Low-Temperature Pretreatment of Biomass for Enhancing Biogas Production: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 1 by Ming Wang.

Low-temperature pretreatment (LTPT, Temp. < 100 °C or 140 °C) has the advantages of low input, simplicity, and energy saving, which makes engineering easy to use for improving biogas production. However, compared with high-temperature pretreatment (>150 °C) that can destroy recalcitrant polymerized matter in biomass, the action mechanism of heat treatment of biomass is unclear. Improving LTPT on biogas yield is often influenced by feedstock type, treatment temperature, exposure time, and fermentation conditions. Such as, even when belonging to the same algal biomass, the response to LTPT varies between species. Therefore, forming a unified method for LTPT to be applied in practice is difficult.

  • organic waste treatment
  • anaerobic digestion
  • thermal pretreatment
  • biogas
  • heat pretreatment

1. Introduction

People’s production and living produce organic waste continually, which has hot spots such as large production, complex composition, and easy-to-breed germs, posing a potential environmental threat [1,2][1][2]. Anaerobic digestion (AD) and composting are two main technical methods to treat organic waste [3]. Because it can directly convert high water content materials and recover energy [4] and fertilizer nutrients [5], anaerobic digestion receives excellent attention and has been widely studied and applied over the world [6]. To sum up, the anaerobic transformation of organic waste involves environmental protection, alternative energy production, and emission reduction of total greenhouse gases (GHG) by replacing some fossil energy fuels [7]. However, some organic wastes contain much refractory organic matter (lignocellulosic components) and various microorganisms, so it is challenging to earn ideal or economic biogas production efficiency in an actual trial [8]. Moreover, the investment in biogas projects is high and hard to be compressed because of the need for giant digestion tanks [9] and waste air treatment techniques to avoid emissions and improve biogas quality before use [10]. Therefore, many types of research have been focusing on improving biomass material’s conversion efficiency for lower-cost biogas production [11].
Many studies have shown the hydrolysis of organic macromolecules is the key to improving anaerobic biogas production efficiency [12]. Some pretreatment methods have been developed for promoting hydrolysis, such as mechanical, chemical, and thermal [13,14][13][14]. The reported specific methods include heat [15[15][16],16], ultrasound [17], advanced oxidation [18], alkaline cracking, dry milling, hot water, steam explosion [19], degrease [20], etc. Since the energy input required for heat treatment (HP) can be supplied by choosing thermal energy with a lower energy grade (low ratio of exergy/energy), recovering waste heat energy or directly burning some fuel nearby can be used to provide energy for the HP process. This makes HP cheaper and easy to be applied to practical projects. HP has been successfully applied at an industrial scale and is one of the earliest methods recognized as having the potential to improve AD [21,22][21][22] and has been widely concerned and studied in enhancing the bioavailability of biomass. This pretreatment strategy can break up cell membranes resulting in soluble organic substrates that are easily be hydrolyzed during digestion [16,17,18,19][16][17][18][19]. Moreover, HP can also effectively weaken pathogens’ reproduction and decrease feed liquid viscosity [23].
HP is usually performed over a wide temperature range of 50–250 °C and can be divided into two categories according to temperature: high-temperature pretreatment (HTPT) and low-temperature pretreatment (LTPT) [21,24][21][24]. The required temperature of HTPT is above 140 °C, and its main purpose is to promote the dissolution or partial dissolution of recalcitrant components and improve the bioavailability of biomass materials [25,26,27][25][26][27]. Such as, previous studies proved that hemicellulose and cellulose solubilize at temperatures >150 °C and 200 °C, respectively [28,29][28][29]. While the LTPT employs temperatures below 140 °C (or below 100 °C) for AD improvement [21,30,31,32][21][30][31][32]. Protot et al. [33] stated that thermal pretreatment below 100 °C can impel the deflocculation of macromolecules. Neyens and Bayens [34] reported that LTPT resulted in the solubilization of proteins and particulate carbohydrates in sludge. Some authors proposed that pretreatment below 100 °C can be considered a biological process since biomass solubilization occurs because of a higher activity of thermophilic and hyperthermophilic bacteria populations [35,36][35][36]. In this case, exposure time also plays a more important role [37].

2. General Characteristics of Heat-Treated Biomass

Hydrothermal pretreatment will change biomass material characteristics, such as pH, conductivity, nutrient release, organic matter dissolution, etc. Hren et al. [46][38] reported pH values decreased during the pretreatments of riverbank grass, sewage sludge, and rumen fluid. The reason may be that thermal pretreatment forms amino acids and fatty acids. Thermal treatment can promote the release of intracellular ions to the outside, which may be the main reason for the change of conductivity, especially in biomass such as grass [46][38], vegetables [47][39], microalgae [48][40], and sludge. Due to the accumulation of nutrients in the process of sludge formation, thermal pretreatment of sludge can effectively release nitrogen (NH4+-N) and soluble phosphorus (PO43−-P) [32]. Yan et al. [49][41] reported the concentration of NH4+-N increased from 21.0 ± 0.6 mg·L−1 to 200.9 ± 2.9 mg·L−1 after pretreatment at 100 °C. Many studies have pointed out that increasing the organic matter dissolution is the main reason for pretreatment to improve the hydrolysis step in anaerobic degradation [50][42]. Rodriguez-Verde et al. [51][43] found the conducted thermal pretreatment of manure resulted in an increase in the solubilized fraction from 0.20 to 0.38 and 0.43 at 70 °C and 90 °C, respectively. Passos et al. [36] also proved that the pretreatment at 95 °C for ten hours increased VS solubilization of microalgal biomass by 1188%.

3. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

With the acceleration and completion of urbanization in developing countries, the amount of MSW is also rising rapidly. Statistics show that more than 4 billion tonnes of solid waste, nearly half of which is MSW, is produced worldwide each year [52][44]. These wastes have the characteristics of large yield, high water content, and complex composition and are potentially harmful. MSW typically consists of 46% organic content (food/kitchen waste, activated sludge, yard waste, wood, and craft residues), followed by 17% paper, 10% plastic, 5% glass, 4% metal, and 18% others [53][45]. Many reports have pointed out that the organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW) is an excellent raw material for biogas production because it is rich in organic substances such as starch, protein, and oil [54,55,56][46][47][48]. Thermal pretreatment can also solubilize food waste to improve the AD performance of OFMSW [57][49]. However, due to the different living habits, the components of OFMSW produced from other regions are various, and improving biogas production by thermal pretreatment will also vary. Thus, it is necessary to summarize the LTPT results of OFMSW to explore the empirical law more suitable for practical applications. Two typical municipal organic wastes, food/kitchen waste and waste-activated sludge (WAS), are used here as the focus of the discussion.

3.1. Food/Kitchen Waste

Due to the high water content and biodegradability, food waste (FW) and kitchen waste (KW) are suitable for AD to produce biogas. In addition, the content of lignocellulosic compounds is low in this biomass, so gentle pretreatment can satisfy the need to improve AD performance. Ma et al. [59][50] reported an 11% improvement in methane production when pretreating KW at 120 °C for 30 min. Li et al. [61][51] displayed that temperature coupled with exposure time affects the subsequent improvement of methane production of KW. Such as, biogas production from pretreatment at 70 °C for 90 min is higher than those for a shorter duration (10–60 min), while the treatments at 90 °C and 120 °C obtained the maximum biogas yields lasting 10 and 30 min, respectively. They also pointed out the Maillard reaction would be induced when the pretreatment temperature went up to 140 °C, which reduced the methane yield. This suggests that high-temperature pretreatment is unsuitable for FW and KW, and its high sugar and protein content will lead to the formation of some adverse reactants [68][52]. Kuo and Cheng [58][53] conducted thermal treatment of KW at different temperatures to improve hydrolysis and chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal, which showed that pre-treatment at 60 °C yielded the highest total COD (TCOD) removal efficiency (79.2%) after 300 h reaction. The pretreatment at 70 °C obtained the maximum biogas yield of 822 mL·g−1 VS in an investigation from 55 °C to 160 °C [61][51]. Sometimes, thermal treatment hardly improves the cumulative biogas yield, but it can change the biogas production rate. Wang et al. [60][54] pretreated FW at 70 °C for two hours, and the methane production increased only by 2.7%. Still, the pretreatment halved the time to produce the same quantity of methane compared to the anaerobic digestion of fresh FW. This suggests that heat treatment improves the kinetic features of AD. Other studies have shown that thermal treatment coupled with chemical reagents can better solubilize KW. Seyed Abbas et al. [69][55] conducted a thermo-chemical pretreatment on kitchen waste (cooked rice, pasta, ground beef, apple, etc.). They showed that the pretreatment at 120 °C with NaOH 5N can provide the best conditions to increase biogas and methane production. Ma et al. [59][50] proved that thermal-acid pretreatment at room temperature (pH = 2) obtained a better solubilization rate of kitchen waste than other pretreatments with more severe conditions.

3.2. WAS

The heat treatment of WAS was shown as early as 1970 as an effective pretreatment method for AD [70][56]. Then many studies have proven that thermal pretreatment can accelerate hydrolysis, shorten sludge’s digestion time, and increase biogas production. It has been commercially operational at full scale since 1995 [71][57]. The temperature range of sludge heat treatment reported in the previous literature is also relatively wide, at 60–270 °C [30]. However, research on LTPT of sludge waste has not been well summarized, and its improvement in biogas production can be more than five times [66] (Table 1)[58]. Appels et al. [37] showed that thermal pretreatment could effectively dissolve both organic and inorganic matter, and the subsequent anaerobic digestion efficiency of sludge at 90 °C, 60 min of pretreatment can be improved 11-fold. Kim et al. [62][59] found that after 30 min of heat treatment at 121 °C, the damage rate of volatile solids (VS) increased by 30%, and gas production increased by 32%. Nges et al. [72][60] conducted anaerobic digestion of biogas sludge through experiments and pretreated it at 50 °C for 48 h, resulting in an 11% increase in methane production. For high solid sludge, low temperature thermal pretreatment is also effective, Liao et al. [40][61] pretreated high solid sludge (TS = 15%) at low temperature (60–80 °C) and carried out intermittent anaerobic digestion experiment and continuous anaerobic digestion experiment and found that low-temperature pretreatment could accelerate digestion of high solid sludge and improve biogas production. Similarly, applying heat treatment coupled with chemical reagents in sludge pretreatment has also received attention. Xiao et al. [73][62] conducted high-temperature thermal pretreatment (160 °C) and LTPT by adding alkali (60 °C, pH 12.0) for sludge, respectively, and obtained similar methane production and organic matter removals. This suggests that chemical assistance can compensate for the shortage of pretreatment at a lower temperature. Zheng et al. [74][63] also reached a similar conclusion through experiments, low-temperature thermos-alkali pretreatment (60 °C, pH 12.0) has better energy efficiency. However, the auxiliary chemical reagent will increase the treatment cost. Appropriate pretreatment only for the substrates with poorer biodegradability before mixed AD could reduce the capital and operating costs [75][64]. Some studies have also proven that adding chemical reagents in thermal pretreatment may produce some adverse effects. Gunerhan et al. [76][65] reported that increasing the concentration of NaOH and HCl in thermal pretreatment at 60–100 °C can enhance the COD solubilization of fruit and vegetable harvesting wastes. In contrast, it reduced the concentration of soluble sugar which can be directly converted to methane. It can be concluded from these precious studies that whether heat treatment alone or chemically assisted, the treatment effect depends on the specific substrate characteristics and the set operating conditions.

4. Animal Manure Biomass

Meat, egg, and milk have become essential food for human life worldwide. It is crucial for human nutrition intake and improving living standards: about 270 million dairy cows and 677 million pigs worldwide [77][66]. Similarly, the annual amount of fecal production is also significant, which has a tremendous potential threat to the human living environment. Recycling energy and fertilizer through AD is helpful for animal manure treatment [78][67]. However, those initial characteristics of high recalcitrant fibers content, high viscosity, and rich in pathogens are unfavorable to the AD of manure biomass for biogas production. Many facts have proved that the thermal pretreatment method can weaken these adverse factors [12,14,79][12][14][68]. However, due to the differences in chemical composition and physical properties, the reaction results of thermal treatment of different types of animal manures may also be different. For instance, the methane yield of pig manure and sewage waste increased after heating treatment, while that of dairy manure decreased by 6.9% [80][69]. Therefore, thea present reviewresearch of LTPT of manure biomass is carried out according to different categories and mainly focuses on swine/pig manure, cow/dairy/cattle manure, and chicken/poultry manure.

4.1. Pig/Swine Manure

Many studies have shown that thermal pretreatment can significantly improve the biogas production performance of swine/pig manure. Menardo et al. [38][70] pretreated dehydrated pig manure (PM), digested it at 120 °C and found that methane production increased by 35–171%. Increasing soluble COD may be the main reason for improving biogas production of PM after LTPT. Huang et al. [42][71] pretreated swine manure (SM) at 110–130 °C for 30 min and achieved a CH4 yield of 280.18–328.93 mL·g−1 VSfed increasing 14–34%. The reason may be the increase of 13–26% in soluble organic carbon concentration after pretreatment. Bonmatí et al. [81][72] found that the concentration of soluble compounds in pig slurry rose after hydrothermal pretreatment below 90 °C, increasing methane yield. Some studies showed that the inhibitor concentration of PM liquid is low after LTPT, which did not affect biogas production. Fang et al. [39][73] reported that in both sludge and SM samples, the total biogas and methane productions were enhanced by the 125 °C heating treatment but inhibited by the 225 °C treatment, and they also pointed out the pretreatments at higher temperature may produce inhibitors (e.g., melanoidin). Another study also found the treatment at 100 °C obtained the maximum biogas yield of 0.48 ± 0.02 L·g−1 VS, a 30% increase from the raw manure sample. In comparison, biogas production from thermally treated at 130 °C and 150 °C showed less biogas production. The speculated potential reason may be that high temperatures formed complex organic compounds which are difficult to degrade [82][74]. LTPT can also improve microbial distribution in the AD system of PM. Mladenovska et al. [83][75] pretreated the mixture of cattle and swine manure at 100–140 °C and obtained an enhancement of specific methane yield in the range of 9–24% and 10–17% for the 20- and 40-min treatment, respectively. Moreover, they also found that continuous feeding of heat-treated PM can affect microbial species richness in a continuous stirring tank reactor and give it the ability to preserve high biogas production. However, a few studies have also found that LTPT can improve COD’s solubility. Still, biogas production is not significant, which may be due to the high fiber content in the manure samples. Raju et al. [79][68] found that PM improved biogas production at pretreatment temperatures of 125 °C, while pretreatment at 100 °C did not improve. They also revealed that LTPT has little effect on the cellulose and hemicellulose fractions. Carrère et al. proved that pretreatment of 70–90 °C can only increase the soluble substances and biogas production of the liquid part of PM, while improving the overall biogas production needs a higher temperature of >150 °C [84][76].

