Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Methane production in low-cost, unheated, plug-ow digesters treating

swine manure and used cooking grease
Stephanie Lansing a,*, Jay F. Martin b, Ral Botero Botero c, Tatiana Nogueira da Silva c, Ederson Dias da Silva c
a

Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1445 Animal Sci./Ag. Eng. Bldg., College Park, MD 20742-2315, United States
Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, 590 Woody Hayes Drive, Columbus, OH 43210-1057, United States
c
EARTH University, Apartado Postal 4442-1000, San Jose, Costa Rica
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 November 2008
Received in revised form 19 January 2010
Accepted 19 January 2010
Available online 11 February 2010
Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Biogas
Renewable energy
Co-digestion
Waste

a b s t r a c t
A co-digestion investigation was conducted using small-scale digesters in Costa Rica to optimize their
ability to treat animal wastewater and produce renewable energy. Increases in methane production were
quantied when swine manure was co-digested with used cooking grease in plug-ow digesters that
operated at ambient temperate without mixing. The co-digestion experiments were conducted on 12
eld-scale digesters (250 L each) using three replications of four treatment groups: the control (T0),
which contained only swine manure and no waste oil, and T2.5, T5, and T10, which contained 2.5%,
5%, and 10% used cooking grease (by volume) combined with swine manure.
The T2.5 treatment had the greatest methane (CH4) production (45 L/day), a 124% increase from the
control, with a total biogas production of 67.3 L/day and 66.9% CH4 in the produced biogas. Increasing
the grease concentration beyond T2.5 produced biogas with a lower percentage of CH4, and thus, did
not result in any additional benets. A batch study showed that methane production could be sustained
for three months in digesters that co-digested swine manure and used cooking grease without daily
inputs. The investigation proved that adding small amounts of grease to the inuent is a simple way
to double energy production without affecting other digester benets.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Creating renewable energy from waste products through anaerobic digestion results in numerous advantages, including capturing
and utilizing methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more powerful
than carbon dioxide, decreasing organic loading on receiving
waters, and creation of a high-nutrient, low-solid fertilizer (Archer
and Kirsop, 1990). Previous digestion research has focused on
industrialized systems, but with an average cost of over $1.0 million, these systems are inaccessible to medium and small-scale
farmers (USEPA, 2006, 2009a). Digesters are concentrated in the
developing world, with over forty million low-cost digesters in India and China alone, but there has been a paucity of research on
optimizing these low-cost systems for methane production.
1.1. Low-cost digestion systems
The low-cost digesters used in this study are Taiwanese-model,
which are plug-ow systems constructed with tubular polyethye-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 1197; fax: +1 301 314 9023.
E-mail address: slansing@umd.edu (S. Lansing).
0960-8524/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.100

lene or geomembrane and are not heated, mixed, or contain any

mechanical control mechanisms (Botero and Preston, 1987; Char
et al., 1999). The systems operate in the lower portion of the mesophilic range (2030 C) and have a retention time of 2050 days
(Botero and Preston, 1987; Lansing et al., 2008). Studies have
shown that low-cost Taiwanese-model digesters produce highquality biogas, reduce organic loadings, and create a usable fertilizer (Thy et al., 2003; Lansing et al., 2008). The produced biogas
from these digesters have previously been used directly as a heat
source, eliminating the need to buy propane or rewood for cooking (Char et al., 1999; Lansing et al., 2008), for electric generation
(Lansing et al., in press), and could also be used in boilers, heat
transfer pipes, or in refrigeration systems.
During digestion, pathogens are greatly reduced (Archer and
Kirsop, 1990), organic matter is reduced by 5090%, and a more
effective fertilizer is created as microorganisms transform the organic pollutants into dissolved nutrients (Thy et al., 2003; Lansing
et al., 2008). The entire digestion system can be installed for as little as $300 and has an estimated life of 10 years (Botero and Preston, 1987). The low-cost of these digesters and the value-added
products they produce result in an increase in household income
and a decrease in water pollution and deforestation (Char et al.,
1999).

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

1.2. Co-digestion
Digesting materials with a high-fat content is expected to increase methane yields due to the more negative oxidation state
of the carbon in fats compared to proteins, carbohydrates, and urea
(Jerger and Tsao, 1987). Conversely, lipids are known to be difcult
to degrade, which can result in a reduction in pH in the digestion
environment, especially if the slower growing methanogens cannot utilize the organic acids at the production rate of acetogenic
bacteria (Cirne et al., 2007). Previous studies have shown that
digesting materials with high lipid content increases methane
yield (Cirne et al., 2007), digester efciency (Jeyaseelan and Matsuo, 1995), and is more efcient than digesting manure alone
(Ghaly, 1996). Despite this apparent advantage, previous studies
that digested lipid-rich materials without co-digestion found that
chemical inputs were necessary to prevent the system from
becoming overly acidic (Ugoji, 1997).
Co-digestion is a waste treatment method where different types
of wastes are treated together (Angelidaki and Ahring, 1997). Codigestion of wastewater with carbon-rich food wastes, such as
grease, has been used in industry due to its positive effect on biogas production (Zitomer and Adhikari, 2005), but the mixture is
usually a function of availability and not based on knowledge of
an optimal mixture (Gavala et al., 1996; Kbler et al., 2000). In general, anaerobic digestion of wastewater and food wastes has not
been widely practiced in the United States until recently (USEPA,
2009b) due to lack of experience and information regarding implementation, correct operating conditions, and cost (Zitomer and
Adhikari, 2005).
It has been established that manure is the best co-digestion
material for high-fat content wastes due to the high alkalinity of
manure, which increases digester resistance to acidication
(Angelidaki and Ahring, 1997; Murto et al., 2004; Gelegenis et al.,
2007). Additionally, manure has high ammonium levels, which
are important in bacterial growth. Mladenovska et al. (2003) found
that co-digesting manure with materials containing 2% fat improved digestion efciency without an increase in acidity. Codigesting olive oil mill wastewaters and sh oil (5%) with manure
doubled the production of biogas due to the higher concentration
of lipids and the higher biodegradability of the oil/grease containing wastewaters compared to manure (Angelidaki and Ahring,
1997). Additionally, Gelegenis et al. (2007) concluded that codigestion of olive mill wastewaters with diluted poultry manure
increased methane production by 150% without chemical addition.
All of these previous co-digestion studies were conducted on
heated, mixed lab-scale systems of less than 5 L (Jeyaseelan and
Matsuo, 1995; Mladenovska et al., 2003; Spajic et al., 2009) or
small, un-replicated pilot-scale systems that are, thus far, inappropriate for technology transfers to small-scale farmers (Angelidaki
and Ahring, 1997; Gelegenis et al., 2007). Additionally, there have
been co-digestion studies that have showed that the lab-scale
dynamics can be quite different in eld-scale applications (Davidsson et al., 2008). All of these systems are indicative of what Santana
and Pound (1980) and Char et al. (1999) found in their literature
reviews: digestion research has focused on highly specialized systems that are expensive and energy intensive to build and maintain. These systems are largely inaccessible to small-scale farmers.

4363

whey, and restaurant waste, which will extend the life of septic
tanks, the only waste system available in most rural areas. Due
to the low volume of wastewater being treated in small-scale systems, knowing correct proportions is extremely important.
This study investigated co-digesting swine manure and used
cooking grease in 12 eld-scale digesters with three replications
of each mixture in a nine-month study. Additionally, a methane
production batch study was conducted after the nine-month study
to determine if manure loading could be interrupted in co-digestion systems without an additional stabilization period. By utilizing simple systems that treat ample waste sources, this study
seeks to determine the optimal ratio of grease and manure for
increasing methane production in existing systems and adding
economic incentives for further dissemination of low-cost digestion systems. Additionally, the results of this study will help determine if co-digestion is feasible in non-mixing conditions due to the
immiscible nature of wastewater and oil.
2. Methods
2.1. Site description
The outdoor digester laboratory was built at the dairy and
swine farm at the Escuela de Agricultura de la Regin Tropical
Hmeda (EARTH University) in Costa Rica. EARTH University is located in the humid tropics (10110 N, 83400 E) at an elevation of
50 m and average temperatures ranging from 24 C in January to
26 C in May. The annual precipitation is 34 m, distributed
throughout the calendar year. The laboratory is housed in an
open-air, roofed building, with the digesters operating at ambient
temperatures.
Twelve eld-scale Taiwanese-model digesters were constructed
in the digester laboratory using 250 L tubular polyethylene bags.
Each tubular bag had a diameter of 0.32 m, and length of 3.1 m,
and the polyethylene material had a thickness of 0.2 mm (Fig. 1).
The digesters had a liquid capacity of 200 L, with up to 50 L available for in-vessel biogas storage. The majority of the produced biogas owed by pressure to a 250 L biogas storage bag located above
each digester.
In the co-digestion experiment, there were three replications of
four treatment groups: the control (T0), which contained only
swine manure and no waste grease, and T2.5, T5, and T10, which
contained 2.5%, 5%, and 10% used cooking grease (by volume) combined with swine manure. The digesters were fed daily with 5 L of
the prescribed mixture. The grease and manure treatments were

1.3. Study objectives

In order to increase the use of low-cost digestion systems, the
systems must be optimized for methane production to increase energy availability and protability. Low-cost digesters are optimal
for co-digestion due to the dispersed nature of small-scale waste
production (Gavala et al., 1996). In addition, a digester will create
a safe and protable method for disposal of household grease,

Fig. 1. Pictured is the outdoor digester laboratory at the Escuela de Agricultura de la

Regin Tropical Hmeda (EARTH) University in Costa Rica. The laboratory is an
open-air building with a zinc roof, which houses 12 eld-scale Taiwanese-model
digesters.

4364

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

manually measured, mixed in a bucket, and added to the digesters

each morning. Each digester had a 40-day retention time. Before
beginning the experiment, each digester was fed with only manure
to ensure that all digesters had an active microbial community. The
methane production stabilized after 50 days and the nine-month
experiment (May 2007February 2008) commenced.
The swine manure was collected daily from the EARTH University 50-pig farm. The 50-kg pigs were fed a diet of organic waste
from the campus cafeteria, sugar cane, whey, oating aquatic vegetation, and protein feed. The manure was diluted 4:1 with wash
water in accordance with the wash water use at the swine farm.
The used cooking grease was collected monthly from the EARTH
University cafeteria and stored in a 250 L drum.
The water quality characteristics of the manure and used cooking grease are listed in Table 1. The increase in volatile solids (VS)
in the T2.5, T5, and T10 treatments from the control (T0) were
113%, 206%, and 453%, respectively, due to the high VS of the
grease compared to that of the manure.

analyzed for pH, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and volatile solids (VS) using standard methods (APHA, 1998).

2.2. Biogas analysis

3.1.1. Biogas quantity and quality (percentage of CH4 in the produced

biogas)
T10 had the highest biogas production rate (68.7 L/day), followed by T2.5 (67.3 L/day), and T5 (57.8 L/day), which were all signicantly greater than the control, T0 (28.8 L/day) (p < 0.001;
F = 296) (Table 2).
The percentage of CH4 in the produced biogas in the control
(69.9%) was signicantly greater than all treatment groups with
grease addition (p < 0.001; F = 171) (Table 2). T2.5 averaged 66.9%
CH4 in the produced biogas, which was signicantly greater than
T5 (65.9%) and T10 (63.2%).
The H2S content of the produced biogas from T0 (356 ppm) was
signicantly greater than all treatments (p < 0.001, F = 26.7) (Table 2). T2.5 (272 ppm) was signicantly greater than T5
(189 ppm) and T10 (178 ppm).

Biogas production was measured three times a week using 12

American Meter Company gas ow meters (model AC-250) with
IMAC Systems pulse digital counters and a vacuum pump. Biogas
quality was analyzed weekly using an IR-30M methane (CH4) meter and a Z-900 hydrogen sulde meter (H2S) (Environmental Sensors). Methane production data was calculated by multiplying the
biogas production rate by the percentage of CH4 in the produced
biogas.
Biogas production and CH4 data from the beginning of the ninemonth study were not used in the analysis due to metering problems associated with the low-pressure of the produced biogas. The
problem was rectied, and reliable data were collected for percentage of CH4 in the produced biogas for the nal seven months (July
2007February 2008) and total biogas production for the nal ve
months (September 2007February 2008) of the experiment.
2.3. Methane production batch study
A modication of the biochemical methane potential (BMP) was
conducted at the end of the nine-month experiment. In a BMP test,
a batch sample is placed in an anaerobic environment and CH4 production is monitored over a period of 56 days or more to estimate
biomass conversion (Owens and Chynoweth, 1993). BMP test are
normally conducted in a laboratory setting using replicated serum
bottles.
This methane production batch study was conducted in situ
using the existing digesters. The last manure/grease mixtures were
added on January 30, 2008 (day 0). After this addition, biogas production rates and biogas quality were measured for 75 days without further addition of waste materials. The test was conducted
using the existing digesters with their existing concentration of
manure and grease that accumulated within the digesters over
the nine-month experiment. Only biogas production and CH4 were
monitored, as the digesters could not be opened to obtain organic
matter samples prior to the experimental period. The digesters
were opened after the 75-day experiment, and the contents were

2.4. Statistical analysis

Biogas and water data were analyzed using analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and TukeyKramer multiple comparisons to determine
which variables were signicantly different. p-Values <0.05 were
considered signicant. Biogas production, COD, and VS data were
log-transformed in order to meet the ANOVA assumptions. After
transformation, the skewness, kurtosis, and normality improved.
All values in the results section and tables are averages with standard errors (SE) and n-values.

3. Results
3.1. Nine-month co-digestion study with daily feeding

3.1.2. Biogas differences over time

The biogas production rates in January were signicantly greater than all other months in T2.5, T5, and T10 (p < 0.001, F = 9.6;
p < 0.001, F = 18.6; and p < 0.001, F = 31.0, respectively) (Fig. 2, Table 3). There were no signicant differences in biogas production
over time in T0 (p = 0.049, F = 2.48).
There were no signicant differences in the percentage of CH4
over time in T0, T2.5, and T5 (p = 0.72, F = 0.62; p = 0.18, F = 1.6;
and p = 0.07, F = 2.1, respectively). In T10, December (64.4%) and
July (64.4%) had a signicantly higher percentage of CH4 than August (62.0%) (p = 0.001, F = 4.3).
The TukeyKramer analysis revealed no signicant differences
in H2S concentration in the produced biogas over time for T0,
T2.5, and T10 (p = 0.01, F = 3.37; p = 0.22, F = 1.5; and p = 0.39,
F = 1.1, respectively). In T5, November (289 ppm) had a signicantly greater H2S concentration than October (177 ppm)
(p = 0.02, F = 2.83).
The temperature of the digester efuent was signicantly greater in the rst three months (25.6 C) of the experiment (MayJuly)
than the middle three months (25.2 C) (AugustOctober), which
was signicantly greater than the nal three months (23.5 C) of
the experiment (NovemberJanuary) (p < 0.001; F = 277) (Fig. 2).

Table 1
Waste characteristics for the swine manure and used cooking grease used in the experimental low-cost digesters. All values are averages with standard errors (n). The
characteristics include temperature, total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and volatile solids (VS).

Swine manure
Used cooking grease

Temperature (C)

TDS (g/L)

pH

COD (g/L)

VS (g/L)

25.2 0.3 (26)

26.8 0.5 (19)

2.3 0.09 (26)

0.85 0.31 (19)

7.5 0.1 (26)

4.6 0.2 (18)

20.0 1.1 (25)

811 195 (19)

13.7 1.4 (23)

714 74.7 (16)

4365

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

Table 2
Biogas quantity (biogas production), percentage of methane (CH4), hydrogen sulde (H2S) concentration, total CH4 production, and specic CH4 yield are given for the control (T0)
and each treatment (T2.5, T5, and T10) from a nine-month experiment on co-digesting swine manure and used cooking grease. All values are averages with standard errors (n).
Letters represent signicant differences within each column from the TukeyKramer analysis of difference.
Treatment
T0
T2.5
T5
T10

Biogas production (L/day)

28.8 0.7
67.3 1.5
57.8 1.4
69.7 1.8

CH4 (%)
69.9 0.2
66.9 0.2
65.9 0.2
63.2 0.1

(93)
(117)B
(117)C
(114)BD

H2S (ppm)
A

(57)
(58)B
(65)C
(65)D

356 28 (36)
272 15 (36)B
189 12 (47)C
178 8.8 (55)C

CH4 production (L/day)

Specic CH4 yield (m3/kg VS/day)

20.1
45.0
38.1
44.1

0.29
0.31
0.18
0.12

Fig. 2. Methane production rates (L/day) of the four treatment groups in the co-digestion study from September to January. The treatment groups are T0 (0% ), T2.5 (2.5% j),
T5 (5% N), and T10 (10% d).

Table 3
Biogas production by month (September through January) from the swine manure and used cooking grease co-digestion experiment are given. All values are averages with
standard errors (n). Letters represent signicant differences within each column from the TukeyKramer analysis of difference.
Treatment

Biogas production (L/day)

September

T0
T2.5
T5
T10

32.1 1.7
61.1 1.4
54.7 1.7
63.1 1.6

October

(14)A
(21)AB
(21)A
(20)A

26.3 1.2
57.6 1.8
49.9 1.9
54.5 1.7

November
(19)A
(25)B
(25)A
(23)B

28.4 1.0
64.8 2.8
50.0 1.7
63.9 2.1

The average ambient temperature was 25.8 C in MayJuly, 26.0 C

in AugustOctober, and 24.7 C in NovemberJanuary.
3.2. Methane production batch study
3.2.1. Biogas quantity and quality
Results from the 75-day batch study showed that T10 had the
highest biogas production rate (66.2 L/day), followed by T5
(52.7 L/day), T2.5 (46.5 L/day), and T0 (12.7 L/day) (p < 0.001;
F = 53.4) (Table 4). The percentage of CH4 in the produced biogas
in T2.5 (69.8%) was signicantly greater than T5 and T10
(p = 0.003; F = 5.3), and the H2S concentration of T0 (289 ppm)
was signicantly greater than all grease treatments (p < 0.001,
F = 7.7) (Table 4).
3.2.2. Biogas differences over time
The 75-day study was divided into three parts to identify differences over time (Fig. 3, Table 5). In T0, biogas production in the rst
25 days were signicantly greater than days 2550, which were

December

(21)A
(24)AB
(24)A
(24)A

26.8 1.3
70.3 3.7
55.9 2.4
68.7 2.3

January
(19)A
(18)AC
(18)A
(18)A

31.3 2.3
80.4 3.9
74.4 3.2
91.7 3.9

(20)A
(29)C
(29)B
(29)C

signicantly greater than days 5075 (p < 0.001, F = 56.2). In T2.5

and T10, the rst 25 days were signicantly greater than days
2575 (p < 0.001, F = 15.6; and p < 0.001, F = 13.9, respectively).
There were no signicant differences in biogas production in T5
(p = 0.45, F = 0.84). The average ambient temperature was 24.5 C
in days 025, 25.0 C in days 2550, and 25.5 C in days 5075.
There were no signicant differences in the percentage of CH4 in
the produced biogas over time for T0 and T5 (p = 0.84, F = 0.18; and
p = 0.22, F = 1.7, respectively). There were differences over time in
CH4 for T2.5 and T10, with days 2550 (70.9% and 70.0%, respectively) having signicantly greater percentage of CH4 in the produced biogas than days 025 (69.2% and 65.6%, respectively)
(p = 0.04, F = 3.9; and p = 0.001, F = 10.1, respectively).
There were no signicant differences in H2S concentration in
the produced biogas over time for T0 and T5 (p = 0.13, F = 3.4;
and p = 0.13, F = 2.4, respectively). There were differences in the
H2S concentration in T2.5 and T10, with the rst 25 days (175
and 148 ppm, respectively) having a signicantly greater H2S concentration than days 2550 (38.6 and 48.1 ppm, respectively) and

