[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (383)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = biomethane production

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
35 pages, 3142 KiB  
Review
Decarbonisation of Natural Gas Grid: A Review of GIS-Based Approaches on Spatial Biomass Assessment, Plant Siting and Biomethane Grid Injection
by Thanuja Gelanigama Mesthrige and Prasad Kaparaju
Energies 2025, 18(3), 734; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18030734 - 5 Feb 2025
Viewed by 423
Abstract
Most nations are shifting towards renewable energy sources to reduce energy-related emissions and achieve their net zero emissions targets by mid-century. Consequently, many attempts have been made to invest in clean, accessible, inexpensive, sustainable and reliable renewable energy sources while reducing dependency on [...] Read more.
Most nations are shifting towards renewable energy sources to reduce energy-related emissions and achieve their net zero emissions targets by mid-century. Consequently, many attempts have been made to invest in clean, accessible, inexpensive, sustainable and reliable renewable energy sources while reducing dependency on fossil fuels. Recently, the production of biogas and upgrading it to produce biomethane is considered a sustainable way to reduce emissions from natural gas consumption. However, uncertainties in the biomass supply chain and less attention to decarbonising the natural gas grid have led to fewer investors in biomethane injection projects. Thus, researchers have applied Geographic Information System (GIS) as the best decision-making tool with spatial analytical and optimisation capabilities to address this issue. This study aims to review GIS-based applications on planning and optimising the biomass supply chain. Accordingly, this review covers different GIS-based biomass assessment methods with the evaluation of feedstock types, GIS-based approaches on selecting and optimising bioenergy plant locations and GIS-based applications on facilitating biomethane injection projects. This review identified four major biomass assessment approaches: Administrative division-based, location-based, cluster-based and grid-based. Sustainability criteria involved in site selection were also discussed, along with suitability and optimality techniques. Most of the optimising studies investigated cost optimisation based on a single objective. However, optimising the whole supply chain, including all operational components of the biomass supply chain, is still seldom investigated. Furthermore, it was found that most studies focus on site selection and logistics, neglecting biomethane process optimisation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A4: Bio-Energy)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Estimated annual biomethane potential from agricultural wastes and distribution of natural gas transmission pipelines. Source: [<a href="#B4-energies-18-00734" class="html-bibr">4</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Different Feedstock types found in studied articles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Different feedstock types included in biomass assessments of reviewed articles and their regional distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Different GIS-based approaches used for biomass assessments of reviewed articles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Location-based approach for biomass assessment. Source: [<a href="#B46-energies-18-00734" class="html-bibr">46</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Cluster-based approach for biomass assessment. Source: [<a href="#B67-energies-18-00734" class="html-bibr">67</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>GIS-based applications on biogas plant site selection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Different approaches on siting the location of biomass energy plants.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Biomethane production by region 2013–2023. Source: [<a href="#B98-energies-18-00734" class="html-bibr">98</a>].</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 599 KiB  
Article
An Evaluation of the Energy Potential of Agri-Food Waste: Green Residues from Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and Shea Nutshells (Vitellaria paradoxa)
by Maja Owczarek, Hanna Siwek and Małgorzata Włodarczyk
Energies 2025, 18(3), 730; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18030730 - 5 Feb 2025
Viewed by 385
Abstract
Addressing the agricultural challenges of agri-food waste accumulation, this study assessed the energy potential of green residues from tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Kmicic) plants in different fertilizer configurations and Shea nutshell (Vitellaria paradoxa) waste. Two key parameters were compared: [...] Read more.
Addressing the agricultural challenges of agri-food waste accumulation, this study assessed the energy potential of green residues from tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Kmicic) plants in different fertilizer configurations and Shea nutshell (Vitellaria paradoxa) waste. Two key parameters were compared: (I) Calorific Value (CV), representing thermal treatment, and (II) Biogas and Biomethane production potential, representing biochemical treatment. Potential was estimated using the Baserga method and the fermentable organic matter (FOM) method. Additionally, the effect of tomato fertilization on the elemental composition and energy potential of its waste was analyzed. Shea waste showed better properties for both thermal and biochemical utilization, with a CV of 16.29 MJ/kg. The Baserga and FOM methods of estimation showed that the highest Biogas yields from Shea waste were 504.18 and 671.39 LN/kg DM, respectively. Among fertilized tomato residues, volcanic tuff fertilizer additive resulted in an optimal C/N ratio (28.41) and a high Biogas production potential of 457.13 LN/kg DM (Baserga) and 542.85 LN/kg DM (FOM). These findings demonstrate the feasibility of employing tomato waste and Shea waste as promising feedstock for energy production. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Challenges in Waste-to-Energy and Bioenergy Systems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Correlations between Calorific Value (<span class="html-italic">CV</span>) and content: Volatile Solids (<span class="html-italic">VS</span>), Ash (<span class="html-italic">A</span>), and Carbon (<span class="html-italic">C</span>).</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 3250 KiB  
Article
Freezing Method Assists Peracetic Ac98uid Oxidation for Promoting the Methane Production from Sludge Anaerobic Digestion
by Zhen-Wei Liu, Yan-Qiu Chen, Zhi-Shuai Liu and Sheng-Wu Wang
Energies 2025, 18(3), 731; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18030731 - 5 Feb 2025
Viewed by 349
Abstract
Peracetic acid (PAA) oxidation, which is a kind of chemical method for sludge pretreatment, has been verified to be valid for promoting sludge anaerobic digestion performance. However, the methane production is still limited at certain levels by this method, because excess PAA has [...] Read more.
Peracetic acid (PAA) oxidation, which is a kind of chemical method for sludge pretreatment, has been verified to be valid for promoting sludge anaerobic digestion performance. However, the methane production is still limited at certain levels by this method, because excess PAA has negative effects on methanogens. This work selected a freezing method combined with PAA to form a composite sludge pretreatment technology for synergistically improving the biomethane production. According to the experimental data, the methane yield was largely enhanced from 166.4 ± 5.6 mL/g volatile suspended solids (VSS) in the control to 261.5 ± 7.3 mL/g VSS by the combined freezing (−10 °C) and PAA (0.08 g/g TSS) pretreatment, with a 57.2% increase rate. Kinetic analysis showed that the methane production potential, methane production rate, and hydrolysis rate were promoted, respectively, from 159.4 mL/g VSS, 17.18 mL/g VSS/d, and 0.104 d−1 to 254.9 mL/g VSS, 25.69 mL/g VSS/d, and 0.125 d−1 by the freezing + PAA pretreatment. Mechanism analysis revealed that the freezing + PAA pretreatment destroyed both extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and microbial cells in the sludge, resulting in the increase in hydrolysis efficiency. Gene analysis showed that the hydrolytic microbes (Hyphomicrobium and norank_f_Caldilineaceae), acidogens (e.g., Petrimonas, Tissierella, and Mycobacerium) and methanogens (Methanosaeta, Methanosarcina, and Methanobacterium) were all enriched by the freezing + PAA pretreatment, with the total abundances calculated to be 10.65% and 22.07% in the control and pretreated reactors, respectively. Considering both technical and economic factors, the freezing + PAA method is feasible for sludge pretreatment. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A4: Bio-Energy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Cumulative methane production from sludge with different PAA dosages. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate tests.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Variations in cumulative methane production with time under different conditions. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate tests.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The fitting curves of methane production data by the modified Gompertz model (<b>a</b>) and first-order kinetic model (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The COD contents of EPS (<b>a</b>) and relative release of LDH and DNA (<b>b</b>) under different conditions. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate tests.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The SCOD (<b>a</b>), soluble protein, and carbohydrate (<b>b</b>) contents in sludge samples with or without pretreatment. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate tests.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The relationship of microbial OTUs between control and freezing + PAA pretreated reactors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Heat map of the microbial abundance at genus level in control and freezing + PAA pretreated reactors.</p>
Full article ">
28 pages, 6080 KiB  
Article
Meat-Processing Wastewater Treatment Using an Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR)
by Ferdinand Hummel, Lisa Bauer, Wolfgang Gabauer and Werner Fuchs
Fermentation 2025, 11(2), 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11020068 - 1 Feb 2025
Viewed by 552
Abstract
This study explores AnMBR technology as a promising method for treating wastewater from the meat-processing industry by analysing its characteristics and impact under continuous feeding. The solids were retained, utilising an ultrafiltration membrane with a pore size of 0.2 µm, and the efficacy [...] Read more.
This study explores AnMBR technology as a promising method for treating wastewater from the meat-processing industry by analysing its characteristics and impact under continuous feeding. The solids were retained, utilising an ultrafiltration membrane with a pore size of 0.2 µm, and the efficacy of reducing the organic load was evaluated. Although the COD removal rate decreased from 100% at an OLR of 0.71 g/(L*d) to 73% at an OLR of 2.2 g/(L*d), maximum methane yields were achieved at the highest OLR, 292.9 Nm3/t (COD) and 397.8 Nm3/t (VS) per loaded organics and 353.1 Nm3/t (COD) and 518.7 Nm3/t (VS) per removed organics. An analysis of the microbial community was performed at the end of the experiment to assess the effects of the process and the substrate on its composition. The AnMBR system effectively converts meat-processing wastewater into biogas, maintaining high yields and reducing the loss of dissolved methane in the permeate, thanks to a temperature of 37 °C and high salt levels. AnMBR enables rapid start-up, efficient COD removal, and high biogas yields, making it suitable for treating industrial wastewater with high organic loads, enhancing biogas production, and reducing methane loss. Challenges such as high salt and phosphate levels present opportunities for a wider use in nutrient recovery and water reclamation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Wastes: Feedstock for Value-Added Products: 5th Edition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Experimental setup of the AnMBR used in the continuous experiment; composed of an (I) external ceramic ultrafiltration unit, (II) recirculation pump and a stirred tank reactor, (III) automated valve for permeate release, (IV) balance for feed and permeate, (V) peristaltic pump for feed application, (VI) heating jacket and TIC for constant reactor temperature (37 °C), (VII) stirrer (25 rpm) to avoid dead spots, and (VIII) Ritter Gas clock.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Wastewater-feeding rate and corresponding HRT over the course of the continuous experiment. Feeding rate illustrated as trend line (black line), calculated with R geom_smooth function.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Daily methane production rate related to the reactors working volume corresponding to the increasing OLR. Methane production illustrated as trendline (black line), calculated with R geom_smooth function.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Biogas composition produced in the AnMBR during the continuous experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Methane yield at increasing organic loading rates for COD and VS. Phase 1 corresponds to an OLR of 0.71 gCOD/(L*d), 0.65 gVS/(L*d), and HRT of 3.4 days; phase 2 to 1.15 gCOD/(L*d), 1.67 gVS/(L*d), and HRT of 2.0 days; and phase 3 to 2.25 gCOD/(L*d), 1.85 gVS/(L*d), and HRT of 1.4 days. (<b>a</b>) Methane yield calculated per loaded organics. (<b>b</b>) Methane yield calculated per organics removed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>COD removal for each average OLR (COD). Phase 1 corresponds to an OLR of 0.71 gCOD/(L*d) and HRT of 3.4 days; phase 2 to 1.15 gCOD/(L*d) and HRT of 2.0 days; and phase 3 to 2.25 gCOD/(L*d) and HRT of 1.4 days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Dissolved methane and methane loss: (<b>a</b>) measured and calculated theoretical methane concentration in the permeate sorted by three different OLR and corresponding HRT and additionally the corresponding methane production per day; (<b>b</b>) calculated total methane loss from the theoretical and measured methane concentrations and the daily permeate volume sorted by three different OLRs, corresponding HRTs, and, additionally, the corresponding permeate production per day. Phase 1: OLR 0.71 gCOD/(L*d), 0.65 gVS/(L*d), and HRT of 3.4 days; phase 2: 1.15 gCOD/(L*d), 1.67 gVS/(L*d), and HRT of 2.0 days; phase 3: 2.25 gCOD/(L*d), 1.85 gVS/(L*d), and HRT of 1.4 days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Microbial community composition in the AnMBR. Confidence threshold was set at 70%; at a lower confidence, the taxa are labelled ‘n.d.’. (<b>a</b>) Bacteria at phylum and class level. Only classes with an abundance of at least 2% are shown; (<b>b</b>) archaea at phylum, class, and order level. Only orders with an abundance of at least 0.2% are shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Graphical representation of the batch test results of wastewater as the substrate and standard inoculum (SIR = 0.4).</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Graphical representation of the batch test results of wastewater and AnMBR inoculum (SIR = 0.4).</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Graphical representation of the fed-batch results of the standard inoculum and sucrose as the substrate (SIR = 0.18).</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>Graphical representation of the fed-batch with the AnMBR inoculum batch and sucrose as the substrate (SIR = 0.18).</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>Graphical representation of the results of the second batch test with wastewater and the standard inoculum (SIR = 0.4).</p>
Full article ">Figure A6
<p>Graphical representation of the results of the second batch test with wastewater and the AnMBR inoculum. (SIR = 0.4).</p>
Full article ">Figure A7
<p>Graphical representation of the results of the control batch test with the cellulose standard and standard inoculum.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 2381 KiB  
Article
Improving Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency of Animal Manure Through Ball Milling Pretreatment
by Meicai Xu, Sibel Uludag-Demirer, Yan Liu and Wei Liao
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 305; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020305 - 25 Jan 2025
Viewed by 562
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion (AD) can offer a promising pathway for converting animal waste into biogas. This process improves waste management practices while generating renewable energy. However, the lignocellulosic structure of animal manure, particularly in dairy and cattle manure, hinders digestion efficiency and limits biogas [...] Read more.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) can offer a promising pathway for converting animal waste into biogas. This process improves waste management practices while generating renewable energy. However, the lignocellulosic structure of animal manure, particularly in dairy and cattle manure, hinders digestion efficiency and limits biogas yield. This study investigates the application of ball milling as a pretreatment strategy to enhance the anaerobic digestion of dairy manure. By reducing particle size and disrupting lignocellulosic structures, ball milling increases the bioavailability of organic matter, thus promoting microbial conversion and boosting biogas production. Experimental results reveal that 1 h ball milling pretreatment increases biogas and biomethane production by more than 20% compared to untreated manure. Furthermore, microbial community analysis indicates that anaerobic microbes remain largely unaffected by ball milling pretreatment, unlike the changes observed with activated carbon addition. These findings suggest that ball milling is a practical, adaptable, and scalable pretreatment method to enhance the anaerobic digestion efficiency of dairy manure. It offers a sustainable solution for improved manure management and biogas production. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biogas and Biomethane Production from Pretreated Waste Biomasses)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Biogas and methane content: (<b>a</b>) daily biogas production over 80 days, (<b>b</b>) cumulative biogas production for the four groups, and (<b>c</b>) methane content (%) in the biogas.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Amplicon sequencing results for the four groups: (<b>a</b>) sequence reading counts, (<b>b</b>) observed OTUs, and (<b>c</b>) Good’s coverage for the samples. The data are from samples collected on days 20, 40, 60, and 80.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Alpha diversity and principal component analysis (PCA) of microbial communities across four groups based on the first 100 OTUs. (<b>a</b>) Shannon (H) index, (<b>b</b>) Simpson (D) index, (<b>c</b>) Chao1 index, and (<b>d</b>) PCA of microbial community composition. Statistical significance is indicated by * (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05), and “ns” denotes no significant difference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Relative abundance of microbial communities across four groups at the domain (<b>a</b>), phylum (<b>b</b>), and genus (<b>c</b>) levels. The data represent the average across the four HRTs (days 20, 40, 60, and 80).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of raw dairy manure (<b>a</b>) and 1 h ball mill-treated manure (<b>b</b>) used in this study. (Magnification: ×300 and scale bar = 50 µm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spearman correlation heatmap between key biochemical parameters and microbial community abundances. The color gradient reflects the strength and direction of correlations, with darker shades indicating stronger positive or negative relationships.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 3795 KiB  
Review
Systematic and Bibliometric Review of Biomethane Production from Biomass-Based Residues: Technologies, Economics and Environmental Impact
by Gonçalo A. O. Tiago, Naresh P. B. Rodrigo, Gonçalo Lourinho, Tiago F. Lopes and Francisco Gírio
Fuels 2025, 6(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/fuels6010008 - 23 Jan 2025
Viewed by 964
Abstract
Fossil fuels drive global warming, necessitating renewable alternatives such as biomethane (or renewable natural gas). Biomethane, primarily produced through anaerobic digestion (AD), offers a cleaner energy solution but is limited by the slow AD process. Biomass gasification followed by syngas methanation has emerged [...] Read more.
Fossil fuels drive global warming, necessitating renewable alternatives such as biomethane (or renewable natural gas). Biomethane, primarily produced through anaerobic digestion (AD), offers a cleaner energy solution but is limited by the slow AD process. Biomass gasification followed by syngas methanation has emerged as a faster alternative. This review examines advancements in these processes over the last decade (2015–2024), focusing on techno-economic and life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. Techno-economic analyses reveal that biomethane production costs are influenced by several factors, including process complexity, feedstock type and the scale of production. Smaller gasification units tend to exhibit higher capital costs (CAPEX) per MW capacity, while feedstock choice and process efficiency play significant roles in determining overall production costs. LCA studies highlight higher impacts for gasification and methanation due to energy demands and associated emissions. However, integrating renewable hydrogen production through electrolysis, along with innovations such as sorption-enhanced gasification (SEG), can enhance overall system efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. This review critically evaluates the technical and economic challenges, along with the opportunities for optimizing biomethane production, and discusses the potential for these technologies to contribute to sustainable bioenergy solutions in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biofuels and Bioenergy: New Advances and Challenges)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flow diagram for new systematic reviews that included searches of databases and registers only (adapted from PRISMA 2020 [<a href="#B14-fuels-06-00008" class="html-bibr">14</a>,<a href="#B15-fuels-06-00008" class="html-bibr">15</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of types of feedstocks commonly used in the synthesis of biomethane, as retrieved by the assessed documents.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Number of publications reporting different technologies of biomethane production. (AD = anaerobic digestion; BU = biogas upgrading; M = methanation; L = landfill; G = gasification; P = pyrolysis; U = upgrading; CM = chemical methanation; BM = biological methanation; CTH = catalytic transfer hydrogenolysis; n.d. = not defined).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Number of publications over the years, evidencing the type of analysis performed. The distribution of type of study is included in each reference assessed (TEA—techno-economic analysis, E-LCA—environmental life cycle assessment, S-LCA—social life cycle assessment).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Top 10 of most locally (within the universe of retrieved documents) and globally cited documents, obtained using <span class="html-italic">bibliometrix</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Three-field plot illustrating the correlation between the most frequently cited documents (CR), the most relevant authors who commonly cite those documents (AU) and the most frequently occurring keywords (DE) in research on biomethane production, retrieved using <span class="html-italic">bibliometrix</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Co-occurrence network of keywords from the retrieved documents related to biomethane production, generated using <span class="html-italic">bibliometrix</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Stages of biomethane synthesis by gasification and methanation of biomass, adapted from [<a href="#B34-fuels-06-00008" class="html-bibr">34</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Distribution of CAPEX (<b>a</b>) and Production Costs (<b>b</b>) per type of technology used in biomethane production. AD—Anaerobic Digestion; BU—Biogas upgrading; M—Methanation; G—Gasification; CM—Chemical methanation; BM—Biological methanation.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 1212 KiB  
Article
Effects of the Chemical and Mechanical Pre-Treatment of Brown Seaweed on Biomethane Yields in a Batch Configuration
by Ashleen Marshall and Oluwaseun Oyekola
Biomass 2025, 5(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass5010007 - 21 Jan 2025
Viewed by 645
Abstract
Brown seaweed could be a viable option for biogas production, with the added advantage of not competing with land-based crops, which negates the food vs. fuel argument. To optimise the process, this research investigates using mechanical and chemical pre-treatment to increase the biomethane [...] Read more.
Brown seaweed could be a viable option for biogas production, with the added advantage of not competing with land-based crops, which negates the food vs. fuel argument. To optimise the process, this research investigates using mechanical and chemical pre-treatment to increase the biomethane yield of seaweed. The biomethane potential, biodegradability index, and biomethane yields were determined as well as the kinetics based on the hydrolysis of the anaerobic digestion process. Mechanical pre-treatment showed the highest increase in methane yield for the smaller size (<1.7 mm), recording yields of 126.16 mL/g VS after 28 days when compared to 31.54 mL/g VS for the control (2–3 mm). Chemical pre-treatment yielded higher methane rates (34.59–60.33 mL/g VS) than the control, but not as high as the mechanical pre-treatment processes. First-order kinetics described the anaerobic digestion process, with k-values between 0.050 and 0.106. The biodegradability index was between 0.145 and 0.580. The research increased the knowledge base of the potential of the Ecklonia Maxima seaweed to produce biogas. Careful consideration of the impact on the overall process must be completed to determine the advantages or disadvantages of including a pre-treatment step in the process under consideration. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Experimental setup.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Anaerobic digestion process (adapted from [<a href="#B20-biomass-05-00007" class="html-bibr">20</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Cumulative methane yield for pre-treated <span class="html-italic">Eckonia Maxima</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Cumulative methane yields at different HRTs.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 10551 KiB  
Article
Zero Waste Concept in Production of PLA Biocomposites Reinforced with Fibers Derived from Wild Plant (Spartium junceum L.) and Energy Crop (Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby)
by Zorana Kovačević, Ana Pilipović, Mario Meheš and Sandra Bischof
Polymers 2025, 17(2), 235; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17020235 - 18 Jan 2025
Viewed by 572
Abstract
This research follows the principles of circular economy through the zero waste concept and cascade approach performed in two steps. Our paper focuses on the first step and explores the characteristics of developed biocomposite materials made from a biodegradable poly(lactic acid) polymer (PLA) [...] Read more.
This research follows the principles of circular economy through the zero waste concept and cascade approach performed in two steps. Our paper focuses on the first step and explores the characteristics of developed biocomposite materials made from a biodegradable poly(lactic acid) polymer (PLA) reinforced with natural fibers isolated from the second generation of biomass (agricultural biomass and weeds). Two plants, Spartium junceum L. (SJL) and Sida hermaphrodita (SH), were applied. To enhance their mechanical, thermal, and antimicrobial properties, their modification was performed with environmentally friendly additives—linseed oil (LO), organo-modified montmorillonite nanoclay (MMT), milled cork (MC), and zinc oxide (ZnO). The results revealed that SH fibers exhibited 38.92% higher tensile strength than SJL fibers. Composites reinforced with SH fibers modified only with LO displayed a 27.33% increase in tensile strength compared to neat PLA. The addition of LO improved the thermal stability of both biocomposites by approximately 5–7 °C. Furthermore, the inclusion of MMT filler significantly reduced the flammability, lowering the heat release rate to 30.25%, and enabling the categorization of developed biocomposite in a group of flame retardants. In the second step, all waste streams generated during the fibers extraction process are repurposed into the production of solid biofuels (pellets, briquettes) or biogas (bio)methane. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spanish broom (<span class="html-italic">Spartium junceum</span> L.) and (<b>b</b>) Virginia mallow (<span class="html-italic">Sida hermaphrodita</span> (L.) Rusby).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Moisture content (MC) and moisture regain (MR) of <span class="html-italic">Spartium junceum</span> L. (SJL) and <span class="html-italic">Sida hermaphrodita</span> (SH) fibers. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Density of <span class="html-italic">Spartium junceum</span> L. (SJL) and <span class="html-italic">Sida hermaphrodita</span> (SH) fibers. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>SEM micrographs taken under the following magnifications—333×, 6.68k×, and 2.00k×. First row: <span class="html-italic">Spartium junceum</span> L. stem and technical fiber morphology. Second row: <span class="html-italic">Sida hermaphrodita</span> stem and technical fiber morphology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Tensile stress–strain behavior of neat PLA compared to (<b>a</b>) SJL fiber-reinforced composites; (<b>b</b>) SH fiber-reinforced composites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Flexural stress–strain behavior of neat PLA compared to (<b>a</b>) SJL fiber-reinforced composites; (<b>b</b>) SH fiber-reinforced composites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Impact properties of neat PLA compared to (<b>a</b>) SJL fiber-reinforced composites; and (<b>b</b>) SH fiber-reinforced composites. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) TG and (<b>b</b>) DTG graphs of neat PLA (1), SJL fibers (SJL), and SJL composites (5–8 and 14).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) TG and (<b>b</b>) DTG graphs of neat PLA (1), SH fibers (SH), and SH composites (9–12 and 15).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>DSC curves of second heating, melting, and cold crystallization for SJL-reinforced composites compared to neat PLA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>DSC curves of second heating, melting, and cold crystallization for SH-reinforced composites compared to neat PLA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>DSC curves of SJL and SH fibers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>MCC results of SJL-reinforced composites.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 3420 KiB  
Essay
Biogas Overview: Global and Brazilian Perspectives with Emphasis on Paraná State
by Sílvio M. P. Marcucci, Robison A. Rosa, Giane G. Lenzi, Jose M. Balthazar, Maria E. K. Fuziki and Angelo M. Tusset
Sustainability 2025, 17(1), 321; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010321 - 3 Jan 2025
Viewed by 759
Abstract
Biogas is a renewable energy source that can be locally produced from the anaerobic digestion of several organic wastes, serving as a partial substitute for natural gas derived from non-renewable sources. This work provides an overview of feedstock used for biogas production, anaerobic [...] Read more.
Biogas is a renewable energy source that can be locally produced from the anaerobic digestion of several organic wastes, serving as a partial substitute for natural gas derived from non-renewable sources. This work provides an overview of feedstock used for biogas production, anaerobic digestion process, biogas usage, and global and Brazilian biogas generation. In addition, the potential output in Paraná State, Brazil was evaluated. In Brazil, the full potential of biogas, especially within the agricultural sector, has not been explored. Paraná, one of Brazil’s leading agricultural producers, has emerged as a prominent biogas producer, particularly from landfill and industrial sources, primarily for electricity generation. According to the findings of this work, the biogas produced from pig, chicken, and confined cattle waste could generate 2.23 TWh of electricity, equivalent to approximately 8% of the state’s energy consumption. Moreover, the biomethane potential surpasses the 2021 production by 3.4 times. Based on the overview and results, the biogas produced in Paraná can significantly contribute to sustainable energy generation, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote a cleaner and more environmentally friendly energy matrix. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic of the anaerobic digestion process [<a href="#B74-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">74</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Bioreactions in anaerobic digestion for the final production of methane [<a href="#B78-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">78</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Types of reactors used in anaerobic digestion [<a href="#B80-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">80</a>,<a href="#B81-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">81</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Primary sources of global biogas production in 2018, presented as percentages relative to millions of tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) (data adapted from IEA [<a href="#B15-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">15</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Installed power generation capacity from biogas plants (data adapted from IEA [<a href="#B15-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">15</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Biofuel production in Brazil from 2013 to 2022 (data adapted from ANP [<a href="#B107-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">107</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Biogas production in Brazil in million Nm<sup>3</sup> per year (data adapted from CIBiogas [<a href="#B16-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">16</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Potential for biogas (billion m<sup>3</sup>/year) and power production (TWh/year) in Brazil, categorized by feedstock (data adapted from dos Santos et al. [<a href="#B20-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">20</a>]). The values in the figure are averaged.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Percentage of biogas usage in Brazil in 2021. Data adapted from CIBiogas [<a href="#B16-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Biogas production by states in 2021. Data adapted from CIBiogas [<a href="#B16-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Biogas production in Paraná from 2004 to 2021. Data adapted from CIBiogas [<a href="#B16-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Biogas production in 2021, according to feedstock source. Data adapted from CIBiogas [<a href="#B16-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Percentage usage of biogas in 2021 and percentage of operational plant, categorized by sector. Data adapted from CIBiogas [<a href="#B16-sustainability-17-00321" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 3106 KiB  
Article
Anaerobic Biohythane Production in an Internal Two-Stage Bioreactor: Kitchen Waste Concentration Optimization
by Peer Mohamed Abdul, Chyi-How Lay, Chiu-Yue Lin, Tan-Phat Vo and Chia-Min Chang
Energies 2025, 18(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18010001 - 24 Dec 2024
Viewed by 490
Abstract
An internal two-stage bioreactor constructed with a hydrogen chamber and a methane chamber with a working volume of 300 mL and 4700 mL, respectively, was operated using various kitchen waste (KW) concentrations from 10 to 80 g COD/L with a hydraulic retention time [...] Read more.
An internal two-stage bioreactor constructed with a hydrogen chamber and a methane chamber with a working volume of 300 mL and 4700 mL, respectively, was operated using various kitchen waste (KW) concentrations from 10 to 80 g COD/L with a hydraulic retention time of 2 days to characterize the biomethane production performance. The results showed that daily biohythane production exhibited a similar increasing trend at KW concentrations of 10 to 40 g COD/L. The peak biomethane production was 2481 mL/day at a KW concentration of 40 g COD/L. The KW concentration could also affect the COD, carbohydrate, lipid, and protein removal efficiencies. These removal efficiencies were somehow dependent on the KW concentration, with two notable KW concentration groups of 10–20 g COD/L and 40–80 g COD/L. After 80 days of cultivation, Firmicutes dominated the hydrogen chamber, and Methanobacteriaceae and Methanomicrobiaceae dominated the methane chamber. This study presents the optimal KW concentration for high biohythane production efficiency in a novel internal two-stage bioreactor and reveals the dominant microorganisms in its microbial community. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Energy Conversion Technologies Based on Energy Physics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of the two-chamber biohythane production bioreactor.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Daily variations in ITR performance: (<b>a</b>) gas composition, (<b>b</b>) gas production rate.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>VFA degradation using various kitchen waste (KW) concentrations at sampling ports (<b>a</b>) 2 and (<b>b</b>) 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>TS, VS, COD, carbohydrate, lipid, and protein removal efficiencies at various KW concentrations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Taxonomy profile compositions: (<b>a</b>) the archaea at the family level and (<b>b</b>) the bacterial consortia at the phylum level (HC seed, the hydrogen chamber seed inoculum; HC80, the hydrogen chamber at a KW concentration of 80 g COD/L; MC seed, the methane chamber seed inoculum; MC 80: the methane chamber at a KW concentration of 80 g COD/L).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Beta diversity using non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis of microbial community data for four samples (HC seed, hydrogen chamber seed inoculum; HC80, the hydrogen chamber at a KW concentration of 80 g COD/L; MC seed, the methane chamber seed inoculum; MC80: the methane chamber at a KW concentration of 80 g COD/L).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Family-level Venn diagram. The number at left indicates the amount of family type only in the methane chamber. This intersection was both in the methane and hydrogen chambers. The right one indicates the amount of family type only in the hydrogen chamber (HC seed, the hydrogen chamber seed inoculum; HC80, the hydrogen chamber at a KW concentration of 80 g COD/L; MC seed, the methane chamber seed inoculum; MC80: the methane chamber at a KW concentration of 80 g COD/L). (<b>a</b>) intersection of MC seed and HC seed, (<b>b</b>) HC seed and HC80, (<b>c</b>) MC seed and MC80, and (<b>d</b>) MC80 and HC80.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 1622 KiB  
Review
The Promotion of Anaerobic Digestion Technology Upgrades in Waste Stream Treatment Plants for Circular Economy in the Context of “Dual Carbon”: Global Status, Development Trend, and Future Challenges
by Xinjia Huang
Water 2024, 16(24), 3718; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16243718 - 23 Dec 2024
Viewed by 1069
Abstract
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the advancements and challenges of anaerobic digestion technology in waste stream treatment plants under the framework of the circular economy, emphasizing its role in achieving “dual carbon” goals. As climate change intensifies, with waste stream treatment [...] Read more.
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the advancements and challenges of anaerobic digestion technology in waste stream treatment plants under the framework of the circular economy, emphasizing its role in achieving “dual carbon” goals. As climate change intensifies, with waste stream treatment contributing significantly to global emissions, there is a pressing need to optimize energy efficiency and reduce carbon outputs in this sector. Anaerobic digestion is highlighted as a solution for converting organic waste into renewable biogas and digestate, enabling energy self-sufficiency and reducing greenhouse gasses. The study highlights that anaerobic digestion enables the conversion of organic waste into renewable biogas and nutrient-rich digestate, facilitating energy self-sufficiency and significant reductions in GHG emissions. Successful implementations, such as in Weifang, China, demonstrate the feasibility of upgrading biogas into biomethane for local energy use. Advanced technologies like bioelectrochemical methanation and membrane bioreactors enhance biogas production efficiency, while co-digestion proves effective even in challenging conditions. Despite these advancements, the review identifies critical challenges, including high investment costs, technical inefficiencies, and regulatory barriers, particularly in developing countries. This study provides insights into integrating anaerobic digestion with circular economy principles and offers a foundation for future policies and research aimed at achieving carbon neutrality and sustainable waste management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Wastewater Treatment and the Circular Economy)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The four main stages of anaerobic digestion of organic waste.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The main design parameters of anaerobic digestion technology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Development trend of European biogas industry 2000–2050 [<a href="#B114-water-16-03718" class="html-bibr">114</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>EU policy formulation and proposed adoption path [<a href="#B139-water-16-03718" class="html-bibr">139</a>].</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 2714 KiB  
Article
From Microalgae to Biofuels: Investigating Valorization Pathways Towards Biorefinery Integration
by Panagiotis Fotios Chatzimaliakas, Ermis Koutsaftis-Fragkos, Sofia Mai, Dimitris Malamis and Elli Maria Barampouti
Processes 2024, 12(12), 2936; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122936 - 22 Dec 2024
Viewed by 1162
Abstract
The rapid growth of the world population led to an exponential growth in industrial activity all around the world. Consequently, CO2 emissions have risen almost 400% since 1950 due to human activities. In this context, microalgae biomass has emerged as a renewable [...] Read more.
The rapid growth of the world population led to an exponential growth in industrial activity all around the world. Consequently, CO2 emissions have risen almost 400% since 1950 due to human activities. In this context, microalgae biomass has emerged as a renewable and sustainable feedstock for producing third-generation biofuels. This study explores the laboratory-scale production of bioethanol and biomethane from dried algal biomass. The first step was to evaluate and optimize the production of glucose from the biomass. Thus, three different techniques with three different solvents were tested to identify the most effective and efficient in terms of saccharification yield. With the assistance of an autoclave or a high-temperature water bath and 0.2 M NaOH as a solvent, yields of 79.16 ± 3.03% and 85.73 ± 3.23% were achieved which correspond to 9.24 and 9.80 g/L of glucose, respectively. Furthermore, the most efficient method from the pretreatment step was chosen to carry out a factorial design to produce bioethanol. The experiments showed that the loading of cellulase was of crucial importance to the optimization of the process. Optimized ethanolic fermentation yielded ethanol concentrations up to 4.40 ± 0.28 g/L (76.12 ± 4.90%) (0.3 Μ NaOH, 750 μL/gcellulose and 65 μL/gstarch), demonstrating the critical role of cellulase loading. Biomethane potential (BMP) assays on fermentation residues showed increased yields compared to untreated feedstock, with a maximum methane yield of 217.88 ± 10.40 mL/gVS. Combined energy production from bioethanol and biomethane was calculated at up to 1044.48 kWh/tn of algae feedstock, with biomethane contributing 75.26% to the total output. These findings highlight the potential of integrated algae-based biorefineries to provide scalable and sustainable biofuel solutions, aligning with circular economy principles. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Progress on Biomass Processing and Conversion)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) BMP Reactor; (<b>b</b>) Reactor schematic.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Glucose concentration throughout the 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis of algae after pretreatment in autoclave at 121 °C for 30 min.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Glucose concentration throughout the 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis of algae after pretreatment in water bath at 90 °C for 75 min.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Glucose concentration throughout 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis of algae after ultrasonic pretreatment at 150 W for 10 min.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Saccharification yields per pretreatment method and solvent.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Phenolic content after 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Volatile Organic Acid concentration after 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Degradation of solid and major polysaccharides after enzymatic hydrolysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Total produced biomethane from the BMP experiments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Potential energy produced from ethanolic fermentation and biomethane.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 2105 KiB  
Article
Strategy and Performance of Biomethane Production Through Woody Biomass Gasification, Electrolysis and Methanation: A Case Study for Kočevje Region in Slovenia
by Gregor Bahč, Vladimir Prebilič, Matevž Zupančič, Igor Mihelič and Iztok Golobič
Forests 2024, 15(12), 2205; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122205 - 14 Dec 2024
Viewed by 792
Abstract
Increasing energy demand and limited non-renewable energy resources have raised energy security concerns within the European Union. With the EU’s commitment to becoming the first climate-neutral continent, transitioning to renewable energy sources has become essential. While wind and solar energy are intermittent, consistent [...] Read more.
Increasing energy demand and limited non-renewable energy resources have raised energy security concerns within the European Union. With the EU’s commitment to becoming the first climate-neutral continent, transitioning to renewable energy sources has become essential. While wind and solar energy are intermittent, consistent and reliable green energy sources, such as biogas and biomethane, offer promising alternatives. Biogas and biomethane production from biomass address key challenges, including grid stability (“supply on demand”), decentralized energy production, energy density, and efficient storage and transportation via existing natural gas infrastructure. This study examines technologies for converting woody biomass into biomethane and proposes a conceptual design utilizing the best available technologies. The system, situated in Slovenia’s Kočevje region—one of Europe’s richest forest habitats—was scaled based on the availability of low-quality woody biomass unsuitable for other applications. Combining biomass gasification, catalytic methanation, and biomethanation, supplemented by hydrogen from electrolysis, provides an effective method for converting wood to biomethane. Despite the system’s complexity and current technological limitations in energy efficiency, the findings highlight biomethane’s potential as a reliable energy carrier for domestic and industrial applications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest-Based Biomass for Bioenergy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>A map of the existing and planned Slovenian gas transmission system [<a href="#B30-forests-15-02205" class="html-bibr">30</a>] with envisioned hydrogen pipelines within the European Hydrogen Backbone (EHB) strategy [<a href="#B10-forests-15-02205" class="html-bibr">10</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic block diagram with proposed solution to convert woody biomass to biomethane.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 2796 KiB  
Article
Biomethane Production from Untreated and Treated Brewery’s Spent Grain: Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion After Pretreatments According to Biogas Yield and Energy Efficiency
by Jessica Di Mario, Alberto Maria Gambelli and Giovanni Gigliotti
Agronomy 2024, 14(12), 2980; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14122980 - 14 Dec 2024
Viewed by 774
Abstract
The increasing global energy demand, coupled with the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, has intensified the search for renewable energy sources. Biogas, produced from agro-industrial biomass, presents a viable solution. In beer production, brewery’s spent grain (BSG), the largest by-product by [...] Read more.
The increasing global energy demand, coupled with the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, has intensified the search for renewable energy sources. Biogas, produced from agro-industrial biomass, presents a viable solution. In beer production, brewery’s spent grain (BSG), the largest by-product by volume, offers potential for bioenergy recovery. This study applied a biorefinery approach to BSG, extracting protein hydrolysates (PH) through mild alkaline hydrolysis and nanostructured lignin (LN) via the Ionic Liquid Method. The objective was to assess biogas production from the residual biorefinery biomass and evaluate the co-digestion of BSG with Olive Mill Wastewater (OMWW) and Olive Pomace (OP), by-products of the olive oil industry. Biogas was produced in lab-scale batch reactors and the quantity of biogas produced was measured via the volumetric method. Conversely, the amount of biomethane obtained was evaluated by introducing, in the production chain, an alkaline trap. Biogas yields were the highest for untreated BSG (1075.6 mL), co-digested BSG with OMWW (1130.1 mL), and BSG residue after PH extraction (814.9 mL). The concentration of biomethane obtained in the various samples ranged from 54.5 vol % (OMWW + BSG) to 76.59 vol % (BSG). An energy balance analysis considering both the theoretical energy consumed by a semi-continuous anaerobic digestion bioreactor and the energy produced as bio-CH4 revealed that BSG after PH extraction was the most energy-efficient treatment, producing a net energy gain of 5.36 kJ. For the scope, the energy consumption was calculated by considering a PEIO index equal to 33% of the energy produced during the day, showing the highest biogas production. In contrast, the co-digested BSG with OMWW yielded the lowest net energy gain of 1.96 kJ. This comprehensive analysis highlights the energy efficiency of different treatments, identifying which process should be improved. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biogas and Biomethane Production from Pretreated Waste Biomasses)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>A</b>) Batch bioreactor used in this study for biogas production. The biogas generated in the first bottle flows into a second vessel, the “gasometer”, which contains water. The quantity of water flowed in the last vessel allowed us to measure the amount of biogas produced (volumetric method). (<b>B</b>) Inclusion of an alkaline trap, composed of 5 M NaOH and thymolphthalein as a pH indicator, to assess biomethane production. The CO₂ in the biogas was separated according to the reaction outlined in the scheme.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Daily biogas production for the different biomasses tested.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Total biogas yield for unit of VS for all biomasses. (<b>b</b>) Average daily biogas yield for the different samples (total Nm<sup>3</sup>·gVS<sup>−1</sup>/days of production).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison between the quantity of biogas produced and the related amount of biomethane contained in it.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Cumulative energy produced (empty dots) and energy spent (filled dots) for the various samples.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Efficiency measured for the optimal production period (until reaching the maximum difference between energy produced and energy spent).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Energy produced (in blue) and energy spent (in red) during the optimal production period and energy produced before the energy spent equaled the energy produced (green).</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 1323 KiB  
Article
Effect of Corn Stover Ensiling on Methane Production and Carbon Dioxide Emissions
by Jacek Przybył, Dawid Wojcieszak and Tomasz Garbowski
Energies 2024, 17(23), 6179; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236179 - 7 Dec 2024
Viewed by 1015
Abstract
The biogas and biomethane sectors are crucial for the European Union’s energy transition. One strategy for achieving the EU’s biogas and biomethane targets while reducing the use of agricultural land for energy feedstock production is to use alternative biomass streams. Such a stream [...] Read more.
The biogas and biomethane sectors are crucial for the European Union’s energy transition. One strategy for achieving the EU’s biogas and biomethane targets while reducing the use of agricultural land for energy feedstock production is to use alternative biomass streams. Such a stream includes agricultural residues and by-products. A good example is crop residues after harvesting corn for grain, which are available in large quantities. Due to the fact that they are lignocellulosic biomasses, they require pretreatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of ensiling enhancers on the methane yield of corn stover silages. Corn stover, which was harvested using the same technology, was ensiled in the first variant with an ensiling enhancer preparation based on bacteria of the Lactobacillus plantarum strain (DSM 3676 and DSM 3677) and two strains of propionic acid bacteria (DSM 9676 and DSM 9677), in the second variant with a formulation whose active ingredients were sodium benzoate, propionic acid, and sodium propionite, and in the third with a formulation based on lactic acid bacteria of the strain Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus Buchneri. The fourth variant was the control; that is, the material was ensiled naturally without the ensiling enhancer preparation. The use of the ensiling enhancer, based on lactic acid bacteria of the Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus Buchneri strains, reduced carbon dioxide emissions per 1 GJ of silage energy potential in the biogas production process. Specifically, the unique contribution of this research lies in demonstrating the role of ensiling enhancers in improving methane yield and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Energy, Environment and Well-Being)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flowchart of corn stover harvesting and ensiling technology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Correlation between methane yield and lactic acid content (r = −0.65). The solid line represents the correlation between methane yield and lactic acid content, while the dashed lines indicate the confidence interval/prediction interval. The blue circles denote the experimental data points.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Correlation between methane yield and crude fiber (r= −0.83). The solid line represents the correlation between methane yield and lactic acid content, while the dashed lines indicate the confidence interval/prediction interval. The blue circles denote the experimental data points.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop