Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

State of the art and future concept of food waste fermentation

to bioenergy
Biswarup Sen a,n, J. Aravind b, P. Kanmani b, Chyi-How Lay c
a
Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Haryana, Gurgaon 122413, India
b
Department of Biotechnology, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore 641049, India
c
Master Program of Green Energy Science and Technology, Feng Chia University, Taichung 40724, Taiwan

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Food waste (FW) has been a major concern worldwide due to its large amount of production and
Received 24 November 2014 improper disposal methods. Nevertheless, FW has been considered as a promising feedstock for the
Received in revised form production of bioenergy employing the dark fermentation and anaerobic digestion technologies. The
24 May 2015
production of bioenergy from FW would not only solve the disposal problems of FW but will also help in
Accepted 30 August 2015
the reduction of greenhouse gases while replacing the usage of coal, fuel and natural gas. This paper
reviews the biotechnological aspects of the FW to bioenergy conversion processes. The rst section
Keywords: covers the present available technologies and various process parameters involved in FW to bioenergy
Anaerobic fermentation production. Next section describes various works reported on combined handling of FW co-digested
Hydrogen
along with various other substrates for bioenergy generation. Third section reviews the available
Biohythane
microbiomes in FW that can be harnessed for bioenergy production. Subsequent section proposes a
Co-digestion
Microbiome framework for FW biorenery to broaden the scope of FW use in bioenergy sector and presents the case
Bio-renery model studies of pilot-scale operations of FW to bioenergy.
Pilot operation & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
2. Process operation and current technological status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
2.1. Types of reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
2.1.1. Continuous stirred tank reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
2.1.2. Other reactor types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
2.2. Process temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
2.2.1. Thermophilic/hyperthermophilic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
2.2.2. Mesophilic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
2.3. Process pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
2.4. Factors affecting process efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
3. Co-digestion of FW with other auxiliary substrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4. Microbiomes in FW to bioenergy production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
5. Future concepts and feasibility of pilot-scale operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
5.1. Food waste biorenery model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
5.1.1. Bioenergy production division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
5.1.2. Fermentation material division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
5.1.3. Value-addition division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
5.2. Cases of pilot-scale operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 124 2334015; fax: 91 124 233 7637.
E-mail addresses: bsen@ggn.amity.edu, bisen0102@gmail.com (B. Sen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.065
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
548 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
Declaration of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
1. Introduction
The global population is increasing exponentially leading to
increasing dependency on fossil fuel and imparting huge pressure
on the energy crisis impeding sustainable development. This ever-
increasing dependency on fossil fuels has contributed to climate
change and global warming, thus leading to severe impact on the
environment. In this current century there is a paradigm shift on
reuse of waste and the research on conversion of waste to green
energy. There is a renewed interest in the search for new, cleaner
and green energy source. In the scope for search of new cleaner
and sustainable energy, research efforts have mainly focused on
energy carriers such as hydrogen, ethanol, butanol, biodiesel, and
methane. More recently research has been also focused on bio-
hythane and hythane, which are a mixture of hydrogen and
methane [1,2]. Hythanes, a mixture of natural gas and hydrogen,
usually has 57% hydrogen which makes it a high value gas fuel for
vehicles and combustion engines [3]. Biohythane production
technology is considered more energy-efcient because it involves
anaerobic digestion which is a simpler process for conversion of
acetate to methane after the acidogenic phase of hydrogen fer-
mentation [4].
Energy carriers produced from food crops have caused ination
in food prices and led to food crisis [5]. Hence, the production of
bioenergy from various wastes such as plant waste, including
agricultural residues and domestic organic wastes including FWs
is now paramount in positive shift towards green energy pro-
duction. FW has greater sustainability than any other biomass
waste in producing biofuels, in particular, biomethane and bio-
hydrogen. A recent review on FW also suggests that it has great
potential for energy production [6]. Food and Agricultural Orga-
nization of the UN has published a report which mentions that
nearly 1/3rd of the global food produced for human consumption
is becoming a waste and it is estimated to be 1.3 billion tons per
year [7]. According to US Environmental Protection Agency, FW is
dened as "uneaten food and food preparation wastes from resi-
dences and commercial establishments such as grocery stores,
restaurants, and produce stands, institutional cafeterias and
kitchens, and industrial sources like employee lunchrooms". More
than 40% of FW in the industrialized countries is at the retail and
consumer level, while in developing countries, this occurs in the
post-harvest and processing level [7]. Bioenergy generation from
such large amount of global FW would therefore be the most
appropriate method for its management.
Bioenergy in the form of biohythane will not only support
electrical energy but will also reduce the problems associated with
landlls like greenhouse gas emissions. Biohydrogen from FW can
either be used directly as energy in transportation sector or,
electricity harnessed from hydrogen based fuel cells, since it can
be considered as environmental friendly green energy as it gen-
erates water as its by-product for energy generation of 142 kJ g  1,
which is almost three times more than other available hydro-
carbon fuels [8]. On the other hand, combustion of methane which
is generated mostly by anaerobic digestion process involving a
complex series of reactions mediated by certain specic groups of
microorganisms [9] evolves carbon dioxide and hence not con-
sidered a green alternative fuel. Nevertheless it is estimated that
sufcient electricity can be generated which can power over
2.5 million homes for a year if half of the FW generated each year
in the USA is subjected to anaerobic digestion [10]. It is also argued
that small-scale anaerobic digestion systems are more suitable in
the urban buildings to save on transportation costs and reducing
the amount of FW sent to landlls [11] in addition to FW man-
agement practices [1214].
In recent years there has been a renewed interest in research
focusing on production of biohythane from FW [1517]. Since
biohythane is a mixture of hydrogen (1025% by volume) and
methane, it is a perfect fuel owing to its clean nature than
methane, high fuel efciency, improved heat efciency, and mak-
ing engines easy to ignite with less input energy [18]. This review
paper is an overview of the microbial science and engineering
aspects of the FW to bioenergy technology focusing on methane,
hydrogen and biohythane production, and is organized as follows:
Section 2 has an overview of operational conditions affecting FW
fermentation, Section 3 is on co-digestion of FW with other aux-
iliary substrates, Section 4 presents the microorganisms in FW
fermentation, and Section 5 proposes the future concepts and
reviews the feasibility of pilot-scale operations. In this review
article, the term bioenergy refers to single-phase hydrogen and/
or methane, and two-phase hydrogen-methane gases, and has
been dealt collectively in each section.
2. Process operation and current technological status
The process of hydrogen fermentation and anaerobic digestion
of waste is well established. Hydrogen is generated as a product of
acidogenesis and acetogenesis in anaerobic digestion process,
which rapidly gets consumed by methanogenic population in the
single-phase digestion. However, pre-treatment of seed inoculum
by heat treatment can eliminate the methanogenic population
resulting in production of only hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the
biogas [19,20]. On the other hand, the two-phase fermentation
system can recover both hydrogen and methane by separation of
acidogenesis and acetogenesis; and methanogenesis [2123]. The
single-phase anaerobic process is generally more predominant
than two-phase for the full scale application [24]. However, two-
phase anaerobic digestion is shown to achieve higher overall
degradation efciency and is more advantageous than the single
phase system for the treatment of FW and its conversion to
bioenergy [22]. Below sub-sections have been framed to deal with
both single-phase and two-phase hydrogen and methane pro-
duction in an effort to focus on bioenergy from FW irrespective of
the type of energy gases (hydrogen or methane) that are produced.
2.1. Types of reactors
The feasibility of using an array of batch and continuous reac-
tors for anaerobic fermentative processes leading to hydrogen and
methane production has been investigated over the years and is
therefore not discussed in great detail in this review. A few such
reactor types have been discussed here which were operated on
FW as the feedstock (Table 1).
2.1.1. Continuous stirred tank reactor
Continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) have been employed
by several researchers for biohydrogen production from FW
(Table 1). Specically, the usage of intermittent-continuous stirred
Table 1
Performances of bioenergy (hydrogen and methane) production in single- and two-stage processes using food wastes as feedstock.

Type of food waste used Hydrogen production rate Hydrogen yield Hydrogen reactor type Methane production rate Methane yield Methane reactor Reference
type

B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557

Single-phase hydrogen/methane fermentation
Food waste, fruit-vegetable waste, dewa- n.a n.a n.a 2.33 m3 m  3 d  1 0.39 m3 kg  1 VS CSTR [30]
tered sewage sludge
1 1
Food waste n.a n.a n.a 72 mL g VSSinoculum d 940 mL g VSSsub Batch reactor [88]
Vegetable waste n.a n.a n.a
Canteen based composite food waste 69.95 mmol Anaerobic SBR n.a n.a n.a [31]
Vegetable waste 2.56 mL-H2 h  1 85.65 mL-H2 g  1 VS Batch reactor n.a n.a n.a [59]
Municipal food waste, kitchen 6.0 7 0.5 L-H2 d  1 245 mL g-COD  1 Anaerobic bafed reactor n.a n.a n.a [34]
wastewater
Municipal food waste n.a 370 mL-H2 g  1 VS Anaerobic bafed reactor n.a n.a n.a [33]
Vegetable kitchen waste 1.0 L-H2 L  1 d  1 1.7 mmol g-COD  1 I-CSTR n.a n.a n.a [25]
Kitchen waste white rice 1.6 L-H2 L  1 d  1 1.277 0.51 mmol g-COD  1 I-CSTR n.a n.a n.a [26]
Kitchen waste 60 l-H2 L  1 d  1 1.2 mmol g-COD  1 I-CSTR n.a n.a n.a [28]
Kitchen waste 72 mL g  1 VS Inclined plug ow n.a n.a n.a [19]
reactor
Starch-rich kitchen waste 2.2 L-H2 L  1 d  1 2.1 mmol g-COD  1 I-CSTR n.a n.a n.a [27]
Vegetable kitchen waste 0.48 mmol-H2 g  1 VSS h  1 0.57 mmol g-COD  1 Batch reactor n.a n.a n.a [38]

Two-phase hydrogen and methane fermentation

Food waste 10.4 L-biogas L  1 d  1 (5256% 205 mL g  1 VSadded CSTR 4.7 L-biogas L  1 d  1 (7080% 464 mL g  1 VS Fluidized reactor [23]
H2) CH4)
Food waste 11.1 L L  1-fed d  1 2.5 mol mol 1
hexose CSTR 47.4 L L  1-fed d  1 287 mL g-COD 1
Biogas sparging [21]
reactor
1 1 1 1 1 1
Potato waste 2.1 L L d 85 mL g CSTR 1.2 L L d 338 mL g CSTR [35]
Kitchen garbage 1.7 L L  1 d  1 VSadded CSTR 1.5 L L  1 d  1 VSadded CSTR
Okara 0.4 L L  1 d  1 66 mL g  1 VSadded CSTR 1.4 L L  1 d  1 364 mL g  1 VSadded CSTR
20 mL g  1 VSadded 329 mL g  1 VSadded
Food waste liquid 3.88 L d  1 1.82 molmol  1 hexose CSTR 13,00015,000 L d  1 n.a UASB [52]
Food waste 4.8 L L  1 d  1 332 mL g  1 VS CSTR 3.2 L L  1 d  1 n.a CSTR [22]
Food waste n.a 0.065 m3-H2 kg  1 VS Semi continuous- Rotat- n.a 0.546 m3-CH4 kg  1VS Semi-continuous- [50]
ing drum CSTR

n.a not available.

549
550 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
tank reactor (I-CSTR), operated in ll-and-draw mode has been
widely documented. A hydrogen production rate of
1.0 L-H2 L  1 d  1 and a yield of 1.7 mmol-H2 g-COD  1 was
achieved upon digesting vegetable kitchen waste in I-CSTR [25].
Studies on the starch hydrolysis mechanism during hydrogen
production from FW in I-CSTR revealed that the amylase enzyme
was to a large extent of the cell-free type, occurring in the bulk
liquid. Amylase secreted by the microorganisms themselves was
sufcient to bring about starch hydrolysis. The hydrogen yield
obtained from this process was slightly higher and amounted to
1.6 L-H2 L  1 d  1 [26]. In another study, the use of starch-rich
kitchen waste as a feedstock in an I-CSTR resulted in an average
production rate of 2.2 L-H2 L  1 d  1and a maximum yield of
2.1 mmol-H2 g-COD  1 [27]. Yet another study on hydrogen pro-
duction from kitchen waste-corn starch mixture using a similar
type of reactor reported a production rate of 2.9 L-H2 L  1 d  1 [28].
Stirred tank reactor (STR) operated in batch mode has also been
explored and found feasible for hydrogen production [29]. While
the above studies aimed at hydrogen production, CSTR is con-
ducive for methane production as well. A pilot-scale CSTR opera-
tion with FW showed a maximum methane production rate of
2.94 L-CH4 L  1 d  1 at OLR of 8.0 g-VS L  1 d  1 and hydraulic
retention time (HRT) of 15 d [30]. Therefore CSTRs seems to be
suitable reactors for generation of hydrogen and methane from
FW in two-phase fermentation process as discussed previously for
biohythane production [18].
2.1.2. Other reactor types
CSTRs have been the most common type of reactors used for
bioenergy production from FW as reviewed in the Section 2.2.1.
However, other less commonly used reactors have also shown
promising results of producing hydrogen and or methane from FW
by anaerobic digestion process. For e.g., sequencing batch reactors
(SBRs) are shown to be appropriate for biohydrogen production and
the I-CSTR mentioned in the Section 2.1.1 is similar in operation to
the reported anaerobic SBR [31]. Organic loading rate (OLR) has a
dramatic effect on hydrogen production in this reactor as well.
When composite FW was loaded in the SBR at rates of 0.854, 1.69,
3.38, 6.54 and 9.85 g-COD L  1 d  1, a maximum hydrogen produc-
tion rate of 1.52 mmol h  1 was observed at 36 h for an OLR
of 6.54 g-COD L  1 d  1. Specic hydrogen yield varied with the
kind of biomolecule and maximum value obtained was
139.24 mol-H2 kg-hexose  1 at an OLR of 0.854 g-COD L  1 d  1 [31].
Anaerobic SBR was also used to produce biogas from food and
vegetable waste under different operating temperatures and it was
found that thermophilic reactor had higher biogas production rate
than its mesophilic counterpart [32]. The authors also noted
increase in ammonication while lowering the HRT from 20 d to
10 d, causing a drop in biogas production rate in the anaerobic SBR.
Plug ow reactors too were utilized for generating hydrogen from
kitchen waste [19]. The slurry from biogas plant, subjected to heat
treatment, was used as an inoculum for hydrogen production using
FW in such a reactor. Up to 40% decline in VS content was achieved
and 72 mL H2 could be generated per gram of VS added [19].
Anaerobic bafed reactors are also employed to produce biohy-
drogen from FW [33,34]. OLR was found to have a pronounced
effect on such type of reactor as well. An increase in OLR from an
optimal level caused a decline in hydrogen production. For instance,
three different OLR of 29, 36 and 47 g-CODtotal L  1 d  1 were tested
in a study, and it was inferred that increasing the OLR from 29 to
36 g-CODtotal L  1 d  1 lead to a drop in hydrogen production from
6.070.5 to 5.471.04 L-H2 d  1. However, upon further increase of
OLR, the hydrogen production remained unaffected [34]. Therefore,
it seems plausible to set up two-phase hydrogen and methane
production system by integration of two different types of reactor
designs, where rst-phase of acidogenesis can be carried out in
CSTRs and SBRs, and the methanogenesis in a CSTR or an up-ow
anaerobic reactor.
2.2. Process temperature
2.2.1. Thermophilic/hyperthermophilic
Hydrogen and methane yields have been noted to be higher
under thermophilic conditions as opposed to mesophilic condition
[24]. Hyperthermophilic anaerobic digestion is known to improve
the performance of the process due to the effective solubilization
ability of non-biodegradable solid matter under high OLR, resis-
tance to foaming, increased gas production, and effective
destruction of pathogens. More importantly, thermophilic and
hyperthermophilic anaerobic digestion processes to produce
bioenergy from FW are able to treat food industry organic waste
and wastewater with high temperature more than 65 C without
cooling them prior to fermentation. Several studies have been
carried out on thermophilic and hyperthermophilic systems fed
with FW as the source for hydrogen and methane production
[21,2527,3540]. A two reactor system comprising of one
hyperthermophilic reactor for hydrogen generation and another
mesophilic, thermophilic or hyperthermophilic reactor for
methane generation, operated in series is often helpful. Acid-
ogenesis and methanogenesis processes are temperature depen-
dent and a maximum of 43.1% solubilization of COD was affected
at a temperature of 70 C and 85% methane conversion was
recorded at a temperature of 55 C, when articial kitchen garbage
was fed to the reactor system [36]. When this substrate was co-
digested with waste activated sludge (WAS), 39% of COD was
solubilized at a similar temperature. Acidogenesis and methano-
genesis were optimal at hyperthermophilic (70 C) and thermo-
philic (55 C) conditions, respectively. Co-digestion of the same
substrate with excess sludge (20:80 ratio) resulted in COD solu-
bilization in the range of 2246% at an identical temperature [39].
These results unequivocally establish that a hyperthermophilic
reactor is most suitable to bring about acidogenesis, and metha-
nogenesis could be facilitated in a second reactor operating in
series, at a lower temperature (mesophilic- to moderately ther-
mophilic) as the methanogenic populations might succumb to the
very high temperatures prevailing in the rst reactor. But it should
also be taken into consideration while adopting a hyperthermo-
philic system that such systems are often associated with opera-
tional difculties and instability problems with poor startup [41].
2.2.2. Mesophilic
Notwithstanding the fact that thermophilc to hyperthermo-
philic systems are considered appropriate for bioenergy produc-
tion, mesophilic conditions have also been shown to be amenable.
As opposed to hyperthermophilic, mesophilic systems are widely
in use because they are more stable and require less energy for
operation. Many studies have been conducted under mesophilic
conditions for bioenergy production from FW [20,32,34,4247]. In
general, a temperature range of 3537 C is used and considered
suitable for maximum hydrogen and methane production. And,
the efciency of the process drops when the temperature is shifted
from mesophilic to thermophilic condition [48]. Mesophilic con-
ditions are more often employed for methanogenesis [22,30,49],
although some studies have been conducted on mesophilic acid-
ication for hydrogen production [20,5052]. Literature reports
clearly indicate that acidogenesis of FW for hydrogen production
under mesophilic temperature is feasible. In fact one study has
shown that a two-stage anaerobic bafed reactor for hydrogen
production from municipal FW operated at a temperature as low
as 26 C could give a combined yield of 4.9 mol-H2 mol-hexose  1
[33]. The optimal growth temperatures for some mesophilic
methanogenic bacteria include 3745 C for Methanobacterium,
 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
3740 C for Methanobrevibacter, 3540 C for Methanolobus,
Methanococcus, Methanoculleus, Methanospirillum and Methanolo-
bus, and 3040 C for Methanoplanus and Methanocorpusculum
[48]. It should be noted that optimum mesophilic temperature for
methanogenesis may not necessarily be the same for acidogenic
microbial population. Therefore, two-stage anaerobic digestion of
FW is often recommended and applied to overcome the problem
of different optimum temperatures for methanogenesis and acid-
ogenesis [23].
2.3. Process pH
Operating anaerobic digestors for hydrogen and more impor-
tantly methane production can be complicated on account of the
fact that the methanogens are extremely sensitive to environ-
mental factors, especially pH, ideal pH being 6.57.5. Hence, the
buffering capacity of the reactor is vital for the process. Shock
loadings of substrate can result in the acidogenesis responding
immediately to the increased availability of food supply and
producing more amounts of acid intermediates. But the
methanogens are slower to respond, resulting in accumulation of
the acids and lowering of the reactor pH to levels below the tol-
erance level of the methanogens and cessation of methane pro-
duction. On the contrary, acidogens can withstand a lower pH and
the optimum pH for hydrogen production is slightly acidic, around
6.0. For hydrogen production from high vegetable-content kitchen
waste, a maximum specic hydrogen production rate of
0.48 mmol-H2 g-VSS  1 h  1 was obtained at a pH of 6 and the
highest yield of 0.57 mmol-H2 g-COD  1 was obtained at a neutral
pH [38].
2.4. Factors affecting process efciency
The bioenergy production process from FW can be scored and
evaluated on the basis of the process efciency which depends
largely on the underlying process inhibition due mainly to
byproducts and interactive effects. Process efciency reects the
quantity of energy that a process is capable of extracting in the
form of hydrogen and methane when compared to the total
amount of energy available in the refuse. An increased accumu-
lation of non-degradable metabolic intermediates provide an
indication of possible process imbalances. Toxic shock loadings are
known to upset methanogenic reactors as stated in earlier sec-
tions. When increasing substrate loads are applied to methano-
genic reactors, not only proven toxic metabolites like ammonia,
hydrogen sulde and volatile fatty acids, but also aromatic acids,
especially phenyl acetic acid are detected early in the system [53].
Hence, monitoring the levels of such key compounds can enable
better process regulation. These aromatic acids result from the
anaerobic degradation of aromatic amino acids tyrosine, trypto-
phan and phenylalanine. Response surface approach is often
employed for optimization of production processes and methane
production is not an exception. The individual and interactive
effects of several variables on product formation can be inter-
preted from such studies. During methane production using the
efuent from biohydrogen fermentation of FW, the interactive
effect of substrate concentration, inoculum to substrate ratio and
Ca2 concentration was statistically signicant at 5% level.
However the interactive effect of substrate concentration and
Ca2 concentration, inoculum to substrate ratio and Ca2 con-
centration was insignicant at that level. A maximum yield of
565.76 mL-CH4 g-VS  1 added was obtained at a substrate con-
centration of 7.77 g-VS L  1, inoculum to substrate ratio of 2.81 and
Ca2 concentration of 380.82 mg L  1 [49].
551
3. Co-digestion of FW with other auxiliary substrates
Co-digestion is a strategy in which different wastes are mixed
and digested together, also termed as co-fermentation [54]. This
strategy has been widely used to improve yields of anaerobic
digestion of solid organic wastes due to its many benets such as
increased load of biodegradable organic matter, dilution of toxic
compounds, improved balance of nutrients, synergistic effect of
microorganisms, and better biogas yield. It also provides nutrients
in excess thereby accelerating the biodegradation process, diges-
tion rate and stabilization. It has been noted that co-digestion of
mixtures stabilizes the feed to the digester, thereby improving the
C/N ratio [54,55]. The co-substrate preferentially added to the FW
appears to be sewage sludge [30]. The ratio in which the two
wastes are blended varies. A slight addition of sewage sludge to
the FW (10:1 on a COD basis) not only increased the yield by 13%,
but instigated a leap in the production rate as well. This was
attributed to acceleration in reaction rate and a shortening of the
lag phase, probably due to the presence of high concentrations of
iron and calcium salts in the sewage sludge [56]. On the other
hand, excess sludge at 80:20 volumetric ratio has also been added
to the kitchen garbage [39]. The latter study does not encompass
comparative data on hydrogen yield with and without the added
sludge. However, the outcome of various studies performed to
elucidate the effect of augmenting FW with sewage sludge reveal a
synergistic effect, in which the two complement each other and
enhance hydrogen production.
Such co-digestion processes are benecial in improving
methane production as well. De-berized FW, when co-digested
with press water from organic fraction of municipal waste and
homogenized food residue, resulted in an increased yield and
production rate. The OLR was increased from 12.3 g-COD L  1 d  1
to 20 g-COD L  1 d  1 during the co-digestion process and the gas
production also increased linearly [57]. Based on the observations
it was hypothesized that the added co-substrates might have
contributed to enhanced buffering capacity of the reactor, allowing
high OLR without pH control. In another study, co-digestion of FW
with dewatered sewage sludge facilitated a biogas production rate
of 4.25 m3 d  1. The OLR and HRT employed were 6.0 g-VS L  1 d  1
and 20 d, respectively [30].
Co-digestibility of FW with lignocellulose rich yard waste is
also feasible if such a composite waste is subjected to adequate
pretreatment processes. Chemical, thermal and mechanical pre-
treatments have been researched upon. Hydrothermal pretreat-
ment process can be benecial in improving the digestibility of
sorted municipal solid waste comprising mainly of kitchen gar-
bage and leaves. The waste mixture was heated to a temperature
of 170 C for 1 h in a dilute alkali solution consisting of 4 g NaOH/
100 g waste. A methane yield of 154 mL g-VS  1 was obtained at
the end of 6 d incubation period. On comparison with the control,
50% increase in biogas production and 30.6% hike in methane
conversion ratio were reported [58]. Co-digestion strategy has
been applied in several studies to improve the yield and rate of
bioenergy production [32,54,55]. In addition, the process stability
and biogas output is also improved by co-digestion approach, as a
result of obtaining an optimum C/N ratio for microorganisms to
ferment the FW. The use of a co-substrate with a low nitrogen and
lipid content increases the production of hydrogen and methane
due to complementary characteristics. This in turn could help to
overcome the problems associated with the accumulation of
volatile fatty acids such as propionic acid and high ammonia
concentrations.
 552
Table 2
Comparison of various microbiomes in food waste fed reactors with respect to substrates, process and bioenergy type.

B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557

Microbiome Substrates Process conditions Bioenergy type References

Buttiauxella sp. 4, Rahnella sp. 10 and Raoultella sp. 47 Vegetable waste Anaerobic, pH 6.7, 28 C Hydrogen [59]
Pectobacterium, Raoultella, Rahnella and Lactococcus Vegetable wastes from cafeteria Anaerobic, pH 6.7, 28 and 37 C Hydrogen [89]
Methanoculleus, Methanosarcina Food waste co-substrate with municipal waste water Two-stage anaerobic digestion Methane [62]
pH 3.68, 35 C
Methanosarcina thermophila Food waste Dry anaerobic digestion Methane [44]
pH 3.9, 37 C
Bacillus coagulans, Clostridia, Thermoanaerobacterium spp Kitchen garbage Anaerobic condition with complete mixing, pH 6, 55 C Methane, hydrogen [37]
Clostridium stercorarium, Clostridium thermolacticum, Clostridium Kitchen waste Anaerobic, CSTR, Hydrogen [28]
aldrichii, pH 5.35.6, 35 C
Clostridium cellobioparum, Clostridium termitidis
C. aldrichii, C. cellobioparum, C. termitidis, C. formicoaceticum Vegetable kitchen wastes Anaerobic digester, pH 57, 55 C Hydrogen [38]
Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum, Vegetable kitchen waste Anaerobic, CSTR, pH 6, 55 C, Hydrogen [25]
Moorella thermoacetica and Clostridiaceae bacterium
Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum and Clostridium sp Starch rich kitchen waste Anaerobic, CSTR, pH 4.5, 35 C, 55 C, Hydrogen [27]
Methanosarcina, Methanothrix sp Kitchen garbage Two series-acidogenic and methane fermenters, pH 5.55.8, Methane and [36]
5070 C hydrogen
Anaerobic thermophile IC-BH, Thermoanaerobacter thermo- Co-digestion of kitchen garbage with sludge Acidogenic reactor in series with methane reactor, 70, 35 and Methane, Hydrogen [39]
hydrosulfuricus DSM 567 55 C, pH 5.66, 58.03
Coprothermobacter sp., Kitchen garbage and waste activated sludge Two-phased hyperthermophilic digester, 70 C, 55 C Methane [40]
Clostridium sp., Enterococcus asini, Enterococcus faecalis, and Lacto- Food waste with paper-cardboard waste blended Anaerobic, pH 4.56.5, 37 C Hydrogen [90]
bacillus gallinarum liquor with and without linoleic acid
Bacteroidetes, Caloromator australicus sp. and Clostridium sp. Food waste Anaerobic, pH 56, 55 C Hydrogen [91]
Clostridium Food waste Anaerobic, pH 7.2, 30 C Hydrogen [92]
Clostridium sp., Acetanaerobacterium elongatum, and Caloramater Food waste Anaerobic, pH 6, 5060 C Hydrogen [93]
indicus
Escherichia cloacae and Enterobacter aerogenes Food waste Anaerobic, pH 7, 37 C Hydrogen [94]
 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
4. Microbiomes in FW to bioenergy production
Microbiomes or so called natural microbial communities pre-
vailing in the reactor inuence the kind of intermediate acid
compounds such as acetate, butyrate, lactate, ethanol etc. that are
produced during FW to bioenergy fermentation. The bioenergy
producing reactor's microbiome composition, structure, and
function are strongly in association with the environment (pH,
temperature etc.) and operating conditions (solids retention time
(SRT), OLR etc.). A comparison of various microbiomes in reactors
producing bioenergy from FWs is given in Table 2. For example,
shorter SRT brings change in microbial composition from Clos-
tridium sp. to Bacillus sp., especially Bacillus coagulans, paving the
way for decreased hydrogen and butyrate production and
increased lactate production. In fact, lactate concentration was
shown to rise with an increase in the proportion of B. coagulans in
the system [37]. 16S rDNA sequencing revealed Thermo-
anaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum to be predominate
hydrogen producer in an I-CSTR engaged in hydrogen production.
OTUs closely related to Moorellathermoacetica and Clos-
tridiaceaebacterium FH052 were considered to be the acetogenic
and hydrogen-producing bacteria in this system [25,27]. In
another I-CSTR system, terminal restriction fragment length
polymorphism enabled the identication of several Clostridium
species including Clostridium stercorarium, Clostridium thermo-
lacticum, Clostridium aldrichii, Clostridium cellobioparum, Clos-
tridium termitidis (cluster III) and Clostridium formicoaceticum
(cluster XI) [28]. In hyperthermophilic reactor systems as men-
tioned above, Coprothermobacter sp. were the predominant
microora during the acidogenesis phase and were postulated
to be involved in degrading waste protein components [40].
Anaerobic thermophile IC-BH and Thermoanaerobacter thermo-
hydrosulfuricus DSM 567 are also known to play dominant
roles [39].
Bioaugmentation of indigenous microbial communities can
increase the yield as well as hydrogen production rate from fer-
mentative processes. Hydrogen producing strains Buttiauxella sp.
4, Rahnella sp. 10 and Raoultella sp. 47 were isolated from vege-
table waste, enriched and used for augmenting the indigenous
reactor microora, both individually and as a consortium.
Bioaugmentation with the consortium gave the highest yield and
production rates of 85.65 mL-H2 g-VS  1 and 2.56 mL-H2 h  1 [59].
Another approach to yield higher production of bioenergy from
FW is pre-selection of active microorganisms from microbiomes
by enrichment technique. This approach was successfully applied
to produce biohydrogen from food industry efuents [20,51]. The
methanogenic microbiome and their variations greatly impact the
biogas production in anaerobic digestion of FW. A recent study
showed that the production of methane-rich biogas and the
overall diversity of archaea in dairy wastewater fermentation is
determined by Methanosarcinaceae presence [60]. In addition, the
temperature and the application of microwaves were the main
factors explaining the variations in the methanogen community in
the same study.
The methanogenic community of FW during dry anaerobic
digestion under mesophilic conditions was investigated using 454
pyrosequencing [44]. A signicant reduction in genus diversity
from 18 to 4 and a dominant methanogenic shift from hydro-
genotrophic to acetoclastic groups after the acclimation under dry
condition was observed, indicating strong inuence of environ-
mental condition on the methanogenic microbiomes involved in
FW to bioenergy fermentation. Methanogen population shift from
acetoclastic methanogens (Methanosarcina and Methanosaeta) to
hydrogenotrophic methanogens (Methanobacterium and Metha-
noculleus) is also reported in a pilot scale two-stage anaerobic
digester treating FW leachate [61]. Despite dynamic changes in
553
microbiome structure, the performance of methanogenic reactors
remains relatively stable as evident from non-metric multi-
dimensional plotting [62]. Analysis of microbiome structures in
hydrogen and methane producing reactors serves the purpose of
predicting the performances under drastic changes in environ-
mental conditions like pH, temperature, and HRT. Under stable
operation conditions, it should be noted that shifts in microbiome
structure in most cases may not relate to reactor performance,
because of stable performance. Unless a major shift in microbiome
structure is observed, the reactors producing hydrogen and
methane are seen to perform stably. Therefore, monitoring
microbiome structure and relating their shifts with reactor func-
tions plays a key role in evaluation of unstable performance during
major changes under environmental conditions.
5. Future concepts and feasibility of pilot-scale operations
The main challenges for commercializing the FW to bioenergy
production technology are energy efciency and cost benets.
However, the use of FW as a potential and sustainable feedstock
for bioenergy on a commercial scale can be realized by imple-
menting the biorenery concept referred here as the future con-
cept. This section discusses a proposed FW biorenery model and
also reviews the pilot-scale operations for FW to bioenergy.
5.1. Food waste biorenery model
More widely, biorenery is to produce fuels, power, heat, and
valuable chemicals from biomass resources through integrating
biomass conversion processes. In fact, the biorenery concept is
based on today's petroleum renery to produce multiple fuels and
products [63]. The same concept can be applied to FW as well.
Here we propose a model of bioenergy and bioresource center for
the commercial bioenergy production technology underlying the
biorenery principles. In the proposed model, three divisions for
the FW biorenery are proposed (Fig. 1) as follows:
5.1.1. Bioenergy production division
A general scheme of the FW to bioenergy production technol-
ogy is shown in Fig. 2. The process can be mainly divided into four
stages: 1) pretreatment, 2) bioH2 fermentor, 3) biomethane fer-
mentor, and 4) microalgae CO2 capture. An efcient pretreatment
process to stabilize the feedstock is necessary before hydrogen and
methane fermentation. Various pretreatment strategies for FW
prior to anaerobic digestion/fermentation have been reported,
namely enzymatic treatment [64], thermal treatment [65,66], acid
[67], alkali [68,69], ozone [66], hydrothermal [70], autoclaving
Fig. 1. The future concept of food waste biorenery.
554 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
Fig. 2. Scheme of food waste to bioenergy conversion technology.
[71], bio-electrohydrolysis [72], and ultrasonication [73]. All these
pretreatments either lead to hydrolysis of the FW, or enrichment
of hydrogen/methane producers and inhibition of the pathogenic
bacteria in the FW. The thermal pretreatment seems to be more
appropriate in the context of bioenergy production division since
heat energy from biogas generation can support the maintenance
of high temperature.
In the two-phase anaerobic digestion
[19,20,25,31,33,38,51,52,54,59], the overall hydrogen yields are
low, only 1020% of the substrate energy being converted to
hydrogen fuel with the rest being converted to organic acids and
alcohols [74]. Instead, the two-phase hydrogen-methane mixture
(biohythane) generation seems to be more direct and conceivable
[2,4,1517]. Biohythane gas containing 1030% hydrogen and 90
70% methane, on a volumetric basis, are known to burn with much
lower NOx emission in internal combustion engines [75,76]. Based
on the studies on single-phase and two-phase FW anaerobic
digestion for hydrogen and methane, as reviewed; biohythane
production from FW would certainly be a potential near-term
practical technology owing to its lower overall pollutant emissions
[75]. The pure biohydrogen from the bioenergy division can be
transformed to electric power and heat via fuel cell and internal
combustion engine, respectively. On the other hand, methane is
usually combusted in combustion engine to produce electric
power and heat. It also can be upgraded to remove carbon dioxide
in the microalgae CO2 capture tank and feed it to the local natural
gas grid.
5.1.2. Fermentation material division
High activity hydrogen/methane producers and suitable com-
positions of feedstock are very important in anaerobic fermenta-
tion. A unique fermentation material with mixed wastes and
wastewaters could improve the bioenergy production. This divi-
sion could primarily serve to enhance the production of bioenergy
and support the bioenergy production division by supplying sui-
table fermentation materials. The requirement of certain essential
micro-nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and some
trace elements for bacterial metabolism, growth and activity,
carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C/N) is highly crucial in microbial co-
fermentation. An appropriate C/N of the collective feedstock for
co-fermentation is central to the biological activity and the growth
of the fermentative microorganisms. It is therefore essential to
obtain an optimum value of C/N prior to fermentation of the col-
lective feedstock, and for which a combination of multiple differ-
ent wastes with different C/N should be mixed in the right pro-
portion. This biorenery manufactory could provide the right
carbon or nitrogen additions according to the characteristics of
wastewater from different manufactories or communities which
want to build a bioenergy plant. For example, in our previous
study [54], two wastes (water hyacinth and beverage wastewater)
with different origin and composition were selected and combined
to evaluate the collective H2 production potential. Water hyacinth
is rich in nitrogenous compounds and can replace synthetic
nitrogen source. On the other hand, beverage wastewater with
high carbohydrate concentration could provide the carbon source.
5.1.3. Value-addition division
To make the FW biorenery viable and cost-effective, the
value-added products division is absolutely essential. There are
some hydrogen fermentation by-products which could be recov-
ered as a valuable bioresources such as lactic acid [7779], com-
post [80], bioplastics [81,82] and activated sludge. In addition, the
solid residues from two biohydrogen and biomethane fermenters
and microalgae tank in the bioenergy division could be collected
to produce organic fertilizer and cattle feed, respectively. All these
by-products increase the economic benets of bioenergy produc-
tion from FW. Besides, recovery of valuable bioresources, FW
anaerobic digestion could alleviate the greenhouse gas emissions
making these processes eco-friendly. Considering the global FW
production to be nearly 1.3 billion tons annually, the amount of
CO2 that will be reduced will be immense if it is being subjected to
consecutive dark fermentation and anaerobic digestion. By doing a
calculation based on peak HY of 0.065 m3 kg  1 VSFW and MY of
0.546 m3 kg  1 VSFW [50], the amount of total energy from
bioenergy would be close to 4,043,287,337 GJ (Table 3). When an
equivalent amount of energy is produced from coal then
108,360,101 t of CO2 is emitted (Table 3). Therefore, replacing coal,
fuel oil and natural gas with FW for energy generation would
signicantly reduce the CO2 emissions annually and contribute
substantially to the value-addition division.
Table 3
Total CO2 emission reduction from bioenergy production process of food waste.
Bioenergy from Food waste (GJ) CO2 emission Total CO2
factors using emission
Hydrogen Methane Total fossil fuels (kg/ reduction (t)
bioenergya GJ)b
149,040,617 3,894,246,720 4,043,287,337 Coal 26.8 108,360,101
Fuel oil 20.0 80,865,747
Natural 17.2 69,544,542
gas
a
Assuming 15.1% volatile solids in food waste; hydrogen yield 0.065 m3/kg
VS; methane yield 0.546 m3/kg VS [50].
b
Source: revised 1996 IPCC Guideline for National Greenhouse Gases
Inventories.
 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
5.2. Cases of pilot-scale operations
Some pilot-scale bioenergy production systems have demon-
strated that hydrogen and methane productions from FW can
prove to be advantageous as compared to production of methane
alone [50,52,83]. Lee and Chung [52] reported a pilot-scale two-
stage hydrogen/methane fermentation plant of FW that included
hydrogen fermenter, methane fermenter, and precipitation tank.
This plant consisted of a hydrogen fermenter (acidogenic fer-
mentation tank) with a working volume of 500 L for the rst stage
and a methane fermenter (methanogenic fermentation tank,
UASB) with a working volume of 2300 L. A precipitation tank
(working volume 100 L) was used to collect the efuent from
hydrogen fermenter and separate the solidliquid phases and a
storage tank (1000 L) was used to equalize the supernatants from
the precipitation tank and used as substrate for the methane fer-
menter. A gas purication facility using pressure swing adsorption
(PSA) was established to remove the moisture and H2S in the
biogas from hydrogen fermenter. Finally, the pure hydrogen gas
was injected into a fuel cell generator system based on a proton
exchange membrane (PEM) module to generate a maximum
power output of 1 kW with a voltage of 120 V AC/60 Hz and
hydrogen consumption of 0.06 kg h  1.
In another pilot scale trial study [84], simultaneous production
of hydrogen and methane for a trial period of 310 d in a two-phase
thermophilic anaerobic digestion process utilizing FW as sole
substrate was demonstrated. The biohythane had a mix of 7% H2,
58% CH4 and 35% CO2 while the average specic gas production
was 0.69 m3 biogas/kgTVS and gas production rate of
2.78 m3 m  3 d. A prototype of on-site biogas production from
high-rise building as a single-stage anaerobic digester for the co-
digestion of FW and sewage sludge was proposed [85]. This pro-
totype system was operated with organic loading rates of 7.9, 10.8
and 14.0 kg COD m  3 d for three different HRTs (27, 22 and 19 d).
At a shorter HRT of 19 d, higher biogas production rate of
1662.58 737.32 L/d was reported with a reduction in total volatile
solids up to 70% [85].
A pilot scale system was proposed by Grimberg et al. [86] for
mesophilic digestion of university campus kitchen FWs. Single and
two-phase operations were compared for normalizing methane
production according to the daily feedstock characteristics. Con-
siderably higher methane production was achieved in the two-
phase mesophilic digestion; methane yield per kg of COD and VS
removed was of 446 L and 481 L, respectively. Another two-phase
anaerobic digestion system on a pilot scale was operated for 136 d
using FW leachate [61], which could achieve a removal efciency
of 7489% with CH4 yield of 0.390.85 Nm3/kg of reduced VS.
Besides two-phase systems, multi-phased anaerobic bafed reac-
tor (MP-ABR) operation on a pilot scale is also demonstrated. A
MP-ABR performance was evaluated with FW as the substrate for
biogas production for a period of 175 d [87]. With a HRT of 30 d,
when the four-chambered ABR was operated with an OLR of 0.5
1.0 g-VS/L d, removal efciencies of 85.3% (CODtotal), 94.5%
(CODsoluble), 89.6% (VFA) and 86.4% (VS) were reported to be
achieved for the generation of biogas at 215.57 mL/g-VSremoved d.
These pilot scale studies clearly demonstrates the commerciali-
zation feasibility of FW to bioenergy technology, and suggests for
suitable framework and policy making towards deployment of
such technologies.
6. Conclusions
Research investigations suggest that FW could be considered as
the most sustainable and easily degradable feedstock for future
energy needs. Owing to the rich content of organic matter, FW is
555
highly amenable to anaerobic fermentation and digestion, and also
to co-digestion strategy for improvement in bioenergy production.
Two-phase anaerobic digestion was found to achieve higher
overall degradation efciency and is more advantageous than the
single phase system for the FW to bioenergy conversion. Among
the various types of reactors operated for FW to bioenergy con-
version, CSTRs seems to be most efcient and widely used reactors
for generation of hydrogen, methane, and biohythane in two-
phase systems. Besides reactor design, in two-phase systems
hyperthermophilic reactors are most suitable for acidogenesis,
whereas methanogenesis could be facilitated in a mesophilic
reactor. The co-digestion strategy improved the yield and rate of
bioenergy production by minimizing the accumulation of pro-
pionic acid and ammonia, in addition to the process stability and
biogas output, all as a result of obtaining an optimum C/N ratio for
microorganisms. The microbiome structure under stable operation
conditions did not shift in most cases and therefore may not relate
to stable reactor performance during FW fermentation. Finally, the
proposed FW biorenery model showed signicant improvement
in the overall cost benet and CO2 emission reduction in pilot scale
operation and commercialization ventures. The proposed model
based on fundamental understanding of the science and engi-
neering through the reviewed case studies shows the way forward
for FW fermentation to bioenergy technology.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no declaration of interest.
References
[1] Zinoviev S, Mller-Langer F, Das P, Bertero N, Fornasiero P, Kaltschmitt M,
et al. Next-generation biofuels: survey of emerging technologies and sus-
tainability issues. ChemSusChem 2010;3:110633.
[2] Cooney M, Maynard N, Cannizzaro C, Benemann J. Two-phase anaerobic
digestion for production of hydrogen-methane mixtures. Bioresour Technol
2007;98:264151.
[3] Eden. Hythane Fuel; 2013 [cited 15.11.2013]; Available from: http://www.ede
nenergy.com.au/hythane.html.
[4] Willquist K, Nkemka VN, Svensson H, Pawar S, Ljunggren M, Karlsson H, et al.
Design of a novel biohythane process with high H2 and CH4 production rates.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:1774962.
[5] Weber C, Farwick A, Benisch F, Brat D, Dietz H, Subtil T, et al. Trends and
challenges in the microbial production of lignocellulosic bioalcohol fuels. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;87:130315.
[6] Pham TPT, Kaushik R, Parshetti GK, Mahmood R, Balasubramanian R. Food
waste-to-energy conversion technologies: current status and future direc-
tions. Waste Manag 2015;38:399408.
[7] Jenny G, Christel C, Ulf S, Robert vO, Alexandre M. Global food losses and food
waste. Dusseldorf, Germany: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations; 2011 Interpack2011.
[8] Das D, Veziroglu TN. Advances in biological hydrogen production processes.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33:604657.
[9] Narihiro T, Sekiguchi Y. Microbial communities in anaerobic digestion pro-
cesses for waste and wastewater treatment: a microbiological update. Curr
Opin Biotechnol 2007;18:2738.
[10] Turning Food Waste into Energy at the East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD). United States Environmental Protection Agency. [cited 2012
December 17]; Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/features/
foodtoenergy/.
[11] Curry N, Pillay P. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy
system for the urban environment. Renew Energy 2012;41:2009.
[12] Adhikari BK, Barrington S, Martinez J. Predicted growth of world urban food
waste and methane production. Waste Manag Res 2006;24:42133.
[13] Dung TNB, Sen B, Chen C-C, Kumar G, Lin C-Y. Food waste to bioenergy via
anaerobic processes. Energy Procedia 2014;61:30712.
[14] Thi NBD, Kumar G, Lin C-Y. An overview of food waste management in
developing countries: current status and future perspective. J Environ Manag
2015;157:2209.
[15] Banks CJ, Zotova EA, Heaven S. Biphasic production of hydrogen and methane
from waste lactose in cyclic-batch reactors. J Clean Prod 2010;18:S95104.
556 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
[16] Cavinato C, Bolzonella D, Eusebi AL, Pavan P. Bio-hythane production by
thermophilic two-phase anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal
solid waste. Prelim Results 2009:26974.
[17] Cavinato C, Giuliano A, Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Cecchi F. Bio-hythane production
from food waste by dark fermentation coupled with anaerobic digestion
process: a long-term pilot scale experience. Int J Hydrog Energy
2012;37:1154955.
[18] Liu Z, Zhang C, Lu Y, Wu X, Wang L, Han B, et al. States and challenges for
high-value biohythane production from waste biomass by dark fermentation
technology. Bioresour Technol 2013;135:292303.
[19] Jayalakshmi S, Joseph K, Sukumaran V. Bio hydrogen generation from kitchen
waste in an inclined plug ow reactor. Int J Hydrog Energy 2009;34:88548.
[20] Sen B, Suttar RR. Mesophilic fermentative hydrogen production from sago
starch-processing wastewater using enriched mixed cultures. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2012;37:1558897.
[21] Lee DY, Ebie Y, Xu KQ, Li YY, Inamori Y. Continuous H2 and CH4 production
from high-solid food waste in the two-stage thermophilic fermentation pro-
cess with the recirculation of digester sludge. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:
S427.
[22] Elbeshbishy E, Nakhla G. Comparative study of the effect of ultrasonication on
the anaerobic biodegradability of food waste in single and two-stage systems.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:644957.
[23] Chu CF, Li YY, Xu KQ, Ebie Y, Inamori Y, Kong HN. A pH- and temperature-
phased two-stage process for hydrogen and methane production from food
waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33:473946.
[24] Hartmann H, Ahring BK. Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste: an overview. Water Sci Technol 2006;53
(8):722.
[25] Lee ZK, Li SL, Kuo PC, Chen IC, Tien YM, Huang YJ, et al. Thermophilic bio-
energy process study on hydrogen fermentation with vegetable kitchen waste.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35:1345866.
[26] Wang Y-H, Li S-L, Chen IC, Cheng S-S. Starch hydrolysis characteristics of
hydrogen producing sludge in thermophilic hydrogen fermentor fed with
kitchen waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 2009;34:743540.
[27] Wang Y-H, Li S-L, Chen IC, Tseng IC, Cheng S-S. A study of the process control
and hydrolytic characteristics in a thermophilic hydrogen fermentor fed with
starch-rich kitchen waste by using molecular-biological methods and amylase
assay. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35:1300412.
[28] Li S, Kuo S, Lin J, Lee Z, Wang Y, Cheng S. Process performance evaluation of
intermittentcontinuous stirred tank reactor for anaerobic hydrogen fer-
mentation with kitchen waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33:152231.
[29] Ruggeri B, Tommasi T. Efciency and efcacy of pre-treatment and bioreaction
for bio-H2 energy production from organic waste. Int J Hydrog Energy
2012;37:6491502.
[30] Liu X, Gao XB, Wang W, Zheng L, Zhou YJ, Sun YF. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-
digestion of municipal biomass waste: focusing on biogas production and
GHG reduction. Renew Energy 2012;44:4638.
[31] Reddy MV, Chandrasekhar K, Mohan SV. Inuence of carbohydrates and
proteins concentration on fermentative hydrogen production using canteen
based waste under acidophilic microenvironment. J Biotechnol 2011;155:387
95.
[32] Bouallagui H, Rachdi B, Gannoun H, Hamdi M. Mesophilic and thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of abattoir wastewater and fruit and vegetable waste in
anaerobic sequencing batch reactors. Biodegradation 2008;20:4019.
[33] Tawk A, Salem A, El-Qelish M. Two stage anaerobic bafed reactors for bio-
hydrogen production from municipal food waste. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:87236.
[34] Tawk A, El-Qelish M. Continuous hydrogen production from co-digestion of
municipal food waste and kitchen wastewater in mesophilic anaerobic bafed
reactor. Bioresour Technol 2012;114:2704.
[35] Chu CF, Xu KQ, Li YY, Inamori Y. Hydrogen and methane potential based on
the nature of food waste materials in a two-stage thermophilic fermentation
process. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:106118.
[36] Lee M, Hidaka T, Tsuno H. Effect of temperature on performance and microbial
diversity in hyperthermophilic digester system fed with kitchen garbage.
Bioresour Technol 2008;99:685260.
[37] Hidaka T, Asahira T, Koshikawa H, Cheon J, Park Y, Tsuno H. Effect of microbial
composition on thermophilic acid fermentation. Enzyme Microb Technol
2010;47:12733.
[38] Lee Z-K, Li S-L, Lin J-S, Wang Y-H, Kuo P-C, Cheng S-S. Effect of pH in fer-
mentation of vegetable kitchen wastes on hydrogen production under a
thermophilic condition. Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33:523441.
[39] Lee M, Hidaka T, Hagiwara W, Tsuno H. Comparative performance and
microbial diversity of hyperthermophilic and thermophilic co-digestion of
kitchen garbage and excess sludge. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:57885.
[40] Lee M, Hidaka T, Tsuno H. Two-phased hyperthermophilic anaerobic co-
digestion of waste activated sludge with kitchen garbage. J Biosci Bioeng
2009;108:40813.
[41] El-Fadel M, Saikaly P, Ghanimeh S. Startup and stability of thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of OFMSW. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2013;43:2685721.
[42] Shahriari H, Warith M, Hamoda M, Kennedy K. Evaluation of single vs. staged
mesophilic anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste with and without microwave
pretreatment. J Environ Manag 2013;125:7484.
[43] Dong L, Zhenhong Y, Yongming S. Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of
water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW). Bior-
esour Technol 2010;101:27228.
[44] Cho SK, Im WT, Kim DH, Kim MH, Shin HS, Oh SE. Dry anaerobic digestion of
food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and methanogenic
community analysis. Bioresour Technol 2013;131:2107.
[45] Koutrouli EC, Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Lyberatos G. Mesophilic biohydrogen
production from olive pulp. Process Saf Environ Prot 2006;84:2859.
[46] Lin Y, Wu S, Wang D. Hydrogen-methane production from pulp & paper
sludge and food waste by mesophilic-thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion. Int
J Hydrog Energy 2013;38(35):1505562.
[47] Wu JH, Lin CY. Biohydrogen production by mesophilic fermentation of food
wastewater. Water Sci Technol 2004;49(56):2238.
[48] Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL. Optimisation of the anaerobic
digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:792840.
[49] Wang X, Niu D-J, Yang X-S, Zhao Y-C. Optimization of methane fermentation
from efuent of bio-hydrogen fermentation process using response surface
methodology. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:42929.
[50] Wang X, Zhao Y. A bench scale study of fermentative hydrogen and methane
production from food waste in integrated two-stage process. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2009;34:24554.
[51] Sivagurunathan P, Sen B, Lin CY. Batch fermentative hydrogen production by
enriched mixed culture: combination strategy and their microbial composi-
tion. J Biosci Bioeng 2014;117:2228.
[52] Lee YW, Chung J. Bioproduction of hydrogen from food waste by pilot-scale
combined hydrogen/methane fermentation. Int J Hydrog Energy
2010;35:1174655.
[53] Hecht C, Griehl C. Investigation of the accumulation of aromatic compounds
during biogas production from kitchen waste. Bioresour Technol
2009;100:6548.
[54] Lay C-H, Sen B, Chen C-C, Wu J-H, Lee S-C, Lin C-Y. Co-fermentation of water
hyacinth and beverage wastewater in powder and pellet form for hydrogen
production. Bioresour Technol 2013;135:6105.
[55] Sen K, Mahalingam S, Sen B. Rapid and high yield biogas production from
Jatropha seed cake by co-digestion with bagasse and addition of Fe2.
Environ Technol 2013;34:298994.
[56] Kim D-H, Kim S-H, Kim H-W, Kim M-S, Shin H-S. Sewage sludge addition to
food waste synergistically enhances hydrogen fermentation performance.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:85016.
[57] Nayono SE, Gallert C, Winter J. Co-digestion of press water and food waste in a
biowaste digester for improvement of biogas production. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:698793.
[58] Wang H, Wang H, Lu W, Zhao Y. Digestibility improvement of sorted waste
with alkaline hydrothermal pretreatment. Tsinghua Sci Technol 2009;14:378
82.
[59] Marone A, Massini G, Patriarca C, Signorini A, Varrone C, Izzo G. Hydrogen
production from vegetable waste by bioaugmentation of indigenous fermen-
tative communities. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:561222.
[60] Zieliska M, Cydzik-Kwiatkowska A, Zieliski M, Debowski M. Impact of
temperature, microwave radiation and organic loading rate on methanogenic
community and biogas production during fermentation of dairy wastewater.
Bioresour Technol 2013;129:30814.
[61] Kim S, Bae J, Choi O, Ju D, Lee J, Sung H, et al. A pilot scale two-stage
anaerobic digester treating food waste leachate (FWL): performance and
microbial structure analysis using pyrosequencing. Process Biochem
2014;49:3018.
[62] Shin SG, Han G, Lim J, Lee C, Hwang S. A comprehensive microbial insight into
two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste-recycling wastewater. Water Res
2010;44:483849.
[63] Ohara H. Biorenery. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2003;62:4747.
[64] Ukun Kiran E, Trzcinski AP, Liu Y. Enhancing the hydrolysis and methane
production potential of mixed food waste by an effective enzymatic pre-
treatment. Bioresour Technol 2015;183:4752.
[65] Li Y, Jin Y. Effects of thermal pretreatment on acidication phase during two-
phase batch anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. Renew Energy
2015;77:5507.
[66] Ariunbaatar J, Panico A, Frunzo L, Esposito G, Lens PNL, Pirozzi F. Enhanced
anaerobic digestion of food waste by thermal and ozonation pretreatment
methods. J Environ Manag 2014;146:1429.
[67] Kim D-H, Jang S, Yun Y-M, Lee M-K, Moon C, Kang W-S, et al. Effect of
acid-pretreatment on hydrogen fermentation of food waste: microbial com-
munity analysis by next generation sequencing. Int J Hydrog Energy
2014;39:163029.
[68] Jang S, Kim D-H, Yun Y-M, Lee M-K, Moon C, Kang W-S, et al. Hydrogen
fermentation of food waste by alkali-shock pretreatment: microbial commu-
nity analysis and limitation of continuous operation. Bioresour Technol
2015;186:21522.
[69] Kim S-H, Shin H-S. Effects of base-pretreatment on continuous enriched cul-
ture for hydrogen production from food waste. Int J Hydrog Energy
2008;33:526674.
[70] Yin J, Wang K, Yang Y, Shen D, Wang M, Mo H. Improving production of
volatile fatty acids from food waste fermentation by hydrothermal pretreat-
ment. Bioresour Technol 2014;171:3239.
[71] Hu CC, Giannis A, Chen C-L, Wang J-Y. Evaluation of hydrogen producing
cultures using pretreated food waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 2014;39:1933742.
[72] Chandrasekhar K, Venkata Mohan S. Bio-electrohydrolysis as a pretreatment
strategy to catabolize complex food waste in closed circuitry: function of
electron ux to enhance acidogenic biohydrogen production. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2014;39:1141122.
 B. Sen et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 547557
[73] Gadhe A, Sonawane SS, Varma MN. Ultrasonic pretreatment for an enhance-
ment of biohydrogen production from complex food waste. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2014;39:77219.
[74] Brentner LB, Peccia J, Zimmerman JB, Program EE, Haven N. Challenges in
developing biohydrogen as a sustainable energy source: implications for a
research agenda. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:224354.
[75] Bauer CG, Forest TW. Effect of hydrogen addition on the performance of
methane-fueled vehicles. Part I: effect on S.I. engine performance. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2001;26:5570.
[76] Nanthagopal K, Subbarao R, Elango T, Baskar P, Annamalai K. Hydrogen
enriched compressed natural gas a futuristic fuel for internal combustion
engines. Therm Sci 2011;15:114554.
[77] Karp SG, Igashiyama AH, Siqueira PF, Carvalho JC, Vandenberghe LPS, Thomaz-
Soccol V, et al. Application of the biorenery concept to produce l-lactic acid
from the soybean vinasse at laboratory and pilot scale. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:176572.
[78] Wang XQ, Wang QH, Ma HZ, Yin W. Lactic acid fermentation of food waste
using integrated glucoamylase production. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2009;84:13943.
[79] Ye ZL, Lu M, Zheng Y, Li YH, Cai WM. Lactic acid production from dining-hall
food waste by Lactobacillus plantarum using response surface methodology.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2008;83:154150.
[80] Takata M, Fukushima K, Kino-Kimata N, Nagao N, Niwa C, Toda T. The effects of
recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: based on the environ-
mental and economic evaluation of food recycling. Sci Total Environ
2012;432:30917.
[81] Yu PH, Chua H, Huang PAL. Conversion of food industrial wastes into bio-
plastics with municipal activated sludge. Macromol Symp 1999;148:41524.
[82] Wong AL, Chua H, Lo WH, Yu PH. Synthesis of bioplastics from food industry
wastes with activated sludge biomass. Water Sci Technol 2000;51(12):559.
[83] Ratanatamskul C, Wattanayommanaporn O, Yamamoto K. An on-site proto-
type two-stage anaerobic digester for co-digestion of food waste and sewage
sludge for biogas production from high-rise building. Int Biodeterior Biode-
grad 2014;95:17680.
[84] Micolucci F, Gottardo M, Bolzonella D, Pavan P. Automatic process control for
stable bio-hythane production in two-phase thermophilic anaerobic digestion
of food waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 2014;39:1756372.
557
[85] Ratanatamskul C, Onnum G, Yamamoto K. A prototype single-stage anaerobic
digester for co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge from high-rise
building for on-site biogas production. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad
2014;95:17680.
[86] Grimberg S, Hilderbrandt D, Kinnunen M, Rogers S. Anaerobic digestion of
food waste through the operation of a mesophilic two-phase pilot scale
digester assessment of variable loadings on system performance. Bioresour
Technol 2015;178:2269.
[87] Ahamed A, Chen C-L, Rajagopal R, Wu D, Mao Y, Ho I, et al. Multi-phased
anaerobic bafed reactor treating food waste. Bioresour Technol
2015;182:23944.
[88] Elbeshbishy E, Nakhla G, Hafez H. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of
food waste and primary sludge: inuence of inoculum pre-incubation and
inoculum source. Bioresour Technol 2012;110:1825.
[89] Marone A, Izzo G, Mentuccia L, Massini G, Paganin P, Rosa S, et al. Vegetable
waste as substrate and source of suitable microora for bio-hydrogen pro-
duction. Renew Energy 2014;68:613.
[90] Pendyala B, Chaganti SR, Lalman JA, Heath DD, Shanmugam SR, Veeravalli SS.
Using a food and paper-cardboard waste blend as a novel feedstock for
hydrogen production: inuence of key process parameters on microbial
diversity. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:635767.
[91] Yasin NHM, Man HC, Yusoff MZM, Hassan MA. Microbial characterization of
hydrogen-producing bacteria in fermented food waste at different pH values.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2011;36:957180.
[92] Sreela-or C, Imai T, Plangklang P, Reungsang A. Optimization of key factors
affecting hydrogen production from food waste by anaerobic mixed cultures.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2011;36:1412033.
[93] Kim D-H, Wu J, Jeong K-W, Kim M-S, Shin H-S. Natural inducement of
hydrogen from food waste by temperature control. Int J Hydrog Energy
2011;36:1066673.
[94] Xiao L, Deng Z, Fung KY, Ng KM. Biohydrogen generation from anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:1390713.