorption is the widely used adsorption technology
that captures impurities based on molecular characteristics and its af­
finity for adsorbent used. PSA works on the basis that gas under high
pressures is adsorbed on solid surfaces. When the pressure is decreased,
adsorbed gas will be released. The choice of adsorbent is designed such
that it has affinity for CO2, H2S, H2O and other impurities in biogas.
Methane continues to move up in the column filled with adsorbent and is
collected at the top by reducing pressures.
[103] simulated a novel vaccum pressure swing adsorption technique
for simultaneous removal of CO2 and N2 with zeolite as selective sorbent.
They emphasize the selection of adsorbent and process configuration as
crucial factors in biogas upgradation. Researchers are looking for better
and effective options of adsorbents and the process conditions are
determined by simulations in most cases [2,1,81]. Binders like aluminium
oxide, silicon dioxide or clay are used to set the matrix into mold and to
increase pores in adsorbents. [20] synthesized binderless zeolite beads
using Amberlite IRA-900 anion-exchange resin beads as a hard template.
They showed a higher carbon dioxide to methane selectivity in a PSA
column. [102] investigated the absorbent potential of activated carbons
from CO2 activation of maize cob waste. Activated carbon obtained from
3 h of CO2 activation possessed better textures favoring more selectivity
towards CO2. [42] synthesized tetra ethylene pentamine impregnated
polymer resin for CO2 absorption. They also studied the effect of tem­
perature and flow rate on adsorption behaviors experimentally.
In-situ conversion of CO2 to methane in the digester itself is a
promising approach in biogas upgradation. This method decreases the
need to remove CO2 in raw biogas and also increase the amount of
methane produced. External supply of hydrogen to the anaerobic
bioreactor supports hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis. [41] used
anaerobic membrane bioreactor in a semi batch mode. H2 was intro­
duced as different equivalent concentrations to CO2. When 11 equiva­
lents of H2 gas were introduced, methane content was raised to 92 % and
CO2 was effectively depleted. [37] reported a novel AD coupled with
bioelectrochemical system as a low energy requiring biogas upgradation
technique. It is based on a concept of in-situ utilization of CO2 by mi­
crobial community in AD. A stainless steel/carbon bicathode was used to
create an alkaline condition in the digester by continuous proton con­
sumption. CO2 is converted to bicarbonate under the alkaline condi­
tions. The bicarbonate is reduced to methane by Methanobacterium and
Methanosarcina in the cathode biofilm. This technique resulted in an
82.3 % conversion of CO2 to methane.
7
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
Recent development in biogas upgradation explores algae-based
methods. [54,91] Biogas upgradation using microalgae/algal – bacte­
rial/algal –fungal system has emerged as cost effective and environment
friendly alternatives. Algal- bacterial based methods resulted in simul­
taneous removal of CO2 and H2S in a single step. Algae is engaged in
fixing CO2 in the presence of sunlight and the sulphur oxidizing bacteria
converts H2S to SO4 ions using the oxygen produced by algal photo­
synthesis [72,101]. Using algal-bacteria consortia in a photobioreactor
for upgrading biogas is mostly done outdoors [69–70,79]. Co-culture of
microalgae and fungi is a most promising approach for wastewater
treatment and biogas upgradation [112,123]. In a microalga-fungal
system strigolactone or its analogue is used. Strigolactones are phyto­
hormones which help fungi to germinate and assimilate the available
nutrients. [114] developed pellets from fungus Pleurotus geesteranus and
microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. Strigolactone analogue GR24 was used at a
concentration of 10-9M with a shaking speed of 160 rpm resulted in the
formation of these pellets. 72.4 % of CO2 removal was obtained using
them. (W. [121] utilized Chlorella vulgaris and Ganoderma lucidum at
different concentrations of GR24 in different combinations of re-blue
light. They reported a GR24 concentration of 10-9 to 10-7 to be appro­
priate for better algal-fungal symbiont growth and ultimately resulted in
higher removal of nutrient and CO2. [24] investigated simultaneous
upgradation and purification of biogas slurry using three combinations
viz., Pleurotus geesteranus, Ganoderma lucidum, and Pleurotus ostreatus
pelletized with Chlorella vulgaris. Of these combinations, chlorella vul­
garis/Ganoderma lucidum pellets resulted in maximal removal of CO2
(75.61 %), total nitrogen (86.24 %) and total phosphorus (86.74 %).
Under a photoperiod of 14 h light/10 h dark conditions.
Autotrophic microalgae increase oxygen concentration in upgraded
biogas which limits its application. Higher O2 concentration also gives
an explosion risk. [36] developed an open trickling column which des­
orbed 54 % of O2 produced photo synthetically. Other challenges in
using microalgae for biogas upgrading includes poor CO2 mass transfer,
operational difficulties in controlling flow rates and pH and photo
autotrophy affected by seasonal temperature and light. Despite various
research on the usage of algae based system for biogas upgradation and
sludge management, there are various factors that influence the growth
and pollutant removal efficiencies. Factors such as intensity and wave­
length of light source, CO2 concentration, initial COD, photoperiods and
weather conditions are crucial for effective performance of these
upgrading units.
3.3. Factors impacting system efficiency
Microalgae cultivation in wastewater helps in wastewater remediation
and also cut off the cost involved in the media requirements for its pro­
duction. Nutritional requirement of microalgae is similar to that of higher
plants but their growth rate is higher. Microalgae constituting less than
one percentage of total plant biomass are capable of producing more than
75 % of total O2 required by living organisms. The biochemical compo­
sition of microalgae differs between species. In general, microalgae syn­
thesize proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. C and N in the form of CO2,
HCO−3 , NH4, NO3 or NO2 or as organic C/N are utilized. Phosphorus is
used in the synthesis of lipids. Main factors affecting the production of
microalgae are strain used, light intensity, concentration of CO2, salinity,
pH, temperature and the availability of other nutrients.
Widely used species of microalgae in industrial process are Nanno­
chloropsis sp., Tetraselmis suecica, Anabaena cylindrical, Aphanizomenon
flosaquae, Chlamydomonas rheinhardii, Chlorella pyrenoidosa, Chlorella
vulgaris, Dunaliella salina, Euglena gracilis, Porphyridium cruentum, Sce­
nedesmus obliquus, Spirogyra sp., Arthrospira maxima, Spirulina platensis,
Synechococcus sp. Scenedesmus obliquus, Chlorella vulgaris, Blue-green
algae, Coelastrum microporum, Chlamydomonas reinhardti and Chlorella
sp are used in municipal wastewater treatment. Chlorella vulgaris,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa and Spirulina platensis are widely used in agricul­
tural waste treatment. Chlorella sp. and Scenedesmus sp. are used to treat
K. Archana et al.
industrial waste. However, many research are focusing on isolating
different microalgae from various sources. [119] isolated five Scene­
desmus spp. and three Desmodesmus spp. which showed high growth rate
in synthetic wastewater. [62] and [26] advocated for the use of locally
isolated microalgae strain to obtain higher biomass productivity and
waste removal. [26] used Desmodesmus sp. isolated from piggery
wastewater to treat piggery waste.
Despite the isolation and utilization of microalgae from source,
careful strain selection and monitoring is essential as wastewater also
contains pathogens that are harmful to microalgae growth. [72]
designed four operational parameters for a pilot digester to upgrade
biogas using algal- bacterial consortia. The parameters were operation
with and without greenhouse, NaHCO3 or Na2CO3 supplementation.
NaHCO3 and Na2CO3 supplementation resulted in 90.4 ± 1.5 % and
91.2 ± 0.7 % of methane production respectively. Further CO2 removal
was recorded to be 95.7 % and 97.6 % respectively. Tubular, flat or
vertical column type photobioreactors are used for microalgae cultiva­
tion. Photobioreactors are made of glass or acrylic materials to enable
the entry of sunlight and photosynthesis. With photobioreactors usage,
evaporation losses are controlled and biomass can be used during night
conditions also. Microalgae are photosynthetically active in the wave­
length range of 400 nm–700 nm. But optimal light intensity is essential
for higher productivity of microalgae [71].
Algal based sewage treatment can be integrated with algal bacterial
anaerobic digestion [94]. This was followed by biogas upgradation in a
photobioreactor. HRT was maintained as 4 days initially and then
reduced to 2.5 days. Regardless of the HRT, 98.9 ± 1.1 % total organic
carbon was removed. Further, 74.7 ± 3.0 % of CO2 and 99.0 ± 2.8 %
H2S removal was obtained during biogas upgradation in an absorption
column. [7] used a 132 L tubular photobioreactor to cultivate microalgal
bacterial consortium from a domestic wastewater treatment plant. They
used modified Brunner medium to study the influence of alkalinity and
deprivation of nitrogen on biogas upgradation potential of the micro­
algal bacteria consortium. 12:12 h dark light period was followed.
Cultivation medium was circulated at a liner velocity with which biogas
was supplied con-currently. They reported an alkalinity of 1700 mg/L
ensured more than 96 % pure methane. Nitrogen defiant cycles resulted
in complete removal of H2S and increased the carbohydrate content of
biomass. Low microalgae diversity was observed as the cumulative ef­
fect of the experimental conditions. Control of pH under high biogas to
digestate ratio (25:1 v/v) was crucial for biogas upgradation. Such
higher ratios are needed for removal of ammonia nitrogen and phos­
phorous assimilation in microalgae [111]. Liquid recirculation rate to
biogas rate (L/G) was reported as a deciding parameter in decreasing O2
content in upgraded biogas. Higher L/G rates were associated with
complete oxidation of H2S [36].
4. Facilitated transport membranes
Carbondioxide constitutes around 25–50 % of biogas depending on
the operation conditions. CO2 is accountable for more than 77 % of
greenhouse gas. Separation of CO2 from biogas is essential to increase
the utilization of biogas. CO2 reduces the heating value of biogas and
also increases carbon footprint. Raw biogas has a calorific value of 5000
K.Cal/m3 whereas upgraded biogas has calorific value around 8400 K.
Cal/m3. CO2 pass through a membrane following different mechanisms
like Knudsen diffusion, molecular sieving, capillary condensation and
facilitated transportation. Facilitated transport (FT) mechanisms have
evolved as a promising approach for CO2 removal from biogas. FT across
nanocellulose membranes is based on reversible chemical reactions
between CO2 and carriers on reactive sites in the membrane. Methane
being a non-reactive gas will pass through the membrane. CO2 is
transported as carbamate or bicarbonate. Nanocellulose membranes
have the advantage of high surface area for CO2 transportation and
higher mechanical feasibility. These membranes are bio-degradable, low
cost and readily available.
8
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
Cellulose nano fibrils or cellulose nanocrystals are isolated from
cellulose using mechanical methods like grinding, ultrasonication or
homogenization at higher pressures [106]. Alternatively, 2,2,6,6-tetra­
methylpiperidine-1-oxyl radical is used to isolate carbon nanofibrils by
oxidation of cellulose [15]. FT requires an aqueous medium and various
operational parameters affect CO2 separation. Increasing temperature
increases CO2 permeability through the membrane. CO2 reaction with
the carrier is more favoured by increasing the relative humidity. Also
membrane swells with increasing humidity thereby increasing the sur­
face area available for CO2 transportation [118].
4.1. Upgrading biogas technology with nanocellulose
Cellulose based fibres (CNF) are used as low cost environment
friendly adsorbents with the advantage of easily changing its property
by chemical treatments. Such chemical changes lead to higher adsorp­
tion capacities. At nanoscale, these cellulose materials possess high
specific surface area exposing more number of adsorption sites which
were added during chemical treatments. Cellulose nanofibers: CNF
possess both crystalline and amorphous structures. CNF has a diameter
of 5 to 30 nm and several microns long. CNFs are produced mostly by
mechanical disruption by homogenization, ultrafine grinding etc.
Chemical methods have also been reported to produce CNF [76]. [46]
developed a novel phosphorylated CNC-PolyVinylAlcohol (PVA) nano­
composite for biogas upgradation. They found the membrane thickness
to increase with higher concentration of phosphorylated CNF in the
nanocomposite. CO2 separation is highly favored in nanocomposite with
1 % CNF in 2 % PVA.
Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) are crystalline needle shaped or
whisker shaped with a 3–5 nm width and 50–500 nm length. CNC are
produced by acid hydrolysis of cellulose. Amorphous region in cellulose
are destroyed during acid hydrolysis. Acid hydrolysis of cellulose is
performed using sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid
and phosphoric acid [74]. [88] incorporated different concentrations of
CNC in polyvinylamine to synthesize a nanocomposite for biogas
upgradation. They found the crystallinity of membrane to increase with
CNC concentration. However, the thickness of selective membrane
increased from 1.5 µm to 2.16 µm with increasing concentration of CNC.
Bacterial nano cellulose (BNC) is isolated from Komagataeibacter,
cultured in artificial media. Properties of BNC depend on the culture
conditions [104]. Electrospun cellulose nanofibers (ECN) are formed by
blending cellulose with other polymers. These are highly porous and
adsorption sites can be easily added. ECN has a diameter of 5–100 nm
and length greater than a micron [73].
4.2. Improved transfer efficiency utilizing nanocellulose membrane
technology
Facilitated Transport Membrane (FTM) possesses the advantages of
high selectivity and permeability in CO2 absorption. CO2 binds with the
carriers selectively, whereas the non-reactive methane and N2 gas passes
through the membrane by diffusion. CO2 is selectively transported as
bicarbonate anion. But, carrier agent will be lost or deactivated as a
result of degradation events. This limitation is overcome by fixing the
carrier on a polymer backbone.
Cellulose has linear structure with both crystalline and amorphous
geometry. CNF formed from cellulose are hydrophilic with high swelling
rates. Large numbers of hydroxyl groups are available on CNC surface.
This helps in the modification of CNC structures chemically. Transfer
efficiency is influenced by thickness of the selective layer, operation
pressure and humidity. CO2 permeance increases linearly with increase
in humidity and CO2 selectivity also follows the same trend. [33] re­
ported a higher selectivity of 174 for CO2/N2 at a highest humidity
operated. This is due to the fact that a higher degree of membrane
swelling is achieved with high relative humidity. Good membrane
swelling favors the movement of both CO2 and N2, when the relative
K. Archana et al.
humidity is increased from 50 % to 92 %, CO2 permeance increased from
0.05 m3(STP)/(m2h bar) to 0.58 m3(STP)/(m2h bar). When membranes
with thickness more than 2.5 µm are used, CO2/N2 selectivity decline at
high relative humidity around 90 %. This phenomenon is due to the loss
of polymer structure due to over swelling.
CO2 selectivity decreases with increasing feed pressure. [33] re­
ported that when the feed pressure is increased from 2 bar to 15 bar, CO2
selectivity decreases till 5 bar and the trend is relaxed with further in­
crease in feed pressure resulting in a constant values. They also reported
that the permeance of both CO2 and N2 decrease with increasing feed
pressure. But both gases followed different trends leading to the clue
that CO2 and N2 followed different transport mechanisms. At higher
pressures, membranes are less swelled and hence resistance to diffusion
is built.
4.3. Internal and external factors influencing the efficiency of carbon
dioxide transfer
Membrane selection is the key to obtaining high CO2 permeability
and high selectivity for CO2. [28] developed a blend of hydrophilic
Pebax 1657 with carbon nanocellulose to access CO2 permeability and
selectivity under humid and dry conditions. A minimal 5 % carbon
nanocellulose blend with Pebax 1657 resulted in 42 % increase in CO2
permeability and 18 % increase in selectivity. However, any further
increase in Nanocellulose content resulted in self-assembly of the carbon
nanocellulose in the Pebax matrix. Relative humidity and feed pressure
are the highly influencing external variables affecting the facilitated
transport of CO2. [4] prepared a polyvinyl matrix with cellulose nano­
crystal as filler for high performance CO2 capture. The hydroxyl group
on the CNC reducing end was replaced by amino group. They investi­
gated the effect of feed pressure and concentration of amine CNC. When
the feed pressure was increased from 5 bar to 15 bar, CO2 permeability
was found to decrease by two folds.
5. Evaluation, obstacles, and principles for maximizing biogas’s
contribution to meet sustainable development goals (SDGs)
Sustainable development aims to fulfill the needs of the present
generation without affecting the resources for future generations. To
achieve this, two essential concepts need to be addressed. The first one is
to meet the needs of non-affordable communities and the second is to
focus on the limitations of nature to meet present and future needs. Main
obstacles in the path of sustainable development are political instability
between nations, climate change and socio economic conditions of
people. 17 goals and 169 targets were proposed as global Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations general assembly. 1:
No Poverty, 2: Zero Hunger, 3: Good Health and Well-being, 4: Quality
Education, 5: Gender Equality, 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, 7:
Affordable and Clean Energy, 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, 9:
Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, 10: Reduced Inequality, 11:
Sustainable Cities and Communities, 12: Responsible Consumption and
Production, 13: Climate Action, 14: Life Below Water, 15: Life on Land,
16: Peace and Justice Strong Institutions, 17: Partnerships to achieve the
Goal. Of these, goal number 7 is directly linked to biogas production and
expanding its usage in various sectors. Biogas production impacts 12 out
of 17 SDGs. By focusing on biogas production, the renewable energy
sector is encouraged which further reduces climate changes by
improving waste management processes. Further more jobs and op­
portunities can be created. Biogas utilization in rural households is to be
encouraged as an attempt for addressing energy poverty issues in
developing nations [91,99].
5.1. Biogas contributes to SDGs
Biogas contributes towards environmental health by reducing
greenhouse gas emission from landfills and indirectly helps in
9
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
conservation of forest. It improves health and sanitation by providing
clean energy and waste management. Primary residues from the agri­
cultural waste can be converted to sustainable products like energy from
biogas, fertilizer and so on. This utilization of primary residues reduces
the dependence of human growth and economy on land and resources
[50]. Biogas sector impacts SDG 2- zero hunger by the biogas digestate
application to agricultural fields. This increases the productivity and
nutritional value of cultivated crops and helping to address food security
and malnutrition. Further, using slurry as biofertilizer cut the cost
invested on chemical inputs for farming. Biogas contributes directly to
the affordable and clean energy goal SDG 7 [65]. Biogas impacts envi­
ronment by replacing fossil fuel dependent energy production. AD
process generates considerable energy savings in rural sectors. Biogas
sector has a tremendous impact on SDG 13- climate action. AD process
converts CO2 to methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. Both CO2
and methane when released directly into the atmosphere, increases the
greenhouse effects tremendously. Biogas reduces the dependency on
wood fuels which ultimately reduces deforestation.
5.2. Challenges to achieving the SDGs via biogas production
Biogas production through AD process is advantageous for sustain­
able energy and environment. High installation and maintenance cost
has made the technology unadaptable for rural areas in developing
countries. The cost involved in using fossil fuel is comparably lesser than
with the biofuels [107]. Another constraint in the extension of biogas
technology toward sustainability is the lack of expertise in construction
and maintenance. Lack of proper management and knowledge dissem­
ination has resulted in failure of biogas projects despite the subsidies
provided by the government. Apart from this, operational constraints
are still prevailing in the biogas production process. Another major
barrier is the low cost of coal and other conventional fuels available in
the market. Lack of social acceptance is also seen with greater regard in
the choice of fuel. Leaving the technological barrier behind, one of the
noteworthy barriers is the lack of appropriate business models to take
the technology to people.
5.3. Indicators of biogas’s progress toward the SDGs, including resource
recuperation and the circular economy
A more sustainable future relies mostly on a circular and bio-based
economy. The circular economy targets closing flows throughout ma­
terial life cycles by more recycle and reuse efforts. This ultimately results
in increased sustainability. On the contrary, a linear system works by
producing products, using them and ultimately creating waste after a
period of time. In a circular economy, pollution and waste are not
created and natural resources are maintained as such. Despite the ad­
vantages that circular economy possesses, transition from linear to cir­
cular economy requires a lot of effort from policy makers and public. The
biogas sector combines products and services like biogas production,
biogas for energy generation, waste and wastewater management
through anaerobic digestion and usage of AD digestate as biofertilizer.
