Energy for Sustainable Development 49 (2019) 21–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Cavitation-based pretreatment strategies to enhance biogas production

in a small-scale agricultural biogas plant
Marcin Zieliński, Marcin Dębowski, Marta Kisielewska ⁎, Anna Nowicka, Magdalena Rokicka, Karolina Szwarc
Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Warszawska Str. 117A, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass e.g. animal manures and agricultural residues may play a
Received 11 May 2018 fundamental role as renewable energy sources. Many pretreatment methods can be used to prepare these
Revised 27 December 2018 substrates for biogas production. In this study, hydrodynamic cavitation and ultrasound were used for agricul-
Accepted 28 December 2018
tural residues pretreatment to enhance its biomethanization. A small-scale study allowed to assess biogas pro-
Available online xxxx
ductivity and energy efficiency for agricultural biogas plant (ABP) with/without cavitation-based pretreatment
Keywords:
of cattle manure and wheat straw. Hydrodynamic cavitation pretreatment (HCP) and ultrasonic pretreatment
Agricultural residues (UP) significantly enhanced biogas production to 430 and 460 L methane/kg volatile solids (VS), respectively.
Cavitation pretreatment The final net energy output of ABP/ABP-UP/ABP-HCP was respectively 56/52/61 kWh/d (p b 0.05). Our study
Anaerobic digestion showed, that hydrodynamic cavitation could be an efficient technique for agricultural residues pretreatment.
Biogas © 2019 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Scientific literature contains some laboratory-scale studies on

Development of a sustainable bioenergy market is based on bio-
based resources to meet climate protection and resource efficiency.
However bio-based resources, that can substitute fossil resources,
have to minimize the competition between food supply and biomass
production (Jankowski, Dubis, Budzyński, Bórawski, & Bułkowska,
2016; Schwede, Kowalczyk, Gerber, & Span, 2013). Consequently,
there is a need for searching the non-food biomass to rebalance the
support of biofuels production versus the food feedstock use.
Animal manure is a massively under-exploited biomass resource
which have to be treated in environmentally-friendly way to minimize
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Gerber, Henderson, & Makkar, 2013).
Worldwide GHG emissions from the livestock supply chains are
estimated to produce 7.1 Gt of CO2 per annum, which represents
14.5% of all human-induced emissions (Lukehurst & Bywater, 2015).
AD of organic biomass into biogas is now evaluated as one of the most
energy-efficient technology for bioenergy production (Montingelli,
Tedesco, & Olabi, 2015). Thus, AD of the different types of animal ma-
nure may be an effective way to reduce a fugitive methane emissions
from slurry storage, and could displace the fossil fuels consumption. In
fact, animal manures are characterized by low biodegrability caused
by high lignocellulosic fiber content, thus co-digestion strategy and/or
pretreatment step may improve its relatively small amount of energy
recovery (Atandi & Rahman, 2012; Nasir & Ghazi, 2015).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jedrzejewska@uwm.edu.pl (M. Kisielewska).
animal manures co-digestion with various organic biomass and different
pretreatment methods to enhance methane production (Astals et al.,
2015; Borowski, Domański, & Weatherley, 2014; Luste, Heinonen-
Tanski, & Luostarinen, 2012; Quiroga et al., 2014). Mixing animal manures
with energy crops residues for biogas production purposes seems to be
a way of waste management in agricultural biogas plants (ABPs)
(Babaee, Shayegan, & Roshani, 2013; Kalamaras & Kotsopoulos, 2014;
Li, Strömberg, Liu, Nges, & Liu, 2017; Søndergaard, Ioannis, Fotidis,
Kovalovszki, & Angelidaki, 2015). Due to the different biomass charac-
teristics and pretreatment method requirements, AD of waste materials
at an industrial scale requires preliminary studies in a scale larger then
laboratory to set all implementation factors.
Wheat straw is now recognized as one of the most abundant bio-
mass produced in the world, making it highly interesting as a substrate
for biogas production (Patil, Gogate, Csoka, Dregelyi-Kiss, & Horvath,
2015; Sun, Müller, & Schnürer, 2013). Due to the complex lignocellu-
losic structure of wheat straw and animal manure, their degradability
and gas yield are low. Lignocellulosic biomass mainly contains cellulose,
hemicelluloses and lignin, which are resistant to biodegradation by en-
zymes and microbes (Mood et al., 2013; Zheng, Zhao, Xu, & Li, 2014).
Structural and compositional properties of lignocellulosic biomass
have the different impacts on its biodegradability, including cellulose
crystallinity, accessible surface area, degree of cellulose polymerization,
presence of lignin and hemicellulose, and degree of hemicellulose acet-
ylation (Hendriks & Zeeman, 2009; Mood et al., 2013). Therefore, there
is a need to pretreat the lignocellulosic biomass before AD using energy
efficient and cost efficient techniques.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.12.007
0973-0826/© 2019 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
22 M. Zieliński et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 49 (2019) 21–26
To enhance the feedstock digestibility, cavitation-based pretreat-
ment strategies: ultrasonic and hydrodynamic cavitation were tested
in this study. Cavitation may be defined as the formation, growth, and
subsequent collapse of the cavities/micro-bubbles in a liquid over a
small time interval, releasing large magnitude of energy and causing
an intense local heating (around 5000 °C) and high pressure (around
50Mpa) (Harris & McCabe, 2015; Saxena, Rajoriya, Saharan, & George,
2018). Cavitation takes place due to the pressure fluctuations in the
fluid flowing through mechanical constrictions such as venturi and ori-
fice systems (hydrodynamic cavitation) or can be produced by passage
of ultrasonic waves (frequency N 18 kHz) through the liquid medium
(acoustic cavitation) (Patil et al., 2015; Saxena et al., 2018). Despite
many differences in appearance, the effects of ultrasonic and hydrody-
namic cavitation on the lignocellulosic biomass breakdown are basically
the same (Dular et al., 2016; Saxena et al., 2018). The basic mechanism
is based on the production of free radicals (H∙, OH∙, HO2·, H2O2) that can
oxidize the organic biomass (Harris & McCabe, 2015; Zheng et al., 2014).
The physical effects of cavitation lead to particles disintegration, conse-
quently lignocellulosic biomass breakdown are mainly the increase of
accessible surface area, decrystallization of cellulose and solubilization
of hemicellulose (Rehman, Kim, Chisti, & Han, 2013). These provide to
improve the biogas production during the subsequent AD of pretreated
lignocellulosic biomass.
The objective of the work was to evaluate biogas productivity from
dairy cattle manure mixed with residual wheat straw pretreated with
ultrasonic and hydrodynamic cavitation. The study was done in a
small-scale ABP. The energy balance of ABP with ultrasonic and hydro-
dynamic cavitation in relation to the ABP operation without feedstock
pretreatment was also analyzed.
Materials and methods
Feedstock origin and characteristics
Cattle manure mixed with straw wheat diluting with cattle slurry to
obtain ca. 95% of hydratation were used as a feedstock in AD. The cattle
manure produced by 360 head of dairy cattle was collected directly
from the temporary field storage of solid manure, located at the
Research and Experimental Station in Bałdy (University of Warmia
and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland). Wheat straw was collected from a
straw bale from the five random places at the same research station
like the manure. Cattle manure and wheat straw were mixed in weight
based ratio of 1:1 w/w, while cattle slurry was added with the rate of
0.20 m3/d. To achieve a proper hydration of the feedstock, the rate of
digestate recirculation was 200%. The characteristics of a feedstock
used for biogas production (mixed cattle manure and straw with cattle
slurry and digestate) is as follow: total solids (TS) 5%, volatile solids (VS)
71% TS, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 3.4–7.2% TS, ammonia nitrogen
(AN) 0.22–2.0% TS, total phosphorus (TP) 1.0–1.5% TS.
Site of the biogas plant and operation
An agricultural biogas plant (ABP) was located in Bałdy, Poland
(53°36′1″N, 20°36′14″E) at the Research and Experimental Station of
the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. A general scheme of
ABP is shown in Fig. 1. The plant was based on wet fermentation
technology and a mesophilic temperature level and received animal
slurry and manure mixed with wheat straw.
A Substrate Preparation Tank (SPT) cylindrical in shape was made of
polyester fabrics. The working volume of the tank was 2.5 m3 (the
internal diameter of 2.5 m, the internal height of 1.0 m). The SPT was
heated by hot water passed through the heating coils installed around
the circumference inside the tank. To maintain a stable temperature of
the feedstock of 35 °C, the tank was isolated by wool insulation with a
thickness of 10 cm. The cattle manure and wheat straw mixture of
0.2/0.05/0.035 Mg fresh/TS/VS was manually introduced into the SPT
once a day, while the cattle slurry was pumped by 10 min with the
rate of 0.20 m3/d (0.2/0.01/0.008 Mg fresh/TS/VS per day). The recircu-
lation rate of the digestate was 200%. The feedstock was continuously
stirred by a vertical rotary agitator with a reducer with a rotation
speed of 20 rpm. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) in SPT was
6.4 days. Then, the feedstock was gravity-driven to a shredder (HAL
50, Börger, Germany) to obtain particle size of 2 mm. A shredded feed-
stock was semi-continuously pumped to a main fermentation tank
(MFT) to provide a daily flow of feedstock on the level of 0.39 m3/d
(rotary lobe pump AL-50, Börger, Germany), and then carried gravita-
tionally into a post fermentation tank (PFT). In series with disintegra-
tion, the feedstock was firstly pumped to the cavitation-based
pretreatment unit, and then to MFT.
The 23.6 m3 MFT with 20.9 m3 working volume (the internal diam-
eter of 3.4 m, the internal height of 2.4 m) was made of polyester fabrics
and cylindrical in shape. The MFT was jacketed by wool insulation with
a thickness of 10 cm and heated by heating coils with circulating hot
water placed around the circumference inside the digester. A constant
mesophilic temperature (35 ± 1 °C) was maintained by an automatic
temperature control system. A pH inside MFT ranged between 6.5 and
7.6 throughout the experiment. Digester was completely mixing by a
vertical rotary agitator with a reducer (60 rpm). The MFT was operated
in semi-continuous mode with feeding and emptying sequences. Biogas
was discharged by using stainless steel pipeline and glycol valve, then
was purified (desulphurization) and burned. The headspace of the
MFT (2.7 m3) was used as the gas-storage tank. The volume of biogas
produced was measured continuously using bellows-type gas meter
(Apator UG-G4, Poland). The biogas composition was measured daily
using a gas analyzer Lxi 430 (Gas Data Ltd., UK). The HRT in MFT was
53.6 days, while organic loading rate (OLR) was 2.0 kg VS/m3·d.
Fresh feedstock feeding enforced the outflow of fermented biomass
to the PFT with a working volume of 20.9 m3 (the internal diameter of
3.4 m, the internal height of 2.4 m), where the digestate was stored
after AD.
Experiment was conducted in 4 stages: ABP – 90 days of ABP opera-
tion without pretreatment of the feedstock; ABP-UP – 90 days of ABP
operation with ultrasonic pretreatment (UP) of the feedstock; regener-
ation phase – 60 days of ABP operation without pretreatment of the
feedstock; ABP-HCP – 90 days of ABP operation with hydrodynamic
cavitation pretreatment (HCP) of the feedstock.
Pretreatment equipment and procedure
Ultrasonic pretreatment (UP) was performed in 5 linked square hol-
low tubular sections (0.96 m × 0.96 m × 0.85 m) made of stainless steel
with a total working volume of 40 L (8 L per section). Sections were
placed in an ultrasonic equipment made of 60 transducers, each with
a power of 10 kW and a frequency of 24 kHz.
The hydrosonic pump used for hydrodynamic cavitation pretreat-
ment (HCP) was constructed of cylindrical rotor fixedly attached to
the shaft and placed in 25 L tank (Patent No PL 214335 B1). The rotor
was turned by an electric motor (4 kW, 2800 rpm). A feedstock inlet
port was placed at the bottom of the tank, while the outlet port was
on the top. As the feedstock injected in the tank travelled across the
rotor and was mixed by the centrifugal force, the areas of vacuum
were generated within the liquid from its own turbulence, expansion
and compression, resulted into cavitation.
Depending on the pretreatment approach, ultrasonic disintegrator
or hydrodynamic disintegrator was installed behind the rotary lobe
pump. Starting the pump involved the filling of pretreatment device
and was associated with the inflow of pretreated feedstock to MFT
and the outflow of fermented feedstock from MFT to PFT. Both pretreat-
ment devices worked in a batch mode. In UP, the number of cycles per
day was 30 (1 min feedstock filling/15 min working/1 min feedstock
removing), while in HCP it was 48 (1 min feedstock filling/10 min
working/1 min feedstock removing).
 M. Zieliński et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 49 (2019) 21–26
Fig. 1. Scheme of the small-scale ABP: 1 – SPT, 2 – cavitation-based pretreatment unit, 2A – UP device, 2B – HCP device, 3 – MFT, 4 – PFT, 5 – digestate, 6 – shredder, 7 – pump, 8 – digestate
recirculation, 9 – biogas outlet.
Analytical methods
The gravimetric method was used to determine TS and VS in sam-
ples of the feedstock and anaerobic sludge. Chemical oxygen demand
(CODsol) in the soluble phase was determined using a DR 5000 spectro-
photometer with an HT 200 s mineralizer (Hach-Lange, USA). Soluble
fraction for analysis was obtain after centrifugation (5000 rpm,
10 min, MPW-251 Donserv, Poland) of the feedstock. The feedstock
was analyzed in accordance with the Standard Methods for total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) measured after mineralization in a digestion
mixture of H2SO4, K2SO4 with Se addition (PN-EN 16169:2012 0.003),
ammonia nitrogen (AN) determined after steam distillation into
diluter sulfuric acid (PN-EN 14671:2007), and total phosphorus (TP)
determined by colorimetric analysis using ammonium metavanadate
(V) and ammonium molybdate (VI) after the sample mineralization in
a mixture of sulfuric (VI) and chloric (VII) acids (PN-EN 13346:2002).
The energy inputs and outputs for the ABP operation with/without
the pretreatment of the feedstock were calculated as kWh/d and
kWh/m3 of produced biogas. The total energy input was based on the
energy needs of the individual operation steps per day or to produce
1 m3 of biogas. Energy input of the individual device was measured by
energy consumption meters (ORNO OR-WE 505, Poland). Analysis of
23
the gross energy outputs from biogas was calculated by multiplying
the total daily biogas production (m3/d) by the methane calorific
value of 9.17 kWh/m3 and the content of methane in biogas. The biogas
net energy output was calculated by subtracting the gross biogas energy
output and the total energy input.
The statistical analysis of results was carried out with Statistica 10.0 PL
package (Statsoft, Inc.). The hypothesis on distribution of each analyzed
variable was verified with a Shapiro-Wilk W-test. One-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was applied to determine the significance of difference
between variables. Variance homogeneity in groups was checked with a
Levene's test, whereas the significance of differences between the
analyzed variables was determined with a Tukey RIR test. In all tests,
the level of significance was adopted at p = 0.05.
Results and discussion
Effect of pretreatment on biogas/methane production
The effect of the two feedstock pretreatment methods on biogas pro-
duction rate (BPR) was shown in Fig. 2. BPR from the agricultural resi-
dues containing lignocellulosic biomass reached 15.9 m3/d. Sonication
of the feedstock contributed to increase BRP (p b 0.05) to the average
24 M. Zieliński et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 49 (2019) 21–26

60
29
55
27

25 50

% CH4 v/v
BPR m3/d
23
45
21
40
19
35
17

15 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
days

biogas ABP biogas ABP-UP biogas ABP-HCP

%CH4 ABP %CH4 ABP-UP %CH4 ABP-HPC

Fig. 2. Biogas production rate (BPR) and methane concentration in biogas produced in ABP, ABP-UP, ABP-HCP.

value of 19.8 m3/d. Similarly, the application of the HCP allowed to
produce more biogas (p b 0.05), but the average BPR of 18.5 m3/d was
lower than noted for UP (p b 0.05). Cumulative biogas yield (CBY)
during ABP operation was 369 L/kg VS. Both pretreatment methods
supported the significant enhancement (p b 0.05) in CBY. The applica-
tion of hydrodynamic cavitation for pretreatment of the feedstock
allowed to produce biogas of 430 L/kg VS, while UP contributed to in-
crease in biogas productivity to 460 L/kg VS, but the difference was
not significant (p N 0.05). Neither UP nor HCP contributed to increase
the methane concentration in biogas (p N 0.05), (Fig. 2). The average
methane concentration in biogas produced in ABP, ABP-UP and
ABP-HCP was 52.3%, 53.0%, 54.1%, respectively.
To test the effect of cavitation-based pretreatment methods on
the hydrolysis of the feedstock, the solublization of organic matter
(as CODsol) was analyzed (Fig. 3). The application of UP and HCP as
the pretreatment methods for lignocellulosic biomass provided better
solubilization of organic matter (p b 0.05). The average release of CODsol
form the mixture of cattle slurry and manure with wheat straw without
pretreatment was 29,224 mg COD/L. HCP increased the CODsol by
16.9% while UP by 22.0%, but there was no difference between UP and
HCP (p N 0.05). Higher solubilization of the feedstock significantly
enhanced the subsequent biogas production, suggesting that cavitation-
based pretreatment is a proper method for handling the residual agricul-
tural feedstock before AD. These methods are characterized by low invest-
ment and operational convenience (Zou, Wang, Chen, Wan, & Feng,
2016). Moreover, cavitation as a physical phenomenon does not intro-
duce any new chemicals into the digester which may be a toxic for anaer-
obic microflora.
Our study showed that both UP and HCP enhanced biogas produc-
tion by 24.6% and 16.5%, respectively. Different researchers have stud-
ied the effects of ultrasonic cavitation on anaerobic co-digestion of
cattle manure with maize straw (Zou et al., 2016), food waste and
sludge (Quiroga et al., 2014), industrial meat-processing by-products
(Luste et al., 2012), crude glycerin (Castrillón, Fernández-Nava,
Ormaechea, & Marañón, 2011). They concluded that sonication of the
feedstock improved the total biogas production via AD from about 11
to 121%, however all these studies were done in the small laboratory
scales.

40
38
36
34
g CODsol/L

32
30
28
26
24
22
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
days
ABP ABP-UP ABP-HCP

Fig. 3. Solubilization of organic matter (as CODsol) in soluble phase of the feedstock in ABP, ABP-UP, ABP-HCP.
 M. Zieliński et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 49 (2019) 21–26 25

Table 1
Input data, energy requirement and energy output for ABP operation with/without pretreatment equipment as kWh/d and kWh/m3 of produced biogas.

Operation step/equipment Power Operation time Energy input

(kW) (h/d)
ABP ABP-UP ABP-HCP

(kWh/d) (kWh/m3) (kWh/d) (kWh/m3) (kWh/d) (kWh/m3)

Shredding/shredder 1.5 0.5 0.75 0.05 0.75 0.04 0.75 0.04

Pumping/lobe pump 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.07 1.1 0.06 1.1 0.06
Mixing SPT/agitator 0.5 12.0 6.0 0.38 6.0 0.30 6.0 0.32
Mixing MFT/agitator 1.0 12.0 12.0 0.75 12.0 0.61 12.0 0.65
Feedstock pretreatment/ultrasonic equipment 10.0 3.5 – – 25.0 1.77 – –
Feedstock pretreatment/hydrosonic pump 2.0 2.7 – – – – 10.7 0.68
Total energy input: 19.85 1.25 44.85 2.26 30.55 1.65
Gross energy output: 76.0 4.78 97.0 4.90 91.6 4.95
Net energy output 56.15 3.53 52.15 2.63 61.05 3.30

There were no differences in biogas production and yield with the
use of ultrasonic and hydrodynamic cavitation, although the operation
ways of both pretreatment methods were different. However, higher
biogas productivity was observed during operation of ABP-UP than for
ABP-HCP.
Energy balance of biogas plant with different cavitation-based pretreatment
methods
The energy input for the biogas process and the pretreatments were
calculated as kWh/d (Table 1). The lowest energy input was noted for
ABP operation, but the gross energy output was as low as 76 kWh/d.
Ultrasonic equipment used in ABP-UP doubled energy needs. However,
the efficiency improvement of the biogas production ensured the
highest gross energy output on the level of 97 kWh/d. In case of the
ABP-HCP operation, the gross profit of energy was 91.6 kWh/d.
Energy consumption to produce 1m3 of biogas was the lowest in ABP
(Table 1). Comparing the two pretreatment methods, lower energy
needs for hydrosonic pump operation resulted in lower energy require-
ment per unit of biogas produced in ABP-HCP (Table 1). The final net en-
ergy output of 61.05 kWh/d was calculated for ABP-HCP, which turned
out the most energy-effective variant for residual agricultural feedstock
management. High energy requirement for ultrasonic equipment oper-
ation contributed to lowest net energy gain of 52.15 kWh/d, despite the
highest gross energy output. During ABP operation, where no feedstock
pretreatment was done, the net energy output was 56.15 kWh/d. The
differences were significant (p b 0.05).
In conclusion, the biogas plants based on hydrodynamic cavitation
feedstock pretreatment are the most profitable, however in the current
industrial practice of wastewater treatment, hydrodynamic cavitation is
not used (Dular et al., 2016). Our study showed that low energy require-
ment for hydrodynamic cavitation makes the potential to become en-
ergy efficient technique for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment in a
large scale. The electricity consumption associated with the motor was
not greater than profits derived from extra biogas yield.
Conclusions
In this study, the small-scale agricultural biogas plant for biogas pro-
duction from agricultural residues was monitored over a period of
330 days. As the feedstock contained lignocellulosic biomass, ultrasonic
pretreatment and hydrodynamic cavitation pretreatment were used.
The exposure of cattle manure and slurry mixed with wheat straw to ul-
trasound and hydrodynamic cavitation significantly enhanced biogas
production, but there were no differences in the results obtained in
both pretreatment methods. However, biogas plant with hydrodynamic
cavitation equipment ensured higher final net energy output. Overall,
exploitation of the small-scale agricultural biogas plant showed, that
hydrodynamic cavitation offers energy efficiency way for agricultural
residues pretreatment leading to higher biogas productivity.
Acknowledgements
The research was conducted under Project ERA-NET BIOENERGY of
the National (Polish) Centre for Research and Development (NCBiR)
entitled Small but efficient – Cost and Energy Efficient Biomethane
Production. SE. Biomethane, and was also supported by Project No.
18.610.008-300 from the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
entitled “Improving methods of wastewater treatment and sludge dis-
posal”. The solutions of cavitation disintegrators are promoted under
the Record Biomap project (Horyzont 2020).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Astals, S., Musenze, R. S., Bai, X., Tannock, S., Tait, S., Pratt, S., & Jensen, P. D. (2015). Anaer-
obic co-digestion of pig manure and algae: impact of intracellular algal products re-
covery on co-digestion performance. Bioresource Technology, 181, 97–104.
Atandi, E., & Rahman, S. (2012). Prospect of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure: a re-
view. Environ Technol Rev, 1, 127–135.
Babaee, A., Shayegan, J., & Roshani, A. (2013). Anaerobic slurry co-digestion of poultry
manure and straw: effect of organic loading and temperature. Journal of
Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 11, 15.
Borowski, S., Domański, J., & Weatherley, L. (2014). Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and
poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge. Waste Management, 34, 513–521.
Castrillón, L., Fernández-Nava, Y., Ormaechea, P., & Marañón, E. (2011). Optimization of
biogas production from cattle manure by pre-treatment with ultrasound and co-
digestion with crude glycerin. Bioresource Technology, 102, 7845–7849.
Dular, M., Griessler-Bulc, T., Gutierrez-Aguirre, I., Heath, E., Kosjek, T., Krivograd, K. A., ...
Kompare, B. (2016). Use of hydrodynamic cavitation in (waste)water treatment.
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 29, 577–588.
Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., & Makkar, H. P. S. (2013). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emis-
sions in livestock production: A review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. FAO
Animal Production & Healthhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3288e/i3288e.pdf.
Harris, P. W., & McCabe, B. K. (2015). Review of pre-treatments used in anaerobic diges-
tion and their potential application in high-fat cattle slaughterhouse wastewater.
Applied Energy, 155, 560–575.
Hendriks, A. T. W. M., & Zeeman, G. (2009). Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of
lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 100, 10–18.
Jankowski, K. J., Dubis, B., Budzyński, W. S., Bórawski, P., & Bułkowska, K. (2016). Energy
efficiency of crops grown for biogas production in a large-scale farm in Poland.
Energy, 109, 277–286.
Kalamaras, S. D., & Kotsopoulos, T. A. (2014). Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure and
alternative crops for the substitution of maize in South Europe. Bioresource
Technology, 172, 68–75.
Li, C., Strömberg, S., Liu, G., Nges, I. A., & Liu, J. (2017). Assessment of regional biomass as co-
substrate in the anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: Impact of co-digestion with
chicken processing waste, seagrass and Miscanthus. Biochemical Engineering Journal,
118, 1–10.
Lukehurst, C., & Bywater, A. (2015). Exploring the viability of small scale anaerobic digesters
in livestock farming. Technical Brochure. IEA Bioenergyhttps://www.iea-biogas.net/files/
daten-redaktion/download/Technical%20Brochures/Small_Scale_RZ_web2.pdf.
Luste, S., Heinonen-Tanski, H., & Luostarinen, S. (2012). Co-digestion of dairy cattle slurry
and industrial meat-processing by-products -effect of ultrasound and hygienization
pre-treatments. Bioresource Technology, 104, 195–201.
Montingelli, M. E., Tedesco, S., & Olabi, A. G. (2015). Biogas production from algal biomass:
a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 961–972.
Mood, S. H., Golfeshan, A. H., Tabatabaei, M., Jouzani, G. S., Najafi, G. H., Gholami, M., &
Ardjmand, M. (2013). Lignocellulosic biomass to bioethanol, a comprehensive review
with a focus on pretreatment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 77–93.
26 M. Zieliński et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 49 (2019) 21–26
Nasir, I. M., & Ghazi, T. I. M. (2015). Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass from animal ma-
nure as a means of enhancing biogas production. Engineering in Life Sciences, 15, 733–742.
Patil, P. N., Gogate, P. R., Csoka, L., Dregelyi-Kiss, A., & Horvath, M. (2015). Intensification
of biogas production using pretreatment based on hydrodynamic cavitation.
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 30, 79–86.
Quiroga, G., Castrillón, L., Fernández-Nava, Y., Marañón, E., Negral, L., Rodríguez-Iglesias, J., &
Ormaechea, P. (2014). Effect of ultrasound pre-treatment in the anaerobic co-digestion
of cattle manure with food waste and sludge. Bioresource Technology, 154, 74–79.
Rehman, M. S. U., Kim, I., Chisti, Y., & Han, J. I. (2013). Use of ultrasound in the production
of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Energy Educ Sci Tech Part A: Energy Sci Res,
30, 1391–1410.
Saxena, S., Rajoriya, S., Saharan, V. K., & George, S. (2018). An advanced pretreatment strategy
involving hydrodynamic and acoustic cavitation along with alum coagulation for the
mineralization and biodegradability enhancement of tannery waste effluent.
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 44, 299–309.
Schwede, S., Kowalczyk, A., Gerber, M., & Span, R. (2013). Anaerobic co-digestion of
the marine microalga Nannochloropsis Salina with energy crops. Bioresource
Technology, 148, 428–435.
Søndergaard, M. M., Ioannis, A., Fotidis, I. A., Kovalovszki, A., & Angelidaki, I. (2015). An-
aerobic co-digestion of agricultural byproducts with manure for enhanced biogas
production. Energy & Fuels, 29, 8088–8094.
Sun, L., Müller, B., & Schnürer, A. (2013). Biogas production from wheat straw: commu-
nity structure of cellulose-degrading bacteria. Energy, Sustain Soc, 3, 15.
Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, F., & Li, Y. (2014). Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for en-
hanced biogas production. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 42, 35–53.
Zou, S., Wang, X., Chen, Y., Wan, H., & Feng, Y. (2016). Enhancement of biogas production
in anaerobic co-digestion by ultrasonic pretreatment. Energy Conversion and
Management, 112, 226–235.