Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology

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

Review

A review on anaerobic digestion with focus on the role of biomass

co-digestion, modelling and optimisation on biogas production
and enhancement
Tawanda Kunatsa a,b,*, Xiaohua Xia a
a
Center of New Energy Systems, Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa b
Department of Fuels and Energy, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Zimbabwe

HIGHLIGHTS

• Modelling and optimisation of anaerobic co-digestion is reviewed

• Co-digestion requires more research into a variety of bio-resources and their specific blend proportions
• Modelling and optimisation of co-digestion with substrate seasonal fluctuations is yet to be explored •
Biogas hybridisation is yet to be explored in depth
• A multi-objective approach in technical and economic analysis is essential.

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Co-digestion
Biogas enhancement
Modelling and optimisation Techno-economic analysis

increament to 2◦C, adoption of RETs and energy efficiency must be

encouraged and raised significantly (Sawin et al., 2016). This growing
1. Introduction The energy sectors world over are faced with a task to come up
ABSTRACT
with alternative sources of energy to substitute fossil derived fuels.
There is urgent need for boosting energy generation to fill in the
The status, recent trends and future perspectives in modelling and optimisation of
anaerobic co-digestion is investigated. Areas that can be focused on and those
shortfalls in supply to the ever increasing energy demand. Generating
which need further research towards enhancing biogas production are pointed energy from alternative sources will help in climate change mitigation
out. Co-digestion, modelling and optimisation of anaerobic digestion as well as and mini
techno economic aspects are reviewed in this paper. It was noted that misation of alarms posed to the environment (Kang et al., 2020). There
co-digestion requires more research into a variety of bio-resources and their has been a high uptake of renewable energy technologies (RETs) world
specific blend proportions. Modelling and optimisation of co-digestion with over in a bid to deal with the detrimental effects paused by fossil
substrate seasonal fluctuations has not been addressed in previous studies. related energy generation technologies. In a bid of increasing energy
Controlling key process factors including temperature, pH, and carbon to accessi
nitrogen ratio is critical in improving biogas yield. Biogas hybridisation is yet to bility whilst simultaneously restricting worldwide temperature
be explored in depth. The majority of researches are focused on mono-digestion,
feedstock co-digestion, modelling, and optimisation of anaerobic digestion needs
significant further investigations. A multi-objective approach taking all technical * Corresponding author.
and economic parameters in the modelling and optimization is essential. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Kunatsa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126311
impetus for renewable energy alternative avenues demands the
consideration of different feedstocks, development of novel techniques,
as well as improvements to existing technologies.
Bio-energy can be regarded as the most substantial renewable
energy source due to its cost-effective advantages and its great
potential to substitute non-renewable fuel sources. Bioenergy comes
from biomass materials: any biological organic matter obtained from
plants or ani
 mals. Biomass energy sources include but are not limited to terrestrial wastes, animal dung, sewage sludge, agricultural crop residues and
plants, aquatic plants, timber processing residues, municipal solid

Received 31 July 2021; Received in revised form 30 October 2021; Accepted 6 November 2021
Available online 12 November 2021
0960-8524/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia co-digestion and optimisation of biogas generation from varied
substrate types should be undertaken.
forestry residues. It is one of the most versatile among the renewable Biogas is produced using either the wet anaerobic digestion tech
energies since it can be made available in solid, liquid and/or gaseous nology or the dry anaerobic digestion technology (Angelonidi and
forms. Different avenues can be explored to haverst energy from Smith, 2015). In the wet technology the substrates are mixed with
biomass materials. water to make a bio-slurry which constitutes about 90% water.
Biogas originates from anaerobic digestion (AD) of biodegradable Examples of digesters used in the wet digestion technology include
biological materials. Biogas generation via AD has advantages of better fixed dome, floating drum, polyethylene tube digesters and balloon
compatibility with the environment. The process makes use of contin digesters. In dry digestion technology the substrates are not mixed
uously generated accumulating quantities of bio-wastes, value adding with water but slurry with cultured microbes can be added. Dry
them into some form of energy (Adekunle and Okolie, 2015). This digestion is usually done on
technology reduces the discharges of greenhouse gases leading to a Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311
sustainable form of energy and a cleaner environment (Maile et al.,
2016). raw materials with a lot of fibre. The digestion chambers can look
Anaerobic digestion is the breaking down of biomaterials by more like composting facilities. AD maybe classified as ”single” or
bacteria in an environment without oxygen. It is the most favourable ”multi” stage. In multi-stage digestion there are two or more reaction
substitute to discarding of biodegradable organic municipal solid chambers separating the bioprocesses whilst in single stage there is
waste, agricultural residues and animal wastes because of its efficient only one re
energy recovery na action chamber in which all the bioprocesses occur. The digester
ture. The bio-conversion is catalysed by a huge consortia of microor feeding mechanisms can be categorised into batch feeding and
ganisms complementing each other, catalysing the diverse biochemical continuous feeding. In batch feeding substrates are fed once and left
reactions, therefore the metabolic pathways accompanying anaerobic till they are completely digested before a new set of substrates is fed.
digestion are quite complex. In anaerobic digestion, co-digestion In continuous digestion a certain constant quantity of feed is
entails simultaneous digestion of varied wastes having harmonising administered to the reactor at regular intervals.
features. In the AD process biomass materials are broken down by The overall aim of this review study is to retrospect previous works,
bacterial action in an oxygen free environment producing a gaseous modern trends and approaches in process enhancement and control
blend comprising mainly of methane (Reyes et al., 2015). This gaseous strategies in anaerobic biogas production technology consequently
blend/mixture is known as biogas and it consists of methane, carbon contributing vital information in the direction of biogas enhancement
dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour. A and optimisation. The subject matter covered includes biochemical
mineral rich diges tate usually referred to as spent slurry or sludge is processes in AD, co-digestion, modelling and optimisation as well as
also obtained as a secondary product of the biogas generation process. techno-economic aspects of the same. Much emphasis is given to co
In contrast with other biofuels, biogas production is flexible to digestion, modelling and optimisation in order to investigate the pre
different substrates on condition that they are biodegradable. The vious works, progression and forecasts of the biogas production process
waste streams which are the raw materials for biogas production vary in a bid to enhance biogas yields. This study is unique in its own
signif icantly due to seasonal and geographical location causing a regard in the sense that it zeroes in on reviewing issues of
dissimilarity in biogas yields reported by various authors (Bong et al., incorporation of co digestion feedstock mixing ratios, multi-stage
2018). The substrate must have the dietary rations for the digestion, process condi tions, techno-economic aspects and biogas
microorganisms for it to be biodegraded optimally. Therefore, hybridisation among others in the modelling and optimisation of
structure and constituent com ponents of feed is exceedingly crucial in biogas production in view of enhancing the ultimate biogas yield.
AD to optimally produce biogas. This work is of great importance as it value adds to the existing
Agricultural waste, Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) and knowledge in academia and provides more opportunities for new and
municipal solid waste are hugely available sources to be tapped into extra investigations in the biogas arena. Small to medium enterprises
for the attainment biogas (Kunatsa et al., 2013; Kunatsa and as well as commercial biogas players can also benefit from the results
Mufundirwa, 2013). Multi-stage anaerobic digestion accompanied of this work. In general, more researches are being done in the broad
with co-digestion of different raw materials and feedstocks as well as spectrum of biogas and this trend suggests that biogas technology
optimisation of the biogas production process can bring about acceptance and adoption is increasing and is being taken seriously as
enhanced yields of biogas. With respect to substrates for anaerobic an important contributor to the current world shift towards renewable
digestion, use of wastes is pri energy technologies and can feed into a great extent to the mitigation
oritised over other options since it addresses the environmental pollu of climate change.
tion issues while simultaneously generating energy (Horvath ´ et al.,
2016). 2. Anaerobic co-digestion
According to Kangle et al. (2012), co-digestion increases biogas
outputs, however, it has a disadvantage of largely still remaining un Anaerobic digestion of biomass wastes can be done on individual
studied for many varying substrates. Biogas production is enhanced by materials (mono-digestion) or mixtures of numerous materials (mixed
co-digestion of different substrates rather than individual substrates digestion or co-digestion). Anaerobic co-digestion enhances digestion
but there is difficulty in getting to the exact blend ratio for optimality and energy generation by increasing availability of nutrients for mi
since it depends on the type of substrates together with actual reaction crobes and organic load while reducing inhibitory chemical toxicity
condi tions availed (Adekunle and Okolie, 2015). Co-digestion through co-substrate dilution. Mono-digestion is commonly employed
technology needs scrutinised supervision and controlling since no for digesting animal manure in smaller biogas production facilities, but
single customary set of working parameters could be practical to all co-digestion is frequently employed in bigger facilities which process
organic biodegrad able wastes. Given this scenario, and that the bio-wastes from various origins (farms, residential areas and industry).
availability of raw mate rials is of broad nature, further research in Co-digestion occurs when different feed materials are concurrently
 digested in the same reactor. Customarily, AD technology was meant origins and species of the organic material. A great proportion of the
for one feed material but lately, it has been recognised that anaerobic agricultural residues and aquatic plants are enriched with high nutri
digestion turns out to be more stable when a diversity of substrates are ents, however, their lignocellulosic recalcitrant nature renders them
co-digested simultaneously. Co-digesting varied substrates improved resistive to micro-bacterial degradation hence reduced gas outputs. Co
biogas production potentials in contrast to single substrates (Maragkaki digesting these multifaceted biomaterials with animal manures and
et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020; Vivekanand et al., 2018). other biodegradable organic substances gives enough access and po
Generally all biomaterials and organic wastes are augmented with tential to micro-organisms to foster optimised degradation (Kunatsa et
numerous nutrients necessary for growth of micro-organisms. The al., 2020).
differing nutrient quantities are interconnected with age, geographical In an investigation, Patil et al. (2011), found out that more biogas

2
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia
inclusive of process regulation and control amongst other interventions
was produced from co-digestion of Eichhornia crassipes, poultry waste such as pretreatment, the benefits of anaerobic co-digestion can be
and cow manure. Co-digestion presents immaculate digestibility, su fully realised. However, research and development into the
preme mineral manure, odour and germs management together with co-substrate blending proportions needs to be further investigated for
costs reduction in addition to being environmentally friendly among a wide vari
other benefits (Yasar et al., 2017). Table 1 shows a review of a few ety of co-digestion substrates.
mono-digestion and co-digestion studies some improved methane Table 1 shows that there is a vast potential of biogas generation from
yields through co-digestion. the co-digestion of a wide range of biomass wastes. The recalcitrant
The major advantage of co-digestion is the improvement of biogas nature of most of the lignocellulosic substrates can be overcome by co
yields as well as methane content of the same. Animal manures are digesting them with animal manures which already has bacteria for
being co-digested with other biodegradable materials to increase anaerobic digestion and this in turn enhances biogas yield from them.
economic effectiveness while ensuring anaerobic digestion system It can also be deduced that a different combination of substrates as
stability at a commercial scale (Hegde and Trabold, 2019). A number well as different mixing ratios consequently lead to different biogas
of recent pre production volumes and hence different methane concentrations. This
vious studies, mainly centred on laboratory investigations and small section concludes that further research has to be conducted on a wide
scale bio-rectors have proven anaerobic co-digestion to be the way to range of co-digestion feedstock combinations and their respective
go when it comes to biogas production and its optimisation. According blend ratios.
to the authors’survey, the majority of commercial reactors employ
mono-digestion mainly due to availability of one specific substrate in 3. Modelling and optimisation of anaerobic digestion
large quantities within the vicinity of the digester geographic location.
Other reasons for non-implementation of anaerobic co-digestion Co-digestion logically and concurrently manages biological organic
include ignorance, unavailability of co-digestion technical expertise, matter thereby obtaining an alternative form of energy. It is more
reluctance to shift and adopt new technology as well as avoiding the vulnerable to process instability due to substantial dissimilarity in feed
drawbacks of co-digestion. Some of the major drawbacks of stock composition. Mechanistic models emanating from the anaerobic
co-digestion which hamper application of the technology with large digestion model No.1 (ADM1) framework are more well-known in
scale commercial re actors include accummulation of undigestable anaerobic co-digestion modelling. Nevertheless, major aspects in
solids inside the digester, high nitrogen backload, and accummulation present-day anaerobic co-digestion, particularly interactions between
of acids from other co substrates (Sembera et al., 2019). The system performance and co-substrate ratios and properties for optimal
synergistic effects of the co substrate mixture which are brought about biogas yields still remain underdeveloped.
by the dynamics of the co digestion process as well as the microbes There is a necessity of the development of models of different levels
involved will outweigh the drawbacks of the technology. With the for the respective different categories of users. The small to medium
advancement of technology, enterprises (SMEs) only need a general understanding and as such
require low level-less complicated models. Commercial entities and all
Table 1 big revenue focused companies require general to medium level models
Effect of co-digestion on biogas yield. for the purposes of just informing on the expected biogas yields in
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311
Feedstocks Comparison of mono-digestion and co-digestion relation to time, rate of return on investment, engineers and researchers have the capacity and
biogas yields
and profits. Lastly senior technical managers,
Source
Wastewater sludge and olive pomace 0.21LCH4/gVSadded. Co-digestion increased was compared to microalgae
methane production by 17 − 31% mono-digestion. co digestion improve
methane
gradual increase of fish concentration
(Alagoz ¨
increased methane generation up to 1.9
et al., 2018)
when 75% was added. With grass methane
production only improved after adding 25%,
Wastewater sludge (WAS) and fish waste adding more than 50% grass increased the
(FW) or garden-grass (GG) production rate and final product by 1.5 and
1.7 times, respectively.
The combination V75/P25 had the best
methane generation rate of (Cardona et al., 2019)
69.6NmLCH4g− 1COD− 1

Sugarcane press mud (P) and vinasse (V)

−1 (Gonzalez ´ et al., 2017)

fed d .In co
digestion, methane outputs of 365LCH4kg−
1
VS and biogas
Microalgae and primary sludge production output of 1.6LL− 1 were achieved,
mono-digestion yielded 0.18 and which was 64% greater than
0.16LCH4/gVSadded for olive pomace and mono-digestion.
wastewater sludge respectively. Co-digestion Co-digestion of microalgae and primary
yielded sludge (25/75% on a volatile solids basis) (Sol´e-Bundo ´ et al., 2019)
 ability to understand deeper development. and regula tion of the AD reactions Research interests and model level
technical models with higher level Optimisation of anaerobic digestion are critical to the biogas fraternity. categories.
of so phistication and complexity. It can be improved through proper In com parison to other well Model Category Aspects to be considered
is necessary to take into modelling (Ramachandran et al., established fields, the modelling and
Production level medium to high level
consideration different research 2019). Process monitoring and optimisation of biochemical modelling
interests in the development of control have been noted as further reactions such as the ones in biogas Process control and regulation (temperature
and pH
models of different levels. Table 2 improvements needed for the biogas generation are still a challenge
monitoring)
shows the 2 major model categories pro duction process (Wu et al., mainly attributed to by the
Substrate blend ratios (in case of co-digestion)
and the respective research 2019). Research and investigations peculiarity and unsimilar nature of Reaction kinetics
interests together with the aspects on modelling, together with
to be considered in model optimisation, inclusive of control Table 2
In co-digestion, maximum increase of 1.14 and 1.13 times low to medium level modelling advanced uses
higher than the LCSs individually. Optimising CH4 proportion in Slurry and other by-products
Poultry droppings (PD) and methane concentrations were
lignocellulosic co substrates (LCSs) found to be 330.1 and 340.1 Nl biogas management biogas yields in
(wheat straw (WS) and meadow kg1 VS at a blending ratio of (Rahman et al., 2017) biogas production vs demand side relation to time, rate of return on
grass (MG)) 70:30 (PD:WS) and 50:50 (PD: Utilisation and management Impurity removal investment and profits
generation by 65%. MG) respectively. This was an management level and quality improvement for

3
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia of the majority of substrates employed in biogas production comprises
of C, H, O, N and S in a complex molecular structure. The complex
the reaction progressions (Fedailaine et al., 2015). The bacteria structure is subjected to the biochemical reactions and biogas is
involved in the biogas generation process drastically respond to obtained as the main product together with slurry as a by-product. If
environmental it is assumed that a total coversion of biomass to biogas occurs after
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311
the complex inter dependant bio-chemical reactions, then the
elemental composition approach developed by (Buswell and Mueller,
elements as depicted below:
1952), is arrived at; that

a = Carbon ultimate mass ArC, (2) b = Hydrogen ultimate mass

alterations hence making it a challenge to predict and control the pro
cess (Thorin et al., 2012). Thorin et al. (2012) concluded that for ArH, (3) c = Oxygen ultimate mass
anaerobic digestion processes, the available detailed models are too
complex for practical use and recommended the use of a combination ArO, (4) d = Nitrogen ultimate mass
of empirical and physical and/or biological models as a possible
approach. ArN, (5) e = Sulphur ultimate mass

ArS. (6)
3.1. Modelling
Eq. (1) helps to build a material balance model. Reference is made
to Kunatsa et al. (2020), when there are three different substrates. In
3.1.1. The Buswell biogas prediction equation
this previous work, a biogas generation model for the determination
(Buswell and Sollo, 1948) developed a mechanism for methane
of optimal substrate blend ratios is formulated and optimised. Eq. (1)
fermentation which describes biogas constituent composition after
can be expressed in the form of Eqs. (7)–(9) for substrates 1, 2 and 3
anaerobic digestion as per the chemical composition of the initial sub
respectively.
strates entering into the digestion process. The elemental composition

(
1 ) ( 1 1 1
4 + e 2 H2O⇒ a 2 +b 8 − c 4 − 3d1
1 ) ( 1 1 1
8 − e 4 CH4 + a 2 − b 8 + c 4 +3d1
Ca1Hb1Oc1Nd1 Se1 + 1 1 1 )
a1 − b 4 − c 2 +3d1 8 + e 4 CO2 + d1NH3 + e1H2S, (7)

biogas is constituted mainly of CH4, CO2, NH3 and H2S and that other
trace elements and gases are negligible. This is typical high level steady

(
2 ) ( 2 2 2
4 + e 2 H2O⇒ a 2 +b 8 − c 4 − 3d2
2 ) ( 2 2 2
8 − e 4 CH4 + a 2 − b 8 + c 4 +3d2
Ca2Hb2Oc2Nd2 Se2 + 2 2 2 )
a2 − b 4 − c 2 +3d2 8 + e 4 CO2 + d2NH3 + e2H2S, (8)

state modelling which takes material balances into account. Since some

(
 3 ) ( 3 3 3
4 + e 2 H2O⇒ a 2 +b 8 − c 4 − 3d3
3 ) ( 3 3 3
8 − e 4 CH4 + a 2 − b 8 + c 4 +3d3
Ca3Hb3Oc3Nd3 Se3 + 3 3 3 )
a3 − b 4 − c 2 +3d3 8 + e 4 CO2 + d3NH3 + e3H2S. (9)
modeled as:

of the biomass is not completely converted to biogas but goes to slurry,

a conversion factor of 0.8 is assumed and applied to the resultant
biogas quantity to arrive at a more accurate representation of the (
entire pro cess. The Buswell equation for predicting biogas output is as CaHbOcNdSe +
shown in Eq. (1). b c 3d e ) (a b c 3d e ) (a b c
a − 4 − 2 + 4 + 2 H2O⇒ 2 + 8 − 4 − 8 − 4 CH4 + 2 − 8 + 4
3d e )
+ 8 + 4 CO2 + dNH3 + eH2S. (1)
The aggregate biogas yield obtainable from these 3 substrates was
composition by mass of each of the elements
devided by the relative atomic mass (Ar) of each
of the
Bcod = 0.8 ×∑3 i=1
a, b, c, d and e are given by percentage V (10)

4
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia

namic modelling approach that looks at the overall production

where Bcod is the summative biogas that is realised from the
response. Membere et al. (2013) described and evaluated a dynamic
co-digestion of the 3 substrates and 0.8 is the substrates’ biomass to
model to generate biogas from co-substrates, it was concluded that
biogas conver sion factor. V1, V2 and V3 are the biogas volumes from
applying the modified first order dynamic model produced higher
substrates 1, 2 and 3 respectively and are determined as shown below:
biogas yield when compared to experiments in which it was not
applied. Raw material digestability was analysed through
V1(m3) = (22.4 × 10− 3) × (CO21 + NH31 + H2S1 + CH41 )
computational formulation of first order nature for batch systems as
MrWH, (11)
was highlighted by Yusuf et al. (2011) as shown in Eq. (17):

V2(m3) = (22.4 × 10− 3) × (CO22 + NH32 + H2S2 + CH42 ) ym − yt= Co

MrMSW, (12)
V3(m3) = (22.4 × 10− 3) × (CO23 + NH33 + H2S3 + Ct, (17)

CH43 ) MrCD . (13)

and lnCo
ym
3 3 3
CO23 = a 2 − b 8 + c 4 +3d3
3
CO21,2,&3 , NH31,2,&3 , H2S1,2,&3andCH41,2,&3 are the number of moles of 8+e 4;
carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and methane for water NH33 = d3and
hyacinth (WH), municipal solid waste (MSW) and cow dumg (CD) H2S3 = e3
respectively and are determined as shown below.
MrWH is the relative molecular mass of water hyacinth, MrMSW is the
1 1 1 relative molecular mass of municipal solid waste and MrCD is the
CH41 = a 2 +b 8 − c 4 − 3d1
relative molecular mass of cow dung. These relative molecular masses
1 are as denoted in Eqs. (14)–(16) respectively.
8−e 4;
1 1 1
CO21 = a 2 − b 8 + c 4 +3d1
1
8+e 4;
NH31 = d1and
H2S1 = e1

2 2 2
CH42 = a 2 +b 8 − c 4 − 3d2
2
8−e 4;
2 2 2
CO22 = a 2 − b 8 + c 4 +3d2
2
8+e 4;
NH32 = d2and
H2S2 = e2

3 3 3
CH43 = a 2 +b 8 − c 4 − 3d3
3
8−e 4;
 e
1
∗
A
r
S
,
(
1
4
)

M
r
M

W
(
k
g
m
o
l
−

)
=
a
2
∗
A
r
C
+
M
b
r
2
W
∗
H
A
(
r
k
H
g
m +
o c
l 2
− ∗
1 A
) r
= O

a +
d
1
∗ 2

A ∗
r A
C
r
+ N
b +
1
e
∗ 2
A ∗
r A
H r
+ S
c ,
1 (
∗ 1
A 5
r )
O
+ M
d r
1 C
∗ D
A (
r k
N
g
+ m
o substrate molecule.
l Ct= kt (18)
−

1 where: “Co is the initial volatile solid, Ct is the volatile solid concen
) tration at any given time (t), yt is the volume of biogas produced per
= unit mass of VS fed at any time (t) and ym is the volume of biogas per
a unit of mass of VS converted at maximum time” (Yusuf et al., 2011).
3
∗ Therefore ym
A ym − yt= ekt, (19)
r
C yt = ym(1 − e− kt). (20)
+
To ascertain the change in the amount of biogas with time, the first
b
order derivative of Eq. (20) is determined
3
∗ y′t = kyme− kt (21) Eq. (20) can now be written as:
A
r
yt = ym − y′tk (22)
H
+ y′t = kym − kyt (23)
c
Eq. (23) gives the dynamic version of Eq. (20) that is potentially
useful in future biogas production modelling using the first order dy
3
∗
A namic model. The dynamic model offers easy foretelling of the
r response of the system and its output to mass and energy variations
O
over time, easy parameter identification, easy control and
+ optimisation variable introduction as well as easy evaluation and
d comparison of process control strategies (Silva, 2015). Biogas
3 generation kinetics are key in aiding the assessment of organic matter
∗ digestibility characteristics (Karki et al., 2021).
A
r 3.1.3. The modified Gompertz model
N Unlike the first order dynamic model which gives supplementary
+ data on hydrolysis rate, the modified Gompertz model gives time delay
e to biogas generation together with the highest methane generation rate
3 (Pramanik et al., 2019). The modified Gompertz was verified to be an
∗
outstanding emperical non-linear regression model informing of gas
A
generation time delay in addition to describing bacterial growth as
r
exponential (Zahan et al., 2018; Pramanik et al., 2019). Many re
S
. searchers reported that biogas formation rate is assumed to relate pro
( portionally to the increase of methanogens in the bio-digester and as
1 such biogas prediction follows the modified Gompertz equation as in
6 Eq. (24) (Etuwe et al., 2016; Opurum et al., 2017).
)

where Ar is the relative atomic mass of each respective element in the

The aim of Kunatsa et al. the co-digestion [
Ue
(2020) was to find feedstock combination. In a case study P = A.exp (24)
mixing ratios which analysis, optimum ( A (λ − t) + 1
maximise biogas output in co-digestion resulted in ])
mixing ratios of 53.27 : − exp
in which P is the cummulative biogas production at a given time t, ml/
24.64 : 22.09 for WH, MSW, and CD, respectively. Biogas produced gVS; A is biogas production potential, ml; U is highest biogas
from 1 kg of substrate mixture amounted to 124.56m3. Biogas generation rate (ml/gVS.day); e is a mathematical constant, 2.718; λ is
production was enhanced by co-digestion and optimising the substrate the biogas formation delay time (minimum time to produce biogas), day;
blend pro portions. An increase by 157.11% in biogas output was and t is the aggregate time for biogas formation, day. A,λ, and U are
noted. ascertained by non-linear regression. The higher U exhibits, the higher
the biogas production rate. Biogas generation increases with increased
3.1.2. First order dynamic model values of U.
The first order dynamic model is a high level-production level, dy

5
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia value 2
Xn

Input value …
Input … H1 H2
X1 X2 …
value 1

Hm
Input value
Input …
m
 value …

Y1 … Yu Estimated Estimated
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) value 1 value k
126311

Estimated

Input layer Hidden layer Output layer Fig. 1. Artificial Neural Network schematic (Cheng

et al., 2015).

3.1.4. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) complex and as such an improved practicality is required when it
Neural networks comprise of nodes (similar to human brain comes to co digesting substrates anaerobically (Xie et al., 2016).
neurons) classified in sequences of layers interlinked in different ways Modelling the biogas generation process will lead to improvement
and they can regulate a reaction progression through immitating the of the biogas yield by manoeuvring into enhanced options for
functioning human of brain (Nguyen et al., 2015). Fig. 1 shows a controlling the digestion process. Table 3 gives the key existing
schematic of ANNs. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) can be used to anaerobic digestion models. It can be deduced from Table 3 that the
forecast output data for complex systems having numerous operational dynamic model and the steady state model dominate in the existing
input variables (Esfe et al., 2015). ANNs work using initial data anaerobic digestion models. The hydrolysis kinetics are mainly of first
provided, trains on it and simulates the reaction progression by order. The Monod and the modified Monod are the prevailing growth
resembling the actual process. Many researchers used ANNs to predict, kinetics. Another deduction that can be made from Table 3 is that a lot
model and optimise biogas production from different substrates of modelling has been done on sludge but only a few articles present
(Ghatak and Ghatak, 2018; Almo research on organic wastes, ma
mani, 2020; Neto et al., 2021). ANNs employ data-driven high level nures and aquatic biomass. Many diverse attributes and factors are able
modelling, however, without physics, it is less useful in terms of opti to inhibit biogas generation as shown in the table. Inhibition is
mising physical parameters. Another disadvantage of ANNs is that by primarily influenced by nature of substrate and reaction conditions
its nature of being data driven, it disregards process kinetics. and/or pa rameters to which the process is subjected to.

3.1.5. The anaerobic digestion model No.1 (ADM1)

ADM1 simulates the biological transformation of intricate biode 3.2. Optimisation
gradable matter to CH4, CO2 and other inert by-products (Batstone et
According to the dictionary Rock.Holdings (2019), to optimise is ”to
al., 2002). The structured model has several phases that describe
determine the maximum or minimum values of (a specified function
biological and physicochemical process reactions. The ADM1 is a
that is subject to certain constraints)”. Hagos et al. (2017) highlighted
complex model well suited for simulation but has significant
that process optimisation and improvement of biogas production still
limitations when it comes to optimisation and process control
needs more investigations to be done and that the use of simulation
applications. The ADM1 model simulates constant volume, completely
ways and means can lead to realisation of substantial enhancement of
mixed systems which is not the case in many anaerobic digestion
biogas yields. Diverse optimisation approaches are established in
reactors especially when it comes to bigger systems.
literature in a bid to obtain the best reaction conditions, best reaction
ADM1 has physico-chemical steps integrated together with biolog ical
parameters and best substrate ratios for different feed stocks so as to
steps. 19 process reactions, 33 state variables in addition to 105
enhance and optimise the biogas production process.
stoichiometry based relations and kinetic parameters (Batstone et al.,
The conventional method of optimisation of anaerobic digestion
2002). According to Yu et al. (2014), the complexity of the ADM1
comprise of laboratory batch experiments with different ratios of co
model necessitates requirement of several parameters, eventually
digestion feedstocks to assess the extent of digestion of the substrates.
leading to complicated reaction progression equations. Identification
Co-digestion of varied substrates has shown that an improved biogas
of parame ters and handling of these several equations can be very
production potential is achieved in comparison to mono-digestion of
difficult. (Kleerebezem and Van Loosdrecht, 2006) highlighted issues
single substrates (Volpi et al., 2021; Muenmee and Prasertboonyai,
to do with stoichiometric impreciseness, glitches in solids retention
2021; Petroviˇc et al., 2021). ANNs, GAs, ant colony optimisation
time, and absence of restraints on thermodynamic bounds. However,
(ACO) and particle swarm optimisation (PSO) are possible tools for
due to the variations in the substrates under digestion only a few
simulating
parameters will
considerably affect the output of the model. ADM1 modelling is

6
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia
generation, using portions of the old batch’s fittest members. GAs are
Table 3 able to cope with parallelism and complicated scenarios. They can be
Summary of key existing anaerobic digestion models.
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311
Model type Substrate Hydrolysis kinetics
Source that is static or dynamic, linear or discontinuous, or with random noise
employed with an objective functionnonlinear, continuous or (Yang,
Type of inhibition
 stoichiometric - - - 1 (Buswell and Sollo, 1948)
autonomous agents, the population will concurrently navigate the
2020). Since multiple offspring in a population function as search space in
dynamic; various multiple directions, and consequently, makes parallelising algorithms for imple
steady state an optimal solution is arrived at. This function
sludge - VFA1, pH (Andrews, 1969)
dynamic; organic waste Hill and
mentation much easier. approaches, response surface
steady state - VFA, pH and NH3 Barth, 1977 methodologies as
Linear programming
dynamic complex organic (Vavilin design and central composite design applied in
material et al., 1994)
are also among the optimisation
first order H2, pH, NH, H2S,
Propionate well as simplex-centroid mixture approaches which have been
dynamic; first order LCFA, acetic acid, anaerobic digestion (Gil et biogas generation from and municipal solid waste
steady state NH3 al., 2019; Lu et al., 2017). varied substrates such as via the avenues of co
organic waste (Angelidaki et al., 1999) Prospects of enhancing water hya cinth, cow dung
dynamic swine manure digestion and use of optimisation tools and shows a summary of some of the key biogas op
first order - (Mass´e and Droste,
techniques are investi gated herein. Table 4 timisations which were done.
2000)
dynamic; acid niques that can be applied to biogas
steady state (Siegrist As noted earlier on, mathematical production include the linear pro
sludge first order H2, pH, NH3, acetic et al., 2002) and analytical optimisation tech
dynamic; butyric gramming approach, linear model predictive approaches, such as ANNs,
steady state acid
non-linear programming control (NMPC), artificial fuzzy logic, GAs, PSO, ACO,
wide variety of substrates (Batstone et al., 2002)
first order H2, pH, NH3, approaches, such as non intelligence theory simulated
dynamic cattle manure first order pH, VFA and NH3
annealing and immunity algorithm. ADM1 model biogas production.
(Keshtkar et al., 2003) Gaida et al. (2014) applied the NMPC was used as the optimisation
dynamic wastewater - - (Sarti et al., 2004) chemical oxygen demand (CODeff) and biogas flow rate (Qgas). The au
dynamic sludge Contois H2 (Sotemann ¨ et al., 2005) thors reported that by using GA-ANN model, an increased biogas was
approach to control the constituency and quantity of the feed. Huang
et al. (2016), carried out an investigation to concurrently maximise
steady state sludge first order, Monod, attained when compared to ANNs alone. programming optimisation approach to
saturation
García-Gen et al. (2014), used linear maximise methane pro
- (Sotemann ¨ et al., 2005)
dynamic; (Blumensaat and Keller, 2005) used to determine substrate blends
steady state
and ’fminbnd’ was used to ascertain first order - (Membere
(Galí et al., 2009)
HRT that optimises methane
duction by way of determining the production. The objective function
dynamic;
feedings into the processes. The was expressed as in Eq. (25)
maxf objective =
steady state
ADM1 model was used and the ∑N
sludge first order H2, pH, NH3, steady state horse manure and
butyric method was validated pMeti × CODti × xi
cow dung i=1
acid experimentally. Implimentation Computational organic
2
agro-waste first order H2, pH, iN NH3,H2S was done in MATLAB, ’linprog’ was HRT (25)
first order - (Yusuf et al., 2011)
fraction of 2
inorganic Nitrogen. liquid fraction; (iv) lipid content; (v) total
municipal et al., 2013) alkalinity; salinity as (vi) Na+ concentration and
solid waste According to the authors, the objective function (vii) K+ concentration; (viii) H S content in
(OFMSW) 2
was subjected to the following linear
biogas; and (ix) effluent COD content”.
1
Volatile Fatty Acids. restrictions: ”(i) organic loading rate (OLR); (ii)
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN); (iii) moisture or
and optimising the anaerobic biogas generation process. ANNs and GAs Beltramo et al. (2016), optimised biogas flow rate using the ACO
are some of the modern optimisation approaches applied to deal with approach, the ADM1 model was used to generate data and the ANNs
complex biogas maximisation problems. Palma-Heredia et al. (2021) model was used for simulations. The ACO algorithm was used for vari
employed the ACO optimisation approach to anaerobic co-digestion. able selection. The selection probability of a variable prob(n) was
According to their results, employment of the ACO algorithm proved described as in Eq. (26)
to be a beneficial way for optimising anaerobic digestion blends,
leading prob(n) = p(n)
(26)
to the effective simulation of various co-digestion optimisation sce
∑N
p(n)
narios. (Kegl and Kralj, 2020) investigated the appropriateness and
i=1
effectiveness of a gradient-based optimiser for multi-objective anaerobic
digestion process optimisation. Various optimisation problems were subSection 3.1 were barely used in biogas optimisations. This can also
designed and solved using this model to gain insights into the effec be noted from Table 4. Of the models that were applied, the ADM1
tiveness of this strategy. The proposed optimisation method was found was applied more often followed by ANNs and then the first order
to be extremely effective. kinetic model. The majority of the reported researches on biogas
Genetic algorithms employ a random search algorithm that is created optimisation were by way of laboratory experimental approaches.
in an attempt to mimic the principles of natural selection and genetics These laboratory experiments would be under specific conditions
(Roetzel et al., 2019). They work with string structures, similar to bio which might not be universal to all subatrates and geographic
logical structures, that evolve over time and use a randomized but sys locations. This eventually results in gaps and lack of confidence and
tematic exchanging of information to follow the theory of survival of reliability in their data being used to commercialise biogas
the fittest. As a result, a fresh batch of strings is generated in every technologies. The authors of this current
Most of the biogas production models presented and discussed in

7
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia
 Summary of key biogas optimisations
Table 4 Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311

Substrates Model used Optimisation approach Highlights Source

biogas production were analysed, the control strategy was optimising substrate feed. It was noted that PSO was
Cassava (manioc, tapioca) processing wastewater based mainly on pH control about 14% quicker than GA in this instance
ADM1 GA and PSO quantity and composition of substrates (Boncz et al., 2008)
Cob Corn Mix (CCM), Rye and pig manure were varied, authors noted huge improvement capability
- experimental effect of pH and temperature variations with by (Wolf et al., 2009)
Lignogas & Lignogas SIM the Lignogas model gave a closer match of
experimental, nonlinear least squares, & modelling and measurement results
variety of lignocellusosic biomass ADM1, simplex in AQUASIM (Martin, 1979)
were analysed. A high CH4 proportion was realised
grass, wheat straw, silage wastewater - experimental anaerobic digestion was devided Wilkie et al., 1983
into a two-phase process and higher methane yields were realised (Rao and
organic fraction of MSW first order kinetic experimental variations of organic loading Singh, 2004)
rates were done, repercussions of varying total solids and retention time
- RSM and Box-Behnken (BBD) design was done. A pH of 6, a temperature of 30◦C, parameters. F/I ratio was observed to have
Investigation was done to evaluate the effect HRT of 20 days and F/I ratio of 75% were a major impact on biogas production.
Miscanthus Fuscus mixed with cow dung
of varying parameter settingson co-digestion idientified as the optimal process (Tetteh et al., 2018)
experimental model was used for simulations, ANNs to forecast biogas
cow-manure and grass-silage ADM1, ANNs ant colony flow rate and ACO was used to depict important process
optimisation (ACO) parameters
a linear programming to maximise chemical oxygen (García-Gen et al., 2014)
glycerine, gelatine and pig manure ADM1 adaptive linear demand (COD) transformation which mantains reactor
programming, media as well as biogas quality was developed. ADM1 (Beltramo et al., 2016)
of manure an online NMPC algorithm was analysed. (Gaida et al., 2012)
maize silage, manure and the solid fraction ADM1 nonlinear model predictive control Authors highlighted that biogas production
(NMPC) can be controlled and optimised
(NMPC) regulation
maize silage and liquid cow manure ADM1 nonlinear model a closed-loop substrate feed control was suggested. A (Gaida et al., 2014)
predictive control multi-objective NMPC was used for feed constituents
combination of detention time of 30 days, substrate to
rural household domestic waste - RSM RSM was employed using central composite water ratio of 1:1 and pH of 7
rotatable design. Biogas production was optinised through (Jiya et al., 2019)
variation of PH, detention time and ratio of substrate to
water. Highest biogas yield was obtained from a
- RSM and ANN C. papaya was shown to be an excellent papaya peels and poultry dropping, according to the
substrate for biogas production when co-digested with results of the modeling and optimisation
poultry (Dahunsi
droppings. Both RSM and ANN models proved to be et al., 2016)
Carica papaya peels, poultry droppings effective in predicting methane generation from C.
palm oil mill effluent (POME) and cattle combination of the SCMD and ANN model reported, the suggested method was
manure (CM) and optimising with GA helped to predict successful and flexible in estimating biogas
GA simplex-centroid mixture design biomethane generation output from the co-digestion of POME and
(SCMD) and ANN biogas production from POME was CM
organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, predicted and optimised using ANN and (Saghouri et al., 2020)
cow manure, and municipal sewage sludge ANN combined ANN-PSO framework PSO in a co-digestion setup in a solar
bioreactor. According to the results (Zaied et al., 2020)
goose manure and wheat straw experimental statistical (regression) methane was
increased by up to 94.10% due to C/N ratio optimisation
(Gopal et al., 2021)

cow dung and flower waste ANN, RSM statistical optimization The ANN model predicted
biogas output more precisely and effectively than the RSM model. Statistical (Hassan et al., 2017)
optimisation and pretreatment approaches dramatically
boosted biogas generation
Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata) and poultry manure attained due to co digestion. The biogas quality was also (Dahunsi
experimental RSM increased quanties of biogas were improved. RSM et al., 2017)
proved to predict biogas well
decreased by 50 % and methane generation was improved by 35 %
algal-bacteria biomass and cellulose kinetic model - Biogas production time delay was (Bohutskyi et al., 2018)
cow manure and oat straw modified Gompertz and non (Zhao et al., 2018) experimental, kinetic - the predicted results using the
linear regression model with constant endogenous generation and kinetics
Box-Behnken test design addition of cow manure at levels determined at 80 %
below 2/3 boosted methane yields and decreased biogas carrot, cabbage, tomato, bread (French baguette), beef of total batch time matched the observed methane
production meat at 5 % fat and manure (a mix of cow dung and yields well under rising organic loading rates. Data
startup time, however the methane generation rate was straw) (Kouas et al., 2018)
not affected

(continued on next page)

8
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia Table 4 (continued ) Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311

Substrates Model used Optimisation approach Highlights Source

obtained from batch reactors predicted semi

continuous biogas production in an effective manner
 hemicelluloses hydrolysate, vinasse, yeast and the two phase exponential model biorefinery by-products. The sugarcane boosted methane generation
extract and sugarcane bagasse fly ashes experimental biochemical methane potential biorefinery (Adarme
experimental, modified Gompertz model tests were used to optimize anaerobic wastes blend enhanced anaerobic et al., 2019)
co-digestion of sugarcane co-digestion and
whilst the optimum biogas slurry performance was
found to be at a C/N ratio of 35. Increased organic
loading rates and total solids also led to significant
pig manure and corn straw experimental - the beffect of organic loading rate, total solids biogas generation and biogas slurry performance.
and crbon to nitrogen ratio was investigated in co-digestion (Ning et al., 2019)
of pig manure and corn straw. Maximum biogas output
was discovered to be attained at a C/N ratio of 25,
buffering. BioModel simulation validated the results
from the batch and continuous reactors.
Laminaria digitata and animal dung dynamic bioconversion - start-up conditions were optimised. Optimal substrate
model (BioModel) and a hybrid mixing ratio, substrate to inoculum ratio, and initial pH
MATLAB-Microsoft Excel were verified by experimentation. A steady anaerobic
software digestion was started with FW/CM = 2.5, S/I less than
acorn slag waste, dairy manure and bio-based carbon 0.07, and an initial uncontrolled pH. These conditions
experimental - the use of bio-based carbon in the food waste and cow manure experimental, modified were verified in a dynamic membrane bioreactor
co-digestion of acorn slag and dairy manure was Gompertz and first-order kinetic (Mao et al., 2019)
researched. The carbon - Experimental and numerical studies of the impact of
based accelerant was reported to have improved the mixing time on anaerobic digestion performance were
biogas yield in co-digestions conducted. Extending the mixing time did not enhance (Sun et al., 2019)
(Wang et al., 2019) biogas output, but did increased overall input.
- biogas yield was boosted by co-digesting Laminaria
digitata and animal dung. Laminaria digitata increased
food waste and chicken manure experimental, biogas output, whereas cattle manure assisted in (Xing et al., 2020)
computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
glycerin, and macroalgae oil extraction procedure, with those of the experiments.
experimental, modified Gompertz, linear specific methane output rose by 10 %. The (Atelge et al., 2021)
regression results of the
- Different wastes were co-digested with modified Gompertz model were generally
spent coffee grounds, spent tea waste, oil-extracted spent coffee grounds. With the consistent
results.
Glivin et al. (2018) carried out techno-economic studies on the
installation of a biogas plant at an institution. Biogas production
proved to be viable, with payback periods ranging from 1.65 to 0.61
review work would like to stress out and comment that there is a years for cow dung based biogas plants and 1.47 to 0.38 years for
disjoint or rather a discontinuity between the biogas production kitchen waste based biogas plants. It can be deduced that the type of
models devel oped to date and their respective application to optimise feedstock has a huge influence on the total biogas yield which will in
and control the the overall biogas generation process progression with turn implicate on the economic parameters such as payback period,
a prior objective to maximise the ultimate biogas yield. net present value, internal rate of return, among others.
Several other researchers investigated techno-economic aspects of
4. Techno-economic analysis of anaerobic biogas production anaerobic biogas production (Tan et al., 2021; Imeni et al., 2020;
Mahmod et al., 2021). However, the majority of the works were
A techno-economic assessment enables the creation of an focussed towards ascertaining if the process was feasible or not. The
investment and operational cost framework for the estimation of previous works lack the merging of the technical and the economic
biogas genera tion’s possible present and future economic aspects to come up with analytical models for the optimisation of the
sustainability. Informed financial and technical decisions such as entire pro
biogas plant size or scale of operation as well as commercialisation cess. It is vital to examine the tradeoffs arising from the relationships
prospects amongst other key considerations can be made based on between technical developments and financial aspects in order to come
techno-economic analysis. up with an effective biogas production system. Optimising feedstock
Al-Wahaibi et al. (2020) produced biogas from a variety of food availability, controlling and regulating process conditions, maximising
wastes and conducted a techno-economic analysis to determine the biogas output through co-digestion, feeding in of optimal substrate
financial feasibility of establishing a small-scale biogas plant. blend proportions and process stabilisation are among the
Economic examination gave a break even at $0.2944/m3, with all technological aspects which are lacking in previous research works
pricing beyond that yielding a positive net present value. The and still need to be investigated in greater detail. Objectives of
researchers noted that incorporation of waste management charge reducing investment and operational costs as much as possible while
savings could have increased the total savings. increasing economic benefits are among the economic considerations
A techno-economic investigation by Oreggioni et al. (2017), on bio which need to be explored in depth.
methane generation from agricultural and food wastes indicated that Process designs should incorporate anticipated operational and
pressure swing adsorption cycles gave 37% lower capital costs and a maintenance cost evaluations as well as the investment requirements
10% lower average life-time cost when compared to solvent-based for the entire biogas production facility. This will provide a concrete
technologies. This indicates that biomass processing, pretreatment and foundation for techo-economic analysis. Dynamic linkages will be
feeding techniques have a great impact on the overall techno-economic formed with regards to the variation of the different techno-economic

9
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia This section concludes by discussing the whole process of
conducting techno-economic assessments of typical anaerobic
aspects with time leading to the development of informed anaerobic digestion projects as
digestion modelling and optimisation frameworks for biogas enhance Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311
ment. Consequently, the techno-economic implications will not only
aid technology investors and financiers in decision making but will product of anaerobic digestion can be sold to farmers and other
also guide research and development in the anaerobic biogas interested stakeholders after drying it or in its wet form. Revenue is
production niche. As such, generation of multi-objective realised from selling this bio-fertiliser.
techno-economic functions are imperative to the modelling and 7. The Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and
optimisation of anaerobic digestion. Payback Period (tPB) among other project appraisal criterion pa
 rameters are employed to ascertain the financial viability of the • Net Present Value (NPV)
project under study. The following formulae can be used in calcu
lating the parameters highlighted:
well as highlighting on how the computations are carried out based overal techno
analysis of costs and benefits is on the tech nical parameters of the
done. Investment appraisal project in order to ascertain the NPV = − I0 +∑n 1 (27)
B − C (1 + r)n
economic viability of the project. The following procedure is sug nue), n is the project life time, r is the interest rate or discount
gested by the authors: rate, C represents the project costs, B-C is equivalent to the Net
Profit, PWAF is the Present Worth Annuity Factor which is given
by:
1. The initial investment costs (I0) are determined basing mainly on
the capital requirements of the specific project. Capital −n
PWAF = 1 − (1 + r)
requirements include the digester construction costs, biomass
harvesting equip ment for use in cases where agricultural residues r (28)
and aquatic bio materials such as water hyacinth are among the
substrates. Pre treatment equipment such as dryers and choppers
can be included to the capital requirements. Construction and • Payback Period (tPB)
erection costs of biogas plant infrastructure and other ancillary
facilities such as substrate storage compartments are included to tPB = − ln(1 − I0 r
the capital requirements and are integral components of the initial CF)

investment costs. ln(1 + r) (29)

2. Transport costs for ferrying feedstocks/substrates to the digesters
are calculated and teken into consideration. The siting of most where CF = Annual cash flow = B − C
anaerobic digestion plants is usually done within the vicinity of • Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
feedstocks and water. However, transport costs have to be factored
in for cases whereby the resources have to be ferried from some IRR = r1 + (r2 − r1 × NPV1)
other locations to the biogas generation plant. NPV2 + NPV1(30)
3. The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are ascertained. The
O&M costs of anaerobic digestion are a bit difficult to arrive at as where r1 is the initial discount rate, r2 is a new assumed discount
these fluctuate with time and availability of replacement and/or rate which brings the NPV closer to zero, NPV1 is the initial Net
refurbishment parts and accessories. As a rule of thumb a certain Present Value and NPV2 is the new Net Present Value arrived at
percentage of the initial investment costs for instance 2% is taken using r2.
to be the value of O&M costs.
4. The price of biogas is prescribed. The price of fuel on the market 5. Research gaps and future perspectives
has a huge bearing on the determination of the price of biogas. In
many countries, the energy sectors have a regulatory board which Co-digesting different substrates is reported to increase biogas
stipu lates and governs fuel prices. However, it is worthwhile to set output volumes owing to the optimistic interactions created in the
the selling price of biogas below that of conventional fuels such as digestion medium, microbial variations in diverse substrates as well as
Nat ural Gas and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) for the reason that provision of missing nutrients by the co-substrates. Anaerobic co
the conventional fuels are more efficient and as such for biogas to digestion still remains largely unstudied for many varying substrates.
be competitive on the market its price has to be relatively lower. Application of the co-digestion technology therefore needs close man
Biogas generation costs generally range from USD 0.22 to USD agement since no one customary laid out operating parameters and
0.39 per cubic meter of methane for animal dung-based biogas, settings are practical for all organic biodegradable wastes. Considering
and from USD 0.11 to USD 0.50 per cubic meter of methane for the availability of many different organic materials which can be feed
industrial waste based biogas (International, 2017). stocks for co-digestion, further research in enhancement and
5. Carbon dioxide emissions are dtermined and carbon credits are controlling of biogas production from varied substrate types should be
calculated. The Paris climate agreement intends to keep global undertaken.
warming below 2 degrees Celsius and promote initiatives to keep it There is need of modelling and optimisation using specific
below 1.5 degrees Celsius (Intergovernmental, 2019). There are substrates such as water hyacinth, cow dung and municipal solid
specific limits which companies cannot exceed when it comes to waste so as to sustainably deal with the issues of environmental
greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon taxes are in operation world-over sustainability as well as energy demand and supply. This study notes
whereby entities pay for the amount of carbon dioxide they that many previous works (Ferreira et al., 2021; Oladejo et al., 2020;
produce and emission trading schemes are operational creating a Mukumba et al., 2019; Mahato, 2020), used arbitrary suppositions
carbon market where businesses buy and sell carbon credits. from a selection of unin
Entities that avoid carbon dioxide emissions sell their rights to formed different mixing ratios in co-digestion. Optimisation of the
those having higher emission reduction costs (Hartmann, 2017). anaerobic biogas production process needs to be done so as to arrive at
Proceeds from carbon credits are taken as benefits and they informed optimal substrate blend ratios and reaction parameters
positively influence the revenue of a company. through co-digestion. Mathematical modelling can help researchers and
6. The amount of bio-slurry/bio-fertilizer is determined. It is not all the entire biogas fratenity to optimise operations more effectively and
the biomass material fed into the biogas reactor that is digested forecast biogas production in a variety of scenarios, conditions and/or
completely. The residue sludge normally referred to as sludge or bio constraints. The use of modelling and simulation in conjunction with
slurry can be used as a bio-fertiliser as it is rich in nutrients. This bi analytical tools such as those in MATLAB will go a long way in
= − I0 + [PWAF × (B − C)] planning, controlling, and predicting anaerobic co-digestions. The
modelling and
where I0 is the initial investment, B represents the benefits (reve

10
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia minimising environmental detriments, amongst many others. The ma
jority of the models in literature lack this coupling and this needs to be
simulations can be coupled to optimisation of different specific target deeply looked into.
objectives such as maximising biogas output, minimising energy cost, A lot of research and development is yet to be done with respect to
mathematical modelling and application of optimisation tools in biogas nature and many other benefits.
production. As such it will be of interest to further develop, evaluate
and compare the empirical, biological and mathematical models with 6. Conclusions
regards to biogas prediction and optimisation. In line with the devel
opment of models and optimisation of the biogas production process, a The status, current trends and future perspectives in the field of
wide spectrum of control options needs to be incorporated in the biogas production with regards to co-digestion, modelling, and optimi
models in a bid to regulate the entire process for better optimal gas sation were reviewed in this study. Co-digestion needs a great deal of
yields. Some control systems and/or strategies are lacking in the further research on varied feedstocks and optimal mix ratios. Modelling
overall anaerobic biogas production optimisations. Incorporation of and optimisation incorporating co-digestion feedstock seasonal varia
some simple con tions is yet to be studied. Control of process conditions is key to
trollers such as the on–off switching devices to advanced ones like the achieving optimal biogas. Hybridisation of biogas with conventional
proportional integral derivative (PID) devices and fuzzy logic among and non-conventional energy sources needs to be explored in depth.
others can lead to entire bio-process automation and enhancement. The majority of research investigations are centred on mono-digestion.
The resultant AD process biogas outputs are dependant upon the Coupling of co-digestion, modelling, and optimisation needs signifi
amount, nature and standard of the biomass fed into the system. Thus cant further research and investigations.
the overall optimal yields are affected by the time of the year and the
environment from which the substrates are derived from since these
dictate the amount and quality of the same. Biogas production and Declaration of Competing Interest
optimisation models developed to date do not account for the
geographical (environmental) and seasonal (time) variation of The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
substrates. This offers an opportunuty for research in this direction. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
This current study also highlights, from reviewing of previous influence the work reported in this paper.
works the necessity of accelerating integration of RETs into the
existing energy supply mix. It is hereby reported that lots of research Acknowledgements
have been done on hybridisation of solar, wind, diesel, grid and in
other instances coupled with storage such as batteries. However, the The authors would like to appreciate the financial support from
hybridisation of biogas with these and other conventional fuel supply Chinhoyi University of Technology and the Centre of New Energy Sys
alternatives like liquid petro tems of the University of Pretoria.
leum gas (LPG) and other distributed renewable energy supply sources
to meet energy and/or fuel demand is still at infancy in terms of
References
research and development and as such is presented as an avenue for
possible further research work. Adarme, O.F.H., Baˆeta, B.E.L., Gabriel Filho, J.B., Gurgel, L.V.A., de Aquino, S.F., 2019.
Most of the previous works majored on experimental investigations Use of anaerobic co-digestion as an alternative to add value to sugarcane
biorefinery wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 287, 121443 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and prospects of optimising single phase mono-digestion processes in biortech.2019.121443.
clusive of the factors that affect the same. This agrees with Ilo et al. Adekunle, K.F., Okolie, J.A., 2015. A review of biochemical process of anaerobic
(2021) who also gave demerits to the laboratory experimental ap digestion. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 6, 205. https://doi.org/10.4236/
proaches owing to inconsistency in specific conditions under which the abb.2015.63020.
Al-Wahaibi, A., Osman, A.I., Ala’a, H., Alqaisi, O., Baawain, M., Fawzy, S., Rooney,
experiments are carried out. It is however realised in this study that D.W., 2020. Techno-economic evaluation of biogas production from food waste via
research gaps do exist in regard to optimisation of co-digestion anaerobic digestion. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-
processes using biogas production models incorporating the concept of 72897-5.
Alagoz, ¨ B.A., Yenigün, O., Erdinçler, A., 2018. Ultrasound assisted biogas production
a multi stage AD reaction mechanism inclusive of the factors that
from co-digestion of wastewater sludges and agricultural wastes: Comparison with
affect the same, mainly the pH and temperature parameters. This is as microwave pre-treatment. Ultrason. Sonochem. 40, 193–200. https://doi.org/
well being presented herein as a future research work direction. 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.05.014.
There is need of taking a multi-objective approach when it comes Almomani, F., 2020. Prediction of biogas production from chemically treated
co-digested agricultural waste using artificial neural network. Fuel 280, 118573.
to the techno-economic analysis of the anaerobic biogas production https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118573.
pro cess. The modelling and optimisation will be more effective if all Andrews, J.F., 1969. Dynamic model of the anaerobic digestion process. J. Sanit. Eng.
tech nical and economic parameters and conditions are employed. Div. 95, 95–116.
Given the current bid to combat climate change world-over, Angelidaki, I., Ellegaard, L., Ahring, B.K., 1999. A comprehensive model of anaerobic
bioconversion of complex substrates to biogas. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 63, 363–372.
environmental as pects such as CO2 equivalent emissions avoided can Angelonidi, E., Smith, S.R., 2015. A comparison of wet and dry anaerobic digestion
also be incorporated into the overall techno-economic analysis and processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste and food waste. Water. Environ. J.
this will contribute immensely towards the research and development 29, 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12130.
Atelge, M., Atabani, A., Abut, S., Kaya, M., Eskicioglu, C., Semaan, G., Lee, C., Yildiz, Y.,
of anaerobic biogas production technology. Unalan, S., Mohanasundaram, R., et al., 2021. Anaerobic co-digestion of oil
The application of anaerobic digestion does not only tackle waste extracted spent coffee grounds with various wastes: Experimental and kinetic
management issues, but also comes with a new paradigm to energy modeling studies. Bioresour. Technol. 322, 124470 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2020.124470.
generation. Anaerobic digestion, co-digestion in particular, has sparked Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S., Pavlostathis, S., Rozzi, A.,
a lot of interest among scientists because of its good potential health Sanders, W., Siegrist, H., Vavilin, V., 2002. The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No.
implications, environmental merits, economic advantages, and most 1 (ADM1). Water Sci. Technol. 45, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.0292.
importantly its enhanced waste-to-energy biogas generation yields Beltramo, T., Ranzan, C., Hinrichs, J., Hitzmann, B., 2016. Artificial neural network
prediction of the biogas flow rate optimised with an ant colony algorithm. Biosyst.
(Van et al., 2020). However, its adoption world over at large scale is Eng. 143, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.01.006.
still at infancy especially when it comes to the management of solid Blumensaat, F., Keller, J., 2005. Modelling of two-stage anaerobic digestion using the
wastes by municipalities among other commercial biogas production IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1). Water Res. 39, 171–183.
https://doi. org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.07.024.
entities. Widespread awareness of this technology needs to be
Bohutskyi, P., Phan, D., Kopachevsky, A.M., Chow, S., Bouwer, E.J., Betenbaugh, M.J.,
extensively 2018. Synergistic co-digestion of wastewater grown algae-bacteria polyculture
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311 biomass and cellulose to optimize carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and application of
kinetic models to predict anaerobic digestion energy balance. Bioresour. Technol.
accelerated for commercial adoption worldwide given its renewable 269, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.085.

11
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia Technol. 58, 1659–1664. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.508.
Bong, C.P.C., Lim, L.Y., Lee, C.T., Klemeˇs, J.J., Ho, C.S., Ho, W.S., 2018. The
Boncz, M., Bezerra, L.P., Ide, C.N., Paulo, P.L., 2008. Optimisation of biogas production characterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production
from anaerobic digestion of agro-industrial waste streams in Brazil. Water Sci. during anaerobic digestion–A review. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1545–1558. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199.
Buswell, A., Mueller, H., 1952. Mechanism of methane fermentation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Ilo, O.P., Simatele, M.D., Mkhize, N.M., Prabhu, N.G., et al., 2021. Methodological
44, 550–552. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50507a033. approaches to optimising anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth for energy efficiency in
Buswell, A., Sollo, F., 1948. The mechanism of the methane fermentation. J. Am. Chem. south africa. Sustainability 13, 6746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126746.
Soc. 70, 1778–1780. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01185a034. Imeni, S.M., Puy, N., Ovejero, J., Busquets, A.M., Bartroli, J., Pelaz, L., Ponsa, ´ S.,
Cardona, L., Levrard, C., Guenne, A., Chapleur, O., Maz´eas, L., 2019. Co-digestion of Colon, ´ J., 2020. Techno-economic assessment of anaerobic co-digestion of cattle
wastewater sludge: Choosing the optimal blend. Waste. Manage. 87, 772–781. manure and wheat straw (raw and pre-treated) at small to medium dairy cattle
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.016. farms. Waste. Biomass. Valor. 11, 4035–4051.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019- 00728-4.
Cheng, C.t., Niu, W.j., Feng, Z.k., Shen, J.j., Chau, K.w., 2015. Daily reservoir runoff
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019. An IPCC special report on
forecasting method using artificial neural network based on quantum-behaved
the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and related
particle swarm optimization. Water 7, 4232–4246. doi: 10.3390/w7084232.
global greenhouse gas emission pathways.
Dahunsi, S., Oranusi, S., Owolabi, J.B., Efeovbokhan, V.E., 2016. Mesophilic anaerobic
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2017. Biogas cost reductions to boost
co-digestion of poultry dropping and carica papaya peels: Modelling and process
sustainable transport. www.irena.org/newsroom/articles/2017/Mar/Biogas-Cost
parameter optimization study. Bioresour. Technol. 216, 587–600. https://doi.org/
Reductions-to-Boost-Sustainable-TransportAccessed 30 October 2021.
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.118.
Jiya, A., Ijah, U., Galadima, M., Akpan, U., 2019. Optimisation of biogas production
Dahunsi, S., Oranusi, S., Owolabi, J.B., Efeovbokhan, V.E., 2017. Synergy of siam weed
through variation of ph, detention time and ratio of substrate to water for rural
(chromolaena odorata) and poultry manure for energy generation: Effects of
utilization. J. Biomed. Res. Clin. Pract. 2, 52–59.
pretreatment methods, modeling and process optimization. Bioresour. Technol. 225,
https://doi.org/10.46912/jbrcp.81.
409–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.123.
Kang, J.N., Wei, Y.M., Liu, L.C., Han, R., Yu, B.Y., Wang, J.W., 2020. Energy systems for
Esfe, M.H., Saedodin, S., Sina, N., Afrand, M., Rostami, S., 2015. Designing an artificial
climate change mitigation: A systematic review. Appl. Energ. 263, 114602 https://
neural network to predict thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity of
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114602.
ferromagnetic nanofluid. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 68, 50–57. https://doi.
Kangle, K., Kore, S., Kore, V., Kulkarni, G., et al., 2012. Recent trends in anaerobic
org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2015.06.013.
codigestion: A review. Univers. J. Environ. Res. Technol. 2, 210–219. Karki, R.,
Etuwe, C.N., Momoh, Y.O.L., Iyagba, E.T., 2016. Development of mathematical models
Chuenchart, W., Surendra, K., Shrestha, S., Raskin, L., Sung, S., Hashimoto, A., Khanal,
and application of the modified gompertz model for designing batch biogas
S.K., 2021. Anaerobic co-digestion: Current status and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol.
reactors. Waste. Biomass Valor. 7, 543–550.
330 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125001. Kegl, T., Kralj, A.K., 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9482-8.
Multi-objective optimization of anaerobic digestion process using a gradient-based
Fedailaine, M., Moussi, K., Khitous, M., Abada, S., Saber, M., Tirichine, N., 2015.
algorithm. Energy Conversion and Management 226, 113560.
Modeling of the anaerobic digestion of organic waste for biogas production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113560.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 52, 730–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.086.
Keshtkar, A.R., Abolhamd, G., Meyssami, B., Ghaforian, H., 2003. Modeling of
Ferreira, L.O., Astals, S., Passos, F., 2021. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
anaerobic digestion of complex substrates. Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 22, 61–74.
microalgae in an integrated treatment plant. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. Gaida, D.,
Wolf, C., Back, ¨ T., Bongards, M., 2012. Nonlinear model predictive substrate feed https://doi. org/10.30492/IJCCE.2003.8181.
control of biogas plants. In: 2012 20th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Kleerebezem, R., Van Loosdrecht, M., 2006. Waste characterization for implementation
Automation (MED). IEEE, pp. 652–657. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MED.2012.6265712. in ADM1. Water Sci. Technol. 54, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.538.
Gaida, D., Wolf, C., Back, ¨ T., Bongards, M., 2014. Multi-objective nonlinear model Kouas, M., Torrijos, M., Schmitz, S., Sousbie, P., Sayadi, S., Harmand, J., 2018. Co
predictive substrate feed control of a biogas plant. Kompendium der digestion of solid waste: Towards a simple model to predict methane production.
Forschungsgemeinschaft:metabolon 1, 47–51. Bioresour. Technol. 254, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.055.
Galí, A., Benabdallah, T., Astals, S., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2009. Modified version of ADM1 Kunatsa, T., Madiye, L., Chikuku, T., Shonhiwa, C., Musademba, D., 2013. Feasibility
model for agro-waste application. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 2783–2790. https://doi. study of biogas production from water hyacinth. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 3, 119–128.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.052. Kunatsa, T., Mufundirwa, A., 2013. Biogas production from water hyacinth case of lake
García-Gen, S., Rodríguez, J., Lema, J.M., 2014. Optimisation of substrate blends in Chivero-Zimbabwe. A review. Int. J. Recent. Technol. Eng. 2, 138–142. Kunatsa, T.,
anaerobic co-digestion using adaptive linear programming. Bioresour. Technol. 173, Zhang, L., Xia, X., 2020. Biogas potential determination and production optimisation
159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.089. through optimal substrate ratio feeding in co-digestion of water hyacinth, municipal
Ghatak, M.D., Ghatak, A., 2018. Artificial neural network model to predict behavior of solid waste and cow dung. Biofuels 1–11. https://doi.org/
biogas production curve from mixed lignocellulosic co-substrates. Fuel 232, 10.1080/17597269.2020.1835452.
178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.05.051. Lee, J., Hong, J., Jeong, S., Chandran, K., Park, K.Y., 2020. Interactions between
Gil, A., Siles, J., Marquez, ´ P., Guti´errez, M., Martín, M., 2019. Optimizing the substrate characteristics and microbial communities on biogas production yield and
selection of organic waste for biomethanization. Environ. Technol. 40, 564–575. rate. Bioresour. Technol. 303, 122934 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi. org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1397769. biortech.2020.122934.
Glivin, G., Edwin, M., Joseph, Sekhar, S., 2018. Techno-economic studies on Lu, X., Jin, W., Xue, S., Wang, X., 2017. Effects of waste sources on performance of
implementation of biogas plant for the energy requirement in an educational anaerobic co-digestion of complex organic wastes: taking food waste as an example.
institution, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Energy Efficient Sci. Rep. 7, 15702. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16068-z.
Technologies for Sustainability, St. Xavier’s Catholic College of Engineering, Mahato, P., 2020. Two-Stage (Liquid-Solid) Anaerobic Digestion of High Solid/High
TamilNadu, India. 5th to 7th April. Ammonia rich Manures at a Low Temperature adopting Recirculation-Percolation
Gonzalez, ´ L.M.L., Reyes, I.P., Romero, O.R., 2017. Anaerobic co-digestion of sugarcane Operational Mode. Ph.D. thesis. Concordia University.
press mud with vinasse on methane yield. Waste. Manage. 68, 139–145. Mahmod, S.S., Jahim, J.M., Abdul, P.M., Luthfi, A.A.I., Takriff, M.S., 2021. Techno
https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.016. economic analysis of two-stage anaerobic system for biohydrogen and biomethane
Gopal, L.C., Govindarajan, M., Kavipriya, M., Mahboob, S., Al-Ghanim, K.A., Virik, P., production from palm oil mill effluent. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 105679 https://
Ahmed, Z., Al-Mulhm, N., Senthilkumaran, V., Shankar, V., 2021. Optimization doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105679.
strategies for improved biogas production by recycling of waste through response Maile, I., Muzenda, E., Mbohwa, C., 2016. Optimization of biogas production through
surface methodology and artificial neural network: Sustainable energy perspective anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste: A Review URL:ujcontent.uj.ac.za.
research. J. King Saud University-Sci. 33, 101241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Mao, L., Zhang, J., Dai, Y., Tong, Y.W., 2019. Effects of mixing time on methane
jksus.2020.101241. production from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and chicken manure:
Hagos, K., Zong, J., Li, D., Liu, C., Lu, X., 2017. Anaerobic co-digestion process for experimental studies and CFD analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 294, 122177 https://doi.
biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122177.
76, 1485–1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184. Maragkaki, A., Vasileiadis, I., Fountoulakis, M., Kyriakou, A., Lasaridi, K., Manios, T.,
Hartmann, T., 2017. How does carbon trading work?. 2018. Improving biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge with
Hassan, M., Ding, W., Umar, M., Rasool, G., 2017. Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic a thermal dried mixture of food waste, cheese whey and olive mill wastewater. Waste.
co-digestion of goose manure with alkali solubilized wheat straw: a case of carbon Manage. 71, 644–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.016.
to nitrogen ratio and organic loading rate regression optimization. Bioresour. Martin, P.C.B., 1979. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic substrates under
Technol. 230, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.025. different operating modes and extreme feeding conditions optimisation and
Hegde, S., Trabold, T.A., 2019. Anaerobic digestion of food waste with unconventional modelling. Ph.D. thesis. University of Luxembourg.
co-substrates for stable biogas production at high organic loading rates. Mass´e, D.I., Droste, R., 2000. Comprehensive model of anaerobic digestion of swine
Sustainability 11, 3875. manure slurry in a sequencing batch reactor. Water Res. 34, 3087–3106.
Hill, D., Barth, C., 1977. A dynamic model for simulation of animal waste digestion. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00064-6.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 2129–2143. Membere, A.E., John, U., Joshua, O., 2013. Computational model for biogas production
Horv´ath, I.S., Tabatabaei, M., Karimi, K., Kumar, R., 2016. Recent updates on biogas from solid waste. J. Environ. 2, 47–51.
production-a review. Biofuel Res. J 10, 394–402. https://doi.org/10.18331/ Muenmee, S., Prasertboonyai, K., 2021. Potential biogas production generated by mono
brj2016.3.2.4. and co-digestion of food waste and fruit waste (durian shell, dragon fruit and
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311 pineapple peel) in different mixture ratio under anaerobic condition. Environ. Res.
Eng. Manag. 77, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.77.1.25234.
Huang, M., Han, W., Wan, J., Ma, Y., Chen, X., 2016. Multi-objective optimisation for Mukumba, P., Makaka, G., Mamphweli, S., Xuza, V., Peacemaker, M., 2019. Anaerobic
design and operation of anaerobic digestion using GA-ANN and NSGA-II. J. Chem. digestion: An assessment of the biodegradability of a biogas digester fed with
Technol. Biotechnol. 91, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4568. substrates at different mixing ratios. Waste-to-Energy (WTE), p. 107.

12
T. Kunatsa and X. Xia network (ANN). Fuel 285, 119081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119081.
Nguyen, D., Gadhamshetty, V., Nitayavardhana, S., Khanal, S.K., 2015. Automatic
Neto, J.G., Ozorio, L.V., de Abreu, T.C.C., dos Santos, B.F., Pradelle, F., 2021. Modeling process control in anaerobic digestion technology: A critical review. Bioresour.
of biogas production from food, fruits and vegetables wastes using artificial neural Technol. 193, 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.080.
Ning, J., Zhou, M., Pan, X., Li, C., Lv, N., Wang, T., Cai, G., Wang, R., Li, J., Zhu, G.,
 2019. Simultaneous biogas and biogas slurry production from co-digestion of pig 2005. Integrated chemical/physical and biological processes modeling Part 2-
manure and corn straw: Performance optimization and microbial community shift. Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludges. Water SA 31, 545–568. https://doi.org/
Bioresour. Technol. 282, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.122. 10.4314/wsa.v31i4.5145.
Oladejo, O.S., Dahunsi, S.O., Adesulu-Dahunsi, A.T., Ojo, S.O., Lawal, A.I., Idowu, E.O., Sun, H., Kovalovszki, A., Tsapekos, P., Alvarado-Morales, M., Rudatis, A., Wu, S., Dong,
Olanipekun, A.A., Ibikunle, R.A., Osueke, C.O., Ajayi, O.E., et al., 2020. Energy R., Kougias, P.G., Angelidaki, I., 2019. Co-digestion of laminaria digitata with
generation from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, cow dung and piggery dung. cattle manure: A unimodel simulation study of both batch and continuous
Bioresource technology 313, 123694. experiments. Bioresour. Technol. 276, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Opurum, C., Nweke, C., Nwanyanwu, C., Orji, J., 2017. Biogas production from fish biortech.2018.12.110.
pond effluent supplemented with cow blood meal in a batch anaerobic digester system. Tan, J.B., Jamali, N.S., Tan, W.E., Che Man, H., Zainal Abidin, Z., 2021. Techno
Futo Journal Series 3, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32425.90722. economic assessment of on-farm anaerobic digestion system using attached-biofilm
Oreggioni, G.D., Luberti, M., Reilly, M., Kirby, M.E., Toop, T., Theodorou, M., Tassou, S. reactor in the dairy industry. Sustainability 13, 2063. https://doi.org/10.3390/
A., 2017. Techno-economic analysis of bio-methane production from agriculture su13042063.
and food industry waste. Energy Procedia 123, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Tetteh, E., Amano, K.O.A., Asante-Sackey, D., Armah, E., 2018. Response surface
egypro.2017.07.252. optimisation of biogas potential in co-digestion of miscanthus fuscus and cow dung.
Palma-Heredia, D., Verdaguer, M., Molinos-Senante, M., Poch, M., Cuguero-Escofet, ´ Int. J. Technol. 9, 944–954.
M., 2021. Optimised blending for anaerobic co-digestion using ant colony Thorin, E., Nordlander, E., Lindmark, J., Dahlquist, E., Yan, J., Bel Fdhila, R., 2012. In:
approach: Besos ` river basin case study. Renewable Energy 168, 141–150. Modeling of the biogas production process- A review in: International Conference
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.064. on Applied Energy ICAE 2012. Suzhou, China.
Patil, J.H., Raj, M., Gavimath, C., Hooli, V.R., 2011. A comparative study on anaerobic Van, D.P., Fujiwara, T., Tho, B.L., Toan, P.P.S., Minh, G.H., 2020. A review of anaerobic
co-digestion of water hyacinth with poultry litter and cow dung. Int J Chem Sci digestion systems for biodegradable waste: Configurations, operating parameters,
Appl 2, 148–155. and current trends. Environ. Eng. Res. 25, 1–17.
ˇ
Petroviˇc, A., Simoniˇc, M., Cu ˇcek, L., 2021. Nutrient recovery from the digestate Vavilin, V., Vasiliev, V., Ponomarev, A., Rytow, S., 1994. Simulation model: Methane as
obtained by rumen fluid enhanced anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and a tool for effective biogas production during anaerobic conversion of complex
cattail: Precipitation by MgCl2 and ion exchange using zeolite. J. Environ. Manage. organic matter. Bioresour. Technol. 48, 1–8.
290, 112593 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112593. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(94)90126- 0.
Pramanik, S.K., Suja, F.B., Porhemmat, M., Pramanik, B.K., 2019. Performance and Vivekanand, V., Mulat, D.G., Eijsink, V.G., Horn, S.J., 2018. Synergistic effects of
kinetic model of a single-stage anaerobic digestion system operated at different anaerobic co-digestion of whey, manure and fish ensilage. Bioresour. Technol. 249,
successive operating stages for the treatment of food waste. Processes 7, 600. 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.169.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7090600. Volpi, M.P.C., Fuess, L.T., Moraes, B.S., 2021. Anaerobic co-digestion of residues in
Rahman, M.A., Møller, H.B., Saha, C.K., Alam, M.M., Wahid, R., Feng, L., 2017. Optimal 1G2G sugarcane biorefineries for enhanced electricity and biomethane production.
ratio for anaerobic co-digestion of poultry droppings and lignocellulosic-rich substrates Bioresour. Technol. 330, 124999 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124999.
for enhanced biogas production. Energy. Sustain. Dev. 39, 59–66. Wang, Z., Yun, S., Xu, H., Wang, C., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Jia, B., 2019. Mesophilic
Ramachandran, A., Rustum, R., Adeloye, A.J., 2019. Review of anaerobic digestion anaerobic co-digestion of acorn slag waste with dairy manure in a batch digester:
modeling and optimization using nature-inspired techniques. Processes 7, 953. focusing on mixing ratios and bio-based carbon accelerants. Bioresour. Technol.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7120953. 286, 121394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121394.
Rao, M., Singh, S., 2004. Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of msw: Wilkie, A., Barry, M., Reynolds, P., O’Kelly, N., 1983. Anaerobic filter digestion of
kinetic studies and gas yield–organic loading relationships for process optimisation. agricultural wastes. In: Energy from biomass. Springer Science & Business Media,
Bioresour. Technol. 95, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.013. p. 306.
Reyes, I.P., Díaz, J.P., Horv´ath, I.S., 2015. Anaerobic biodegradation of solid substrates Wolf, C., McLoone, S., Bongards, M., 2009. Biogas plant control and optimization using
from agroindustrial activities —slaughterhouse wastes and agrowastes. In: computational intelligence methods. at -. Automatisierungstechnik 57, 638–649.
Biodegradation and bioremediation of polluted systems: New advances and https://doi.org/10.1524/auto.2009.0809.
technologies. InTech, Croatia. chapter 3. pp. 31–64. Wu, D., Li, L., Zhao, X., Peng, Y., Yang, P., Peng, X., 2019. Anaerobic digestion: a
Rock.Holdings, 2019. Optimise definition. URL:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ review on process monitoring. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 103, 1–12.
optimise. Accessed 29 March 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.039.
Roetzel, W., Luo, X., Chen, D., 2019. Optimal design of heat exchanger networks, in: Xie, S., Hai, F.I., Zhan, X., Guo, W., Ngo, H.H., Price, W.E., Nghiem, L.D., 2016.
Design and operation of heat exchangers and their networks. Elsevier, pp. 231–318. Anaerobic co-digestion: A critical review of mathematical modelling for
Saghouri, M., Abdi, R., Ebrahimi-Nik, M., Rohani, A., Maysami, M., 2020. Modeling and performance optimization. Bioresour. Technol. 222, 498–512.
optimization of biomethane production from solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2016.10.015.
organic fraction municipal solid waste and other co-substrates. Energy Sources, Part A: Xing, B.S., Cao, S., Han, Y., Wen, J., Zhang, K., Wang, X.C., 2020. Stable and high-rate
Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/ anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cow manure: Optimisation of start-up
15567036.2020.1767728. conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 307, 123195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Sarti, A., Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., 2004. Evaluation of a mechanistic mathematical model biortech.2020.123195.
of a packed-bed anaerobic reactor treating wastewater. Lat. Am. Appl. Res. 34, Yang, X.S., 2020. Nature-inspired optimization algorithms. Academic Press, London,
127–132. United Kingdom.
Sawin, J.L., Sverrisson, F., Seyboth, K., Adib, R., Murdock, H.E., Lins, C., Brown, A., Di Yasar, A., Nazir, S., Tabinda, A.B., Nazar, M., Rasheed, R., Afzaal, M., 2017. Socio
Domenico, S.E., Kielmanowicz, D., Williamson, L.E., et al., 2016. Renewables 2016 economic, health and agriculture benefits of rural household biogas plants in
Global Status Report. Key findings. A Record Breaking Year for Renewable Energy: energy scarce developing countries: A case study from pakistan. Renew. Energ.
New Installations, Policy Targets, Investment and Jobs. Mainstreaming renewables: 108, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.044.
guidance for policy makers. Technical Report. Yu, L., Wensel, P.C., Ma, J., Chen, S., et al., 2014. Mathematical modeling in anaerobic
Sembera, C., Macintosh, C., Astals, S., Koch, K., 2019. Benefits and drawbacks of food digestion (AD). J. Bioremediat. Biodegrad. 5 https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6199.
and dairy waste co-digestion at a high organic loading rate: A moosburg wwtp case S4-003.
study. Waste Management 95, 217–226. Yusuf, M., Debora, A., Ogheneruona, D., et al., 2011. Ambient temperature kinetic
Siegrist, H., Vogt, D., Garcia-Heras, J.L., Gujer, W., 2002. Mathematical model for meso assessment of biogas production from co-digestion of horse and cow dung. Res.
and thermophilic anaerobic sewage sludge digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, Agric. Eng. 57, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.17221/25/2010-rae.
1113–1123. https://doi.org/10.1021/es010139p. Zahan, Z., Othman, M.Z., Muster, T.H., 2018. Anaerobic digestion/co-digestion kinetic
da Silva, F., 2015. Dynamic process simulation: When do we really need it. URL:https:// potentials of different agro-industrial wastes: A comparative batch study for C/N
processecology.com/articles/dynamic-process-simulation-when-do-we-really-need optimisation. Waste. Manage. 71, 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
it/.Accessed 27 March 2021. wasman.2017.08.014.
Sol´e-Bundo, ´ M., Garfí, M., Matamoros, V., Ferrer, I., 2019. Co-digestion of microalgae Zaied, B., Rashid, M., Nasrullah, M., Bari, B.S., Zularisam, A., Singh, L., Kumar, D.,
and primary sludge: Effect on biogas production and microcontaminants removal. Krishnan, S., 2020. Prediction and optimization of biogas production from POME co
Sci. Total Environ. 660, 974–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.011. digestion in solar bioreactor using artificial neural network coupled with particle
Sotemann, ¨ S., Ristow, N., Wentzel, M., Ekama, G., 2005. A steady state model for swarm optimization (ANN-PSO). Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 1–16. https://
anaerobic digestion of sewage sludges. Water S.A. 31, 511–528. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01057-6.
10.4314/wsa.v31i4.5143. Zhao, Y., Sun, F., Yu, J., Cai, Y., Luo, X., Cui, Z., Hu, Y., Wang, X., 2018. Co-digestion of
Bioresource Technology 344 (2022) 126311 oat straw and cow manure during anaerobic digestion: Stimulative and inhibitory
effects on fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 269, 143–152. https://doi.org/
Sotemann, ¨ S., Van Rensburg, P., Ristow, N., Wentzel, M., Loewenthal, R., Ekama, G., 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.040.

13