Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00385-6

REVIEW ARTICLE

Biogas generation from by-products of edible oil processing: a review

of opportunities, challenges and strategies
Charles Rashama 1 & Grace Ijoma 1 & Tonderayi Matambo 1

Received: 27 October 2018 / Revised: 21 January 2019 / Accepted: 24 January 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Edible oil processing by-products can be used to produce a renewable fuel called biogas through anaerobic digestion technology.
In this process, the physicochemical characteristics of the substrates dictate the process conditions, stability and microbial profile.
All these, in turn, affect the overall digester design and operational efficiency. Most edible oil processing by-products tend to
exhibit comparatively similar physicochemical properties, allowing for echo studies to be conducted on them. Naturally, residual
fats and oils in edible oil by-products should induce high methane production potential. However, this does not occur without
certain drawbacks. In this work, a review is conducted on biogas systems that use edible oil processing by-products as substrates
for anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion opportunities and challenges associated with these substrates are identified by
analysis of factors that affect anaerobic digestion. The factors are scrutinised under different sub-headings, viz., substrate
physicochemical composition, process conditions and parameters. Knowledge gaps are identified. Additionally, strategies for
resolving some of the highlighted challenges while leveraging opportunities identified are discussed.

Keywords Biogas . Edible oil cake . Pomace . Microbial inhibition . Anaerobic digestion . Wastewater treatment

Abbreviations OMSW Olive mill solid waste

AD Anaerobic digestion FA Fatty acid
TS Total solids LCFA Long-chain fatty acids
RBDW Refined, bleached, deodorised and winterised SCFA Short-chain fatty acids
VS Volatile solids AnCod Anaerobic codigestion
COD Chemical oxygen demand ORP Oxidation/reduction potential
BOD Biological oxygen demand EGSB Expanded granular suspended bed
BMP Biomethane potential LPM Liquid poultry manure
n.d. No data FOG Fats, oils and grease
OFC Organic fraction composition UASB Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
HRT Hydraulic retention time IASB Inverted anaerobic sludge blanket
OLR Organic loading rate UASFF Upflow anaerobic sludge fixed film
SRT Solids retention time CSTR Continuously stirred tank reactor
VFA Volatile fatty acids TAN Total ammonia nitrogen
POME Palm oil mill effluent TCOD Total chemical oxygen demand
OMWW Olive mill waste water CW Cheese whey
AMPTSII Automatic methane potential testing system ver-
sion II
* Charles Rashama
c.rashama@gmail.com

1
1 Introduction
Institute for the Development of Energy for African Sustainability
(IDEAS), University of South Africa’s College of Science,
Engineering and Technology, Cnr Pioneer and Christian De Wet Edible oil extraction from various oil bearing seeds and fruits
Roads, Private Bag X6, Florida 1710, South Africa is widely practiced around the globe [1]. From these oil

extraction activities arise a number of environmental con-
cerns, such as the generation of solid wastes [1] and wastewa-
ter with high organic loading [1–4]. Dangerous leachates, ob-
noxious gases and greenhouse gas emissions from landfills/
wastewater lagoons that are used for the disposal of these oil
processing by-products have been reported [4–6]. Most cur-
rent disposal methods for edible oil processing by-products
are either insufficient or costly. In addition to the waste man-
agement problem with edible oil plants, the high consumption
of water and energy in this industry also poses serious con-
cerns [1]. The water and electricity are mainly used in steam
generation activities required for process applications.
Depending on the raw material used for oil extraction, the
solids fraction of this industry’s waste can be used in applica-
tions like fueling boilers [4, 7, 8], animal feedstock supplemen-
tation [4, 9–12] or soil conditioning [4]. A significantly large
fraction of this waste, for example 90% of fruit weight fed into
the process of avocado oil processing [13], currently ends up in
landfills. Furthermore, the liquid portion is mainly dumped in
open lagoons (facultative ponds) exploiting natural aeration
and subsequent evaporation for these pollutants [5]. This liquid
portion of edible oil processing by-products normally contains
residual fats and oils (lipids) [2]. Proteins, carbohydrates, traces
of vitamins and antioxidants have also been detected in some
edible oil factory effluents [14]. Because of this multi-
compositional nature, the effluent is not adequately treated by
means of the natural facultative pond route and disposal deci-
sions for this by-product are consequently complicated.
The process of anaerobic digestion (AD)—also known as
biogasification or anaerobic biotreatment—involves the con-
version of organic compounds in an oxygen-free environment
by a consortium of bacteria to produce a useful energy carrier
gas called biogas. This gas mixture consists mainly of 55–
70% v/v methane and 30–45% v/v carbon dioxide). The AD
bioslurry can be used as biofertiliser [15]. AD proceeds
through four stages, namely hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis and finally methanogenesis [16]. Hydrolysis
breaks down polymeric organics into simple monomers.
Under acidogenesis, acidogenic bacteria will consume prod-
ucts of hydrolysis while producing a mixture of sugars, vola-
tile fatty acids and alcohols. These products are further de-
graded by acetogenic bacteria into acetates, hydrogen and car-
bon dioxide during the acetogenesis stage. The products of
acetogenesis are finally converted to biogas by methanogens
which are microorganisms belonging to the domain of ar-
chaea. This series of biochemical activities leaves a stable
digestate slurry that can be applied to several processes, in-
cluding soil conditioning [14, 17], duckweed fertiliser [15]
and even feedstock supplementation in fish farming [18].
However, AD performance is dependent on a number of fac-
tors, such as feedstock physicochemical composition [19],
and process variables such as temperature, total solids (TS),
pH, reactor type [20–23] and reactor arrangement [24].
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
AD offers an alternative waste management option for
both the solid and liquid fractions of edible oil processing
by-products. While managing the waste, AD technology
offers some additional benefits for dealing with the energy
[25], water and environment concerns. In the past, biolog-
ical treatments (anaerobic, aerobic and sometimes both
used concurrently) have been reliably used to treat lipid-
containing wastes. These were mainly wastes generated by
restaurants and wastewater plants [26], as well as the waste
from edible oil refineries [3, 27–29]. Chipasa [27] makes
the assertion that while physicochemical treatment may
succeed with pollutant removal of metallic salts and grit
in the wastewater, only biotreatment processes have shown
the highest treatment efficiency, which is required to
achieve effluent quality targets with respect to organics.
These sentiments were supported by the findings of other
researchers [30, 31], and it is generally agreed that, when
compared to aerobic biotreatments, AD has the following
advantages: it produces a much more stable digestate, con-
sumes less energy and generates less sludge/wastewater
[32, 33].
There have been reports of AD being applied to manage-
ment of oil processing or related residues [34]. Residues that
have been previously studied include milk whey [35, 36], dif-
ferent meats [37], olive and palm oil processing wastes [38,
39], coconut [40], soya bean [41], cotton [42], rapeseed [43],
sunflowers as well as fats, oils and grease (FOG) from restau-
rants [44]. However, this literature is fragmented. This review
study attempts to provide an overview for conceptualising the
design and operation of AD systems that utilise edible oil pro-
cessing by-products. The review provides a quick aggregated
reference on opportunities, challenges and approaches for
biogasification of these substrates, while triggering debate
and interest regarding inadequately researched issues related
to this subject.
2 Potentially digestable edible oil processing
by-products
Popular edible oils are extracted from groundnuts, soybean,
olives and sunflowers. Due to increased awareness of health
foods and health complications, there is increased consump-
tion of premium grade or essential oils. Some of these oils are
avocado oil [45], olive oil [46], canola oil, coconut oil, palm
oil [47] and macadamia oil [11]. Premium oils are rich in
unsaturated long-chain fatty acids that help fight cancer-
related ailments and cardiovascular disorders [48–50]. They
are also good at moisturising hair and skin, because of their
anti-ageing oxidant constituents [13]. These benefits of pre-
mium grade oils have prompted an upward trend in global
consumption of these products, along with the concomitant
positive financial and economic implications [11, 13, 48].
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
The increase in edible oil production is, however, also as-
sociated with an increase in the quantity of waste generat-
ed. Edible oil is generally extracted by squeezing it out
from the oil-bearing fruit or seed. In some cases, it is fur-
ther refined through degumming, bleaching, deodorisation
and winterising processes that are collectively referred to
using the acronym RBDW [51]. RBDW is applied to in-
crease the oil shelf life especially if the product is to be
used in applications like cosmetics. The solid and liquid
wastes generated in edible oil processing is generally rich in
organic matter, with quantifiable estimation of these organics
done through measurement of volatile solids (VS) for solids,
and chemical oxygen demand (COD) or biological oxygen
demand (BOD) for liquids. By-products of edible oil process-
ing assaying as high as 162 g/L COD [52–55] and 95% VS
[56–58] have been reported. For wastewater disposal, South
African legislation prescribes a COD limit of 0.075 g/L in
general water bodies and 0.03 g/L in special water bodies.
Effluents from factories that engage in RBDW processes will
not be considered in this review, as they contain too high a
pollutant load, much of which is in the form of insoluble
COD. This insoluble COD is generally non-biodegradable
and can be inhibitory to microorganisms [27, 59].
Table 1 lists some of the edible oil processing by-products
and their top producers globally as well as issues of seasonal
availability. Specific climatic condition is a critical factor with
the choice and type of crop that can be grown in a particular
region. This inadvertently dictates the by-products that be-
come popular in any one region. Another important aspect
with agrobased AD substrates is seasonal availability. These
issues have an implication on the possible adoption, scalabil-
ity, capacity utilisation, cosubstrate selection and general eco-
nomics of running an AD system based on these substrates.
Options available to curb this problem include running the AD
plant on other substrates when the main substrate is offseason,
building a smaller plant then preserve surplus substrate for
future use or shutting down the plant for maintenance during
the offseason period.
Table 2 and Table 3 indicate edible oil processing waste by-
products that can be considered for AD. In Table 2, the VS for
solids are comparable to other conventionally used AD sub-
strates, like pig and cow manure, whose organic contents are
at 85% VS [82] as well as sewage sludge which has a 50% VS
[83]. The liquid by-products’ organic loadings are also in the
range of conventional substrates like cheese whey wastewater
whose CODs range 50–100 g/L [84]. The biomethane poten-
tials (BMPs) for most of these by-products, as shown in
Table 2, are comparable to those of conventional substrates,
like cow dung and wastewater treatment plant mixed sludge
waste, which have measured BMPs of 190 mL/gVS and
396 mL/gVS, respectively [85]. The by-products’ specifica-
tions in Table 2 and Table 3 therefore assert suitability of these
by-products’ application in biodigestion.
Information about COD and BOD for sunflower oil cake,
soybean oil cake and palm kernel cake could not be found in
the literature reviewed, but the VS and corresponding mea-
sured BMPs for these potential substrates are all within the
range of 75–95% for VS and 227–420 mL/gVS for the mea-
sured BMPs, which is comparable to the parameters for cow
dung [12, 57, 72, 76, 77, 86]. This further emphasises the
potential usefulness of these substrates in digesters, after fur-
ther confirmatory laboratory trials. The measured BMP for
cottonseed cake [12, 79] is much lower compared to that of
other oil cakes, i.e. about 90 mL/gVS. This is despite the high
VS content of 87%, which the authors attribute to some pos-
sible unidentified microbial activity inhibitor in this substrate.
The potential existence of such inhibitors was not tested in the
work cited here, and the COD degradation levels were also not
reported, in order to ascertain completeness of degradation. In
addition to the unavailability of COD and BOD information
for groundnut oil cake, macadamia oil cake and avocado
seeds, it was also challenging to find BMP data. However,
the VS data on each of these products was reported to be
95% of TS [87] for groundnut oil cake; 92–96% of TS for
macadamia cake [88, 89] and 98% of TS for avocado seeds
[90, 91]. Again, these numbers point to the suitability of these
substrates for use in AD systems.
Extra parameters that could be used to determine or support
the potential candidacy of avocado oil vegetative wastewater
and avocado oil pomace for biogasification could not be found
in the reviewed literature. However, given the high volumes of
waste generated from this industry in South Africa which were
approximately 1300 t in 2013 as reported by the Department
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, it may be necessary to
investigate the possibility of biogas production from this
waste.
3 Factors affecting biodigestion of edible oil
processing by-products
3.1 Physicochemical composition
During AD, biogas is derived from the organic components in
the substrate of interest. The substrate parameters that are
closely linked to organic concentration are the dry matter or
TS, VS, organic elemental analysis, the COD/BOD and the
nutritional or organic fraction composition (OFC). These pa-
rameters dictate the biogas potential and production rates of
the substrates, and the survival and activity of microbes in the
digester—and hence the efficiency of the biogasification pro-
cess. The substrate’s morphology also matters in terms of
methane yields and process kinetics. This will be discussed
in detail in a later Sect. 3.1.3 under lignin and nutrient bio-
availability subjects.
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Table 1 World statistics of edible oil and estimated oil processing by-products produced in 2014

Edible oil World top Oil produceda Quantity of Seasonality of processing and by-products Reference
producers by-productsa

Soyabean Brazil, USA 45,705 223,145 Farming is seasonal but harvested bean can be stored so [60, 61]
continuous processing possible
Palm Indonesia 63,930 156,522 Harvested all year round. Substrate seasonality not an issue [60, 62, 63]
Olive Spain, Italy 3050 18,300 About 7-month harvesting period per year. Storage a [60, 64]
challenge as the by-products tends to change under
atmospheric conditions.
Avocado Mexico, Chile 2 16 About 7-month harvesting period per year depending also [45, 64, 65]
on variety. Storage a challenge as the by-products tend
to change under atmospheric conditions.
Coconut Indonesia 3106 1673 Available all year round [60, 61]
Rapeseed EU 25,944 52,674 Farming and harvesting is seasonal but processing can be [60, 61]
continuous since the seed can be stored over reasonable
periods.
Sunflower Ukraine 15,848 29,432 Farming and harvesting is seasonal but processing can be [60, 61]
continuous since the seed can be stored over reasonable
periods.
Cottonseed China 5036 40,747 Farming and harvesting is seasonal but processing can be [60, 61]
continuous since the seed can be stored over reasonable
periods.

By-products include both solid and liquid wastes but only potentially digestible ones (this excludes RBDW effluents). Quantities of by-products are
estimated based on average industrial oil production yields stated in referenced materials
a
Quantities are stated in thousand tonnes

3.1.1 Effect of TS content
A study conducted by Bouallagui et al. [92] on the effect of TS
on biodigestion performance showed that this variable in a
constant volume tubular reactor affects different aspects of
digestion. The study used fruit and vegetable waste as the
substrate for AD under mesophilic conditions, and it revealed
that the organic (VS) degradation efficiency, the biogas pro-
duction rates and yields, the methane content and even the
mineral composition of digestate were all affected differently

Table 2 Various edible oil by-products and their biogas potential related characteristics

By-product Waste description COD (g/L) BOD (g/L) VS (% of TS) BMP (mL/gVS) Referencesd

Soybean oil wastewater Liquid effluents generated from soybean oil 9.7 5.2 73–75 300 mL/g CODb [66, 67]
extraction processes.
Palm oil mill effluent Viscous brown liquid comprising steriliser 69 10–30 10–25 or 83 g/L 325b [28, 68]
(POME) condensate, hydrocyclone waste and
separator sludge.
Olive mill solid waste Decanter sludge (pomace) rich in residual 162 n.d. 88–98 185b [52–55]
(pomace) lipids, volatile fatty acids (VFAs),
proteins, phenols and carbohydrates from
the milled olive kernels.
Olive mill wastewater Greenish effluent mainly from press and 40–20 23–100 69–94 or 390b [4, 69–71]
(OMWW) decanter operations. May also contain 16–82 g/L
polyphenols, tannins and pectins.
Rapeseed oil cakea A hemicellulose and protein-rich cake. 1.4 g/g DM n.d. 92–95 225.8b [56–58]
a c
Coconut oil cake Mechanical press residue rich in 0.87 g/g VS n.d. 84 304.5 [40]
lignocelluloses, fats and proteins.

n.d. no data
a
The COD of sludge is better expressed in mass-to-solid mass terms, rather than per litre of substrate
b
Measured BMP results are deduced empirically in the laboratory
c
Theoretical BMP results are obtained from calculations based on reported COD
d
Multiple referencing against one by-product indicates that different parameters/variables for the same by-product were cited from separate sources. The
use of different units by different authors also necessitated this. No average values were used but where ranges where applicable (due to different
literature consulted), this was indicated in the table and also triggered multiple referencing
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Table 3 Typical elemental analysis and BMPs for solid by-products of edible oil processing

By-product Composition (% w/w) Empirical formulab BMP (mL/g VS) Referencese

C N H S Oa c d

Palm kernel cake 52.53 2.86 5.65 0.03 38.93 C22H28O12N 320 486 [72, 73]
Olive pomace 54.7 1.14 5.24 < 0.1 31.97 C56H64O24N 185 568 [55, 74, 75]
Rapeseed oil cake 48.9 6.1 6.1 0.6 38.3 C9H14O6N 225.8 449 [56, 58]
Sunflower oilseed cake 49.8 4.7 7.2 0.3 32.2 C12H22O3N 227 735 [57, 76]
Soybean oil cake 44.48 8.21 6.28 0.54 40.49 C6H11O4N 421.4 395 [77, 78]
Cottonseed cake 52 1.3 5.9 ND 40.8 C47H64O28N 78 491 [79, 80]
Groundnut oil cake 46.37 6.89 7.015 0.287 39.438 C8H15O5N n.d. 446 [81]
a
By difference
b
Sulphur concentrations too low—not considered in deriving the empirical formulae
c
Measured BMP results
d
Theoretically computed BMPs using the Buswell equation from elemental analysis
e
Multiple referencing against one by-product indicates that different parameters/variables for the same by-product were cited from separate sources. The
use of different units by different authors also necessitated this. No average values were used but where ranges where applicable (due to different
literature consulted), this was indicated in the table and also triggered multiple referencing

as TS varied. The digestion performance recorded as TS was
varied is displayed in Table 4.
In terms of the methane yield only, different researchers [92,
95] have reported that an increase in substrate TS induces a
higher methane yield. The low methane yields associated with
lower TS (too much water) are partly attributed to potential
nutrient or microbial washout in non-mixed systems [96]. It
is possible that this observed phenomenon can also be
triggered by osmotic pressure disturbances around the microbe
vacuoles, as popularly understood in yeast fermentation sys-
tems [97]. This general increase in methane yield with an in-
crease in TS is not infinite; however, as too high TS may also
hinder substrate accessibility and transfer across the cell walls
of the microorganism. This will subsequently reduce the meth-
ane yield. Digester acidification due to high loading rate and
resulting acid accumulation is likely in high TS digestion.

Table 4 Eff ect of feed TS and process hydraulic retention time (HRT) on AD system performance for a semicontinuously mixed tubular biodigester
using fruit and vegetable wastes as substrates. Adapted from Bouallagui et al. [92]

TS (%)a HRT OLR VS destruction Production Yield CH4 (%) Digestate mineral Comments and other references
(days)a (kgVS/m3 day) (%) rate (L/L day) (L/kgVSfed) content

N P K

4 20 1.77 74.4 1.16 695.45 65 4.7 9 19.9 Outside the HRT ranges stated
15 2.36 67.55 1.41 629.49 60 6.5 6 31.2 here by Bouallagui et al., digester
12 2.95 61.85 1.78 582.03 58 3.95 4.66 17.86 performance can be independent
of HRT if the HRT is high enough
[55].
6 20 2.65 75.91 1.63 707.18 64 5.38 8.6 28.4 Solid concentrations affect microbial
15 3.54 69.24 2.19 641.1 61 5.39 8.5 32 communities—hence pH, nutrient
12 4.42 65.63 2.62 594.96 55 2.92 8.08 16.22 release/solubilisation and the
general AD performance. A
solid content that is too high—
especially beyond 30%—is not
favourable [22, 93].
8 20 3.54 64.58 2.34 638.84 57 2.53 8.04 22.8 The general trends observed in AD
15 4.72 61.28 3.1 614.91 54 6.34 6.78 28 performance due to HRT and TS
12 5.90 58.58 3.2 514.01 50 4.85 6.03 26.8 can be modified in the presence
of other factors [6].

a
The type of reactor used in this experiment implies that solid retention time (SRT) is equal to HRT [94]. The same substrate was used throughout (with a
constant proportion of organics at 88.5% VS), so increasing the TS proportionally at a constant HRT or altering the HRT downwards for a constant TS
would have the same effect as increasing the organic loading rate (OLR) of the system. The calculated OLR per each experimental setup is recorded in
this table to reflect the interaction of these variables and impact on anaerobic digestion performance
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Tekin and Dalgic [98] reported TS effects on olive pomace
digestions. In this study, pomace digestion at 5, 10 and 15%
TS under mesophilic conditions in a laboratory setup showed
an increase in methane yield (in L/g of CODused), from 0.118 to
0.122 as TS increased from 5 to 10% TS. However, a further
increase to 15% TS resulted in the methane yield reducing to
0.105. It is, therefore, possible, that optimal TS must be appli-
cable to each unique digestion system, which, in turn, implies
that experimental verification of each unique system might be
necessary for optimal design, operation and troubleshooting.
TS has also been found to affect digester foaming tenden-
cies, with contrasting correlations having been established by
different investigators [95, 99] who experimented with waste-
water treatment activated sludge digestions. The findings of
Jiang et al. [95] in which foaming height and propensity de-
creased with an increasing TS concentration are possibly more
applicable to AD systems, because of the TS ranges (10–50 g/
L) which they used in their investigation and are applicable to
most AD plants. This contrast with the study done by Blackall
et al. [99], where a generalisation was made that foaming
increases with TS and the TS ranges tested were not specified
in spite of some activated sludges that can have as low as 1%
w/v TS. Cow dung and fruit/vegetable waste-based digesters
are the most commonly used AD systems, and these are op-
erated in the range of 6–10% w/v TS for optimal methane
yield, consistent biogas composition and stable operation
[100]. The foaming tendency associated with edible oil-
based digestion systems might be further complicated by the
presence of fats, which have a high tendency to float, despite
the TS composition of the slurry. Notwithstanding all these
general findings, it must be borne in mind that foaming is
strictly dependent on a system, i.e. the type and size of solids,
temperature, microbial profile, mixing regime, organic load-
ing and potential for surface active agents in the particular
system [95, 101]. It follows that the relationship does not hold
infinitely. There could be a concentration of solids that tends
to destabilise the foam.
3.1.2 Effect of OFC
For a given substrate, the OFC dictates the biomethane yield.
OFC can be expressed in terms of VS, COD, BOD or nutritional
composition. Generally, high total organic content should
translate into more biogas. Organics are however further
grouped into proteins, fats, carbohydrates and volatile fatty
acids. Each organic component that contributes to the total or-
ganic composition has a different biomethane potential. If a
substrate’s organic elemental analysis is known, then a mass
balance approach can be used to predict the theoretical BMP.
Consider a model substrate whose empirical formula is repre-
sented by CaHbOcNdSe and whose biodegradation proceeds by
reaction 1 as demonstrated by Buswell et al. [102] and later
modified by Boyle (cited in Achinas et al. [103]). The model
substrate’s theoretical BMP can be calculated by Eq. 1 [104].
C a H b Oc N d S e ð1Þ
1 1
þ ð4a−b−2c þ 3d þ 2eÞH 2 O→ ð4a−b þ 2c þ 3d þ 2eÞCO2
4 8
1
þ ð4a þ b−2c−3d−2eÞCH 4 þ dN H 3 þ eH 2 S
8
(Reaction 1)
08
 91
a b c 3d e
>
> þ − − − x 22400 > >
=C
B< 2 8 4 8 4
B
BMP ¼ @ C ð2Þ
> 12a þ b þ 16c þ 14d þ 32e > A
>
: >
;
Theoretical BMP is stated in mL-CH4/gVSadded.
When applying the above reasoning to individual nutrients
constituting the organics found in an oil processing by-prod-
uct, it can be shown that lipids have a higher methane yield
than proteins and carbohydrates [42], as indicated in Table 5.
It then follows that if the nutritional compositions of certain
substrates are known, their theoretical BMPs can be computed
and compared. These theoretical BMPs derived from Eq. 1 are
normally much higher than BMPs measured in the laboratory
or field experiments as shown in Table 3. This is because the
equation assumes 100% degradation of organics into methane
which in practice is not realistically feasible. These theoretical
BMPs are therefore used for preliminary evaluation only prior
to acquiring measured BMPs that consider real-life factors and
therefore glean more comparative information for different
by-products.
Table 6 depicts the OFC profiles of the edible oil process-
ing by-products of interest in this study. As shown in this
table, palm oil effluents are highly lignocellulosic, which is a
concern in terms of nutrient bioavailability, and hence

Table 5 Potential biogas production from different classes of nutrients [42]

Nutrient Methanogenic reaction Biogas (L/g) CH4 (%)

Lipids C50H90O6 + 24.5H2O → 34.75CH4 + 15.25CO2 1.425 69.5

Carbohydrates C6H10O5 + H2O → 3CH4 + 3CO2 0.830 50.0
Proteins C16 H24 O5 N4 þ 14:5H2 O→8:25CH4 þ 3:75CO2 þ 4NHþ −
4 þ 4HCO3 0.921 68.8
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Table 6 Nutritional composition

of selected edible oil processing By-product Organic fractional (nutritional) composition (OFC) (% w/w) Referencesb
by-products
Proteins Lipids VFAs (mg/L) Carbohydrates Lignin

POME 9.07 13.21 2287 20.55 42 [14, 39, 105]

Palm kernel cake 14 8 49 [72]
OMWW 2.9 6–13.6 6000 31.4a [106]
Olive mill pomace 2.9 4.39 29.2a [52]
Coconut oil cake 19.95 3.22 10.59 [107]
Soya bean oil cake 39.0 14.9 27.8a 0.3-2.8 [12, 78, 88]
Cottonseed oil cake 24.0 5 56a 10.6 [12, 108]
Sunflower oil cake 23.72 2.75 23.47 7.72–11.1 [43, 57, 109]
Macadamia oil cake 39.5 15.3 49.6 [88, 89]
Rapeseed oil cake 34.5 13.05 22.08 6.53–9 [43, 56, 57, 109]
a
Calculated as the difference between total VS and volatiles stated
b
Multiple referencing in the context of this table are generated for the following reasons: (i) different parameters/
variables for the same by-product were cited from separate sources; (ii) the use of different units by different
authors with the implication that averages could not be calculated

substrate degradability. Macadamia and soybean oil cakes
have a higher lipid content than other substrates, which is a
positive finding, as more biogas is expected; however, the risk
of rapid acidification is also high in this case. The OFC of
coconut oil cake could not be found in the literature reviewed,
but its measured BMP was reported to be 320 mL/g VS [40].
3.1.3 The effect of C/N ratios
Carbon is required by microorganisms for energy, while nitro-
gen normally provided by proteins is a necessity in the internal
metabolic processes of the microorganisms. An imbalance of
the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio in a substrate either im-
pedes growth or introduces ammonia inhibition challenges.
Previous studies recommend a C/N ratio of between 20:1
and 35:1 as optimal for a healthy AD process [110, 111].
OMWW has too high a C/N ratio (100:1.77) and improve-
ments on its digestion (both the biogas production rate and
COD removal) were noted when this substrate was supple-
mented with high ammoniacal nitrogen wastes such as derived
from laying hen litter and cheese whey [19]. Cattle manure,
piggery waste and even urea are also potential cosubstrates
and supplements to correct nitrogen deficiency in substrates.
The proportion of carbohydrates to proteins in a substrate also
dictates the kinetics of digestion, since carbohydrates hydro-
lyse faster than proteins [112]. This observation implies that
digestion of oil cakes, which are rich in proteins like rapeseed,
soyabean cake and groundnut cake may therefore be poten-
tially rate limited by the hydrolysis step. There is also threat of
ammonia inhibition associated with these by-products and a
high carbon source cosubstrate may be necessary to improve
the biodigestion of these by-products. Surprisingly, in this
group of low C/N ratio, by-products falls soyabean cake
whose measured BMP is the highest among all the by-
products reviewed here. This anomaly may be explained in
terms of the recalcitrance of lignin which reduces the bioavail-
ability of other nutrients in a substrate for conversion to meth-
ane. Soyabean cake has the lowest lignin content among the
by-products discussed in Table 6. This implies that despite
soyabean cake’s unfavourable C/N ratio, most of its nutrients
are available to the microorganisms. The same reasoning may
explain why cottonseed cake in Table 3 shows a good C/N
ratio but very low measured BMP. This may be attributed to a
high fraction of lignin in this typically high carbohydrate con-
tent by-product. It is therefore imperative to take a holistic
approach when evaluating AD factors and parameters.
Consideration of factors individually and making decision
based on one parameter alone may cause wrong deductions
to be made, and therefore affect the whole AD process. It is
pertinent to include the sulphur (S) and phosphorous (P) con-
tents of the substrates when considering the C/N ratio as these
affect AD processes. Just like nitrogen, phosphorous is re-
quired in minute quantities for growth by the microorganisms.
Conversely, sulphur in small quantities may be toxic especial-
ly in the sulphate or hydrogen sulphide form [113, 114].
Sulphur is generally related to protein content and is low in
plant-based proteins when compared to animal (meat)-based
proteins. Table 3 shows the sulphur levels in edible oil pro-
cessing by-products. Sulphur may therefore pose little threat
in the digestion of these by-products. There is limited infor-
mation from literature reviewed regarding phosphorous con-
tent of edible oil processing by-products; however, a recom-
mended optimum ratio for C/N/P is 100:2.5:0.5 when
digesting vegetable-related wastes [115]. If this ratio is not
met, then codigestion may be an option to rectify inconsis-
tencies in the elemental composition of these nutrients.

3.1.4 Effect of lignin content and phenolic organics
Lignin is a carbohydrate polymer that is common in almost all
plant-based substrates including edible oil processing sub-
strates. Although the presence of lignin in a substrate gives
an apparent high COD and VS, this compound is almost indi-
gestible by most microorganisms [116]. The complex structure
of lignin and its non-biodegradability, furthermore, its structure
traps other digestible nutrients, thus preventing access for
microorganisms—this explanation can be summarised in the
concept described as bioavailability [117]. This apparent low
bioavailability of nutrients for lignocellulosic substrates lowers
the actual BMP of a substrate when compared to its theoreti-
cally computed value. As such, this could plausibly explain the
observation with cottonseed cake in Table 3. Theoretical
biomethane potential computations that are based on
Buswell’s formula assume 100% bioavailability, which is not
possible with lignin-containing substrates. Biodegradability is
a measure of the actual performance of a substrate–
microorganism mixture compared to its theoretical perfor-
mance, and it is therefore required for practical assessment of
a material’s candidature in biodigestion applications. Despite
this shortcoming in theoretical BMP calculations, the method
can be used as a precursor for initial screening of substrates,
before expensive resources are committed to do further tests on
a substrate. Furthermore, the choice of lignin-containing sub-
strate must include considerations of a pretreatment [118].
Similarly, the presence of phenols, tannins, anthocyanin and
tocopherols in edible oil by-products will increase the apparent
organic fraction of such substrates, without a corresponding
increase in the measured BMP realised. Instead, these com-
pounds have been reported to induce adverse effects [69,
119] on microbial activity, as described later in the toxicity
section of this study.
3.1.5 Effects of type and quantity of fatty acids
Fatty acids (FA), which are a common feature in edible oil by-
products, arise from the breakdown of lipids (tryglycerides).
Premium grade oils are rich in long-chain fatty acid types
(LCFAs) with a 12-carbon composition and more. The
short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) contain less than 12 carbon
atoms. LCFAs are either saturated or unsaturated, and these
differences ascribe different biogasification pathways for them
as a consequence. Generally, SCFAs degrade faster than satu-
rated LCFAs and saturated LCFAs degrade faster than their
unsaturated counterparts. This kinetic behaviour is attributed
to the fact that unsaturated LCFAs must undergo saturation
first, then oxidation to SCFAs; before methanogens can finally
derive methane from them [120], it is possibly a factor in the
lengthy incubations often associated with AD. The degrada-
tion pathway for LCFAs is depicted in Fig. 1. However, rapid
accumulation of SCFAs without a corresponding high rate of
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
methanogenesis may result in digester acidification [123].
Palmitic acid is the most common saturated LCFA among
edible oil processing by-products constituting between 11
and 42% of total fatty acids in a substrate. The unsaturated
acids in most by-products are oleic (15–71%) and linoleic (5–
52%) [120]. Other saturated fatty acids that are found in these
by-products though in low quantities are myristic, stearic and
arachidic acids. Unsaturated acids found in low quantities in-
clude palmitoleic and linoleic acids. Other concerns with the
type and quantity of LCFA are the inhibition challenges,
sludge floatation and washout exhibited by these nutrients
[124, 125]. The LCFA recalcitrance to AD and their tendency
to dictate the AD rate determining step are further discussed in
Sect. 3.1.6.
It should be noted for Fig. 1 that ATP is involved at acti-
vation, and several enzymes are involved in β-oxidation cycle
but are not included here; they can be found in literature [126,
127].
3.1.6 Addressing AD bottlenecks induced by substrate
physicochemical characteristics
Substrate biodegradability through AD can be improved by
altering or enhancing the physicochemical composition through
pretreatment, codigestion and digester additives. Most feed-
stock pretreatments are done to facilitate the breakdown of
complex organic compounds into smaller and easily digestible
molecules. In a review done by Okudo et al. [128], various
pretreatment methods for cassava were discussed, and these
may be extended to other substrates like edible oil processing
by-products given the structural similarities of many organic
substrates. Examples of pretreatment include ensilage,
thermomechanical or thermochemical treatment and ultrasonic
or ultraviolet radiation [128–130]. Other pretreatments may tar-
get pH correction, such as the addition of sodium hydroxide or
ammonia to OMWW [4, 70, 131]. Adding salts and external
microorganisms (bioaugmentation and bioprospecting) to the
digester may also help with coagulation or neutralisation of
toxic substances prior to or during AD [130]. Suttinun et al.
[132] achieved a 61% removal of phenolics in POME by aer-
obically treating the POME using the Bacillus thermoleovorans
strain A2 at 60 °C. This detoxification improved anaerobic
methane production by 1.7–10 times compared to untreated
POME digestion [132]. Aeration of OMWW for 7 days prior
to AD [71] and without any bacterial addition has also been
successfully used to reduce phenolics by approximately 90%.
This resulted in doubling of the methane yield.
Anaerobic codigestion (AnCod) has been found to assist
with improving biodegradability and microbial activity in di-
gesters [133] by altering the C/N ratio towards the optimum
range. This would be very helpful when dealing with edible
oil processing by-products; most of whose C/N ratios as seen
in Table 3 are below the recommended optimum of between
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Fig. 1 Degradation pathway of
LCFAs to SCFAs, as described by
Novak and Carlson [121] and
Nunn [122]. Adapted from Hwu
[120]
25:1 and 30:1. AnCod also promotes favourable AD results by
shifting the overall thermodynamics of the system [14] and
diluting the effects of toxicity agents [134]. Beccari et al. [135]
(also cited by Ahmad et al. [14]) observed that oleic acid at an
organic loading of 3 g COD/L is not degraded without glucose
supplementation of a minimum 6 g COD/L. When degrada-
tion proceeds under AnCod, it is assumed that the lipid oxi-
dation that is associated with a highly positive (+ 345.6 kJ/mol
for palmitic acid) standard free Gibbs energy change [122] is
driven by the highly negative (− 457.5 to − 610.5 kJ/mol)
standard free Gibbs energy change of glucose fermentation.
Thermodynamic parameter shifting may also be induced by
bioaugmentation which in turn also improves AD perfor-
mance. Hydrogen-scavenging bacteria have been used to shift
Gibbs free energy changes in a digester in a way that fast
tracked and promoted lipid rich substrate degradation [120].
The hydrogen scavenging methanogens cause a reduction in
system pressure and a subsequent shift of Gibbs free energy
from a positive value towards a negative value. The system
pressure effect and the contributions of bacteria to that effect
on Gibbs free energy are indicated in Table 7.
The application of AnCod in edible oil processing by-
products has been explored previously. Satyanarayan et al.
[133] reported enhanced biogas production and better manure
effluent in terms of nitrogen and phosphate content and higher
methane content in biogas when cow dung was codigested
with soya sludge. AnCod experiments involving olive mill
waste with chicken litter and cheese whey were also reported
to have improved the olive mill waste degradability, with an
accompanying increase in methane production [19]. In the
OMWW studies, more than 90% increase in methane produc-
tion when codigested with chicken litter and a 22% increase
for cheese whey were recorded when compared to raw olive
waste digestion.
Digester additives like essential elements, detoxifying
agents and even microbes (biostimulation/bioaugmentation)
have been successfully used to improve the performance of
digesters. Ni2+ and Mn2+ cations were identified as being es-
sential for most methanogenic archaea with unconditional di-
valent ion requirement having been specifically reported for
Methanococcus jannaschii [136, 137]. Besides Ni2+ and
Mn2+, other microelements that were studied and discovered
to be necessary, at different critical concentrations, by differ-
ent microorganisms, for improved biodigestion [138–140]
were Fe2+, Co2+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Cd2+ and Cu2+. However, be-
yond certain concentrations in the digester, some metal cations
caused an inhibition of methane-producing bacteria
[140–142]. Trace element/metal speciation, effects and bio-
availability in anaerobic digesters were reviewed in detail by
Thanh et al. [141]. A further review of the role of other addi-
tives in biodigesters is given by Romero-Guiza et al. [143].
These researchers included other important additives like bio-
char, substances capable of suppressing ammonia inhibition,
substances with a high biomass immobilisation capacity, bio-
augmentation and inoculation of enzymes that facilitate deg-
radation of certain compounds [144, 145]. Lessons learnt from
the soyabean sludge, POME and OMWW pretreatment exper-
iments can be extended to other edible oil processing by-

Table 7 Gibbs free energy changes at 25 °C for the (possible) reactions involved in syntropic conversion of oleate and palmitate during methanogenic
decomposition (adapted from Ahmad et al. [14])
Reaction Process Reaction
no.
− −
1 Oleate degradation C 18 H 33 O22 þ 16H 2 O→9C 2 H 3 O2 þ 15H 2 þ 18H þ
− −
2 Palmitate degradation C 16 H 31 O22 þ 14H 2 O→8C 2 H 3 O2 þ 14H 2 þ 7H þ
3 Hydrogentrophic 4H 2 þ H þ þ HCO−3 →3H 2 O þ CH 4
methanogens
4 Acetoclastic C 2 H 3 O−2 þ H 2 O→HCO−3 þ CH 4
methanogens
a
Gibbs free energies (at 25 °C) calculated under standard conditions (solute concentrations of 1 M and gas partial pressure of 105 Pa)
b
Gibbs free energies (at 25 °C) for oleate/palmitate concentration of 1 mM, acetate concentration of 10 mM and H2 partial pressure of 1 Pa
products to improve these by-products’ biodigestion since
most of these by-products have similar physicochemical char-
acteristics. A summary of the different additives, their effect
on anaerobic digestion and possible application in edible oil
processing AD is provided in Table 8.
3.2 Process parameters and conditions
3.2.1 Effect of temperature
Temperature has a profound effect on the biogas yield, com-
position and production rate [155] and consequently on mate-
rial degradation efficiency. Methanogens that perform opti-
mally at temperatures ranging between 15 and 25 °C are
termed psychrophiles. Dhaked et al. [156] reviewed
biodigestion at these temperatures. More research continues
to be done with psychrophiles including isolating microorgan-
isms acclimatised to cold climates and genetic modification of
such microorganisms [157, 158]. Microorganisms that operate
at around 37 °C are called mesophiles, while those operating
at 50 °C and above are referred to as thermophiles.
Ibrahim et al. [68] studied biodigestion of POME at two
thermophilic temperatures of 45 °C and 50 °C and established
that higher COD removal, higher biogas production rates and
higher organic loading were possible by increasing the tem-
perature from the mesophilic range towards the thermophilic
range. This improved biodigestion efficiency was however
accompanied by scum formation and clogging of pipes. In
digesting castor oil cake at two temperatures of 30 °C and
37 °C, Gollakota and Meher [155] noted that more biogas
and higher production rates were recorded at 37 °C than at
30 °C. In addition, a tubular digester and codigestion system
of OMWW and OMSW thermophilic regime gave 427 kJ/day
more energy than the mesophilic counterparts operated at sim-
ilar hydraulic retention times (HRTs) and conditions [29, 69].
Edible oil processing wastes are characterised by high con-
tent of residual lipids (or LCFAs) and their response to tem-
perature variation is therefore important. Hwu et al. [159]
reported a significantly higher COD removal of 89.1% when
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
ΔGo (kJ/rxn)a ΔGo (kJ/rxn)b Shift b to c % shift ΔGo
+ 391 − 131 260 134
+ 419 + 81 338 81
+ 136 + 20 116 85
+ 31 + 19 12 39
digesting oleate in an expanded granular suspended bed
(EGSB) reactor at 55 °C, compared to runs for the same sub-
strate at mesophilic ranges of 30–40 °C, where the highest
COD removal was recorded at 86.9%. This is only true if
one is operating below toxicity levels of oleate; otherwise,
mesophilic operation becomes more stable than thermophilic
operation at high oleate concentrations [160].
Prasad et al. [161] observed that temperature sensitivity on
the biogas production rate is substrate dependent. They noted
that the gas production from cow and pig waste did not fluc-
tuate much as the temperature was varied from psychrophilic
to thermophilic; however, with chicken waste, significant sen-
sitivity was noted when this temperature variation was
effected. Another study, done by Ng et al. [39], confirmed
the same trend, i.e. thermophilic temperatures exhibited a
higher COD removal in digestion of POME, but this did not
coincide with higher gas production. Instead, there was higher
gas production in the two-phase but mesophilic setup than the
thermophilic run. This observation necessitates reliance on
empirical data for each specific substrate when designing
and operating a digestion system instead of using general
findings.
3.2.2 Effect of pH and buffering capacity
The digester pH affects the digestive performance of each type
of microorganism to a different extent [129]. Acidogenic mi-
croorganisms are active across a wider pH range of 4 to 8, but
as the pH changes, the different acidogens that are responsible
for producing different VFAs have demonstrated variable per-
formance [162–165]. Propionic acid production is favoured at
the pH lower end, while acetic acid and butyric acid produc-
tions are favoured at a slightly higher pH. The ideal pH range
conducive for performance of methanogens has been reported
to be 6.5 to 7.5 and is narrower compared to that of acidogens
[166, 167]. Lay et al. [22] recommended an optimal pH range
of 6.6 to 7.8 for mixed culture (acidogens and methanogens)
digestion and warned against process failure with a pH below
6.1 and above 8.3. Alternatively, a two-stage digestion
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Table 8 Summary of additives on AD systems performance (expanded with permission from Romero-Guiza et al. [143]

Additive Impact Pros Cons Possible application in edible oil References

processing by-products
MY PS

Inorganic Micronutrients Fe, Mo, Se √√√ √√ Biomass stimulation Concept of bioavailability not Biostimulations may be necessary in these [141]
Sulphide fixation properly understood lipid-rich, phenolic-containing and poor
Higher waste solubilisation C/N ratio substrates. With lignin content
around 10% for most of these wastes,
Lower ORP
solubilisation may need to be assisted also.
Ni and Co √ √√√ Biomass stimulation Biomass inhibition by overdosing. [146]
Macronutrients Carbon sources, √√ √√ Alleviates ammonia inhibition Cost may not justify the small Risk of ammonia inhibition high due to poor [147, 148]
urea, K, Ca, Mg benefits. C/N ratios; hence, macronutrients can be
employed to rectify.
Materials Ammonia sequencing √√ √√ Lower ammonia concentration Precipitation and clogging risk. Same as above [145, 149]
agents Reagents cost.
Adsorbents for inhibitors √√√ √ Inhibitors deactivated or Lots of potential inhibitors (LCFAs,
concentration lowered ammonia, phenolics) require management
in these by-products.
Biomass support √√ √√ Higher kinetics and yields Scalability, especially in CSTR. Presence of proteins likely to reduce [28, 150, 151]
Process robustness hydrolysis kinetics. Biomass support could
be helpful.
Biological Bioaugmentation √√ √√ Better response to stressful or Scalability LCFAs are likely to be the major stressors [152–154]
transitory states. common and abundant to all substrates.
Increased methanogenic activity Cost Appropriate microorganisms to curb adverse
Increased hydrolytic activity Difficult monitoring. effects of these would be very useful here.
Enzymes would be necessary as lipids through
Enzymes √√√ √ Higher waste solubilisation Cost
coagulation and lignin by its macrostructure
tend reduce organics solubilisation

MY methane yields, PS process stability


process, in which the acidogenesis reactor is separate from the
methanogenesis reactor, can be employed, which will allow
the system to operate the two different pH ranges necessary
for optimal microbial activity by each bacterial species.
Rapid hydrolysis of lipids to VFAs is one risk that edible oil
processing by-products are prone to and affects process pH
badly [168]. Rapid accumulation of VFAs in a digester causes
acidification and affects the internal metabolic processes of
microorganisms and the microbes’ overall effectiveness in
AD. On the other end, high pH promotes degeneration of
nitrogenous compounds (proteins) in the substrates to form
ammonia, which further increases the pH. This problem is
often observed when chicken manure is used as a substrate
[148, 169]. As the pH continues to rise, methanogens that
operate optimally in a pH range of 6.8–7.2 will slowly lose
efficiency and ultimately die, leading to digester fouling
[385]. The protein content in palm and olive products is lower
than in other products (see Table 6), and this translate into high
carbon/nitrogen ratios for these by-products. Ammonia inhi-
bition is therefore not a common threat with these substrates
because of this characteristic. Contrary to this, soyabean and
rapeseed oil cakes exhibit slightly higher protein content than
other by-products. This lowers the C/N ratios and may neces-
sitate strategies to supplement the carbon source during AD of
these substrates for optimal microbial activity. Total ammonia
nitrogen levels below 200 mg/L are reported to be necessary
for microbial growth, while concentrations exceeding 660 mg/
L may inhibit AD process [170]. Masse et al. [171] reviewed
ammonia inhibition and digester recovery options after inhi-
bition in varying pH, temperature, reactor types and inoculum
sources.
Alkalinity measures the pH buffering capacity of the di-
gester. Different chemical compounds like ammonia, VFAs,
etc., affect digester alkalinity. It has been reported that the
carbonic system dominates in determining pH stability [113,
172]. Recycling the digestate has been proposed as a solution
to digester alkalinity stabilisation, and this phenomenon has
been studied during digestion of soyabean oil cakes from bean
curd processing [67]. The study revealed that every system
has an optimal recycle ratio that improves COD removal with
minimum impact on the methane production rate and VFA
production or distribution in the effluent. Adding bicarbonate
salts like sodium, potassium and lime into the digester have
also been suggested for alkalinity manipulation in POME di-
gestion, which has a very low alkalinity [23]. Caustic soda is
not recommended for pH correction, because of sodium tox-
icity, which can only be corrected with carbonate salts [173].
Khoufi et al. [134] demonstrated improved digestion of
OMWW by codigesting this substrate with liquid poultry ma-
nure (LPM) in a ratio of 70:30 (OMWW/LPM) and using a
jet-loop reactor. In doing this, the pH of OMWW was im-
proved, with an increase in alkalinity and a further improve-
ment of the C/N ratio within this system was observed. It is
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
recommended [150, 174] that in order to guard against acidi-
fication risks and run a stable AD process, the VFA/alkalinity
ratio in the slurry must be in the range 0.3–0.4.
3.2.3 Effect of hydraulic and solid retention times (HRT
and SRT)
Generally, digester performance as assessed in terms of COD/
VS degradation and methane content improves with an in-
crease in HRT, as indicated by Bouallagui et al. [92] in
Table 4. This trend of a higher HRT (in the range 12–20 days)
accompanying better digestion performance was observed on
digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes in a tubular reactor
under mesophilic conditions. However, once optimal HRT is
attained, no further improvement in performance will be not-
ed. High HRTs require bigger digesters and therefore more
capital expenditure [129]. Rincon et al. [55] experimented
with olive mill pomace while varying HRT between 15 and
108 days and established that the performance of the anaero-
bic reactor becomes virtually independent of HRT, provided
that the HRT of the reactor is maintained above 28 days. For
an HRT lower than 17 days, the performance of the reactor
deteriorated sharply.
In terms of biogas productivity, an increase in HRT reduces
the biogas production rates and the converse is also true. Tekin
et al. [98] cited Martin et al. [175, 176], who worked with
olive wastewater and established that there exists an optimal
HRT of around 12 days for the highest methane yield with this
substrate under their experimental conditions. Below or be-
yond this number, the methane yield dropped, but, as previ-
ously reported by Rincon et al. [55], beyond 28 days, there
was no significant difference in the yield for both studies of
Martin op cit.
The negative correlation between methane yields and HRT
is explained in terms of the obvious inverse proportionality
relationship of organic loading rate (OLR) and HRT [29]. In
the codigestion of OMWW and OMSW under mesophilic
conditions and using a tubular reactor, Boubaker and Ridha
[29] noted that a total COD greater than 80 g/L and an HRT
less than 12 days significantly reduced the biodigestion level.
Besides the impact of HRT on fermentation results, other re-
searchers established that HRT had a significant impact on
methanogenic bacteria, homoacetogens as well as sulphate-
reducing bacteria washout, while it had little influence on
microbial populations for hydrogen-producing acetogens and
hydrolytic bacterial species [98, 177, 178]. Reducing HRT
washed out the acetate-utilising and methanol-utilising
methanogens but increased the populations of hydrogen
utilising and homoacetogens [177]. The effects of shifting
microbial profiles were also reported to arise from fluctuating
SRTs [179]. Appels et al. [113] reported that it is difficult to
achieve stable digestion with SRTs below 10 days. Higher
SRTs are also associated with better bacterial adaptation to
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
the substrate [179]. Adekunle and Okolie [180] recommended
an HRT of at least 10–15 days to ensure that the slow-growing
methanogens, with a doubling time of around 5–16 days, can
be retained and allowed to acclimatise.
Some of the approaches recommended for achieving
higher SRTs include the use of a bigger reactor volume, re-
ducing the influent flow and sludge (biomass) recycling [181].
Hwu et al. [182] observed an increase in OLR and methane
yields by recycling digestate in the thermophilic digestion of
LCFA (oleate) wastewater. The digester without recirculation
failed, due to inhibition at an influent concentration of 2 g
oleate-COD/L producing 135 mg CH4-COD/(gVSS day),
while with recirculation, a maximum influent concentration
of 4 g oleate-COD/L could be digested without significant
inhibition. The methane yield at this higher LCFA concentra-
tion coupled with recirculation was 300 mg CH4-COD/
(gVSS day).
3.2.4 Effects of OLR
Biogas is derived from the organic degradation process;
hence, it could be expected that increasing the OLR should
increase the specific gas production. Wirth et al. [183] report-
ed this phenomenon in the AD of liquors from hydrothermal
carbonisation of sewage sludge. The authors reported a steady
rise in specific gas production from 0.204 to 1.164 L/L/day
during thermophilic AD conditions, as ORL steadily rose
from 1 to 5 g COD/L/day. In related studies, Xie et al. [184]
and Gollakota et al. [155] reported that increasing OLR result-
ed in improved specific gas production until it reached a pla-
teau, but beyond this level, the system performance started to
deteriorate [155, 184]. High OLR has therefore been reported
to increase VFA concentrations and ultimately reduce pH in
the digester [185]. This condition inhibits methanogenic
growth and activity in the digester [186].
Reduction in biogas production was noted as the initial
volatile solid concentration in a batch experiment was in-
creased from 4.5 to 5 VS/L in coconut oil cake digestion
[40]. The organic overload emanated from residual fats and
oils in the cake, which normally assays 5–6% w/w of the TS.
In experiments involving olive mill waste, an increase in ef-
fluent VFA and COD was also noted when the OLR went up
[55]. These authors noted a sharp decrease in pH to 5.3 when
OLR was set at 11 g COD/L/day and VFA correspondingly
reached 6.1 g/L.
Another concern that arises with high OLR is washout of
the bacteria, which also triggers process failure [115].
Manipulation of OLR can therefore be used as a tool to man-
age digester microbial communities, as each cause of shock
load brings about a different change in the microbial profile
and induces digester resilience to future shocking to a different
extent. Ferguson et al. [187] experimented with two
cosubstrates—FOG and glycerol—and established that when
high concentrations of both cosubstrates were added into dif-
ferent digesters, biogas production reduced in both. The study
later demonstrated that when the reactors were subjected to the
second shock loadings, there was quicker recovery to stability
with glycerol than with FOG. The authors concluded that by
managing microbial communities through OLR fluctuations,
VFA and biogas production profiles can also be controlled
[187]. This finding offers some operational flexibility to bio-
gas operators in optimising processes and managing
biodigestion of effluents loaded with high organics, like those
emanating from edible oil processing plants. Optimisation of
OLR in either codigestion or monodigestion setups is there-
fore pivotal to the success of the AD process.
3.2.5 Effects of agitation
Mixing improves temperature distribution, solid suspension
and the interaction between microbes and the substrate while
also reducing dead zones and short circuiting effects [113,
188]. Mixing also improves gas release from sludge [189].
This ultimately improves the substrate degradation [129].
Gollakota and Meher [155] studied castor oil cake digestion
under mesophilic conditions and noted that the optimal load-
ing rate without stirring was 4 g of TS per litre per day; with
stirring, it went up to 8 g of TS per litre per day. However, it
has been established elsewhere that continuous or excessive
mixing can also impede digester performance, especially at
higher loading rates [190, 191]. The excessive mixing intro-
duces digester instability by reducing the oxidation rate of
fatty acids [190].
Another drawback of excessive mixing is potentially
wasteful energy consumption by the AD system [192].
Gomez et al. [188] demonstrated that in a low mixing regime,
the digester could absorb shock loading and disturbances bet-
ter than in a continuously mixed or high intensity mixing
regime. Stroot et al. [190] established that reduced mixing
can actually help to restore a destabilised continuously stirred
digester. Optimal mixing should therefore be established, as
either extreme case has its disadvantages: too much mixing
has been reported to stress the microorganisms, while foaming
can be an issue in a digester without mixing [180].
Detrimentally high organic loadings—and therefore possible
digester instability and foaming—are characteristic of most oil
processing effluents, making agitation a very important pa-
rameter to monitor and optimise when dealing with these ed-
ible oil processing by-products. Mild agitation requirements
can be met by frequent substrate feeding, as opposed to long
breaks before feeding [129]. However, if more agitation is
required, mechanical stirrers should then be installed or noz-
zles for slurry flushing. Federico et al. [193] studied the impact
of differently shaped agitators/impellors on AD system per-
formance when handling an olive pomace-wastewater mix-
ture, and their findings indicate that viscosity plays a

significant role in impeller selection. Each impellor shape is
also well suited to a specific reactor arrangement; for example,
in the experiments executed by Federico and colleagues, the
marine impellor performed much better in two-stage digestion
than the anchor impellor; however, the latter show superior
performance compared to other impellors when single-stage
digestion is adopted.
Agitation helps in breaking the floating scums, though
there is debate in literature as discussed before on optimal
mixing intensities and frequencies. The intensity and frequen-
cy seem to be substrate dependent. For the digestion of edible
oil processing by-products, which are rich in lipids, CSTRs
have been reported [194] to achieve superior results due to the
more aggressive agitation that prevents coagulation and sub-
sequent floating of materials. It is also reported that the upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB) suffers a lot from
floating and washout because of the absence of mixing while
the inverted anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (IASB) actually
benefits from these floating aspects. The expanded granular
sludge bed (EGSB) is also cited to be superior in lipid-rich
effluent digestion than the UASB [195]. The authors recom-
mend CSTR use with a recirculation stream that takes any
floating material from the top of the digester to the bottom
to alleviate the material floating problems of these substrates
previously cited.
3.2.6 Toxicity
Toxicity to microorganisms in AD arises from different
sources [196], including VFAs [123], LCFAs and heavy
metals [142], detergents [197], ammonia [170, 198] and anti-
biotics [199]. Chen et al. [196] reviewed and described in
detail the effect of various inhibitors on AD. For edible oil
processing by-products that are rich in lipids, the greatest tox-
icity risk could possibly arise from VFAs, where the mecha-
nism of inhibition is related to pH disturbance. The pH distur-
bances will interfere with microbial activities and functional-
ity, as previously discussed. Wang et al. [123] established the
critical concentrations for the main VFAs of ethanol, acetic
acid and butyric acid (i.e. 2400, 2400 and 1800 mg/L, respec-
tively), to observe significant inhibition in digesters. Propionic
acid proved to be more inhibiting than the other VFAs, how-
ever, and a 900 mg/L dose of propionic acid triggered inhibi-
tion. An optimisation study on these four VFAs led the authors
to establish the optimal VFA concentration in a digester for
ethanol, acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid as being
1600, 1600, 300 and 1800 mg/L, respectively. These concen-
trations corresponded with a maximum accumulative methane
yield of 1620 mL, with a maximum methanogenic bacteria
concentration of 7.3 × 108/mL.
Inhibition of AD from LCFAs has been extensively studied
and reviewed by various authors [124, 126, 200–204], and
there is consensus that LCFA inhibition occurs through
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
membrane surface coating of bacterial species, which then
hinders mass transfer of solubles across the bacterial cell
walls. In the case of LCFA inhibition, Palatsi et al. [202]
reported that the best recovery strategies are increasing the
inoculum: LCFA ratio and adding adsorbents like bentonite
and calcium carbonate. The authors were able to reduce re-
covery times from 10 to 2 days using these strategies in di-
gesters that were fed semicontinuously. Other strategies to
reduce LCFA inhibitions (though not currently fully under-
stood or studied) include enzyme pretreatment of substrates,
codigestion with easily degradable materials, like glucose and
cysteine, then saponification of lipid-rich substrate before di-
gestion [124]. Goncalves et al. [106] successfully combined
intermittent feeding practice with biomass retention (through a
modified reactor design), including nitrogen supplementation
to combat LCFA inhibition, and prevent sludge flotation and
microbial washout while digesting OMWW. These strategies
also helped in abating phenolic inhibition. Nitrogen supple-
mentation on the two reactors used in their work is reported to
have increased methane yields from 18% and 21% to 93% and
76%, respectively. The strategies used by these researchers
would be advantageous in terms of production costs, as they
eliminate the need for pretreatment when digesting these lipid-
rich substrates.
Intermittent LCFA additions and codigestions with a max-
imum 65% VS from LCFAs have been reported to increase
the methane yield. Beyond this LCFA contribution, inhibition
began to affect process efficiency and microbial profiles
[204]. This observation is supported by studies done on the
effects of lipids on municipal waste digestion [203].
Phenolics and pectins/tannins that are found mainly in
OMWW, OMSW and POME are also refractory to AD and
partly toxic to microorganisms. This group of compounds
include the tocopherols and anthocyanins. OMWW has been
reported to assay as high as 1% tannins and as high as 2.4%
polyphenol content [4]. Although adequate literature on tan-
nins and polyphenols mode of toxicity could not be found,
Chantho et al. [132] reported a very encouraging biological
(aerobic) pretreatment that removed more than 60% of the
phenolics found in POME [132]. Subsequent digestion of
the pretreated substrate showed a 10% increase in specific
methane yields. In this work, Bacillus thermoleovorans strain
A2 bacteria was used. In a different research Aspergillus niger
bacteria was used to achieve the same goal on OMWW [205].
With these pretreatments, the recalcitrance of anthocyanins
and tocopherols could not be resolved but partial detoxifica-
tion of the total effluent was achieved which ultimately im-
proved the effluent’s biodegradability. These findings can be
extended to investigate application on other edible oil process-
ing by-products.
Intoxication of microorganisms from heavy metals is a
complex phenomenon that, in most cases, is poorly under-
stood due to synergistic and antagonistic effects; the different
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

levels of toxicity, which are dependent on temperature; sub- 3.2.7 Foaming

strate redox potentials; the carbon source; Pearson index; sol-
ubility product; covalent index, etc. [142]. Due to these issues,
it may be adequate within the scope of this study to just ac-
knowledge that beyond certain concentrations in the digesting
media, heavy metals can induce inhibition; therefore, in case
of digester challenges, this aspect can also be investigated.
Toxicity in other lipid-rich substrates like rapeseed oil
cake has also been registered with thiocyanates. Gell et al.
[206] demonstrated the feasibility of biogas production
from rapeseed oil cake, with codigestation being necessary
to counter gradual inhibition from glucosynolates. These
glucosynolates normally break down into thiocyanates and
nitriles [206].
Digester foaming is an undesirable condition that results in
inefficient gas recovery; causes an inverse solids profile, with
higher solid concentrations at the top of the digester; creates
dead zones; and reduces the active volume of the digester
[207]. These disturbances result in sludge that has not received
the same degree of stabilisation. Additional problems that
arise in foaming digesters include: blockage of gas mixing
devices, foam binding of sludge recirculation pumps, fouling
of gas collection pipes due to entrapped foam solids, foam
penetration between floating covers and digester walls and
tipping of floating covers during foam expansion and collapse
[207–210]. Krishma et al. [211] noted that in the digestion of

Table 9 Advantages and disadvantages of various anaerobic treatment methods for POME reproduced with permission from Chong et al. [220]

Method Advantages Drawbacks

Conventional AD (pond Low capital cost Large volume for digestion

and digester)
Anaerobic filtration (packed
fixed bed reactor)
Fluidised bed
Upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB)
Upflow anaerobic sludge
fixed film (UASFF)
Continuously stirred tank
reactor (CSTR)
Anaerobic contact process
Low operating and maintenance cost Long retention times
Able to tolerate big range of OLR (pond), thus can easily No facilities to capture biogas
cope with POME discharge during high crop season
Recovered sludge cake from pond can be used as fertiliser Lower methane emission
Small reactor volume Clogging at high OLRs
Producing high-quality effluent High media and support cost
Short hydraulic retention times Unsuitable for high suspended solids wastewater
Able to tolerate shock loadings
Retains high biomass concentration in the packing
Most compact of all high rate processes High power requirements for bed fluidisation
Very well-mixed conditions in the reactor High cost of carrier media
Large surface area for biomass attachment Unsuitable for high suspended solids wastewater
No channelling, plugging or gas holdup Normally does not capture generated biogas
Faster start-up
Useful for treatment of high suspended solid wastewater. Performance dependent on sludge settleability
Producing high-quality effluent Foaming and sludge flotation at high OLRs
No media required (less cost) Long start-up period if granulated seed sludge is used
High concentration of biomass retained in the reactor Granulation inhibition at high VFA concentration
High methane production
Higher OLR achievable compared to operating UASB Lower OLR when treating suspended solid wastewaters
or anaerobic filtration alone
Problems of clogging eliminated
Higher biomass retention
More stable operation
Ability to tolerate shock loadings
Suitable for diluted wastewater
Provides more contact of wastewater with biomass Less efficient gas production at high treatment volumes
through mixing
Increased gas production compared to conventional Less biomass retention
method
Reaches steady state quickly Less stable due to oxygen transfer in digesting tank
Short hydraulic retention time
Produces relatively high effluent quality Settleability of biomass is critical to successful
performance
Table 10 Comparison of single- versus multi-phase digestion on edible oil processing by-products

Substrate Single or VS/COD BMP or productivity Comments on stability Test conditions References
multi-stage degradation

Soybean Single stage ND 421.4 mL/gVS Stable with kinetics resembling those of Standard measured BMP test using [77]
wastewater microcrystalline cellulose. AMPTSII kit
Single stage ND Approx. 110 High TAN concentration of 4730 mg 2-L batch reactors operated at 37 °C [66]
L-CH4/kg VSfeed TAN/kg recorded, which is assumed to for 42-day incubation period.
be the cause of poor methane productivity
when compared to codigested scenarios
where the TAN was 3720 mg TAN/kg
with productivity of 258
L-CH4/kgVSfeed.
4-stage ABR 97% total COD 113.9 L methane per day Improved tolerance to shock loadings Influent concentration of 10 g/L [223]
removal revealed due to different microbial COD, T 35 °C, OLR up to
profiles in each compartment. Ammonia 6 kg-COD/m3 day and HRT
and high solids inhibition avoided. 39.5 days per stage. Macro and
micronutrient supplementation
implemented.
Olive oil Single stage 51% TCOD 53.2 mg-CH4/gTS Biogas production trend was positive in first Batch measured BMP assay at T of [134]
wastewater removal 10 days and thereafter began to fluctuate 37 °C using 120 mL (working
on daily basis, perhaps because of volume 60 mL) bottle reactors. pH
phenolics and LCFA induced was adjusted to 7.2. Incubation for
inhibition-recovery cycles. 65 days.
Two stage 64% TCOD removal 243 L-CH4/kg CODadded Generally stable TS removals and stable pH Feedstock was OMWW codigested with
41% TS removal in the reactors. Minor fluctuations in gas liquid cow manure (LCM) and cheese
59% VS degradation production rates and in methane content. whey (CW) in the ratio of 55:40:5
No detrimental process failure recorded. (OMWW/LCM/CW) % wt basis.
Two CSTRs used at 35 °C. Overall
HRT was 19 days. OLR was 5.5 g
COD/L day.
Single stage (batch) 7.8% COD removal 11.4 mL CH4/gCODremoved High VFAs to alkalinity ratios and high Batch test in 100 mL serum vials at [132]
phenolic levels are possible reasons for 35 °C, pH 4.7. No pretreatment for
low measured BMP. balancing pH or nutrients.
Single-stage 75% total COD 234 mL CH4/gCODapplied Scum formation and solids floating at higher 2-L semi-continuous reactor operating at [38]
(semi-continuous) removals OLR. Fats and grease solidifying and 5.6 days HRT and max OLR 12 g
blocking discharge lines. COD/L day. Temp. 35 °C and pH
adjustment using NaOH 7–7.5.
Two stage 64% TCOD removal 264 mL CH4/gCODutilised n.d. First stage ran at HRT of 1 day. Second [39]
at HRT of 10 days at HRT of 10 days. 559 stage HRT varied (10, 20, 30 days).
74% TCOD mL CH4/gCODutilised Recirculation of stage 2 digestate to 1.
removal at HRT at HRT of 30 days. pH correction at start-up only
of 30 days (Na2CO3). T − 32 °C. OLR 1.2–3.4 g
COD/L day.
Canola or Single stage n.d. 530 mL CH4/gVS Inhibition noted with continuous operation A CSTR operating at OLR 2.42 kg/m3 [56]
rapeseed cake if it proceeds for too long on days of VS. Temperature was 37 °C
monodigestion of the rapeseed cake.
Glycerol for codigestion was proposed.
Two stage The above study on single-stage digestion noted that there was no justification for two-stage digestion with this substrate [56].
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
wastewater sludge when using air agitated and mechanically
agitated digesters, there was more foam in the air agitated
digester (2.4 m) than that in mechanically agitated one
(1.3 m). They further observed that the higher foaming digest-
er produced less gas (0.74 m3/kg VS destroyed) than the low
foaming one (0.93 m3/kg VS destroyed).
An extensive review of foaming causes in digesters was
conducted by Ganidi et al. [207], who concluded that for
foaming to take place, initiation substances must be present
in the digesting slurry. A number of studies have implicated
Microthrix parvicella [212–214] as being mainly responsible
for initiating foaming in digesters. Fats, proteins, oils and
grease (FOG) have been reported to promote metabolism of
these microorganisms; hence, the presence of these nutrients
in edible oil processing by-products must pose a foaming
threat [213]. The presence of LCFAs also promotes growth
of M. parvicella [215, 216]. The bacterium M. parvicella
thrives in low temperatures of around 25 °C, and therefore,
foaming has been found to be more severe in wintertime than
in summertime. A solution that has been posited to manage
foaming induced by this bacterium is to use polyaluminium
salt-based coagulants [212, 214], to operate the digesters at
mesophilic or even thermophilic temperatures, and, if possi-
ble, to avoid operating within the psychrophilic range.
3.3 Effects of reactor configuration
Biogasification can be carried out in different digester config-
urations (CSTR, plug, fixed film, garage type dry fermenters,
covered lagoon and UASB) whose performances also tend to
be different [217–219]. Ghosh and Bhattacherjee [217] report-
ed the performance of plug flow versus CSTR and, in most
respects (HRT, specific volume, specific production), the plug
flow showed superior performance. Another reactor configu-
ration aspect is bacterial entrapment, which is associated with
sludge blanket reactors (UASB, IASB and EGSB), and it has
been suggested that fixed film reactors are helpful in reducing
washout while operating at lower SRTs and HRTs. SRT and
HRT have implications on throughput and digester sizing
[180], so if these can be manipulated through the selection
of digester type one has to make a wise decision on this aspect
at plant design stage. Chong et al. [220] reviewed the various
digester setups when applied to POME digestion and focused
on mode of operation and the relative advantages and disad-
vantages of each. Table 9 summarises their findings on a va-
riety of digesters. However, it should be noted that each reac-
tor type has its advantages and shortcomings so not all di-
gesters reviewed here will be applicable on every edible oil
processing by-product. As such, it is suggested that every by-
product with its unique specifications must be matched with
the reactor capability and limitations to evaluate suitability for
use.
Digestion in one reactor (single-phase system) or separat-
ing the hydrolysis-acidogenic phase from the acetogenic-
methanogenic phases (two-phase system) can also introduce
some performance differences [218, 221, 222]. Table 10 sum-
marises the benefits and disadvantages of single- and multi-
phase digester arrangements. For improved waste stabilisation
and higher digestion efficiencies compared to single-stage
systems, Matsuo and Jeyaseelan [224] recommended the use
of a two-stage system for lipid-rich substrates such as milk by-
products [224]. However, contrary to the observations made
by many researchers—that two-stage biodigestion induces
higher VS/COD degradation [225], accommodates higher
HRTs, improves methane yields, gives a more stable digestate
and many other advantages [24, 226, 227]—none of these
claims were significantly fulfilled in the case of experiments
with rapeseed oil cake [43]. Single-stage codigestion of rape-
seed cake and glycerol was therefore recommended in this
study for purposes of capital cost savings and the suppression
of inhibitors. This anomaly between most substrates and rape-
seed cake may possibly be explained in terms of variations in
phytonutrients that may induce complicated phytotoxicity to
microorganisms.
Fixed film reactors (sometimes called biofilters) are a spe-
cial design of digester that offers a high surface area for bac-
terial attachment [129]. This feature helps to increase micro-
bial population density and improve the microorganism’s re-
tention time which subsequently reduces HRTs. Kumar et al.
[129] reported HRT reduction from 30 to 40 days to a few
hours and emphasised that the fixed film reactor is well suited
for effluents with low solid concentration. This implies that
possibly only low TS edible oil processing effluents can be
considered for digestion in this reactor while other high TS
streams will use other reactor types. In their review, Chimain
et al. [23] described in detail the different reactors and their
performance, particularly with palm oil mill effluent as the
substrate.
Another AD differentiation is made between dry and wet
systems. Dry digestion takes place when slurries with solid
content are between 20 and 40% w/w, while wet digestion
operates with solid concentration below 10% w/w [228].
Normally, the choice of dry or wet mode of operation is guid-
ed by process water constraints. Digesters can also be operated
in continuous, semi-continuous and batch modes.
4 Concluding remarks
This paper attempted to conduct a detailed survey of the liter-
ature on edible oil processing wastes used as substrates for AD
systems. A number of insights can be drawn and explored for
future use in the design of new processes dealing with these or
related substrates. The opportunities and challenges unearthed
in this study could also be used in the day-to-day process

troubleshooting and operation of AD processes handling edi-
ble oil processing-related substrates.
The following are some of the major findings from this
review.
1. To some extent, edible oil processing wastes from differ-
ent oil seeds or fruits share similar physicochemical char-
acteristics, e.g. the presence of residual fats and proteins,
as part of their organic fractional composition. However,
there are notable differences among some of these wastes,
which confer different biodigestion characteristics to each
substrate. One example of such differences is the presence
of polyphenols in avocado and olive oil processing by-
products, while groundnut and soybean-based wastes do
not contain these. Each substrate must therefore be
experimented separately to establish suitable operating
or design conditions. However, echo-studies can be
consulted as a starting point for such substrate-specific
studies.
2. Most edible oil processing by-products contain residual
fats and proteins that are high methane yielding nutrients;
however, these can also trigger pH/VFA as well as
ammonia-related inhibition in the AD process.
Polyphenols, pectins and tannins, which are common in
edible oil by-products of premium grade oil, have also
been reported to inhibit microbial activities at certain con-
centrations. Among many strategies to address these
shortcomings, codigestion is commonly practised.
3. Other potential design and operational challenges with
high lipid-based substrates for biodigestion are foaming,
pipe clogging and biomass washout which are predomi-
nantly resolved through operating at high temperatures as
opposed to psychrophilic digestions as well as adoption of
mechanical vs air agitation systems.
4. Some approaches available to optimise AD of edible oil
processing by-products for biogas generation include sub-
strate pretreatments, changing reactor design, modifying
process parameters and modes of operation, digestate re-
circulation and codigestion of substrates. Additional help-
ful strategies include switching from one phase to a multi-
phase digester arrangements, adding microbial supports
or LCFA adsorbents, essential element addition and bio-
augmentation. These options can be adopted singly or in
any combination, depending on system flexibility and
end-user specifications or budget.
Edible oil processing by-products present a high potential
substrate for biogas production. Future research to exploit
these products must focus on widening the cosubstrate op-
tions, so that edible oil waste producers are not restrained from
adopting the AD technology because of inhibitory or substrate
seasonal availability challenges. More research in future
should also seek to address pH, foaming and toxicity issues
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
regarding AD of high lipid-based wastes, like by-products of
edible oil processing. AD studies of the liquid portion of ef-
fluents arising from edible oil refining, bleaching, deodorising
and winterising (RBDW) units also requires attention.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the University of
South Africa (UNISA) through the Institute for the Development of
Energy for African Sustainability (IDEAS). The authors are grateful to
UNISA for the resources provided to enable this work to be conducted.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. International Finance Corporation (2015) Environmental, health
and safety guidelines for vegetable oil production and processing.
In: World Bank Gr. www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_
content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/
publications/publications_policy_ehs_vegetable_oil. Accessed 23
Aug 2018
2. Steffen Robertson & Kirsten Inc Consulting Engineers (1989)
Waste-water management in the edible oil industry. Pretoria
3. McDermott G (1976) Liquid waste treatment in the vegetable oil
processing industry - U.S practices. J Am Oil Chem Soc 53:446–
448
4. Muezzinoglu A, Azbar N, Bayram A et al (2004) A review of
waste management options in olive oil production. Crit Rev
Environ Sci Technol 34:209–247
5. von Sperling M, Chernicharo CAL (2005) Biological wastewater
treatment in warm climate regions, 1st edn. IWA Publishing,
London
6. Muzaffar AM, Hussain A, Verma C (2016) Design considerations
and operational performance of anaerobic digester: a review.
Cogent Eng 3:1–20
7. Olisa YP, Kotingo KW (2014) Utilization of palm empty fruit
bunch (PEFB) as solid fuel for steam boiler. Eur J Eng Technol
2:1–7
8. Asthana AK (2009) Biomass as fuel in small boilers. 1–52
9. Skenjana A, van Ryssen JBJ, van Niekerk WA (2006) In vitro
digestibility and in situ degradability of avocado meal and
macadamia waste products in sheep. South African J Anim Sci
36:78–81
10. Vânia de Sousa LA, Leilane Rocha BD, Joao Batista L et al (2016)
Cottonseed oil in diets for growing broilers. Rev Bras Zootec 45:
208–218
11. Rodrigues CEC, Navarro SLB (2016) Macadamia oil extraction
methods and uses for the defatted meal byproduct. Trends Food
Sci Technol 54:148–154
12. de Gleidson Giordano PC, Silva RVMM, Pires AJV et al (2016)
Cottonseed cake in substitution of soybean meal in diets for
finishing lambs. Small Rumin Res 137:183–188
13. Woolf A, Wong M, Eyres L et al (2009) Avocado Oil. In: Moreau
AR, Kamal-Eldin A (eds) Gourmet and health-promoting special-
ty oils. AOCS Press, Urbana-Illinos, pp 73–125
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
14. Ahmad A, Ghufran R, Zularisam AW (2011) Bioenergy from
anaerobic degradation of lipids in palm oil mill effluent. Rev
Environ Sci Biotechnol 10:353–376
15. Rodríguez L, Preston TR (1996) Use of effluent from low-cost
plastic biodigesters as fertilizer for duck weed ponds. Livest Res
Rural Dev 8:1–9
16. Thenabadu M (2015) Anaerobic digestion of food and market
waste; waste characterisation, biomethane potential and bio reac-
tor design: a case study in Sri Lanka. University of Gavile
17. Seadi TA, Rutz D, Prassl H et al (2008) Biogas handbook.
University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, Denmark
18. Balasubramanian PR, Bai RK (1994) Biogas-plant effluent as an
organic fertiliser in fish polyculture. Bioresour Technol 50:189–
192
19. Azbar N, Keskin T, Yuruyen A (2008) Enhancement of biogas
production from olive mill effluent (OME) by co-digestion.
Biomass Bioenergy 32:1195–1201
20. Tamkin A, Martin J, Castano J et al (2015) Impact of organic
loading rates on the performance of variable temperature
biodigesters. Ecol Eng 78:87–94
21. Arikan OA, Walter M, Lansing S (2015) Effect of temperature on
methane production from field-scale anaerobic digesters treating
dairy manure. Waste Manag 43:108–113
22. Noike T, Lay J-J, Li Y-Y (1997) Influences of pH and moisture
content on the methane production in high-solids sludge digestion.
Water Res 31:1518–1524
23. Ohimain EI, Izah SC (2016) A review of biogas production from
palm oil mill effluents using different configurations of bioreac-
tors. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:242–253
24. Ng WJ, Maspolim Y, Zhou Y et al (2015) Comparison of single-
stage and two-phase anaerobic sludge digestion systems—
performance and microbial community dynamics. Chemosphere
140:54–62
25. Oliveira F, Doelle K (2015) Anaerobic digestion of food waste to
produce biogas: a comparison of bioreactors to increase methane
content—a review. J Food Process Technol 06:8–10
26. Champagne P, Li C, Anderson BC (2015) Enhanced biogas pro-
duction from anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater
treatment sludge and fat, oil and grease (FOG) by a modified
two-stage thermophilic digester system with selected thermo-
chemical pre-treatment. Renew Energy 83:474–482
27. Chipasa KB (2001) Limits of physicochemical treatment of waste-
water in the vegetable oil refining industry. Pol J Environ Stud 10:
141–147
28. Borja R, Banks CJ (1994) Kinetics of methane production from
palm oil mill effluent in an immobilised cell bioreactor using sap-
onite as support medium. Bioresour Technol 48:209–214
29. Boubaker F, Cheikh Ridha B (2007) Anaerobic co-digestion of
olive mill wastewater with olive mill solid waste in a tubular
digester at mesophilic temperature. Bioresour Technol 98:769–
774
30. Hrudey SE (1981) Activated sludge response to emulsified lipid
loading. Water Res 15:361–373
31. Boyer MJ (1984) Current pollution control practices in the United
States. J Am Oil Chem Soc 61:297–301
32. Cappello S, Denaro R, Yakinov M (2010) Vegetable oil wastes. In:
Timmis K (ed) Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Messina, pp 2394–2399
33. Borja R, Banks CJ, Sánchez E (1996) Anaerobic treatment of
palm oil mill effluent in a two-stage up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) system. J Biotechnol 45:125–135
34. Pandey A, Ramachandran S, Singh SK et al (2007) Oil cakes and
their biotechnological applications—a review. Bioresour Technol
98:2000–2009
35. Kornaros M, Dareioti MA, Dokianakis SN et al (2009) Biogas
production from anaerobic co-digestion of agroindustrial
wastewaters under mesophilic conditions in a two-stage process.
Desalination 248:891–906
36. Omil F, Garrido JM, Arrojo B, Méndez R (2003) Anaerobic filter
reactor performance for the treatment of complex dairy wastewater
at industrial scale. Water Res 37:4099–4108
37. Kovacs E, Roland W, Maroti G et al (2013) Biogas production
from protein-rich biomass: fed-batch anaerobic fermentation of
casein and of pig blood and associated changes in microbial com-
munity composition. PLoS One 8:1–18
38. Cail RG, Barford JP (1985) Mesophilic semi-continuous anaero-
bic digestion of palm oil mill effluent. Biomass 7:287–295
39. Ng WJ, Chin KK, Wong KK (1987) Energy yields from anaerobic
digestion of palm oil mill effluent. Biol Wastes 19:257–266
40. Prabhudessai V, Ganguly A, Mutnuri S (2013) Biochemical meth-
ane potential of agro wastes. J Energy 2013:1–7
41. Ofoefule AU, Uzodinma EO, Eze JI et al (2008) Effect of some
organic wastes on the biogas yield from carbonated soft drink
sludge. Sci Res Essay 3:401–405
42. Alves MM, Pereira MA, Sousa DZ et al (2009) Waste lipids to
energy: how to optimize methane production from long-chain fat-
ty acids (LCFA). Microb Biotechnol 2:538–550
43. Antonopoulou G, Stamatelatou K, Lyberatos G (2010)
Exploitation of rapeseed and sunflower residues for methane gen-
eration through anaerobic digestion: the effect of pretreatment.
Chem Eng Trans 20:253–258
44. Martínez EJ, Fierro J, Sánchez ME, Gómez X (2012) Anaerobic
co-digestion of FOG and sewage sludge: study of the process by
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Int Biodeterior
Biodegrad 75:1–6
45. Costagli G, Betti M (2015) Avocado oil extraction processes:
method for cold-pressed high quality edible oil production versus
traditional production. J Agric Eng XLVI:115–122
46. Lanfranchi M, Giannetto C, De Pascale A (2016) Economic anal-
ysis and energy valorization of by-products of the olive oil pro-
cess: BValdemone DOP^ extra virgin olive oil. Renew Sust Energ
Rev 57:1227–1236
47. Subramaniam V, Hashim Z (2018) Charting the water footprint for
Malaysian crude palm oil. J Clean Prod 178:675–687
48. Requejo-Tapia LC (1999) International trends in fresh avocado
and avocado oil production and seasonal variation of fatty acids
in New Zealand-grown cv. Massey University, Hass
49. Ros E (2010) Health benefits of nut consumption. Nutrients 2:
652–682
50. Carvajal-Zarrabal O, Nolasco-Hipolito C, Aguilar-Uscanga MG
et al (2014) Avocado oil supplementation modifies cardiovascular
risk profile markers in a rat model of sucrose-induced metabolic
changes. Dis Markers 2014:1–8
51. Cmolik J, Pokorny J (2000) Physical refining of edible oils. Eur J
Lipid Sci Technol 102:472–486
52. Orive M, Cebrian M, Zufia J (2016) Techno-economic anaerobic
co-digestion feasibility study for two-phase olive oil mill pomace
and pig slurry. Renew Energy 97:532–540
53. Borja R, Rincón B, Sánchez E et al (2008) Effect of the organic
loading rate on the performance of anaerobic acidogenic fermen-
tation of two-phase olive mill solid residue. Waste Manag 28:870–
877
54. Aǧdaǧ ON (2011) Biodegradation of olive-mill pomace mixed
with organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Biodegradation
22:931–938
55. Borja R, Rincón B, González JM et al (2008) Influence of organic
loading rate and hydraulic retention time on the performance, sta-
bility and microbial communities of one-stage anaerobic digestion
of two-phase olive mill solid residue. Biochem Eng J 40:253–261
56. Kolesárová N, Hutňan M, Špalková V, Lazor M (2013) Anaerobic
treatment of rapeseed meal. Chem Pap 67:1569–1576

57. De Castro AM , Castilho L dos R, Freire DMG (2016)
Characterization of babassu, canola, castor seed and sunflower
residual cakes for use as raw materials for fermentation processes.
Ind Crop Prod 83:140–148
58. Atandia E, Rahmana S (2012) The impact of organic loading and
canola meal oil content on dairy manure co-digestion for biogas
production. Am J Biomass Bioenergy 1:1–19
59. Azbar N, Yonar T (2004) Comparative evaluation of a laboratory
and full-scale treatment alternatives for the vegetable oil refining
industry wastewater (VORW). Process Biochem 39:869–875
60. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Webpage www.fao.org/faostat/en visited on 8 January 2019
61. B.K B, M.P S (2005) Prospects of biodiesel production from veg-
etable oils in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev 9:363–378
62. Pichler M (2015) Legal dispossession: state strategies and selec-
tivities in the expansion of Indonesian palm oil and agrofuel. Dev
Chang 46:508–533
63. Dewayanto N, Isha R, Ridzuan M (2014) Use of palm oil decanter
cake as a new substrate for the production of bio-oil by vacuum
pyrolysis. Energy Convers Manag 86:226–232
64. Toscano P, Montemurro F (2012) Olive mill by-products manage-
ment. In: Olive germplasm—the olive cultivation, table olive and
olive oil industry in Italy. pp 1–384
65. Woolf A, Wong M, Eyres L et al (2009) Avocado oil. In: Moreau
AR, Kamal-Eldin A (eds) Gourmet and health-promoting special-
ty oils. AOCS Press, Urbana-Illinos, pp 73–125
66. Li Y, Zhu J, Zheng Y, Xu F (2014) Solid-state anaerobic co-
digestion of hay and soybean processing waste for biogas produc-
tion. Bioresour Technol 154:240–247
67. Yu H-Q, Hu Z-H, Hong T-Q, Gu G-W (2002) Performance of an
anaerobic filter treating soybean processing wastewater with and
without effluent recycle. Process Biochem 38:507–513
68. Ibrahim A, Cheah S, Ma AN et al (1984) Thermophilic anaerobic
contact digestion of palm oil mill effluent. Water Sci Technol 17:
155–166
69. Fezzani B, Cheikh R Ben (2007) Thermophilic anaerobic co-
digestion of olive mill wastewater with olive mill solid wastes in
a tubular digester. Chem Eng J 132:195–203
70. Beccari M, Majone M, Papini MP, Torrisi L (2001) Enhancement
of anaerobic treatability of olive oil mill effluents by addition of
ca(OH)2 and bentonite without intermediate solid / liquid separa-
tion. Water Sci Technol 43:275–282
71. González-González A, Cuadros F (2015) Effect of aerobic pre-
treatment on anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewater
(OMWW): an ecoefficient treatment. Food Bioprod Process 95:
339–345
72. Jekayinfa SO, Scholz V (2013) Laboratory scale preparation of
biogas from cassava tubers, cassava peels, and palm kernel oil
residues. Energy Sources, Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 35:
2022–2032
73. Razuan R, Chen Q, Zhang X et al (2010) Pyrolysis and combus-
tion of oil palm stone and palm kernel cake in fixed-bed reactors.
Bioresour Technol 101:4622–4629
74. Miranda T, Arranz JI, Montero I et al (2012) Characterization and
combustion of olive pomace and forest residue pellets. Fuel
Process Technol 103:91–96
75. Özveren U, Özdoğan ZS (2013) Investigation of the slow pyroly-
sis kinetics of olive oil pomace using thermo-gravimetric analysis
coupled with mass spectrometry. Biomass Bioenergy 58:168–179
76. Raposo F, Borja R, Rincon B, Jimenez AM (2008) Assessment of
process control parameters in the biochemical methane potential
of sunflower oil cake. Biomass Bioenergy 32:1235–1244
77. Araujo VKA, De Almeida S, De Oliveira SB et al (2017)
Anaerobic digestion using residue of soybean processing: biogas
production and its potential to generate energy. In: 18th
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
International Scientific Conference on Electric Power
Engineering, EPE 2017. IEEE, pp 2–5
78. Tay T, Ucar S, Karagöz S (2009) Preparation and characterization
of activated carbon from waste biomass. J Hazard Mater 165:481–
485
79. Demirer GN, Isci A (2007) Biogas production potential from cot-
ton wastes. Renew Energy 32:750–757
80. Pütün E, Uzun BB, Pütün AE (2006) Fixed-bed catalytic pyrolysis
of cotton-seed cake: effects of pyrolysis temperature, natural zeo-
lite content and sweeping gas flow rate. Bioresour Technol 97:
701–710
81. Agrawalla A, Kumar S, Singh RK (2011) Pyrolysis of groundnut
de-oiled cake and characterization of the liquid product. Bioresour
Technol 102:10711–10716
82. Biogas B (2018) Out of biogas from different types of substrates.
In: Inf. Sheet. http://www.biteco-energy.com/biogas-yield/.
Accessed 5 Jun 2018
83. Kim H (2003) The optimisation of food waste addition as a co-
substrate in anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Waste Manag
Res 21:515–526
84. Carvalho F, Prazeres AR, Rivas J (2013) Cheese whey wastewa-
ter: characterization and treatment. Sci Total Environ 445–446:
385–396
85. Costa JC, Gonçalves PR, Nobre A, Alves MM (2012)
Biomethanation potential of macroalgae Ulva spp. and
Gracilaria spp. and in co-digestion with waste activated sludge.
Bioresour Technol 114:320–326
86. Freitas TB, Felix TL, Pedreira MS et al (2017) Effects of increas-
ing palm kernel cake inclusion in supplements fed to grazing
lambs on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and fatty
acid profile. Anim Feed Sci Technol 226:71–80
87. Bezerra LS, Barbosa AM, Carvalho GGP et al (2016) Meat quality
of lambs fed diets with peanut cake. Meat Sci 121:88–95
88. Balogun AM, Fagbenro OA (1995) Use of macadamia presscake
as a protein feedstuff in practical diets for tilapia, Oreochromis
niloticus (L.). Acquacult Res 26:371–377
89. Jitngarmkusol S, Tananuwong K, Hongsuwankul J (2008)
Chemical compositions, functional properties, and microstructure
of defatted macadamia flours. Food Chem 110:23–30
90. Rotta EM, De Morais DR, Batoqui P et al (2016) Use of avocado
peel (Persea americana) in tea formulation: a functional product
containing phenolic compounds with antioxidant activity. Acta Sci
Technol 38:23–29
91. Olaeta JA, Schwartz M, Undurraga P, Contreras S (2007) Use of
hass avocado (Persea americana Mill.) seed as a processed prod-
uct. In: Proceedings VI World Avocado Congress. pp 1–8
92. Bouallagui H, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L, Hamdi M (2003)
Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in
a tubular digester. Bioresour Technol 86:85–89
93. Abbassi-Guendouz A, Brockmann D, Trably E et al (2012) Total
solids content drives high solid anaerobic digestion via mass trans-
fer limitation. Bioresour Technol 111:55–61
94. de Mes TZD Stams A.J.M, Reith JH, Zeeman G (2003). Industrial
scale garage-type dry fermentation of municipal solid waste to
biogas. In: Reith JH, Wijfells RH Barten H (eds). Biomethane
and biohydrogen—status and perspectives of biological methane
and hydrogen production. Dutch Biological Hydrogen
Foundation.The Hague. pp 58–102
95. Jiang C, Qi R, Hao L et al (2018) Monitoring foaming potential in
anaerobic digesters. Waste Manag 75:280–288
96. Hernández-Berriel MC, Márquez-Benavides L, González-Pérez
DJ, Buenrostro-Delgado O (2008) The effect of moisture regimes
on the anaerobic degradation of municipal solid waste from
Metepec (México). Waste Manag 28:S14–S20
97. Murtagh JE (1999) Molasses as a feedstock for alcohol produc-
tion. In: Jacques K, Lyons TP, Kessal D (eds) The alcohol
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
textbook, 3rd edn. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp
89–96
98. Tekin AR, Dalgiç AC (2000) Biogas production from olive pom-
ace. Resour Conserv Recycl 30:301–313
99. Blackall LL, Harbers AE, Hayward AC, Greenfield PF (1991)
Activated sludge foams: effects of environmental variables on
organism growth and foam formation. Environ Technol 12:241–
248
100. Bouallagui H, Haouari O, Touhami Y et al (2004) Effect of tem-
perature on the performance of an anaerobic tubular reactor
treating fruit and vegetable waste. Process Biochem 39:2143–
2148
101. Ganidi N, Tyrrel S, Cartmell E (2009) Anaerobic digestion
foaming causes – a review. Bioresour Technol 100:5546–5554
102. Buswell AM, Mueller HF (1952) Mechanism of methane fermen-
tation. Ind Eng Chem 44:550–552
103. Achinas S, Euverink GJW (2016) Theoretical analysis of biogas
potential prediction from agricultural waste. Resour Technol 2:
143–147
104. Raposo F, Fernández-Cegrí V, de la Rubia MA et al (2011)
Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates:
evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an inter-
national interlaboratory study. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 86:
1088–1098
105. Yejian Z, Yan L, Chi L et al (2008) Startup and operation of
anaerobic EGSB reactor treating palm oil mill effluent. J
Environ Sci 20:658–663
106. Gonçalves MR, Costa JC, Marques IP, Alves MM (2012)
Strategies for lipids and phenolics degradation in the anaerobic
treatment of olive mill wastewater. Water Res 46:1684–1692
107. Zheng Y, Li Y (2018) Physicochemical and functional properties
of coconut (Cocos nucifera L) cake dietary fibres: effects of cellu-
lase hydrolysis, acid treatment and particle size distribution. Food
Chem 257:135–142
108. Yahaya M, Takahashi J, Matsuoka S, Kibon A (1999) Effect of
supplementary feeding of cotton seed cake on feed intake, water
consumption and work output of work bulls in Borno state,
Nigeria. Anim Feed Sci Technol 79:137–143
109. Chrenková M, Čerešňáková Z, Weisbjerg MR et al (2014)
Characterization of proteins in feeds according to the CNCPS
and comparison to in situ parameters. Czech J Anim Sci 59:
288–295
110. Lee DH, Behera SK, Kim JW, Park H-S (2009) Methane produc-
tion potential of leachate generated from Korean food waste
recycling facilities: a lab-scale study. Waste Manag 29:876–882
111. Guermoud N, Ouadjnia F, Abdelmalek F et al (2009) Municipal
solid waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria). Waste Manag
29:896–902
112. Pavlostathis S, Giraldo-Gomez E (1991) Kinetics of anaerobic
treatment. Water Sci Technol 24:35–59
113. Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R (2008) Principles and
potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 34:755–781
114. Kwietniewska E, Tys J (2014) Process characteristics, inhibition
factors and methane yields of anaerobic digestion process, with
particular focus on microalgal biomass fermentation. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 34:491–500
115. Rajeshwari KV, Balakrishnan M, Kansal A et al (2000) State-of-
the-art of anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater
treatment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 4:135–156
116. Steinbüchel A (2005) Non-biodegradable biopolymers from re-
newable resources: perspectives and impacts. Curr Opin
Biotechnol 16:607–613
117. Aggett PJ (2018) Population reference intakes and micronutrient
bioavailability: a European perspective. Am J Clin Nutr 91:
1433S–1437S
118. Grace I (2016) Enzyme production and activities of
lignocellulolytic fungi cultivated on agricultural residues.
University of South Africa
119. Beccari M, Carucci G, Majone M, Torrisi L (1999) Role of lipids
and phenolic compounds in the anaerobic treatment of olive oil
mill effluents. Environ Technol 20:105–110
120. Hwu C (1997) Enhancing anaerobic treatment of wastewaters
containing oleic acid. Wageningen Agricultural University
121. Novak JT, Carlson DA (1970) The kinetics of anaerobic long
chain fatty acid degradation. Water Pollut Control Fed J 42:
1932–1943
122. Nunn WD (1986) A molecular view of fatty acid catabolism in
Escherichia coli. Microbiol Rev 50:179–192
123. Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wang J, Meng L (2009) Effects of volatile fatty
acid concentrations on methane yield and methanogenic bacteria.
Biomass Bioenergy 33:848–853
124. Rasit N, Idris A, Harun R, Wan AB, Karim Ghani WA (2015)
Effects of lipid inhibition on biogas production of anaerobic di-
gestion from oily effluents and sludges: an overview. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 45:351–358
125. Lalman JA, Bagley DM (2001) Anaerobic degradation and me-
thanogenic inhibitory effects of oleic and stearic acids. Water Res
35:2975–2983
126. Ma J, Zhao Q-B, Laurens LLM et al (2015) Mechanism, kinetics
and microbiology of inhibition caused by long-chain fatty acids in
anaerobic digestion of algal biomass. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:1–12
127. Ziels RM, Karlsson A, Beck D et al (2016) Microbial community
adaptation influences long-chain fatty acid conversion during an-
aerobic codigestion of fats, oils, and grease with municipal sludge.
Water Res 103:372–382
128. Okudoh V, Trois C, Workneh T, Schmidt S (2014) The potential of
cassava biomass and applicable technologies for sustainable bio-
gas production in South Africa: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev
39:1035–1052
129. Kumar KV, Sridevi V, Rani K et al (2013) A review on production
of biogas, fundamentals, applications & its recent enhancing tech-
niques. Chem Eng 57:14073–14079
130. Battista F, Fino D, Ruggeri B (2014) Polyphenols concentration’s
effect on the biogas production by wastes derived from olive oil
production. Chem Eng Trans 38:373–378
131. Tsagaraki E, Lazarides HN, Petrotos KB (2007) Olive mill waste-
water treatment. In: Oreopoulou V, Russ W (eds) Utilization of by-
products and treatment of waste in the food industry, eds. Springer,
Boston, pp 133–157
132. Chantho P, Musikavong C, Suttinun O (2016) Removal of pheno-
lic compounds from palm oil mill effluent by thermophilic
Bacillus thermoleovorans strain A2 and their effect on anaerobic
digestion. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 115:293–301
133. Satyanarayan S, Ramakant S (2010) Biogas production enhance-
ment by soya sludge amendment in cattle dung digesters. Biomass
Bioenergy 34:1278–1282
134. Khoufi S, Louhichi A, Sayadi S (2015) Optimization of anaerobic
co-digestion of olive mill wastewater and liquid poultry manure in
batch condition and semi-continuous jet-loop reactor. Bioresour
Technol 182:67–74
135. Beccari M, Bonemazzi F, Majone M, Riccardi C (1996)
Interaction between acidogenesis and methanogenesis in the an-
aerobic treatment of olive oil mill effluents. Water Res 30:183–
189
136. Chen SF, Yakunin AF, Kuznetsova E, Busso D, Pufan R,
Proudfoot M, Kim R, Kim SH (2004) Structural and functional
characterization of a novel phosphodiesterase from
Methanococcus jannaschii. J Biol Chem 279:31854–31862
137. Diekert G, Konheiser U, Piechulla K, Thauer RK (1981) Nickel
requirement and factor F430 content of methanogenic bacteria. J
Bacteriol 148:459–464

138. Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Suzuki K, Maekawa T (2003) Uptake and
mass balance of trace metals for methane producing bacteria.
Biomass Bioenergy 25:427–433
139. Abdelsalam E, Samer M, Hassan HE et al (2015) Effect of CoCl2,
NiCl2 AND FeCl3 additives on biogas and methane production.
Misr J Agric Eng 32:843–862
140. Roussel J, Fermoso FG, Collins G et al (2018) Trace element
supplementation as a management tool for anaerobic digester op-
eration: benefits and risks In: eBook. http://wio.iwaponline.com/
lookup/doi/10.2166/9781780409429. Accessed 26 Aug 2018
141. Thanh PM, Ketheesan B, Yan Z, Stuckey D (2016) Trace metal
speciation and bioavailability in anaerobic digestion: a review.
Biotechnol Adv 34:122–136
142. Chen JL, Ortiz R, Steele TWJ, Stuckey DC (2014) Toxicants
inhibiting anaerobic digestion: a review. Biotechnol Adv 32:
1523–1534
143. Romero-Güiza MS, Vila J, Mata-Alvarez J et al (2016) The role of
additives on anaerobic digestion: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev
58:1486–1499
144. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza MS et al (2014) A critical
review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and
2013. Renew Sust Energ Rev 36:412–427
145. Meyer-Kohlstock D, Haupt T, Heldt E et al (2016) Biochar as
additive in biogas-production from bio-waste. Energies 9
146. Wilkie A, Goto M, Bordeaux FM, Smith PH (1986) Enhancement
of anaerobic methanogenesis from napiergrass by addition of
micronutrients. Biomass 11:135–146
147. Gopinathan C, Prajapati S, Rohira H (2015) Supplementing pine-
apple pulp waste with urea and metal ions enhances biogas pro-
duction. IOSR J Environ Sci Ver I 9:2319–2399
148. Molaey R, Bayrakdar A, Sürmeli RÖ, Çalli B (2018) Anaerobic
digestion of chicken manure: mitigating process inhibition at high
ammonia concentrations by selenium supplementation. Biomass
Bioenergy 108:439–446
149. Nordell E, Hansson AB, Karlsson M (2013) Zeolites relieve in-
hibitory stress from high concentrations of long chain fatty acids.
Waste Manag 33:2659–2663
150. Borja R, Rincón B, Raposo F et al (2004) Mesophilic anaerobic
digestion in a fluidised-bed reactor of wastewater from the pro-
duction of protein isolates from chickpea flour. Process Biochem
39:1913–1921
151. Borja R, Bank C (1995) Comparison of an anaerobic filter and an
anaerobic fluidized bed reactor treating palm oil mill effluent.
Process Biochem 30:511–521
152. Carballa M, Regueiro L, Lema JM (2015) Microbial management
of anaerobic digestion: exploiting the microbiome-functionality
nexus. Curr Opin Biotechnol 33:103–111
153. Tale VP, Maki JS, Zitomer DH (2015) Bioaugmentation of
overloaded anaerobic digesters restores function and archaeal
community. Water Res 70:138–147
154. Schauer-Gimenez AE, Zitomer DH, Maki JS, Struble CA (2010)
Bioaugmentation for improved recovery of anaerobic digesters
after toxicant exposure. Water Res 44:3555–3564
155. Gollakota KG, Meher KK (1988) Effect of particle size, tempera-
ture, loading rate and stirring on biogas production from castor
cake (oil expelled). Biol Wastes 24:243–249
156. Dhaked RK, Singh P, Singh L (2010) Biomethanation under psy-
chrophilic conditions. Waste Manag 30:2490–2496
157. McKeown RM, Hughes D, Collins G et al (2012) Low-
temperature anaerobic digestion for wastewater treatment. Curr
Opin Biotechnol 23:444–451
158. Petropoulos E, Dolfing J, Davenport RJ et al (2017) Developing
cold-adapted biomass for the anaerobic treatment of domestic
wastewater at low temperatures (4, 8 and 15 °C) with inocula from
cold environments. Water Res 112:100–109
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
159. Hwu C-S, Van Lier JB, Lettinga G (1998) Physicochemical and
biological performance of expanded granular sludge bed reactors
treating long-chain fatty acids. Process Biochem 33:75–81
160. Hwu C-S, Lettinga G (1997) Acute toxicity of oleate to acetate-
utilizing methanogens in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic
sludges. Enzym Microb Technol 21:297–301
161. Prasad RD (2012) Empirical study on factors affecting biogas
production. ISRN Renew Energy 2012:1–7
162. Oleskowicz-Popiel P, Jankowska E, Chwiałkowska J, Stodolny M
(2015) Effect of pH and retention time on volatile fatty acids
production during mixed culture fermentation. Bioresour
Technol 190:274–280
163. Horiuchi JI, Shimizu T, Tada K et al (2002) Selective production
of organic acids in anaerobic acid reactor by pH control. Bioresour
Technol 82:209–213
164. Hwang MH, Jang NJ, Hyun SH, Kim IS (2004) Anaerobic bio-
hydrogen production from ethanol fermentation: the role of pH. J
Biotechnol 111:297–309
165. Wu Y, Wang C, Zheng M et al (2017) Effect of pH on ethanol-type
acidogenic fermentation of fruit and vegetable waste. Waste
Manag 60:158–163
166. Kadier A, Kalil MS, Chandrasekhar K et al (2018) Surpassing the
current limitations of high purity H2 production in microbial elec-
trolysis cell (MECs): strategies for inhibiting growth of
methanogens. Bioelectrochemistry 119:211–219
167. Buekens A (2005) Energy recovery from residual waste by means
of anaerobic digestion technologies. In: The future of residual
waste management in Europe. pp 1–16
168. Abebe M (2017) Characterisation peal of fruit and leaf of vegeta-
ble waste with cow dung for maximizing the biogas yield. Int J
Energy Power Eng 6:13–21
169. Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y et al (2012) Optimizing feeding com-
position and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield
during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat
straw. Bioresour Technol 120:78–83
170. Sung S, Liu T (2003) Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic anaer-
obic digestion. Chemosphere 53:43–52
171. Massé DI, Rajagopal R, Singh G (2013) A critical review on
inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia.
Bioresour Technol 143:632–641
172. Van Haandel AC (1994) Influence of the digested COD concen-
tration of the alkalinity requirements in anaerobic digesters. Water
Sci Technol 30:23–34
173. McCarty PL, McKinney RE (1961) Salt toxicity in anaerobic di-
gestion. Water Pollut Control Fed J 33:399–415
174. Lane AG (1984) Laboratory scale anaerobic digestion of fruit and
vegetable solid waste. Biomass 5:245–259
175. Martin, A.Borja, R.Garcia, I.Fiestas, J.A (1991) Kinetics of meth-
ane production from olive mill wastewater. Process Biochem 26:
101–107
176. Martín A, Borja R, Banks CJ (1994) Kinetic model for substrate
utilization and methane production during the anaerobic digestion
of olive mill wastewater and condensation water waste. J Chem
Technol 60:7–16
177. Zhang TC, Noike T (1994) Influence of retention time on reactor
performance and bacterial trophic populations in anaerobic diges-
tion processes. Water Res 28:27–36
178. Ziganshin AM, Schmidt T, Lv Z et al (2016) Reduction of the
hydraulic retention time at constant high organic loading rate to
reach the microbial limits of anaerobic digestion in various reactor
systems. Bioresour Technol 217:62–71
179. Sánchez E, Borja R, Travieso L et al (2005) Effect of organic
loading rate on the stability, operational parameters and perfor-
mance of a secondary upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor treating
piggery waste. Bioresour Technol 96:335–344
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
180. Adekunle KF, Okolie JA (2015) A review of biochemical process
of anaerobic digestion. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 6:205–212
181. Suhartini S (2014) The anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pulp.
Southampton
182. Hwu C, Van Beek B, Van Lier JB, Lettinga G (1997)
Thermophilic high-rate anaerobic treatment of wastewater con-
taining long-chain fatty acids: effect of washed out biomass recir-
culation. Biotechnol Lett 19:453–456
183. Wirth B, Reza T, Mumme J (2015) Influence of digestion temper-
ature and organic loading rate on the continuous anaerobic treat-
ment of process liquor from hydrothermal carbonization of sewage
sludge. Bioresour Technol 198:215–222
184. Xie T, Xie S, Sivakumar M, Nghiem LD (2017) Relationship
between the synergistic/antagonistic effect of anaerobic co-
digestion and organic loading. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad:1–7
185. Wheatley A, Fisher M, Grobicki W (1997) Applications of anaer-
obic digestion for the treatment of industrial wastewaters in
Europe. Water Environ J February:39–46
186. Szewczyk KW, Bukowski J (2008) Modelling of a batch anaero-
bic digestion. Pol J Chem Technol 10:45–48
187. Ferguson RMW, Coulon F, Villa R (2016) Organic loading rate: a
promising microbial management tool in anaerobic digestion.
Water Res 100:348–356
188. Gómez X, Cuetos MJ, Cara J et al (2006) Anaerobic co-digestion
of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the mu-
nicipal solid wastes. Conditions for mixing and evaluation of the
organic loading rate. Renew Energy 31:2017–2024
189. Choong YY, Chou KW, Norli I (2018) Strategies for improving
biogas production of palm oil mill effluent (POME) anaerobic
digestion: a critical review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:2993–3006
190. Raskin L, Stroot PG, McMahon KD, Mackie RI (2001) Anaerobic
codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various
mixing conditions—I. Digester performance. Water Res 35:1804–
1816
191. Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL (2008) Optimisation
of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour
Technol 99:7928–7940
192. Tian L, Zou D, Yuan H et al (2015) Identifying proper agitation
interval to prevent floating layers formation of corn stover and
improve biogas production in anaerobic digestion. Bioresour
Technol 186:1–7
193. Battista F, Fino D, Mancini G, Ruggeri B (2016) Mixing in di-
gesters used to treat high viscosity substrates: the case of olive oil
production wastes. J Environ Chem Eng 4:915–923
194. Long JH, Aziz TN, Reyes FLDL, Ducoste JJ (2012) Anaerobic
codigestion of fat, oil, and grease (FOG): a review of gas produc-
tion and process limitations. Process Saf Environ Prot 90:231–245
195. Rinzema A, Alphenaar A, Lettinga G (1993) Anaerobic digestion
of long-chain fatty acids in UASB and expanded granular sludge
bed reactors. Process Biochem 28:527–537
196. Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic
digestion process: a review. Bioresour Technol 99:4044–4064
197. Arthur Mensah K, Forster CF (2003) An examination of the ef-
fects of detergents on anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 90:
133–138
198. Yenigün O, Demirel B (2013) Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic
digestion: a review. Process Biochem 48:901–911
199. Lin L, Xu F, Ge X, Li Y (2018) Improving the sustainability of
organic waste management practices in the food-energy-water
nexus: a comparative review of anaerobic digestion and
composting. Renew Sust Energ Rev 89:151–167
200. Palatsi J, Illa J, Prenafeta-Boldú FX et al (2010) Long-chain fatty
acids inhibition and adaptation process in anaerobic thermophilic
digestion: batch tests, microbial community structure and mathe-
matical modelling. Bioresour Technol 101:2243–2251
201. Palatsi J, Laureni M, Andrés MV et al (2009) Strategies for recov-
ering inhibition caused by long chain fatty acids on anaerobic
thermophilic biogas reactors. Bioresour Technol 100:4588–4596
202. Palatsi J, Zonta Ž, Alves MM, Flotats X (2013) Modelling inhib-
itory effects of long chain fatty acids in the anaerobic digestion
process. Water Res 47:1369–1380
203. Sun Y, Wang D, Yan J et al (2014) Effects of lipid concentration on
anaerobic co-digestion of municipal biomass wastes. Waste
Manag 34:1025–1034
204. Ziels RM, Beck DAC, Stensel HD (2017) Long-chain fatty acid
feeding frequency in anaerobic codigestion impacts syntrophic
community structure and biokinetics. Water Res 117:218–229
205. Hamdi M, Garcia J, Ellouz R (1992) Intergrated biological process
for olive mill wastewater treatment. Bioprocess Eng 8:79–84
206. Gell K, Van Groenigen J, Cayuela ML (2011) Residues of
bioenergy production chains as soil amendments: immediate and
temporal phytotoxicity. J Hazard Mater 186:2017–2025
207. Ganidi N, Tyrrel S, Cartmell E (2009) Anaerobic digestion
foaming causes - a review. Bioresour Technol 100:5546–5554
208. Kougias PG, Boe K, Angelidaki I (2015) Solutions for foaming
problems in biogas reactors using natural oils or fatty acids as
defoamers. Energy Fuel 29:4046–4051
209. Kougias PG, Boe K, O-Thong S et al (2014) Anaerobic digestion
foaming in full-scale biogas plants: a survey on causes and solu-
tions. Water Sci Technol 69:889–895
210. Kougias PG, Boe K, Angelidaki I (2013) Effect of organic loading
rate and feedstock composition on foaming in manure-based bio-
gas reactors. Bioresour Technol 144:1–7
211. Krishma PR, Kent CC, Wendell KH (1997) Causes and effects of
foaming in anaerobic sludge digesters. Water Sci Technol 36:463–
470
212. Westland DA, Hagland E, Rothman M (1998) Foaming in anaer-
obic digesters caused by Microthrix parvicella. Water Sci Technol
37:51–55
213. Lienen T, Kleyböcker A, Verstraete W, Würdemann H (2014)
Foam formation in a downstream digester of a cascade running
full-scale biogas plant: influence of fat, oil and grease addition and
abundance of the filamentous bacterium Microthrix parvicella.
Bioresour Technol 153:1–7
214. Rossetti S, Tomei MC, Nielsen PH, Tandoi V (2005) BMicrothrix
parvicella^, a filamentous bacterium causing bulking and foaming
in activated sludge systems: a review of current knowledge. FEMS
Microbiol Rev 29:49–64
215. Nielsen PH, Roslev P, Dueholm TE, Nielsen JL (2002) Microthrix
parvicella, a specialized lipid consumer in anaerobic-aerobic acti-
vated sludge plants. Water Sci Technol 46:73–80
216. Mamais D, Nikitopoulos G, Andronikou E et al (2006) Influence
of the presence of long chain fatty acids (LCFAs) in the sewage on
the growth of M.Parvicella in activated sludge wastewater treat-
ment plants. Glob NEST J 8:82–88
217. Ghosh R, Bhattacherjee S (2013) A review study on anaerobic
digesters with an insight to biogas production. Int J Eng Sci
Invent 2:8–17
218. Elangovan C, Sekar ASS (2012) Application of upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactor process for the treatment of dairy
wastewater—a review. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 11:409–414
219. Qian MYet al (2016) Industrial scale garage-type dry fermentation
of municipal solid waste to biogas. Bioresour Technol 217:82–89
220. Poh PE, Chong MF (2009) Development of anaerobic digestion
methods for palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment. Bioresour
Technol 100:1–9
221. Ghosh S, Ombregt JP, Pipyn P (1985) Methane production from
industrial wastes by two-phase anaerobic digestion. Water Res 19:
1083–1088
222. Weiland P (1993) One and two step anaerobic digestion of
agroindustrial residues. Water Sci Technol 27:145–151

223. Zhu G-F, Li J-Z, Wu P et al (2008) The performance and phase
separated characteristics of an anaerobic baffled reactor treating
soybean protein processing wastewater. Bioresour Technol 99:
8027–8033
224. Jeyaseelan S, Matsuo T (1995) Effects of phase separation in
anaerobic digestion on different substrates. Water Sci Technol
31:153–162
225. Madura RL, Walling DA, Farrell JB, Bhattacharya SK (1996)
Volatile solids reduction in two phase and conventional anaerobic
sludge digestion. Water Res 30:1041–1048
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
226. Ghosh S (1987) Improved sludge gasification by two-phase an-
aerobic digestion. J Environ Eng 113:1265–1288
227. Turovskiy IS, Mathai PK (2006) Wastewater sludge processing.
Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey
228. Braber K, Novem BV (1995) Anaerobic digestion of municipal
solid waste: a modern waste disposal option on the verge of break-
through. Biomass Bioenergy 9:365–376