Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A review of methane production from agricultural residues in China

Kun Li a,b, Ronghou Liu a,b,n, Chen Sun a,b
a
Biomass Energy Engineering Research Centre, School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai 200240,
PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Urban Agriculture (South), Ministry of Agriculture, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai 200240, PR China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anaerobic digestion is an effective technology for resources recycling. The application of anaerobic
Received 6 October 2014 digestion has been a hotspot due to its capability of converting solid organic waste into methane. The
Received in revised form metabolism of acetoclastic methanogens, anaerobic digestion features and strategies of three main
19 August 2015
agricultural residues and current situation of large, medium biogas plant built in China are summarized,
Accepted 22 October 2015
hoping to promote the application of this technology to deal with agricultural residues. Also, the current
problems are presented and future research and development of biogas technology are proposed.
Keywords: & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
China
Anaerobic digestion
Biogas
Agricultural residues

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
2. Methanogens in anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
3. The adaptability of substrate materials for methanogenic fermentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
4. Methanogenic fermentation of livestock manures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
4.1. Anaerobic digestion characteristics of livestock manures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
4.2. Development of biogas plant for manure treatment in China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
5. Methanogenic fermentation of fruit and vegetable waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
5.1. Anaerobic digestion characteristics of fruit and vegetable waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
5.2. Development of biogas plant for fruit and vegetable waste treatment in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
6. Methanogenic fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
6.1. Pretreatment of crop residue for enhanced methane yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
6.2. Development of biogas plant for crop straw treatment in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
7. Biogas technology application and policies in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
8. Conclusions and recommendations for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
8.1. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
8.2. Recommendations for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862

1. Introduction

China has abundant biomass resource which refers to residues

n
and by-products of agriculture, forestry and other related indus-
Corresponding author at: Biomass Energy Engineering Research Centre, School
of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road,
tries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and
Shanghai 200240, PR China. Tel.: þ 86 21 34205744. municipal waste [1,2]. 21% of total biomass resource was occupied
E-mail address: liurhou@sjtu.edu.cn (R. Liu). by agricultural residues which are associated with manure of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.103
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
858 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
livestock, fruits and vegetable wastes produced during store,
transportation and handling of vegetables, and lignocellulosic
biomass such as rice straw, wheat straw, corn Stover, etc. [3–6].
They are biodegradable, rich in organic matter and can be used for
methane production by anaerobic digestion [7]. In 2012, 846
million tons crops residues and 3.21 billion tons livestock manure
were produced in China. If these wastes are utilized for anaerobic
fermentation, 4.23  1011 m3 biogas could be produced [8]. How-
ever, these resources have not been used efficiently. 72.5% of crop
straw is combusted, lost or discarded, left only 0.5% for biogas
production [9]. Besides, the uncontrolled decomposition of animal
manures have caused serious environmental problems. Obviously,
technologies for biomass utilization are urgently needed in China,
either for energy or for environmental purpose.
Biomass can be converted to gaseous, liquid and solid biofuels
by technologies like anaerobic digestion and gasification, pyrolysis
and carbonization [10,11]. Compared with other bioenergy tech-
nologies, biogas technology is quite mature and has already been
at its industrialization stage. Furthermore, biogas project combines
together the ideas of ecological agriculture and recycle agriculture,
and develops several practical agricultural production patterns like
the “Pig-Biogas-Fruit” model in south China and the “Four in One”
model in north China [12,13]. Extensive fundamental researches
about biogas have also been conducted. For example, microbial
community shifts during thermophilic methane fermentation,
fermentation characteristics of crop straw pretreated by microbial
community or steam explosion [14], and trace elements' stabiliz-
ing effects on long-term anaerobic digestion have been studied
[15]. It has also been found that digested liquid swine manure can
control soybean cyst nematode [16], and biogas fertilizer can
improve the yield of cherry tomato [17].
However, understanding the process of methane fermentation
is difficult because of various influence factors. The broad appli-
cation of biogas technology is greatly limited by the disconnection
of practical operation from its mature research status. So, in order
to improve the practical efficiency of anaerobic digestion, to grasp
the current study of anaerobic digestion for biogas production in
China is necessary.
This article reviews the metabolism of methanogens and the
present situation of biogas technology dealing with three main
agricultural residues including livestock manure, fruit and vege-
table waste (FVW) and lignocellulosic biomass in China. The cur-
rent status of large, medium biogas plant built in China are also
summarized. In addition, problems and recommendations for
future development are put forward based on current situation of
biogas technology, with the hope of improving anaerobic digestion
efficiency and promoting the application of biogas technology
in China.
2. Methanogens in anaerobic digestion
Methanogens are strictly anaerobic archaea and have limited
substrate range. Thus the bioconversion of organic waste to
methane generally needs the consortia of interacting micro-
organisms including fermentative bacteria, H2-producing aceto-
genic bacteria and methanogens, and the final generation of
methane by methanogens is the rate-limiting step.
Currently, two acetate-utilizing methanogens, Methanosarcina
and Methanosaeta, are most explored among methanogens, partly
because 70% methane in nature derives from methyl group of
acetate [18]. Methanosarcina have one times larger genomes than
obligate hydrogenotrophic methanogens, which reflects powerful
metabolic capabilities. For example, it has the broadest substrate
spectrum, acetate, methylated C1 compounds and H2/CO2. The key
enzymes for methane formation from acetate in Methanosarcina
are the same with the ones of Methanosaeta except enzymes in the
process of acetyl-CoA synthese. As a result, Methanosaeta has
lower minimum threshold acetate concentration than Methano-
sarcina. While Methanosarcina species grow faster than Methano-
saeta species when acetate concentrations are beyond 1 mM [19].
The methanogens population are not only affected by acetate
concentration, but also by temperature [20] or substrate [21].
When temperature is increased within a certain range, methano-
gens can grow and multiply. Generally, mesophilic anaerobic
digestion is more stable than thermophilic fermentation for lower
ratio of free ammonia to total ammonium ion, as well as greater
diversity and evenness of bacterial communities [22]. Methano-
sarcinales is a common major methanogenic order in mesophilic
conditions [23], but in thermophilic reactor hydrgenotrophic
methanogens dominated [24]. The order of Methanosarcinales only
occupied a percentage of 10% in methanogenic population at
temperatures of 55 °C, in which Methanosaeta was almost absent.
Additionally, reducing digester feeding frequency can increase
Methanosarcina predominance, and Methanosarcina-enriched
reactor has better performance than Methanosaeta-enriched
reactor [25]. In the industry application, Methanosaeta is important
for the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, due to its
enhancing granulation [26] and attachment ability [27]. Hydro-
genotrophic methanogens can tolerate the ammonium con-
centration of 6000 mg/L which is sixfold higher than the threshold
ammonium concentration of Methanosaeta and twofold higher
than that of Methanosarcina [24,28]. Therefore, the stable methane
production when ammonia level increases may be explained by
the increasing activity of hydrogen-utilizing methanogens.
Overall, several species of methanogens participate in the
terminal steps of methane generation. They are high susceptible to
the environmental conditions. As a result, anaerobic digestion
process is fragile and highly sensitive to external influences. The
prevalence of certain members of archaeal methanogens depends
on physical and chemical conditions like temperature, pH, NH3-N
and VFA etc. The shifting of this anaerobic microbe community
might influence the biogas yield as well as the stability of
biomethanation.
3. The adaptability of substrate materials for methanogenic
fermentation
The feedstock of anaerobic digestion is widely tolerant, but if
the maximum biogas yield is expected to obtain, several factors
should be concerned, including C/N ratio, substrate concentration,
physical and chemical property of feedstock.
In terms of C/N ratio, low C/N ratio may lead to ammonia
releasing [29], while methanogenesis inhibition also occurs when
the ratio is high either due to nitrogen shortage or to organic acid
accumulation caused by excess carbon [30,31]. As a result, various
feedstock with various C/N should be matched properly to produce
a proper ratio range, generally proposed 20/1 to 30/1 [32,33].
Substrate concentration refers to the proportion of total solids
accounting for the reactor medium [34]. Proper solid content is
important for biogas production. Too much water in the fluid can
cause low organic loading rate and too little can lead to organic
matter accumulation resulting in fermentation inhibition, both of
which will decrease biogas yield. The substrate concentration
capable of producing biogas is quite wide. TS content ranging from
1% to 40% [35], even to 55% is feasible [36]. In rural area of China,
substrate concentration of 6–12% is generally adopted during
anaerobic digestion [37].
Physically, anaerobic digestion can be divided into liquid anae-
robic digestion (L-AD) and solid-state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD),
with solid concentrations between 0.5% and 15%, and higher than
 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
15%, respectively [31]. L-AD is a widely used technology to produce
biogas and most commercial digesters in China are L-AD systems
which can process municipal organic waste for energy production.
SS-AD is hindered from wide application due to its low operational
stability, although it is superior to L-AD for less heating energy, less
leachate, higher volumetric loading capacity and less floating pro-
blems [35,38]. Moreover, the particle size of straw or fruit & vege-
table waste (FVW) like substrate also have certain requirements. For
example, corn stover had better be cut into range of 0.25–1.0 mm
[39]. When particle size is bigger than 1 mm, the cumulative yield
of hydrogen, acetate and butyrate is decreased [40].
When it comes to the chemical feature, it is generally required
to be easily available for microbe. Straw, mainly composed of lig-
nin, cellulose and hemicelluloses, is difficult to be broken down.
Therefore, for the purpose of improving degradation efficiency,
preprocessing straw firstly is necessary because straw composi-
tions can be partly degraded into easily utilized organics in this
process.
Clearly, different substrates have different features such as
nitrogen-rich or carbon-rich which directly influence anaerobic
digestion. Thus, the optimal process methods for different feed-
stock should be explored based on the characteristics of each kind
of biomass materials.
4. Methanogenic fermentation of livestock manures
4.1. Anaerobic digestion characteristics of livestock manures
Animal manure is a kind of low C/N ratio feedstock and it is
characterized by high organic matter and high moisture [41], as
well as fast conversion rate [42,43]. Manure ferments well and can
be used as mono-substrate if proper temperature, substrate con-
centration as well as inoculum [44–46] are given. For example,
human excreta and chicken manure with a C/N ratio of 2.88:1 [47]
and 8.84:1 [48] respectively can digested alone [49].
As sole substrate for methane fermentation, fresh pig manure
can rapidly generate biogas without adjusting C/N ratio [50]. The
CH4 content of biogas from pig manure anaerobic digestion is
quite high, typically in the rang of 70–80% [51], yielding biogas
495 ml/g VS, while the CH4 content of biogas from cattle manure
has a slightly lower CH4 content, in the rang of 55–75%, potentially
giving 398 mL /g VS. Methane yield of 324 mL/g VS for chicken
manure and 294 mL/g VS for human feces were obtained [52].
Rabbit manure was degraded faster than duck and sheep manure,
for 87.8%, 67.6% and 65.0% of total biogas yield could respectively
be obtained after 20 days of digestion at 3571 °C [53]. Great
differences of biogas yield and biogas production rate among
various livestock manures can be explained by the different con-
tent of protein, carbohydrate, fat and lignin in substrate. Manures
with higher liquid content have high methane potential due to the
highest energy density in fat, but longest retention time is
required for the poor bioavailability of fat. Conversely, carbohy-
drates and proteins can degraded rapidly [42,54].
Currently, the study of manure digestion in China mainly con-
cerned with the co-digestion of animal manure with other biosolid
wastes. The advantages of co-digestion are summarized as:
adjusting the C/N ratio of low nitrogen material with manure to
generate biogas stably; increasing methane yield and proportion in
biogas [55]. According to comparative studies in China, when low
nitrogen agricultural residues like dried grass silage [56], maize
straw [57], vegetable stalks [58] were digested for methane pro-
duction, it is feasible to improve feedstock adaptability by adjusting
C/N ratio with high nitrogen substrates like pig manure and urea
[59]. For example, Chen et al. [60] reported that 7.09–44.26% higher
methane yield was obtained by co-digestion of cow feces and
859
Spartina alterniflora. Similarly, co-digestion of goat manure with
three crop residues, wheat straw, corn stalks and rice straw, obtain
62.1%, 83.02% and 111.28% higher biogas yield than corresponding
single crop residues, and 23.04%, 54.44% and 51.31% higher than
single goat manure [61]. Moreover, the co-digestion of dairy and
chicken manure mixture with corn stalk was compared with single
manure co-digestion with corn stalks, the former got better results
under both temperature of 15 °C and 35 °C [62]. The apparent
synergistic effect in co-digestion can be attributed to a better buffer
capacity, balance nutrients, as well as less risk for the occurrence of
ammonia/ammonium inhibition [63]. Trace elements in manure
may be another reason [64]. Yue et al. also considered that micro-
bial community composition shifted with different feed composi-
tion which has an effect on the hydrolysis of fiber [65].
Still, the species, growth stages of animal as well as the fraction
of manure can exert direct effects on methane production from
livestock manures [66]. For example, the solid fraction of pig
manure contains higher organic matter content than liquid frac-
tion and produces more biogas than raw pig manure [36]; the
manure excreted by gestating sow, post-weaned piglet and
growing fattening pig have different components. This may be
caused by their different nutrient metabolic capacity and feed
formulas, additive at different growth stages [67].
In conclusion, manures characterized by rich in nitrogen likely
lead to ammonia accumulation in reactor. Simultaneously treating
manures with other nutrient complementary feedstocks can
improve the anaerobic process yields. Additionally, higher
methane yield can also be obtained by manure pretreatment for
accelerating hydrolysis.
4.2. Development of biogas plant for manure treatment in China
In the past years, the promotion of household biogas project
fed with manure was strategically coupled with the idea of ecology
in China. During the development of rural household biogas,
several ecological models have been evolved. Two successful
models among them are the “Pig-Biogas-Fruit” model in south
China and “Four in One” model in north China. In “Pig-Biogas-
Fruit” model, pigpen and fruit trees are combined with biogas
digester through manure and biogas residue [68]. The “Four in
One” model is popular in cold area for it solves the problem of
biogas digester that can not operate under cold weather. In this
model, pigpen, toilet and a biogas digester are built in a green-
house which can provide suitable temperature for the growth of
pig, vegetable and the production of biogas. In return, burning
biogas increases the temperature of greenhouse and provide CO2
and light for vegetable. Meanwhile, biogas digestate can be used as
organic fertilizer for vegetable production [69].
The biogas-plant industry has grown quickly in China. By 2010,
more than 40 million household biogas project have been built,
and there were 27,410 medium- and large- scaled biogas plants
dealing with manure [70]. The fermentation material is mainly
composed of swine manure, cattle manure and chicken manure
[71]. In reality, the anaerobic digestion of single manure has low
performance caused by ammonia inhibition and nutrient imbal-
ance [72]. In some biogas plants which were built in well devel-
oped country like German, livestock manure was seldom used as
single substrate but mixed with organic residues [73]. Presently,
the development of biogas plants are far from maturity and still
exist deficiencies in respects of electricity production [74], heat
preservation in winter [75], etc. However, some biogas plants have
obtained great achievements. For example, a large-scale biogas
plant located in Tongzhou District of Beijing treats 30 t dairy
manure and 30 t wastewater per day, and particularly adopts
combined heat and power (CHP) systems which has an installed
electricity capacity of 160 kw. Waste heat from generator keeps
860 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
feed in the reactor fermented at 38 °C [76]. Moreover, a solar-
powered water-heating system is also proved feasible for tem-
perature keeping [77]. Another case is concerned the Minghe
Animal Husbandry Company’s biogas plant with continuous stir-
red tank reactor (CSTR) and CHP technology which disposes 500 t
chicken manure and daily generates electricity 60,000 kW h [78].
The biogas power-generation project of the Hainan Luoniushan Pig
Farm generates 420,000 kW h per year, with an annual biogas
output of 600,000 m3 [79]. This high efficiency of electricity gen-
eration may mainly results from its biogas plus electricity pro-
duction system.
5. Methanogenic fermentation of fruit and vegetable waste
5.1. Anaerobic digestion characteristics of fruit and vegetable waste
The C/N ratios of majority FVW are ranged from 20:1 to 35:1
[6,80–82] and then FVW can be digested without additional
nitrogen source [83]. For those FVW with unsuitable C/N ratio,
mixing two or more sorts of them together to improve nutrients
balance is a practical method.
FVW contains 75% easy biodegradable organic matter and are
low in nitrogen concentration [6]. When digested alone, redun-
dant volatile fatty acids will be produced in the process [84]. But
when the FVW is co-digested with swine feces and urine which
contain high level of nitrogen, the amount of inhibit acids can be
decreased [85].
In fact, the VFA from vegetable wastes acidification can loose
lignocellulose structure in flower stems and helps its degradation
[86]. Also, adding corn straw to algae with a C/N ratio of 20/1 can
obviously enhance the methane yield of algae from 201 mL/g VS to
325 mL/g VS [87].
For continuous stirred-tank test, the best ratio for the co-
digestion of fruit and vegetable waste with food waste was 1:1.
At this ratio and organic loading rate of 3 kg VS/ (m3  day), the
methane yield was 0.49 m3 CH4/kg VS compared with 0.3 m3 CH4/
kg VS of FVW as single substrate. In addition, increasing the pro-
portion of FVW can lead to a higher degree of acidification in two-
phase AD system [88]. It seems that FVW can be well co-digested
with substrates rich in nitrogen. For carbohydrate-rich wastes,
alkali addition is another suitable measures in addition to mixing
substrates to maintain stable digestion.
5.2. Development of biogas plant for fruit and vegetable waste
treatment in China
130 million tons FVW are annually produced in China. Unfor-
tunately, these wastes were usually discarded [88,89]. Due to the
high moisture and biodegradability of FVW, anaerobic digestion is
more suitable for treating FVW in industrial scale rather than
combustions or landfill deposition. Limited by shortages, biogas
plants seldom use FVW as single substrate, but mix FVW with
manure, food waste and straw for co-digestion. In this way, not
only nutritional balance can be maintained in large-scale biogas
plant, but also reduce the effect of acidification caused by high
sugar content in FVW [90]. In these biogas technologies, CSTR are
widely applied in China [70]. In regard of FVW's easily acidifica-
tion, anaerobic digesters for FVW had better adopt two-phase
digestion technology [91].
6. Methanogenic fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass
The biogas yield of wheat straw is the highest among agri-
cultural residue straws, followed by rice, corn, peanut and soybean
straw [57]. The theoretical methane yield of crops straw is greatly
higher than its practical methane yield. Previous studies in China
showed that methane yield of cotton stalk was about 240 mL/g-VS,
while its theoretical yield was 356.7 mL/g-VS [92]. Similarly, the
practical and theoretical yield of wheat straw were 297 mL/g-VS
and 426 mL/g-VS, respectively [93]. This may be largely due to the
fact that crop straw contains high content of lignocelluloses
compounds and tight structure between cellulose, hemicellulose
and lignin, which makes it difficult to degrade and results in low
methane yield. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials can
decompose hemicellulose and cellulose, and break down the
linkage between polysaccharides and lignin, thus improving
digestibility [94]. Therefore, pretreatment is normally a necessary
step in the anaerobic digestion processes for straw.
6.1. Pretreatment of crop residue for enhanced methane yield
At present, the pretreatment methods are generally classified
into chemical, physical, biological pretreatment methods or their
combination [95]. Among them, pretreatment with alkali, steam
explosion and microbial agents are the most broadly implemented
methods to treat lignocellulosic materials like straw in China.
Each method is surely effective despite their limitations. But
chemicals especially alkaline are superior to fungus [96], bacter-
ium agents [97], enzyme [98]. Alkaline can lead to the saponifi-
cation of uronic bonds between hemicelluloses and lignin, facil-
itating biological hydrolytic breakdowns [99]. Study shows that
rice straw pretreated by 4–10% NaOH can obtain 3.2–58.1% more
biogas yield than untreated rice straw, corresponding to the
reduction of 8.0–44.5%, 35.2–54.2% and 14.2–16.4% in total lignin,
hemicellulose, and cellulose contents, respectively [100]. Hydro-
gen peroxide is also an excellent choice for pretreatment, since it
has strong oxidizability and hardly leaves residues as secondary
products in biomass. Improved biodegradability of lignin, cellu-
lose, and hemicellulose has been reported when rice straw treated
with hydrogen peroxide, and the optimal conditions result in
88.0% higher methane yield (290 mL g  1 VS) than untreated rice
straw [101]. Approximately, biogas yield of 327.5 and 319.7 mL g  1
VS could be obtained from 3% and 4% H2O2 pretreated rice straw,
respectively. And pretreatment with H2O2 got higher performance
than pretreatment using ammonium hydroxide [102].
Physical pretreatment means using machine or heat etc. to
reduce particle size and crystallinity of fiber, thus increases the
available surface for enzymatic attack [103,104]. This method is
energy consuming but quite efficient. Under high temperature,
high pressure and saturated steam conditions, steam explosion
pretreatment can break down the links between amorphous cel-
lulose and crystalline cellulose by abruptly releasing pressure
[105]. Guo et al. reported that the highest amount of organic acid
(2.99 g/l) was obtained from corn stalk pretreated by steam
explosion after 3 days fermentation at 50 °C, and the amount of
2.74, 1.96, 1.45, and 2.21 g/l organic acid were respectively
obtained from other pretreatments, including sodium hydroxide,
sulfuric acid, acetic acid, and aqueous ammonia [106].
Biological methods use lignocellulose-degrading microorgan-
isms or enzymes to decompose substrate into simpler and more
biodegradable molecules like sugar, starch and pectin. Thus
shorter digestion time, improved total solid reduction and biogas
conversion rate could be achieved during this process [107,108].
The key step of this technology is to look for the high
lignocellulose-degrading strains. For example, Zhong et al. treated
corn straw with 0.01% dose of a new complex microbial agents
resulting in 75.57% increased CH4 yield and 34.6% digestion time
reduction for 15 days at 20 °C [109].
Additionally, there are also some other effective pretreatment
methods. For example, biogas yield of rice straw pretreated by
 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
ionic liquid at 140 °C could increase by 137.8% [110]; biogas yield of
cassava residues pretreated by thermal-dilute sulfuric acid could
increase by 56.96% [111]; biogas yield of corn stalk stacked with
cow dung could increase by 19.6% [112].
In brief, hydrolysis is an important step in methane production
and is assumed as rate-limiting step especially for materials like
straw. To this end, the process of methane production can be
enhanced by favoring the hydrolysis of substrate. Generally,
treating lignocellulosic materials with physical, chemical and
biological methods prior to anaerobic fermentation can accelerate
hydrolysis rate and increase biogas yield.
6.2. Development of biogas plant for crop straw treatment in China
Currently, the biogas plants for straw are in the initial phase of
development in China. At the end of 2010, 273 straw biogas plants
including 47 medium- and large-scale biogas plants had been built
in China [113]. The straw biogas plants have many technological
difficulties due to the character of straw. In response to these
problems, three kinds of anaerobic digesters are highly proposed,
namely CSTR, membrane covered trough (MCT) and vertical plug
flow anaerobic reactor (VPF) [114]. The Green Harbor straw biogas
plant located in Chongming, Shanghai, China employs CSTR tech-
nique as well as biogas-heat-power-fertilizer cogeneration mode
and annually generates electricity 584,000 kW [115]. Biogas plant
applied MCT technique, like Daxing plant in Beijing, has a high
energy efficiency [114]. Another plant with VPF reactor in Xinjin of
Sichuan processes 1.3 t of straw each day and produces 400–
600 m3 biogas [116].
However, there still exist problems of pretreatment. For
example, the large amount of chemical solution used to soak
substrates has potential environmental pollution and seriously
corrodes equipment [117,118]. While biological method requires
strict reaction environment and its treatment cost becomes very
expensive if a high biodegradability rate is going to be obtained
[119]. These problems limited large-scale application of present
pretreatment methods. As pretreatment is a key technology in
straw biogas digestion, therefore, more research work should
focus on straw pretreatment.
7. Biogas technology application and policies in China
The Chinese government has paid a great attention to the
development of a sustainable biogas industry in recent 20 years.
From 2003 to the end of 2014, 36.4 billion Yuan was invested by
central government to support development of biogas industry. By
the end of 2014, there were 41.50 million household biogas
digesters that annually produced 13.67 billion m3 biogas. The
number of various biogas plants reached 99,957 in which large-
scale biogas plants, medium-scale biogas plants and small-scale
biogas plants were 6160, 10,285 and 83,512, respectively. 2.103
billion m3 biogas was produced annually which supplies 1.7157
million household for biogas uses and generates 0.433 billion
kW h electricity per year [120]. Encouraged by the benefits
brought by incentive policies, more than 1300 domestic enter-
prises were involved in biogas production and biogas equipment
manufacture [121]. Efficient and professional subsequent service
system has been established and improved over the years. How-
ever, there still existed problem of low profitability of biogas plant
caused by unstable price of raw material, inefficiency technical
support, and low level of commercialization, etc. The government
of China trusts that the biogas technology has economic, energy
and environmental benefit which is an important form of resource
recirculation uses. By the end of 2014, China was qualified to
develop biogas comprehensively.
861
Household-scale biogas digesters can be used by scattered
farmers. In 2007, 0.9 billion people were lived in rural area of
China [122]. To meet energy demand of rural and to improve
household hygiene, household-scale biogas digesters were built
throughout the country. Currently, China has the most household
biogas plants in the world. And based on the concept of devel-
oping eco-cycle-agriculture, Chinese household-scale biogas
digesters integrated livestock breeding, biogas and vegetable
planting which is well-known in the world. However, these
household biogas digesters were not work well. Only 60% were
operated normally in 2007 [123]. This fact largely decreased the
efficiency of biogas utilization. The reason accounting for this is
poor maintenance and shortage of technical support for the biogas
digester.
For the maintenance of biogas digesters, USA has good
experiences. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides technical assis-
tance accompanied with financial assistance to farmers and ran-
chers. Considering that Chinese farmers generally have little
knowledge and training about biogas operation, such kind of
technical assistance for the long-term running of biogas digesters
is very necessary.
In addition, biogas electricity generation is an efficient way to
use biogas. However, only 2.53% biogas was used to generate
electricity in China, far from the 98.5% percentage of German
[124]. In 2012, Germany was the leading EU country regarding
electricity generation from biogas, with 19,426 GW h generated
from modern 7000 operating biogas plants [125]. The technology
of combined generation of heat and power (CHP), employing
internal combustion engines coupled with electricity generators, is
the most common way for biogas utilization in Germany. The
installed electric capacity has three level: 150 kWel, 500 kWel, and
1 MWel [126]. The waste heat generated by CHP plants was
managed in four ways: no heat usage, local heat network, mobile
heat storage and Organic Ranking Cycle (ORC) process. The waste
heat can be converted into electricity by ORC process. On the other
hand, the financial policies in German have been proved to be
successful in promoting biogas electricity generation. The Feed-in
tariffs guaranteed fixed prices for 20 years [127]. Moreover, addi-
tional premiums for use of heat further promote the energy con-
version efficiency of biogas.
Actually, China has almost reached the advanced level of Ger-
man in respect of technology and equipment for biogas electricity
generation. The electricity conversion rate of Chinese electricity
generator was only 7% lower than the same type German gen-
erator. But the financial policies are imperfect and the private
investors have not realized the potential of biogas systems. While
the China’s financial subsidies for biogas technology mainly sup-
port the construction of biogas plants, and then the lower financial
return from biogas products dampened investors’ enthusiasm and
constrained the commercialization of biogas industry.
The widely application of biogas in China was strongly sup-
ported by the central government and a series of energy policies,
subsidies and tax incentives continuously became effective in
recent years. In February 28, 2005, the “Renewable Energy Law”
was issued which emphasizes the exploitation and use of renew-
able energy [128]. In 2006, the National Development and Reform
Committee promulgated two regulations: “Regulations Related to
Renewable Energy Power Generation” and “Renewable Energy
Price and Cost-sharing Management Trial Procedures” in which
management and price of power generated by renewable energy
was stated in details [129,130]. In 2007, China’s government pub-
lished the “Medium- and Long-term Development Program for
Renewable Energy”, and on April 1, 2010, the revised “Renewable
Energy Law” was passed which stipulated a renewable energy
development fund to support renewable energy power-generating
862 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
plants [131]. The polices for the development of biogas is normally
general guideline however more detail measures are needed.
The development of biogas industry should consider the fol-
lowing respects. At first, financial support for the constructions of
super-large scale biogas plants for bio-natural gas production
should be emphasized by the government. According to National
Biogas Project Plan in 2015, in 2015, 2 billion RMB Yuan will be
invested by Chinese government to support super-large scale
biogas plants as a priory. In addition, the functions of biogas plants
in balancing development between farm breeding and planting
should be improved in order to develop eco-cycle-agriculture.
Further more, standard and management information platform of
biogas plant should be further established. Finally, the policy for
biogas technology should be easily operated and be long term
effective in order to promote the development of biogas
technology.
8. Conclusions and recommendations for future work
8.1. Conclusion
The anaerobic methane fermentation is an effective technology
for the energy conversion and resource recovery of agricultural
residues. Due to its economical and renewable advantages, biogas
as a suitable substitution for fossil fuels, has attracted the attention
of the world. Researches demonstrated that biogas yield of bio-
mass materials could be improved by adjusting C/N ratio of feed-
stock, controlling fermentation conditions and using various pre-
treatment methods, etc. Conducting such researches are very
important to provide theoretical basis for the operation of biogas
plants. In addition, the industrialization of biogas needs to be
developed further. In brief, main conclusions are as follows:
(1) Effects of temperature, ammonium etc. on methanogens were
compared. The ammonium/acetate sensitive Methanosaeta
were almost absent at 55–60 °C, which may suggest an
effective way to improve the process stability by digestion at
55–60 °C to exclude more stress susceptible acetotrophic
methanogens.
(2) To improve the biogas yield, pretreatment of feedstock
materials like C/N ratio adjusting, disintegration and grinding
are necessary in order to make substrate nutrition balance and
degraded easily.
(3) The co-digestion of livestock manure with low nitrogen
biomass can generate higher methane yield than the mono-
digestion of either manure or bio-solid waste like straw, grass
silage and FVW.
(4) Methanogenesis is the rate limiting step in the anaerobic
digestion of cellulose-poor wastes like FVW due to the rapid
acidification of these waste. Therefore, other feed stocks or
alkaline buffer should be added to FVW.
(5) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials is necessary before
anaerobic digestion. Considering the limitations of current
methods, practical pretreatments for biogas plant are urgently
needed.
(6) The number of biogas plants in China has been increased
rapidly in recent years, however, there still existed problem of
low profitability of biogas plant caused by unstable price of
raw material, inefficiency technical support, and low level of
commercialization.
(7) The widely application of biogas in China was strongly sup-
ported by the central government and a series of energy
policies, subsidies and tax incentives continuously became
effective in recent years.
8.2. Recommendations for future work
The benefits of biogas technology have already been remark-
ably known in China, such as energy capture from organic waste,
environment protection, less dependency on fossil fuels, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, etc., while its development is full of
challenges. The problems are mainly related with technology.
More specifically, there is a shortage of technical support for high-
efficiency gas production. In addition, the extension and policies
for biogas technology are also proposed. To accelerate the devel-
opment of biogas technology, a great attention should be paid to
the following aspects in future:
(1) Biogas plants with diversified feedstock materials should be
promoted. In regards of the nutrient imbalance in mono-
substrate anaerobic digestion, optimum C/N ratio and reduced
relevant toxicity can be obtained by adding alternative mate-
rials to single substrate.
(2) To improve the hydrolysis rate of straw materials, studies
about finding suitable disintegration methods need to carry
out in respect of combined pretreatment methods which are
reported as effective, economical and eco-friendly. In addition,
harvest time of biogas crops should also be considered since
lignin content increased during their progressive maturity.
(3) More appropriate biogas process technologies and reactors
need to be explored according to anaerobic digestion char-
acteristics of substrate materials such as the crust forming and
outputting problems of straw, and the fast acidification pro-
blem of FVW.
(4) Financial support for the constructions of super-large scale
biogas plants for bio-natural gas production should be empha-
sized by the government.
(5) The development of biogas electricity generation and vehicle
biogas should be emphasized. Only in this way could the
utilization of biogas be efficient and diverse.
(6) To promote the commercialization of biogas technology, the
financial subsidies for biogas should be given not only to
biogas project constructions but also to biogas products and
follow-up services. Meanwhile, standards and regulations for
quality control, inspection and evaluations need to be carried
out strictly.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of
China through contract (Grant no. 51376121) is greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] Ruane J, Sonnino A, Agostini A. Bioenergy and the potential contribution of
agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries. Biomass Bioenergy
2010;34:1427–39.
[2] Ma S, Li B, Zhu L, X-y GUO, Z-y LEI, ZHOU T-t, et al. Obstacle analysis and
countermeasures in development of rural biogas. China Biogas 2010;28:49–55.
[3] Cuiping L, Chuangzhi W, Haitao H. Study on the distribution and quantity of
biomass residues resource in China. Biomass bioenergy 2004;27:111–7.
[4] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2010;85:849–60.
[5] Dinuccio E, Balsari P, Gioelli F, Menardo S. Evaluation of the biogas pro-
ductivity potential of some Italian agro-industrial biomasses. Bioresour
Technol 2010;101:3780–3.
[6] Bouallagui H, Lahdheb H, Ben Romdan E, Rachdi B, Hamdi M. Improvement
of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability
with co-substrates addition. J Environ Manag 2009;90:1844–9.
[7] Nasir IM, Ghazi TIM, Omar R. Production of biogas from solid organic wastes
through anaerobic digestion: a review. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
2012;95:321–9.
 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
[8] Yanli Y, Peidong Z, Wenlong Z, Yongsheng T, Yonghong Z, Lisheng W.
Quantitative appraisal and potential analysis for primary biomass resources
for energy utilization in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3050–8.
[9] Liu H, Jiang G, Zhuang H, Wang K. Distribution, utilization structure and
potential of biomass resources in rural China: with special references of crop
residues. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:1402–18.
[10] Ruane J, Sonnino A, Agostini A. Bioenergy and the potential contribution of
agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries. Biomass Bioenergy
2010;34:1427–39.
[11] Demirbas A. Bio-fuels from agricutural residues. Energy Sources Part A-Recov
Util Environ Effects 2008;30:101–9.
[12] Zeng X, Ma Y, Ma L. Utilization of straw in biomass energy in China. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:976–87.
[13] Li JS, Duan N, Guo S, Shao L, Lin C, Wang JH, et al. Renewable resource for
agricultural ecosystem in China: ecological benefit for biogas by-product for
planting. Ecol Inform 2012;12:101–10.
[14] Xu G, Fan S, Zhang BL, Liu J. Anaerobic fermentation characteristics of corn
straw pretreated by steam explosion. In: Proceedings of the 1st international
conference on energy and environmental protection, ICEEP. Hohhot, China:
Trans Tech Publications; Jun 23–24 2012. p. 334–7.
[15] Zhang L, Jahng D. Long-term anaerobic digestion of food waste stabilized by
trace elements. Waste Manag 2012;32:1509–15.
[16] Xiao J, Zhu J, Chen S, Ruan W, Miller C. A novel use of anaerobically digested
liquid swine manure to potentially control soybean cyst nematode. J Environ
Sci Health Part B-Pestic Food Contam Agric Wastes 2007;42:749–57.
[17] Sun QP, Xiong F, Li JJ, Liu BS, Gao LJ, Xu JX, et al. The effect of biogas fertilizer
application on the yield, quality, and environmental risk of cherry tomato. In:
Camara M, Guitong L, Colvine S, editors. Xii international symposium on the
processing tomato; 2012 Jun 9-11. Beijing, China: Int Soc Hort Sci; 2013.
p. 113–8.
[18] Ferry JG. How to make a living by exhaling methane. In: Gottesman S, Har-
wood CS, editors. Annual review of microbiology. USA: Annual Reviews;
2010. p. 453–73.
[19] Welte C, Deppenmeier U. Bioenergetics and anaerobic respiratory chains of
aceticlastic methanogens. Biochim Biophys Acta-Bioenerg 2014;1837:1130–47.
[20] Ciotola RJ, Martin JF, Castano JM, Lee J, Michel F. Microbial community
response to seasonal temperature variation in a small-scale anaerobic
digester. Energies 2013;6:5182–99.
[21] Kim S, Bae J, Choi O, Ju D, Lee J, Sung H, et al. A pilot scale two-stage
anaerobic digester treating food waste leachate: performance and microbial
structure analysis using pyrosequencing. Process Biochem 2014;49:301–8.
[22] Manyi-Loh CE, Mamphweli SN, Meyer EL, Okoh AI, Makaka G, Simon M.
Microbial anaerobic digestion as an approach to the decontamination of
animal wastes in pllution control and the generation of renewable energy.
Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10:4390–417.
[23] Jang HM, Park SK, Ha JH, Park JM. Microbial community structure in a
thermophilic aerobic digester used as a sludge pretreatment process for the
mesophilic anaerobic digestion and the enhancement of methane produc-
tion. Bioresour Technol 2013;145:80–9.
[24] Krakat N, Westphal A, Satke K, Schmidt S, Scherer P. The microcosm of a
biogas fermenter: comparison of moderate hyperthermophilic with ther-
mophilic conditions. Eng Life Sci 2010;10:520–7.
[25] Conklin A, Stensel HD, Ferguson J. Growth kinetics and competition between
methanosarcina and methanosaeta in mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Water
Environ Res 2006;78:486–96.
[26] Khemkhao M, Nuntakumjorn B, Techkarnjanaruk S, Phalakornkule C. UASB
performance and microbial adaptation during a transition from mesophilic
to thermophilic treatment of palm oil mill effluent. J Environ Manag
2012;103:74–82.
[27] Rajakumar R, Meenambal T, Saravanan PM, Ananthanarayanan P. Treatment
of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater in hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor packed with pleated poly vinyl chloride rings. Bioresour
Technol 2012;103:116–22.
[28] Angenent LT, Sung S, Raskin L. Methanogenic population dynamics during
startup of a full-scale anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treating swine
waste. Water Res 2002;36:4648–54.
[29] Salminen E, Rintala J. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaugh-
terhouse waste. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:13–26.
[30] Lin J, Zuo JE, Gan LL, Li P, Liu FL, Wang KJ, et al. Effects of mixture ratio on
anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of
China. J Environ Sci 2011;23:1403–8.
[31] Li YB, Park SY, Zhu JY. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane produc-
tion from organic waste. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011;15:821–6.
[32] Xingang Z, Pingkuo L. Substitution among energy sources: an empirical
analysis on biomass energy for fossil fuel of China. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;18:194–202.
[33] Wang XJ, Yang GH, Feng YZ, Ren GX. Potential for biogas production from
anaerobic co-digestion of dairy and chicken manure with corn stalks. In: Pan
W, Ren JX, Li YG, editors. Renewable and sustainable energy; 2012. p. 2484–92.
[34] Li HL, Wang Y. Influence of total solid and stirring frequency on performance
of dry anaerobic digestion treating cattle manure. In: Zhouzhou Y, Luo Q,
editors. Chemical, mechanical and materials engineering;2011. p. 48–52.
[35] Chen X, Yan W, Sheng K, Sanati M. Comparison of high-solids to liquid
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and green waste. Bioresour Technol
2014;154:215–21.
863
[36] Xie S, Wu G, Lawlor PG, Frost JP, Zhan X. Methane production from anaerobic
co-digestion of the separated solid fraction of pig manure with dried grass
silage. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:289–97.
[37] Lv L, Zhong Y, Wei Q, Ying X, Wang C, Dong R. The research on effect of
different solid content of typical manure on anaerobic digestion process. In:
Proceedings of international conference on materials for renewable energy
and environment, ICMREE 2011. Shanghai, China: IEEE Computer Society;
May 20–22 2011. p. 1595–602.
[38] Cui Z, Shi J, Li Y. Solid-state anaerobic digestion of spent wheat straw from
horse stall. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:9432–7.
[39] Xiao X, Zhang RH, He YF, Li YQ, Feng L, Chen C, et al. Influence of particle size
and alkaline pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of corn stover. Bior-
esources 2013;8:5850–60.
[40] Yuan XZ, Shi XS, Zhang PD, Wei YL, Guo RB, Wang LS. Anaerobic biohydrogen
production from wheat stalk by mixed microflora: kinetic model and particle
size influence. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:9007–12.
[41] Surendra KC, Takara D, Jasinski J, Khanal SK. Household anaerobic digester
for bioenergy production in developing countries: opportunities and chal-
lenges. Environ Technol 2013;34:1671–89.
[42] Esposito G, Frunzo L, Giordano A, Liotta F, Panico A, Pirozzi F. Anaerobic co-
digestion of organic wastes. Rev Environ Sci Bio-Technol 2012;11:325–41.
[43] Rico JL, Garcia H, Rico C, Tejero I. Characterisation of solid and liquid fractions
of dairy manure with regard to their component distribution and methane
production. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:971–9.
[44] Feng L, Li YQ, Chen C, Liu XY, Xiao X, Ma XX, et al. Biochemical methane
potential of vinegar residue and the influence of feed to inoculum ratios on
biogas production. Bioresources 2013;8:2487–98.
[45] Shi LJ, Huang M, Zhang WY, Liu HF. Effect of dry matter concentration on dry
anaerobic digestion of animal manure and straw. In: Zhang XD, Li HN, Feng
X, Chen Z, editors. Sustainable development of urban infrastructure. Guilin
China: Trans Tech Publications Ltd; 2013. p. 897–902.
[46] Shi LJ, Li JB, Zhang WY, Liu HF. Effect of temperature on dry anaerobic fer-
mentation of animal manure and straw. In: Li YG, Li Y, Pan WG, editors.
Progress in renewable and sustainable energy. Jilin China: Trans Tech Pub-
lications; 2013. p. 236–41.
[47] Qin J, Li Y, Yang G, Song Z, Ren G, Feng Y. Effects of ratios of human feces
mixed with different materials in anaerobic fermentation on biogas pro-
duction. J Agro-Environ Sci 2010;03:571–7.
[48] Wang XJ, Yang GH, Feng YZ, Ren GX, Han XH. Optimizing feeding compo-
sition and carbon-nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anae-
robic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour
Technol 2012;120:78–83.
[49] Niu QG, Qiao W, Qiang H, Hojo T, Li YY. Mesophilic methane fermentation of
chicken manure at a wide range of ammonia concentration: stability, inhi-
bition and recovery. Bioresour Technol 2013;137:358–67.
[51] Steffen R, Szolar O, Braun R. Feedstocks for anaerobic digestion. In: Ortenblad
H, editor. AD-NETT. Denmark: Herning; 2000.
[52] Zhang C, Yang G, Ren G, Chu L, Feng Y, Bu D. Effects of temperature on biogas
production efficiency and fermentation time of four manures. Trans Chin Soc
Agric Eng 2008;24:209–12.
[53] Song L, Deng L, Yin Y, Pu X, Wang Z. Biogas production potential and char-
acteristics of manure of sheep, duck and rabbit under anaerobic digestion.
Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 2010;26:277–82.
[54] Hansen KH, Ahring BK, Raskin L. Quantification of syntrophic fatty acid-β-
oxidizing bacteria in a mesophilic biogas reactor by oligonucleotide probe
hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999;65:4767–74.
[55] Zhou HD, Li H, Wang FF. Anaerobic digestion of different organic wastes for
biogas production and its operational control performed by the modified
ADM1. J Environ Sci Health 2012;47:84–92.
[56] Xie S, Lawlor PG, Frost JP, Hu Z, Zhan X. Effect of pig manure to grass silage
ratio on methane production in batch anaerobic co-digestion of con-
centrated pig manure and grass silage. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:5728–33.
[57] Xu GZ, Fan SY, Zhang BL, Liu JB. Anaerobic fermentation characteristics of corn
straw pretreated by steam explosion. In: Ren N, Che LK, Jin B, Dong R, Su H,
editors. International Conference on Energy and Environmental Protection,
ICEEP. Hohhot, China: Trans Tech Publications; Jun 23–24 2012. p. 334–7.
[58] Callaghan FJ, Wase DAJ, Thayanithy K, Forster CF. Continuous co-digestion of
cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass
Bioenergy 2002;22:71–7.
[59] Wu J, Sun C, Liu R. Effects of urea treatment time on anaerobic fermentation
of wheat straw for biogas production. Acta Energiae Solaris Sin
2013;34:1547–50.
[60] Chen G, Zheng Z, Yang S, Fang C, Zou X, Zhang J. Improving conversion of
Spartina alterniflora into biogas by co-digestion with cow feces. Fuel Process
Technol 2010;91:1416–21.
[61] Zhang T, Liu LL, Song ZL, Ren GX, Feng YZ, Han XH, et al. Biogas production
by co-digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoS One 2013:8.
[62] Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, Ren G. Potential for biogas production from anae-
robic co-digestion of dairy and chicken manure with corn stalks. In: Pro-
ceedings of International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustain-
able Development, ICEESD. Shanghai, China: Trans Tech Publications; Oct
21–23 2012. p. 2484–92.
[63] Ganesh R, Torrijos M, Sousbie P, Steyer JP, Lugardon A, Delgenes JP. Anae-
robic co-digestion of solid waste: effect of increasing organic loading rates
and characterization of the solubilised organic matter. Bioresour Technol
2013;130:559–69.
864 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
[64] Zhang C, Xiao G, Peng L, Su H, Tan T. The anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 2013;129:170–6.
[65] Yue ZB, Chen R, Yang F, MacLellan J, Marsh T, Liu Y, et al. Effects of dairy
manure and corn stover co-digestion on anaerobic microbes and corre-
sponding digestion performance. Bioresour Technol 2013;128:65–71.
[66] Surendra K, Takara D, Jasinski J, Kumar Khanal S. Household anaerobic
digester for bioenergy production in developing countries: opportunities
and challenges. Environ Technol 2013;34:1671–89.
[67] Zhang WQ, Lang QQ, Wu SB, Li W, Bah H, Dong RJ. Anaerobic digestion
characteristics of pig manures depending on various growth stages and
initial substrate concentrations in a scaled pig farm in southern China.
Bioresour Technol 2014;156:63–9.
[68] Song ZL, Zhang C, Yang GH, Feng YZ, Ren GX, Han XH. Comparison of biogas
development from households and medium and large-scale biogas plants in
rural China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:204–13.
[69] Zeng XY, Ma YT, Ma LR. Utilization of straw in biomass energy in China.
Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2007;11:976–87.
[70] Chen L, Zhao LX, Ren CS, Wang F. The progress and prospects of rural biogas
production in China. Energy Policy 2012;51:58–63.
[71] Deng L, Chen Z, Gong J. Comparison of biogas plant between China and
Germany. Renew Energy Resour 2008;26(1):110–4.
[72] Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G. Review on research achievements of biogas
from anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2015;45:540–55.
[73] Liangwei D, Ziai C, Jianjun G. Comparison of biogas plant between China and
Germany. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2008;26:110–4.
[74] Wang XL, Chen YQ, Sui P, Gao WS, Qin F, Wu X, et al. Efficiency and sus-
tainability analysis of biogas and electricity production from a large-scale
biogas project in China: an emergy evaluation based on LCA. J Clean Prod
2014;65:234–45.
[75] Guo JB, Dong RJ, Clemens JC, Wang W. Performance evaluation of a com-
pletely stirred anaerobic reactor treating pig manure at a low range of
mesophilic conditions. Waste Manag 2013;33:2219–24.
[76] Fan X, Li Z, Wang T, Yin F, Jin X. Introduction to a large-scale biogas plant in a
dairy farm. In: proceedings of International Conference on Digital Manu-
facturing and Automation. Changsha, China: IEEE Computer Society; Dec 18–20
2010. p. 863–6.
[77] Lu JB, Zhu L, Hu GL, Wu JG. Integrating animal manure-based bioenergy
production with invasive species control: a case study at Tongren Pig Farm in
China. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:821–7.
[78] Chen Z, Cai C. Analysis on the performance of large-scale biogas project.
Renew Energy Resour 2009;27(6):102–4.
[79] Zhang Y, Ren C, Wang A, Hao X. Energy efficiency and economic assessment
based on life-cycle methodology for China's large-medium biogas project.
Renew Energy Resour 2011;29(2):119–24.
[80] Bouallagui H, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L, Hamdi M. Mesophilic biogas pro-
duction from fruit and vegetable waste in a tubular digester. Bioresour
Technol 2003;86:85–9.
[81] Kafle GK, Kim SH. Anaerobic treatment of apple waste with swine manure
for biogas production: batch and continuous operation. Appl Energy
2013;103:61–72.
[82] Molinuevo-Salces B, Gomez X, Moran A, Garcia MC. Anaerobic co-digestion
of livestock and vegetable processing wastes: fibre degradation and digestate
stability. Waste Manag 2013;33:1332–8.
[83] Lin J, Zuo J, Gan L, Li P, Liu F, Wang K. Effects of mixture ratio on anaerobic
co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China. J
Environ Sci 2011;23:1403–8.
[84] Jiang Y, Heaven S, Banks CJ. Strategies for stable anaerobic digestion of
vegetable waste. Renew Energy 2012;44:206–14.
[85] Feng CP, Shimada S, Zhang ZY, Maekawa T. A pilot plant two-phase anae-
robic digestion system for bioenergy recovery from swine wastes and gar-
bage. Waste Manag 2008;28:1827–34.
[86] Zhang B, He P, Lu F, Shao L. Enhancement of anaerobic biodegradability of
flower stem wastes with vegetable wastes by co-hydrolysis. J Environ Sci
2008;20:297–303.
[87] Zhong WZ, Zhang ZZ, Luo YJ, Qiao W, Xiao M, Zhang M. Biogas productivity
by co-digesting Taihu blue algae with corn straw as an external carbon
source. Bioresour Technol 2012;114:281–6.
[88] Yang YQ, Shen DG, Li N, Xu D, Long YY, Lu XY. Co-digestion of kitchen waste
and fruit-vegetable waste by two-phase anaerobic digestion. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 2013;20:2162–71.
[89] Liu X, Gao XB, Wang W, Zheng L, Zhou YJ, Sun YF. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-
digestion of municipal biomass waste: focusing on biogas production and
GHG reduction. Renew Energy 2012;44:463–8.
[90] Scano EA, Asquer C, Pistis A, Ortu L, Demontis V, Cocco D. Biogas from
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: experimental results on
pilot-scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power
plant. Energy Convers Manag 2014;77:22–30.
[91] Shen F, Yuan HR, Pang YZ, Chen SL, Zhu BN, Zou DX, et al. Performances of
anaerobic co-digestion of fruit & vegetable waste and food waste: single-
phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour Technol 2013;144:80–5.
[92] Adl M, Sheng K, Gharibi A. Technical assessment of bioenergy recovery from
cotton stalks through anaerobic digestion process and the effects of inex-
pensive pre-treatments. Appl Energy 2012;93:251–60.
[93] Kaparaju P, Serrano M, Thomsen AB, Kongjan P, Angelidaki I. Bioethanol,
biohydrogen and biogas production from wheat straw in a biorefinery con-
cept. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:2562–8.
[94] Weiss S, Tauber M, Somitsch W, Meincke R, Muller H, Berg G, et al.
Enhancement of biogas production by addition of hemicellulolytic bacteria
immobilised on activated zeolite. Water Res 2010;44:1970–80.
[95] Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, et al. Features
of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass.
Bioresour Technol 2005;96:673–86.
[96] Zhong W, Zhang Z, Qiao W, Fu P, Liu M. Comparison of chemical and bio-
logical pretreatment of corn straw for biogas production by anaerobic
digestion. Renew Energy 2011;36:1875–9.
[97] Feng YZ, Zhao XL, Guo Y, Yang GH, Xi JC, Ren GX. Changes in the material
characteristics of maize straw during the pretreatment process of metha-
nation. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012;2012:1–7.
[98] Shen SC, Nges IA, Yun JX, Liu J. Pre-treatments for enhanced biochemical
methane potential of bamboo waste. Chem Eng J 2014;240:253–9.
[99] You ZY, Wei TY, Cheng JJ. Improving anaerobic codigestion of corn stover
using sodium hydroxide pretreatment. Energy Fuels 2014;28:549–54.
[100] He YF, Pang YZ, Li XJ, Liu YP, Li RP, Zheng MX. Investigation on the changes of
main compositions and extractives of rice straw pretreated with sodium
hydroxide for biogas production. Energy Fuels 2009;23:2220–4.
[101] Song ZL, Yag GH, Feng YZ, Ren GX, Han XH. Pretreatment of rice straw by
hydrogen peroxide for enhanced methane yield. J Integr Agric 2013;12:1258–
66.
[102] Song ZL, Yang GH, Guo Y, Zhang T. Comparison of two chemical pretreat-
ments of rice straw for biogas production by anaerobic digestion. Bior-
esources 2012;7:3223–36.
[103] Yuan XF, Wen BT, Ma XG, Zhu WB, Wang XF, Chen SJ, et al. Enhancing the
anaerobic digestion of lignocellulose of municipal solid waste using a
microbial pretreatment method. Bioresour Technol 2014;154:1–9.
[104] Niu JL, Liu L, Zhang QG. Effect of biogas production characteristics of dry
anaerobic fermentation of wheat straw pretreated by a microbial community
with high cellulose-degradation ability. In: Pan W, Ren JX, Li YG, editors.
Renewable and sustainable energy. Shanghai, China: Trans Tech Publications;
2012. p. 2996–3000.
[105] Chen WH, Pen BL, Yu CT, Hwang WS. Pretreatment efficiency and structural
characterization of rice straw by an integrated process of dilute-acid and steam
explosion for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:2916–24.
[106] Guo P, Mochidzuki K, Cheng W, Zhou M, Gao H, Zheng D, et al. Effects of
different pretreatment strategies on corn stalk acidogenic fermentation using
a microbial consortium. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:7526–31.
[107] Cesaro A, Belgiorno V. Pretreatment methods to improve anaerobic biodegrad-
ability of organic municipal solid waste fractions. Chem Eng J 2014;240:24–37.
[108] Liu S, Wu S, Pang C, Li W, Dong R. Microbial pretreatment of corn stovers by
solid-state cultivation of Phanerochaete chrysosporium for biogas production.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2014;172:1365–76.
[109] Zhong W, Zhang Z, Luo Y, Sun S, Qiao W, Xiao M. Effect of biological pre-
treatments in enhancing corn straw biogas production. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:11177–82.
[110] Gao J, Chen L, Yuan K, Huang HM, Yan ZC. Ionic liquid pretreatment to
enhance the anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Tech-
nol 2013;150:352–8.
[111] Zhang QH, Tang L, Zhang JH, Mao ZG, Jiang L. Optimization of thermal-dilute
sulfuric acid pretreatment for enhancement of methane production from
cassava residues. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:3958–65.
[112] Zhou SX, Dong YP, Zhang YL. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane
production from corn stalks with stack-pretreated. In: Huang T, Zhang D, Lin
B, Xu AP, Tian YL, Gao W, editors. Advances in materials manufacturing sci-
ence and technology. Tianjin, China: Trans Tech Publications; 2012.
p. 326–30.
[113] Qiu K, Min S, Wu J. Factors influencing industrialization of straw biogas
engineering and countermeasures. China Biogas 2013;31(5):61–4.
[114] Cui W, Liang J, Du L, Zhang K. The current situation and problems of the
large-scale biogas plants for straw in China. Chin Agric Sci Bull 2013;29
(11):121–5.
[115] Shi J, Gao G, Shi X, Lan T. Exploration and economic benefit analysis on straw
anaerobic fermentation project of biogas-heat-power- fertilizer cogeneration
mode. Renew Energy Resour 2012;30(6):107–10.
[116] Chen C, Chen W. Evaluation and analysis on chinese straw biogas plant using
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. J Converg Inform Technol 2012;7:104–13.
[117] Wu J, Xu L, Xie J. The effect of alkali-pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of
solid organic waste. Acta Sci Circumst 2006;26:252–5.
[118] Niu JL, Liu L, Zhang QG. Effect of biogas production characteristics of dry
anaerobic fermentation of wheat straw pretreated by a microbial community
with high cellulose-degradation ability. Adv Mater Res 2012;347:2996–3000.
[119] Lin Y, Wang D, Wu S, Wang C. Alkali pretreatment enhances biogas pro-
duction in the anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper sludge. J Hazard Mater
2009;170:366–73.
[120] Ministry of Agriculture of China. Interpretation of Chinese biogas policies
report. Ministry of Agriculture of China, Beijing; 2015 [in Chinese].
[121] Chen L, Zhao L, Ren C, Wang F. The progress and prospects of rural biogas
production in China. Energy Policy 2012;51:58–63.
[122] Chen Y, Yang G, Sweeney S, Feng Y. Household biogas use in rural China: a
study of opportunities and constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:545–9.
[123] Zhang WD, Yin F, Liu N, Liu SQ, Gong HL, Li JC, et al. Industrial development
and marketable analysis on rural biogas. Trans CSAE 2006;22(Suppl. 1):S72–6
[in Chinese].
 K. Li et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 857–865
[124] Liangwei D, Ziai C, Jianjun G. Comparison of biogas plant between China and
Germany. Kezaisheng Nengyuan/Renew Energy Resour 2008;26:110–4.
[125] Djatkov D, Effenberger M, Martinov M. Method for assessing and improving
the efficiency of agricultural biogas plants based on fuzzy logic and expert
systems. Appl Energy 2014;134:163–75.
[126] Sorda G, Sunak Y, Madlener R. An agent-based spatial simulation to evaluate
the promotion of electricity from agricultural biogas plants in Germany. Ecol
Econ 2013;89:43–60.
[127] Hinrichs-Rahlwes R. Renewable energy: paving the way towards sustainable
energy security: lessons learnt from Germany. Renew Energy 2013;49:10–4.
865
[128] Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. Renewable
energy law of PR China; 2005 〈http://www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/2005-06/21/
content_8275.htm〉 [in Chinese].
[129] National Development and Reform Committee of China. Regulations related
to renewable energy power generation; 2006 [in Chinese].
[130] National Development and Reform Committee of China. Renewable energy
prices and cost-sharing management trial procedures; 2006 [in Chinese].
[131] National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. Renewable
Energy Law (revision) of PR China; 2009. 〈http://www.npc.gov.cn/huiyi/cwh/
1112/2009-12/26/content_1533216.htm〉 [in Chinese].