4.2. Cattle/Dairy Manure

The high content of indigestible fiber is an essential feature that distinguishes cattle/dairy manure from other animal manures, while LTPT is hard to decompose these resistant components. As a result, the effective pretreatment temperature of cattle/dairy manure is higher than other manure. Its pretreating temperatures range from 100 to 140 °C, and the exposure time may be required to be extended moderately. Passos et al. [85][77] found the only conditions that reached methane yield increments were those with long exposure times (i.e., 37 °C for 12 and 24 h), which were 3.6% and 20.5% higher than untreated dairy manure (DM), respectively. At the same time, the thermal pretreatments for 5 and 30 min did not enhance the final methane yield. Wilton et al. [22] reported that the methane production of DM increased by 37% after thermal treatment at 125 °C and for 30 min, while the treatments at a temperature below 125 °C and duration time less than 35 min showed no significant difference in methane production. The reason may be that the bovine gut had previously digested DM, a process that already alters the substrate’s lignocellulosic content, which may render thermal pretreatment redundant. Therefore, many researchers have been exploring the heat treatment of DM at a higher temperature, mixed with other materials, or assisted by chemical reagents [79,86,87][68][78][79]. Şenol et al. [86][78] conducted a co-digestion of CM, corn silage, and sugar beet pulp (2:1:1), and pretreating at 100 °C gained a 40% increase in biogas production. Additionally, several studies reported a significant hydrolysis enhancement after heat treatment of dairy/cattle manure by adding chemical reagents (e.g., oxalic acid, sulfuric acid) [88,89,90][80][81][82]. Similarly, inhibition resulting from heat treatment also appears in the AD of dairy/cattle manure, which may occur in both low- and high-temperature cases. Raju et al. [79][68] found the methane potential of CM decreased by about 10% at the pretreatment condition of 100 °C. Chan et al. [91][83] reported preheating dairy manure at a temperature below 100 °C and with acid would decrease methane production. Budde et al. [87][79] found that the abundance of inhibitors and other non-digestible substances led to lower methane yields in the pretreatment at 220 °C than those obtained from untreated CM. In conclusion, higher temperatures, longer exposure time, or chemical reagent assistance may favor the thermal treatment of dairy/cattle manure. Moreover, paying attention to the generation of inhibitors is necessary.

4.3. Chicken/Poultry Manure

Chicken/poultry manure has also been proven to produce biogas. Its yield can reach more than 400 mL·g−1 TS [51[43][84],92], which is better than pig manure and cow manure, probably because chicken manure (CHM) contains undigested feed. However, the content of organic nitrogen (protein, urea, uric acid) in chicken/poultry manure is higher than that in other manures, mainly due to the need for the rapid synthesis of eggs, feathers, and meat protein. During AD, the organic nitrogen is transformed into ammonia, inhibiting the anaerobic biogas generation process [93,94][85][86]. Therefore, many previous studies have focused on pretreatment to improve bioavailability and remove partial ammonia. The most common method is heating and its combination with stripping. The survey by Ardic and Taner [95][87] found pretreating CHM at 100 °C for two hours improved methane production. Rodriguez-Verde et al. [51][43] conducted a pretreatment of poultry-pig manure that consisted of temperature simultaneously with ammonia stripping, resulting in a nitrogen removal efficiency of 72% and a 1.2-fold higher methane production. Elasri et al. [96][88] obtained a biogas yield of 230.58 mL·g−1 COD after two-step pretreatments of heating at 105 °C for 24 h following a fine grinding, creating 3–5 times higher than the untreated group. Yin et al. [97][89] performed a thermophilic pretreatment (70 °C) of CHM, including thermal and ammonia stripping, and found that the methane yield of prehydrolyzed CHM reached 518 mL·g−1 VS, which was 54.6% higher than the control reactor. Yin et al. [98][90] created an innovative two-stage AD by combining thermal stripping pretreatment (70 °C) and an anaerobic membrane bioreactor, bringing a hydrolysis efficiency of 72.4% and methane yield of 352 mL·g−1 VSin (growth ≈ 65%). Additionally, LTPT can accelerate destroying organic molecular bonds in poultry litter by adding chemical reagents. Poultry litter soluble COD increased 2–3 times after conducting a pretreatment of 0.2 g Ca(OH)2·g−1 waste at 90 °C, while that at 20 °C showed a wick COD solubilization [50][42]. Zahan et al. [99][91] obtained a 45–51% increase of biogas in the co-digesting chicken litter, food waste, and wheat straw after thermal pretreatment at 120 °C with 5% NaOH or 3% H2SO4. However, note the inhibitor production of the heat pretreatment of CHM. Both higher temperatures and adding chemicals are more likely to produce inhibitors. Raju et al. [79][68] found no significant change in the BMP of the CHM after pre-treatment at temperatures up to 200 °C. The use of sodium hydroxide is more likely to produce inhibitors (e.g., volatile fatty acid (VFA), ammonia, furfural) than using lame, and the cations Na+ and K+ were potent methanogenic inhibitors when compared with Ca2+ [97][89].

References

  1. Cozma, A.; Negrea, M.; Cuc, L.; Poiana, M.; Micu, L. Impact of Domestic Organic Waste and Agricultural Technologies on Environmental Pollution. Agro Bul. AGIR 2010, 7, 23–28.
  2. Westerman, P.W.; Bicudo, J.R. Management Considerations for Organic Waste Use in Agriculture. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 215–221.
  3. Schüch, A.; Morscheck, G.; Lemke, A.; Nelles, M. Bio-Waste Recycling in Germany—Further Challenges. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 35, 308–318.
  4. Dhanya, B.S.; Mishra, A.; Chandel, A.K.; Verma, M.L. Development of Sustainable Approaches for Converting the Organic Waste to Bioenergy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138109.
  5. Shi, L.; Simplicio, W.S.; Wu, G.; Hu, Z.; Hu, H.; Zhan, X. Nutrient Recovery from Digestate of Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure: A Review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2018, 4, 74–83.
  6. Khalid, A.; Arshad, M.; Anjum, M.; Mahmood, T.; Dawson, L. The Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Organic Waste. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1737–1744.
  7. Moult, J.A.; Allan, S.R.; Hewitt, C.N.; Berners-Lee, M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Food Waste Disposal Options for UK Retailers. Food Policy 2018, 77, 50–58.
  8. Cai, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Schäfer, F.; Stinner, W.; Yuan, X.; Wang, H.; Cui, Z.; Wang, X. A Review about Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass in Anaerobic Digestion: Achievement and Challenge in Germany and China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 299, 126885.
  9. Patinvoh, R.J.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Challenges of Biogas Implementation in Developing Countries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2019, 12, 30–37.
  10. Dobslaw, D.; Engesser, K.-H.; Störk, H.; Gerl, T. Low-Cost Process for Emission Abatement of Biogas Internal Combustion Engines. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 1079–1092.
  11. Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Valijanian, E.; Panahi, H.K.S.; Nizami, A.-S.; Ghanavati, H.; Sulaiman, A.; Mirmohamadsadeghi, S.; Karimi, K. A Comprehensive Review on Recent Biological Innovations to Improve Biogas Production, Part 1: Upstream Strategies. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 1204–1220.
  12. Muhammad Nasir, I.; Mohd Ghazi, T.I. Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass from Animal Manure as a Means of Enhancing Biogas Production. Eng. Life Sci. 2015, 15, 733–742.
  13. Abraham, A.; Mathew, A.K.; Park, H.; Choi, O.; Sindhu, R.; Parameswaran, B.; Pandey, A.; Park, J.H.; Sang, B.-I. Pretreatment Strategies for Enhanced Biogas Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122725.
  14. Orlando, M.-Q.; Borja, V.-M. Pretreatment of Animal Manure Biomass to Improve Biogas Production: A Review. Energies 2020, 13, 3573.
  15. Kim, D.; Lee, K.; Park, K.Y. Enhancement of Biogas Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge by Hydrothermal Pre-Treatment. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 101, 42–46.
  16. Ferrer, I.; Ponsá, S.; Vázquez, F.; Font, X. Increasing Biogas Production by Thermal (70 °C) Sludge Pre-Treatment Prior to Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion. Biochem. Eng. J. 2008, 42, 186–192.
  17. Castrillón, L.; Fernández-Nava, Y.; Ormaechea, P.; Marañón, E. Optimization of Biogas Production from Cattle Manure by Pre-Treatment with Ultrasound and Co-Digestion with Crude Glycerin. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 7845–7849.
  18. Almomani, F.; Bhosale, R.R.; Khraisheh, M.A.M.; Shawaqfah, M. Enhancement of Biogas Production from Agricultural Wastes via Pre-Treatment with Advanced Oxidation Processes. Fuel 2019, 253, 964–974.
  19. Fjørtoft, K.; Morken, J.; Hanssen, J.F.; Briseid, T. Pre-Treatment Methods for Straw for Farm-Scale Biogas Plants. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 124, 88–94.
  20. Neves, V.T.D.C.; Sales, E.A.; Perelo, L.W. Influence of Lipid Extraction Methods as Pre-Treatment of Microalgal Biomass for Biogas Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 160–165.
  21. Ariunbaatar, J.; Panico, A.; Esposito, G.; Pirozzi, F.; Lens, P.N.L. Pretreatment Methods to Enhance Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste. Appl. Energy 2014, 123, 143–156.
  22. McVoitte, W.P.A.; Clark, O.G. The Effects of Temperature and Duration of Thermal Pretreatment on the Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Cow Manure. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02140.
  23. Zhen, G.; Lu, X.; Kato, H.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.-Y. Overview of Pretreatment Strategies for Enhancing Sewage Sludge Disintegration and Subsequent Anaerobic Digestion: Current Advances, Full-Scale Application and Future Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 559–577.
  24. Khanh Nguyen, V.; Kumar Chaudhary, D.; Hari Dahal, R.; Hoang Trinh, N.; Kim, J.; Chang, S.W.; Hong, Y.; Duc La, D.; Nguyen, X.C.; Hao Ngo, H.; et al. Review on Pretreatment Techniques to Improve Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. Fuel 2021, 285, 119105.
  25. Chandra, R.; Takeuchi, H.; Hasegawa, T. Hydrothermal Pretreatment of Rice Straw Biomass: A Potential and Promising Method for Enhanced Methane Production. Appl. Energy 2012, 94, 129–140.
  26. Garrote, G.; Domínguez, H.; Parajó, J.C. Hydrothermal Processing of Lignocellulosic Materials. Holz Als Roh Werkst. 1999, 57, 191–202.
  27. He, L.; Huang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Lei, Z. A Review of Hydrothermal Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Enhanced Biogas Production. Curr. Org. Chem. 2015, 19, 437–446.
  28. Kainthola, J.; Kalamdhad, A.S.; Goud, V.V. A Review on Enhanced Biogas Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Lignocellulosic Biomass by Different Enhancement Techniques. Process Biochem. 2019, 84, 81–90.
  29. Dien, B.S.; Li, X.-L.; Iten, L.B.; Jordan, D.B.; Nichols, N.N.; O’Bryan, P.J.; Cotta, M.A. Enzymatic Saccharification of Hot-Water Pretreated Corn Fiber for Production of Monosaccharides. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 1137–1144.
  30. Climent, M.; Ferrer, I.; Baeza, M.D.M.; Artola, A.; Vázquez, F.; Font, X. Effects of Thermal and Mechanical Pretreatments of Secondary Sludge on Biogas Production under Thermophilic Conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 2007, 133, 335–342.
  31. Neumann, P.; Pesante, S.; Venegas, M.; Vidal, G. Developments in Pre-Treatment Methods to Improve Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 15, 173–211.
  32. Pilli, S.; Yan, S.; Tyagi, R.D.; Surampalli, R.Y. Thermal Pretreatment of Sewage Sludge to Enhance Anaerobic Digestion: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 669–702.
  33. Prorot, A.; Julien, L.; Christophe, D.; Patrick, L. Sludge Disintegration during Heat Treatment at Low Temperature: A Better Understanding of Involved Mechanisms with a Multiparametric Approach. Biochem. Eng. J. 2011, 54, 178–184.
  34. Neyens, E.; Baeyens, J. A Review of Thermal Sludge Pre-Treatment Processes to Improve Dewaterability. J. Hazard. Mater. 2003, 98, 51–67.
  35. Alzate, M.E.; Muñoz, R.; Rogalla, F.; Fdz-Polanco, F.; Pérez-Elvira, S.I. Biochemical Methane Potential of Microalgae: Influence of Substrate to Inoculum Ratio, Biomass Concentration and Pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 123, 488–494.
  36. Passos, F.; García, J.; Ferrer, I. Impact of Low Temperature Pretreatment on the Anaerobic Digestion of Microalgal Biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 138, 79–86.
  37. Appels, L.; Degrève, J.; Van der Bruggen, B.; Van Impe, J.; Dewil, R. Influence of Low Temperature Thermal Pre-Treatment on Sludge Solubilisation, Heavy Metal Release and Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5743–5748.
  38. Hren, R.; Petrovič, A.; Čuček, L.; Simonič, M. Determination of Various Parameters during Thermal and Biological Pretreatment of Waste Materials. Energies 2020, 13, 2262.
  39. Wang, W.-C.; Sastry, S.K. Changes in electrical conductivity of selected vegetables during multiple thermal treatments. J. Food Process Eng. 1997, 20, 499–516.
  40. Kinnunen, V.; Craggs, R.; Rintala, J. Influence of Temperature and Pretreatments on the Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Grown Microalgae in a Laboratory-Scale Accumulating-Volume Reactor. Water Res. 2014, 57, 247–257.
  41. Yan, Y.; Chen, H.; Xu, W.; He, Q.; Zhou, Q. Enhancement of Biochemical Methane Potential from Excess Sludge with Low Organic Content by Mild Thermal Pretreatment. Biochem. Eng. J. 2013, 70, 127–134.
  42. Costa, J.C.; Barbosa, S.G.; Alves, M.M.; Sousa, D.Z. Thermochemical Pre- and Biological Co-Treatments to Improve Hydrolysis and Methane Production from Poultry Litter. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 141–147.
  43. Rodriguez-Verde, I.; Regueiro, L.; Lema, J.M.; Carballa, M. Blending Based Optimisation and Pretreatment Strategies to Enhance Anaerobic Digestion of Poultry Manure. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 521–531.
  44. Gutberlet, J. Cooperative Urban Mining in Brazil: Collective Practices in Selective Household Waste Collection and Recycling. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 22–31.
  45. Tyagi, V.K.; Fdez-Güelfo, L.A.; Zhou, Y.; Álvarez-Gallego, C.J.; Garcia, L.I.R.; Ng, W.J. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW): Progress and Challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 380–399.
  46. Zamri, M.F.M.A.; Hasmady, S.; Akhiar, A.; Ideris, F.; Shamsuddin, A.H.; Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Mahlia, T.M.I. A Comprehensive Review on Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 137, 110637.
  47. Chatterjee, B.; Mazumder, D. Anaerobic Digestion for the Stabilization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: A Review. Environ. Rev. 2016, 24, 426–459.
  48. Fernández Rodríguez, J.; Pérez, M.; Romero, L.I. Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: Optimisation of the Semicontinuous Process. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 193–194, 10–15.
  49. Ariunbaatar, J.; Panico, A.; Frunzo, L.; Esposito, G.; Lens, P.N.L.; Pirozzi, F. Enhanced Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste by Thermal and Ozonation Pretreatment Methods. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 142–149.
  50. Ma, J.; Duong, T.H.; Smits, M.; Verstraete, W.; Carballa, M. Enhanced Biomethanation of Kitchen Waste by Different Pre-Treatments. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 592–599.
  51. Li, Y.; Jin, Y.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Yu, Z. Effects of Thermal Pretreatment on the Biomethane Yield and Hydrolysis Rate of Kitchen Waste. Appl. Energy 2016, 172, 47–58.
  52. Liu, X.; Wang, W.; Gao, X.; Zhou, Y.; Shen, R. Effect of Thermal Pretreatment on the Physical and Chemical Properties of Municipal Biomass Waste. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 249–255.
  53. Kuo, W.; Cheng, K. Use of Respirometer in Evaluation of Process and Toxicity of Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion for Treating Kitchen Waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1805–1811.
  54. Wang, J.-Y.; Liu, X.-Y.; Kao, J.C.; Stabnikova, O. Digestion of Pre-Treated Food Waste in a Hybrid Anaerobic Solid–Liquid (HASL) System. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 345–351.
  55. Abbas, R.S.; Agha, A.H.H.; Rahman, S. Enhancement Anaerobic Digestion and Methane Production from Kitchen Waste by Thermal and Thermo-Chemical Pretreatments in Batch Leach Bed Reactor with down Flow. Res. Agric. Eng. 2018, 64, 128–135.
  56. Appels, L.; Baeyens, J.; Degrève, J.; Dewil, R. Principles and Potential of the Anaerobic Digestion of Waste-Activated Sludge. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 755–781.
  57. Svensson, K. Thermal Hydrolysis Sludge Pretreatment. In Clean Energy and Resources Recovery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 391–398. ISBN 978-0-323-85223-4.
  58. Liu, T.; Wu, C.; Wang, Y.; Xue, G.; Zhang, M.; Liu, C.; Zheng, Y. Enhanced Deep Utilization of Low-Organic Content Sludge by Processing Time-Extended Low-Temperature Thermal Pretreatment. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 28946–28954.
  59. Kim, J.; Park, C.; Kim, T.-H.; Lee, M.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.-W.; Lee, J. Effects of Various Pretreatments for Enhanced Anaerobic Digestion with Waste Activated Sludge. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2003, 95, 271–275.
  60. Nges, I.A.; Liu, J. Effects of Anaerobic Pre-Treatment on the Degradation of Dewatered-Sewage Sludge. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1795–1800.
  61. Liao, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Chen, Q. Accelerated High-Solids Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge Using Low-Temperature Thermal Pretreatment. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 106, 141–149.
  62. Xiao, B.; Tang, X.; Yi, H.; Dong, L.; Han, Y.; Liu, J. Comparison of Two Advanced Anaerobic Digestions of Sewage Sludge with High-Temperature Thermal Pretreatment and Low-Temperature Thermal-Alkaline Pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 304, 122979.
  63. Zheng, T.; Zhang, K.; Chen, X.; Ma, Y.; Xiao, B.; Liu, J. Effects of Low- and High-Temperature Thermal-Alkaline Pretreatments on Anaerobic Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125400.
  64. Abudi, Z.N.; Hu, Z.; Sun, N.; Xiao, B.; Rajaa, N.; Liu, C.; Guo, D. Batch Anaerobic Co-Digestion of OFMSW (Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste), TWAS (Thickened Waste Activated Sludge) and RS (Rice Straw): Influence of TWAS and RS Pretreatment and Mixing Ratio. Energy 2016, 107, 131–140.
  65. Günerhan, Ü.; Us, E.; Dumlu, L.; Yılmaz, V.; Carrère, H.; Perendeci, A.N. Impacts of Chemical-Assisted Thermal Pretreatments on Methane Production from Fruit and Vegetable Harvesting Wastes: Process Optimization. Molecules 2020, 25, 500.
  66. Varma, V.S.; Parajuli, R.; Scott, E.; Canter, T.; Lim, T.T.; Popp, J.; Thoma, G. Dairy and Swine Manure Management—Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable Treatment Technology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 778, 146319.
  67. Zhu, Q.-L.; Wu, B.; Pisutpaisal, N.; Wang, Y.-W.; Ma, K.; Dai, L.-C.; Qin, H.; Tan, F.-R.; Maeda, T.; Xu, Y.; et al. Bioenergy from Dairy Manure: Technologies, Challenges and Opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148199.
  68. Raju, C.S.; Sutaryo, S.; Ward, A.J.; Møller, H.B. Effects of High-Temperature Isochoric Pre-Treatment on the Methane Yields of Cattle, Pig and Chicken Manure. Environ. Technol. 2013, 34, 239–244.
  69. Qiao, W.; Yan, X.; Ye, J.; Sun, Y.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Z. Evaluation of Biogas Production from Different Biomass Wastes with/without Hydrothermal Pretreatment. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 3313–3318.
  70. Menardo, S.; Balsari, P.; Dinuccio, E.; Gioelli, F. Thermal Pre-Treatment of Solid Fraction from Mechanically-Separated Raw and Digested Slurry to Increase Methane Yield. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2026–2032.
  71. Huang, W.; Zhao, Z.; Yuan, T.; Huang, W.; Lei, Z.; Zhang, Z. Low-Temperature Hydrothermal Pretreatment Followed by Dry Anaerobic Digestion: A Sustainable Strategy for Manure Waste Management Regarding Energy Recovery and Nutrients Availability. Waste Manag. 2017, 70, 255–262.
  72. Bonmatí, A.; Flotats, X.; Mateu, L.; Campos, E. Study of Thermal Hydrolysis as a Pretreatment to Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Pig Slurry. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 109–116.
  73. Fang, C.; Huang, R.; Dykstra, C.M.; Jiang, R.; Pavlostathis, S.G.; Tang, Y. Energy and Nutrient Recovery from Sewage Sludge and Manure via Anaerobic Digestion with Hydrothermal Pretreatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 1147–1156.
  74. Rafique, R.; Poulsen, T.G.; Nizami, A.-S.; Murphy, J.D.; Kiely, G. Effect of Thermal, Chemical and Thermo-Chemical Pre-Treatments to Enhance Methane Production. Energy 2010, 35, 4556–4561.
  75. Mladenovska, Z.; Hartmann, H.; Kvist, T.; Sales-Cruz, M.; Gani, R.; Ahring, B.K. Thermal Pretreatment of the Solid Fraction of Manure: Impact on the Biogas Reactor Performance and Microbial Community. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 53, 59–67.
  76. Carrère, H.; Sialve, B.; Bernet, N. Improving Pig Manure Conversion into Biogas by Thermal and Thermo-Chemical Pretreatments. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 3690–3694.
  77. Passos, F.; Ortega, V.; Donoso-Bravo, A. Thermochemical Pretreatment and Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Cow Manure: Experimental and Economic Evaluation. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 227, 239–246.
  78. Şenol, H.; Açıkel, Ü.; Demir, S.; Oda, V. Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure, Corn Silage and Sugar Beet Pulp Mixtures after Thermal Pretreatment and Kinetic Modeling Study. Fuel 2020, 263, 116651.
  79. Budde, J.; Heiermann, M.; Quiñones, T.S.; Plöchl, M. Effects of Thermobarical Pretreatment of Cattle Waste as Feedstock for Anaerobic Digestion. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 522–529.
  80. Chu, C.-Y.; Wang, Z.-F. Dairy Cow Solid Waste Hydrolysis and Hydrogen/Methane Productions by Anaerobic Digestion Technology. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 30591–30598.
  81. Liao, W. Optimizing Dilute Acid Hydrolysis of Hemicellulose in a Nitrogen-Rich Cellulosic Material––Dairy Manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 94, 33–41.
  82. Jin, Y.; Hu, Z.; Wen, Z. Enhancing Anaerobic Digestibility and Phosphorus Recovery of Dairy Manure through Microwave-Based Thermochemical Pretreatment. Water Res. 2009, 43, 3493–3502.
  83. Chan, I.; Srinivasan, A.; Liao, P.H.; Lo, K.V.; Mavinic, D.S.; Atwater, J.; Thompson, J.R. The Effects of Microwave Pretreatment of Dairy Manure on Methane Production. Nat. Resour. 2013, 04, 246–256.
  84. Bayrakdar, A.; Sürmeli, R.Ö.; Çalli, B. Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure by a Leach-Bed Process Coupled with Side-Stream Membrane Ammonia Separation. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 258, 41–47.
  85. Fuchs, W.; Wang, X.; Gabauer, W.; Ortner, M.; Li, Z. Tackling Ammonia Inhibition for Efficient Biogas Production from Chicken Manure: Status and Technical Trends in Europe and China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 97, 186–199.
  86. Li, K.; Liu, R.; Yu, Q.; Ma, R. Removal of Nitrogen from Chicken Manure Anaerobic Digestion for Enhanced Biomethanization. Fuel 2018, 232, 395–404.
  87. Ardic, I.; Taner, F. Effects of Thermal, Chemical and Thermochemical Pretreatments to Increase Biogas Production Yield of Chicken Manure. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2005, 14, 373–380.
  88. Elasri, O.; El amin Afilal, M. Potential for Biogas Production from the Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Droppings in Morocco. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2016, 5, 195–204.
  89. Yin, D.-M.; Qiao, W.; Negri, C.; Adani, F.; Fan, R.; Dong, R.-J. Enhancing Hyper-Thermophilic Hydrolysis Pre-Treatment of Chicken Manure for Biogas Production by in-Situ Gas Phase Ammonia Stripping. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 287, 121470.
  90. Yin, D.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Lin, M.; Jiang, M.; Qiao, W.; Dong, R. Upgrading the Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Treatment of Chicken Manure by Introducing In-Situ Ammonia Stripping and Hyper-Thermophilic Pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 310, 123470.
  91. Zahan, Z.; Othman, M.Z. Effect of Pre-Treatment on Sequential Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Chicken Litter with Agricultural and Food Wastes under Semi-Solid Conditions and Comparison with Wet Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 281, 286–295.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback