Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

What type of digester congurations should be employed to produce biomethane from grass silage?
Abdul-Sattar Nizami a,b, Jerry D. Murphy a,b,*
a b

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 8 December 2008 Accepted 8 February 2010 Keywords: Grass silage Biogas Biomethane Anaerobic digester

Grass is an excellent energy crop; it may be classied as a high yielding, low energy input, perennial crop. Over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass; thus farmers are familiar with, and comfortable with, this crop as opposed to a new energy crop such as Miscanthus. Of issue therefore is not the crop, but the methodology of generating energy from the crop. Numerous farmers across Europe (in particular Germany and Austria) use grass silage as a feedstock for biogas production; in a number of cases the produced biogas is scrubbed to biomethane and used as a transport fuel or injected into the natural gas grid. Many Irish farmers are considering converting from conventional farming such as beef production to grass biomethane production. Numerous technologies and combinations of such technologies are available; from one-stage batch dry systems to two-stage wet continuous systems; from one-stage continuous wet systems to two-stage systems incorporating a batch dry reactor coupled with a second stage high-rate reactor. This paper reviews work carried out both in the scientic literature and in practice at commercial scale. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Focus of the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Grass: a new way towards renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Biomethanation of grass silage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Design of anaerobic digester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6. Properties of grass silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potential digester congurations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. One-stage versus two-stage digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Dry versus wet digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Batch versus continuous digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. High-rate digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digester congurations suitable for grass silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Wet continuous digester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Leach bed system connected with high-rate digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Dry continuous digester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Batch digester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arguments for and against different digester congurations for grass silage digestion . 4.1. Biogas production per unit of grass silage based on volatile solids destruction . 4.2. The wet continuous two-stage process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1561 1561 1561 1562 1562 1562 1562 1563 1564 1564 1565 1565 1565

2.

3.

4.

Abbreviations: COD, chemical oxygen demand; CSTR, continuously stirred tank reactor; D-value, digestibility-value; HRT, hydraulic retention time; ME, metabolizable energy; MSW, municipal solid waste; N, nitrogen; OFMSW, organic fraction of municipal solid waste; OLR, organic loading rate; UASB, upow anaerobic sludge blanket; VS, volatile solids; VFA, volatile fatty acid. * Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Tel.: +353 21 4902286; fax: +353 21 4276648. E-mail address: jerry.murphy@ucc.ie (J.D. Murphy). 1364-0321/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.006

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

1559

5.

6.

4.3. The dry batch process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. The dry continuous process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5. The leach bed system combined with UASB . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Potential improvements in anaerobic digesters 5.2. Research required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

1565 1565 1565 1566 1566 1566 1566 1566 1566

1. Introduction 1.1. Focus of the paper The number of on-farm digesters is increasing signicantly across Europe. There is tremendous potential for these on-farm digesters using grass silage as a bioenergy feedstock, especially in Ireland where 91% of agricultural land is under grass [1]. The biogas generated may be used on site as a source of combined heat and power. Alternatively it may be upgraded to biomethane and distributed via the natural gas grid where better efciencies and markets may be available. For example grass biomethane offers great potential as a transport fuel [1]; it may also be used as a source of renewable heat to existing housing stock connected to the gas grid. The industry in Ireland is in its infancy, however numerous technology providers are selling their wares; many facilities are at planning stage and numerous farmers are interested in the industry due to the low farm family income associated in particular with beef farming. The big issue is what type of digester should be utilized. This paper reviews the present state-of-the-art anaerobic digester congurations for high solid content feedstocks, and their application to grass silage. This paper has an ambition of explaining and evaluating various anaerobic digester congurations. 1.2. Anaerobic digestion The process of anaerobic digestion has now become a more attractive source of renewable energy due to reduced technological cost and increased process efciency [2]. A plethora of substrates such as wastewaters [3], animal wastes [4] and sewage sludge [5] are extensively used for anaerobic digestion [6]. Additionally, during the last few years, the use of lignocellulosic substrates [7] and feedstocks with a high solids content such as the OFMSW (organic fraction of municipal solid waste) [8], crops [9], crop residues [10] and grass silage [11,12] has received considerable attention particularly in Europe [13]. Various researchers have reviewed and compared various digester types suitable for digesting solid wastes [14,15]. Digesters which are optimized for OFMSW may not be ideal for grass silage because the volatile solid content of grass silage is of the order of 92% where as the volatile solid content of OFMSW may be as low as 60% [1] 1.3. Grass: a new way towards renewable energy In Ireland [16] and generally in temperate regions, grassland is the most predominant form of land use providing most of the feed requirements for ruminants [17] either through grazing or after conservation as hay or, more recently, silage [18]. Despite its ubiquity in European lands, there is still a considerable risk of its conversion into surplus land [19] if the land is not used productively. Nevertheless usage of grassland as a renewable source of energy through biogas production will contribute signicantly to the protection of the environment, due to the

ability of grass to sequester carbon into the soil matrix [20]. Additionally, many socio-economic benets [21] can be achieved without harming the food industry [22]; this is particularly true for Ireland, where land area available to grow grass is 10 times more than for arable land. Furthermore, to affect a 10% reduction in emissions from the agriculture sector, the National Climate Change Strategy for Ireland [23] recommended reductions in the national herd. This eventually, in combination with the preservation of grassland, will necessitate grass growth as a new source of renewable energy in Ireland [1]. 1.4. Biomethanation of grass silage Optimal digestion of grass silage is an area still under active research. Most of the work on optimising grass silage digestion is conducted at laboratory and pilot trials. The interest in using grass silage as a feedstock for bioenergy and biorenery systems is due to its high yield potential in terms of methane production per hectare [1]; however its lignin and cellulose content [24] makes it suitable as a multiple source of energy and products [25]. Grass silage is the most important substrate after maize silage for biogas plants in Germany [26] and one of the most used co-substrates in agricultural biogas plants between 2002 and 2004 in Germany [27]. Still the use of biomethane from substrates like grass silage in Europe is modest compared to other raw materials [28]. The high potential of methane production from grass silage has been shown in the studies of Amon hnert et al. [12] and Lehtoma ki et al. [30]. et al. [29], Ma 1.5. Design of anaerobic digester The optimization of digester design i.e. higher OLR (organic loading rate), reduced HRT (hydraulic retention time) and higher methane yields is of great importance [31]. Operational parameters such as HRT, mixing, number of tanks and temperature [14] along with the properties of the feedstock [32] form the basis of digester design. Moreover, in digesting lignocellulosic substrates such as grass silage, the dry matter content, the solubility and hydrolysis rates, play a critical role [33]. A detailed description of operational aspects of various digester types was undertaken by Hobson and Wheatley in 1993 [34]. There is a need to examine the digester conguration as applied to grass silage in the 21st Century. Various digester congurations are employed which use different approaches such as one-stage or two-stage digesters [35], wet or dry/semi-dry digesters [15], batch or continuous digesters [36], attached or non-attached biomass digesters [37], high-rate digesters [38] and digesters with combination of different approaches (Fig. 1). 1.6. Properties of grass silage Grass silage is wet (less than 20% dry solids content) or dry (20 40% dry solids) depending on whether it is wilted, weather conditions at time of harvesting and storage conditions (baled or pit) [1]. In Ireland the dry solids content of grass silage is of the order of 20% for pit silage and 30% for baled silage. The D-value

1560

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

Fig. 1. Possible combination of various digester types.

Table 1 Comparison of different digester congurations for high solid content feedstocks [14,34,41,42]. Criteria One-stage versus two-stage digesters One-stage Biogas production Solid content Cost Volatile solids destruction HRT (days) OLR (kg VS m3 d1) Irregular and discontinuous 1040% Less Low to high 1060 0.715 Two-stage Higher and stable 240% More High 1015 1015 for second stage Dry versus wet digesters Dry Higher 2050% Less 4070% 1460 1215 Wet Less and irregular 212% More 4075% 2560 <5 Batch versus continuous digesters Batch Irregular and discontinuous 2540% Less 4070% 3060 1215 Continuous Continuous 215% More 4075% 3060 0.71.4 Continuous and higher <415% More 7598% 0.512 1015 High-rate bioreactors

Table 2 Comparison of process weaknesses and benets of various digester types [14,4446]. System One-stage versus two-stage digesters One-stage Strengths Simpler design Less technical failure Low cost Efcient substrate degradation owing to recirculation of digestate Constant feeding rate to second stage More robust process Less susceptible to failure Higher biomass retention Controlled feeding Simpler pretreatment Lower parasitic energy demands Good operating history Degree of process control is higher Weaknesses Higher retention time Foam and scum formation Complex and expensive to build and maintain Solid particles need to be removed from second stage

Two-stage

Dry versus wet digesters

Dry

Complex handling of feedstock Mostly structured substrates are used Material handling and mixing is difcult Scum formation High consumption of water and energy Short-circuiting Sensitive to shock loads Channeling and clogging Larger volume Lower biogas yield Rapid acidication Larger VFA (Volatile Fatty Acid) production Larger start-up times Channeling at low feeding rates

Wet

Batch versus continuous digesters

Batch

Continuous

No mixing, stirring or pumping Low input process and mechanical needs Cost-effective Simplicity in design and operation Low capital costs

High-rate bioreactors

Higher biomass retention Controlled feeding Lower investment cost No support material is needed

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

1561

reects the digestibility and may be dened as the organic matter digested by the cow divided by the dry matter digested. The ME (metabolizable energy) value is dened as the energy available for the cow. In Scotland values for grass silage cut in early June were found to have a D-value of 67% and an ME value of 10.7 MJ kg1; for late cut silage (cut in late June) values of 65% and 10.4 MJ kg1 were recorded [39]. Thus early cut grass silage is more digestible than late cut silage. In Southern Ireland D-values and ME values would be considerably higher [39]. 2. Potential digester congurations 2.1. One-stage versus two-stage digesters In one-stage digestion all the microbiological phases of anaerobic digestion occur in one tank [37]. In two-stage digestion different microbial phases can be separated [14]. Conversely two-stage digestion may allow both stages to be complete microbial processes with the second stage incorporating storage of digestate and remedial gas collection [35]. When the microbial phases are separated the hydrolytic and acidication phases may occur in the rst reactor and acetogenesis and methanogenesis occur in the second reactor [9]. The concept of two-stage digestion is driven by optimization of the digestion process [40], resulting in potentially higher yields of biogas in smaller digesters (Table 1). Parawira et al.
Table 3 Performance data of different anaerobic digesters applied for silage/grass digestion. Studies Digester characteristics Continuous digester, Laboratory scale Continuous digester, Farm scale Batch digester, Laboratory scale Operating temperature (8C) 35 Mono/ co-digestion Co-digestion

[43] scrutinized pilot and lab-scale two-stage systems for anaerobic digestion of MSW, agricultural residues and market waste. The onestage system is still popular at industrial scale because of the simplicity in operation, reduced costs and lesser technical problems (Table 2). Process reviews were undertaken by Weiland et al. [47] on one-stage digesters and by Demired and Yenigun [48] on two-stage digesters. However the scientic literature is relatively sparse on one-stage digestion of grass silage [49], which is the normal application for commercial scale. Most of the studies conducted at laboratory and pilot scale use two-stage digesters (Table 3), which are not available at commercial scale. In the one-stage process, either dry batch systems or wet continuous systems are used [15], whereas in the two-stage process, continuous and wet processes are preferred (Figs. 24). 2.2. Dry versus wet digesters Vandevivere et al. [14] classify dry and wet systems as follows. Digesters, in which the feedstock used consists of 2040% dry matter, are known as dry anaerobic digesters; those with less than 20% dry matter are classied as wet digesters. Therefore, pretreatment (i.e. pulping and slurrying) is required for grass silage in wet digesters. Currently, one-stage dry continuous (Fig. 3) and dry batch digesters (Fig. 4) are relatively new and innovative digesters used for MSW, biowaste and grass silage; their use is

Retention time (days) 1836 20

Characteristics of substrate Extensive grassland cut, silage and hay Extensive grassland cut, silage Intensive grassland cut, rst cut in June, fresh and ensiled Extensive grassland cut, rst cut in August, fresh, silage and hay Extensive grassland cut, silage and hay Extensive grassland cut, silage

Biogas yield (m3 /kg VS added) 0.50.55 0.50.55

Methane yield (m3 /kg VS added) Not reported Not reported

Prochnow et al. [11]

Baserga and Egger [50]a

35

Co-digestion

25

0.70.72

Not reported

0.540.58

Not reported

0.50.6

Not reported

Baserga [51]a

Continuous digester, Farm scale Batch digester, Laboratory scale Semi-continuous digester, Laboratory scale Batch digester, Laboratory scale

35

Co-digestion

20

0.50.55

Not reported

hnert et al. [52]; Ma hnert [53]a Ma

35 35

Mono-digestion Mono-digestion

28 28

Three grass species, rst cut in mid-May, fresh ad ensiled Three grass species, second cut, ensiled

0.650.86 0.560.61

0.310.36 0.30.32

Amon et al. [54]a

3739

Mono-digestion

59

Intensive forage mixture of grassland and clover, ensiled, Mid-May (before anthesis i.e. when the ower is ready for pollination) End of May (anthesis) Mid-June (after anthesis) Grass from intensively used sites, 4 cuts per year ensiled Grass from extensively used sites, 2 cuts per year, ensiled Grass from landscape management Grass silage (two-stage leach bed process without pH) Grass silage (two-stage leach bed process with pH) One-stage leach bed

0.53

0.37

0.47 0.42 0.39 0.22 0.08

0.32 0.29 Not reported Not reported Not reported

Lemmer and Oechsner [55]a

Semi-continuous digester, Laboratory scale and farm scale

37

Co-digestion

2560

ki Lehtoma et al. [30]

Batch leach bed-USB reactors

37

Mono-digestion

55

0.270.39 0.16 0.2

0.197 0.1 0.06

These investigations on biogas production from grassland vegetation are tabulated by Prochnow et al. [11]

1562

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

Fig. 2. Design variations in one-stage and two-stage digesters.

expected to continue in the coming years (Table 4). One-stage dry batch systems typically employ a system whereby high solids content feedstock is entered into a vessel without initial dilution. Recirculation of water/leachate is employed. Feeding is by front actor, no mixing takes place, and as such parasitic energy demands are very low [14]. Vertical CSTR (continuously stirred tank reactor) conguration (Fig. 2) is the most commonly used conguration in 90% of the newly erected wet digesters [27]. Parasitic energy demand for wet digesters is higher than for dry digesters due to the requirement to dilute grass silage, pump slurries and mix reactors for the total retention time (Table 2). 2.3. Batch versus continuous digesters In batch digesters (Fig. 4), the reactor vessel is loaded once with raw feedstock for a certain period of time (and inoculated with digestate from another reactor). It is then sealed and left until complete degradation has occurred [56]. On the contrary, in continuous digesters (Fig. 2), the substrate is regularly and continuously fed either mechanically or by force of the newly entered substrate [57]. In continuous digesters, plug ow, CSTR, anaerobic lters and UASB (upow anaerobic sludge blanket) systems are used, while in batch digesters, one-stage, sequential batch and hybrid batch digesters are used. According to Bouallagui et al. [58], about 90% of the industrial scale plants currently operating in Europe are different continuous type digesters in congurations such as a continuous one-stage digester [59] used for anaerobic digestion of OFMSW, solid waste and biowaste. However, batch digesters maybe more suitable for grass silage digestion due to the dry solid contents (bailed silage has a solids content of about

32%) and brous characteristics of grass silage and the reduced parasitic energy demands (Table 2). This is particularly advantageous when using more than one batch digester with different startup times to guarantee a continuous yield of biogas [60]. 2.4. High-rate digesters In these digesters high solid retention time is achieved through attachment of biomass to high density carriers and formation of highly settleable granules [61]. Upow anaerobic lters, UASB, anaerobic packed-bed and uidized bed reactors are utilized as high-rate digesters both at lab and industrial scale. The use of UASB among high-rate digesters has increased and widened in recent years [62] by taking feed with solid contents less than 4% or up to 15% [41,42] at retention times of 0.512 days [14]. Marchaim [41] suggests solids content of less than 4% in UASB, while Barnett et al. [42] allow for solids content of up to 15% in UASB (Table 1). Moreover, the UASB reactor is suggested by various authors [63,64] to offer benets over other high-rate digesters when applied to high organic loading rates. For digestion of grass silage, high-rate digesters are applied in connection with leach beds [30,35], or may be used with CSTR in two or multi-stage fashion. 3. Digester congurations suitable for grass silage 3.1. Wet continuous digester The popularity of the one-stage and two-stage CSTR systems in wet continuous digesters is due to the simplicity of the system in design and operation and the low capital costs (Table 2). The

Fig. 3. Various types of one-stage dry continuous digesters [14].

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

1563

Fig. 4. (a) One-stage dry batch digester [14]. (b) Two-stage dry batch digesters [14]. (c) Sequencing fed leach bed digesters coupled with UASB.

digestion of grass silage in the CSTR is facilitated by the use of a separate preprocessing tank with chopper pump, screw-feeder and ushing system (Fig. 5). In addition, solid contents are reduced by recirculation and mixing of leachate with fresh matter [60]. In a laboratory scale one-stage CSTR, the biogas yield of three fresh
Table 4 Five-year development in different digester types [15]. Period One-stage versus two-stage digesters One-stage 19911995 19962000 20012005 20062010 (estimated) 85% 91% 92% 98% Two-stage 15% 9% 8% 2% Wet versus dry digesters Wet 37% 38% 59% 29% Dry 63% 62% 41% 71%

grass species as mono-substrate was 0.61 and 0.56 m3 kg1 VS added at an OLR of 0.7 and 1.4 kg1 VS added at 35 8C [12]. While, at commercial scale a two-stage CSTR in Eugendorf, Austria, the methane yield from grass silage as mono-substrate is 0.3 m3 kg1 VS at an OLR of 1.4 kg VS m3 d1 [65]. In Eugendorf the biogas was 55% methane, thus the biogas yield was 0.55 m3 kg1 VS at hnert et al. [12]. 1.4 kg VS m3 d1; almost the same result as Ma 3.2. Leach bed system connected with high-rate digesters In this system one or several solid-bed reactors (leach beds) [66] are connected with high-rate digesters such as a UASB or an anaerobic lter [35]. These leach beds are sequentially batch loaded; leachate is recirculated [67,68] to facilitate a near continuous system in terms of biogas production. The system requires a high conversion of volatile solids to COD (chemical

1564

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

Fig. 5. Preprocessing systems for high solid substrates [62].

oxygen demand) in the leach beds followed by a high rate of conversion of COD to methane in the UASB to effect stable and relatively high biogas production (Table 5). Liu et al. [69] reported that green waste can be digested within 12 days yielding steady ki et al. [30] and high production of biogas. In a study by Lehtoma using a two-stage process, the total methane yield originating from the UASB was 7698%; the remaining biogas was produced in the leach beds using grass silage as digester substrate. In another study ki and Bjo rnsson [70] at pilot scale using batch leach by Lehtoma bed digesters coupled with an anaerobic lter, methane yields of 0.39 m3 CH4 kg1 VS added were obtained at 59% VS removal after 50 days digestion of grass silage. With the same digester scheme using grass silage at pilot scale, Yu et al. [35] and Cirne et al. [71] obtained 0.165 m3 CH4 kg1 VS added and 0.27 m3 CH4 kg1 VS ki et al. added at 67% VS and 60% VS removal respectively. Lehtoma [30] explained the lower CH4 production at higher volatile solids destruction in the following manner. The grass mixtures used as substrates in these studies had different compositions of lignin and nitrogen. Higher contents of lignin mean lesser contents of volatile solids, which results in less overall degradation and less methane. Lower contents of nitrogen in grass silage result in a less than optimal C:N ratio, which effects microbial degradation, which ultimately affects the methane concentration of biogas. 3.3. Dry continuous digester DRANCO [72,73], Kompogas and Volarga systems are dry continuous systems [14]. In DRANCO, the digestate/leachate is recirculated back vertically, while the Kompogas system works horizontal (Fig. 3). Both systems may operate in the thermophilic temperature range. Slow moving impellers are used in Kompogas

to homogenize and re-suspend denser particles [74]. The Valorga system operates in the mesophilic temperature range; this system employs recirculation of biogas at the bottom of the reactors through injection ports to effect mixing [75]. One technical drawback with the Valorga digester is clogging of the gas injection ports; maintenance of these systems is difcult [14]. A high level of OLR is achievable in the DRANCO process (Table 5). The DRANCO plant at Nustedt, Germany treats 12,500 t a1 of agricultural crops. The feedstock comprises maize (6200 t a1), sunowers (2400 t a1), rye (2000 t a1) and grass (600 t a1). The grass adds biogas at a rate of 90120 Nm3 t1. The total biogas production is 145 Nm3 t1 [76]. 3.4. Batch digester Dry batch digesters, such as the BEKON processes (Fig. 4a), are used widely in Europe for dry solids content up to 50% [68]. In this digester type, the leachate is recirculated/sprayed back on to the feedstock. After completion of digestion, the digester is reopened, half unloaded and half of the feedstock is left as inoculum; it is relled with fresh feedstock and the cycle continues [56]. In addition to BEKON, garage type, bag type, immersion liquid storage vat type and wet-dry combination digesters are in the rst phase of commercialization [77]. In a lab-scale batch digester, the biogas and methane yield of fresh and ensiled grass species were examined and reported by hnert et al. [12]. The observed biogas and methane yield were in Ma the range of 0.650.86 and 0.310.36 m3 kg1 VS respectively. With the same digester scheme at laboratory scale, Baserga and Egger [50] and KTBL [78] reported the values of fresh cut grass in the range of 0.50.6 m3 biogas kg1 VS added. The values for biogas

Table 5 Comparison of the optimal anaerobic digesters for grass silage [14,41,42,65,68]. System Example Pretreatment Process Quality of digestate Juice rich in protein and nutrients, soil conditioner Soil conditioner, fertilizer, brous materials Dewatered, good, brous materials Dewatered, good, brous materials HRT (days) >60 Cost Operating Solid contents temperature (8C) (%) 214 3540 Destruction of volatile solids (%) OLR (kg VS m3 d1) 0.71.4

Wet continuous one/two-stage digester Two-stage sequential batch digester connected with high-rate bioreactor One-stage dry continuous digester One or multi-stage dry batch digester

CSTR

Pulping, chopping, Two-stage slurry, hydrolyzed (can be one-stage) Leach bed Chopping, pulping Two or with UASB multi-stage

Medium 4070

12 2040

35

High

7598 from 1015 UASB

DRANCO BEKON

Shredding, Chopping Chopping

One-stage One-stage

1530 2050 4070 3040

5058 35

Low Low

4070 4070

12 1215

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

1565

production from grass silage in m3 kg1 VS added range from 0.54 hler [80], 0.63 by KTBL by Linke et al. [79], 0.58 by Niebaum and Do kel [81]. Among different grass species both fresh [78] to 0.81 by Ja hnert et al. [12] found the highest biogas yields and ensiled, Ma (0.83 and 0.86 m3 kg1 VS added) were achieved for perennial ryegrass and the lowest (0.72 and 0.65 m3 kg1 VS added) for fresh cocksfoot and silage. 4. Arguments for and against different digester congurations for grass silage digestion 4.1. Biogas production per unit of grass silage based on volatile solids destruction Various grass silage samples from a farm in Cork, Ireland were analysed by the authors. The dry solids content of grass silage varied from 20 to 40%. The volatile dry solid contents for various tests averaged 92% when expressed as a percentage of dry solids. An ultimate analysis yielded the following stoichiometric equation for dry grass: C28.4H44.5O17.7N. The ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C:N) in grass silage was found to be 25:1 which is very suitable for digestion [39]. The biogas production per unit of grass silage is an essential descriptor of a system. Box 1 highlights the biogas production associated with 60% destruction of volatile solids as follows:  509 L CH4 kg1 VS destroyed or 305 L CH4 kg1 VS added;  945 L biogas kg1 VS destroyed or 567 L biogas kg1 VS added; It is shown that the CH4 content is of the order of 54% by volume. Improvements upon these gures necessitate a destruction of volatile solids in excess of 60%. These gures are in line with hnert et al. [12] the preceding literature; including such data as Ma who generated levels of 560 L biogas kg1 VS added at 1.4 kg VS m3 d1.

4.2. The wet continuous two-stage process Two tanks are employed in series with recirculation of leachate to dilute the grass feedstock [65]. Maceration is required to reduce the potential for the grass silage to get caught in moving parts [39]. This type of system is in place in Eugendorf, Austria. The retention time for grass silage is relatively high (60 days) and the OLR is correspondingly low (ca. 1.4 kg VS m3 d1). Gas production of 300 L CH4 kg1 VS added was recorded in operating plants at a volatile solids destruction of 60% [65]. Of concern is the tendency of grass silage to oat on the liquid surface of the digester; this may be overcome through good mixing design such as paddle system that breaks the liquid surface [39]. 4.3. The dry batch process The dry batch has a signicant advantage: simplicity [68]. There are few moving parts: little pretreatment is required as the grass silage does not come into contact with moving parts; the feedstock is not diluted; as a result energy input is low (Table 2). The time between loading and unloading is greater than 30 days, but as half the substrate is left in place as an inoculum, the actual retention times is of the order of 45 days. Gas production starts from zero, increases, peaks and decreases; thus a series of batch digesters are required which are fed sequentially to generate a gas curve with a relatively constant output [56]. A disadvantage of the process is the lack of facilities actually operating on grass silage. We simply do not know if grass silage is suitable for vertical garage door batch digester systems. These systems were designed originally for treatment of OFMSW (in lieu of composting). OFMSW has a lower volatile solids content [1] and thus a higher quantity of solids in the digestate. There is a fear that grass digestate, which has a lower solids content than OFMSW digestate, will ow out the vertical door of the digestor on emptying. It is perceived that the batch process will not effect the volatile solids reduction of a continually mixed wet process and will not therefore generate the same level of gas production. 4.4. The dry continuous process

Box 1. Biogas production per unit of grass from rst principles Stoichiometry: C28.4H44.5O17.7N + 8.425H2O ! 15.335

CH4 + 13.065CO2 668.5 + 151.6 ! 245 + 575 820 ! 820 300 kg solids + 68 kg water ! 110 kg CH4 + 258 kg CO2 (30% dry solids) 276 kg VS + 62.5 kg water ! 101 kg CH4 + 237 kg CO2 (92% volatiles) 165 kg VS dest + 37.5 kg water ! 60.6 kg CH4 + 142 kg CO2 (60% destruction) Density of CH4 = 16/22.412 m3 kg1 = 0.714 kg m3, Density of CO2 = 44/22.412 m3 kg1 = 1.96 kg m3 Thus the proportion of gas by volume ! 84 m3 CH4 + 72 m3 CO2 = 156 m3 biogas Thus biogas contains approximately ! 53.8% CH4 + 46.2% CO2 by volume Energy balance: 1 m3 CH4  37.78 MJ 1 m3 biogas @ 53.8% CH4 = 20.3 MJ m3 1 t VS = 18.77 GJ [77] 84 m3 CH4 = 3.17 GJ; 165 kg VS dest = 3.10 GJ Biogas production per unit: 84 m3 CH4/165 kg VS dest = 509 L CH4/kg VS dest = 305 L CH4 kg1 VS added 156 m3 biogas/165 kg VS dest = 945 L biogas kg1 VS dest = 567 L biogas kg1 VS added.

Again the dry continuous process was designed originally for biowaste and OFMSW. The low solids content of the digestate from grass silage may be problematic, especially for pumping. There is little recorded evidence of grass silage digestion in these systems. Disadvantages will potentially include: requirement for size pretreatment; requirement to pump the digestate up the digester a number of times; signicant energy input (ca. 80 kWeh t1 feedstock is documented for OFMSW) [73]. This is extremely high when compared to the dry batch process that simply involves using a front actor to push substrate into a chamber. 4.5. The leach bed system combined with UASB ki et al. This system as outlined in Fig. 4c was shown by Lehtoma [30] to pull the gas production curve to the left as compared to the dry batch process; in effect this signicantly shortens the required retention time. This system is different to the others in that the nal reactor (the UASB) receives a liquid waste high in COD. The benet of the UASB is that it can be loaded to 20 kg COD m3 d1 while effecting a 90% destruction of COD [82]. Nizami et al. [82] showed that 1 kg of VS destroyed generates 1.4 kg of COD and 1 kg of COD destroyed produces 350 L CH4. Thus if the UASB effects a 90% destruction in volatile solids then each kg of VS destroyed can generate 441 L of CH4. Therefore an increase in volatile solids destruction is required to obtain the same gas production. In section 4.1 it is shown that 509 L CH4 is generated per kg volatile

1566

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568

solids destroyed in a CSTR system; to effect the same methane production 69% destruction of volatiles needs to occur in the leach bed. The leach bed may be optimized through thermal or ki and Bjo rnsson [70] used enzymatic treatments [82]. Lehtoma batch leach bed digesters coupled with an anaerobic lter to obtain methane yields of 390 L CH4 kg1 VS added after 50 days digestion of grass silage. This may be compared with 305 L CH4 kg1 VS added for 60% destruction of volatiles in Section 4.1. 5. Discussion 5.1. Potential improvements in anaerobic digesters So far limited and inconclusive work has been undertaken to improve the design of reactors for enhanced biogas production from grass silage. The ubiquitous wet continuous process (CSTR) has been shown to be an effective process for grass silage digestion at loading rates of approximately 1.4 kg VS m3 d1 [60]. The UASB reactor offers great potential as it can withstand loading as high as 20 kg COD m3 d1; thus by converting the feedstock from volatile solids to soluble COD, loading rates may be increased, retention times may be shortened, and optimistically biogas production may be increased [82]. The leach bed may be optimized for hydrolysis through thermal and enzymatic pretreatment of the grass silage while the UASB may be optimized for COD removal. 5.2. Research required

6. Conclusion Grass digestion offers opportunities to farmers. Instead of managing herds of beef cattle, an industry which offers a low Farm Family Income, the farmer can continue to draw down single farm payments while cutting silage two or three times a year as a feedstock for an anaerobic digester. Biogas/biomethane is now the end product rather than beef; the work load is considerably less; greenhouse gas production is eased signicantly [1]. This is in line with the objective of the National Climate Change Strategy for Ireland to reduce the herd and to effect an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector by 10% [23]. Many digester systems are available for the farmer to choose. Technology providers are selling digesters that were not initially designed for grass silage. The authors believe that much work needs to be undertaken to ascertain optimal digester congurations for production of grass biomethane. The CSTR system appears to be a safe technology if the mixing system is adapted to deal with the tendency for grass silage to oat. However there is a signicant potential to assess the benets of leach beds followed by a highrate digester (such as a UASB). The leach beds will permit pretreatment technologies (thermal and enzymatic) to optimize hydrolysis while the UASB may be optimized for methanogensis. Optimal congurations can only be established by operating the different congurations in parallel, in real time, digesting the same grass silage feedstock. Acknowledgements

Data from the literature on the best digester conguration using grass silage as a feedstock is inconclusive. There is a tendency to utilize data on digester congurations utilizing different feedstocks (OFMSW, green waste) and to apply the outcome to grass silage. The feedstock is an important criterion. High solid content substrates may require different reactor congurations; food waste and the OFMSW though both having similar dry solids contents to grass, are very different to grass silage. Grass silage has a far higher volatile solids content than OFMSW (ca. 92% versus 60%) [1] and thus a more complete dry matter removal takes place in the reactor. The digestate from grass silage thus has a lower solids content than the digestate from OFMSW; it is more liquid in nature. This has led to suggestions that dry batch reactors fed through a vertical door are more suitable for OFMSW than for grass silage as the grass silage digestate may require additional handling due to the vertical containment of a digestate low in solids content. There is another argument that bailed silage (32% dry solids content) is more suited to a dry batch digestion process while clamp or pit silage (22% dry solids content) is more suited to a wet continuous process. These arguments need to be interrogated. Even digester congurations assessed using grass silage is problematic. Of signicant concern is the comparison of data from different countries, different institutes, digesting different species of grass, at different dry solids content, cut at different times of year and times of day [82]. Nizami et al. [82] outlined the signicant difference in digestibility of grass; for example the water soluble carbohydrates are higher in the afternoon than the morning resulting in higher biogas production for grass cut in the afternoon. It is suggested that a number of reactor congurations should be compared in real time treating similar quantities of grass silage under similar loading rates to evaluate the optimal conguration. Indeed grass cut at different times of the year and from different locations can have different D-values, lignin contents and N (nitrogen) values [82]. Thus as shown by Lehotmaki et al. [30] in Section 3.2, incorrect conclusions may be drawn from direct comparisons of reactors treating grass silage in different plants (or labs) from different countries, cut at different times of the year and hence with different compositions.

Anoop Singh, Nicholas Korres, Beatrice Smyth and Thanasit Thamsiriroj for advice, brainstorming sessions, conversations and critiques. Funding sources:  Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFF) Research Stimulus: GreenGrass.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Strive Programme: Compressed biomethane generated from grass used as a transport fuel. References
[1] Murphy JD, Power NM. An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland. Biomass and Bioenergy March 2009;33(3):50412. [2] EEA (European Environment Agency), brieng, 02. How much biomass can Europe use without harming the environment?; 2005, ISSN: 1830-2246. [3] Ramakrishna C, Desai JD. High rate anaerobic digestion of a petrochemical wastewater using biomass support particles. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 1997;13:32934. [4] Moller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring B. Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004;26:48595. [5] Edelmann W, Engeli H, Gradenecker M. Co-digestion of organic solid waste and sludge from sewage treatment. Water Science and Technology 2000;41:21321. [6] Verstraete W, Vandevivere P. New and broader applications of anaerobic digestion. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 1999;29:15173. [7] Petersson A, Thomsen MH, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Thomson AB. Potential bioethanol and biogas production using lignocellulosic biomass from winter rye, oilseed rape and faba bean. Biomass and Bioenergy 2007;31:8129. [8] Macias-Corral M, Samani Z, Hanson A, Smith G, Funk P, Yu H, et al. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of codigestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresource Technology 2008;99(17):8288 93. [9] Gunaseelan VN. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a review. Biomass and Bioenergy 1997;13(1/2):83114. [10] Bohn I, Bjornsson L, Mattiasson B. The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic digestion of crop residues at 1137 8C. Process Biochemistry 2007;42:5764. [11] Prochnow A, Heiermann M, Drenckhan A, Schelle H. Seasonal pattern of biomethanisation of grass from landscape management. Agricultural Engineering International The CIGR E Journal 2005. Manuscript EE 05 011, vol. VII. hnert P, Heiermann M, Linke B. Batch- and semi-continuous production [12] Ma from different grass species. Agricultural Engineering International The CIGRE E Journal 2005. Manuscript EE 05 010, vol. V11.

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568 [13] Braun R, Steffen R. Anaerobic digestion of agroindustrial byproducts and wastes. In: Anaerobic conversions for environmental protection, sanitation and re-use of residues. REUR technological series 51. Rome: FAO; 1997. pp. 2741 (ISSN 1024-2368). [14] Vandevivere P, De Baere L, Verstraete W. Types of anaerobic digester for solid wastes. In: Mata-Alvarez J, editor. Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. London: IWA Press; 2003. p. 11240. [15] De Baere LD, Mattheeuws B. State-of-the-art 2008anaerobic digestion of solid waste. Waste Management World 2008;9(5). [16] Feehan J. Farming in Ireland. History, heritage and environment. University College Dublin, Faculty of Agriculture; 2003. [17] Hopkins A, Wilkins RJ. Temperate grassland: key developments in the last century and future perspectives. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2006;144:50323. [18] Brockman JS, Wilkins RJ. Grassland. In: Soffe RJ, editor. Primrose McConnells the agricultural notebook. 20th ed., Blackwell Publishing; 2003. [19] Rounsevell MDA, Ewert F, Reginster I, Leemans R, Carter TR. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. II. Projecting changes in cropland and grassland. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 2005;107(23):10116. [20] Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input highdiversity grassland biomass. Science 2006;314:1598600. [21] Baier U, Grass S. Biorafnation of grass, anaerobic digestion 2001. In: Proceedings of the 9th world congress for anaerobic conversion for sustainability; 2001. sch C, Raab K, Stelzer V. Surplus grassland-a new source of bio-energy?In: [22] Ro Proceedings of the 14th European biomass conference; 2005. [23] National Climate Change Strategy Ireland October 2000. Available from: http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/doeipub.nsf/0/7d411c497cb4fbdb80256f88003 b0961/$FILE/pccexsuminside%5B1%5D.pdf. [24] Lewandowski I, Scurlock JMO, Lindvall E, Christou M. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the U.S. and Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 2003;25:33561. [25] Kromus S, Wachter B, Koschuh W, Mandle M, Krotscheck C, Narodoslawsky M. The green biorenery Austria-development of an integrated system for green biomass utilization. Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly 2004;18(1):712. sch C, Raab K, Sharka J, Stelzer V. Sustainability of bioenergy production [26] Ro from grassland concept, indicators and results. In: Proceedings of the 15th European biomass conference and exhibition; 2007. [27] Weiland P. Biomass digestion in agriculture: a successful pathway for the energy production and waste treatment in Germany. Engineering Life Sciences 2006;6. No. 3. [28] Abraham ER, Ramachandran S, Ramalingam V. Biogas: can it be an important source of energy? Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2007;14(1):6771. tsch E. Biogas production from [29] Amon T, Kryvoruchko V, Amon B, Zollitsch W, Po maize and clover grass estimated with the methane energy value system. In: EurAgEng: Eng2004 Engineering the Future; 2004. ki A, Huttunen S, Lehtinen TM, Rintala JA. Anaerobic digestion of grass [30] Lehtoma silage in batch leach bed processes for methane production. Bioresource Technology 2008;99:326778. [31] Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL. Optimization of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources, review. Bioresource Technology 2008;99:792840. [32] Igoni AH, Ayotamuno MJ, Eze CL, Ogaji SOT, Probert SD. Design of anaerobic digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid-waste. Applied Energy 2008;85:4308. [33] Qi BC, Aldrich C, Lorenzen L, Wolfaardt GW. Acidogenic fermentation of lignocellulosic substrate with activated sludge. Chemical Engineering Communications 2005;192:122142. [34] Hobson PN, Wheatley AD. Anaerobic digestion: modern theory and practice. Essex, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1993. [35] Yu HW, Samani Z, Hanson A, Smith G. Energy recovery from grass using twophase anaerobic digestion. Waste Management 2002;22:15. [36] Chowdhury RBS, Fulford DJ. Batch and semi continuous anaerobic digestion system. Renewable Energy International Journal 1992;24/5:391400. [37] Callander IJ, Barford JP. Recent advances in anaerobic digestion technology. Process Biochemistry August 1983;2430. [38] Pol LH, Lettinga G. New technologies for anaerobic wastewater treatment. Water Science Technology 1986;18(12):4153. [39] Dieterich, B. Energy crops for anaerobic digestion (AD) in Westray. Report written for Heat and Power Ltd., Westray, Orkney, UK. Available from: colin@crisenergy.co.uk. [40] Liu GT, Peng XY, Long TR. Advance in high-solid anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Journal of Central South University of Technology 2006;13:1517. [41] Marchaim U. Biogas processes for sustainable development. Rome: FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin; 1992. [42] Barnett A, Pyle L, Subramanian SK. Biogas technology in the third world: a multi-disciplinary review. Ottawa: IDRC Publications; 1978. [43] Parawira W, Read JS, Mattiasson B, Bjornsson L. Energy production from agricultural residues: high methane yields in pilot-scale two-stage anaerobic digestion. Biomass and Bioenergy 2008;32:4450. [44] Liu G, Zhang R, Li X, Dong R. Research progress in anaerobic digestion of high moisture organic solid waste. Agricultural Engineering International The CIGR E Journal 2007. Invited overview no. 13, vol. IX.

1567

[45] Deublein D, Steinhauser A. Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction. WileyVCH; 2008. [46] Rajeshwari KV, Balakrishnan M, Kansale A, Lata K, Kishore VVN. State-of-theart of anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2000;4:13556. [47] Weiland P, Melcher F, Rieger Ch, Ehrmann Th, Helrich D, Kissel R. BiogasMessprogrammBundesweite Bewertung von Biogasanlagen aus technologischer Sicht. Report, published by FAL. Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Landwirtschaft; 2004. [48] Demired B, Yenigun O. Two-phase anaerobic digestion process: a review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 2002;77:74355. [49] Sachs JV, Meyer U, Rys P, Feikenhauer H. New approach to control the methanogenic reactor of two-phase anaerobic digestion system. Water Research 2003;37:97382. rung von Energiegras zur Biogasgewinnung. Bundesamt [50] Baserga U, Egger K. Verga r Energiewirtschaft, Forschungsprogramm Biomasse. Ta nikon; 1997, 41 p.. fu rung von Extensogras-Silage in einer Feststoff-Pilotan[51] Baserga U. 1998. Verga rungs-Biogasanlage (Anaerobic lage und einer landwirtschaftlichen Co-Verga digestion of silage from extensive grassland in a solid state pilot plant and a r Agrarfarm-scale cofermentation biogas plant). Eidg. Forschungsanstalt fu nikon. wirtschaft und Landtechnik, Forschungsprogramm Biomasse, Ta hnert P, Heiermann M, Po chl M, Schelle H, Linke B. Alternative Use for [52] Ma Grassland Cuts - Forage Grasses as Biogas Co-substrates (Verwertungsalter r Gru nlandbesta nde Futtergra ser als Kosubstrat fu r die Biomethanativen fu nisierung). Landtechnik 2002;57(5):2601. hnert P. Futtergra ser als Kosubstrat fu r die Biomethanisierung (Forage [53] Ma grasses as co-substrate for biomethanisation). M.S. Thesis, Humboldt-University of Berlin, 2002. [54] Amon Th, Kryvoruchko V, Amon B, Moitzi G, Lyson D, Hackl E, et al. Optimierung der Biogaserzeugung aus den Energiepanzen Mais und Kleegras (Biogas production from the energy crops maize and clover grass). Endbericht 2003. [55] Lemmer A, Oechsner H. Use of grass or eld crops for biogas production. In Proc. AgEng 2002, Paper No. 02-SE-007 (CD-Version). Budapest. [56] Parawira W. Anaerobic treatment of agricultural residues and wastewater, Application of high-rate reactors. PhD thesis. Department of Biotechnology, Lund University, Sweden; 2004. [57] Demirbas A, Ozturk T. Anaerobic digestion of agricultural solid residues. International Journal of Green Energy 2005;4:48394. [58] Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Cheikh RB, Hamdi M. Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Process Biochemistry 2005;40:98995. [59] Lissens G, Vandevivere P, De Baere L, Biey EM, Verstrae W. Solid waste digesters: process performance and practice for municipal solid waste digestion. Water Science Technology 2001;44:91102. [60] Weiland P. Production and energetic use of biogas from energy crops and wastes in Germany. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 2003;109. [61] Lettinga G. Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1995;67:328. [62] Weiland P, Rozzi A. The start up, operation and monitoring of high rate anaerobic treatment systems: discussers report. Water Science Technology 1991;24:25777. [63] Bal AS, Dhagat NN. Upow anaerobic sludge blanketa review. Indian Journal of Environmental Health 2001;43(2):182. [64] Paula JDR, Foresti E. Kinetic studies on a UASB reactor subjected to increasing COD concentration. Water Science Technology 1992;25(7):10311. [65] Energiewerkstatt. Projekt: Graskraftwerk Reitbach Biogas aus Wiesengras ro und Verein zur Fo rderung erneuerbarer Energie ohne Ende, Technisches Bu Energie, Energiewerkstatt; 7 November 2007. [66] Lai TE, Nopharatana A, Pullammanappallil PC, Clarke WP. Cellulolytic activity in leachate during leach-bed anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology 2001;80:20510. [67] Chynoweth DP, Owens J, OKeefe D, Earle JFK, Bodch G, Legrand R. Sequential batch anaerobic composting of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Water Science Technology 1992;25(7):3279. [68] BEKON. New BEKON biogas technology batch process dry fermentation (secured by various patents). BEKON energy technologies GmbH and Co. KG; 2008, Available from: http://www.hotrot.co.uk/solutions/pdfs/BEKON-Pro cessdescription%20mit%20Logo%2031.03.2008.pdf. [69] Liu G, Zhang R, Hamed M, El-Mashad, Withrow W, Dong R. Biogasication from kitchen and grass wastes using batch and two-phased digestion. Journal of China Agricultural University 2006;11(6):1115. ki A, Bjo rnsson L. Two-stage anaerobic digestion of energy crops: [70] Lehtoma Methane production, nitrogen mineralization and heavy metal mobilisation. Environmental Technology 2006;27:20918. ki A, Bjo rnsson L, Blackall LL. Hydrolysis and microbial [71] Cirne DG, Lehtoma community analyses in two-stage anaerobic digestion of energy crops. Applied Microbiology 2007;103:51627. [72] Six W, De Baere L. Dry anaerobic conversion of municipal solid waste by means of the DRANCO process. Water Science Technology 1992;25(7):295300. [73] Murphy JD, Power N. A technical, economic, and environmental analysis of energy production from newspaper in Ireland. Waste Management 2007;27:17792. [74] Thurm F, Schmid W. Renewable energy by fermentation of organic waste with the Kompogas process. In: Mata-Alvarez J, Tilche A, Cecchi F, editors. Proceedings of the II Int. Symp. Anaerobic Dig. Solid Waste, held in Barcelona, vol. 2. 1999. p. 3425. Int. Assoc. Wat. Qual..

1568

A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 15581568 [79] Linke B, Heiermann M, Grundmann P, Hertwig F, Grundlagen. Verfahren und Potenzial der Biogasgewinnung im Land Brandenburg. Biogas in der Landwirtschaft, 2nd ed., Ministry of Agriculture, Environmental Protection and Regional Planning; 2003. pp. 1023, Potsdam. hler H, Modellanlagen. Handreichung Biogasgewinnung und [80] Niebaum A, Do nutzung. Leipzig: Agency of Renewable Resources (FNR); 2004. pp. 117136. kel K. Grundlagen der Biogasproduktion. Bauen fu r die Landwirtschaft [81] Ja 2000;3(37):37. [82] Nizami AS, Korres NE, Murphy JD. A review of the integrated process for the production of grass biomethane. Environmental Science and Technology October 12 2009. doi: 10.1021/es901533j.

[75] De Laclos FH, Desbois S, Saint-Joly C. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid organic waste: Valorga full-scale plant in Tilburg, The Netherlands. In: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Anaerobic Dig., vol. 2; 1997.p. 2328. Int. Assoc. Wat. Qual.. [76] De Baere L. Dry continuous anaerobic digestion of energy crops; 2007, Publications (www.ows.se). ttner M. Biogas and fertilizer production from solid waste and biomass through [77] Ko dry fermentation in batch method. In: Wilderer P, Moletta R, editors. Anaerobic digestion of solid wastes III. London: IWA Publishing; 2002 . ge. Gasausbeuten in landwirtschaftlichen Biogasanlagen. [78] KTBL, Gasertra Darmstadt: Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture, KTBL; 2005. pp. 1016.