Nutrient management from biogas digester effluents: a bibliometric-based analysis of publications and patents

  • A. Magrí
  • F. Giovannini
  • R. Connan
  • G. Bridoux
  • F. Béline
Original Paper

Abstract

Interest in organic waste(water) processing by anaerobic digestion to produce biogas as renewable energy source has increased significantly in recent years. The characteristics of the digested effluents vary depending on the feedstocks treated, and different handling alternatives are possible. This study reviews advances in science and technology in the specific field of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) management from biogas digester effluents during the last two decades (from 1995 to 2014) using a bibliometric approach. Information concerning publications as representative of the outputs of scientific research, and concerning patents as representative of the outputs of technological development was retrieved from specialised databases and analysed systematically. The number of publications was twice the number of patents. Production followed a rising trend (in both cases, partial productivity in the last 5 years was >45%). The USA, China, and Japan were the three most prolific countries when considering the joint production of publications and patents. However, while the number of publications was higher than the number of patents for the USA, the opposite was true for China and Japan. The institutions which published more (and also the most cited items) were mainly European, whereas Asian countries were more active in filing for patents even though the patents from the USA were more frequently cited. Relative interest in particular nutrient management alternatives and their evolution were identified. Reducing the consumption of resources, implementing integral solutions, and circular economy approaches will be among key issues in future studies and development to promote sustainability.

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion post-treatment Digestate Environmental science and technology Fertilisation Nutrients Reject water 

Supplementary material

13762_2017_1293_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1066 kb)

References

  1. Abbas A, Zhang L, Khan SU (2014) A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent analysis. World Pat Inf 37:3–13. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2013.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA (2012) Biogas energy. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science 2. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Appels L, Lauwers J, Degrève J, Helsen L, Lievens B, Willems K, Van Impe J, Dewil R (2011) Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and research challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:4295–4301. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batstone DJ, Hülsen T, Mehta CM, Keller J (2015) Platforms for energy and nutrient recovery from domestic wastewater: a review. Chemosphere 140:2–11. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA, Bustamante MA, Clemente R (2011) Guía de utilización agrícola de los materiales digeridos por biometanización [Guide of agricultural use of digested materials by biomethanization] (In Spanish). PSE Probiogas Project, Report SP3, Murcia, Spain. http://www.probiogas.es. Accessed 17 Apr 2016
  6. Buffiere P, Mirquez LD, Steyer JP, Bernet N, Delgenes JP (2008) Anaerobic digestion of solid wastes needs research to face an increasing industrial success. Int J Chem React Eng 6:A94. doi:10.2202/1542-6580.1619 Google Scholar
  7. Cai T, Park SY, Li Y (2013) Nutrient recovery from wastewater streams by microalgae: status and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 19:360–369. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuang K-Y, Huang Y-L, Ho Y-S (2007) A bibliometric and citation analysis of stroke-related research in Taiwan. Scientometrics 72:201–212. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1721-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuchs W, Drosg B (2013) Assessment of the state of the art of technologies for the processing of digestate residue from anaerobic digesters. Water Sci Technol 67:1984–1993. doi:10.2166/wst.2013.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel W (2001) National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics 51:69–115. doi:10.1023/A:1010512628145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glänzel W, Zhou P (2011) Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology. Scientometrics 86:505–525. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greaves J, Hobbs P, Chadwick D, Haygarth P (1999) Prospects for the recovery of phosphorus from animal manures: a review. Environ Technol 20:697–708. doi:10.1080/09593332008616864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hjorth M, Christensen KV, Christensen ML, Sommer SG (2010) Solid-liquid separation of animal slurry in theory and practice. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:153–180. doi:10.1051/agro/2009010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P (2009) The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 100:5478–5484. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang W, Zhang B, Feng C, Li M, Zhang J (2012) Research trends on nitrate removal: a bibliometric analysis. Desal Water Treat 50:67–77. doi:10.1080/19443994.2012.708542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang M-H, Chen S-H, Lin C-Y, Chen D-Z (2014) Exploring temporal relationships between scientific and technical fronts: a case of biotechnology field. Scientometrics 98:1085–1100. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1054-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnstone N, Haščič I, Popp D (2010) Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ Resour Econ 45:133–155. doi:10.1007/s10640-009-9309-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lackner S, Gilbert EM, Vlaeminck SE, Joss A, Horn H, van Loosdrecht MCM (2014) Full-scale partial nitritation/anammox experiences—an application survey. Water Res 55:292–303. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Corre KS, Valsami-Jones E, Hobbs P, Parsons SA (2009) Phosphorus recovery from wastewater by struvite crystallization: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 39:433–477. doi:10.1080/10643380701640573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li J, Zhang Y, Wang X, Ho Y-S (2009a) Bibliometric analysis of atmospheric simulation trends in meteorology and atmospheric science journals. Croat Chem Acta 82:695–705Google Scholar
  21. Li L-L, Ding G, Feng N, Wang M-H, Ho Y-S (2009b) Global stem cell research trend: bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping of trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics 80:39–58. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-1939-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu YH, Kumar S, Kwag J-H, Ra CS (2013) Magnesium ammonium phosphate formation, recovery and its application as valuable resources: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 88:181–189. doi:10.1002/jctb.3936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loyon L, Burton CH, Misselbrook T, Webb J, Philippe FX, Aguilar M, Doreau M, Hassouna M, Veldkamp T, Dourmad JY, Bonmatí A, Grimm E, Sommer SG (2016) Best available technology for European livestock farms: availability, effectiveness and uptake. J Environ Manage 166:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magrí A, Béline F, Dabert P (2013) Feasibility and interest of the anammox process as treatment alternative for anaerobic digester supernatants in manure processing—an overview. J Environ Manage 131:170–184. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malamis S, Katsou E, Di Fabio S, Bolzonella D, Fatone F (2014) Biological nutrients removal from the supernatant originating from the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Crit Rev Biotechnol 34:244–257. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.791246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza MS, Fonoll X, Peces M, Astals S (2014) A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 36:412–427. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehta CM, Khunjar WO, Nguyen V, Tait S, Batstone DJ (2015) Technologies to recover nutrients from waste streams: a critical review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45:385–427. doi:10.1080/10643389.2013.866621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moed HF, Glänzel W, Schmoch U (eds) (2005) Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Narin F, Olivastro D (1998) Linkage between patents and papers: an interim EPO/US comparison. Scientometrics 41:51–59. doi:10.1007/BF02457966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nkoa R (2013) Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 34:473–492. doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0196-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paccanelli N, Teli A, Scaglione D, Insabato G, Casula A (2015) Comparison based on environmental effects of nitrogen management techniques in a manure digestate case study. Environ Technol 36:3176–3185. doi:10.1080/09593330.2015.1055820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prajapati SK, Kumar P, Malik A, Vijay VK (2014) Bioconversion of algae to methane and subsequent utilization of digestate for algae cultivation: a closed loop bioenergy generation process. Bioresour Technol 158:174–180. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qian F, He M, Song Y, Tysklind M, Wu J (2015) A bibliometric analysis of global research progress on pharmaceutical wastewater treatment during 1994–2013. Environ Earth Sci 73:4995–5005. doi:10.1007/s12665-015-4183-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rehl T, Müller J (2011) Life cycle assessment of biogas digestate processing technologies. Resour Conserv Recy 56:92–104. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodriguez-Garcia G, Frison N, Vázquez-Padín JR, Hospido A, Garrido JM, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2014) Life cycle assessment of nutrient removal technologies for the treatment of anaerobic digestion supernatant and its integration in a wastewater treatment plant. Sci Total Environ 490:871–879. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scherson YD, Criddle CS (2014) Recovery of freshwater from wastewater: upgrading process configurations to maximize energy recovery and minimize residuals. Environ Sci Technol 48:8420–8432. doi:10.1021/es501701s CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheets JP, Yang L, Ge X, Wang Z, Li Y (2015) Beyond land application: emerging technologies for the treatment and reuse of anaerobically digested agricultural and food waste. Waste Manage 44:94–115. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegmeier T, Möller D (2013) Mapping research at the intersection of organic farming and bioenergy—a scientometric review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:197–204. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Council of the European Communities (1991) Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities L 375:1–8Google Scholar
  40. Ugolini D, Cimmino MA, Casilli C, Mela GS (2001) How the European Union writes about ophthalmology. Scientometrics 52:45–58. doi:10.1023/A:1012746927721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Stappen F, Mathot M, Decruyenaere V, Loriers A, Delcour A, Planchon V, Goffart J-P, Stilmant D (2016) Consequential environmental life cycle assessment of a farm-scale biogas plant. J Environ Manage 175:20–32. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vela JD, Stadler LB, Martin KJ, Raskin L, Bott CB, Love NG (2015) Prospects for biological nitrogen removal from anaerobic effluents during mainstream wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2:234–244. doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verbeek A, Debackere K, Luwel M, Andries P, Zimmermann E, Deleus F (2002) Linking science to technology: using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics 54:399–420. doi:10.1023/A:1016034516731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang L-H, Wang Q, Zhang X, Cai W, Sun X (2013) A bibliometric analysis of anaerobic digestion for methane research during the period 1994–2011. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 15:1–8. doi:10.1007/s10163-012-0094-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:849–860. doi:10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. WIPO (2016) International Patent Classification (IPC). World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/. Accessed 17 Apr 2016
  47. Yang L, Chen Z, Liu T, Gong Z, Yu Y, Wang J (2013) Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011 by using bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 96:133–146. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0911-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ye Z, Zhang B, Liu Y, Zhang J, Wang Z, Bi H (2014) A bibliometric investigation of research trends on sulfate removal. Desal Water Treat 52:6040–6049. doi:10.1080/19443994.2013.812991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang Z, Liu S (2014) Hot topics and application trends of the anammox biotechnology: a review by bibliometric analysis. SpringerPlus 3:220. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang B, Liu Y, Tian C, Wang Z, Cheng M, Chen N, Feng C (2014) A bibliometric analysis of research on upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) from 1983 to 2012. Scientometrics 100:189–202. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1189-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UR OPAALE (Optimization of Processes in Agriculture, Agri-food and the Environment Research Unit)IrsteaRennesFrance
  2. 2.DP2VIST (Forecasting & Scientific and Technical Monitoring Department)IrsteaAntonyFrance
  3. 3.Recherche et développementSAURMaurepasFrance

Personalised recommendations