Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable T

circular bioeconomy: Technological challenges, advancements, innovations,
and future perspectives
Mukesh Kumar Awasthia,b, Surendra Sarsaiyac, Steven Wainainab, Karthik Rajendrane,
Sumit Kumara, Wang Quana, Yumin Duana, Sanjeev Kumar Awasthia, Hongyu Chena,
Ashok Pandeyd, Zengqiang Zhanga,∗, Archana Jainc, Mohammad J. Taherzadehb
a
College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, PR China
b
Swedish Center for Resource Recovery Department of Biotechnology, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden
c
Key Laboratory of Basic Pharmacology of Ministry of Education, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou, China
d
CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Vishvigyan Bhavan, 31 Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow-266001, Utter Pradesh, India
e
Department of Environmental Science, SRM University-AP, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh, India

A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion Total livestock emissions account for up to 14.5% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Counteractive
Organic manure
measures, such as circular economy concepts and negative emission technologies are necessary to limit global
Pretreatment
warming below 1.5 °C. Possible treatment options for organic manure include anaerobic digestion, combustion,
Codigestion
Organic loading rate gasification, hydrothermal liquefaction and composting. The choice of treatment varies depending on the eco-
Bioaugmentation nomics, the requirement of a specific product, and sociocultural factors. Commercialization of these treatments
needs a blend of appropriate technology, feasible economics, policy support and agreeable socio-cultural con-
ditions. Key findings of this study include the following: 1. Increasing scientific awareness about manure
management and treatment; 2. Building a sustainable cooperative model to commercialize technologies; 3.
Creating a market for manure recycling products; 4. The role of policy in supporting technologies and con-
sumers; and 5. The codigestion of substrates for better efficacy. Current trends show minimal actions in place as
opposed to the high-rate of acceleration that is necessary.

1. Introduction
In China, the rapidly growing economy and intensive demand for
meat as well as its by-products have dramatically increased livestock
production in the past two decades. However, there have been few
changes in the management of manure, with shortages in complete
manure managing phases such as cattle cover, loading and dealing of
manure, and terrestrial distribution (Fig. 1) [1]. Moreover, an in-
adequate containment of manure is available, as it is produced as well
as managed (to gardens, cattle edifices, dung rations, and manure ve-
getation), while considerable amounts are dumped in channels and
rivulets. In China, approximately 20% of the manure is treated either by
composting, co-composting or AD for methane production, while the
remaining fraction remains untreated [2], which could potentially re-
sult in the formation of contaminating rivulets. Equally, in Vietnam, Vu
et al. [3] estimated that over 15% of cattle fodder consumption ni-
trogen is cleared into waterways through manure. Improper utilization
of manure is due to insufficient modern techniques for the transfer and

Abbreviations: %, Percentage; °C, Degree celsius; AcoD, Anaerobic co-digestion; AD, Anaerobic digestion; AHR, Anaerobic hybrid reactor; BSF, Black soldier flies; C,
Carbon; C/N ratio, Carbon /nitrogen ratio; Ca, Calcium; CM, Cow manure; CO, Carbon mono oxide; COD, Chemical oxygen demand; CSTRs, Continuously stirred
tank reactors; DAEM, Discrete distributed activation energy model; EPD, Environmental protection department; eq./t, Equivalent/ton; FW, Food waste; g/L, Gram/
litre; GCV, Gross caloric value; GDP, Gross domestic product; GHG, Greenhouse gas; GWP, Global warming potential; HTL, Hydro thermal liquefaction; I:M, Inoculum
to manure; INM, Integrated nutrient management; K, Calvin; Kcal/ kg, Kilo calorie per kilogram; kWh, Kilo watt/hour; L, Litre; m3, Cubic meter; m3/a, Cubic meter/
annum; MSW, Municipal solid waste; Mt, Million ton; MW, Mega watt; MPa, Mega Pascal's; N, Nitrogen; NGOs, Non-governmental organization; OFMSW, Organic
fraction of municipal solid waste; OM, Organic manure; SBR, Sequential batch reactors; SS, Sewage sludge; t/a, Ton/annum; TS, Total solids; US$, United State
Dollar; VFAs, Volatile fatty acids; VS, Volatile solids; Wt, Weight; WTE, Waste to energy; WWTPS, Wastewater treatment plants
∗
Corresponding author. .
E-mail addresses: mukesh_awasthi45@yahoo.com (M.K. Awasthi), zhangzq58@126.com (Z. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.017
Received 29 November 2018; Received in revised form 17 April 2019; Accepted 7 May 2019
Available online 16 May 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
Fig. 1. Graphic outline of operated and critical stages for various livestock manure through combined crop-animal schemes in China. (Adapted from Ref. [1]).
distribution of manure, especially in rural areas [4]. Another possible
problem encountered during the application of manure is inadequate
information regarding the specific chemical composition. Otherwise,
the information would assist in identifying the factors controlling nu-
trient fatalities (especially by phosphorus and nitrogen) and the degree
of organic nitrogen dissociation [1,5]. This evidence is not well re-
cognized and inadequate instruction is specified to agronomists, and as
a result, the beneficial chemicals in the earth will be wasted, while
additional soil nutrients will further pollute the waterways [6,7] and
the air environment [1,8,9]. The vibrant mark of nitrogen is overdone
currently in some provinces of China [10], which triggers undesirable
effects on the environment [11–14]. Key complications of nitrogen
overuse are connected with the release of seepage (counting the fluid
portion of compact manure, entire paste, and the molten element as of
parted slurry) of cattle farmhouses and in numerous crop cultivations in
China [15–21]. A more balanced approach to nitrogen usage in Chinese
agronomy, particularly in the awareness and education of effectively
using fertilizers should affect concentrated mineral N fertilizer practice.
This would have vast paybacks, together with a compact influence on
the atmosphere and better-quality crop yields as well as profits for the
individual farmer.
Recently, several comprehensive reviews on manure recycling and
management practices have been published [22–24]. However, an in-
depth discussion on the technology development, bioenergy produc-
tion, and key parameters required to improve the efficiency of biogas
production using the anaerobic digestion process is still limited.
Therefore, this review article, which considers the recent interests in
AD of different kinds of manure and other organic substrates in China,
mainly summarizes the current manure management practices in China.
Specifically, it focuses on (a) the anaerobic digestion process design and
advancement/upgrading for better biogas yield and environmental
116
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
influence; (b) government guidelines for improved process efficiency;
and (c) further economic feasibility, potential challenges of manure
recycling by co-digestion and other available technologies. Subse-
quently, this review article also comprises cutting edge research on
anaerobic manure mixed digestion with organic matter; moreover, it
offers a wide-ranging assessment for researchers in the field of manure
recycling for renewable and sustainable energy production. Thus, it
allows researchers to thoroughly assess manure management options as
well as understand AD as a renewable energy and biorefinery genera-
tion process. This article also identifies the knowledge gaps in the po-
tential challenges of AD technology development, and economically
feasible options to overcome these challenges and upgrade the knowl-
edge as well as to deliver perceptions of the manure recycling in-
vestigation.
2. Necessity for organic manure recycling and resource recovery
The global population has increased from 3.1 billion in 1960 to over
7 billion presently, and it is expected to have upsurge to 8 billion by
2025, and 9.3 billions by 2050. Similarly, the global municipal in-
habitants gradually increased from 1 billion in 1960 to 3.5 billion in
2010, and it is predicted to range from 4.5 to 6.4 billion at the end of
2050, thus accounting for an inhabitant cumulative share from 30% in
1960 to 68% in 2050 [25]. Before the beginning of the next century, the
comprehensive energy mandate is projected to be around six-fold
higher than the current demand. The existing energy stream is below
the actual energy mandatory for consumption in numerous developing
nations. Currently, many primary energy sources are derived from fossil
resources, which meet the demands of approximately 84% of the
overall electricity. As a result of the speedy exhaustion of fossil energies
reserves, the biosphere needs alternate energy sources, for example
M.K. Awasthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

waste to energy (WTE), to reduce the upcoming energy emergency Table 1

[26]. In 2015, fossil fuel energies accounted for 86.02% of the world- The amount of livestock produced manure in China.
wide primary energy use (33.12% oil, 28.88% coal, and 24.01% natural Year 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018
gas). The communal usage of fossil fuel energies to meet the current
a a a a
mandate is currently connected with rising greenhouse gases (GHG) Million tons (Fresh Wt.) 690 1420 2710 3060 2235 2816 3190
References [136] [136] [137] [2] [138] [35] [34]
and subsequent climate changes that are instigated by global warming
[27]. a
Exclude urine (which may have been lost during housing, storage and
The proportion of livestock production is connected with numerous processing stages of the manure management chain).
indicators of expansion [28]. Furthermore, socioeconomic factors, such
as occupation, education, and family size have affected the livestock bioenergy. Perhaps, in 2020, up to 38% of the organic manure from
production level. The livestock and feedstock sectors have made a great dairy cows and pigs can be utilized for direct energy use. Furthermore,
effort to confirm food safety in China. The manure quality level is other advances, for example, mechanization could also increase the use
connected to the population magnitude and livestock production per of livestock and feedstock [34]. On the other hand, as a result of the
capita while its conformation has been connected principally to the policy goal of increasing manure recycling, the possible energy from
gross domestic product (GDP) per income stage. Furthermore, fertilizers livestock is likely to increase in China. Among the many advantages of
in China generally contain a considerably higher proportion of livestock incineration is the decrease of the mass and size by 75% and 90%, re-
waste, animal waste, and kitchen waste, principally as food waste. In spectively; other advantages include the abolition of pathogens and
this line, integrated anaerobic digestion (AD) with recent advances has heat generation, which can be altered into electricity or/and to heat
characterized an opportunity to reduce environmental contamination water for district circulation [36].
while concurrently providing biogas (CH4 and H2) and carbon-based
fertilizer [29].
3. Available technical options for organic manure recycling
At present, energy from renewable sources has increased each and
every year, and most countries aim to attain over 15% renewable en-
Manure possesses a median calorific value of 5000 ± 1000 kcal/kg
ergy production by the end of 2020 [30]. The use of livestock manure
[37]. Manure, if not treated or recycled properly, leads to greenhouse
resources as energy can help to mollify the mandate of the growing
gas emissions. Based on the global warming potential (GWP), methane
inhabitants, worldwide, and moderate use of resources can help
(CH4) emissions from manure storage were reported to be 8–10 times
emerging nations address energy shortages [31]. The energy percentage
higher than that of CO2 [38]. It is necessary to treat/recycle manure
from organic manure can be obtained either through thermochemical
properly to avoid these emissions. There are many technical options
approaches (pyrolysis, combustion, or gasification) or biological ap-
available to treat manure, which could be broadly classified into: the
proaches (anaerobic digestion). The most common economical form of
aerobic, anaerobic, and thermochemical processes (Fig. 3). The choice
microbial conversion of organic waste comprise the generation of liquid
and selection of a technology depend on the environmental policies, the
fuels (ethanol) and gaseous fuels (hydrogen and methane) as is in-
incentives provided, and the requirement/market of an end product in a
dicated in Fig. 2. On the other hand, enzymatic hydrolysis (or sac-
particular country/city. This section describes the different technolo-
charification) also comprises an inclusive range of enzymes that are
gies that are available for manure treatment and recycling. For these
aimed at different molecules, for example, hemi-cellulases and cellu-
technologies, different categories of feedstock sources are used in nu-
lases for lignocellulose; β-amylases, α-amylases and glucoamylases for
merous processes. The growing production of livestock manures is a
the breakdown of starch; lipases for the breakdown of oils and fats; and
large issue for sustainable agricultural development. In China, an esti-
proteases for the collapse of proteins [32,33].
mated 3.2 billion tons of cattle manure is produced in agriculture yearly
According to the assessment from a previous review, the cattle
[39]. In addition, manure from chicken is rich in nitrogen complexes
manure generated in 2018 was a total of 3190 Mt [34]. The review also
and many inducers, for example, phosphorous and potassium [23].
assessed that in China, in 2015, the livestock manure accounted for
With deference to renewable sources of energy, manure from chicken is
2816 Mt [35]. In 2000, the quantity of cattle manure was 2710 Mt
predominantly appropriate because of its higher biomethane potential
(Table 1). From that amount, 179.7 Mt [32.9% of the overall manure]
(BMP). Manure from chicken is viscid in landscape, though higher in
and 212.9 Mt [26.0% of the overall residue] could be utilized as feed-
calcium percent and grit/silt. Another possibility is the mixing of
stock for compost and then manure to energy. In China, the provinces
manure from chicken with other resources that establish a higher
with higher manure phosphate loads may cause grave environmental
carbon percent to upsurge the C/N proportion. The modification of the
hazards if mitigation possibilities are not implemented. Hence, it is
C/N proportion of feedstock controls the entire nitrogen content of
suggested that manure from diverse provincial regions of China should
anaerobic digestion, since the low N percent rises at a comparable
be studied for potential commercial bioenergy production. Some earlier
carbon-based loading proportion [23]. Some studies on the nutrient
investigations showed much potential in manure reprocessing for
contents from manure are presented in Table 2.

