Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Analysis of the criteria for improving biogas production: focus on anaerobic digestion

  • Review
  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recovery of energy potential through anaerobic digestion is a widely used method for treating biodegradable waste. However, challenges related to operational issues, waste characterization, and process instability hinder its widespread application and result in low methane yields. This review aims to organize and analyze the static and dynamic parameters that influence biogas yield in order to optimize its production. Biogas typically consists of 50–70% methane (CH4) and 30–50% carbon dioxide (CO2) along with traces of other gases. The paper highlights various solutions to enhance CH4 production, including substrate pre-treatment, co-digestion, Fe0 powder addition, anaerobic fungi, multi-stage biodigester design, and controlling factors influencing anaerobic digestion. These factors primarily include methanogenic potential, C/N ratio, digestion temperature, pH, reactor tightness, and Pressure. However, the use of bioreactors faces technical, socio-economic, and environmental constraints that vary between developed and less developed countries, as discussed in the paper. Through an analysis of over 30 substrate types, the optimum ratios for certain substrates to achieve higher biogas yields were identified. For cow manure mixed with other materials, the yield increases within a C/N ratio of 20–30 and decreases at a ratio of 35. In the case of poultry droppings mixed with other substrates, the yield increases within a C/N ratio of 18–22. Food waste yield, on the other hand, varies significantly due to the differing characteristics of food waste sources. In summary, this study emphasizes the importance of optimizing biogas production through understanding and controlling the influencing factors. It provides insights into potential solutions and optimum substrate ratios for improved biogas yield.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Funding

The funding was provied by Agence Française de Développement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oumoul-Kairou Karidio Daouda Idrissa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

List of parameters and variables

C/N

Carbon/ Nitrogen

pH

hydrogen potential

°C

Degree celcius

HRT

hydraulic retention time

VFAs

Volatile fatty acid

TS

Total solid

VS

Volatile solid

List of acronyms and abbreviations

CH4

Methane

UN

United Nations

UE

European Union

CO2

Carbon dioxide

H2S

Hydrogen sulfide

NH3

Ammonia

H2

Hydrogen

AF

Anaerobic fungi

AD

Anaerobic digestion

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karidio Daouda Idrissa, OK., Tsuanyo, D., Kouakou, R.A. et al. Analysis of the criteria for improving biogas production: focus on anaerobic digestion. Environ Dev Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03788-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03788-8

Keywords

Navigation