Received: 07 February 2022, Accepted: 23 March 2022, Online: 28 March 2022

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.55708/js0103018

Biodigester and Feedstock Type: Characteristic, Selection, and

Global Biogas Production
Abdulhalim Musa Abubakar *

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Modibbo Adama University (MAU), P.M.B 2076, Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria

Corresponding author: +2347050244277 & [email protected]

Corresponding author ORCID: 0000-0002-1304-3515

ABSTRACT: This work aims at providing factual details necessary for the utilization of diverse
feedstock for anaerobic digestion (AD) to produce biogas using either conventional or non-
conventional types of digesters. This is necessary as different substrates had peculiar merits or
potentials of biogas production due to their unique characteristics. Selection of right feedstock is
usually based on sustainability, quantity, output requirement, availability and metallic nutrient content
apart from digester type which is affected by the weather condition of the location among other factors.
Global biogas production is increasing annually, especially in areas of biogas utilization for electricity
generation, heating and fuel for transportation.

KEYWORDS: Biogas, Anaerobic digestion, Feedstock type, Bioreactor, Chicken manure

1. Introduction waste or biodegradable material to useful resources by

Biomass are organic matter of plant and animal consortium of microorganisms living symbiotically [6-7,
products that can be broken down physically or 9–13]. This biological process are carried out purposely to
chemically [1, 2]. The simple act of breaking down these produce biogas and digestate [7, 14]. Biogas which is
materials into smaller pieces could be termed physical known for its composition of methane, carbon dioxide,
decomposition while the use of microorganism is a oxygen, nitrogen, water, ammonia, hydrogen, siloxanes
chemical biodegradation process. The biodegradation and hydrogen sulphide vary in this components
process is carried out with or without oxygen. Aerobic composition if the substrate processed are not the same.
fermentation is referred to as oxygen-free decomposition In this case, the component that make up the biogas,
while anaerobic is vice-versa. The composition of the methane is often targeted, because it is well pronounced
biogas produced from the respective processes are almost in the characteristics of the gas. While the second co-
similar [3]. Biogas can be synthesized using different byproduct is used as fertilizer. It can be called biological
biomass sources providing an oxygen-free environment fertilizer, an alternative of the conventional or chemical
in the presence of anaerobic microorganisms [4–6]. It can fertilizer. Merits and drawback lies in the use of the AD
be called a ‘cell gas’, as it comes from “biogenic materials” process. Major advantage is the contribution to
[3, 7-8]. The process of converting organic waste to biogas conservation of non-renewable energy sources and
is termed AD. It was first introduced in 1870 by Jean- biogas production, while long retention time and low
Louis Mouras [9]. AD is an alluring, slow, versatile heating value of the produced gas, constitutes a
biotechnological commercial route to transform organic disadvantage [12, 15] as shown in Table 1.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(2): 170-187, 2022 170
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of AD Process [8]

Advantages of AD Process Disadvantages of AD Process

• Operating costs for an anaerobic treatment • Long start-up: the slow growth rate causes as
plant are relatively very low when compared a longer start-up period as compared to
with aerobic treatment plant aerobic systems
• Low-energy consumption. Also, the system • High buffer requirements for the pH control:
does not require external energy for its The required pH for AD should be in the
operation range of 6.5–8
• The flexibility of an anaerobic system allows • High sensitivity of microorganisms:
the technology to be applied on either a small Methanogens are sensitive to pH and
or a large scale temperature
• Low sludge generation compared to aerobic • Low pathogen and nutrients removal
systems due to a lower yield coefficient • Process is more sensitive to the presence of
• The excess sludge is well stabilized thereby toxic compounds and changes in temperature
resulting to limited environmental impact
• Low nutrient and chemical requirement
• Allows for efficient resource recovery, and
conservation of non-renewable energy sources

It is well known that feedstock to anaerobic Municipal solid 47.0 96.0

bioreactors are basically biodegradable organic wastes. waste (MSW)
Millions of tonnes of waste is generated annually across Pig Slurry
various countries of the world, in both developed and Sewage sludge
developing countries [3]. India alone produces
cumulatively ‘44 million tons + 500 Mt” annually of waste During AD, feeding the biodigester continuously
[10]. These wastes can be subjected to various waste with water and organic waste is necessary to keep it
treatment methods to recycle or convert them to useful running. Biogas automatically stops coming out of the
materials [16]. In Table 2, biogas yields of various outlet of the biodigester when the feedstock runs out [17].
feedstock are compared; where it is observed that Not all feedstock will require the addition of water.
different feedstock produces different throughput of Where water is required to be added, this has to be done
biogas. making sure the contents of the digester is not too diluted.
Not adding the required amount, affects the working
Table 2: Comparison of biogas yields and electricity produced from principle of the digester [17].
different potential substrates [10]
Type Biogas Produced 2. Conventional Biodigesters
production kilowatt-hours There are three conventional reactor models used
(m3/ton fresh (kWh) per ton for biogas production, namely, fixed dome reactor model,
matter) fresh matter floating drum digester model and the tube digester model
Cattle dung 55-68 122.5 [18]. Fixed-dome biogas digester, also called the
Chicken 126.0 257.3 hydraulic reactor model is a semi batch reactor
litter/dung 826-1200 1687.4 originating from China in 1936, and it is the most
Fat 110 224.6 commonly built [6, 19–21]. It has an underground pit or
Food waste (FW) 74 151.6 manhole lined with reinforced concrete slab or bricks in
Fruit waste 56 114.3 order to protect it from physical damage from excessive
Horse manure 200-220 409.6 pressure and to save space [3, 21]. The filling hole or
Maize silage 101.5 207.2 fermentation chamber is where organic waste resides for
11-25 23.5 AD take place. It also have an inlet to add feed to the

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 171
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

digester, a non-movable or fixed dome gas holder or gas moves up and down based on the volume of gas stored
reservoir, constructed with granite, sharp sand, cement (up, when the gas increases and down, when it decreases)
and iron rods at the upper part of the reactor for gas and a guiding frame is kept to prevent it from tilting [3].
storage, a displacement or compensation tank where The disadvantage of this design is that, it has a shorter life
displaced slurry enter during gas production and an span compared to the Chinese model, it is prone to
outlet pipe with a valve/faucet attached to the dome top corrosion due to the high cost of steel drum and requires
where the emerging biogas flows to be collected in a regular painting during its maintenance. The strength of
storage tank also connected to the outlet pipe [3, 6, 21, 22]. the model is its simplicity in building and easy operation
Gas is produced under pressure. The volume of gas [22]. The balloon or tubular biodigester model is set up
generated is proportional to the gas pressure and implies using a large and strong plastic bag placed on a dug
that, as the pressure increases, gas volume increases. The trench for its safety and linked to a piece of drainpipe at
advantage of the Chinese digester is that, it is simple, either end [23]. These pipes are the outlet and exit pipes
occupies less area, having relatively low cost of (which is at one top end) for discharge of slurry and
construction, having a long lifespan of above 20 years and removal of gas respectively. The top of the bag starts to
consist of no moving parts [3, 23]. The disadvantage of inflate as biogas is produced and is piped away [17]. Gas
this type of digester model is that gas pressure is not pressure can be increased when some loads are placed on
stable (caused by absence of gas valve in the outlet) and top of the bag. Balloon bioreactor merits are namely, easy
is prone to cracks in the gas reservoir [22]. The amount of to clean, simple construction and operation, easy to
waste and water to use as feed and the local climate are relocate, lightweight, easy to install and cheap
some of the factors important to consider during its manufacturing cost [26]. The biggest disadvantage
design [6]. Centre for Agriculture Mechanization and associated with the model is its ability to get damaged
Rural Technology (CAMARTEC) model designed by GIZ easily and a short lifetime of 4 years [22]. It is also called
for use in Tanzania, French model installed in Pakistan the polyethylene tubular digester, prominently in use in
and Deenbandhu 2000 (a modification of the Janta model) South Africa, Vietnam, Cambodia, Colombia, Ethiopia,
developed in India are three variations of the fixed dome Bangladesh, Tanzania and countries of Latin America [21,
plant [24, 25]. 23, 25]. Unlike laboratory scale bioreactors where lots of
research has been carried out on feedstock characteristics
The floating drum biogas plant was first designed inside the digester (e.g. measure of cell and substrate
in India and built with sand, cement materials and bricks concentration) and kinetic studies, the conventional
[23]. It comprises of a cylindrical or dome-shaped reactors have not been so given attention. The
underground digester and a moving gas holder floating distinguishing factors of the three digester types is shown
over the fermentation slurry. This floating iron drum is in Table 3.
placed upside down to hold the gas produced. The drum
Table 3: Comparative table of the digesters [19, 21]
Fixed Dome Plant Floating Drum Plants Balloon Plants
Lifespan 20 years or more 15 years maximum 2-5 years
Size 5-200 m3 5-15 m3 4-100 m3
Investment costs Low High Low
Cost of maintenance Low High Low
Gas pressure Between 60 and 130 Up to 20 mbar Low gas pressure
mbar
Skilled required High High Low
Methane emission High Medium Low

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 172
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Presently, there is the fourth kind of digester content greater than 15% [30]. Batch reactors are
termed fiberglass digester consisting of a digesting part characterized with handling diversified substrate and
and storage part of which there is no any barrier or higher volume compared to continuous digester. The
insulation between them. Advantages associated with its weakness of batch system is that the initial cost and cost
use is that it is movable, environmentally friendly, has a of synthesizing the same amount of biogas is almost twice
lightweight, has low investment cost, leaks are easily that of continuous digester [19].
repaired and the ease of implementation and handling
[22]. Also, membrane are suitable when managing Apart from those three, although base on them,
inhibition triggered by ammonia accumulation because other type of digesters are anaerobic contact reactor
they have the capability of shielding microbes from (ACR), anaerobic pond, internal circulation reactor (ICR),
inhibitors [27]. Membrane bioreactors or anaerobic anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR), up-flow
membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) is a fascinating anaerobic solid-state reactor (UASS), anaerobic plug-flow
innovative technology for biogas production. Key reactor (APFR), anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR), up-flow
setbacks related to an AnMBR system are its anaerobic sludge bed reactor (UASB), anaerobic fluidized
maintenance, installation, operating cost and membrane bed reactors (AFBR), up-flow anaerobic sludge fixed-film
fouling [28]. AnMBR systems, just like conventional (UASFF) reactors, membrane anaerobic system (MAS),
bioreactors operates at neutral pH. modified anaerobic baffled reactor (MABR), ultrasonic
membrane anaerobic system (UMAS), expanded
2.1. Categories of Biodigesters granular sludge beds (EGSB) and upflow anaerobic
filtration (UAF) [31–34]. The UASB is currently in use in
Based on method of operation, time and volume of
Morocco to treat recycled paper mill wastewater because
feedstock available, biodigesters are classified into batch,
it is a suitable environment for the survival of
semi-batch and continuous reactor. Batch reactors are in
microorganism as it permits a dense sludge system [28,
most cases fed with slurry to allow for digestion within a
33]. EGSB has been tested by [33] to digest palm oil mill
desired retention time and then discharged [5]. The
effluent (POME) in Nigeria and was found to yield the
continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) is one in which
highest methane gas at low retention time over other
feedstock are continuously fed and products are
types. The plug flow system allows the treatment of high
continuously taken out. It is composed of an internal
amount of waste per unit digester volume, requires little
mixing system, based on wet process, operated in
or no water and reduces the need for pretreatment [30].
mesophilic conditions [29]. FW are commonly fed in
All the listed digester type have the advantage of large-
CSTR after mixing adequately with water to prevent
scale application [31]. Specifically, two types of digesters
pumping and mixing difficulty as FW have high solid
for FW is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: FW Biodigesters (a) Green Cone FW Digester and (b) Ecofys Plastic Bag Digester

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 173
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Green Cone FW Digester created by a British [40]. Poultry litter is a type of lignocellulosic bedding
company called Great Green Systems is however, made up of spilt feed, excrement, and feathers [41]. Wool,
producing small amount of biogas, but the Ecofys Plastic horns, chicken feathers, hooves, hair, claws, and nails
Bag Digester, a technology of Netherland is made up of produced by the fish, meat, and wool industries are
recyclable waste. Ecofys digester is considered portable, examples of keratin-rich waste [27].
cheap, very easy to install and could last for 8 years. In Animal waste is referred to as manure, which is made
terms of size, biogas plants are divided into small size up of a combination of water, straw, excrement (feces and
plants (household scale) capable of delivering 0.5m3/day pee), and sand [29]. Cattle, goats, chickens, pigs, deer,
of biogas and large sizes (industrial scale) that can horses, and other animals are the source of manures [42].
generate 2500 m3/day [26]. According to a United Nations A kg of cow dung can generate 0.03-0.05m3 of biogas
Development Programme (UNDP) report, it takes 5-8 whereas 50,000 cattle could deliver around 20000 m3/day
pigs, 4 adults human and 1-2 cows to supply sufficient of biogas [25, 40, 41]. In 2006, Food and Agricultural
substrate daily for a single-household bioreactor [35]. Organisation (FAO)’s findings shows that there are up to
Countries like Lesotho, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, 277 million heads of cattle in Africa [43]. Nigeria’s biogas
Burundi, Botswana, Nigeria, Sudan and Swaziland are potential stood at 6.8 million m3/day from animal manure
known for small-to-medium scale digesters while while in Zambia, animal dung potential for the gas is
Rwanda and South Africa had several large-scale 1.473×109m3 [41, 43–45]. From the 21 million cattle
digesters [24, 35, 36]. Between 2007-2012, Non- population in 2001, estimates of daily manure production
Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have help develop in Nigeria ranges from 210-1260 million kg ([44] gave a
17000 digesters cumulatively, in Rwanda, Tanzania and specific amount = 227,500 tons daily) while its annual
Ethiopia [37]. The same author stated that the population capacity is 76.7-450 million tonnes [46]. The aggregate is
of Africa is projected to reach 2 billion by 2050, but 542.5 million tons/yr of livestock waste with potential of
currently the number of household size plants is just 18.5 25.53 billion m3 of biogas, 169541.66 MW of energy and
million compared to China’s 200 million, showing a huge 88.19 million tonnes of biofertilizer [39, 41, 47]. Third
deficit and explains how far the continent is left behind as largest cattle breeders in Africa is Tanzania followed by
regards investing in the technology. Small sized and large Ethiopia and Sudan; boosting of 40 million animals out of
digesters in Bangladesh in 2014 cumulatively generates which 18.8 million are cattle [36]. Distribution of manures
15 billion m3 of biogas, and plans to build additional across states and regions of seven countries (namely,
100,000 small scale biogas digesters in 2020 [21]. Several Germany, Austria, Australia, Norway, Canada, Ireland
factors are considered when designing biogas plants, and the United Kingdom) and their potential for biogas
namely, plant safety, easy maintenance, weather production had been presented previously by [48]. Total
condition, biogas output requirement, availability of weight of waste generated from a certain location or town
feedstock, sustainability, easy operation among others. per year at every animal slaughter house can be estimated
The priority of building a biogas plant is basically to based on Equation 1 [20],
minimize cost as it is a rural based technology where local
materials are channeled to its construction [38]. 𝑀 = [𝐸 × 𝐴𝑚 + 𝑁 × (𝐴𝑏 + 𝐴𝑟 )] × 365 (1)
3. Feedstock Classification for AD
where, 𝑀 = total amount of waste produced in that
Agricultural, municipal, and industrial wastes are province (kg year-1), 𝐸 = total number of live animals,
the three primary kinds of organic waste [4, 32]. Livestock 𝑁 = total number of animals slaughtered, 𝐴𝑚 = amount
waste, harvest waste, grass and algae, energy crops, of manure produced (kg day-1) and 𝐴𝑏 & 𝐴𝑟 = amounts of
garden waste, and vegetable by-products are examples of blood and rumen (kg day-1) produced at slaughter
agricultural wastes. Slaughterhouses, ranges, insect houses.
farms, and poultry houses all provide livestock wastes.
Fish waste, insects and worms, poultry litter, keratin-rich Silage grass, mushroom stick, and algae are all good
waste, and manures are among them [39]. Insect farming agricultural AD substrates [42]. As illustrated in Figure 2,
technology produces biogas that is comparable to animal there are three varieties of microalgae for commercial
waste by cultivating silkworm and caterpillar excreta biogas generation.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 174
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Figure 2: Examples of Different Types of Microalgae [49]

Red algae (Rhodophyceae) are the most common of Restaurants, canteens, markets, hotels, hostels, and
these algae kinds [49]. Energy crops are grown household products all produce large volumes of FW
specifically for the production of biofuels and biogas. [30]. Some of these wastes come from the listed buildings'
Vinasse is a liquid leftover from sugarcane derivatives, and locales' kitchens [12]. In the kitchen, filthy water and
sugar beet, and cassava, with a significant biogas various food remnants are produced. Vegetable residue,
synthesis potential [10, 13]. Leaves, garden clippings, fruit peels, cooked food leftovers, and spices are just a few
plants, and cut grass are all examples of garden waste examples. Spices aren't good for the AD process. Red
(GW) [50]. In many areas, harvest or agricultural wastes chili, black paper, cinnamon, coriander, garlic, turmeric,
such as olive pomace, POME, stalk, straw, plant cardamom, and clove are some of the spices used [15].
trimmings, and bark are a key source of AD feedstock Daily biogas output from FW in Benin metropolis of
[51–53]. Anaerobic bacteria have a hard time degrading Nigeria of up to 28836.91 m3 was generated from
crop straw to produce biogas [54]. Corn stover is made up approximately 305.075 tonnes/day production rate based
of husks, stalks, leaves, and cobs that comes from corn on [58].
grain production [55]. Wheat is one of the most widely
grown crops on the planet, while silage corn is the most Low biogas recovery is typical of municipal waste
important crop for biodigester plants [46, 56]. The water [59]. Sewage sludge and gutter water are two
potential of crop residues for biogas generation in Zambia examples [3]. Almost every sort of waste is accepted at the
is 1.819× 109 m3 according to [56]. landfill, which is divided into organic and inorganic sub-
types. MSW disposed off in a landfill by composting or
Though there is no such thing as municipal liquid open dumping is an example [4]. Leachate is generated in
waste (MLW) in the literature, it is legitimate to separate dump sites and produces a significant amount of biogas
municipal garbage into solid and liquid waste. FW, during AD [28]. School and printing presses both have
municipal waste water, landfill garbage, papers, green paper. Cardboard, filter paper, waste paper, newspaper,
waste, urban sanitation, and aquatic biomass are only a and tissue paper are among them [60]. Estimates of
few examples. These wastes come from a variety of Nigeria’s potential of MSW was put at 17 million tonnes
places; possibly domestic, educational, medical, to [61]. Aquatic biomass could include lignocellosic biomass
mention a few [57]. FW is described as an uneaten, from aquatic weeds like water hyacinth (Eichhornia
abandoned, or lost substrate of foods such as rice, crassipes) and water primrose (Ludwigia hyssopifolia) [6, 54,
noodles, nuts, pasta, eggs, fish, vegetables, fruits, meat, 55].
potato, and sweets during the stages of manufacturing,
processing, distribution, and consumption [29, 40, 49–51].

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 175
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Some of the industries that generate semi-solid and and (e) content of volatile solids (VS) and ammonia
liquid organic waste for anaerobic digesters include the concentration. It is critical to dissect various feedstock
agricultural and food processing industries, fodder and and their composition; one which will significantly
brewery industries, wastewater treatment plants matter with regards to biogas output.
(WWTP), textile industries, fruit processing, sugar
industry, and pharmaceutical industries [1, 2, 62]. Animal dung contains parasites, viruses and bacteria
Biomedical waste produces blood, which is also an (that keeps reproducing during AD) [17]. The most
important biogas source [63]. Sludge is a solid waste commonly used is cattle dung mixed with hot water (ratio
byproduct produced by WWTP [64]. Due to water = 1:1) [10]. Animal manure are low in C/N ratio as well as
scarcity, the number of WWTP has expanded in recent nitrogen content but rich in carbohydrate content [3, 9,
years, producing either settled primary sludge or waste 12]. Poultry residue are rich in nitrogen, and is therefore
activated sludge (WAS) from biological treatment [49, not recommended for efficient AD [3, 68]. Brown
57]. Four WWTP, namely, Abesan, Alausa, Iponri and macroalgae are seaweed characterize with high
Oke-Afa are too few for Lagos state (the most densely polysaccharide content and negligible lignin content [49].
populated land area in Nigeria), being the largest Other plant-based materials like vegetables, root crops,
emerging cities in the world with a small area of 3577 sq. grains and fruits are rich in different polysaccharides [16].
km – that generates 1.4 billion litres of wastewater per day The best pretreatment method for water hyacinth is
from a population of around 20 million [65]. In addition, 5%v/v H2SO4 with residence time (RT) of 1 hour [69].
this waste presents an enormous potential for biogas and Vinasse has low macro and micronutrients, deficient in
biofertilizer production for the country. carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and unpleasant smell [13]. Hence
needs to be codigested with filter cake, straw and bagasse
Fruit processing plants generate two forms of trash to solve the problem of its nutrient deficit. AD of
[27]: (a) solid waste, which includes stones, skin, peels, agricultural waste is portrayed generally as having poor
and seeds, and (b) liquid waste, which includes wash- buffering capacity, low quality end products and
waters and juice. Banana, watermelon, citrus, mango, potential variability [5].
pineapple, and other fruits are examples. Waste that can
be digested into liquid effluent trash (e.g. wastewater, Effluents wastewaters are sourced for AD basically
manure slurry, sewage sludge and agro-food effluents) from industries such as wastewater treatment plants.
and organic solid waste can be distinguished (e.g. Waste activated sludge (WAS) from wastewater
agricultural, industrial and municipal waste) [19]. treatment plants (WWTPs) are rich in nitrogen,
Substrates aren't picked at random. Always choose a phosphorus, potassium, organic carbon, microbial
substrate based on its long-term viability, energy biomass and exopolymeric substances; mainly proteins
efficiency, environmental impact, and economic value and carbohydrates [51, 70]. Apart from WWTP,
[11, 62]. wastewaters are sourced from industries discharging
them. Municipal solid waste is typified by low chemical
3.1. Feedstock Characteristics
oxygen demand (COD) concentration, presence of toxic
The composition of the feedstock should be the first materials and high concentration of heavy metals [9, 52].
deliberation while opting for organic matter that would Domestic sewage are rich in nitrogen organisms [3].
give high yield of biogas. Handful of organic waste are Kitchen waste contains high nutritive and calorific value
difficult to break down in a digester, because they are [71]. FW are non-homogenous in nature, has high water,
indigestible (e.g. paper and impregnated wood), hard to VS and salinity content, low C/N ratio and is highly
digest, slow to digest, or contain inhibitors [1, 27]. biodegradable [29, 49, 50]. They are either fat-rich,
Quantity and composition of feedstock can affect AD in protein-rich or carbohydrate-rich materials. Fat-rich and
the following way [66]: (a) dry matter content and protein-rich feedstock produces more methane than
viscosity of substrate causing stirring difficulty, (b) carbohydrate-rich feedstock [51].
impurities affecting size and causing sedimentation, (c)
digester’s size and shape defined by the slurry volume,
(d) feedstock physical and chemical compositions [67]

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 176
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

3.2. Lignocellulosic Feedstock 75]. [76] reported a CM with TS = 47.3%, pH = 8.1, VS =

68% and C-N ratio of 18. To prevent CM from
It has been established that physical and chemical
decomposing, prior to AD, they are often kept at a very
properties of the raw material are factors affecting the
low temperature of -20°C [77]. Others have reported a
amount of biogas produced [70]. In [57], it was stated that
higher temperature of 4℃. Dry fermentation has the
characterization, elimination of contaminants,
merits of high biogas production rates, low water
pretreatment, AD in optimum condition and utilization
consumption and low cost [78].
of energy crops enhanced the efficiency of an anaerobic
digester. Cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin are The agricultural sector where CM is derived, is the
lignocellulosic substrates [54, 59]. They are the main main source of total ammonia emission into the
elements of the cell walls, require long retention time, atmosphere [79, 80]. It has been stated clearly, that the
have a high C/N ratio, high carbohydrate content and are high nitrogen content of CM makes it a suitable material
recalcitrant towards AD process as they are highly for AD. However, nitrogen, together with sulphur
nondegradable [4, 16, 60, 62, 69, 72]. High temperature inhibits the digestion process [81]. The level of nitrogen in
and low retention time pretreatment of lignocellulose CM is attributed to the conversion of uric acid and
could effectively improve the porosity and delignification undigested proteins into total ammonia nitrogen (TAN)
efficiency [5]. Cellulose and lignin are natural complex during digestion [82]. For a successful AD process, the
polymer found in wood [29]. Cellulose is a carbohydrate inhibitory effect of ammonia (threshold value of 200
while lignin is non-carbohydrate. Examples of mg/L) as well as the low C-N ratio of CM must be
lignocellulosic matter are crop residue, corn stover, rice overcome as it may cause volatile fatty acid (VFA) to
straw, corn stalk, wheat straw, water hyacinth, barley [16] accumulate and inhibit microbial activities [16, 76, 82, 83].
etc. Air stripping is a pretreatment technique to get rid of
ammonia from CM wastewater [74]. TAN inhibition can
Urea and acid pretreatment are the predominantly
be reduced by feeding the system with feedstock
used pretreatment technologies for crop straw [54].
containing low TS [65]. For a stable AD performance and
According to [55], corn stover typically comprises of 37.5
a balanced nutrient, mono-digestion of CM is often frown
% cellulose, 22.4 % hemicellulose and 17.6 % lignin. Corn
at. Anaerobic co-digestion of CM with other feedstock is
silage contain high C:N ratio and low ammonia [70]. Hard
mostly carried out by researchers as alternative method
lignocellulosic structure and high C/N ratio of wheat
of solving the ammonia problem [84]. Example is co-
straw of up to about 100 hinders production of biogas
digestion of FW, goat manure and CM and co-digestion
from wheat straw [12, 67]. Codigestion of rice straw is
of ethanol plant effluent with CM [64, 82] among others.
more desired because of its low nitrogen content, lignin
percentage and high C/N ratio [5]. Just like tree plants, Amongst all agricultural activities, the poultry
water hyacinth consisting of stem, leaf and root [69]. sector is one capable of generating huge amount of
organic waste [85]. Livestock farmers, especially those
3.3. Chicken Manure as AD Feedstock
handling poultry birds like geese, ducks, turkey, chicken,
Chicken manure (CM) is an alkaline, semi-solid guinea fowl, quail, ostrich and pigeon in poultry houses
organic material that is made up of diverse composition disposes off the waste generated from these animals on
of other organic materials, as well as being one of the most the environment. Chicken waste are often applied on
widely used feedstock for anaerobic production of biogas agricultural land as manure or compost as a traditional
and biofertilizer [64, 73]. In [73], it was reported that daily treatment approaches, dumped at landfill, or incinerated,
chicken excretion ranges from 80-125g (wet)/chicken. Dry contaminating the environment in the process [71, 86].
matter content or total solid (TS) content of CM is 20-25% For instance, too much of nitrogen and phosphorus in CM
of the excreta which is rich in nitrogen, with high amount results in eutrophication during landfill and composting
of biodegradable fraction and VS content of 55-65% [65, [74]. In addition, chicken waste provides a breeding
66, 73]. Percentage water content of more than 70% in CM environment for flies and parasites, pathogen release,
is considered unattractive for utilization [74]. It also eutrophication of surface waters, threat to local air quality
contain pathogens (methanogenic bacteria), high when used as fertilizer, pollution to soil, health risks and
phosphorus, low C-N ratio, and high salinity level [71, groundwater contamination [79, 86–88]. Its effect on soil

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 177
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

properties is classified into three, and includes physical, 3.4. Biogas Potential of Feedstock Constituents
chemical, and biological effects. CM in solid or liquid
Anaerobic conversion of organic material is
phases used on irrigated soils risks increased soil and
defined by [57] in Equation 2.
groundwater salinity, excessive nitrate leaching to
ground water as chemical effect. Biologically, problems Biomass + H2 O → CH4 + NH3 + H2 S + Heat +
arising are; introduction of pathogens, deterioration of undecomposed organic matter (2)
soil carbon, and decreasing populations of desirable
microbes [71, 82, 88]. The soil physical property like Typically, biomass contains carbon, hydrogen,
structure/texture may also be affected [89]. Improper oxygen, nitrogen and Sulphur, depending on the
disposal of CM waste must be addressed to mitigate its feedstock in varying amount. The empirical formula is
effect on the ecosystem. CM should be pre-process or simply, 𝐶𝑎 𝐻𝑏 𝑂𝑐 𝑁𝑑 𝑆𝑒 , where a, b, c, d and e are atomic
pretreated by thermo-chemical and/or physical numbers of the respective elements in the biomass. The
processing technologies like torrefaction, ozone degradable fraction of FWs mainly includes
treatment, re-feeding to animals, composting, steam carbohydrates (C6H12O6), proteins (C13H25O7N3S), and
treatment, drying, ozone treatment, pyrolysis, lipids (C12H24O6) [31]. Lipids are found in meat processing
esterification, gasification, co-gasification, fermentation byproducts, agro-industrial residues and fatty
or digestion, combustion and co-combustion [82, 90]. In wastewater; carbohydrate are found in agricultural waste
[91], it was affirmed that, combustion can be a viable and and in organic fraction of municipal solid waste; while
dependable way to treat CM, principally when coupled proteins are found in waste from slaughterhouses and
with energy recovery. meat processing industry [64]. Biogas potential of
feedstock constituents can be predicted by employing
Buswell’s empirical formula of Equation 3 [6, 15, 27, 29,
62].
4𝑎−𝑏−2𝑐+3𝑑+2𝑒 4𝑎+𝑏−2𝑐−3𝑑−2𝑒 4𝑎±𝑏∓2𝑐+3𝑑+2𝑒
( ) 𝐻2 𝑂 + 𝐶𝑎 𝐻𝑏 𝑂𝑐 𝑁𝑑 𝑆𝑒 → ( ) 𝐶𝐻4 + ( ) 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑑𝑁𝐻3 + 𝑒𝐻2 𝑆 (3)
4 8 8

Equation 3 is the modified form of Equation 2. and to stabilize the digesting system, which can also be
Equation 2 is mainly used to assess methane production achieved using stoichiometry in Table 4 [67].
Table 4. Stoichiometry of biogas potential determination from various feedstock components [30, 62]
Feedstock Methane Formation Stoichiometry Methane
Concentration (%)
Carbohydrate (𝐶6 𝐻10 𝑂5 )𝑛 + 𝑛𝐻2 𝑂 → 3𝑛𝐶𝐻4 + 3𝑛𝐶𝑂2 50
Lipid 𝐶50 𝐻90 𝑂6 + 24.5𝐻2 𝑂 → 34.75𝐶𝐻4 + 15.25𝐶𝑂2 69.5
Protein 𝐶16 𝐻24 𝑂5 𝑁4 + 14.5𝐻2 𝑂 → 8.25𝐶𝐻4 + 3.75𝐶𝑂2 + 4𝑁𝐻4+ + 4𝐻𝐶𝑂3− 68.8

When the elemental composition is known, the methane, so 1 kg COD is equivalent to 1/64-kmol of
theoretical methane production can be calculated using methane or 0.35 m3 CH4 at standard temperature and
Equation 3. When both the elemental composition and pressure [27].
the proportion of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats are
not known, the theoretical methane yield can also be 3.5. Anaerobic Codigestion (AcoD)
calculated from the COD of the feedstock using reaction Multiple degradable waste may be mixed in the
4 [27]: same digester at various combinations and fractions to
increase biogas yield [1, 62]. This is called anaerobic
𝐶𝐻4 + 2𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2 + 2𝐻2 𝑂 (4)
codigestion (AcoD). AcoD comes with the merits
shown in Table 5.
From Equation 4, 2-kmols of O2 (or 64 kg COD) are
needed for the complete oxidation of 1-kmol of

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 178
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Table 5: Merits of Anaerobic Codigestion while the downstream approaches focuses on

S/No. Advantage References biological removal of CO2, impurities and H2S [94].
1. Reduction of investment costs [64] Table 6 and 7 is almost a demonstration of how AcoD
and increase in energy of multiple feedstock will increase methane yield.
efficiency
Table 6: Methane Yield from AcoD of MSW with Agricultural waste
2. Improve the proportion of [67] [4]
macronutrient such as carbon,
Substrate types Methane yield
phosphorus, nitrogen and
(m3/kg VS)
Sulphur
MSW and activated sludge 0.376
3. Upgrade the feedstock for [92]
MSW and sewage sludge 0.395
balanced nutrient
Hydroseparated MSW and 0.333
4. Ensure reactor stability and [93]
sewage sludge 0.287
improved performance
MSW and activated sludge 0.232
5. Benefits of resolving demerits [2]
MSWand leachate 0.377
of using single substrate
MSW and pig manure 0.443
6. To take advantage of different [94]
MSW and cattle manure 0.403
waste streams
MSW and rice straw
7. Improvement of biogas [2]
production and methane In several text, methane and biogas yield are used
yield synonymously or interchangeably, especially in kinetic
equations to estimate unknown parameters. The units
To optimize the AcoD process of biogas production
of biogas and methane yield reported in Table 6 and 7
technique, biodegradability, chemical composition,
can be converted using equation given by [102] to other
bioavailability, operational parameters (temperature,
units. Either algae or lignocellulosic biomass that limits
pH, loading rate etc), bioaccessibility, addition of
hydrolysis stage of AD can be codigested with animal
nanoparticles, thermodynamic and kinetic model and
manures rich in C/N ratio to avoid the resurgence of
characterization of substrates are crucial parameters to
NH3 [12, 40, 103]. To practicalize this in FW, mixing fat-
consider [2]. Enhancement of biogas output is divided
rich materials with carbohydrate-rich materials (fast
into upstream, mainstream and downstream processes
degradable and slowly degradable specie) are
[85]. Upstream approaches including fungal
advantageous in microorganism enrichment, nutrition
pretreatment, enzymatic, microaeration, composting,
balance, increase in stability, reduction in the
and ensiling have been employed prior to AD to
accumulation of inhibitors, high efficiency of biogas
improve biogas yield and productivity [79].
production and methane yield [2, 41].
Mainstream approaches include bioaugmentation,
AcoD and integrated biogas production techniques

Table 7. Biogas Yield of Chicken Manure and Other Substrates

Feedstock Biogas yield (mL/g VS) Reference

CM + algae 332 [95]
CM + cardboard waste 319.62 [96]
CM + energy crop residue - [97]
FW, goat, & CM 80-109 [81]
Oil refinery wastewater + CM 194.02 [98]
Chicken processing waste, seagrass and 400 [76]
Miscanthus
Durian shell, chicken, dairy and pig manures 224.8 [100]
CM + poppy straw - [101]
Corn stover + CM 218.8 [71]

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 179
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Replacing the feedstock should be applied with use in buses and cars [9, 11, 97]. Twelve thousand vehicles
caution, though, it does not necessarily have negative were estimated to have been fueled in 2007 with
impacts on biogas production. Frankly, when the upgraded biogas the world over [25]. France main
substrate type changes, the microbial communities need feedstock are agricultural, wastewater, FW and industrial
to adapt to the new environment and conditions [104]. beverages processed in about 309 plants [20].
Bioaugmentation is a type of strategy of adding specific Enlargement of biogas plants to 5-10 times their original
microbial cultures to a biological system to improve the volume is the common trend now in Austria [107].
operational function by manipulating the microbial Centralized biogas plants and farm biogas plants are the
consortium [105]. This is based on the belief that slow two classes of biogas plants in Denmark [110]. Apart from
degradation is caused by the absence or low populations single substrate plants, Denmark are the country most-
of microorganisms responsible for the particular utilizing multiple substrates to co-digest feedstock for
degradation step [16]. Bioaugmentation has been diverse function [1, 49]. Waste paper and the use of wheat
investigated in lab-scale digesters [105]; however, full- straw obtained at Newcastle University, had been studied
scale applications are still limited. for production of biogas in the United Kingdom (UK) [53,
111]. Switzerland is characterized for installing large-
4. Biogas Production Across the Globe scale biogas plants, accounting for 82%, largely from
manure and other agricultural feedstock [50, 89]. Poland’s
Further growth in global market value of biogas is substrate for large-scale plants are slurry, pork, maize
foreseen to rise before 2025 as countries poor in silage and distillery effluent [112]. Figure 2.3 depicts two
developing biogas plants are investing in the technology biogas plants in Poland that uses sewage and agricultural
[89, 106]. According to [56], there are around 35 million materials as feedstock. Efficacy of steam explosion
installed biogas plant across the globe. The development physical pretreatment method is widely accepted at the
in biogas production across continents can be visualized. moment in Czech Republic [20]. Norway developed the
world biggest liquid biogas plant [67]. Scotland explored
4.1. Europe and North America
waste paper collected from School of Computing and
Europe has an energy target they hope to achieve; Engineering at the University of West of Scotland (UWS)
hence, majority of World’s biogas plants are in Europe as feedstock [60].
[10, 62, 107]. Europe can boost of 20,000 plants [108]. The
North America (countries like US, Canada, Mexico
continent also lead in electricity generation from biogas
[29]. Out of the 20,000 plants mentioned, (17,662 plants - and Brazil) had thousands of agricultural biogas plants
88%) is exploited for electricity generation [109]. The [10]. United States has 2,200 biogas systems processing 70
million tons of organic matter and 0.2 billion kWh-1030
capacity of the plants for biogas in 2017 was 10.9 million
GWh of electricity annually [11, 42, 100]. Biogas had been
tonnes, currently around 200 billion m3 annually and
utilized as bus fleet fuel for over 180, 000 buses in Brazil,
projected to reach 18-20 billion m3 by 2030 [9, 46, 48]. In
the largest percentage of it coming from cattle manure,
areas of research, commercial utilization and industrial
uses, number of plants rises from 3,700 agricultural producing 584 billion m3/y of biogas [11, 101]. The
biogas plants in 2007 to (7.2 thousand) in 2017 in Brazilian Association of Biogas and Methane is playing
Germany, and considered highest, producing 6.7-10.9 significant role in that direction [113]. Federal University
of Fronteira Sul in Brazil was investigated by [77] looking
million tonnes of biogas in 2017 due to federal
at the potential of corn stalk for biogas synthesis.
government support [9, 11, 46, 49, 95]. All this progress is
a result of the shift from energy crops used to substrate Population of animal in Asia (countries including,
[7, 51]. One of these substrates is CM [105]. Italy use India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Singapore, Japan,
wheat as feedstock for biogas production while Belgium etc ) cannot be compared with any region [20]. As regards
has a bio-plant capable of handling 58,000 tons of waste biogas, the technology all started from China as
yearly [40, 52]. In Sweden, CSTR type biomass plants are mentioned earlier [19]. They can boost of 100,000 modern
widely used to process FW to biogas and subsequently biogas plants generating 50 billion m3 of biogas yearly,
into biomethane [28, 96]. Main feedstock is sewage and 3000 MW of electricity being the biggest in Asia [11, 62,
landfills, producing the largest amount of biomethane for 104].

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 180
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Figure 3: Biogas plants in Poland: (a) agricultural biogas plant (b) biogas plant in a sewage treatment plant [117]

In 2015, China had produced 787.4 million tons of publications was recorded by [55] on the utilization of
crop straw, mostly wheat straw, amounting to 130 million corn stover, a lignocellulosic waste in Santiago, Chile.
tons in 2016 [45, 107]. More than 35,000 biogas plants by
Several biogas plants are being in operation in Africa
Indian Government’s support had been built so far, plus
[4, 20]. To supply farm houses with energy, Ducellier and
100,000 used for cooking in Indian households [4].
Isman build simple biogas machines in Algeria between
Indonesia, is currently the 4th most populous country in
1930 and 1940, an act that signals the beginning or
the world widely building fixed dome digesters for Small
introduction of biogas technology in Africa [103]. Two
and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) for farmers utilizing
notable large scale plants projects that are operational in
water hyacinth, animal waste and palm oil [6, 18, 22, 54].
Africa is the GOPDC-Ghana and PRESCO PLC-Nigeria
Indonesia is the largest producer of palm oil in the world
[119]. Biogas potential in Mauritania is 520×106 m3/year
in which POME is the major feedstock followed by
and 258.7 (±125.8)×106 m3/year while in Egypt these
Malaysia [114–116]. Fortunately, apart from POME,
plants are mostly buried underground [20, 119]. Ethiopia
Malaysians make use of low cost animal waste as
employ fixed dome bioreactor in about 4500 household
alternative AD feed [20]. There are 1040 tons/day of MSW
utilizing kitchen waste [24, 120]. Data on biogas
and 152 tons/day of green waste that could be run in a 550
application in Somalia is scanty because only about 1% of
tons/day AD plant capacity in Isfahan, Iran [47].
communities in the 43rd largest country in the world
Major feed to biogas industries in Singapore are consume the gaseous fuel according to [121]. Main
sewage sludge, FW, animal manure and horticulture feedstock for Sudan’s 200 installed biogas facility is
wastes [92]. Japan is the only country using thermophilic animal and agricultural waste according to a 2005 figure
approach in Asia [4]; other Asian nations like Korea, [36]. Summarily, East and North Africa could boost of 3.2
Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal and Bangladesh’s adoption million m3/h of biogas production. In 2017, of the 700
for domestic installations is rising. Pigs, water buffalo and biogas plants in South Africa, only 300 was reported to be
cattle, numbering 30 million are the sources of livestock in operation [56]. In 2021, [37] reported a lower figure (200
manure with potential for biogas production in Vietnam digesters) of working bioreactors in South Africa (a 66.7%
[118]. Nepal being in front in installation rate, boost of further reduction).
approximately 330,000 households [11]. Biogas
Nigeria’s biogas potential in 1999 was 1382× 106
production potential in Bangladesh is around 17000
m /yr – before then (1995), the pioneer plants build by the
3
million m3 used mainly for cooking purposes [11, 20].
Sokoto Energy Research Center (SERC) in Zaria has the
South American nations are hardly mentioned in the
capacity of 10 m3 of biogas; an 18 m3 plant constructed by
literature with regards to biogas synthesis. A pocket of
the Federal Institute of Industrial Research Oshodi

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 181
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

(FIIRO) at Ojokoro Ifelodun Piggery Farm, Lagos in 1996; Gompertz, First-Order, modified First-Order, Richards,
Mayflower School Ikene in Ogun State; and at Usman Biogas Production Kinetic (BPK), Transference function
Danfodio University Sokoto, most of which are still at model, Cone, Transfert, Proposed model by [131] and
research stage or non-operational [122–125]. Fitzhugh) to capture the multitude of feedstock in nature
Undoubtedly, enormous amount of solid waste (32 plus the variety of reactor types available and the
million tonnes) is generated in Nigeria, but real effort had dynamic operating conditions involved. Regression
not been made by government to build a biogas plant to remains the most used chemical engineering analysis tool
benefit from any of its products; atleast to meet the to explain these models used for a selected single or
demands of millions living without electricity in the multiple feedstock [132].
nation [45, 124, 126]. One notable government interest
Africa produces and utilizes less biogas compared to
was the setting up of a biogas plant at Karu Abattoirs,
Europe and Asia as only few plants had been built for AD
Nasarawa state by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)
of feedstock in recent years. It is therefore recommended
Administration in Nigeria [124]. However, several
that Africa, increase the harnessing of the abundant waste
studies had been done on a bench-scale biodigester in
generated annually from the continent to meet some of
Polytechnics and Universities in Nigeria for research
her challenges, especially in areas of electricity generation
purposes only [117, 126]. Biogas plants in some academic
for its accelerated development. Since energy
institutions in Nigeria are Usman Danfodio University
consumption has skyrocketed, the speculation, that
Biogas Plant, Obafemi Awolowo University Biogas Plant
global energy demand will increase by 50% in 2050 might
and patent University of Ibadan Prototype Plant [45, 122,
be credible [42, 133] and surplus will be achieved to
127]. Other University related research and installation of
counter shortages if more countries key into biogas plant
the plant are reported elsewhere by [19, 36, 59, 60, 75, 128].
development. This work further aims at increasing
The trading, usage and construction of biodigester came
research on feedstock utilization for the production of
much earlier in Kenya (1948) compared to Nigeria when
biogas as well as the application of kinetics to facilitate
Tim Hutchinson built the 1st biodigester that uses coffee
biogas plant design and optimization using different
pulp in the country. The country is also in the frontline in
feedstock, most abundant in different countries. Biogas
the gas manufacture in Africa overseeing the construction
digesters are presumed to last for 100 years. Despite this
of 11,529 plants through the Africa Biogas Partnership
merit, adoption and implementation of biogas projects in
Programme (ABPP) between 2009-2013 [43, 129]. In 2013,
developing countries are hindered majorly due to
the ABPP built 70,000 biogas reactors in six member
resistance to change, inadequate research, training and
countries of Uganda, Senegal, Kenya, Burkina Faso,
expertise in the technology, lack of investment incentives
Tanzania and Ethiopia [37]. Tanzania developed their
and trade, insufficient funding and lack of policy, strategy
first plant in 1950s, making them third in Africa base on
and regulations.
literature consulted after Algeria and Kenya [36].
References
5. Conclusion
[1] O. Khayal, “Main types and applications of biogas plants,” Nile
Between 2000-2005, Nigeria is the country with the Valley University, pp. 1–11, 2019, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32559.69287.
highest deforestation rate in the world and ranks 8 in [2] K. Hagos et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas
production: Progress, challenges and perspectives,” Renewable
methane emission, as they consume 46 million tonnes of
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 76, pp. 1485–1496, 2017,
wood and 3.2 million tonnes of charcoal for cooking as doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184.
reported by [61, 129, 130]. Biogas plant development for [3] I. A. Raja, S. Wazir, “Biogas production: The fundamental
use as cooking gas will go a long way in reducing the processes,” Universal Journal of Engineering Science, vol. 5, no. 2,
pp. 29–37, 2017, doi:10.13189/ujes.2017.050202.
over-dependence on firewood, thereby checkmating
[4] M. R. Atelge et al., “Biogas production from organic waste: Recent
desert encroachment in sub-Saharan Africa. Because progress and perspectives,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, vol.
biogas can be produced from hundreds of biowaste 11, pp. 1–22, 2018, doi:10.1007/s12649-018-00546-0.
materials, most of them have not been studied (kinetic [5] J. Kainthola, A. S. Kalamdhad, V. V Goud, “A review on enhanced
biogas production from anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic
model-wise) in order to optimize their production. In the
biomass by different enhancement techniques,” Process
same context, there are too many of these biogas models Biochemistry, vol. 84, pp. 81–90, 2019,
(e.g. Chen & Hashimoto, Logistic, Bi-logistic, modified doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2019.05.023.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 182
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

[6] A. M. Uche et al., “Design and construction of fixed dome digester biogas digester,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
for biogas production using cow dung and water hyacinth,” Science, pp. 1–8, 2019, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/277/1/012017.
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 14, no. [23] IRENA, “Measuring small-scale biogas capacity and production.”
1, pp. 15–25, 2020, doi:10.5897/AJEST2019.2739. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2016.
[7] I. Koniuszewska et al., “Intensification of biogas production using [24] E. W. Gabisa, S. H. Gheewala, “Potential, environmental, and
various technologies: A review,” International Journal of Energy socio-economic assessment of biogas production in Ethiopia: The
Research, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 6240–6258, 2020, doi:10.1002/er.5338. case of Amhara regional state,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 122,
[8] N. Sawyerr et al., “An overview of biogas production: pp. 446–456, 2019, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.02.003.
Fundamentals, applications and future research,” International [25] A. F. Akintade, “Biogas a viable source of energy: Case study,
Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 105–116, Nigeria,” (Centria University of Applied Sciences, 2021).
2019, doi:10.32479/ijeep.7375. [26] O. Raymond, U. Okezie, “The significance of biogas plants in
[9] R. L. Granado et al., “Technology overview of biogas production Nigeria’s energy strategy,” Journal of Physical Sciences and
in anaerobic digestion plants: A European evaluation of research Innovation, vol. 3, pp. 11–17, 2011.
and development,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. [27] R. J. Patinvoh et al., “Innovative pretreatment strategies for biogas
80, pp. 44–53, 2017, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.079. production,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 224, pp. 13–24, 2016,
[10] B. Bharathiraja et al., “Biogas production – A review on doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.083.
composition, fuel properties, feed stock and principles of [28] S. M. A. Abuabdou et al., “A review of anaerobic membrane
anaerobic digestion,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, bioreactors (AnMBR) for the treatment of highly contaminated
vol. 90, pp. 570–582, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.093. land fill leachate and biogas production: Effectiveness, limitations
[11] T. Chowdhury et al., “Latest advancements on livestock waste and future perspectives,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 255,
management and biogas production: Bangladesh’s perspective,” no. 120215, pp. 1–12, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120215.
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 272, no. 122818, pp. 1–20, 2020, [29] M. C. Caruso et al., “Recent updates on the use of agro-food waste
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122818. for biogas production,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1–29,
[12] S. A. Neshat et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures 2019, doi:10.3390/app9061217.
and lignocellulosic residues as a potent approach for sustainable [30] M. Westerholm, T. Liu, A. Schnürer, “Comparative study of
biogas production,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. industrial-scale high-solid biogas production from food waste:
79, pp. 308–322, 2017, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.137. Process operation and microbiology,” Bioresource Technology, vol.
[13] M. Parsaee et al., “A review of biogas production from sugarcane 304, pp. 122–981, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122981.
vinasse,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 122, pp. 117–125, 2019, [31] S. Mirmohamadsadeghi et al., “Biogas production from food
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.034. wastes: A review on recent developments and future
[14] A. Wu et al., “A spreadsheet calculator for estimating biogas perspectives,” Bioresource Technology Reports, vol. 7, no. 100202,
production and economic measures for UK-based farm-fed pp. 1–37, 2019, doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100202.
anaerobic digesters,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 220, pp. 479–489, [32] M. A. Aziz et al., “Recent advances on palm oil mill effluent (
2016, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.103. POME ) pretreatment and anaerobic reactor for sustainable
[15] N. Sahu et al., “Evaluation of biogas production potential of biogas production,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.
kitchen waste in the presence of spices,” Waste Management, vol. 119, no. 109603, pp. 1–31, 2019,
70, pp. 236–246, 2017, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.045. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109603.
[16] M. Westerholm, A. Schnürer, Microbial responses to different [33] E. I. Dhimain, S. C. Izah, “Potential of biogas production from
operating practices for biogas production systems (Uppsala, Sweden: palm oil mills effluent in Nigeria,” Sky Journal of Soil Science and
InTech Open, 2019). Environmental Management (SJSSEM), vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 50–58, 2014.
[17] Z. Lenkiewicz, M. Webster, “How to convert organic waste into [34] M. Bakraoui et al., “Biogas production from recycled paper mill
biogas: A step-by-step guide.” wasteaid.org.uk/toolkit . wastewater by UASB digester: Optimal and mesophilic
(accessed: 14-Aug-2021). conditions,” Biotechnology Reports, vol. 25, pp. 1–8, 2020,
[18] M. Khalil et al., “Waste to energy technology: The potential of doi:10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00402.
sustainable biogas production from animal waste in Indonesia,” [35] V. J. Brown, “Biogas: A bright idea for Africa,” Environmental
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 105, pp. 323–331, Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 300–303, 2006.
2019, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.011. [36] A. M. Mshandete, W. Parawira, “Biogas technology research in
[19] Y. Lahlou, Design of a biogas pilot unit for Al Akhawayn University selected sub-Saharan African countries-A review,” African Journal
(School of Science and Engineering, 2017). of Biotechnology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 116–125, 2009.
[20] M. M. Ali et al., “Mapping of biogas production potential from [37] R. F. T. Tagne et al., “Technologies, challenges and perspectives
livestock manures and slaughterhouse waste: A case study for of biogas production within an agricultural context: The case of
African countries,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 256, no. China and Africa,” Environment, Development and Sustainability,
120499, pp. 1–18, 2020, vol. 23, pp. 14799–14826, 2021, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120499. 021-01272-9.
[21] Martina Pilloni and Tareq Abu Hamed, “Small-size biogas [38] A. I. Aigbodion et al., “Viability of biogas production from
technology applications for rural areas in the context of manure/biomass in Nigeria using fixed dome digester,” Universal
developing countries,” in Anaerobic digestion in built environments, Journal of Agricultural Research (UJAR), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018,
ed Anna Sikora (IntechOPen, 2021), 24, doi:10.13189/ujar.2018/060101.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96857. [39] E. M. M. Esteves et al., “Life cycle assessment of manure biogas
[22] M. A. Fahriansyah, Sriharti, “Design of conventional mixer for production: A review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 219, pp.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 183
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

411–423, 2019, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.091. commercial biogas systems and lessons for Africa,” Energies, vol.
[40] Ł. Małgorzata, J. Frankowski, “The biogas production potential 11, no. 2984, pp. 1–21, 2018, doi:10.3390/en11112984.
from silkworm waste,” Waste Management, vol. 79, pp. 564–570, [57] S. K. Srivastava, “Advancement in biogas production from the
2018, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.019. solid waste by optimizing the anaerobic digestion,” Waste
[41] K. Chaump et al., “Leaching and anaerobic digestion of poultry Disposal & Sustainable Energy, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 85–103, 2020,
litter for biogas production and nutrient transformation,” Elsevier, doi:10.1007/s42768-020-00036-x.
vol. 84, pp. 413–422, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.024. [58] E. P. Akhator, D. I. Igbinomwanhia, A. I. Obanor, “Potentials for
[42] H. Wang et al., “Effect of addition of biogas slurry for anaerobic commercial production of biogas from domestic food waste
fermentation of deer manure on biogas production,” Energy, vol. generated in Benin Metropolis, Nigeria,” Journal of Applied
165, pp. 411–418, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.196. Sciences and Environmental Management (JASEM), vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
[43] C. Mulinda, Q. Hu, K. Pan, “Dissemination and problems of 369–373, 2016, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v20i2.19.
African biogas technology,” Energy and Power Engineering, vol. 5, [59] Z. Kong et al., “Large pilot-scale submerged anaerobic membrane
pp. 506–512, 2013, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/epe.2013.58055. bioreactor for the treatment of municipal wastewater and biogas
[44] M. N. Usman, M. A. Suleiman, M. I. Binni, Anaerobic digestion of production at 25◦C,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 319, pp. 1–12,
agricultural wastes: A potential remedy for energy shortfalls in Nigeria, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124123.
vol. 4, no. 1, (Scholarena, 2021). [60] C. Rodriguez et al., “Mechanical pretreatment of waste paper for
[45] M. B. Biodun, O. S. I. Fayomi, J. O. Okeniyi, “The possibility of biogas production,” Waste Management, vol. 68, pp. 157–164, 2017,
biogas production in Nigeria from organic waste material: A doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.040.
review,” International Conference on Engineering for Sustainable [61] F. O. Olanrewaju et al., “Bioenergy potential in Nigeria,” Chemical
World (ICESW 2020): Material Science and Engineering, vol. 1107, Engineering Transactions, vol. 74, pp. 61–66, 2019.
no. 012166, pp. 1–9, 2020, doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1107/1/012166. [62] G. Mancini et al., “Increased biogas production from wheat straw
[46] T. M. Simeon, “Techno-economic analysis of a model biogas plant by chemical pretreatments,” Renewable Energy, vol. 119, pp. 608–
for agricultural applications: A case study of the Concordia Farms 614, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.045.
Limited, Nonwa, Tai, Rivers State,” (University of Nigeria, [63] A. M. A. Mohammed, F. M. A. Kabbashi, H. K. A. Hamad,
Nsukka, 2009). “Production of biogas from biomedical waste (blood),” (Sudan
[47] S. M. M. N. Dehkordi et al., “Investigation of biogas production University of Science and Technology, 2017).
potential from mechanical separated municipal solid waste as an [64] D. Elalami et al., “Pretreatment and co-digestion of wastewater
approach for developing countries (case study: Isfahan-Iran),” sludge for biogas production: Recent research advances and
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 119, no. 109586, pp. trends,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 114, no.
1–12, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109586. 109287, pp. 1–23, 2019, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109287.
[48] J. Liebetrau et al., Potential and utilization of manure to generate [65] O. Tomori, “Feasibility study of a large scale biogas plant in
biogas in seven countries (IEA Bioenergy Task 37, 2021). Lagos, Nigeria,” (Murdoch University of Western Australia,
[49] T. M. Thompson, B. R. Young, S. Baroutian, “Advances in the 2012).
pretreatment of brown macroalgae for biogas production,” Fuel [66] A. Nsair et al., “Operational parameters of biogas plants: A
Processing Technology, vol. 195, no. 106151, pp. 1–12, 2019, review and evaluation study,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 1–27,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.106151. 2020, doi:10.3390/en13153761.
[50] S. Achinas, G. J. W. Euverink, “Elevated biogas production from [67] S. Sarker et al., “A review of the role of critical parameters in the
the anaerobic co-digestion of farmhouse waste: Insight into the design and operation of biogas production plants,” Applied
process performance and kinetics,” Waste Management & Research, Sciences, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1–38, 2019, doi:10.3390/app9091915.
vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 1240–1249, 2019, [68] S. K. Pramanik et al., “The anaerobic digestion process of biogas
doi:10.1177/0734242X19873383. production from food waste: Prospects and constraints,”
[51] C. P. C. Bong et al., “The characterisation and treatment of food Bioresource Technology Reports, vol. 8, pp. 1–38, 2019,
waste for improvement of biogas production during anaerobic doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100310.
digestion– A review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. [69] S. Sarto, R. Hildayati, I. Syaichurrozi, “Effect of chemical
1545–1558, 2017, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199. pretreatment using sulfuric acid on biogas production from water
[52] S. Tanigawa, “Fact Sheet | Biogas: Converting Waste to Energy hyacinth and kinetics,” Renewable Energy, vol. 132, pp. 335–350,
Tags / Keywords.” www-eesi-org-papers-view-fact-sheet- 2019, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.121.
biogasconverting-waste-to-energy . (accessed: 14-Aug-2021). [70] V. A. Mazur et al., “Agroecological prospects of using corn
[53] N. I. H. Abdul Aziz, M. M. Hanafiah, M. Y. M. Ali, “Sustainable hybrids for biogas production,” Agronomy Research, vol. 18, no. 1,
biogas production from agrowaste and effluents – A promising pp. 177–182, 2020, doi:https://doi.org/10.15159/ar.20.016.
step for small-scale industry income,” Renewable Energy, vol. 132, [71] H. Gebretsadik, S. Mulaw, G. Gebregziabher, “Qualitative and
pp. 363–369, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.149. quantitative feasibility of biogas production from kitchen waste,”
[54] Q. Yu et al., “A review of crop straw pretreatment methods for American Journal of Energy Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2018,
biogas production by anaerobic digestion in China,” Renewable doi:10.11648/j.ajee.20180601.11.
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 107, pp. 51–58, 2019, [72] H. T. T. Nong et al., “Development of sustainable approaches for
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.020. converting the agro-weeds Ludwigia hyssopifolia to biogas
[55] V. Wyman et al., “Lignocellulosic waste valorisation strategy production,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, pp. 1–9, 2020,
through enzyme and biogas production,” Bioresource Technology, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01083-4.
vol. 247, pp. 402–411, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.055. [73] S. Wacławek et al., “Disintegration of wastewater activated
[56] F. Kemausuor, M. S. Adaramola, J. Morken, “A review of sludge (WAS) for improved biogas production,” Energies, vol. 12,

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 184
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

no. 21, pp. 1–15, 2019, doi:10.3390/en12010021. state conditions,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 149, pp. 406–412,
[74] W. Cao et al., “Hydrogen production from supercritical water 2013, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.091.
gasification of chicken manure,” International Journal of Hydrogen [89] M. Hassan et al., “Methane enhancement through co-digestion of
Energy, pp. 1–10, 2016, doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.031. chicken manure and oxidative cleaved wheat straw: Stability
[75] A. Abraham et al., “Pretreatment strategies for enhanced biogas performance and kinetic modeling perspectives,” Energy, vol.
production from lignocellulosic biomass,” Bioresource Technology, 141, pp. 2314–2320, 2017,
vol. 301, no. 122725, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.110.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122725. [90] Y. K. Li, X. M. Hu, L. Feng, “Characteristics of biogas production
[76] S. Ali et al., “Evaluating the co-digestion effects on chicken via high-temperature dry fermentation of chicken manure,”
manure and rotten potatoes in batch experiments,” International Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 4883–
Journal of Biosciences (IJB), vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 150–159, 2017, 4895, 2020, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1804_48834895.
doi:10.12692/ijb/10.6.150-159. [91] D. Cheong, J. Kim, C. Lee, “Improving biomethanation of chicken
[77] B. Venturin et al., “Effect of pretreatments on corn stalk chemical manure by co-digestion with ethanol plant effluent,” International
properties for biogas production purposes,” Bioresource Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no.
Technology, vol. 266, pp. 1–36, 2018, 5023, pp. 1–10, 2019, doi:10.3390/ijerph16245023.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.069. [92] L. Zhang, K. Loh, J. Zhang, “Enhanced biogas production from
[78] S. Mirmohamadsadeghi et al., “Pretreatment of lignocelluloses anaerobic digestion of solid organic wastes: Current status and
for enhanced biogas production: A review on influencing prospects,” Bioresource Technology Reports, vol. 5, pp. 280–296,
mechanisms and the importance of microbial diversity,” 2019, doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2018.07.005.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 135, no. 110173, pp. [93] B. Shamurad et al., “Stable biogas production from single-stage
1–19, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110173. anaerobic digestion of food waste,” Applied Energy, vol. 263, no.
[79] M. Tabatabaei et al., “A comprehensive review on recent 114609, pp. 1–37, 2019,
biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 1: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/6wnfvkz6gb.1.
Upstream strategies,” Renewable Energy, vol. 146, pp. 1204–1220, [94] M. Tabatabaei et al., “A comprehensive review on recent
2019, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.037. biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 2:
[80] A. A. Rajput, C. Visvanathan, “Effect of thermal pretreatment on Mainstream and downstream strategies,” Renewable Energy, vol.
chemical composition, physical structure and biogas production 146, pp. 1392–1407, 2019,
kinetics of wheat straw,” Journal of Environmental Management, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.047.
vol. 221, pp. 45–52, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.011. [95] A. Abdelhay, L. Al-Hasanat, A. Albsoul, “Anaerobic co-digestion
[81] S. P. Lohani et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, goat of cattle manure and raw algae: Kinetic study and optimization
and chicken manure for sustainable biogas production,” of methane potential by RSM,” Pol. Journal of Environmental
International Journal of Energy Applications and Technologies, vol. 7, Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1029–1037, 2021,
no. 4, pp. 120–125, 2020, doi:10.31593/ijeat.748982. doi:10.15244/pjoes/125523.
[82] K. Dalk, A. Ugurlu, “Biogas production from chicken manure at [96] S. Zhao et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and
different organic loading rates in a mesophilic-thermopilic two cardboard waste: Focusing on methane production, microbial
stage anaerobic system,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, community analysis and energy evaluation,” Bioresource
vol. xx, no. xx, pp. 1–8, 2015, doi:10.1016/j.jbiosc.2015.01.021. Technology, vol. 321, no. 12449, pp. 1–11, 2021,
[83] N. Duan et al., “Performance evaluation of mesophilic anaerobic doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124429.
digestion of chicken manure with algal digestate,” Energies, vol. [97] N. A. D. Cahyono et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken
11, no. 1829, pp. 1–11, 2018, doi:10.3390/en11071829. manure with energy crop residues for biogas production,” IOP
[84] M. A. K. B. D. T. T. Onay, “Enhanced biogas production from Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, pp. 765, 2021,
chicken manure via enzymatic pretreatment,” Journal of Material doi:10.1088/1755-1315/765/1/012044.
Cycles and Waste Management, no. 0123456789, 2020, [98] E. Mehryar et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of oil refinery
doi:10.1007/s10163-020-01039-w. wastewater and chicken manure to produce biogas, and kinetic
[85] T. Keskin et al., “The determination of the trace element effects on parameters determination in batch reactors,” Agronomy Research,
basal medium by using the statistical optimization approach for vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1983–1996, 2017,
biogas production from chicken manure,” Waste and Biomass doi:https://doi.org/10.15159/AR.17.072.
Valorization, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–10, 2018, doi:10.1007/s12649-018- [99] C. Li et al., “Assessment of regional biomass as co-substrate in the
0273-2. anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: Impact of co-digestion
[86] W. Fuchs et al., “Tackling ammonia inhibition for efficient biogas with chicken processing waste, seagrass and Miscanthus,”
production from chicken manure: Status and technical trends in Biochemical Engineering Journal, pp. 1–38, 2016,
Europe and China,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. doi:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.bej.2016.11.008.
97, pp. 186–199, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.038. [100] J. Shena et al., “Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of
[87] N. A. Noori, Z. Z. Ismail, “Process optimization of biogas durian shell with chicken, dairy, and pig manures,” Energy
recovery from giant reed (Arundo donax) alternatively pretreated Conversion and Management, pp. 1–10, 2018,
with acid and oxidant agent: Experimental and kinetic study,” doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.099.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, pp. 1–15, 2019, [101] A. Bayrakdar et al., “Biogas production from chicken manure: Co-
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00481-7. digestion with spent poppy straw,” International Biodeterioration &
[88] Y. Li et al., “Biogas production from co-digestion of corn stover Biodegradation, pp. 1–6, 2016,
and chicken manure under anaerobic wet, hemi-solid, and solid doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.10.058.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 185
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

[102] A. M. Abubakar, M. U. Yunus, “Reporting biogas data from 1–12, 2021, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ en14113157.
various feedstock,” International Journal of Formal Sciences: Current [118] I. Yerima et al., “The influence of proximate composition of cow
and Future Research Trends (IJFSCFRT), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 23–36, dung on the rate and volume of biogas generation in Maiduguri,
2021, doi:10.5281/zenodo.6366775. North Eastern Nigeria,” International Journal of Environment,
[103] C. C. Ngumah et al., “Biogas potential of organic waste in Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 146–153,
Nigeria,” Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering (JUEE), 2019, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/4.1.24.
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 110–116, 2013, doi:10.4090/juee.2013.v7n1.110116. [119] A. Bulnes, “Anaerobic digestion and biogas plants in Africa:
[104] S. Theuerl, J. Klang, A. Prochnow, “Process disturbances in Integrated organic matter management for a sustainable
agricultural biogas production — Causes , mechanisms and agroindustrial sector.” 2017.
effects on the biogas microbiome: A review,” Energies, vol. 12, no. [120] U. Brémond et al., “Biological pretreatments of biomass for
3, pp. 1–20, 2019, doi:10.3390/en12030365. improving biogas production: An overview from lab scale to full-
[105] W. Fuchs et al., “Tackling ammonia inhibition for efficient biogas scale,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 90, pp. 583–
production from chicken manure: Status and technical trends in 604, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.103.
Europe and China,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. [121] A. M. Wanjohi, E. K. Irungu, “An overview of consumption of
97, pp. 186–199, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.038. biogas in the context of Somalia,” International Journal of
[106] P. Baltrėnas, V. Kolodynskij, D. Urbanas, “Biogas production Environmental and Health Sciences (JEHS), vol. 2, pp. 1–4, 2021.
from chicken manure at different organic loadings using a special [122] J. O. Egbere et al., “Generation of biogas from segregates of
zeolite additive (ZeoVit sorbent),” Journal of Renewable Sustainable municipal solid wastes in Jos, Nigeria,” Global Journal of Pure and
Energy, vol. 11, no. 063101, pp. 1–11, 2019, doi:10.1063/1.5119840. Applied Sciences, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 41–45, 2011.
[107] B. Stürmer et al., “Agricultural biogas production: A regional [123] K. A. Adeniran et al., “Relative effectiveness of biogas production
comparison of technical parameters,” Renewable Energy, vol. 164, using poultry wastes and cow dung,” Agricultural Engineering
pp. 171–182, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.074. International: CIGR, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 126–132, 2014.
[108] J. Maroušek et al., “Advances in the agrochemical utilization of [124] A. J. Eferi, A. P. Aderemi, “Potential, barriers and prospects of
fermentation residues reduce the cost of purpose-grown biogas production in North-Central Nigeria,” 3rd International
phytomass for biogas production,” Energy Sources, Part A: Engineering Conference (IEC 2019), pp. 1–6, 2019.
Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, pp. 1–11, 2020, [125] I. A. Rufai, “A review of the evolution and development of
doi:10.1080/15567036.2020.1738597. anaerobic digestion technology,” Journal of Engineering and
[109] B. K. McCabe, T. Schmidt, Integrated Biogas Systems: Local Technology (JET), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 100–111, 2010.
Applications of Anaerobic Digestion Towards Integrated Sustainable [126] A. Z. Abdul, A. M. Abubakar, “Potential swing to natural gas-
Solutions (Queensland, Australia: IEA Bioenergy, 2018). powered electricity generation,” International Journal of Natural
[110] HomeBioGas, “What is Biogas? A Beginner’s Guide.” Sciences: Current and Future Research Trends (IJNSCFRT), vol. 10,
www.homebiogas.com/what-is-biogas-a-beginners-guide- . no. 1, pp. 27–36, 2021.
(accessed: 13-Aug-2021). [127] L. Ioannou-ttofa et al., “Life cycle assessment of household biogas
[111] G. Cayci, C. Temiz, S. S. Ok, “The effects of fresh and composted production in Egypt: Influence of digester volume, biogas
chicken manures on some soil characteristics,” Communications in leakages, and digestate valorization as biofertilizer,” Journal of
Soil Science and Plant Analysis, vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–11, 2017, Cleaner Production, vol. 286, no. 125468, pp. 1–14, 2021,
doi:10.1080/00103624.2017.1373794. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125468.
[112] K. A. Korys et al., “The review of biomass potential for [128] M. Tanczuk et al., “Assessment of the energy potential of chicken
agricultural biogas production in Poland,” Sustainability, vol. 11, manure in Poland,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 1244, pp. 1–18, 2019,
no. 6515, pp. 1–13, 2019, doi:10.3390/su11226515. doi:10.3390/en12071244.
[113] I. F. S. dos Santos et al., “Assessment of potential biogas [129] A. M. Wanjohi, E. K. Irungu, H. C. Gicheru, “Biogas program in
production from multiple organic wastes in Brazil: Impact on Kenya: History, Challenges and Milestones,” International Journal
energy generation, use, and emissions abatement,” Resources, of Environmental and Health Sciences (JEHS), vol. 2, pp. 1–3, 2022.
Conservation & Recycling, vol. 131, pp. 54–63, 2018, [130] P. K. Nimame, I. P. Nimame, R. A. Ekemube, “Importance of
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.012. biogas utilization as alternative source in an energy deficit
[114] Y. Y. Choong, K. W. Chou, I. Norli, “Strategies for improving economy,” International Journal of Academic Information Systems
biogas production of palm oil mill effluent (POME) anaerobic Research (IJAISR), vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 17–21, 2020.
digestion: A critical review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy [131] R. Venkateshkumar, S. Shanmugam, A. R. Veerappan,
Reviews, vol. 82, pp. 2993–3006, 2018, “Anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung and cotton seed hull with
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.036. different blend ratio: Experimental and kinetic study,” Biomass
[115] N. Izzah et al., “A review on life cycle assessment of biogas Conversion and Biorefinery, pp. 1–111, 2020,
production: Challenges and future perspectives in Malaysia,” doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01006-3.
Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 122, pp. 361–374, 2019, [132] A. M. Abubakar, B. Iliyasu, Z. M. Sarkinbaka, “Detailed overview
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.047. on POLYMATH software for chemical engineering analysis,”
[116] N. I. H. A. Aziz, M. M. Hanafiah, “Life cycle analysis of biogas Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences (JENRS), vol. 1, no. 3,
production from anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill ef fl uent,” pp. 133–147, 2022, doi:https://doi.org/TBA.
Renewable Energy, vol. 145, pp. 847–857, 2020, [133] T. R. T. Yusof et al., “Evaluation of hydrogen and methane
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.084. production from co-digestion of chicken manure and food
[117] J. Piekutin et al., “The efficiency of the biogas plant operation waste,” Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1–
depending on the substrate used,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 3157, pp. 11, 2019, doi:10.15244/pjoes/86222.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 186
 A.M. Abubakar et al., Organic Waste Management

Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

ABDULHALIM MUSA
ABUBAKAR has a degree in
Chemical Engineering from
University of Maiduguri-Nigeria
(2018). He is a Masters student of the
same institution (enrolled in
November, 2019).
He works as teaching/research
assistant at Modibbo Adama University, Yola-Nigeria.
His publications are titled: “Neural Network Based
Performance Evaluation of a Waterflooded Oil
Reservoir”, “Newton’s Method Cubic Equation of State
C++ Source Code for Iterative Volume Computation”,
“Simplex C++ Syntax for Solving Chemical Engineering
Cost Optimization Problems”, “Potential Swing to
Natural Gas-Powered Electricity Generation”, “History,
Adverse Effect and Clean Up Strategies of Oil Spillage”,
“Reporting Biogas Data from Various Feedstock”, and
“Detailed Overview on POLYMATH Software for
Chemical Engineering Analysis”. His Masters Thesis
dwells on poultry waste management through biogas
generation and kinetic study.

www.jenrs.com Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, 1(3): 170-187, 2022 187