Fig. 2. Renewable energy from manure by sustainable biotechnological and thermochemical conversion options.

117
M.K. Awasthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

Fig. 3. Overview of processes and products produced from various manure treatment technologies.

3.1. Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process in which, under the absence of
the oxygen, organic materials are converted into a combination of
gasses including methane and carbon dioxide by a consortium of bac-
teria and archaea. Methane is an energy-rich gas (37 MJ/kg) that could
be converted into various energy vectors including electricity, heat, and
transport fuel. Similar to the composting process, AD is an exothermic
process that liberates heat during the decomposition of slurry [40,41]
(Table 3). Typical volatile solids (VS) degradation in an AD system for
organic manure ranges between 60 and 80% [42]. Unlike composting,
the AD process generates energy rather than consumes it. However, the
methane yield from organic manure is in the lower range compared
with that of other substrates. For example, cow manure has a lower
methane yield of 22 m3/ton, in comparison with food waste that has a
methane potential of 204 m3/ton [43]. On the other hand, the methane
emissions from slurry are avoided by processing it in a controlled di-
gester. The typical VS mass balance of pig slurry is illustrated in Fig. 5.
Approximately 54% of the VS is converted into biogas, while 11%
corresponds to other gases such as ammonia, water vapor, and hy-
drogen sulfide. The digestate contains 35% VS which might not be
degraded [44]. Through its continually-growing inhabitants collective
with robust economic progress, China had a substantial upsurge in the
quantity and extent of chicken farmsteads. Indeed, about 250 million
tons of chicken manure, containing large amounts of nutrients (Table 3)
is produced in China every year, thus making the recovery of biogas
from this abundant waste stream an important subject in Fig. 6.
Recently, numerous biogas units have been constructed to utilize
different sources of manure such as from pigs, chickens, sheep, cattle,
horses and ducks [23,45]. Table 4 provides indicated summary of se-
lected some AD processes established in China. Recently, anaerobic
digestion as a treatment option for organic manure is getting popular.
This is mainly to reduce the associated methane emissions. For ex-
ample, in Germany additional incentives were provided for AD systems
that uptake organic manure as a substrate in order to avoid methane
emissions are associated with this substrate [47]. Typical costs for a
manure-based biogas plant are approximately 100 €/(t/a) [48]. A dis-
advantage with a manure-based biogas system is its lower methane
yield. Because of the lower methane yield, the economic viability of the
process is uncertain. To avoid these uncertainties, and to enhance the
stability of the process, a concept known as codigestion is used. This
involves mixing with food waste or lignocelluloses, which will provide
a better C/N ratio for the biogas process [49]. Recent research trends in
the AD of slurry management include the estimation of methane
emissions from biogas plants [50], carbon capture, and the reuse of
biomethane via the power of gas mechanisms [51].

Table 2
Source based nutrients quantity in organic substrates (with livestock manure) in China.
China Data of different manure Percentage of dry matter Organic carbon Nitrogen Organic phosphorus Potassium

Human waste 9.5–9.10 25.10–26.0 6.4–6.6 2.51–2.56 2.3–2.5

Pig manure 31.2–32.5 137.4–138.0 5.5–5.6 5.5–5.8 3.5–4.0
Cattle manure 25.0–28.0 104.1–105.0 3.8–4.0 2.3–2.5 2.8–3.10
Chicken manure 47.7–48.5 165.1–166.5 10.3–11.5 9.4–9.8 8.7–9.0
Duck manure 48.9–50.15 132.5–133.5 7.1–8.5 8.2–9.5 6.6–6.9
Pigeon manure 54.6–55.5 416.24–420.28 24.8–25.6 16.5–17.5 12.3–12.5
Horse manure 31.5–32.5 119.6 4.4–4.6 3.2–3.5 4.6–4.8

118
M.K. Awasthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

Table 3
The production of livestock manure and their potential of biogas production rate in China.
Animal Head Daily manure production kg/d Total manure amount/a Dry matter % Biogas production rate of manure m3/kg (dry matter)

Pig 456773355 4.25 708569666.9 28 0.2

Chicken 5155635000 0.12 225816813 26 0.4
Sheep 162062703 2.6 153797505.1 56 0.3
Cattle 84523418 27.22 839765514.9 35.3 0.3
Horse 5910792 9 19416951.72 25 0.3
Ducks 818855000 0.12 35865849 41 0.2

3.2. Combustion
Combustion or incineration is a thermochemical processing method
to treat organic wastes. Since incineration is a thermal processing
method, it is highly recommended that the feedstock possesses low
moisture. This is so that there will be energy loses to heat up the
moisture that is present in the feedstock [52]. The end product of an
incineration is heat and other gases. Incineration is usually preferred in
cold countries or land-scarce countries. In cold countries, there is a
requirement for heat, which makes this process economically viable.
Likewise, in developing countries such as Japan, combustion/pyrolysis
is desirable. This is because incineration reduces the waste by more
than 80%, thus, the amount of land use for landfilling/other processing
is reduced [53].
Since organic manure is a wet feedstock, it is usually not preferred
for combustion processes. However, in certain cases, dried manure is
codigested with municipal solid waste (MSW) or other wastes in an
incinerator [54]. The combustion process also produces a significant
amount of dioxin, furan, and other gaseous emissions. Because of these
emissions, these treatment sites are usually located far away from the
city. There are severe thresholds for the amount of dioxins and other
emissions that can be released from a combustion process. Recent re-
search trends in manure combustion include recovering phosphorus to
allow for reuse [54]; another trend includes nutrient recovery including
potassium from manure [55].
Fischer-Tropsch process could also be used to produce synthetic fuel. In
an industrial setup, gasification is used to produce electricity [58]. Si-
milar to incineration, gasification can be employed on dried manure
rather than wet manure to avoid energy loss from evaporating
moisture. There are different gasification technologies available de-
pending on the moisture content of the feedstock. This includes the
fixed-bed gasifier, fluidized-bed gasifier, and catalytic wet gasification,
which are also known as hydrothermal gasification [59].
Fixed bed gasifier produces low energy gases. There are two pro-
cessing methods including updraft and downdraft approaches. The
updraft method is scalable, while the other is difficult. The difference
between updraft and downdraft system is the level of oxidation during
the process [60]. One of the limitations of a downdraft system is the
cost of pelleting. Fluidized bed gasifiers are the more complex and
advanced type of gasifier, which produces high-energy gases. Because
of its complexity, a fluidized bed gasifier requires high-end operation
and maintenance [61]. Hydrothermal gasification, on the other hand,
can handle wet feedstock such as manure. This particular technology
requires a metallic catalyst to speed up the process. Unlike other
technologies, this technology can produce ammonia, which could be
used as a fertilizer [62]. Recent research trends in manure gasification
technologies include using various novel catalysts such as nickel to
enhance the process for the production of hydrogen [63]. Other trends
include looking at the transition of alkali metals during the gasification
process and estimating the properties of the products [64] (Table 5).

3.3. Gasification 3.4. Hydrothermal liquefaction

Gasification technology is a thermochemical treatment option for
manure recycling and management. Gasification is operated at tem-
peratures greater than 700 °C, with little oxygen and/or steam [56].
Unlike incineration, the end product in gasification is usually syngas
and char. The char can be used for a variety of applications including
soil enrichment, etc. [57]. Syngas can be used directly in a gas engine,
or it can be used to produce methanol/hydrogen. Alternatively, the
Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) technology involves the applica-
tion of heat (at temperatures ranging from 249 to 374 °C and pressure
up to 22 MPa to convert the organic material into bio-oil [65,66]. Some
of its key advantages include its versatility regarding the quality of
feedstock’ that can be utilized and the possibility of refining the bio-oil
into other fuels or chemicals of high value [65,67]. Moreover, the water
content in the feedstock, which could be as high as 76% for manure

Fig. 4. A simple mass balance of a composting process using swine manure. Data from: [72].

119
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
Fig. 5. A simple VS mass balance of a pig slurry system for an anaerobic digestion process. Data from: [44].
Fig. 6. The potential of biogas production of manure in China (billion m3/a).
[68], is utilized as the reaction medium; thus, the need for prior manure
dewatering is avoided [67]. The potential of bio-oil production from the
swine manure was conducted by Vardon et al. [67] who performed a
HTL test at 300 °C with a maximum pressure of 12 MPa for 30 min. They
obtained a promising bio-oil yield of 30.2%, and this value was almost
comparable to that obtained from Spirulina algae (at 32.6% bio-oil
yield). Swine manure was also used as feedstock in a batch HTL reactor
that was operated at temperatures between 260 and 340 °C and with an
initial nitrogen pressure of up to 1.03 MPa [69]. The investigation re-
vealed that a maximum bio-oil of 24.2% could be reached when a
temperature, initial nitrogen pressure, and residence time of 340 °C,
0.69 MPa, and 15 min, respectively, were applied. In another study,
cattle manure was subjected to supercritical HTL in a reactor that had
temperature and pressure limits of 500 °C and 34.5 MPa, respectively
[68]. The best results were obtained when the CO was used as the
process gas (0.1 MPa) at 310 °C with 48.8% bio-oil yield.
3.5. Composting
Composting is an aerobic process in which manure is degraded to
water vapor, CO2, heat, and other gases under controlled conditions. An
advantage of the composting process is that it can reduce the amount of
waste post digestion. Composting is an exothermic reaction, which
means that heat is released during the process due to the decomposition
of organic matter [70]. Some important parameters that need to be
considered in the composting process are temperature, moisture con-
tent, and oxygen levels [71]. Typically, during a composting process,
the volume of the biomass is reduced by 50%. For example, if one ton of
120
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
swine manure is treated, about 50% of the total volume (0.506 ton) of
the waste would be lost to the atmosphere as water vapor, CO2, and
other gases. This was an absolute mass balance (Fig. 4). However, when
the carbon balance is considered, only 39% of C is lost to the atmo-
sphere, while the remaining carbon is left in the output or the fertilizer
[72].
The end product of composting though is not an energy vector; in-
stead, a useful fertilizer that typically reduces the production of a
synthetic fertilizer is obtained. In terms of GHG emissions, emitting
methane from manure has higher GWP potential in comparison with
CO2, which is the end product of a composting process [73]. Com-
posting as a treatment option is favored mostly in developing countries
in comparison with developed countries. This is mainly due to the
economic situation in those countries as other treatment technologies
are relatively expensive in comparison with composting [74]. Recent
research trends in the composting activities of manure include a re-
duction of gas emissions or capturing emissions [75], enhancing the
degradation of the process through biochar [76], co-composting with
other wastes to improve the carbon, and the nitrogen availability [77].
4. Innovative strategies for enhancing the anaerobic digestion of
organic manure
4.1. Pretreatment
The pretreatment of manure is a critical step in adjusting it to the
optimized conditions that eventually enhance biogas productivity in AD
processes [78]. Moreover, the features of the substrate influence the
ease at which the microbes can access the nutrients therein for bio-
conversion to methane [79]. Several studies have therefore investigated
some techniques to appropriately prepare the manure prior to feeding
the AD bioreactors. To adjust the C/N of chicken manure, which was
measured as 7.5, to the recommended range for biogas production
(∼20–30), Böjti et al. [80] applied a water extraction technique. Using
a simple centrifugation method, they found that a substantial amount of
nitrogen was extracted from the solid material. As a result, a C/N of
19.8 was obtained after the pretreatment, with a 24% higher specific
methane yield compared to that of the untreated chicken manure. The
presence of undigested hemicelluloses that come along with manure,
especially from cows and pigs, makes the initial substrate pretreatment
of great importance due to the inherent material recalcitrance [81].
Among the methods that were examined, the thermal treatment has
been the most predominantly reported method applied over the years
both in lab and full-scale AD processes, accounting for close to 40% of
manure pretreatments [81]. A summary of the selected reports on some
pretreatment efforts and their impact on improving the AD process or
the substrate properties is provided in Table 6.

Table 4
Manure to methane and other syngasdeveloped technologies and process status of China.
Technology/Process
Anaerobic digestion
Large-scaleAnaerobic digestion
Large-scale Anaerobic digestion
121
Solid state anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic Fermentation (Volume 5 L)
Anaerobic batch fermentation
Anaerobic co-digestion
Anaerobic digestion
Lab-scale sequencing batch
reactors
Two-stage anaerobic digestion with
an intermediate membrane
contactor
Anaerobic digestion (Low-cost
composited accelerants)
Anaerobic digestion
Feedstock materials
Pig manure, dairy manure, beef
manure, layer manure and
broiler manure
Chicken manure andsewage
Hens (Deqingyuan: DQY)
chicken
Dairy manure with corn stover
Duck manure with straw
Deer manure, Mushroom
residue, Biogas slurry
oat straw and cow manure
Chicken manure
Chicken manure
Dairy Manure
swine manure, swine slurry, and
biogas digestate
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
Important parameter aspects Potential outcomes and key approaches Research References
Province/Country
Chemical analysis: • Found transformations in the configuration of the Beijing, China [46]
Proximate analysis: moisture, Ash content, volatile matter, fixed various forms of animal manure;
carbon; • The calculated total annual syngas and methane yields
Ultimate analysis: for the five types of animal manure were
Hydrogen (H), Carbon (C), sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) contents; 983.40 × 109 m3 and 188.89 × 109 m3, respectively.
Mineral elemental analysis:
Potassium (K), Phosphorus (P), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg),
calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu);
Methane yield potential through anaerobic digestion: Used
Bushwell's method
This procedure includes the following essentials: sewage is • Apply Mono-digestion scheme; Yantai, Shandong [23]
composed in a storing tank with a volume of 4000 m3, and • Entire 300,000 t/a feedstock constituents; Province
feedstocks are mixed in 2 pre-treatment tanks of 2000 m3 • Employs a combination of about 180,000 t/a of chicken
volume each. manure with 120,000 t/a of sewage from washing a
AD is proficient in 8 digesters with a capacity of 3200 m3/ chicken farm;
reactor (TAN meditation of about 6.0 g/L). In conclusion, the • Produces 21.9 million kWh power electric;
digestate is composed in a 50,000 m3 storage pond. • Annual, roughly 11 million m3 of biogas are produced.
A central-temperature hydrolysis procedure; • Ammonia detached partially by washing biogas over Dafeng, Zhejiang [23]
4 CSTR-category fermenters; digestate is kept in a slurry pond sulfuric acid; Province
• Applied for electricity makingthrough CHP (2 MW)
40% tomato remains increased methane producerelated to • Methane produce (379.1 L/kg VSfeed); Beijing, China [139]
dairy manure with corn stovercombination; • Effective percentage: 24% corn stover, 36% dairy
Improve the recital of solid-state anaerobic digestion manure, and 40% tomato residues
Augmented the inoculation attentiveness, and then the • Optimal temperature for diverse anaerobic Zhengzhou, China [140]
fermentation liquid concentration fermentation is around 30 °C and the optimum amount
of raw materials is 2.8:1.
Analysed the methane production, volatile fatty acids (VFA) • Improved methane yielded by addition of biogas slurry Changchun, China [141]
and ammonia nitrogen (30%)
Stimulative and inhibitory effects on fermentation by adding 1:2 ratio of cow manure to the oat straw added Beijing, China [142]
different amounts of cow manure (CM);
• Amethane yield of 841.77 mL/g
Used Gompertz model for methane yield
•
bentonite addition to avoid ammonia accumulation; • Increase of 41% in cumulative methane Yangling, China [143]
Used pre-hydrolysis step to convert nitrogen to ammonia; • High methane yield of 437.0 mL/g·VS Beijing, China [141]
Ammonia removal by diluting the hydrolyzed chicken manure
to 1:2;
Significantly reduced inhibitory effects,
Batch experiments contain: urea, bentonite, active carbon, and • Total biogas yield (485.7–681.9 mL/g VS) Shaanxi Province, [144]
plant ash; • Methane content (63.0–66.6%) China
Improved digestate stability and enhanced fertilizer nutrient
content
Large-scale and household biogas production; • Better CH4 production rate Shaanxi [141]
Pollutant emission reduction and produce clean energy; Province, China
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
 Table 5
Manure to thermal energy developed technologies and process status of China.
Technology/Process Feedstock materials Important parameter aspects Potential outcomes and key approaches Research Province/ References
Country
M.K. Awasthi, et al.

Gasification, Combustion
Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL)
Thermogravimetrically Co-
hydrothermal carbonization
Pyrolysis
Pig manure, dairy manure, beef
manure, layer manure and broiler
manure
Swine manure, Dairy manure, Beef
manure, Laying hen manure, Broiler
manure, and Sheep manure
Corn stalk and swine manure
Cattle manures
Energy potential estimation: • Calculated total annual thermal energy yield from Beijing, China [46]
Thermal energy potential by combustion (e gross the five types of animal manure was 4400.63 TJ.
caloric value (GCV)), theoretical thermal energy The air gasifier energy conversion efficiency for the
potential;
• different animal manures ranges from 66.80% to
Syngas production potential by gasification: 83.22%.
Used Gasification technology
Procedure of HTL and product separation: • Found biocrude oil yield from swine manure: Beijing, China [139]
The manure samples were made homogeneous using a 30.85%;
blender, and then stored at 4 °C; • 15.03% (daf) to 25.47% from other manures
Heavy metal analysis in the feedstock, solid residue • Used batch reactor
and aqueous phase (Zn, Cu, As, Pb, Cd);
Evaluation methods of heavy metals' contamination/
risk level;
Morphology and microstructure of livestock manure
and solid residue were examined via scanning
electron microscopy
Used Flynn-Wall-Ozawa (FWO) and Kissinger- • Increased the Eergy value of the hydrochar to Beijing, China and [145]
AkahiraSunose for kinetic analysis and the 141.53–171.23 and 138.35–169.66 kJ/mol Jinan, Shandong
thermodynamic parameters Province
Used a discrete distributed activation energy model Heating rate changed from 0.1 K min1 to 10,000 K min1 Wuhan, Hubei [146]
(DAEM) coupled with the thermogravimetric analysis; Province

122
Table 6
Pretreatment strategies for organic manure and their impacts on the substrate properties and biogas yields.
Treatment Substrate Conditions Findings Reference

Thermal Pig manure Different temperature levels, i.e., 70 °C, 90 °C, 135 °C, 150 °C, 170 °C, 190 °C The higher the applied temperature, the higher the release of soluble COD. [147]
The optimum substrate biodegradability achieved at 190 °C.
Thermo-chemical Pig manure Combination of different pH levels (adjusted using NaOH) and temperature, i.e., pH Thematerial breakdown was enhanced between 150 and 190 °C operated at pH = 10, [147]
10 and 25 °C, pH 10 and 90 °C, pH 10 and 135 °C, pH 10 and 150 °C, pH 10 and
190 °C, pH 12 and 25 °C, pH 12 and 135 °C, pH 12 and 150 °C
Thermal Pig manure Different temperature levels, i.e., 60 °C, 80 °C for 3 h Higher substrate solubilization at 80 °C. [148]
An increase in pH was observed in both pretreatments due to availability of dissolved
nitrogen.
Microwave themo- Cow manure Microwaved at 120 °C for 30 min and dosing of either NaOH, CaO, HCl or H2SO4 The pretreatment increased the soluble COD, phosphorous and ammonium of the [149]
chemical substrate.
Thermal Pig manure Different temperature levels, i.e., 25 °C, 50 °C, 70 °C, 100 °C, 110 °C, 130 °C, 150 °C The 100 °C treatment shown best performance regarding biogas production, beyond [150]
which a reduction was observed.
Thermo-chemical Pig manure Combination of using Ca(OH)2 (pH levels adjusted to 14) and temperature, i.e., Treatment at 70 °C showed best biogas production above which the performance [150]
25 °C, 50 °C, 70 °C, 100 °C, 110 °C, 130 °C, 150 °C declined.
Ultrasonication Pig manure Sonication performed at pulses of 2 s on and 2 s off for different specific energy The volatile solids were reduced until specific energy input of 10,000 kJ/kgTS. [151]
inputs
Mechanical maceration Undefined manure The manure fibers were sheared by macerators running at between 300 and A 25% increase in biogas production compared to the untreated manure was achieved. [152]
900 rpm.
Thermal Chicken manure Heated at 105 °C for 24 h and fine grinding The increased access of the substrate to the microbes led to more than 3 times the [153]
biogas production relative to the untreated manure.
Thermal Chicken, pig and cow Different temperature levels, i.e., 100 °C, 125 °C, 150 °C, 175 °C, 200 °C, 225 °C The biomethane potentials for the pig and cow manures were enhance at temperatures [154]
manure between 125 – 225 °C and 175–200 °C while no significant improvements were
observed with chicken manure.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
M.K. Awasthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

Table 7
Impact of anaerobic co-digestion of organic manure with selected substrates.
Base substrate Co-substrate Impact Reference

Sonicated cow manure Glycerin Addition of 4% lycerine increased the biogas production by 8 times. [155]
Cow manure Food waste and sewage sludge Specific methane production of 603 LCH4/kg VSfeed was the best result obtained from a mixture ratio [156]
(manure: food waste: sludge) of 7:2:1.
Cow manure Food waste and fish-waste fat Methane production was improved during co-digestion of manure and food waste when the fat was [157]
added intermittently.
Pig manure Grass silage Addition of the silage reduced excessive NH4+-N concentration and the study recommended a mixing [158]
ratio of 1:1 for optimum biogas yield in a large-scale process.
Cow manure Grass Up to 35% increase in methane yield was realized when co-digestion with excoriated grass. [159]
Chicken manure Spent poppy straw Operation at high organic rates was possible for the co-digestion system due to prevention of ammonia [160]
inhibition that would otherwise be problematic for single chicken manure system.
Chicken manure Organic fraction of municipal solid The co-digestion caused stable C/N and pH conditions plus balanced macro and micronutrients [161]
waste (OFMSW) resulting in improved methane yields at retention time of 15 days and a mixing ratio of 1:1.
Chicken manure Straw A mixing ratio (manure: straw) of 2:8 resulted in an optimized C/N ratio of 23. [162]
Pig manure Corn straw A mixing ratio (manure: straw) of 7:3 resulted in maximum methane production rate and yield due to [163]
enhanced buffering capacity.
Pig manure Rapeseed A high biogas yield of 0.33 m3/kg VSfeedattributed in enhanced VS accumulation and degradation. [164]
Horse manure Pig slurry A mix ratio (HM:PS) based on VS of 2:8 resulted in high reduction efficiency in the solube COD and a [165]
high specific methane production attributed to combination of optimized C/N ratio and microbial
performance.
Horse manure Food waste The co-digestion performed at a mixing ratio of 1:1 on wet basis yielded up to 22.7% more methane [94]
compared to control reactors.
Pig manure Meadow grass An increase in the methane yield of up to 15.9% was observed for 9:1 (PM:MG) substrate compared to [166]
pig manure only due to improved nutritional balance.

4.2. Codigestion with other organic residues 4.4. Novel bioreactor designs for manure-to-biogas systems

The addition of other organic materials to manure using the codi-
gestion approach was reported to enhance the biogas yields. The im-
proved yields from such codigestion systems are due to the synergy that
is brought about by the combined nutrients, which generally improve
the biological performance of the microbial consortium in addition to
other beneficial system-balancing capabilities that are lacking in the
base manure [82]. Moreover, for facilities that have access to more than
one type of manure, codigestion becomes an economically viable ap-
proach since all available manure types can be digested in a single
vessel [83]. A number of studies that have focused on the codigestion
strategy have been highlighted in Table 7.
4.3. Inoculum-to-substrate ratio
Although manure can be digested directly without the addition of a
seeding inoculum in the digesting vessel for biogas production [84–86],
the initial seeding procedure is a preferable option as was demonstrated
by some researchers. The addition of acclimated microorganisms is key
to reducing the lag phase during the biodegradation process. The in-
oculum-to-substrate ratio has a direct influence on the start-up stages
during the production of biogas from manure [87]. Moreover, it is
necessary to control the inhibitory characteristics for some substrates
whose effect may be elevated at certain loading rates [88]. Indeed, the
results from some studies show that the applied inoculum-to-manure
(I:M) ratio can be manipulated to result in better process performance.
During a batch test of anaerobic digestion of sheep manure inoculated
with cow dung at I:M ratios of 1.37, 2.05, and 4.1, it was determined
that the reactors with the highest proportion of the substrate had the
best biogas production rates [89]. In another study, Lawal et al. [90]
found that a I:M ratio of 1 for chicken manure seeded with cow manure
produced the highest methane content among the other combinations.
Elasri et al. [89] investigated the impact of different I:M ratios during
biogas production from turkey manure inoculated with digested sludge
from a wastewater plant. They observed that the I:M influence on the
methane yield was dependent on the overall amount of the turkey
manure in the reactor.
The design of the bioreactors applied for biodegradation of manure
to produce biogas has a crucial role in the overall system performance.
Several innovative bioreactors have been proposed recently to enhance
the performance of such AD systems as well as to overcome the pre-
vailing substrate-related and process economy issues. In a study by
Demirer and Chen [91], an anaerobic hybrid reactor (AHR) was applied
during biogas production from dairy waste. The bioreactor that con-
tained immobilized cells and a biogas recirculation loop and the applied
loading rate of the untreated substrate reached 7.3 g VS/L/d. A yield of
191 mL CH4/g VS was added and a 68% VS removal rate was realized
due to the enhanced mixing conditions created. Another approach was
applied by Boe and Angelidaki [92] in which cattle manure was di-
gested by using two continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) con-
nected in series. The reactors were operated at an HRT of 15 days; after
190 days, the CSTRs in series were found to yield 11% more biogas
compared to that of the single CSTR. One of the factors that aided in
enhancing the performance of the reactors was the consumption of
volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the second reactor, which had accumu-
lated in the first reactor.
Dry digestion of organic manure (with TS between 15% and 40%)
has recently drawn attention since it requires less reactor volume and
circumvents the need for pretreating the substrate or adding water in
the digestion vessel for dilution compared to wet digestion [93,94].
Consequently, few studies have been conducted on the development
and application of bioreactors that can handle the process conditions of
dry manure digestion for biogas production. For instance, Patinvoh
et al. [95] developed a horizontal plug flow reactor to treat cattle
manure bedded with straw, which consisted of 22% TS at different
organic loading rates. Their results showed that the system was capable
of producing up to 56% of the theoretical CH4 yield without the need
for substrate pretreatment at a loading rate of 4.2 gVS/L/d. Another dry
anaerobic digestion process was conducted by Chen et al. [96], who
used swine manure as a substrate. In their study, a vertical plug flow
reactor was utilized that could handle up to 35% TS of manure at a
degradation rate of 55.6%. Sequential batch reactors (SBR) have also
been investigated for psychrophilic dry digestion of cattle manure with
straw [97,98]. The former reactor was operated for 7 cycles for 147
days, thereby producing an average of 7.24 NL CH4/kg VS/d, while the
latter was operated for 84 days in 4 cycles to achieve up to 60.5% VS

123
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
removal rates. For the purpose of improving the economics of the dry
digestion process, the use of a textile-based reactor has been proposed
[99]. The methane yield from cattle manure with straw reached up to
290 N ml/gVS, and the economic evaluation revealed a payback period
of 5 years using the textile reactor, in addition to the possibility of
applying the digestate as a fertilizer.
4.5. Bioaugmentation
The bioaugmentation strategy has been found to improve AD pro-
cesses for handling manure [100]. One of the key reasons for applying
this strategy is the microbial imbalance in the consortium present in the
biodegradation chain of the manure [101]. It involves the addition of
specific robust microorganisms to an AD process or the creation of high
local cell densities to deal with the potential process-upsetting condi-
tions and thereby improve the overall performance [79,102]. During
the AD of cow manure inoculated with a microbial community from a
biogas digester degrading a mixture of organic waste and pig and cow
manure, high accumulation of ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N) was ob-
served (up to 5 g/L) [100]. To alleviate the negative impacts of such
high NH4+-N levels, Methanoculleus bourgensis was bio-augmented in
the bioreactor, which resulted in a 31.3% increase in the methane yield
relative to the control bioreactor. Ozbayram et al. [103] revealed a
similar trend by achieving a high of 311 mL CH4/g VS with cow manure
when the seeding inoculum was bioaugmented with rumen fluid. In
another study, the biogas yield from cow manure was improved when
the seeding culture was bioaugmented using anaerobic rumen fungi
containing Neocallimastix frontalis, Anaeromyces sp., Piromyces sp., and
Orpinomyces sp [104]. The bioreactors seeded with 15% rumen fungi
were found to yield about 3.7 times the daily biogas amount that was
produced by the non-augmented bioreactors during the stable phase.
5. Environmental and economic feasibility analysis of organic
manure recycling and management
Manure, if not treated properly using the above mentioned tech-
nologies, might lead to environmental issues including GHG emissions.
Total GHG emissions from a small farm (< 100 animals) were con-
siderably lower in the range of 45,538 g CO2 eq./ton feedstock, while
that of the large farm (> 200–999 animals) were in the higher range of
104,856 g CO2 eq./ton manure. Typically, a large farm emits more
emissions in per cattle of organic waste when compared with a small
farm. This is due to the lack of expertise in large volume storage, pro-
cessing, and land application [105]. Composting as a treatment alter-
native has a GWP between 226 and 236 kg of CO2 eq./ton compost
[106]. A study from the U.S. stated that if all livestock manure were
used for electricity production, about 4% of the electricity emissions
could be reduced. The biogas electricity corresponds to 68–108 billion
kWh from livestock manure (total electricity usage = 3.8 trillion kWh)
[107]. Similarly, when gasification was used as an alternative method
of manure management, the GWP was in the range of 589–643 kg CO2
eq./t dry manure. If the manure had been used for land application, the
GWP would have been 119 kg CO2 eq./t dry manure (Fig. 7). This is 6.4
times the emission reduction from the conventional treatment method
of land application [108].
The success of manure recycling however depends on the economic
viability of the process that is employed. Various factors such as quality,
quantity, and supply of waste; setting up and running cost of tech-
nology; market price of value-added product generated; incentives
provided by government; policies and environmental regulations de-
termine the feasibility of running the process of manure recycling
(Table 8). There are many benefits associated with manure recycling
and foremost among them is environmental. Manure discarded as waste
will lead to GHGs emission and will contribute to global warming. On
the other hand, if the waste is not treated properly, then it will be of
great concern for human health due to the growth and spread of
124
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
pathogenic microbes. Another important concern is the contamination
of surface and groundwater with various pollutants such as organics,
phosphorus, heavy metals, and other nutrients, etc. For instance, nitrite
run off can lead to eutrophication and is detrimental to the aquatic
ecosystem. Recycling of manure helps in its safe disposal without uti-
lizing a landfill and prevents awful odors and bad aesthetics. Another
benefit stems from the sale of manure recycling products (Fig. 8). The
products are mainly organic fertilizers as compost/digestate and re-
newable energy in the form of biogas/heat. These value-added products
have great market potential and make manure recycling profitable.
The primary beneficiary of manure recycling is our agricultural
system, where an establishment of the circular economy between li-
vestock and cropland farmers is imperative. Manure utilization im-
plementation should be an intrinsic residual of sustainable agriculture
organization. It is essential that the nutrients that are contained in
manure be recycled in a circular system. Use of manure recycled or-
ganic fertilizers helps in cutting down the use of inorganic ones. This
practice adds to the economic benefit to farmers through improved soil
quality, productivity and environment protection [109]. Use of organic
fertilizers derived from manure have the benefits of improving soil
texture, water holding, and buffering capacity; in addition, they serve
as a storehouse of nutrients and thus should be a vital part in integrated
nutrient management (INM) practices [109,110]. There are other added
benefits of organic fertilizers in soil health restoration. Utilization of
organic fertilizers was also shown to improve the quality and agro-
nomic value of saline soils [111]. Soil restoration in arid and semiarid
areas has also been achieved with the application of organic fertilizers
[112]. Use of compost has also proved to be helpful in the biode-
gradation of organic pollutants in the soil. Compost serves as a source of
super-bioaugmentation with diverse kinds of microbes; moreover, the
availability of nutrients in compost helps in the biostimulation of these
microbes to reclaim contaminated soil [113].
A successful management of manure recycling for economic success
depends greatly on government policies and interventions.
Governments can provide economic incentives to farmers for the safe
disposal and recycling of manure as shown in Fig. 9. Governments can
also share the cost of technology setup for manure recycling. A better
organization through farmer cooperatives; market for organic fertilizer
selling, an enhanced coordination between governments and other
agencies such as NGOs (Non-governmental organization) and private
players can improve the economics of manure recycling [114]. In-
itialization of the brokerage has been found to establish a circular
economy for manure recycling. Cooperatives can act as a bridge be-
tween livestock farmers having manure and cropland farmers having a
need for fertilizers, thus, establishing a sustainable and profitable cir-
cular economy [115]. The economic success of manure recycling also
depends on the method that is employed. The capital cost of anaerobic
digestion (AD) is higher, but the operating cost is lower compared to
composting. The profitability of AD depends on the trade of biogas in
addition to the tipping fees, while that of composting relies on the sale
of compost along with tipping fees. Establishing a better market for
digestates can improve the revenue of AD plants [116]. Upgradation of
biogas for utilization as transport fuel has less excise duty and thus
leads to the improved economics of AD [117]. The economic success of
composting process could also depend on government subsidies. For
instance, the composting process was not economically feasible in
northern Ghana without a subsidy, but it was viable in Bangladesh and
Indonesia without any subsidies [118]. The initial investment cost and
price of compost product varies from place to place and brings about
variability in the revenue of composting process. A low compost value
influences the temporal practical feasibility of composting. Similar to
the composting process, the economic success of the vermicomposting
process depends on the initial setup cost and market price for its pro-
duct, i.e., vermin-compost and earthworm [119]. Anaerobic biorefinery
based on the AD process has emerged as a novel concept in the man-
agement of manure. Manure can serve as the feedstock of this process;
M.K. Awasthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

Fig. 7. Holistic acidogenesis system for energy and carboxylate stage for bio-products utilizations (First prime and tributary products) [135].

Table 8 furthermore, a plethora of products comprising platform chemicals,

Degradable organic waste methane production potential. fuels, polymers, etc. can be generated. The process can pass immense
Degradable Organic matter Degradable rate Methane economic benefits to households and is capable of improving the
organic waste content (dry % production (m3/t) standard of living in developing countries [41]. Using fly larvae in
matter)% manure recycling has been found to be economically successful in
various instances. Larvae produced during the recycling process are
Chicken manure 85–90 90 620–670
Duck manure 85–90 90 620–670
used as animal feed or for production of biofuel, whereas residue is used
Pig manure 80–86 70 450 as fertilizers [120]. Use of black soldier flies (BSF) to recycle human
Cow manure 80–83 70 450 waste was found to be economically viable in Tanzania. BSF larvae
Horse manure 83–84 95 583 could be used as an animal feed and in biodiesel production, and the
estimated annual profit from three latrine wastes was estimated to be
63,000 US$. However, for the project to be successful, several chal-
lenges need to be overcome, and one of them is the negative perception
of the use of animal waste grown larvae for chicken feed [121]. In

Fig. 8. Overall organic manure recycling for renewable circular bio-economy and sustainable energy approach through fusion-combined approaches for multi-
functional utilizations [135].

125
M.K. Awasthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131

Fig. 9. Economic cost analysis of organic manure recycling and management.

Table 9
Economic potential of organic manure recycling.
Organic Manure Process for their management/recycling Economic analysis Reference

Cow manure and food waste Vermicomposting by earthworm species Yearly profit for 450 and 220 kg cow was 200 and 100 USD respectively; return on [167]
Eudriluseugeniae investment for 5 year period was in range of 170–280%
Pig manure and agro-industrial Continuously stirred tank reactor biogas Total electricity production was in range of 500–112- kWEE; Net annual profit was [168]
crop plant 366–1338 k€
Pig manure Bioconversion using house fly larvae Annual profit of 67,900 US$ in 2008 and 210,000 US$ in 2010 [122]
Animal manures Manure application to soil Manure application cost ranged from 18% (chicken manure) to 136% (cow manure) [169]
to the cost of chemical fertilizers
Human excreta Composting toilets Payback period of less than 10 years at discount rates of 0–12% [170]
Manure and different bulking On-farm composting plant Cost of compost production was 10–30 €/ton; cheaper than commercial compost [106]
agent available in Italian market
Chicken Manure Biogas plant Annual benefit of RMB 12 million; generates 14 million KWh of power; annual [171]
reduction of 84,000 t of CO2 and 2600 t of gravel in chicken manure

China, a profitable pig manure recycling process by the use of house fly
larvae was setup. The project has an annual profit of 63,000 US$. The
majority of the revenue (96%) resulted from the sale of larvae to a local
fish and poultry feedstuff manufacturer and a biotech company in
Shanghai [122]. Some of the management practices in manure re-
cycling and their economic analyses are presented in Table 9. It can be
concluded that proper manure management practices along with gov-
ernment intervention for incentives and favorable policies can make
manure recycling economically viable.
6. Challenges, recommendations and future perspectives
Several challenges have been posed in manure recycling and fore-
most among them is the release of odors and GHGs. Animal manures
have a high ammonia content (12 g N/kg TS), thus leading to im-
mediate odor emission after composting [123]. Odor emission is a
consistent challenge, irrespective of the varied processes applied for
recycling. For instance, the use of fly larvae in composting releases
heat, a large number of volatile compounds, and obnoxious gases thus
leading to air pollution and health hazards to staff [120]. Composting
and vermicomposting processes are also a source of secondary pollution
through the emission of GHGs, thus, diminishing the environmental
benefits of recycling. However, this shortcoming can be overcome by
fortifying waste with mature compost and carbon bulking agents [119].
Proper manure management practices can help to mitigate the emission
of GHGs such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Manipulating
animal diet with less nitrogen intake, decreasing the manure storage
time and temperature, and using semipermeable covers to reduce CH4,
NH3, and odor emission are some feasible steps to control the emission
of GHGs. AD is the method of choice to capture most of the CH4 from
manure and convert it into renewable energy. However, its use is lim-
ited in cold climates as its operation is not suggested below 15 °C
without the supplementation of heat and temperature control [124].
The modern practices of raising livestock have led to excesses in
antibiotics, heavy metals, and hormones in animal manure. This affects
microbial growth cause environmental deterioration when applied to

126
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
land [125]. Antibiotics in manure are a major concern, as their dis-
charge in the field is harmful to human health and the environment. It
can cause antibiotic resistance in microbes. The composting process
helps to mitigate/destroy persistent organic compounds and resistance
genes [126]. Manure is known to have pathogenic microbes, and their
containment during recycling is also a demanding problem. For ex-
ample, chicken manure contains Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Clos-
tridium, Campylobacter, Streptococcus, and Listeria etc. [127]. High-
temperature stages of AD and composting help in containing and
bringing the number of pathogens to a safe level. However, for the
removal of persistent pathogens, an additional treatment such as pas-
teurization is required. The thermo-chemical treatment also generates
ashes with a low content of trace elements and is devoid of pathogens
[128]. However, additional treatment processes need technological
advancement and increase the cost of manure recycling. Environmental
regulations limit the use of manure-recycled fertilizers that have toxic
elements, antibiotics, and pathogens above a safe limit. For instance,
roxarsone use in broiler chicken industry resulted in arsenic pollution in
the environment. Thus, Maryland authorities banned arsenic additives
except nitarsone, in poultry feed [129]. Public acceptance of manure
recycling is also a challenge. Farmers and associated nearby commu-
nities should be educated about the societal, economic, and environ-
mental benefits of manure recycling. The local public is generally op-
posed to setting up recycling plants as it emits an odor. They are also
wary of the spread of pathogenic microbes and other environmental
problems. Governments should protect the public with strict environ-
mental and other recycling plant regulations [114]. The public also has
a negative perception of products that are derived from animal waste
recycling, which leads to a reduction in their sales and price.
This challenge of a negative perception could be overcome by public
involvement and convincing them with proper scientific reasoning.
Scaling-up the recycling process is also a big challenge that is associated
with each method. The use of fly larvae for recycling is hampered by the
scaling-up of the process, knowledge of fly biology, and the require-
ment of space for the operation [130,131]. Normally, fly larvae could
not dig more than 7.5–10 cm. Thus, the process will need a large
number of shallow trays or basins; this limits the volume of manure to
be recycled. To overcome this, technological innovations are required
for the successful operation of recycling and for cutting the production
cost [120]. Government policies regulating the use of compost as soil
amendments cannot always satisfy the public. However, the regulations
for quality control such as having a uniform nutrient level and treat-
ment for pathogen removal can help in establishing a uniform market. If
some policies and adherence to environmental regulations need an
additional treatment step, then the cost of operations would increase
[115]. This extra economic burden of farmers should be shared by
governments through incentives. Setting up of a centralized cooperative
and government-run large recycling plants can help in the generation of
products with uniform quality. This will also help in convenient op-
eration and adherence to government set regulations, but the cost of
transportation could affect the economy.
As previously noted, population and economic growth have resulted
in increased manure generation. Given the detrimental effects of un-
managed waste, manure recycling is imperative. The Chinese govern-
ment has a larger part to play in manure management through educa-
tion for concerned farmers, public involvement, incentives for farmers,
policies and environmental regulations. Contemporary manure re-
cycling management strategies are inefficient in handling the large
amounts of manure that were generated. Farmers and the general
public are unaware of the harmful effects of unmanaged waste. Waste
storage, transportation, and application in fields need to be managed
well to address environmental deterioration. The government must take
initiatives to impart knowledge to the concerned public for the man-
agement of manure. Scientific awareness also needs to be created
among the public regarding the handling and recycling of manure.
Setting up cooperatives and a public-private partnership model for
127
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
manure recycling management and technology installations also need
to be mulled over. The establishment of a stable and flourishing market
and supply chain for manure-recycled products is also essential for
enhanced profit. Technological advancement is one area that is lacking
in current manure recycling. Scale-up, monitoring, uniform product,
performance, etc. need to be improved with continued research and
innovations. The government should also encourage entrepreneurship
in the manure recycling business. Furthermore, technological ad-
vancement should add to the range of products that are derived from
manure recycling to take it beyond organic fertilizers and biogas. Given
the environmental concerns and economic benefits that are related to
manure recycling, the area will be in the spotlight in the future.
One of the fastest growing areas in the manure anaerobic codiges-
tion (AcoD) [132]. Innovative process development is desirable to grow
cohesive food waste (FW) pretreatment capacity through a consecutive
progression; for instance, the cutting and separation of FW. On the basis
of constituent part proportions, the desired particle size could be
achieved for more available organics (because of a higher superficial
area) available to microbes. Consequently, the AcoD procedure is used
for improved energy recapture which would treat the organic manure
alongside FW in suitable dimensions and proportion. Such a method
would, perhaps also increase the overall proceeds of waste water
treatment plants (WWTPs) as a better recovery procedure, and most
stimulating for FW valorization, with reduced environmental influences
on nearby civilizations. In the approaching future, the combined di-
gestion process might be a revolution aimed at the WWTPs, and CH4
can be a capable alternative dynamism; however, additional expansions
are desirable to form such a financially viable procedure through ex-
ecuting the multitasking methods. In the present assessment, numerous
constraints have been studied. For sustainable AcoD, several critical
operative constraints need to be improved with limited revisions with
manure toward evading the progression let down; in addition an easy
procedure should be adopted for easy functioning. Furthermore, nu-
merous biological production methods are inspected, for instance, pre
operated approaches, reformed container plans through bioaugmenta-
tion and solitary- or dual-phase digester, etc. By many researches, the
microaeration, premanagement, bioaugmentation, nutrients addition
and electron transference approaches have revealed helpful con-
sequences for progression enrichment and upgraded methane forma-
tion. Similarly, the thermophilic and unremitting system strategy has
offered improved CH4 profit and better-quality FW conversion, al-
though the financial viability has been the main issue.
Additionally, organic waste is typically measured as an energy re-
serve and commercial prospect for transformation. The combined di-
gestion of FW with SS can reduce the waste residues on open dump
sites, it can lower GHG discharges and diminish the use of fossil re-
sources for power production, thus benefiting the environment. The
relevant investors and the China Environmental Protection Department
should attempt to collect the necessary guidelines for the combined
digestion of organic manure with SS and/or FW to build an en-
vironmentally friendly Hong Kong in upcoming years. It is therefore
imperative to discuss the subsequent information gaps in the AcoD
scheme, which is possible with more studies in the future:
• To advance the innovative dual-phase system strategy through a
mixture of pre handling, the feed nature, ratio and specific microbes
for better efficiency;
• To increase more awareness of reactor conditions for instance, C/N
ratio, VFAs, unstable solid, and nutrient necessities;
• The wide-ranging investigation of the microbial instability role,
dispersal outlines of the microorganism population through an in-
hibitory alternating stage and recapture from action letdowns due to
bioaugmentation, which requires further investigation with specific
ratios;
• Although the alteration of the accumulated transitional products in
the energy is extended with an inhibitory procedure, it might be
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
diminished by biochar treatment and the micro-air supply;
• Moreover, the better quality direct interspecies electron transfer
mechanisms are used to recover the overall competence of AcoD
technology which must be authenticated;
• Furthermore, no previous studies have described the least and ex-
treme electron beginning points for anaerobic digester biometha-
nogens, which can be examined in forthcoming investigations.
7. Conclusions
In this review article, we investigated the recent opportunities and
challenges in recycling manure as alternate feed materials under the
biorefinery umbrella. Compared to the other treatment methods,
anaerobic digestion is the most extensively explored approach for the
production of biogas, which can be enhanced through strategies such as
substrate pretreatment, codigestion, the inoculum-to-substrate ratio,
novel bioreactor designs and bioaugmentation. Despite the promising
societal, environmental and economic benefits from organic manure
recycling, several obstacles need to be overcome for full implementa-
tion in China, including the limited scientific knowledge and the cur-
rent market models.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a research fund from the International
Young Scientists from National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 31750110469), China and The Introduction of Talent
Research Start-up Fund (Grant No. Z101021803), College of Natural
Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling,
Shaanxi Province 712100, China. The Mobility for Regional Excellence-
2020 (Grant No. RUN 2017-00771), European Union's Horizon 2020
Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-
Curie grant agreement No 754412 at University of Borås, Borås,
Sweden. Distinguished High-Level Talents Research Grant from
Guizhou Science and Technology Corporation Platform Talents Fund
(Grant No. [2017]5733-001 & CK-1130-002) and Zunyi Medical
University, Zunyi, China for their advanced research facilities. We are
also thankful to all our laboratory colleagues and research staff mem-
bers for their constructive advice and help.
References
[1] Chadwick D, Sommer S, Thorman R, Fangueiro D, Cardenas L, Amon B,
Misselbrook T. Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas emissions.
Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011;166–167:514–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anifeedsci.2011.04.036.
[2] Liu J, CHE Y. Present situation and countermeasures of agricultural non-point
source pollution in China. Chin. Environ. Manage 2007;1078. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fmicb.2015.01078.
[3] Vu QD, Tran TM, Nguyen PD, Vu CC, Vu VTK, Jensen LS. Effect of biogas tech-
nology on nutrient flows for small- and medium-scale pig farms in Vietnam.
Nutrient Cycl Agroecosyst 2012;94:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-012-
9516-y.
[4] Sun B, Zhang L, Yang L, Zhang F, Norse D, Zhu Z. Agricultural non-point source
pollution in China: causes and mitigation measures. Ambio 2012;41:370–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0249-6.
[5] Chadwick DR, John F, Pain BF, Chambers BJ, Williams JR. Plant uptake of nitrogen
from the organic nitrogen fraction of animal manures: a laboratory experiment. J
Agric Sci 2000;134:159–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859699007510.
[6] Burkart MR, James DE. Agricultural-nitrogen contributions to hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico. J Environ Qual 1999;20:850–9. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1999.
00472425002800030016x.
[7] Chadwick DR, Chen S. Manures. In: Haygarth PM, Jarvis SC, editors. Agriculture,
hydrology and water quality. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 2003. p. 57–82.
[8] Aillery M. Managing manure to improve air and water quality. Economic Research
Report 2005;32(32):673–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(00)85210-8.
[9] Petersen SO, Blanchard M, Chadwick D, Del Prado A, Edouard N, Mosquera J,
Sommer SG. Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation. Animal
2013;7:266–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731113000736.
[10] SAIN. Greater food security and a better environment through improved nitrogen
fertilizer management. 2010www.sainonline.org/SAIN-website(English)/
download/PolicyBriefNo2.pdf.
[11] Norse D. The nitrogen cycle, scientific uncertainty and policy relevant science. Sci
128
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
China C Life Sci 2005;48:807–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03187120.
[12] Guo JH, Liu XJ, Zhang Y, Shen JL, Han WX, Zhang WF, Christie P, Goulding K,
Vitousek P, Zhang FS. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science
2010;327:1008–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182570.
[13] Le C, Zha Y, Li Y, Sun D, Lu H, Yin B. Eutrophication of lake waters in China: cost,
causes, and control. Environ Manag 2010;45:662–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-010-9440-3.
[14] Liu X, Zhang F. Nitrogen fertilizer induced greenhouse gas emissions in China.
CurrOpin Environ Sustain 2011;3:407–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.
08.006.
[15] Ju XT, Kou CL, Zhang FS, Christie P. Nitrogen balance and groundwater nitrate
contamination: comparison among three intensive cropping systems on the North
China Plain. Environ Pollut 2006;143:117–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2005.11.005.
[16] Lu SC, Yan ZJ, Chen Q, Zhang FS. Evaluation of conventional nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilization and potential environmental risk in intensive orchards of
North China. J Plant Nutr 2012;35:1509–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.
2012.689911.
[17] Sims J, Ma L, Oenema O, Dou Z, Zhang F. Advances and challenges for nutrient
management in China in the 21st century. J Environ Qual 2013;42:947–50.
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.05.0173.
[18] Xue QY, Shamsi IH, Sun DS, Ostermann A, Zhang QC, Zhang YS, Lin XY. Impact of
manure application on forms and quantities of phosphorus in a Chinese Cambisol
under different land use. J Soils Sediments 2013;13:837–45. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11368-012-0627-5.
[19] Yan Z, Liu P, Li Y, Ma L, Alva A, Dou Z, Chen Q, Zhang F. Phosphorus in China's
intensive vegetable production systems: over fertilization, soil enrichment, and
environmental implications. J Environ Qual 2013;42:982–9. https://doi.org/10.
2134/jeq2012.0463.
[20] Ostermann A, Gao J, Welp G, Siemens J, Roelcke M, Heimann L, Nieder R, Xue Q,
Lin X, Sandhage-Hofmann A, Amelung W. Identification of soil contamination
hotspots with veterinary antibiotics using heavy metal concentrations and leaching
data – a field study in China. Environ Monit 2014:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-014-3960-x. Assess.
[21] Powlson D, Norse D, Chadwick D, Lu Y, Zhang W, Zhang F, Huang J, Jia X.
Contribution of improved nitrogen fertilizer use to development of a low carbon
economy in China. World Agric 2014;4(2):10–8.
[22] Burg V, Bowman G, Haubensak M, Baier U, Thees O. Valorization of an untapped
resource: energy and greenhouse gas emissions benefits of converting manure to
biogas through anaerobic digestion. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;136:53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.004https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.04.004.
[23] Fuchs W, Wang X, Gabauer W, Ortner M, Li Z. Tackling ammonia inhibition for
efficient biogas production from chicken manure: status and technical trends in
Europe and China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;97:186–99https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2018.08.038.
[24] HEZ, Pagliari PH, Waldrip HM. Applied and environmental chemistry of animal
manure: a review. Pedosphere 2016;26(6):779–816https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1002-0160(15)60087-X.
[25] Scarlat N, Motola V, Dallemand JF, Monforti-Ferrario F, Mofor L. Evaluation of
energy potential of municipal solid waste from African urban areas. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;50:1269–86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.067.
[26] Kumar A, Samadder SR. A review on technological options of waste to energy for
effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag
2017;69:407–22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046.
[27] Adamović VM, Antanasijević DZ, Ćosović AR, Ristić MĐ, Pocajt VV. An artificial
neural network approach for the estimation of the primary production of energy
from municipal solid waste and its application to the Balkan countries. Waste
Manag 2018;78:955–68https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.012.
[28] Yang C, Yu S, Chen W. Land synergy management under the mode of forage cul-
tivation and raising livestock. Procedia Engineering 2017;174:910–7https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.241.
[29] Zahedi S. Energy efficiency: importance of indigenous microorganisms contained
in the municipal solid wastes. Waste Manag 2018;78:763–9https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2018.06.035.
[30] Guo S, Liu Q, Sun J, Jin H. A review on the utilization of hybrid renewable energy.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;91:1121–47https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.
04.105.
[31] Idrovo-Novillo J, Gavilanes-Terán I, Bustamante MA, Paredes C. Composting as a
method to recycle renewable plant resources back to the ornamental plant in-
dustry: agronomic and economic assessment of composts. Process Saf Environ
Protect 2018;116:388–95https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.03.012.
[32] Matsakas L, Gao Q, Jansson S, Rova U, Christakopoulos P. Green conversion of
municipal solid wastes into fuels and chemicals. Electron J Biotechnol
2017;26:69–83https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejbt.2017.01.004.
[33] Sarsaiya S, Awasthi SK, Awasthi MK, Awasthi AK, Mishra S, Chen J. The dynamic
of cellulase activity of fungi inhabiting organic municipal solid waste. Bioresour
Technol 2018;251:411–5https://doi.org/10.1016.
[34] Jia W, Qin W, Zhang Q, Wang X, Ma Y, Chen Q. Evaluation of crop residues and
manure production and their geographical distribution in China. J Clean Prod
2018;188:954–65https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.300.
[35] Chadwick D, Wei J, Yan'an T, Guanghui Y, Qirong S, Qing C. Improving manure
nutrient management towards sustainable agricultural intensification in China.
Agric Ecosyst Environ 2015;209:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.
025.
[36] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Evaluation of the treatment of municipal solid waste as
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
renewable energy resource in Campinas. Brazil. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess
2018;29:19–25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.06.011.
[37] Sahu PK, Chakradhari S, Dewangan S, Patel KS. Combustion characteristics of
animal manures. J Environ Prot 2016;7(06):951.
[38] Grant RH, Boehm MT, Bogan BW. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from
manure storage facilities at two free-stall dairies. Agric For Meteorol
2015;213:102–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.06.008.
[39] Zeng X, Xiao Z, Zhang G, Wang A, Li Z, Liu Y, Wang H, Zeng Q, Liang Y, Zou D.
Speciation and bioavailability of heavy metals in pyrolytic biochar of swine and
goat manures. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2018;132:82–93https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2018.03.012.
[40] Rajendran K, Aslanzadeh S, Johansson F, Taherzadeh MJ. Experimental and eco-
nomical evaluation of a novel biogas digester. Energy Convers Manag
2013;74:183–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.05.020.
[41] Sawatdeenarunat C, Nguyen D, Surendra KC, Shrestha S, Rajendran K, Oechsner H,
Li X, Khanal SK. Anaerobic biorefinery: current status, challenges, and opportu-
nities. Bioresour Technol 2016;215:304–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2016.03.074.
[42] Rajendran K, Aslanzadeh S, Taherzadeh MJ. Household biogas digesters—a re-
view. Energies 2012;5(8):2911–42.
[43] Swedish Gas Center. Basic data on biogas Available in: 2012Http://www.Sgc.Se/
ckfinder/userfiles/files/basicdataonbiogas2012.Pdf.
[44] Poulsen TG, Nizami AS, Rafique R, Kiely G, Murphy JD. How can we improve
biomethane production per unit of feedstock in biogas plants? Appl Energy
2011;88(6):2013–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.036.
[45] Li Y, Xu F, Li Y, Lu J, Li S, Shah A, Zhang X, Zhang H, Gong X, Li G. Reactor
performance and energy analysis of solid state anaerobic co-digestion of dairy
manure with corn stover and tomato residues. Waste Manag
2018;73:130–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.041.
[46] Shen X, Huang G, Yang Z, Han L. Compositional characteristics and energy po-
tential of Chinese animal manure by type and as a whole. Appl Energy
2015;160:108–19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.034.
[47] IEA. Renewable energy sources act 2017. 2017 Available in: https://www.iea.org/
policiesandmeasures/pams/germany/name-158567-en.php, Accessed date: 17
February 2018.
[48] Vo TT, Wall DM, Ring D, Rajendran K, Murphy JD. Techno-economic analysis of
biogas upgrading via amine scrubber, carbon capture and ex-situ methanation.
Appl Energy 2018;212:1191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.
099.
[49] Zhang L, Lee YW, Jahng D. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery
wastewater: focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(8):5048–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.082.
[50] Feng L, Ward AJ, Moset V, Møller HB. Methane emission during on-site pre-storage
of animal manure prior to anaerobic digestion at biogas plant: effect of storage
temperature and addition of food waste. J Environ Manag 2018;225:272–9https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.079.
[51] Vo TT, Rajendran K, Murphy JD. Can power to methane systems be sustainable
and can they improve the carbon intensity of renewable methane when used to
upgrade biogas produced from grass and slurry? Appl Energy
2018;228:1046–56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.139.
[52] Li X, Zhang C, Li Y, Zhi Q. The status of municipal solid waste incineration (mswi)
in China and its clean development. Energy Procedia 2016;104:498–503. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.084.
[53] Taherzadeh MJ, Rajendran K. Factors affecting development of waste manage-
ment, Waste management and sustainable consumption: reflections on consumer
waste. Routledge; 2015. p. 67–87.
[54] Havukainen J, Nguyen MT, Hermann L, Horttanainen M, Mikkilä M, Deviatkin I,
Linnanen L. Potential of phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge and manure ash
by thermochemical treatment. Waste Manag 2016;49:221–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2016.01.020.
[55] Tran QT, Maeda M, Oshita K, Takaoka M, Saito K. Phosphorus and potassium
availability from cattle manure ash in relation to their extractability and grass
tetany hazard. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 2018:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.
2018.1433958.
[56] Schweitzer D, Gredinger A, Schmid M, Waizmann G, Beirow M, Spörl R,
Scheffknecht G. Steam gasification of wood pellets, sewage sludge and manure:
gasification performance and concentration of impurities. Biomass Bioenergy
2018;111:308–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.002.
[57] Pereira EG, da Silva JN, de Oliveira JL, Machado CS. Sustainable energy: a review
of gasification technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(7):4753–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.023.
[58] Higman C, van der Burgt M. Chapter 1 - introduction. In: Higman C, van der Burgt
M, editors. Gasification. second ed.Burlington: Gulf Professional Publishing; 2008.
p. 1–9.
[59] Ruiz J, Juárez M, Morales M, Muñoz P, Mendívil M. Biomass gasification for
electricity generation: review of current technology barriers. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;18:174–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.021.
[60] Bhavanam A, Sastry R. Biomass gasification processes in downdraft fixed bed re-
actors: a review. IJCEA 2011;2(6):425.
[61] Corella J, Toledo JM, Molina G. A review on dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifiers.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2007;46(21):6831–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0705507.
[62] Paida V, Brilman D, Kersten S. Hydrothermal gasification of sorbitol: H2 optimi-
zation at high carbon gasification efficiencies. Chem Eng J
2019;358:351–61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.10.008.
[63] Tavasoli A, Aslan M, Salimi M, Balou S, Pirbazari S, Hashemi H, Kohansal K.
Influence of the blend nickel/porous hydrothermal carbon and cattle manure
129
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
hydrochar catalyst on the hydrothermal gasification of cattle manure for H2
production. Energy Convers Manag 2018;173:15–28https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.07.061.
[64] Zhou S, Han L, Huang G, Yang Z, Peng J. Pyrolysis characteristics and gaseous
product release properties of different livestock and poultry manures: comparative
study regarding influence of inherent alkali metals. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2018;134:343–50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.06.024.
[65] Elliott DC, Biller P, Ross AB, Schmidt AJ, Jones SB. Hydrothermal liquefaction of
biomass: Developments from batch to continuous process. Bioresour Technol
2015;178:147–56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.132.
[66] Gollakota ARK, Kishore N, Gu S. A review on hydrothermal liquefaction of bio-
mass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:1378–92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2017.05.178.
[67] Vardon DR, Sharma BK, Scott J, Yu G, Wang Z, Schideman L, Zhang Y, Strathmann
TJ. Chemical properties of biocrude oil from the hydrothermal liquefaction of
spirulina algae, swine manure, and digested anaerobic sludge. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(17):8295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.041.
[68] Yin S, Dolan R, Harris M, Tan Z. Subcritical hydrothermal liquefaction of cattle
manure to bio-oil: effects of conversion parameters on bio-oil yield and char-
acterization of bio-oil. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(10):3657–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.058.
[69] Xiu S, Shahbazi A, Shirley V, Cheng D. Hydrothermal pyrolysis of swine manure to
bio-oil: effects of operating parameters on products yield and characterization of
bio-oil. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2010;88(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.
2010.02.011.
[70] Dell'Abate MT, Canali S, Trinchera A, Benedetti A, Sequi P. Thermal analysis in the
evaluation of compost stability: a comparison with humification parameters.
Nutrient Cycl Agroecosyst 1998;51(3):217–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/
a:1009734816502.
[71] Ko HJ, Kim KY, Kim HT, Kim CN, Umeda M. Evaluation of maturity parameters
and heavy metal contents in composts made from animal manure. Waste Manag
2008;28(5):813–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.010.
[72] de Oliveira P, Angnes G, Nicoloso RDS, Higarashi M. Greenhouse gas emissions on
the treatment of swine slurry by composting. Embrapa Suínos e Aves-Artigo em
anais de congresso (ALICE). International symposium on emission of gas and dust
from livestock, 2012, Saint-Malo. [Proceedings?]. Saint-Brieuc: INRA; Le Rheu:
IFIP-Institut du Porc; 2013. EMILI 2012.
[73] Brown S, Kruger C, Subler S. Greenhouse gas balance for composting operations. J
Environ Qual 2008;37(4):1396–410. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0453.
[74] Mian MM, Zeng X, Nasry AANB, Al-Hamadani SM. Municipal solid waste man-
agement in China: a comparative analysis. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
2017;19(3):1127–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-016-0509-9.
[75] Kammann C, Schmidt HP, Williams A, Hagemann N, Marhan S, Clough T, Mueller
C. Enhanced plant growth at reduced N2O emissions: 15n dynamics confirm nitrate
capture and release of co-composted biochar. EGU general assembly conference
abstracts. 2017. p. 5326.
[76] Sánchez-García M, Alburquerque JA, Sánchez-Monedero MA, Roig A, Cayuela ML.
Biochar accelerates organic matter degradation and enhances n mineralisation
during composting of poultry manure without a relevant impact on gas emissions.
Bioresour Technol 2015;192:272–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.
003.
[77] Czekała W, Malińska K, Cáceres R, Janczak D, Dach J, Lewicki A. Co-composting of
poultry manure mixtures amended with biochar–The effect of biochar on tem-
perature and C-CO2 emission. Bioresour Technol 2016;200:921–7https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.019.
[78] Karellas S, Boukis I, Kontopoulos G. Development of an investment decision tool
for biogas production from agricultural waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14(4):1273–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.12.002.
[79] Patinvoh RJ, Osadolor OA, Chandolias K, Horváth SI, Taherzadeh MJ. Innovative
pretreatment strategies for biogas production. Bioresour Technol
2017;224:13–24https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.083.
[80] Böjti T, Kovács KL, Kakuk B, Wirth R, Rákhely G, Bagi Z. Pretreatment of poultry
manure for efficient biogas production as monosubstrate or co-fermentation with
maize silage and corn stover. Anaerobe 2017;46:138–45https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.anaerobe.2017.03.017.
[81] Carlsson M, Lagerkvist A, Morgan-Sagastume F. The effects of substrate pre-
treatment on anaerobic digestion systems: a review. Waste Manag
2012;32(9):1634–50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.04.016.
[82] Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, Ren G, Han X. Optimizing feeding composition and
carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion
of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour Technol
2012;120:78–83https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.058.
[83] Heng LK. Bio gas plant green energy from poultry wastes in Singapore. Energy
Procedia 2017;143:436–41https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.708.
[84] Li R, Chen S, Li X, Lar SJ, He Y, Zhu B. Anaerobic codigestion of kitchen waste with
cattle manure for biogas production. Energy Fuel 2009;23(4):2225–8. https://doi.
org/10.1021/ef8008772.
[85] Boe K, Kougias PG, Pacheco F, O-Thong S, Angelidaki I. Effect of substrates and
intermediate compounds on foaming in manure digestion systems. Water Sci
Technol 2012;66(10):2146–54. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.438.
[86] Kougias PG, Boe K, Angelidaki I. Effect of organic loading rate and feedstock
composition on foaming in manure-based biogas reactors. Bioresour Technol
2013;144:1–7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.028.
[87] Fernández B, Porrier P, Chamy R. Effect of inoculum-substrate ratio on the start-up
of solid waste anaerobic digesters. Water Sci Technol 2001;44(4):103–8. https://
doi.org/10.0000/PMID11575072.
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
[88] Chamy R, Ramos C. Factors in the determination of methanogenic potential of
manure. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(17):7673–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2011.05.044.
[89] Elasri O, Salem M, Ramdani M, Zaraali O, Lahbib L. Effect of increasing inoculum
ratio on energy recovery from chicken manure for better use in egyptian agri-
cultural farms. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric 2018;5:17https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40538-018-0129-9.
[90] Lawal A, Dzivama A, Wasinda M. Effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on biogas
production of sheep paunch manure. J Agric Eng Res 2016;62:8–14. https://doi.
org/10.17221/30/2014-RAE.
[91] Demirer GN, Chen S. Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure in a hybrid reactor with
biogas recirculation. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2005;21(8):1509–14. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11274-005-7371-6.
[92] Boe K, Angelidaki I. Serial cstr digester configuration for improving biogas pro-
duction from manure. Water Res 2009;43(1):166–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2008.09.041.
[93] Chiumenti A, da Borso F, Limina S. Dry anaerobic digestion of cow manure and
agricultural products in a full-scale plant: efficiency and comparison with wet
fermentation. Waste Manag 2018;71:704–10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2017.03.046.
[94] Zhang J, Loh KC, Lee J, Wang CH, Dai Y, Tong WY. Three-stage anaerobic co-
digestion of food waste and horse manure. Sci Rep-UK 2017;7(1). https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-017-01408-w. 1269-1269.
[95] Patinvoh RJ, Mehrjerdi KA, Horváth SI, Taherzadeh MJ. Dry fermentation of
manure with straw in continuous plug flow reactor: reactor development and
process stability at different loading rates. Bioresour Technol
2017;224:197–205https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.011.
[96] Chen C, Zheng D, Liu GJ, Deng LW, Long Y, Fan ZH. Continuous dry fermentation
of swine manure for biogas production. Waste Manag 2015;38:436–42https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.024.
[97] Saady NMC, Massé DI. High rate psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of high solids
(35%) dairy manure in sequence batch reactor. Bioresour Technol
2015;186:74–80https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.038.
[98] Massé DI, Saady NMC. Dry anaerobic digestion of high solids content dairy manure
at high organic loading rates in psychrophilic sequence batch reactor. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2015;99(10):4521–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-
6516-2.
[99] Patinvoh RJ, Osadolor OA, Sárvári Horváth I, Taherzadeh MJ. Cost effective dry
anaerobic digestion in textile bioreactors: Experimental and economic evaluation.
Bioresour Technol 2017;245:549–59https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.
081.
[100] Patinvoh RJ, Osadolor OA, Horváth SI, Taherzadeh MJ. Cost effective dry anae-
robic digestion in textile bioreactors: Experimental and economic evaluation.
Bioresour Technol 2017;245:549–59https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.
081.
[101] Fotidis IA, Wang H, Fiedel NR, Luo G, Karakashev DB, Angelidaki I.
Bioaugmentation as a solution to increase methane production from an ammonia-
rich substrate. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48(13):7669–76. https://doi.org/10.
1021/es5017075.
[102] Nzila A. Mini review: Update on bioaugmentation in anaerobic processes for
biogas production. Anaerobe 2017;46:3–12https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.
2016.11.007.
[103] Ozbayram EG, Akyol Ç, Ince B, Karakoç C, Ince O. Rumen bacteria at work:
bioaugmentation strategies to enhance biogas production from cow manure. J
Appl Microbiol 2018;124(2):491–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13668.
[104] Yıldırım E, Ince O, Aydin S, Ince B. Improvement of biogas potential of anaerobic
digesters using rumen fungi. Renew Energy 2017;109:346–53https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2017.03.021.
[105] Aguirre-Villegas HA, Larson RA. Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy
manure management practices using survey data and lifecycle tools. J Clean Prod
2017;143:169–79https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.133.
[106] Pergola M, Piccolo A, Palese AM, Ingrao C, Meo DV, Celano G. A combined as-
sessment of the energy, economic and environmental issues associated with on-
farm manure composting processes: two case studies in South of Italy. J Clean Prod
2018;172:3969–81https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.111.
[107] Cuéllar AD, Webber ME. Cow power: the energy and emissions benefits of con-
verting manure to biogas. Environ Res Lett 2008;3(3):034002https://doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002.
[108] Wu H, Hanna MA, Jones DD. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions of
feedlot manure management practices: land application versus gasification.
Biomass Bioenergy 2013;54:260–6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.
011.
[109] Wu W, Ma B. Integrated nutrient management (INM) for sustaining crop pro-
ductivity and reducing environmental impact: a review. Sci Total Environ
2015;512–513:415–27https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.101.
[110] Janssen BH. Integrated nutrient management: the use of organic and mineral
fertilizer. In: van Reuler H, Prins WH, editors. The role of plant nutrients for
sustainable crop production in sub-saharan africa. Wageningen, The Netherlands:
Ponsen and Looijen; 1993. p. 89–105.
[111] Diacono M, Montemurro F. Effectiveness of organic wastes as fertilizers and
amendments in salt-affected soils. Agriculture 2015;5:221.
[112] Garcia C, Hernandez T, Coll MD, Ondoño S. Organic amendments for soil re-
storation in arid and semiarid areas: a review. AIMS Environ Sci 2017;4:640–76.
[113] Kastner M, Miltner A. Application of compost for effective bioremediation of or-
ganic contaminants and pollutants in soil. Appl microbiol biot 2016;100:3433–49.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7378-y.
130
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
[114] Lin L, Xu F, Ge X, Li Y. Improving the sustainability of organic waste management
practices in the food-energy-water nexus: a comparative review of anaerobic di-
gestion and composting. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;89:151–67https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.025.
[115] Westerman PW, Bicudo JR. Management considerations for organic waste use in
agriculture. Bioresour Technol 2005;96:215–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2004.05.011.
[116] Bluemling B, Wang F. An institutional approach to manure recycling: conduit
brokerage in Sichuan Province, China. Resour Conserv Recycl
2018;139:396–406https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.08.001.
[117] Murphy JD, Power NM. A technical, economic and environmental comparison of
composting and anaerobic digestion of biodegradable municipal waste. J environ
sci heal A 2006;41:865–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934520600614488.
[118] Galgani P, van der Voet E, Korevaar G. Composting, anaerobic digestion and
biochar production in Ghana. Environmental–economic assessment in the context
of voluntary carbon markets. Waste Manag 2014;34:2454–65. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2014.07.027.
[119] Lim SL, Lee LH, Wu TY. Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting
technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent overview, green-
house gases emissions and economic analysis. J Clean Prod 2016;111:262–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.083.
[120] Cickova H, Newton GL, Lacy RC, Kozanek M. The use of fly larvae for organic
waste treatment. Waste manage (New York, NY) 2015;35:68–80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.026.
[121] Agrawal N, Chacko M, Ramachandran M, Thian M. Assessing the commercial
viability of BSF as biodiesel and animal feed. Special report prepared for the
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine by the. University of California
Berkeley -Haas School of Business; 2011http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/
sanitationventures/innovation/bsf-larvae-economic-potential/.
[122] Wang H, Zhang Z, Czapar GF, Winkler MK, Zheng J. A full-scale house fly (Diptera:
muscidae) larvae bioconversion system for value-added swine manure reduction.
Waste Manag Res 2013;31:223–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X12469431.
[123] Aboudi K, Álvarez-Gallego CJ, Romero-García LI. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-
digestion of sugar beet byproduct and pig manure: effect of the organic loading
rate (OLR) on process performance. Bioresour Technol 2015;194:283–90. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.031.
[124] Montes F, Meinen R, Dell C, Rotz A, Hristov AN, Oh J, Waghorn G, Gerber PJ,
Henderson B, Makkar HP, Dijkstra J. Special topics–Mitigation of methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure manage-
ment mitigation options. J Anim Sci 2013;91:5070–94https://doi.org/10.2527/
jas.2013-6584.
[125] Zhang H, Schroder J. Animal manure production and utilization in the US. In: He
Z, Zhang H, editors. Applied manure and nutrient chemistry for sustainable
agriculture and environment. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014. p. 1–21.
[126] Ezzariai A, Hafidi M, Khadra A, Aemig Q, El Fels L, Barret M, Merlina G, Patureau
D, Pinelli E. Human and veterinary antibiotics during composting of sludge or
manure: global perspectives on persistence, degradation, and resistance genes. J
Hazard Mater 2018;359:465–81https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.07.092.
[127] Chen Z, Jiang X. Microbiological safety of chicken litter or chicken litter-based
organic fertilizers: a review. Agriculture 2014;4:1. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture4010001.
[128] Bloem E, Albihn A, Elving J, Hermann L, Lehmann L, Sarvi M, Schaaf T, Schick J,
Turola E, Yivainio K. Contamination of organic nutrient sources with potentially
toxic elements, antibiotics and pathogen microorganisms in relation to P fertilizer
potential and treatment options for the production of sustainable fertilizers: a
review. Sci Total Environ 2017;607–608:225–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.06.274.
[129] Fisher DJ, Yonkos LT, Staver KW. Environmental concerns of roxarsone in broiler
poultry feed and litter in Maryland, USA. Environ Sci Technol
2015;49:1999–2012. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504520w.
[130] Diener S, Studt Solano NM, Roa Gutiérrez F, Zurbrügg C, Tockner K. Biological
treatment of municipal organic waste using black soldier fly larvae. Waste Biomass
Valori 2011;2:357–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-011-9079-1.
[131] Eby HJ, Dendy WL. An attempt to mechanize nutrient recovery from animal waste
by the use of house fly larvae. T ASAE 1978;21:395–8.
[132] Lin C, Pfaltzgraff L, Herrero-Davila L, Mubofu E, Abderrahim S, Clark J, Koutinas
A, Kopsahelis N, Stamatelatou K, Dickson F, Thankappan S, Mohamed Z,
Brocklesby R, Luque R. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of
chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy
Environ Sci 2013;6:426–64. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2EE23440H.
[135] Mohan SV, Nikhil GN, Chiranjeevi P, Reddy CN, Rohit MV, Kumar AN, Sarkar O.
Waste biorefinery models towards sustainable circular bioeconomy: critical review
and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2016;215:2–12. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2016.03.130.
[136] Zhang W, Xu A, Ji H, Kolbe H. Estimation of agricultural non-point source pol-
lution in China and the alleviating strategies. Department of Agriculture Report;
2002.
[137] EPA China. China state environmental protection and ministration and natural
ecological protection division. The investigation on national scale of livestock and
poultry breeding and countermeasures to prevent and control pollution [M] vol.
25. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press; 2002. p. 77–8.
[138] Geng W, Hu L, Cui J, Bu M, Zhang B. Biogas energy potential for livestock manure
and gross control of animal feeding in region level of China. Trans China Soc Agric
Eng (TCSAE) 2013;29:171–9. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.01.
023. (in Chinese with English abstract).
M.K. Awasthi, et al.
[139] Li Y, Xu F, Li Y, Lu J, Li S, Shah A, Zhang X, Zhang H, Gong X, Li G. Reactor
performance and energy analysis of solid state anaerobic co-digestion of dairy
manure with corn stover and tomato residues. Waste Manag 2018;73:130–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.041.
[140] Liu E, Liu S. Process optimization and study of biogas fermentation with a mixture
of duck manure and straw. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;72:439–44https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.045.
[141] Wang H, Xu J, Sheng L, Liu X. Effect of addition of biogas slurry for anaerobic
fermentation of deer manure on biogas production. Energy
2018;165(B):411–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.196.
[142] Zhao Y, Sun F, Yu J, Cai Y, Luo X, Cui Z, Hu Y, Wang X. Co-digestion of oat straw
and cow manure during anaerobic digestion: stimulative and inhibitory effects on
fermentation. Bioresour Technol 2018;269:143–52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2018.08.040.
[143] Ma J, Bashir MA, Pan J, Qiu L, Liu H, Zhai L, Rehim A. Enhancing performance
and stability of anaerobic digestion of chicken manure using thermally modified
bentonite. J Clean Prod 2018;183:11–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
02.121.
[144] Zhang C, Yun S, Li X, Wang Z, Xu H, Du T. Low-cost composited accelerants for
anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: focusing on methane yield, digestate utili-
zation and energy evaluation. Bioresour Technol 2018;263:517–24https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.042.
[145] Lang Q, Zhang B, Liu Z, Chen Z, Xia Y, Li D, Ma J, Gai C. Co-hydrothermal car-
bonization of corn stalk and swine manure: combustion behavior of hydrochar by
thermogravimetric analysis. Bioresour Technol 2019;271:75–83https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.100.
[146] Cao H, Xin Y, Wang D, Yuan Q. Pyrolysis characteristics of cattle manures using a
discrete distributed activation energy model. Bioresour Technol
2014;172:219–25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.049.
[147] Carrère H, Sialve B, Bernet N. Improving pig manure conversion into biogas by
thermal and thermo-chemical pretreatments. Bioresour Technol
2009;100(15):3690–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.015.
[148] Bonmatí A, Flotats X, Mateu L, Campos E. Study of thermal hydrolysis as a pre-
treatment to mesophilic anaerobic digestion of pig slurry. Water Sci Technol
2001;44:109–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00228-1.
[149] Jin Y, Hu Z, Wen Z. Enhancing anaerobic digestibility and phosphorus recovery of
dairy manure through microwave-based thermochemical pretreatment. Water Res
2009;43(14):3493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.05.017.
[150] Rafique R, Poulsen TG, Nizami AS, Asam ZUZ, Murphy JD, Kiely G. Effect of
thermal, chemical and thermo-chemical pre-treatments to enhance methane pro-
duction. Energy 2010;35(12):4556–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.
07.011.
[151] Elbeshbishy E, Aldin S, Hafez H, Nakhla G, Ray M. Impact of ultrasonication of hog
manure on anaerobic digestability. Ultrason Sonochem 2011;18(1):164–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2010.04.011.
[152] Hartmann H, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Increase of anaerobic degradation of par-
ticulate organic matter in full-scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration.
Water Sci Technol 2000;41(3):145–53. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900289.
[153] Elasri O, Afilal EAM. Potential for biogas production from the anaerobic digestion
of chicken droppings in Morocco. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric
2016;5(3):195–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-016-0128-4.
[154] Raju CS, Sutaryo S, Ward AJ, Møller HB. Effects of high-temperature isochoric pre-
treatment on the methane yields of cattle, pig and chicken manure. Environ
Technol 2013;34(2):239–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.689482.
[155] Castrillón L, Fernández-Nava Y, OrmaecheaP Marañón E. Optimization of biogas
production from cattle manure by pre-treatment with ultrasound and co-digestion
with crude glycerin. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(17):7845–9. https://doi.org/10.
131
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115–131
1016/j.biortech.2011.05.047.
[156] Marañón E, Castrillón L, Quiroga G, Fernández-Nava Y, Gómez L, García MM. Co-
digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge to increase biogas pro-
duction. Waste Manag 2012;32(10):1821–5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2012.05.033.
[157] Neves L, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Co-digestion of cow manure, food waste and in-
termittent input of fat. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(6):1957–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.030.
[158] Xie S, Lawlor PG, Frost JP, Hu Z, Zhan X. Effect of pig manure to grass silage ratio
on methane production in batch anaerobic co-digestion of concentrated pig
manure and grass silage. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(10):5728–33. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.009.
[159] Moset V, Fontaine D, Møller HB. Co-digestion of cattle manure and grass harvested
with different technologies. Effect on methane yield, digestate composition and
energy balance. Energy 2017;141:451–60https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.
08.068.
[160] Bayrakdar A, Molaey R, Sürmeli RÖ, Sahinkaya E, Çalli B. Biogas production from
chicken manure: Co-digestion with spent poppy straw. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad
2017;119:205–10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.10.058.
[161] Matheri AN, Ndiweni SN, Belaid M, Muzenda E, Hubert R. Optimizing biogas
production from anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and organic fraction of
municipal solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:756–64https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.068.
[162] Babaee A, Shayegan J, Roshani A. Anaerobic slurry co-digestion of poultry manure
and straw: effect of organic loading and temperature. J Environ Health Sci
2013;11(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-336X-11-15.
[163] Mao C, Zhang T, WangX, Feng Y, Ren G, Yang G. Process performance and me-
thane production optimizing of anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and corn
straw. Sci Rep-UK 2017;7(1):9379. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
09977-6.
[164] Cuetos MJ, Fernández C, Gómez X, Morán A. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine
manure with energy crop residues. Biotechnol Bioproc E 2011;16(5):1044.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-011-0117-4.
[165] Lopes M, Baptista P, Duarte E, Moreira ALN. Enhanced biogas production from
anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and horse manure with mechanical pre-
treatment. Environ Technol 2017:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.
1420698.
[166] Tsapekos P, Kougias PG, Treu L, Campanaro S, Angelidaki I. Process performance
and comparative metagenomic analysis during co-digestion of manure and lig-
nocellulosic biomass for biogas production. Appl Energy 2017;185:126–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.081.
[167] Lalander CH, Komakech AJ, Vinnerås B. Vermicomposting as manure management
strategy for urban small-holder animal farms – Kampala case study. Waste Manag
2015;39:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.009.
[168] Riva C, Schievano A, D'Imporzano G, Adani F. Production costs and operative
margins in electric energy generation from biogas. Full-scale case studies in Italy.
Waste Manag 2014;34:1429–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.04.018.
[169] Araji AA, Abdo ZO, Joyce P. Efficient use of animal manure on cropland–economic
analysis. Bioresour Technol 2001;79:179–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-
8524(01)00042-6.
[170] Anand C, Apul DS. Economic and environmental analysis of standard, high effi-
ciency, rainwater flushed, and composting toilets. J Environ Manag
2011;92:419–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.005.
[171] Chen L, Cong R-G, Shu B, Mi Z-F. A sustainable biogas model in China: the case
study of Beijing Deqingyuan biogas project. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;78:773–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.027.