Next Article in Journal
DC-DC Boost Converter with Reduced Switching Losses in Wide Range of Voltage Gain
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Experimental Implementation of Optimized PI-ANFIS Controller for Speed Control of a Brushless DC Motor in Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/en16114396
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Agricultural Plant Residues as Potential Co-Substrates for Biogas Production

by
Jakub Frankowski
1,* and
Wojciech Czekała
2,*
1
Department of Bioeconomy, Institute of Natural Fibers and Medicinal Plants—National Research Institute, Wojska Polskiego 71B, 60-630 Poznań, Poland
2
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627 Poznań, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(11), 4396; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16114396
Submission received: 12 April 2023 / Revised: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 26 May 2023 / Published: 29 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section A4: Bio-Energy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Plant biomass can be used in many directions for bioenergy production. Biogas can be produced from a most diverse group of substrates compared to liquid or solid biofuels. The choice of substrates and technologies is crucial because it will allow getting the expected results. Not without significance is also the price and availability of substrates. Therefore, waste and residues are increasingly being used. Accordingly, the aim of the review was to analyze the potential of biogas production from agricultural plant residues and the effectiveness of using this feedstock as a co-substrate in anaerobic digestion. In this article, selected agricultural plant residues are collected, and their advantages and disadvantages as substrates for biogas production are described. Moreover, the effective technology of biogas production by anaerobic digestion on an industrial scale and calculations to obtain biogas and methane efficiency of the substrates are also included. In addition, the summarized biogas efficiency of selected plant agricultural waste under mesophilic conditions studied by many researchers is shown. On the basis of the analyzed results of this research, it can be concluded that agricultural plant residues have great potential as co-substrates for biogas production. It is important to experimentally determine both the biogas and the methane efficiency of the substrate, representing a potential raw material for the production of gaseous biofuels. The use of artificial neural networks in the prediction of biogas emission is future-proof and should facilitate the management of biogas plants. The use of waste from the cultivation and processing of plant raw materials will not only help to manage this waste rationally, but also contribute to the increase in production of renewable energy sources. Accordingly, the circular economy in terms of the management of agricultural plant residues to produce biogas will have a multi-faceted, positive impact on the environment. On the basis of this review, it can be concluded that numerous agricultural plant residues can be used as potential co-substrates for biogas production.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is one of the first branches of the economy developed in any society. It has accompanied humanity for centuries; however, in recent decades, due to its intensification, agricultural production has been a large source of difficult-to-manage waste. Intensive production processes, as well as the use of artificial fertilizers, plant protection products, and specialized feeds in the biomass, heretofore used as fodder, have led to the generation of problematic waste. One possible solution is to use this waste to produce biofuels [1,2,3].
Plant biomass is widely regarded as an alternative feedstock to fossil fuels for energy production. Although it is necessary to provide significant amounts of energy for its production and processing, it is estimated that its energy management is less burdensome for the environment than the use of crude oil, lignite, or hard coal. This is due to the absorption of carbon dioxide during plant growth, which significantly reduces the overall balance of the impact of biomass production on the ecosystem [4,5,6,7].
Plant residues can be used in many directions for producing bioenergy. Individual conversion processes are dedicated to bio-raw materials, depending on the dominant substances in their chemical composition. Products obtained in this way, such as solid, liquid or gaseous biofuels, can have an important impact on the diversification of energy safety and the implementation of EU and national strategies for environmental protection, combating climate change, the circular economy, and increasing the utilization of renewable energy sources [8,9,10,11].
One of the latest descriptions prepared by the European Commission and the European Council is the document COM (2018) 773 entitled “A Clean Planet for All”. This is the European long-term strategy (by 2050) for a prosperous, competitive, modern, and climate-neutral economy. This strategic vision illustrates how EU members should achieve climate neutrality. In accordance with this document, members should invest in empowering citizens, viable technological solutions, and aligning policy action in important areas such as research, finance, and industrial policy. In such a transition process, the guarantee of social justice is also very important. As requested by the European Council and the European Parliament, the Commission’s vision covers almost all EU policies for a climate-neutral future. Moreover, it is in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of keeping the temperature increase below 2 °C and trying to limit it to 1.5 °C [12].
The path to a carbon-neutral economy should be based on the collective action of seven major strategic building blocks. Point 2 of the communication sums up the current energy system in the European Union, which is largely based on fossil fuels. Nevertheless, all assessed scenarios assume that, by 2050, there will be a radical change through large-scale energy system electrification via the deployment of renewable sources of energy for the production of carbon-free fuels, raw materials for industry, or at the end-user level [12].
The large-scale usage of renewable energy resources will lead to a high degree of decentralization and to the electrification of our economy. By the middle of this century, the share of electricity in the final energy demand should reach 53%, doubling the current level. Moreover, the electricity production might increase significantly and reach zero net greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, depending on the energy transition options selected, this will amount to up to 2.5 times higher than the current production. Research into new, alternative fuels is important to achieve long-term climate and environmental protection goals and stresses the importance of further research and development by public institutions and industry to increase energy efficiency, as well as the usage of renewable energy in the road, maritime, and aviation sectors [12,13].
Plant residues rich in lignocellulose, which are wasted in various processes or are a byproduct from harvesting crops, are most often used for the production of solid biofuels. After drying and grinding, pellets or briquettes are mostly produced, which are a handy form of biofuel intended for combustion in home stoves [14,15,16]. Liquid biofuels, usually produced from oilseeds such as sunflower, rapeseed, palm, or soybean, are used as a substitutes or additions to diesel fuel [17,18,19]. On the other hand, the type of biofuel that can be produced from the most diverse group of substrates is agricultural biogas. An increase in alternative energy production is required. Due to issues related to the sustainable development and circular economy, a preferred approach is the use of waste, byproducts, and residues for energy production. These changes will be especially visible in countries where the level of subsidies for renewable energy is not significant [20,21]. Therefore, the aim of the review was to analyze the potential production of gaseous biofuel from agricultural plant residues and the effectiveness of using this feedstock as a co-substrate in anaerobic digestion. A novelty of the paper is the analysis of the literature and discussion of the possibility of using atypical agricultural plant residues for the production of biogas. The role of these substrates should increase in the near future.