Table 4
Biogas quantity (biogas production), percentage of methane (CH4), hydrogen sulde (H2S) concentration, and total CH4 production are given for the control (T0) and each
treatment group (T2.5, T5, and T10) from a 75-day CH4 production batch experiment using swine manure and used cooking grease. All values are averages with standard errors
(n). Letters represent signicant differences within each column from the TukeyKramer analysis of difference.
Treatment

Biogas production (L/day)

T0
T2.5
T5
T10

12.7 3.2
46.5 1.6
52.7 1.7
66.2 1.8

(11)A
(36)B
(21)BC
(23)C

CH4 (%)
69.2 1.0
69.8 0.3
67.6 0.6
67.2 0.6

(8)AB
(22)B
(22)A
(20)A

CH4 production (L/day)

H2S (ppm)

8.8
32.5
35.6
44.5

289 66 (8)A
112 22 (20)B
98 21 (17)B
106 14 (20)B

4366

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

Fig. 3. Cumulative methane production during the 75-day methane production batch study illustrating the total amount of methane produced without daily additions of
manure and grease treatments. The treatment groups are T0 (0% ), T2.5 (2.5% j), T5 (5% N), and T10 (10% d).

Table 5
Methane (CH4) production values are given by days (025, 2550, and 5075) for a CH4 production co-digestion batch experiment of used cooking grease and swine manure. The
percentage of the total methane production (MP) in the 75-day experiment for each timeframe is also given. All values are averages with standard errors (n). Letters represent
signicant differences within each treatment group row from the TukeyKramer analysis of difference.
Treatment

CH4 (L/day)
Days: 025

T0
T2.5
T5
T10

15.3 2.5
40.7 2.9
37.3 2.9
51.2 3.2

(5)A
(18)A
(15)A
(14)A

Percentage of total MP

CH4 (L/day)
Days: 2550

Percentage of total MP

CH4 (L/day)
Days: 5075

Percentage of total MP

69.4
45.6
37.5
43.2

4.5 0.2 (3)B

24.1 1.6 (12)B
30.8 0.6 (4)A
33.2 2.6 (6)B

20.3
27.0
31.0
28.0

2.3 0.3 (3)C

24.2 2.6 (6)B
31.1 1.4 (2)A
33.3 2.5 (3)B

10.3
27.2
31.3
28.1

days 5075 (22.8 and 32.4 ppm, respectively) (p = 0.002, F = 9.0;

and p < 0.001, F = 17.6).
3.3. Wastewater characterization in the digestion environment
After the 75-day study was completed, samples were collected
from within the digesters and analyzed for pH and organic loading
(Table 6). The pH was signicantly different in the treatments,
decreasing from T0 (7.2), to T2.5 (7.0), T5 (6.8), and T10 (5.2)
(p > 0.005, F = 1340). Additionally, there were signicant higher
concentrations of COD and VS concentration inside the digestion
environment in T10 than all other treatments (Table 6)
(p = 0.014, F = 6.73; and p = 0.005, F = 9.68, respectively).
Accumulation of VS and COD within the digestion environment
after the nine-month study and the 75-day BMP modied study
was evaluated. The digester VS concentration for T0, T2.5, T5,
and T10 was 20.1, 26.6, 80.7, and 563 g/L, respectively, and the
COD was 35.7, 46.1, 29.2, and 187 g/L, respectively. In plug-ow
systems, solids have a longer retention time than liquid, and therefore, accumulation of VS and COD is expected. The concentration of
VS and COD was 46.7% and 78.5% greater, respectively, in T0 after
the study was completed than the concentration added in the daily
inuent (Table 6). T2.5 had 14.8% less VS concentration and T5 had
27.9% less COD in the digester environment compared to the inuent concentration. T10 had increases of 88.8% and 572% in the COD

and VS, respectively, in the digestion environment when compared

to the daily inuent concentrations.
The average inuent VS concentration in T0, T2.5, T5, and T10
were 13.7, 29.2, 41.9, and 75.8 g/L, respectively, and the average
efuent concentrations was 1.30, 1.33, 1.28, and 1.54 g/L, respectively, resulting in percent reductions in VS during digestion of
90.5%, 95.4%, 97.0%, and 98.0%, respectively. The average inuent
COD concentration in T0, T2.5, T5, and T10 were 20.0, 37.8, 44.9,
and 56.5 g/L, and the average efuent concentrations were 1.82,
1.96, 1.96, and 2.62 g/L, resulting in percent reductions in COD during digestion of 90.9%, 94.8%, 95.6%, and 95.4%, respectively.
4. Discussion
Co-digesting used cooking grease with swine manure increased
total CH4 production by 124%, with smaller amounts of grease
(T2.5) having higher methane production than larger grease additions (Table 2). These results imply that co-digestion with manure
and used cooking grease is benecial in low-cost digestion systems
that are not heated and do not have mixing components. Methane
production more than doubled with a small volume of used cooking grease (T2.5), which corresponds to a similarly large increase in
inuent VS (113%). No additional benets were seen by increasing
the amount of grease added above 2.5% due to the lower percentage of CH4 in the produced biogas (Table 2).

Table 6
Waste characteristics from inside the digesters of the control (T0) and each treatment (T2.5, T5, and T10). The samples were collected after the nine-month experimental study
and a 75-day batch study. The characteristics given are pH, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and volatile solids (VS). Percent differences between the concentrations inside the
digester bag and the concentrations in the daily inuent input to each treatment group are stated. All values are averages with standard errors (n). Letters represent signicant
differences within each column from the TukeyKramer analysis of difference.
pH
T0
T2.5
T5
T10

7.2 0.03
7.0 0.03
6.8 0.03
5.2 0.01

(3)A
(3)B
(3)C
(3)C

% Diff.

COD (g/L)

% Diff.

4.0 ;
5.8 ;
7.5 ;
27.9 ;

35.7 3.1 (3)A

46.1 16.2 (3)A
42.9 6.8 (3)A
187 79.4 (3)B

78.5
15.9
27.9
88.8

"
"
;
"

VS (g/L)

% Diff.

20.1 2.3 (3)A

26.6 9.6 (3)A
80.7 65.6 (3)A
563 68.1 (3)B

46.7 "
14.8 ;
65.6 "
572 "

4367

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

The batch study showed that grease treatments sustained signicantly higher CH4 production over time than the control likely
due to higher amount of residual VS in the digestion environment
(Fig. 3, Tables 4 and 5). In T10, grease accumulated within the digester (Table 6). The study results imply that manure introduction
could be interrupted for two to three months without re-stabilization when co-digesting grease and manure, but a stabilization period is necessary for manure-only digesters. It was also determined
that larger grease additions do result in signicant VS accumulation in the digestion environment.
4.1. Specic methane yield
Methane production in T2.5 (45.0 L/day) was 124% greater than
the control, T0 (20.1 L/day). There was a signicantly higher organic loading in the grease treatments than the control. By looking at
the specic CH4 yield, the VS additions can be related to CH4 production. T2.5 had a specic CH4 yield (0.31 m3 CH4/kg VS/day) that
was 5% higher than T0 (Table 2). The specic CH4 yields in T5 and
T10 were lower than T0 due to their higher organic loadings not
producing corresponding increases in methane production.
This data suggests that co-digestion with substances that have a
greater VS content than manure is benecial in a small amount.
When using low-cost, plug-ow mesophilic digesters, adding a
small amount of grease addition (2.5% by volume or 113% more
VS) to swine manure is better than no grease additions. Industrial
standards of co-digesting manure with 520% food or grease
wastes does not apply in low-cost systems due to decreased specic CH4 yields and accumulation of the greases within the digestion environment over time.
The specic CH4 yields in this study were comparable to other
co-digestion studies (Table 7). The other published studies were
conducted indoors on bench-scale systems having volumes less
than 35 L, with temperature ranging from 35 to 37 C. This current
study is the only co-digestion study to have operated replicated
digesters with a large volume (250 L) in an outdoor setting in a
lower temperature range (2226 C). The lack of other co-digestion
studies done in replicated eld digesters is likely due to the cost
associated with the high-tech equipment used in these bench-scale
studies, which include heating and mixing components.

In a study by Murto et al. (2004), the highest specic CH4 yields

were produced by pig manure co-digested with wastes from
slaughterhouses, grease traps, restaurants, and vegetable and fruit
processing. This study also had the highest retention time of the
other published studies (36 days) (Table 7). The specic CH4 yield
obtained from co-digesting olive mill wastewater and poultry
manure (0.32 m3 CH4/kg VS/day) was similar to the CH4 yield of
T2.5 (0.31 m3 CH4/kg VS/day) (Gelegenis et al., 2007). Co-digesting
cattle manure and glycerol trioleate resulted in a slightly higher,
but comparable specic CH4 yield (0.38 m3 CH4/kg VS/day) to the
current study (Mladenovska et al., 2003). The sewage sludge and
grease trap co-digestion study (Davidsson et al., 2008) and the Korean food waste and sewage sludge co-digestion study (Heo et al.,
2003) were also similar to T2.5 in specic CH4 yield, even though
these other studies operated at a high temperature range with
mixing components.
In the current study, the 113% increase in VS concentration from
T0 to T2.5 was greater than other co-digestion studies but the daily
VS loading was less than these studies. When olive mill wastewater (OMW) was co-digested with poultry manure the highest biogas production occurred at 25% OMW, but the increase in VS
concentration from the control was only 9.8% (Gelegenis et al.,
2007). The COD concentrations of the poultry manure and OMW
were 92.4 and 89.5 g/L, respectively, less than the used cooking
grease alone (811 g/L), but much more than T0 and T2.5 (20.0
and 37.8 g/L, respectively) (Table 1).
Similarly, when cattle manure was co-digested with 2% glycerol
trioleate, the resulting increase in VS was 33%, with an organic
loading rate was 3 and 4 kg VS/m3 day for the manure and 2% glycerol trioleate, respectively (Mladenovska et al., 2003). In the
Davidsson et al. (2008) study, co-digesting sewage sludge and
grease sludge in a 70:30 (v/v) ratio resulted in the highest CH4
yield. This mixture actually had a slightly lower organic loading
(2.4 kg VS/m3 day) than a control of only sewage sludge (2.5 kg
VS/m3 day).
In the current study, the organic loading to the digester was
0.34 kg VS/m3 day in T0 and 0.78 kg VS/m3 day in T2.5 Taiwanese-model digestion systems typically have lower organic loading
rates compared to the other studies because these systems use
ushed manure in a plug-ow system, while most plug-ow sys-

Table 7
Comparisons between co-digestion studies that combine substances containing high concentrations of lipids with manure or sewage sludge. Average values or ranges of values
across various treatment groups are given.

Current study: manure and used cooking grease

Swine manure and 2.5% used cooking grease
Manure and substances containing high concentrations of lipids
Poultry manure and olive oil mill wastewatera
Cattle manure and glycerol trioleateb
Pig manure, slaughterhouse, grease trap, restaurant, fruit and vegetable
wastec
Sewage sludge and substances containing high concentrations of lipids
Sewage sludge and grease trap sludged
Sewage sludge and cheese wheye
Sewage sludge and olive mill efuente
Sewage sludge and food wastec
Sewage sludge and food wastef
Sewage sludge and food wasteg
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

Gelegenis et al. (2007).

Mladenovska et al. (2003).
Murto et al. (2004).
Davidsson et al. (2008).
Carrieri et al. (1993).
Heo et al. (2003).
Zitomer and Adhikari (2005).

Methane yield
(m3/kg VS/day)

Methane
(%)

Biogas
(L/L/day)

Temperature
(C)

Reactor size
(L)

Retention
(days)

0.31

67

0.34

2226

250

40

0.250.32
0.38
0.68

71.8

0.520.48

68

2.6

35
37
35

25
3
3

20
15
36

35
37
37
35
35
35

31
32
32
0.5
3.5
2.5

1013
1219
813
720
20
15

0.290.34

0.4
0.34
0.310.50

6669
6376
6364
67
6386
6166

0.81.7
1.42.5
0.261.8
0.541.15

4368

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

tems favored in the United States use scrapped manure systems.

The higher loading rates of the other studies led to the higher overall biogas production rates, while the specic CH4 yields, which
calculate CH4 production per unit of VS, were more similar between the current study and other published studies.

study of methanogens at low-temperatures, more experiments in

anaerobic microbiology need to be conducted on long-term,
in situ systems. Maximum CH4 production rates were observed
in the grease treatment groups at the end of a nine-month study
and would likely not be replicated in a short-term laboratory
experiment.

4.2. Organic matter accumulation

4.4. Biogas quality methane content of the biogas
When comparing organic matter loading to CH4 production,
only T2.5 had an increase in CH4 production (124%) that was greater than the increase in inuent COD (89%) and near the increase in
inuent VS (113%) when compared to the control. The increases in
CH4 production from T0 to T5 (89.2%) and T10 (119%) were significantly lower than the increase in inuent COD (125% and 183%,
respectively) and inuent VS (206% and 453%, respectively).
The lower CH4 production rate with the higher organic matter
loading in T5 and T10 is likely due to accumulating organic material within the digestion environment. T2.5 did not accumulate VS
and only had a 15.8% increase in the COD concentration inside the
digester environment compared to the inuent. While any accumulation might seem unacceptable, it should be noted that in
plug-ow systems solids have a longer retention time than liquids
(Hobson, 1990). All the digesters had 90% reductions in COD and VS
from the inuent to the efuent of the digesters, but part of this
reduction can be attributed to accumulation within the digestion
environment. Not all of the accumulation in the digestion environment can be attributed to grease, as the control had 46.7% and
78.5% accumulation of VS and COD, respectively (Table 6).
T2.5 had a greater reduction of organic matter than the control,
but due to the higher organic loading of T2.5 the overall accumulation of organic matter within the digesters was similar to that of
the control (Table 6). This data suggests that T2.5 was able to successfully digest 99% of the additional COD loading that was added
to the digester without signicant amounts of grease accumulating
within the digestion environment. Davidsson et al. (2008) found
similar ndings with greater overall reductions in VS with codigestions due to higher initial loadings. T10, on the other hand,
had a methane production rate similar to T2.5, but had 160% more
VS in the inuent had 2000% more VS accumulated within the
digestion environment than T2.5, suggesting less efcient digestion of the organic matter.
4.3. Temperature effects
The lower efciency of VS breakdown with T10 can be partially
attributed to the temperature within the digestion environment.
The digesters in this study operated in the lower portion of the
mesophilic range (2226 C). At this temperature, methanogens
can survive, but their substrate utilization rates, and thus, their
CH4 production rates are decreased (Kettunen and Rintala, 1997;
McHugh et al., 2006).
One signicant nding in this study was that when the digesters were at their coldest temperatures in January (22 C), the CH4
production rates were higher in all treatments with grease additions, but not signicantly different in the control group (Table 3).
This data suggest that the increase in CH4 production was due to
increased lipid hydrolysis at lower temperatures due to their ability to out-compete other bacteria. This increased production of
long chain fatty acids from the breakdown of the lipids did not
hamper the CH4 production rate, but actual enhanced it.
This data suggests that the methanogens were well adjusted
and able to keep up with the increased fatty acid production. Methane production efciency appears to be increasing over time. One
reason for the increase in efciency may be the higher quantity
of organic material that accumulated in the digesters over the previous eight months. As suggested by McHugh et al. (2006) in their

The percentage of CH4 in the biogas signicantly decreased as

the amount of grease increased (Table 2). Decreasing percentage
of CH4 with increasing organic loading rate was also found in codigestion studies of food waste and activated sludge (Heo et al.,
2003; Zhang et al., 2007), industrial food waste and sewage sludge
(Murto et al., 2004), olive oil mill wastewater (Boubaker and Ridha,
2007), olive mill wastewater and poultry manure (Gelegenis et al.,
2007), and cheese whey and sewage sludge (Carrieri et al., 1993).
The lower pH of the co-digesting material compared to manure
in the current study and the studies cited above likely led to the
lower biogas quality. Additionally, when carbon dioxide in the biogas is above 30%, which was seen in all of the grease treatments,
carbon dioxide can induce the pH to drop even further in the digestion environment, as acid fermentation increases (Geradi, 2003). It
should be noted that even with the addition of grease at a pH of
4.6, the pH range of all treatment groups was kept within the optimal range for methanogens (6.57.5) due to the high alkalinity of
the manure. Nevertheless, on account of the lower percentage of
CH4 produced with high grease treatment levels and the lower
pH in the digestion environment, it is recommended that low-cost
digestion systems limit grease addition to 2.5% (113% increase in
VS).
In this study, H2S was monitored to determine if grease additions would increase harmful substances in the biogas. H2S is
harmful to human health when released at concentrations as low
as 10 ppm, with a LC50 (lethal dose concentration) of 800 ppm
with 5 min of H2S exposure. In addition, when exposed to moisture, H2S forms H2SO4, a powerful acid that can corrode electric
generators, broilers and other metal xtures in the system. During
digestion excessive H2S production can be toxic to methanogens
leading to a lower CH4 yield, decreased organic matter removal
efciency, and foul odors (Hulshoff Pol et al., 2001). H2S concentrations of biogas can rage from 50 to 5000 ppm. The H2S levels in this
study were relatively low (178356 ppm), with the grease treatments having the lowest H2S concentrations. The control had higher H2S and CH4 levels in the produced biogas and lower biogas
production than the grease treatments. While no statistically signicant correlations were found between CH4 and H2S and elemental sulfur levels were not determined for the grease and
manure treatments, the results suggest that the sulfur levels of
the manure might have been much greater than that of the used
cooking grease, leading to higher H2S concentrations in the biogas
when manure was the only source of organic material.
4.5. Biogas quantity
The liters of biogas produced per day for T2.5 were higher than
all the other cited studies, but when dividing the production rate
by the liters of the reactor, bench-scale systems overwhelming
outperformed T2.5. When scaling up laboratory-scale studies, biogas production can decrease, as was seen in the Davidsson et al.
(2008) study, which produced 7590% of the specic methane
yield of 2 L laboratory reactors with 35 L pilot-scale digesters.
The higher volume of sludge being processed in large-scale systems likely results in a more heterogenic environment with zones
of reduced microbial activity due to mixing, heating, or attachment
sites differentials.

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

T2.5 had signicantly higher biogas production rates than T5,

but was not signicantly different from T10. One likely explanation
for the relatively higher CH4 production in T2.5 compared to the T5
is the location of the digesters within the outdoor laboratory. The
laboratory has a roof and a 1-m high concrete wall around the
parameter, with the top two meters of the perimeter open to the
environment and, thus, to sunlight. Direct westerly sunlight could
be seen striking the most westerly digester (T2.5, replication 1)
throughout the afternoon, and statistical analysis showed that
the biogas production from replication 1 was signicantly greater
than replications 2 and 3, which were located in the center of
the outdoor laboratory.
The benets seen here by direct sunlight on the digesters suggests that low-cost digestion systems would benet from direct solar light, but degradation of the polyethylene bags was observed
with digesters in direct sunlight, which is why roong is recommended (Botero and Preston, 1987). Modifying Taiwanese-model
digesters to reap the benets of solar heating, as was done in an
Egyptian solar heated digestion study (El-Mashad et al., 2003),
might increase the biogas production, but solar heating increases
the cost of the system and decreases in efciency as the size of
the digester increases (El-Mashad et al., 2003). This study suggests
that co-digestion could play an even bigger role in increasing overall CH4 production, without the costs associated of solar heating.
4.6. Methane production batch study
The objective of the batch study was to determine if constant
material inputs are a requirement for successful digestion or if
the microbial population could be sustained on the existing material in the digester when daily inputs are interrupted. This objective is especially pertinent in Costa Rica and surrounding Latin
American countries due to the cultural practice of raising several
pigs throughout the year to be slaughtered on Christmas Eve and
buying new piglets in the new year to raise for the following
Christmas festivities. This practice results in a period of one to
three months of no or substantially decreased amounts of manure
inputs to anaerobic digesters. The CH4 production in T0 from days
0 to 25 was 75.9% of the CH4 production seen with daily waste
additions, but after 25 days, the CH4 production was less than
18% of normal production (Table 5). The low CH4 production suggests that interrupting additions to manure-only digesters for
more than a month will result in signicantly lower CH4 production and a stabilization period is necessary to restore the methanogenic population.
Methane production in the grease treatment groups decreased
from days 0 to 10, but was sustained from days 10 to 75 (Table 5,
Fig. 3). Methane production in T2.5 was 90% of normal CH4 production from days 0 to 25 and 54% from days 25 to 75. Due to the accumulated organic matter in T5 and T10, the average CH4 production
in the rst 25 days of the experiment was equal to normal CH4 production. Methane production from days 25 to 75 averaged 78% of
normal production. Maintaining high CH4 production levels without any additions with the grease treatments suggests that interruption of co-digesting materials for up to three months does not
require a re-stabilization period, especially with higher grease
loadings (5% and 10%) and that the accumulated grease in the
digesters will be broken down over time when material inputs
are interrupted.
Previous batch studies have shown methane production reduced to near zero after 10 days for mixed food waste with 24 g
VS/L (Cho et al., 1995), 15 days for primary sludge (Jerger and Tsao,
1987), 20 days for broiler and cattle manure (Gngr-Demirci and
Demirer, 2004), 25 days for mixed food waste of 10 g VS/L (Cho
et al., 1995), and 40 days, including a lag phase, for waste containing 540% lipids (Cirne et al., 2007). Ergder et al. (2001) found

4369

similar results with cheese whey: 5525 mg/L COD ceased production after 15 days, while 11,050 mg/L COD had production for
25 days, and 22,100 mg/L had production for 45 days.
The current study was able to sustain 5078% of normal methane production levels for 75 days with grease treatments. One
explanation for the longer methane production time of the current
study compared to other batch studies is the lower temperature
range at which the current study was conducted, which resulted
in slower substrate utilization rates. Gngr-Demirci and Demirer
(2004) found that CH4 production in mixtures of cattle manure and
broiler waste ceased after 20 days at 35 C, with 300 mL of gas produced, but when operated at ambient temperature, CH4 production
was still occurring at 30 days when the experiment ended, with
100 mL of gas produced.
The slower rate of substrate utilization in low-temperature,
low-cost digesters results in sustained methanogen populations
over an extended period of time when substrate loading is interrupted. Without co-digestion, CH4 production rates are quickly reduced when manure inputs cease, likely due to both the lower
amount of accumulated organic matter and a smaller population
of methanogens accumulated within the digestion environment.
5. Conclusions
The investigation proved that co-digesting used cooking grease
with swine manure in low-cost digesters is a simple way to double
energy production. A small volume of grease (2.5%), which corresponded to a 113% increase in organic matter, increased methane
production by 124%. Accumulation of grease, a decrease in specic
CH4 yield, and a decrease in the pH of the digestion environment
were observed with grease treatments greater than 2.5%. The specic methane yield in T2.5 was similar to many laboratory-scale,
completely mixed reactors operating at 3537 C. The longer
retention time and solids accumulation in low-cost digesters likely
led to digestion efciency similar to higher temperature systems.
This current study emphasized the need for more co-digestion
studies in large scale, replicated systems at low-temperatures.
Data obtained after a 50-day stabilization period and nine months
of experimental study suggested that the digestion environment
was operating at a signicantly greater efciency over time. The results from this study can be used by small and medium-scale farmers in tropical climates to increase their methane production, and
thus, the economic value of their digestion systems. Additionally,
by doubling methane production, co-digesting manure and used
grease could result in a greater adaptation of digestion technology
as a method for small and medium-scale farmers to treat agricultural wastewaters while obtaining renewable energy and organic
fertilizers. Additionally, the batch study suggested that seasonal
producers of manure and grease wastes could successfully utilize
low-cost digesters.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (project #60012470), Department of Energy
(award number #DE-FG02-04ER63834), and the Ohio State Universitys Targeted Investments in Excellence Carbon-Water-Climate
Project. We would like to thank the laboratory and research staff
at EARTH University for their assistance in the research, including
Bert Kohlmann, Jane Yeomens, and Herbert Arrieta. We also wish
to thank the student workers at EARTH University and our Central
State University counterparts, Sritharan Subramania and Bryan
Smith. Additional thanks are also extended to Richard Fortner, David Hansen, Pat Rigby, and Carol Moody for their administrative
guidance.

4370

S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 43624370

References
Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., 1997. Co-digestion of olive mill wastewaters with
manure, household waste or sewage sludge. Biodegradation 8, 221226.
APHA, 1998. In: Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D. (Eds.), Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health
Association, Washington, DC.
Archer, D.B., Kirsop, B.H., 1990. The microbiology and control of anaerobic digestion.
In: Andrew Wheatley (Ed.), Anaerobic Digestion: A Waste Treatment
Technology. Critical Reports on Applied Chemistry 31, 4391.
Botero, R., Preston, T.R., 1987. Low Cost Biodigesters for the Production of Fuel and
Fertilizer from Animal Excreta: Manual for Installation, Operation, and
Utilization. Centro para la Investigatin en Sistemas Sostenibles de
Produccin Agropecuaria, Cali, Colombia.
Boubaker, F., Ridha, B.C., 2007. Anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill wastewater with
olive mill solid waste in a tubular digester at mesophilic temperature.
Bioresource Technology 98, 769774.
Carrieri, C., Di Pinto, A.C., Rozzi, A., Santori, M., 1993. Anaerobic co-digestion of
sewage sludge and concentrated soluble wastewaters. Water Science and
Technology 28 (2), 187197.
Char, J., Pedraza, G., Conde, N., 1999. The productive water decontamination
system: a tool for protecting water resources in the tropics. Livestock Research
for Rural Development 11 (1). <www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd11/cha111.htm>.
Cho, J.K., Park, S.C., Chang, H.N., 1995. Biochemical methane potential and solid
state anaerobic digestion of Korean food wastes. Bioresource Technology 52,
245253.
Cirne, D.G., Paloumet, X., Bjrnsson, L., Alves, M.M., Mattiasson, B., 2007. Anaerobic
digestion of lipid-rich waste effects of lipid concentration. Renewable Energy
32, 965975.
Davidsson, ., Lvstedt, C., la Cour Jansen, J., Gruvberger, C., Aspegren, H., 2008. Codigestion of grease trap sludge and sewage sludge. Waste Management 24,
986992.
El-Mashad, H.M., van Loon, W.K.P., Zeeman, G., 2003. A model of solar energy
utilization in the anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. Biosystems Engineering
84 (2), 231238.
Ergder, T.H., Tezel, U., Gven, E., Demirer, G.N., 2001. Anaerobic biotransformation
and methane generation potential of cheese whey in batch and UASB reactors.
Waste Management 21, 643650.
Gavala, H.N., Skiadas, I.V., Bozinis, N.A., Lyberatos, G., 1996. Anaerobic codigestion of
agricultural industries wastewaters. Water, Science and Technology 34 (11),
6775.
Gelegenis, J., Georgakakis, D., Angelidaki, I., Christopoulou, N., Goumenaki, M., 2007.
Optimization of biogas production from olive-oil mill wastewater, by codigesting with diluted poultry-manure. Applied Energy 84, 646663.
Geradi, M.H., 2003. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Ghaly, A.E., 1996. A comparative study of anaerobic digestion of acid cheese whey
and dairy manure in a two-stage reactor. Bioresource Technology 58, 6172.
Gngr-Demirci, G., Demirer, G.N., 2004. Effect of initial COD concentration,
nutrient addition, temperature and microbial acclimation on anaerobic
treatability of broiler and cattle manure. Bioresource Technology 93, 109117.
Heo, N.H., Park, S.C., Lee, J.S., Kang, H., Park, D.H., 2003. Single-stage anaerobic
codigestion for mixture wastes of simulated Korean food waste and waste
activated sludge. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 105108, 567579.
Hobson, P.N., 1990. The treatment of agricultural wastes. In: Wheatley, A. (Ed.),
Anaerobic Digestion: A Waste Treatment Technology. Critical Reports on
Applied Chemistry 31, 93138.

Hulshoff Pol, L.W., Lens, P.N.L., Weijma, J., Stams, A.J.M., 2001. New developments in
reactor and process technology for sulfate reduction. Water Science and
Technology 44 (8), 6776.
Jerger, D.E., Tsao, G.T., 1987. Feed composition. In: Chynoweth, D.P., Isaacson, R.
(Eds.), Anaerobic Digestion of Biomass. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New
York, New York, pp. 6590.
Jeyaseelan, S., Matsuo, T., 1995. Effects of phase separation anaerobic digestion on
difference substrates. Water Science and Technology 31 (9), 153162.
Kettunen, R.H., Rintala, J.A., 1997. The effect of low temperature and adaptation on
the methanogenic activity of biomass 529 C. Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology 48, 570576.
Kbler, H., Hoppenheidt, K., Hirsch, P., Kottmair, A., Nimmrichter, R., Nordsiech, H.,
Mche, W., Swerev, M., 2000. Full scale co-digestion of organic waste. Water
Science and Technology 41 (3), 195202.
Lansing, S., Botero, R.B., Martin, J.F., 2008. Wastewater treatment and biogas
production in small-scale agricultural digesters. Bioresource Technology 99,
58815890.
Lansing, S., Vquez, J., Martnez, H., Botero, R., Martin, J., in press. Optimizing
electricity generation and waste transformations in a low-cost, plug-ow
anaerobic digestion system. Ecological Engineering.
McHugh, Sharon, Collins, G., OFlaherty, V., 2006. Long-term, high-rate anaerobic
biological treatment of whey wastewaters at psychrophilic temperatures.
Bioresource Technology 97, 16691678.
Mladenovska, Z., Dabrowski, S., Ahring, B.K., 2003. Anaerobic digestion of manure
and mixture of manure with lipids: biogas reactor performance and microbial
community analysis. Water Science and Technology 48 (6), 271278.
Murto, M., Bjrnsson, L., Mattiasson, B., 2004. Impact of food industrial waste on
anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and pig manure. Journal of
Environmental Management 70, 101107.
Owens, J.M., Chynoweth, D.P., 1993. Biochemical methane potential of municipal
solid waste (MSW) components. Water Science and Technology 27, 114.
Santana, A., Pound, B., 1980. The production of biogas from cattle slurry, the effects
of concentration of total solids and animal diet. Tropical Animal Production 5
(2), 130135.
Spajic, R., Burns, R.T., Mooday, L., Kralik, D., Poznic, V., Bishop, G., 2009. Anaerobic
Digestion of Swine Manure with Different Types of Food Industry Wastes.
ASABE Meeting Presentation Paper No. 097209 for the 2009 ASABE Annual
International Meeting. Reno, NV. June 2124, 2009.
Thy, S., Preston, T.R., Ly, J., 2003. Effect of retention time on gas production and
fertilizer value of biodigester efuent. Livestock Research for Rural
Development 15 (7). <www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd11/thy157.htm>.
Ugoji, E.O., 1997. Anaerobic digestion of palm mill efuent and its utilization as
fertilizer for environmental protection. Renewable Energy 10 (2/3), 291294.
USEPA, 2006. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to
Identifying Candidates for On-farm and Centralized Systems. AgSTAR Program:
USEPA, USDA, and DOE Energy and Pollution Prevention. EPA-430-8-06-004.
USEPA, 2009a. Anaerobic Digestion Capital Costs for Dairy Farms. AgSTAR Program:
USEPA, USDA, and DOE Energy and Pollution Prevention. February 2009.
USEPA, 2009b. Anaerobic Digesters Continue Growth in US Livestock Market.
AgSTAR Program: USEPA, USDA, and DOE Energy and Pollution Prevention.
February 2009.
Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., Gamble, P.,
2007. Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Bioresource Technology 98, 929935.
Zitomer, D., Adhikari, P., 2005. Extra methane production from municipal anaerobic
digesters. Biocycle 46 (9), 6466.