Indirectly waste and wastewater management helps in hygiene man­
agement, rural area development and nutrient recycling. [117] analyzed
the biogas sector in Ethiopia where more than 90 % of population uses
solid biomass for cooking. Hence, the biogas sector had a great scope of
growth in Ethiopia with 14 million US dollars being invested every year
in constructing biogas units. They further suggest that micro and mac­
roeconomic contribution of biogas also relies on utilization of the slurry
as fertilizer. Though biogas is a promising fuel production technology,
developing countries are staged at the level of increased micro digesters
usage in rural areas rather using them for industrial purposes and power
generation. A total of 50 million micro digesters are running globally,
whereas only 700,000 biogas plants are operating worldwide.
K. Archana et al.
6. Future perspectives in biogas production
Biogas is a promising alternative to fossil fuel but implementing its
usage among population faces technological and marketing hurdles.
Biomass and waste generated locally need to be channelized for biogas
production to attain sustainability goals. Electricity produced using this
clean technology should be connected to electricity grid and local use of
biogas fuel should be encouraged. Greenhouse gas emission can be
reduced greatly when biomethane produced is used as transportation
fuel by replacing diesel/petrol. Biogas consists of considerable quanti­
ties of impurities which are hazardous to the environment and to human
health. Considerable research is currently focusing on biogas upgrada­
tion techniques. Economic and up scaling feasibility of these techniques
need to be studied further. Though biogas is acclaimed as clear energy, it
also encompasses a risk of methane leakage which can effectively in­
crease the greenhouse gases level. Methane leakage is influenced by
structural and operational parameters. However there is a lack of precise
and reproducible method to measure methane leakage in these plants.
Development of an advanced and potential method to quantify methane
leakage is a major research prospective.
Biogas production technology is a potential research area where
adoption of new technologies should be welcomed. This is partly to
encourage the upscaling of biogas production units. Also a proper
investigation into the social taboos in accepting biogas for household
utilities and a much-needed insight for policy makers and investors to
promote the setting of biogas plants globally is essential.
7. Conclusion
Global energy crisis can be addressed by efficient harnessing of
biogas potential. It helps in mitigation of greenhouse gas emission and
reduce global carbon footprint. A conscientious usage of biogas for
electricity production should be encouraged by government policies.
This review has discussed the bottlenecks in biogas production process
in technical and feasibility aspects. Also, optimal solutions to address
these problems are discussed. As technology evolves, the human ten­
dency to exploit those technologies for the betterment of global health
should be appreciated. Artificial intelligence techniques can be adopted
for research in these areas to reduce the cost involved and find solutions
at a faster pace. [89] Commercialization of various technologies used in
biogas upgradation and efficient waste management is quintessential to
elevate biogas availability in the market. In succinct, better energy and
waste management policies by decision makers, employing advanced
technologies for biogas production and upgradation and better mar­
keting strategies for increased acceptance can make biogas a sustainable
alternative for fossil fuels. Hence, we recommend adopting a holistic
approach for complete exploitation of biogas potential by bridging the
gap between theory and practice. This can turn biogas as a promising
futuristic energy source and help mankind to achieve global sustainable
goals.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
K. Archana: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. A.
S. Visckram: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis. P.
Senthil Kumar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Valida­
tion. S. Manikandan: Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization. A.
Saravanan: Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Visualization. L.
Natrayan: Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
10
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] Abd AA, Othman RM. Biogas upgrading to fuel grade methane using pressure
swing adsorption: parametric sensitivity analysis on an industrial scale. Fuel
2022;308:121986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121986.
[2] Abd AA, Othman MR, Shamsudin IK, Helwani Z, Idris I. Biogas upgrading to
natural gas pipeline quality using pressure swing adsorption for CO2 separation
over UiO-66: experimental and dynamic modelling assessment. Chem Eng J 2023;
453:139774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.139774.
[3] Agbor VB, Cicek N, Sparling R, Berlin A, Levin DB. Biomass pretreatment:
fundamentals toward application. Biotechnol Adv 2011;29(6):675–85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.05.005.
[4] Ahmad S, Jahan Z, Sher F, Niazi MBK, Noor T, Hou H, et al. Polyvinyl alcohol and
aminated cellulose nanocrystal membranes with improved interfacial
compatibility for environmental applications. Environ Res 2022;214:113793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113793.
[5] Akinshina N, Azizov A, Karasyova T, Klose E. On the issue of halophytes as energy
plants in saline environment. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;91:306–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.05.034.
[6] Ananthakrishnan K, Hossain MS, Doelle K, Chatterjee S, Kumar D. Co-production
of biogas and hydrochar from the mixture of sawdust and brewer’s spent grain.
In: 2022 Houston, Texas July 17–20; 2022. doi: 10.13031/aim.202200906.
[7] Ángeles R, Arnaiz E, Gutiérrez J, Sepúlveda-Muñoz CA, Fernández-Ramos O,
Muñoz R, et al. Optimization of photosynthetic biogas upgrading in closed
photobioreactors combined with algal biomass production. J Water Process Eng
2020;38:101554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101554.
[8] Ani NF. Utilization of bioresources as fuels and energy generation. In: Electric
renewable energy systems. Elsevier; 2016. p. 140–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-804448-3.00008-6.
[9] Yuhendra AP, Farghali M, Mohamed IMA, Iwasaki M, Tangtaweewipat S, Ihara I,
Sakai R, Umetsu K. Potential of biogas production from the anaerobic digestion of
Sargassum fulvellum macroalgae: influences of mechanical, chemical, and
biological pretreatments. Biochem Eng J 2021;175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bej.2021.108140.
[10] Aravani VP, Sun H, Yang Z, Liu G, Wang W, Anagnostopoulos G, et al.
Agricultural and livestock sector’s residues in Greece & China: comparative
qualitative and quantitative characterization for assessing their potential for
biogas production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;154:111821. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2021.111821.
[11] Arias DM, Solé-Bundó M, Garfí M, Ferrer I, García J, Uggetti E. Integrating
microalgae tertiary treatment into activated sludge systems for energy and
nutrients recovery from wastewater. Bioresour Technol 2018;247:513–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.123.
[12] Atelge MR, Krisa D, Kumar G, Eskicioglu C, Nguyen DD, Chang SW, et al. Biogas
production from organic waste: recent progress and perspectives. Waste Biomass
Valoriz 2020;11(3):1019–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-00546-0.
[13] Azman S, Khadem AF, Plugge CM, Stams AJM, Bec S, Zeeman G. Effect of humic
acid on anaerobic digestion of cellulose and xylan in completely stirred tank
reactors: inhibitory effect, mitigation of the inhibition and the dynamics of the
microbial communities. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2017;101(2):889–901.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-8010-x.
[14] Banu Jamaldheen S, Kurade MB, Basak B, Yoo CG, Oh KK, Jeon BH, Kim TH.
A review on physico-chemical delignification as a pretreatment of lignocellulosic
biomass for enhanced bioconversion. Bioresour Technol 2022;346. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126591.
[15] Barbash VA, Yashchenko O, Gondovska AS, Deykun IM. Preparation and
characterization of nanocellulose obtained by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of
organosolv pulp from reed stalks. Appl Nanosci 2022;12(4):835–48. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13204-021-01749-z.
[16] Bareha Y, Girault R, Jimenez J, Trémier A. Characterization and prediction of
organic nitrogen biodegradability during anaerobic digestion: a bioaccessibility
approach. Bioresour Technol 2018;263:425–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2018.04.085.
[17] Belay JB, Habtu NG, Ancha VR, Hussen AS. Alkaline hydrogen peroxide
pretreatment of cladodes of cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) for biogas production.
Heliyon 2021;7(9):e08002.
[18] Bhuvaneshwari S, Hettiarachchi H, Meegoda J. Crop residue burning in India:
policy challenges and potential solutions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16
(5):832. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050832.
[19] Bichot A, Lerosty M, Radoiu M, Méchin V, Bernet N, Delgenès J-P, et al.
Decoupling thermal and non-thermal effects of the microwaves for lignocellulosic
biomass pretreatment. Energ Conver Manage 2020;203:112220. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112220.
[20] Boer DG, Langerak J, Bakker B, Pescarmona PP. Binderless zeolite LTA beads with
hierarchical porosity for selective CO2 adsorption in biogas upgrading.
Microporous Mesoporous Mater 2022;344:112208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
micromeso.2022.112208.
[21] Brémond U, Bertrandias A, de Buyer R, Latrille E, Jimenez J, Escudié R, et al.
Recirculation of solid digestate to enhance energy efficiency of biogas plants:
K. Archana et al.
strategies, conditions and impacts. Energ Conver Manage 2021;231:113759.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113759.
[22] Buller LS, Sganzerla WG, Lima MN, Muenchow KE, Timko MT, Forster-
Carneiro T. Ultrasonic pretreatment of brewers’ spent grains for anaerobic
digestion: biogas production for a sustainable industrial development. J Clean
Prod 2022;355:131802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131802.
[23] Camargo FP, Rabelo CABS, Duarte ICS, Silva EL, Varesche MBA. Biogas from
lignocellulosic feedstock: a review on the main pretreatments, inocula and
operational variables involved in anaerobic reactor efficiency. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2023;48(54). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.02.073.
[24] Cao W, Wang X, Sun S, Hu C, Zhao Y. Simultaneously upgrading biogas and
purifying biogas slurry using cocultivation of Chlorella vulgaris and three different
fungi under various mixed light wavelength and photoperiods. Bioresour Technol
2017;241:701–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.194.
[25] Cayenne A, Turcios AE, Thomsen MH, Rocha RM, Papenbrock J, Uellendahl H.
Halophytes as feedstock for biogas production: composition analysis and
biomethane potential of Salicornia spp. plant material from hydroponic and
seawater irrigation systems. Fermentation 2022;8(4):189. https://doi.org/
10.3390/fermentation8040189.
[26] Chen Z, Shao S, He Y, Luo Q, Zheng M, Zheng M, et al. Nutrients removal from
piggery wastewater coupled to lipid production by a newly isolated self-
flocculating microalga Desmodesmus sp. PW1. Bioresour Technol 2020;302:
122806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122806.
[27] Cherubin MR, Oliveira DMS, Feigl BJ, Pimentel LG, Lisboa IP, Gmach MR,
Varanda LL, Morais MC, Satiro LS, Popin GV, Paiva SR, Santos AKB,
Vasconcelos ALS, Melo PLA, Cerri CEP, Cerri CC. Crop residue harvest for
bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: a
review. Sci Agricola 2018;75(3):255–72. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-
2016-0459.
[28] Dai Z, Deng J, Ma Y, Guo H, Wei J, Wang B, et al. Nanocellulose crystal-enhanced
hybrid membrane for CO2 capture. Ind Eng Chem Res 2022;61(25):9067–76.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01402.
[29] Dareioti MA, Kornaros M. Effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the
anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes in a two-stage CSTR system.
Bioresour Technol 2014;167:407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2014.06.045.
[30] Dasgupta A, Chandel MK. Enhancement of biogas production from organic
fraction of municipal solid waste using alkali pretreatment. J Mater Cycles Waste
Manage 2020;22(3):757–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-00970-2.
[31] Dasgupta A, Chandel MK. Enhancement of biogas production from organic
fraction of municipal solid waste using acid pretreatment. SN Appl Sci 2020;2(8):
1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03213-z.
[32] del Río JC, Rencoret J, Gutiérrez A, Elder T, Kim H, Ralph J. Lignin monomers
from beyond the canonical monolignol biosynthetic pathway: another brick in the
wall. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2020;8(13):4997–5012. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.0c01109.
[33] Deng L, Kim T-J, Hägg M-B. Facilitated transport of CO2 in novel PVAm/PVA
blend membrane. J Membr Sci 2009;340(1–2):154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.memsci.2009.05.019.
[34] Dong C, Chen J, Guan R, Li X, Xin Y. Dual-frequency ultrasound combined with
alkali pretreatment of corn stalk for enhanced biogas production. Renew Energy
2018;127:444–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.088.
[35] Dussadee N, Ramaraj R, Cheunbarn T. Biotechnological application of sustainable
biogas production through dry anaerobic digestion of Napier grass. 3 Biotech
2017;7(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-017-0646-4.
[36] Franco-Morgado M, Tabaco-Angoa T, Ramírez-García MA, González-Sánchez A.
Strategies for decreasing the O2 content in the upgraded biogas purified via
microalgae-based technology. J Environ Manage 2021;279:111813. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111813.
[37] Gao T, Zhang H, Xu X, Teng J. Mutual effects of CO2 absorption and H2-mediated
electromethanogenesis triggering efficient biogas upgrading. Sci Total Environ
2022;818:151732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151732.
[38] Gkotsis P, Kougias P, Mitrakas M, Zouboulis A. Biogas upgrading technologies –
Recent advances in membrane-based processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2023;48
(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10.228.
[39] Global bioenergy statistics 2020. World Bioenergy Association; n.d.
[40] Gong H, Chen Z, Yu H, Wu W, Wang W, Pang H, et al. Methane recovery in a
combined amine absorption and gas steam boiler as a self-provided system for
biogas upgrading. Energy 2018;157:744–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.06.004.
[41] Hafuka A, Fujino S, Kimura K, Oshita K, Konakahara N, Takahashi S. In-situ biogas
upgrading with H2 addition in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR)
digesting waste activated sludge. Sci Total Environ 2022;828:154573. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154573.
[42] Yang H, Wang X, Liu J, Liu W, Gong Y, Sun Y. Amine-impregnated polymeric
resin with high CO2 adsorption capacity for biogas upgrading. Chem Eng J 2022;
430:132899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.132899.
[43] Haryanto A, Triyono S, Wicaksono NH. Effect of hydraulic retention time on
biogas production from cow dung in a semi continuous anaerobic digester. Int J
Renew Energy Dev 2018;7(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.7.2.93-
100.
[44] Hui W, Jiajia L, Yucai L, Peng G, Xiaofen W, Kazuhiro M, et al. Bioconversion of
un-pretreated lignocellulosic materials by a microbial consortium XDC-2.
Bioresour Technol 2013;136:481–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2013.03.015.
11
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
[45] Iglesias R, Muñoz R, Polanco M, Díaz I, Susmozas A, Moreno AD, et al. Biogas
from anaerobic digestion as an energy vector: current upgrading development.
Energies 2021;14(10):2742. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102742.
[46] Jahan Z, Niazi MBK, Hagg M-B, Gregersen ØW, Hussain A. Phosphorylated
nanocellulose fibrils/PVA nanocomposite membranes for biogas upgrading at
higher pressure. Sep Sci Technol 2020;55(8):1524–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01496395.2019.1592192.
[47] Jiang Z, Zhao P, Hu C. Controlling the cleavage of the inter- and intra-molecular
linkages in lignocellulosic biomass for further biorefining: a review. Bioresour
Technol 2018;256:466–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.02.061.
[48] Kainthola J. Enhancement of biogas production from rice straw by co-digestion
and pretreatment techniques; 2019.
[49] Kapoor R, Subbarao PMV, Vijay VK, Shah G, Sahota S, Singh D, et al. Factors
affecting methane loss from a water scrubbing based biogas upgrading system.
Appl Energy 2017;208:1379–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.09.017.
[50] Kasztelan A. Green growth, green economy and sustainable development:
terminological and relational discourse. Prague Econ Pap 2017;26(4):487–99.
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.626.
[51] Kim JK, Oh BR, Chun YN, Kim SW. Effects of temperature and hydraulic retention
time on anaerobic digestion of food waste. J Biosci Bioeng 2006;102(4):328–32.
https://doi.org/10.1263/jbb.102.328.
[52] Kirby ME, Mirza MW, Hoskyns-Abrahall H, Fenwick J, Theodorou MK. Increasing
the methane potential of oat husks using a novel extrusion pre-treatment
technology prior to anaerobic digestion. Front Energy Res 2020;8:579034.
[53] Koval V, Mikhno I, Hajduga G, Gaska K. Economic efficiency of biogas generation
from food product waste. E3S Web Conf 2019;100:00039. https://doi.org/
10.1051/e3sconf/201910000039.
[54] Krishnan RY, Manikandan S, Subbaiya R, Kim W, Karmegam N, Govarthanan M.
Advanced thermochemical conversion of algal biomass to liquid and gaseous
biofuels: a comprehensive review of recent advances. Sustainable Energy Technol
Assess 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102211.
[55] Kumar S, Kushwaha R, Kumar S, Verma ML. Decongestion of lignocellulosics: a
critical assessment of physicochemical approaches. In: Handbook of biofuels.
Elsevier; 2022. p. 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822810-
4.00009-9.
[56] Lee JTE, He J, Tong YW. Acclimatization of a mixed-animal manure inoculum to
the anaerobic digestion of Axonopus compressus reveals the putative importance of
Mesotoga infera and Methanosaeta concilii as elucidated by DGGE and Illumina
MiSeq. Bioresour Technol 2017;245:1148–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2017.08.123.
[57] Leng L, Zhang W, Peng H, Li H, Jiang S, Huang H. Nitrogen in bio-oil produced
from hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass: a review. Chem Eng J 2020;401:
126030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126030.
[58] Leung DYC, Wang J. An overview on biogas generation from anaerobic digestion
of food waste. Int J Green Energy 2016;13(2):119–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15435075.2014.909355.
[59] Li C, Knierim B, Manisseri C, Arora R, Scheller HV, Auer M, Vogel KP,
Simmons BA, Singh S. Comparison of dilute acid and ionic liquid pretreatment of
switchgrass: biomass recalcitrance, delignification and enzymatic
saccharification. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(13):4900–6. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.066.
[60] Li J, Hao X, van Loosdrecht MCM, Luo Y, Cao D. Effect of humic acids on batch
anaerobic digestion of excess sludge. Water Res 2019;155:431–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.009.
[61] Li Z, Zhang J, Kong C, Li W, Wang J, Zang L. Methane production from wheat
straw pretreated with CaO2/cellulase. RSC Adv 2021;11(33):20541–9. https://
doi.org/10.1039/D1RA02437J.
[62] Ling Y, Sun L, Wang S, Lin CSK, Sun Z, Zhou Z. Cultivation of oleaginous
microalga Scenedesmus obliquus coupled with wastewater treatment for enhanced
biomass and lipid production. Biochem Eng J 2019;148:162–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bej.2019.05.012.
[63] Linyi C, Yujie Q, Buqing C, Chenglong W, Shaohong Z, Renglu C, et al. Enhancing
degradation and biogas production during anaerobic digestion of food waste
using alkali pretreatment. Environ Res 2020;188:109743. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envres.2020.109743.
[64] Liu L-Y, Chandra RP, Tang Y, Huang X-Y, Bai F-W, Liu C-G. Instant catapult steam
explosion: an efficient preprocessing step for the robust and cost-effective
chemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Ind Crop Prod 2022;188:
115664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115664.
[65] Lohani SP, Gurung P, Gautam B, Kafle U, Fulford D, Jeuland M. Current status,
prospects, and implications of renewable energy for achieving sustainable
development goals in Nepal. Sustain Dev 2023;31(1):572–85.
[66] Lu J, Yang Z, Xu W, Shi X, Guo R. Enrichment of thermophilic and mesophilic
microbial consortia for efficient degradation of corn stalk. J Environ Sci 2019;78:
118–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.07.010.
[67] Malik SN, Madhu K, Mhaisalkar VA, Vaidya AN, Mudliar SN. Pretreatment of yard
waste using advanced oxidation processes for enhanced biogas production.
Biomass Bioenergy 2020;142:105780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2020.105780.
[68] Manikandan S, Vickram S, Sirohi R, Subbaiya R, Krishnan RY, Karmegam N,
Sumathijones C, Rajagopal R, Chang SW, Ravindran B, Awasthi MK. Critical
review of biochemical pathways to transformation of waste and biomass into
bioenergy. Bioresour Technol 2023;372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2023.128679.
K. Archana et al.
[69] Marín D, Carmona-Martínez AA, Blanco S, Lebrero R, Muñoz R. Innovative
operational strategies in photosynthetic biogas upgrading in an outdoors pilot
scale algal-bacterial photobioreactor. Chemosphere 2021;264:128470. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128470.
[70] Marín D, Méndez L, Suero I, Díaz I, Blanco S, Fdz-Polanco M, et al. Anaerobic
digestion of food waste coupled with biogas upgrading in an outdoors algal-
bacterial photobioreactor at pilot scale. Fuel 2022;324:124554. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124554.
[71] Mathimani T, Uma L, Prabaharan D. Formulation of low-cost seawater medium
for high cell density and high lipid content of Chlorella vulgaris BDUG 91771 using
central composite design in biodiesel perspective. J Clean Prod 2018;198:575–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.303.
[72] Méndez L, García D, Perez E, Blanco S, Muñoz R. Photosynthetic upgrading of
biogas from anaerobic digestion of mixed sludge in an outdoors algal-bacterial
photobioreactor at pilot scale. J Water Process Eng 2022;48:102891. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102891.
[73] Mokhena TC, John MJ. Cellulose nanomaterials: new generation materials for
solving global issues. Cellul 2020;27(3):1149–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10570-019-02889-w.
[74] Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, Youngblood J. Cellulose nanomaterials
review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 2011;40(7):
3941. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0cs00108b.
[75] Moustakas K, Loizidou M, Rehan M, Nizami AS. A review of recent developments
in renewable and sustainable energy systems: key challenges and future
perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;119:109418. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109418.
[76] Nechyporchuk O, Belgacem MN, Bras J. Production of cellulose nanofibrils: a
review of recent advances. Ind Crop Prod 2016;93:2–25. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.016.
[77] Niasar HS, Karimi K, Zilouei H, Salehian P, Jeihanipour A. Effects of lime
pretreatment on biogas production from dry dairy cattle manure. Minerva
Biotecnologica 2011;23(4):77.
[78] Paolini V, Petracchini F, Segreto M, Tomassetti L, Naja N, Cecinato A.
Environmental impact of biogas: a short review of current knowledge. J Environ
Sci Health A 2018;53(10):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10934529.2018.1459076.
[79] Posadas E, Serejo ML, Blanco S, Pérez R, García-Encina PA, Muñoz R.
Minimization of biomethane oxygen concentration during biogas upgrading in
algal–bacterial photobioreactors. Algal Res 2015;12:221–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.algal.2015.09.002.
[80] Pujara Y, Pathak P, Sharma A, Govani J. Review on Indian Municipal Solid Waste
Management practices for reduction of environmental impacts to achieve
sustainable development goals. J Environ Manage 2019;248:109238. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.07.009.
[81] Rainone F, D’Agostino O, Erto A, Balsamo M, Lancia A. Biogas upgrading by
adsorption onto activated carbon and carbon molecular sieves: experimental and
modelling study in binary CO2/CH4 mixture. J Environ Chem Eng 2021;9(5):
106256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106256.
[82] Rajendran K, Mahapatra D, Venkatraman AV, Muthuswamy S, Pugazhendhi A.
Advancing anaerobic digestion through two-stage processes: current
developments and future trends. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;123:109746.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109746.
[83] Raut MP, Pandhal J, Wright PC. Effective pretreatment of lignocellulosic co-
substrates using barley straw-adapted microbial consortia to enhanced
biomethanation by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2021;321:124437.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124437.
[84] Regueiro L, Lema JM, Carballa M. Key microbial communities steering the
functioning of anaerobic digesters during hydraulic and organic overloading
shocks. Bioresour Technol 2015;197:208–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2015.08.076.
[85] Rollin JA, Martin del Campo J, Myung S, Sun F, You C, Bakovic A, et al. High-
yield hydrogen production from biomass by in vitro metabolic engineering:
mixed sugars coutilization and kinetic modeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2015;112
(16):4964–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417719112.
[86] Rubio JA, Fdez-Güelfo LA, Romero-García LI, Wilkie AC, García-Morales JL.
Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of two-phase olive-mill waste and cattle
manure: optimization of semi-continuous process. Fuel 2022;328. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125354.
[87] Rusten B, Sahu AK. Microalgae growth for nutrient recovery from sludge liquor
and production of renewable bioenergy. Water Sci Technol 2011;64(6):
1195–201. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.722.
[88] Saeed U, Jahan Z, Niazi MBK, Pervaiz E, Sher F. Biogas upgrading with novel
cellulose nano-crystals and polyvinyl amine nanocomposite membranes. Polym
Test 2020;91:106867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106867.
[89] Sai Ramesh A, Vigneshwar S, Vickram S, Manikandan S, Subbaiya R,
Karmegam N, et al. Artificial intelligence driven hydrogen and battery
technologies – a review. Fuel 2023;337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2022.126862.
[90] Sajad Hashemi S, Karimi K, Majid Karimi A. Ethanolic ammonia pretreatment for
efficient biogas production from sugarcane bagasse. Fuel 2019;248:196–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.080.
[91] Saravanan A, Kumar PS, Varjani S, Jeevanantham S, Yaashikaa PR, Thamarai P,
et al. A review on algal-bacterial symbiotic system for effective treatment of
wastewater. Chemosphere 2021;271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2021.129540.
12
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
[92] Sarker S, Lamb JJ, Hjelme DR, Lien KM. A review of the role of critical parameters
in the design and operation of biogas production plants. Appl Sci 2019;9(9):1915.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9091915.
[93] Sawyerr N, Trois C, Workneh T. Identification and characterization of potential
feedstock for biogas production in South Africa. J Ecol Eng 2019;20(6):103–16.
https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/108652.
[94] Scarcelli GP, Ruas G, Lopez-Serna R, Leite Serejo M, Blanco S, Árpád Boncz M,
et al. Integration of algae-based sewage treatment with anaerobic digestion of the
bacterial-algal biomass and biogas upgrading. Bioresour Technol 2021;340:
125552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125552.
[95] Scheller HV, Ulvskov P. Hemicelluloses. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2010;61(1):263–89.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112315.
[96] Schuetz M, Benske A, Smith RA, Watanabe Y, Tobimatsu Y, Ralph J, et al.
Laccases direct lignification in the discrete secondary cell wall domains of
protoxylem. Plant Physiol 2014;166(2):798–807. https://doi.org/10.1104/
pp.114.245597.
[97] Serna-García R, Ruiz-Barriga P, Noriega-Hevia G, Serralta J, Pachés M, Bouzas A.
Maximising resource recovery from wastewater grown microalgae and primary
sludge in an anaerobic membrane co-digestion pilot plant coupled to a
composting process. J Environ Manage 2021;281:111890. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111890.
[98] Simioni T, Agustini CB, Dettmer A, Gutterres M. Enhancement of biogas
production by anaerobic co-digestion of leather waste with raw and pretreated
wheat straw. Energy 2022;253:124051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2022.124051.
[99] Singh, A. K., Pal, P., Rathore, S. S., Sahoo, U. K., Sarangi, P. K., Prus, P., &
Dziekański, P. (2023). Sustainable utilization of biowaste resources for biogas
production to meet rural bioenergy requirements. In: Energies. Vol. 16, Issue 14.
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). doi: 10.3390/en16145409.
[100] Sulaiman M, Rabbani FA, Iqbal T, Kazmi MA, Yasin S, Mujtaba MA, et al. Impact
of eco-friendly chemical pretreatment on physicochemical and surface
mechanical properties of sustainable lignocellulosic agricultural waste. Algal Res
2023;71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.103051.
[101] Sun S, Ge Z, Zhao Y, Hu C, Zhang H, Ping L. Performance of CO2 concentrations
on nutrient removal and biogas upgrading by integrating microalgal strains
cultivation with activated sludge. Energy 2016;97:229–37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.126.
[102] Surra E, Ribeiro RPPL, Santos T, Bernardo M, Mota JPB, Lapa N, et al. Evaluation
of activated carbons produced from Maize Cob Waste for adsorption-based CO2
separation and biogas upgrading. J Environ Chem Eng 2022;10(1):107065.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.107065.
[103] Tabar AM, Hosseini SS, Denayer JFM. A multicolumn vacuum pressure swing
adsorption biogas upgrading process for simultaneous CO2 and N2 separation
from methane: Exergy AND energy analysis. Energ Conver Manage 2022;269:
116060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116060.
[104] Tayeb A, Amini E, Ghasemi S, Tajvidi M. Cellulose nanomaterials—binding
properties and applications: a review. Molecules 2018;23(10):2684. https://doi.
org/10.3390/molecules23102684.
[105] Taylor MJ, Alabdrabalameer HA, Skoulou V. Choosing physical, physicochemical
and chemical methods of pre-treating lignocellulosic wastes to repurpose into
solid fuels. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2019;11(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11133604.
[106] Tshikovhi A, Mishra SB, Mishra AK. Nanocellulose-based composites for the
removal of contaminants from wastewater. Int J Biol Macromol 2020;152:
616–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.221.
[107] Wang Z, Zhengmin Z. Renewable energy’s achievements and developing policies.
China Sci Technol Achiev 2005;13:7–9.
[108] Wickham R, Xie S, Galway B, Bustamante H, Nghiem LD. Anaerobic digestion of
soft drink beverage waste and sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 2018;262:141–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.046.
[109] Woiciechowski LA, Dalmas Neto CJ, de Souza P, Vandenberghe L, de Carvalho
Neto DP, Novak Sydney AC, et al. Lignocellulosic biomass: acid and alkaline
pretreatments and their effects on biomass recalcitrance – conventional
processing and recent advances. Bioresour Technol 2020;304:122848. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122848.
[110] Wu Z, Peng K, Zhang Y, Wang M, Yong C, Chen L, et al. Lignocellulose
dissociation with biological pretreatment towards the biochemical platform: a
review. Materials Today Bio 2022;16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mtbio.2022.100445.
[111] Xie T, Herbert C, Zitomer D, Kimbell L, Stafford M, Venkiteshwaran K. Biogas
conditioning and digestate recycling by microalgae: acclimation of Chlorella
vulgaris to H2S -containing biogas and high NH4-N digestate and effect of biogas:
digestate ratio. Chem Eng J 2023;453:139788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2022.139788.
[112] Xu B, Zhao Y, Zhao C, Wei J. Effect of different CO2 concentrations on biogas
upgrading and nutrient removal by microalgae-fungi co-culture. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 2022;29(60):91345–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22165-
y.
[113] Xu F, Wang D. Analysis of lignocellulosic biomass using infrared methodology. In:
Pretreatment of biomass. Elsevier; 2015. p. 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-800080-9.00002-5.
[114] Xu M, Xue Z, Liu J, Sun S, Zhao Y, Zhang H. Observation of few GR24 induced
fungal-microalgal pellets performance for higher pollutants removal and biogas
quality improvement. Energy 2022;244:123171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2022.123171.
K. Archana et al.
[115] Xu S, Selvam A, Wong JWC. Optimization of micro-aeration intensity in
acidogenic reactor of a two-phase anaerobic digester treating food waste. Waste
Manag 2014;34(2):363–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.038.
[116] Xu W, Fu S, Yang Z, Lu J, Guo R. Improved methane production from corn straw
by microaerobic pretreatment with a pure bacteria system. Bioresour Technol
2018;259:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.02.046.
[117] Yalew AW. Economic contributions and synergies of biogas with the SDGs in
Ethiopia. Energy Nexus 2021;3:100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nexus.2021.100017.
[118] Yang Q, Lin Q, Liang X. Modeling CO2 separation on amine-containing facilitated
transport membranes (AFTMs) by linking effects of relative humidity,
temperature, and pressure. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2021;108:103327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103327.
[119] Ye S, Gao L, Zhao J, An M, Wu H, Li M. Simultaneous wastewater treatment and
lipid production by Scenedesmus sp. HXY2. Bioresour Technol 2020;302:122903.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122903.
[120] Zhang J, Li K, Liu S, Huang S, Xu C. Alkaline hydrogen peroxide pretreatment
combined with bio-additives to boost high-solids enzymatic hydrolysis of
13
Fuel 358 (2024) 130298
sugarcane bagasse for succinic acid processing. Bioresour Technol 2022;345:
126550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126550.
[121] Zhang W, Zhao C, Liu J, Sun S, Zhao Y, Wei J. Effects of exogenous GR24 on
biogas upgrading and nutrient removal by co-culturing microalgae with fungi
under mixed LED light wavelengths. Chemosphere 2021;281:130791. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130791.
[122] Zhao X, Liu J, Liu J, Yang F, Zhu W, Yuan X, et al. Effect of ensiling and silage
additives on biogas production and microbial community dynamics during
anaerobic digestion of switchgrass. Bioresour Technol 2017;241:349–59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.183.
[123] Zhao Y, Guo G, Sun S, Hu C, Liu J. Co-pelletization of microalgae and fungi for
efficient nutrient purification and biogas upgrading. Bioresour Technol 2019;289:
121656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121656.
[124] Zhou Y, Li C, Nges IA, Liu J. The effects of pre-aeration and inoculation on solid-
state anaerobic digestion of rice straw. Bioresour Technol 2017;224:78–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.104.
[125] Zhurka M, Spyridonidis A, Vasiliadou IA, Stamatelatou K. Biogas production from
sunflower head and stalk residues: effect of alkaline pretreatment. Molecules
2019;25(1):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25010164.