2. Agricultural Plant Residues

Biomass with high energy potential includes various agricultural residues such as straw, husks, bagasse, and waste from agroforest-related activities (wood chips, bark, sawdust, etc., e.g., from short-rotated energy crops). Since then, humanity has been producing even more waste, due to the significant increase in population, and the problem of waste management is growing [22,23,24]. Therefore, selected agricultural plant residues are collected in Table 1, and their advantages and disadvantages as substrates for biogas production are described.
The most common agricultural plant residue is grain straw, which is a waste derived from harvesting rye, wheat, rice, maize, sorghum, etc. for food purposes. It is common and easily accessible; however, for this reason, its price fluctuates throughout the year. Moreover, it is expensive because it is used for fodder purposes and as bedding. Fiber plant straw is cheaper because it is not suitable for animals. Nevertheless, due to the high content of lignocellulosic structures, it is difficult to fragmentize and decompose. Seed husks from corn, oat, or other seeds separated by winnowing or threshing are cheap but very light, which results in a low energy efficiency per unit volume. The dry pulpy residue left after the extraction of juice from sugar cane or residues from sugar beet processing may be classified as high-energy substrate for biogas production, but they are available locally and not suitable for transport and long-term storage due to the high water content and putrefactive processes taking place within them. The residues from agroforest-related branches of the industry can be used for carbon supplementation in bioreactors; however, because of their lightness and high lignocellulosic content, their decomposition is a long-term process. More uncommon substrates such as waste from sericulture or floriculture may be interesting local co-substrates to animal residues, mostly free or even attracting additional income for pickup. Just like any raw material, all the described agricultural plant residues have advantages and disadvantages. However, all of the above-characterized substrates can be used as a feedstock for biogas production.

3. Biogas Production

The most effective and widespread technology of biogas production on an industrial scale is anaerobic digestion carried out in adapted reactors under strictly defined conditions [25]. The gas produced in this process consists of about 55–60% CH4 and about one-third CO2. In addition, biogas may also contain other compounds, in different proportions. These are commonly small amounts of H2S, NH3, H2, and other gases [26,27,28].
The methane fermentation process, necessary to determine the biogas efficiency of the substrate, is carried out, for example, in accordance with DIN 38 414/S8 and VDI 4630. The volume of biogas produced is determined by summing up the daily production of biogas generated in the reactor during tests from the first day of the reaction to the time when the daily production of biogas accounts for less than 1% of the total biogas produced so far. During the experiments, the amount of biogas produced in the digesters is measured daily (Figure 1) [25,26].
The process of biogas production consists of four main processes: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetateogenesis, and methanogenesis (Figure 2). In the last phase, the main biomethane production takes place. It is carried out by heterotrophic and autotrophic methane bacteria of the genera Methanobrevibacter, Methanobacter, Methanococcus, Methanosarcina, etc. [29,30,31]. The main chemical reactions occurring during the process of methanogenesis are shown and described below.
Two-thirds of CH4 is formed from alcohols or acetates:
2 C H 3 C H 3 O H + C O 2 → 2 C H 3 C O O H + C H 4 ,
C H 3 C O O H → C H 4 + C O 2 ,
C H 3 O H + H 2 → C H 4 + H 2 O .
On the other hand, one-third is formed from the reduction of CO2 with H2:
C O 2 + 4 H 2 → C H 4 + 2 H 2 O .
The production of biogas, due to the reactions taking place during anaerobic digestion, can be carried out at different temperatures. However, it is very important to adjust and maintain a stable temperature in a range that is optimal for the development of a large group of microorganisms existing in a given inoculation [33,34,35,36]. The extensive majority of methanogenic bacteria involved in the genesis of CH4 prefer mesophilic conditions. Optimum growth occurs at 25–45 °C [37,38,39].
The process of anaerobic digestion may be influenced by other factors such as reaction, availability of micro- and macroelements, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, dry matter content, or the presence of anaerobic digestion inhibitors [28,35,39].
Many different substrates of organic origin are used for biogas production [40,41,42]. Biomethane is mostly produced from silage from corn and animal waste [43,44,45,46]. However, biowaste and various plant biomass residues are increasingly being used for this purpose [47,48,49].

4. Biogas Efficiency of Plant Agricultural Waste

The usefulness of selected plant agricultural residues may be assessed in terms of biogas efficiency, which is calculated as follows [50]:
V b = B e · M s ,
where Vb is the produced biogas volume (m3), Be is the biogas efficiency of the substrate (m3/Mg), and Ms is the mass of the substrate (Mg). Hence,
V C H 4 = V b · C C H 4 ,
where VCH4 is the produced methane volume (m3), Vb is the produced biogas volume (m3), and CCH4 is the methane concentration in produced biogas (%).
The dynamics of the production of biogas and methane efficiency of the process may vary depending on the methodology used for the investigation. Nevertheless, a summary of the biogas efficiency under mesophilic conditions of fresh mass (FM) of selected plant agricultural waste is shown in Table 2.
The investigation of substrates available in the Poznań University of Life Sciences experimental farm in Przybroda showed that the most effective substrate was silage produced from maize with cumulative biogas yield, reaching 218.40 m3·Mg−1 FM, therein containing 130.88 m3·Mg−1 CH4 per FM. Interpreting the obtained test results, among the analyzed substrates (pig slurry, caw slurry, and maize silage), the best biogas efficiency was found in maize silage (585 mm3·Mg−1 DM). Furthermore, the silage also showed the highest percentage of methane—55.47%. In relation to substrate availability, every year on the Przybroda experimental farm, the total amount of biomethane produced from maize silage was 521,440 m3, almost threefold higher compared to cattle manure. This produced 2212.38 MWh·year−1 of electric energy and 2428.22 MWh·year−1 of thermal energy. The calculated electric energy power was 0.27 MW [51,52].
The obtained research results on the efficiency of biogas production from maize straw silage proved that fermentation under thermophilic conditions is shorter (by 17%) compared to the mesophilic process. Furthermore, it permits increasing the production of biogas (by 8.6%) and content of CH4 (by 9.3%). On the other hand, mesophilic fermentation has more stable pH fluctuations compared with the thermophilic process. Nevertheless, this is related to propionic acid content, which can inhibit the process and has great importance in continuing the fermentation. On the basis of energetic calculations, in this study, the substitution of both maize silage and straw is shown. The obtained results proved that it is possible to reduce the cost almost threefold, thus increasing the profitability of the biogas plant [53].
In another study [54], it was concluded that the potential methane production in maize and sorghum was similar. The obtained results supported the hypothesis that sorghum is a more energy-efficient crop compared to maize. Moreover, the irrigation could replace up to 36% of the evapotranspiration, and the fertilization nitrogen rate could be minimized to maximize the biomass production efficiency for anaerobic digestion in the area of Po Valley (Italy).
The experiments by Wannasek’s team comprised three vegetation periods of five sorghum varieties. Data on the development of crop yield such as maturity level and production of biogas were obtained. The biomass yield ranged between 15.7 and 20.67 Mg/ha of dry mass when growing sorghum as a main crop. The best methane yield (6500 m3/ha) was achieved by variety SOR 4 [55].
Ostovareh’s team obtained the greatest biomethane yield of sweet sorghum stalks, which was achieved from the liquid fraction and bagasse (pretreated solids). The efficiency reached 278 mL CH4/g VS, corresponding to 92% theoretical yield. Furthermore, this result showed 270% improvement compared to the yield of methane obtained from untreated stalks [56].
The researchers from the Laboratory of Ecotechnologies, situated in the Poznan University of Life Sciences, focused on finding alternative biogas feedstock among residues from the food industry. The results of the methane efficiency gave 74.33 m3 CH4/Mg of fresh mass from empty fruit bunches of palm oil. Nevertheless, due to the high content of lignocellulose structures, a serious problem with preparation occurred [57].
According to theoretical calculations of biogas efficiency from obtained straw yield of hemp waste biomass, the production of 208.8 m3/Mg of gaseous biofuel was assumed [58].
Another study demonstrated that silkworm breeding waste from sericulture generated a lower yield of biomethane compared to other agricultural residues, such as pig, cattle, and chicken manures. The fermentation of breeding waste from caterpillars of Bombyx mori L. under mesophilic conditions produced 65.81 m3/Mg FM of CH4 and 125.59 m3/Mg FM of biogas (Figure 3 and Figure 4; Table 3) [50].
Approximately 80% of accumulated CH4 production was recorded in the first 10 days of the experiment for analyzed materials. The hydraulic retention time for maize straw silage lasted 11 days longer [52] compared to sericulture breeding waste, analyzed by applying the same modified German standard [50].
In relation to the global situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there emerged a need to find a solution to improve the economic situation of, for instance, flower producers. The rational usage of biowaste from floriculture and the effective use of their potential as a feedstock for bioenergy production were researched by Frankowski’s team [59]. The investigation of floricultural waste included the leaves, stems, and flowers of different species: roses (Rosa L.), hybrid tulips (Tulipa L.), chrysanthemums (Dendranthema Des Moul.), and sunflowers (Helianthus L.). More than 80% of CH4 production was accumulated during the first 15 days of the study for each waste. Furthermore, the analyzed floricultural waste was characterized by high methane content, which was comparable with cattle (50–60%) and pig manure (60%) [36,50]. However, in other studies, the methane content in gas produced reached 46–57% for chicken manure [60,61] and 68–69% for fish waste [62]. This is caused by the fact that animal waste contains more fats and proteins, which are more effective sources of biogas production [59].
Due to the embargo on agricultural products from the European Union introduced by the Russian Federation, researchers from Poznan, Poland [63] presented the possibilities of utilizing vegetables in biogas plants, whose exports collapsed particularly strongly as a result of the embargo. The study of biogas and methane efficiency was carried out for the following vegetables: pumpkins, cauliflowers, eggplants, cabbage, peppers, cucumbers, and tomatoes. The fermentation process for all analyzed substrates ran without any process disruption. No factors which could inhibit methane fermentation were observed. The cumulative production of CH4 in terms of fresh mass is summarized in Table 2. Converting biogas and methane production per ton of fresh mass of selected vegetables, the obtained results were very diverse. The most efficient substrate of all the examined vegetables turned out to be pumpkin, whose cumulative biogas production was 42.77 m3/Mg FM. On the other hand, cucumber was the least efficient substrate. Its biogas efficiency was on the level of 14.94 m3/Mg FM due to the much lower content of dry mass. The most efficient substrate (organic mass on a dry basis in terms of cumulative production and methane) turned out to be tomatoes, while other vegetables showed a lower, albeit very similar, amount of produced biogas and methane. The higher yield of biofuel obtained from tomatoes compared to the yield from other vegetables was caused by the presence of a greater content of simple sugars and lower content of lignocellulosic substances. The highest percentage methane content was recorded for pumpkin at the level of 56.55%, proving the high quality of biogas produced from the tested raw material. Important information for determining the biogas and methane efficiency of the biodegradable matter is also the hydraulic retention time. In the case of the tested vegetables, HRT ranged from 12 to 18 days. This is a relatively short period of using the substrate for biogas production [50,63].
Potato processing waste can also be used for bioenergy purposes, e.g., for the production of liquid fuels or combined production of heat and electricity from burning biogas, which is a product of methane fermentation. Biogas efficiency studies for four substrates were carried out by Bartnikowska’s team [64] in accordance with the applicable German standard (DIN 38 414/S8). The research material consisted of potatoes: (I) raw, (II) steamed, (III) raw peel, and (IV) steamed peel. For raw potatoes, the methane content was 47.73%; from 1 ton of fresh matter, approximately 171 m3 of biogas was obtained. For steamed potatoes, the methane content was lower and amounted to 42.5%. Raw potato peel was characterized by the most satisfactory content of methane (48.42%). For this form of potatoes, per 1 ton of fresh mass, approximately 139 m3 of biogas could be obtained. On the other hand, biogas produced from steamed potato peel contained 46% of methane; from 1 ton of fresh mass, approximately 165 m3 of biogas was obtained. According to Romuniak and Domasiewicz [65], the methane content in potatoes was 56.5% on average. The biogas yield from 1 ton of fresh potato matter was 134 m3. In the research led by Myczko [66], the highest amount of biogas was obtained from potato haulm (80–120 m3), and the share of methane reached the value of 52–56%. Compared with other potato parts (i.e., peels (35–42 m3 from 1 Mg; CH4: 25–44%) or potato juice (6.5–15 m3 from 1 Mg; CH4: 55–60%)), haulm was surprisingly a more favorable substrate for methane fermentation, mainly due to the low water content, which allowed obtaining better results per ton of dry matter of the raw material. For comparison, during the same investigation, the best results were achieved for maize silage, with biogas efficiency oscillating in the range of 170–200 m3 per 1 ton of fresh mass. The methane content reached 52–56% [64,66].
New perspectives in biogas systems were described by Marks’s team [67]. The authors described new approaches of biogas installations which allow the effective fermentation of residues from animal and vegetable production, the agro-food industry, and municipal waste. For years, the basic substrate used in biogas plants in Poland or Germany has been maize silage [50,68]. This was cut by a sudden rise in the price of maize silage because of growing demand from biogas plants and animal production feeding. Hay substrate is also used for biomethane production. However, it should be emphasized that the high content of lignocellulosic compounds in the plant biomass makes the anaerobic decomposition process more difficult, thus requiring, above all, a longer retention time [67].
Kowalczyk-Juśko’s team described the application of a prediction model based on artificial neural networks to estimate the production of methane from various biomass in the form of silages [69]. This study determined the chemical and physical parameters of 13 silages made from various species and their biogas efficiency. Moreover, the most suitable model for the prediction of biogas production was indicated. This radial basis function model can be helpful in quickly estimating the energy value of different silages without long-term and expensive analysis, as proven for various substrates [59,69].
Pilarski’s team analyzed the possibility of using techniques of neural modeling to estimate the level of biomethane content in the gaseous fuel emitted over the fermentation process of silage [70]. As a result, using the tools available in the Statistica program, a set of 10 predictive topologies was generated with the use of the developed training set, estimating the methane level. Then, an optimal network was selected from them, i.e., a neural model of MLP type with a 5–12–1 structure. The analysis of the sensitivity of this model to input variables of the tested process revealed that the most important parameters characterizing the volume of biomethane emissions were (in order of capacity) volume of biogas produced, pH, conductivity, mass of dry matter, and mass of organic matter. The obtained research results confirmed the assumption that the predictive neural model, which describes the production of CH4 during the silage fermentation process in a bioreactor, is an appropriate tool for assessing the forecast level of emissions [59,70].
Agricultural biogas plants are a popular solution worldwide for energy production. Another particularly important aspect directly related to the functioning of a biogas plant is the production of digestate. Digestate is a residue from the process of anaerobic digestion. The fertilizer in question is characterized by a liquid form rich in nutrients, both macroelements and microelements. An additional benefit is the presence of organic matter. For this reason, using digestate, not only minerals, but also organic ingredients are supplied to the soil. Due to the growing prices of artificial fertilizers and problems with their availability, organic fertilizers, including digestate, are gaining importance. It should be mentioned that, in many biogas plants, the substrates for biogas production are manure and slurry. Therefore, the use of digestate is a rational solution in relation to the management of natural fertilizers. The use of digestate is safe for the environment, provided that the appropriate rules are observed. It should be remembered that digestate can be sold as fertilizer. This will be another source of income for biogas plant owners. It is good practice to transfer biomass and biodegradable waste to the biogas plant, collecting digestate in return. This action is in line with the principles of sustainable development and a circular economy.

5. Conclusions

On the basis of the analyzed results published in reputable scientific articles, it can be concluded that agricultural plant residues have great potential as co-substrates for biogas production. The results obtained by the researchers regarding both biogas and methane efficiency are satisfactory. According to data from the literature, biogas efficiency for the discussed substrates can be high. For example, for hemp straw, it is 208.8 m3/Mg FM, and, for steamed potato peel, it is 165.62 m3/Mg FM. The described substrates may be used as valuable feedstock in biogas plants. The use of waste from the cultivation and processing of plant raw materials will not only help to manage this waste rationally, but also contribute to the increase in the production of renewable energy sources. Accordingly, the circular economy in terms of the management of agricultural plant residues to produce biogas will have a multi-faceted, positive impact on the environment.
Generally, the highest biogas efficiency per 1 Mg of fresh mass was obtained from agricultural plant residues characterized by low water content. Nevertheless, the methane content mostly resulted from the content of fats, proteins, and simple sugars, the decomposition of which enables obtaining the largest amount of energy in a short retention time.
Most biogas calculators disregard the costs of labor and storage, as well as of the disposal of feedstock and residues. Moreover, they usually do not show the methods of counting, whereby the differences in the final results can exceed 60%. For this reason, biogas calculators should be treated as an advisory not decisive tool [71]. It is important to experimentally determine both biogas and methane efficiency of a substrate as a potential feedstock for the production of gaseous biofuels. Such tests should be carried out each time the supplier of the substrate changes or its chemical composition changes (e.g., the ratio of individual wastes in biomass). One of the future directions of biogas development is environmentally friendly motor gasoline as a trend to reduce emissions [72,73,74]. Moreover, the usage of artificial neural networks to predict biogas production is future-proof and should facilitate the management of biogas plants [59].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.F. and W.C.; methodology, J.F.; software, J.F.; validation, J.F. and W.C.; formal analysis, J.F.; investigation, J.F.; resources, J.F. and W.C.; data curation, J.F. and W.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.F. and W.C.; writing—review and editing, J.F. and W.C.; visualization, J.F.; supervision, W.C.; project administration and funding acquisition, J.F. and W.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xue, L.; Zhang, P.; Shu, H.; Wang, R.; Zhang, S. Agricultural waste. Water Environ. Res. 2016, 88, 1334–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Glithero, N.J.; Wilson, P.; Ramsden, S.J. Straw use and availability for second generation biofuels in England. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 55, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sommer, S.G.; Hamelin, L.; Olesen, J.E.; Montes, F.; Jia, W.; Chen, Q.; Triolo, J.M. Agricultural waste biomass. In Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Food Networks; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 67–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Masnadi, M.S.; Grace, J.R.; Bi, X.T.; Lim, C.J.; Ellis, N. From fossil fuels towards renewables: Inhibitory and catalytic effects on carbon thermochemical conversion during co-gasification of biomass with fossil fuels. Appl. Energy 2015, 140, 196–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. López-Bellido, L.; Wery, J.; López-Bellido, R.J. Energy crops: Prospects in the context of sustainable agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Garrett-Peltier, H. Green versus brown: Comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model. Econ. Model. 2017, 61, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brockway, P.E.; Owen, A.; Brand-Correa, L.I.; Hardt, L. Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 612–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ramos, J.L.; Valdivia, M.; García-Lorente, F.; Segura, A. Benefits and perspectives on the use of biofuels. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 9, 436–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jain, S. The current and future perspectives of biofuels. In Biomass, Biopolymer-Based Materials, and Bioenergy; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019; Part I; pp. 495–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Petrus, L.; Noordermeer, M.A. Biomass to biofuels, a chemical perspective. Green Chem. 2006, 8, 861–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shahid, M.K.; Batool, A.; Kashif, A.; Nawaz, M.H.; Aslam, M.; Iqbal, N.; Choi, Y. Biofuels and biorefineries: Development, application and future perspectives emphasizing the environmental and economic aspects. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 297, 113268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. European Commission. In-Depth Analysis in Support of the Commission Communication COM(2018) 773 “A Clean Planet for All. A European Long-Term Strategic Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy”; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dwarshala, S.K.R.; Rajakumar, S.S.; Kummitha, O.R.; Venkatesan, E.P.; Veza, I.; Samuel, O.D. A Review on Recent Developments of RCCI Engines Operated with Alternative Fuels. Energies 2023, 16, 3192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tengerdy, R.P.; Szakacs, G. Bioconversion of lignocellulose in solid substrate fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2003, 13, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Basso, D.; Patuzzi, F.; Castello, D.; Baratieri, M.; Rada, E.C.; Weiss-Hortala, E.; Fiori, L. Agro-industrial waste to solid biofuel through hydrothermal carbonization. Waste Manag. 2016, 47, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chilakamarry, C.R.; Sakinah, A.M.; Zularisam, A.W.; Sirohi, R.; Khilji, I.A.; Ahmad, N.; Pandey, A. Advances in solid-state fermentation for bioconversion of agricultural wastes to value-added products: Opportunities and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zentková, I.; Cvengrošová, E. The utilization of rapeseed for biofuels production in the EU. Visegr. J. Bioecon. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 2, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zabaniotou, A.; Ioannidou, O.; Skoulou, V. Rapeseed residues utilization for energy and 2nd generation biofuels. Fuel 2008, 87, 1492–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nigam, P.S.; Singh, A. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2011, 37, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ali, S.; Yan, Q.; Razzaq, A.; Khan, I.; Irfan, M. Modeling factors of biogas technology adoption: A roadmap towards environmental sustainability and green revolution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 11838–11860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Abbas, Y.; Yun, S.; Mehmood, A.; Shah, F.A.; Wang, K.; Eldin, E.T.; Al-Qahtani, W.H.; Ali, S.; Bocchetta, P. Co-digestion of cow manure and food waste for biogas enhancement and nutrients revival in bio-circular economy. Chemosphere 2023, 311, 137018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Strehler, A.; Stutzle, W. Biomass residues. In Biomass: Regenerable Energy; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 75–102. [Google Scholar]
  23. Werther, J.; Saenger, M.; Hartge, E.U.; Ogada, T.; Siagi, Z. Combustion of agricultural residues. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2000, 26, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sarkar, S.; Skalicky, M.; Hossain, A.; Brestic, M.; Saha, S.; Garai, S.; Ray, K.; Brahmachari, K. Management of crop residues for improving input use efficiency and agricultural sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dach, J.; Jędruś, A.; Kowalik, I. Biofermentor do badań procesów rozkładu płynnych odpadów organicznych. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2004, 49, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dach, J.; Koszela, K.; Boniecki, P.; Zaborowicz, M.; Lewicki, A.; Czekała, W.; Skwarcz, J.; Qiao, W.; Piekarska-Boniecka, H.; Białobrzewski, I. The use of neural modelling to estimate the methane production from slurry fermentation processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mursec, B.; Vindis, P.; Janzekovic, M.; Brus, M.; Cus, F. Analysis of different substrates for processing into biogas. J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 2009, 37, 652–659. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rasi, S.; Läntelä, J.; Rintala, J. Trace compounds affecting biogas energy utilisation—A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 3369–3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schnürer, A. Biogas production: Microbiology and technology. Anaerobes Biotechnol. 2016, 156, 195–234. [Google Scholar]
  30. Goswami, R.; Chattopadhyay, P.; Shome, A.; Banerjee, S.N.; Chakraborty, A.K.; Mathew, A.K.; Chaudhury, S. An overview of physico-chemical mechanisms of biogas production by microbial communities: A step towards sustainable waste management. 3 Biotech 2016, 6, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Christy, P.M.; Gopinath, L.R.; Divya, D. A review on anaerobic decomposition and enhancement of biogas production through enzymes and microorganisms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schattauer, A.; Weiland, P. Podstawy w zakresie wiedzy o fermentacji beztlenowej. In Biogaz. Produkcja i Wykorzystanie; Institut für Energetik und Umwelt, GmbH: Lipsk, Poland, 2005; pp. 5–20. [Google Scholar]
  33. Im, S.; Petersen, S.O.; Lee, D.; Kim, D.H. Effects of storage temperature on CH4 emissions from cattle manure and subsequent biogas production potential. Waste Manag. 2020, 101, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Feng, L.; Yu, Q.; Zhen, X.F.; Dong, H.Y.; Zheng, J.; Wang, Y. Comparison of methanogenesis between sunflower and corn stalks mixed with pig manure at different temperatures. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dobre, P.; Nicolae, F.; Matei, F. Main factors affecting biogas production-an overview. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014, 19, 9283–9296. [Google Scholar]
  36. Franqueto, R.; da Silva, J.D.; Konig, M. Effect of temperature variation on codigestion of animal waste and agricultural residue for biogas production. BioEnergy Res. 2020, 13, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stolze, Y.; Bremges, A.; Rumming, M.; Henke, C.; Maus, I.; Pühler, A.; Sczyrba, A.; Schlüter, A. Identification and genome reconstruction of abundant distinct taxa in microbiomes from one thermophilic and three mesophilic production-scale biogas plants. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2016, 9, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, L.; Loh, K.C.; Sarvanantharajah, S.; Tong, Y.W.; Wang, C.H.; Dai, Y. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of soybean curd residue for methane production: Characterizing bacterial and methanogen communities and their correlations with organic loading rate and operating temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 288, 121597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Induchoodan, T.G.; Haq, I.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Factors affecting anaerobic digestion for biogas production: A review. In Advanced Organic Waste Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fernández-Rodríguez, J.; Di Berardino, M.; Di Berardino, S. Promoting the Circular Economy on an Island: Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Local Organic Substrates as a Possible Renewable Energy Source. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Singh, D.; Tembhare, M.; Machhirake, N.; Kumar, S. Biogas generation potential of discarded food waste residue from ultra-processing activities at food manufacturing and packaging industry. Energy 2023, 263, 126138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pilarski, K.; Pilarska, A.A.; Boniecki, P.; Niedbała, G.; Durczak, K.; Witaszek, K.; Mioduszewska, N.; Kowalik, I. The efficiency of industrial and laboratory anaerobic digesters of organic substrates: The use of the biochemical methane potential correction coefficient. Energies 2020, 13, 1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Abdurashid, A. Efficient Method Of Biogas Production. Eurasian J. Eng. Technol. 2023, 17, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  44. Silwadi, M.; Mousa, H.; Al-Hajji, B.Y.; Al-Wahaibi, S.S.; Al-Harrasi, Z.Z. Enhancing biogas production by anaerobic digestion of animal manure. Int. J. Green Energy 2023, 20, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jasińska, A.; Grosser, A.; Meers, E. Possibilities and Limitations of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Animal Manure—A Critical Review. Energies 2023, 16, 3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Czekała, W.; Pulka, J.; Jasiński, T.; Szewczyk, P.; Bojarski, W.; Jasiński, J. Waste as substrates for agricultural biogas plants: A case study from Poland. J. Water Land Dev. 2023, 56, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kodba, A.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Analysis of Specific Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Biogas Production Based on Agricultural Residues and Industrial By-Products. Energies 2023, 16, 3721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, S.; Luo, F.; Yan, J.; Zhang, T.; Xian, Z.; Huang, W.; Zhang, H.; Cao, Y.; Huang, L. Biogas production of food waste with in-situ sulfide control under high organic loading in two-stage anaerobic digestion process: Strategy and response of microbial community. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 373, 128712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Karrabi, M.; Ranjbar, F.M.; Shahnavaz, B.; Seyedi, S. A comprehensive review on biogas production from lignocellulosic wastes through anaerobic digestion: An insight into performance improvement strategies. Fuel 2023, 340, 127239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Łochyńska, M.; Frankowski, J. The biogas production potential from silkworm waste. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dach, J.; Boniecki, P.; Przybył, J.; Janczak, D.; Lewicki, A.; Czekała, W.; Witaszek, K.; Carmona, P.C.R.; Cieślik, M. Energetic efficiency analysis of the agricultural biogas plant in 250 kWe experimental installation. Energy 2014, 69, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lewicki, A.; Dach, J.; Czekała, W.; Janczak, D.; Cieślik, M.; Witaszek, K.; Carmona, P.C.R. Testing the biogas substrate efficiency from the Experimental Farms’s of Poznan University of Life Sciences in Przybroda biogas plant. Arch. Waste Manag. Environ. Prot. 2014, 16, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cieślik, M.; Dach, J.; Lewicki, A.; Smurzyńska, A.; Janczak, D.; Pawlicka-Kaczorowska, J.; Boniecki, P.; Cyplik, P.; Czekała, W.; Jóźwiakowski, K. Methane fermentation of the maize straw silage under meso-and thermophilic conditions. Energy 2016, 115, 1495–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amaducci, S.; Colauzzi, M.; Battini, F.; Fracasso, A.; Perego, A. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on the production of biogas from maize and sorghum in a water limited environment. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 76, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wannasek, L.; Ortner, M.; Amon, B.; Amon, T. Sorghum, a sustainable feedstock for biogas production? Impact of climate, variety and harvesting time on maturity and biomass yield. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 106, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ostovareh, S.; Karimi, K.; Zamani, A. Efficient conversion of sweet sorghum stalks to biogas and ethanol using organosolv pretreatment. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 66, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lewicki, A.; Dach, J.; Kozlowski, K.; Marks, S.; Jezowska, A.; Kupryaniuk, K. Potential of biogas production from palm oil Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB) in South-East Asia. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Green Energy and Applications (ICGEA), Singapore, 24–26 March 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  58. Burczyk, H.; Oleszak, G. Oilseed hemp (Cannabis sativa L. var. oleifera) grown for seeds, oil and biogas. Probl. Inz. Rol. 2016, 24, 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  59. Frankowski, J.; Zaborowicz, M.; Dach, J.; Czekała, W.; Przybył, J. Biological waste management in the case of a pandemic emergency and other natural disasters. Determination of bioenergy production from floricultural waste and modeling of methane production using deep neural modeling methods. Energies 2020, 13, 3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Braeutigam, P.; Franke, M.; Ondruschka, B. Effect of ultrasound amplitude and reaction time on the anaerobic fermentation of chicken manure for biogas production. Biomass. Bioenerg. 2014, 63, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lewicki, A.; Kozłowski, K.; Pietrowski, M.; Zbytek, Z. Methane fermentation of chicken droppings. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2016, 61, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kafle, G.K.; Kim, S.H.; Sung, K.I. Ensiling of fish industry waste for biogas production: A lab scale evaluation of biochemical methane potential (BMP) and kinetics. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 127, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Smurzynska, A.; Czekala, W.; Lewicki, A.; Cieslik, M.; Kozlowski, K.; Janczak, D. Wydajność biogazowa utylizowanych nadwyżek warzyw powstałych na polskim rynku wskutek wprowadzonego embarga rosyjskigo. Tech. Rol. Ogrod. Leśna 2016, 6, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bartnikowska, S.; Czekala, W.; Lewicki, A.; Olszewska, A.; Smurzynska, A.; Brzoski, M. Ziemniaki jako potencjalny substrat dla biogazowni rolniczych. Rocz. Nauk. Ekon. Rol. I Rozw. Obsz. Wiej. 2017, 104, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Romaniuk, W.; Domasiewicz, T. Substraty dla biogazowni rolniczych. Agrotechnika. Porad. Rolnika 2014, 11, 74–75. [Google Scholar]
  66. Myczko, A.; Myczko, R.; Kołodziejczyk, T.; Golimowska, R.; Lenarczyk, J.; Janas, Z.; Kliber, A.; Karłowski, J.; Dolska, M. Budowa i Eksploatacja Biogazowni Rolniczych. Poradnik dla Inwestorów Zainteresowanych Budową Biogazowni Rolniczych; Wydawnictwo ITP: Warszawa-Poznań, Poland, 2011; p. 140. [Google Scholar]
  67. Marks, S.; Dach, J.; Fernandez Morales, F.J.; Mazurkiewicz, J.; Pochwatka, P.; Gierz, Ł. New trends in substrates and biogas systems in Poland. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lask, J.; Martinez Guajardo, A.; Weik, J.; von Cossel, M.; Lewandowski, I.; Wagner, M. Comparative environmental and economic life cycle assessment of biogas production from perennial wild plant mixtures and maize (Zea mays L.) in southwest Germany. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 571–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Pochwatka, P.; Zaborowicz, M.; Czekała, W.; Mazurkiewicz, J.; Mazur, A.; Janczak, D.; Marczuk, A.; Dach, J. Energy value estimation of silages for substrate in biogas plants using an artificial neural network. Energy 2020, 202, 117729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pilarski, K.; Boniecki, P.; Dach, J.; Koszela, K.; Lewicki, A.; Zbytek, Z. Neural estimation of methane emission level from typical agricultural substrates. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2012, 57, 115–119. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sławiński, K.; Piskier, T.; Bujaczek, R. Ocena przydatności kalkulatorów biogazowni przy planowaniu budowy biogazowni rolniczej. Inżynieria Rol. 2012, 16, 369–375. [Google Scholar]
  72. Abdellatief, T.M.; Ershov, M.A.; Kapustin, V.M.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Kamil, M.; Olabi, A.G. Recent trends for introducing promising fuel components to enhance the anti-knock quality of gasoline: A systematic review. Fuel 2021, 291, 120112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ershov, M.A.; Potanin, D.A.; Tarazanov, S.V.; Abdellatief, T.M.; Kapustin, V.M. Blending characteristics of isooctene, MTBE, and TAME as gasoline components. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 2816–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ershov, M.A.; Klimov, N.A.; Burov, N.O.; Abdellatief, T.M.; Kapustin, V.M. Creation a novel promising technique for producing an unleaded aviation gasoline 100UL. Fuel 2021, 284, 118928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 16 04396 g001
Figure 1. Fermentation chambers, which are used in the laboratory to test the biogas efficiency of substrates.
Figure 1. Fermentation chambers, which are used in the laboratory to test the biogas efficiency of substrates.
Energies 16 04396 g001
Energies 16 04396 g002
Figure 2. The process of biogas production [32].
Figure 2. The process of biogas production [32].
Energies 16 04396 g002
Energies 16 04396 g003
Figure 3. Daily production of biogas during methane fermentation of silkworm breeding waste [50].
Figure 3. Daily production of biogas during methane fermentation of silkworm breeding waste [50].
Energies 16 04396 g003
Energies 16 04396 g004
Figure 4. Accumulated methane production during fermentation of analyzed substrates [50].
Figure 4. Accumulated methane production during fermentation of analyzed substrates [50].
Energies 16 04396 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of selected agricultural plant residues.
Table 1. Characteristics of selected agricultural plant residues.
SubstrateAdvantagesDisadvantages
Grain strawCommon
Easily accessible		Seasonal product
Price fluctuation depending on periodic availability
Expensive
Used for fodder purposes
as bedding
Fiber plant strawCheaper than cereal straw, because it is not suitable as feedInfrequent, periodic availability
Difficult to fragmentize and decompose
Seed husks, chaffCheapLight
Low energy efficiency per volume unit
BagasseHigh-energy waste from sugar cane processingLocal availability
Wood chips, sawdust, barkCarbon supplementation for animal waste with high nitrogen contentLight
High lignocellulosic content
Sericulture wasteHomogeneous composition
Free waste		Infrequent
Local availability
Floriculture wasteFree waste or additional income for picking upInfrequent
Local availability
Heterogeneous composition
Vegetable wasteAvailable all year round (from both field crops and greenhouses)
Cheap or free waste		Heterogeneous composition
High content of fertilizers with possible presence of pathogens
Table 2. Biogas efficiency of selected plant agricultural waste.
Table 2. Biogas efficiency of selected plant agricultural waste.
SubstrateBiogas EfficiencyMethane EfficiencyReferences
Maize silage218.4 m3/Mg FM130.88 m3/Mg FM[51,52]
204.06 m3/Mg FM105.28 m3/Mg FM[53]
Sorghum biomassUnresearched16,505–21,700 MJ/ha[54]
6500 m3/ha[55]
Sweet sorghum bagasseUnresearched278 mL CH4/g VS[56]
Palm oil empty fruit bunchUnresearched74.33 m3/Mg FM[57]
Hemp straw208.8 m3/Mg FMunresearched[58]
Sericulture waste125.59 m3/Mg FM65.81 m3/Mg FM[50]
Tulip chaff52.04 m3/Mg FM28.30 m3/Mg FM[59]
Tulip macerate52.72 m3/Mg FM27.98 m3/Mg FM[59]
Roses122.76 m3/Mg FM61.28 m3/Mg FM[59]
Sunflowers108.22 m3/Mg FM53.31 m3/Mg FM[59]
Chrysanthemums124.08 m3/Mg FM59.05 m3/Mg FM[59]
Eggplants39.91 m3/Mg FM19.96 m3/Mg FM[60]
Pumpkins75.63 m3/Mg FM42.77 m3/Mg FM[60]
Cauliflowers57.39 m3/Mg FM30.07 m3/Mg FM[60]
Cabbage56.36 m3/Mg FM28.10 m3/Mg FM[60]
Sweet peppers35.71 m3/Mg FM18.97 m3/Mg FM[60]
Tomatoes32.41 m3/Mg FM16.78 m3/Mg FM[60]
Cucumbers27.91 m3/Mg FM14.94 m3/Mg FM[60]
Raw potatoes171.45 m3/Mg FM81.83 m3/Mg FM[61]
Steamed potatoes92.46 m3/Mg FM39.40 m3/Mg FM[61]
Raw potato peel139.40 m3/Mg FM67.50 m3/Mg FM[61]
Steamed potato peel165.62 m3/Mg FM76.18 m3/Mg FM[61]
Table 3. Daily methane production dynamics of silkworm breeding waste [50].
Table 3. Daily methane production dynamics of silkworm breeding waste [50].
Breeding Waste
Day of
Fermentation		Biogas Production [%]Cumulative CH4 Production [%]
18.925.61
216.6515.85
311.0323.42
48.9231.26
57.7339.31
66.8747.42
76.0855.07
86.2863.26
95.6070.74
105.1477.71
115.7684.95
122.3188.08
131.6890.35
141.3792.24
151.3394.05
161.0595.51
171.2597.22
181.0698.69
190.96100.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Frankowski, J.; Czekała, W. Agricultural Plant Residues as Potential Co-Substrates for Biogas Production. Energies 2023, 16, 4396. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16114396

AMA Style

Frankowski J, Czekała W. Agricultural Plant Residues as Potential Co-Substrates for Biogas Production. Energies. 2023; 16(11):4396. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16114396

Chicago/Turabian Style

Frankowski, Jakub, and Wojciech Czekała. 2023. "Agricultural Plant Residues as Potential Co-Substrates for Biogas Production" Energies 16, no. 11: 4396. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16114396

APA Style

Frankowski, J., & Czekała, W. (2023). Agricultural Plant Residues as Potential Co-Substrates for Biogas Production. Energies, 16(11), 4396. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16114396

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop