Please download to get full document.

View again

of 17

A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 1: Upstream strategies.pdf

This study reviews the innovations and optimizations in biogas production from the biological perspective reported by recently published patents and research works. The proposed biological strategies can be categorized into three different groups,
0 views17 pages
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Documenttranscript
  Review A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improvebiogas production, Part 1: Upstream strategies Meisam Tabatabaei  a ,  b ,  c ,  * , Mortaza Aghbashlo  d ,  ** , Elena Valijanian  b ,  e ,Hamed Kazemi Shariat Panahi  e , Abdul-Sattar Nizami  f  , Hossein Ghanavati  b ,  c ,Alawi Sulaiman  a , Safoora Mirmohamadsadeghi  g , Keikhosro Karimi  g ,  h a Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia b Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam), Karaj, Iran c Microbial Biotechnology Department, Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Agricultural Research, Extension, and EducationOrganization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran d Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and NaturalResources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran e Department of Microbial Biotechnology, School of Biology, College of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran f  Center of Excellence in Environmental Studies (CEES), King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia g Department of Chemical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran h Industrial Biotechnology Group, Research Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran a r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 3 February 2019Received in revised form9 June 2019Accepted 4 July 2019Available online 5 July 2019 Keywords: Anaerobic digestionBiogas productionUpstream strategyBiological treatmentLignocellulosePretreatment a b s t r a c t This study reviews the innovations and optimizations in biogas production from the biologicalperspective reported by recently published patents and research works. The proposed biological stra-tegies can be categorized into three different groups, i.e., upstream, mainstream, and downstream ap-proaches. In the  󿬁 rst part of this review, upstream strategies, including pretreatments by fungal,microbial consortium, and enzymatic as well as some other biological methods including microaeration,composting, ensiling, and genetic and metabolic engineering are discussed in detail. The impacts of upstream strategies on biogas production as well as their potentials in further improving the biogasindustry are comprehensively scrutinized. Despite their promising impacts on biogas production, suchbiological innovations are time-consuming and require extra equipment and facilities that should beaddressed in future studies. Overall, most information on biogas production has been generated throughlab-scale investigations and not by commercial plants, undermining the commercial value of these datafor the right decision-making. Pilot data would be necessary for techno-economic analyses withacceptable accuracies. Therefore, the future efforts should be directed toward providing the missing datafor re-engineering designs, calculations, and life cycle assessment (LCA) of the newly designed biogasplants. ©  2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12052. Biogas production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12093. Upstream biological approaches to enhance biogas production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12093.1. Fungal pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12103.2. MC pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12123.3. Enzymatic pretreatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12133.4. Microaeration, composting, and ensiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12143.5. Genetically- and metabolically-engineered microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1214 *  Corresponding author. Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam), Iran. **  Corresponding author. Agricultural Engineering and Technology, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran. E-mail addresses:  meisam_tab@yahoo.com, meisam_tabatabaei@uitm.edu.my (M. Tabatabaei), maghbashlo@ut.ac.ir (M. Aghbashlo). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.0370960-1481/ ©  2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 1204 e 1220  4. Current challenges and future prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12154.1. Current challenges in the application of upstream biological approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12154.2. Future prospects and practical implications of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12165. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216 1. Introduction The global population is increasing at an exponential rate,leading to unprecedented crises, among which energy security andenvironmental concerns (i.e., air pollution and greenhouse gases,GHG) are of prominent concerns [1,2]. Currently, about 88% of  worldenergydemandismetbyapparentlyeconomically-bene 󿬁 cialfossil fuels while the environmental cost associated with theirwidespread applications is mostly ignored [3,4]. For instance, the annual GHG missions caused by fossil fuel combustion standaround 33  10 5 tones [5]. Global warming and the resultingenvironmental and ecological hazards are among the primarychallenges faced todayas a result of extensive GHG emissions [6,7]. In response to the challenges mentioned above, efforts have beenput into expanding the use of alternative sources of energy orrenewable energy carriers such as biofuels (Fig.1) [8 e 14].TheInternationalPanelonClimateChange (IPCC)hasforecastedthat energy generation from biomass, including various types of biofuels,willstandat50000,75000,and89000TWhin2050,2075,and 2100, respectively [16]. Biomass could be converted intovarious types of renewable energy carriers such as biogas [17,18], bio-oil [19], biodiesel [20 e 27], bioethanol [28 e 30], andbioelectricity [9,31] using a wide range of physiochemical (e.g., extraction, transesteri 󿬁 cation, combustion, carbonization),thermochemical (e.g., combustion, gasi 󿬁 cation, liquefaction, py-rolysis), and biochemical (e.g., fermentation, anaerobic digestion,AD) technologies. The projections set forth by the Annual EnergyOutlook 2016 stress that biofuel production would increase toabout 1.0 million b/d in 2025. Whereas according to the biogasproduction projections, a higher value of 1.2 million b/d would beexpected by 2025 [32]. Among different types of biofuels, biogasevolved from organic wastes in AD units is a promising alternative List of abbreviations  A. hydrophila Aeromonas hydrophila AD Anaerobic digestionAF Anaerobic fungi B. licheniformis Bacillus licheniformisB. subtilis Bacillus subtilisC. rugose Candida rugoseC. subvermispora Ceriporiopsis subvermisporaC. vulgaris Chlorella vulgaris COD Chemical oxygen demandCoD Co-digestionCSTR Continuously stirred-tank reactor F. velutipe Flammulina velutipeF. proliferatum Fusarium proliferatum FW Food waste G. candidum Geotrichum candidum GHG Greenhouse gases H. Hansenula Hansenula anomala HRT Hydraulic retention time L. deiliehii Lactobacillus deiliehii LBR Leach bed reactorLCFA Long chain fatty acids M. thermophile Myceliophthora thermophile MC Microbial consortiumMSW Municipal solid waste N.  󿬁 scheri Neosartorya  󿬁 scheriN. prasina Nocardiopsis prasina OFMSW Organic fraction of municipal solid wasteOLR Organic loading rate P. agglomerans Pantoea agglomeransP. chrysosporium Phanerochaete chrysosporiumP.  󿬂 orida Pleurotus  󿬂 oridaPl. ostreatus Pleurotus ostreatusP. eryngii Pleurotus eryngiiS. cerevisiae Saccharomyces cerevisiaeS. viridosporus Streptomyces viridosporus SRT Solid retention time T. acidaminovorans Thermanaerovibrio acidaminovoransT. hermosaccharolyticum ThermoanaerobacteriumhermosaccharolyticumT. viride Trichoderma virideT.trogii Trametes trogii TS Total solidsUASB Up 󿬂 ow Anaerobic Sludge BlanketVFAs Volatile fatty acidsVS Volatile solidVSS Volatile suspended solids Fig. 1.  Primary  󿬂 uctuations in energy use by fuel from 2017 to 2040 (quadrillion Btu)[8,15]. M. Tabatabaei et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 1204 e 1220  1205  energy source for addressing a portion of global energy and envi-ronmental challenges [31,33]. It should be highlighted that biogas production through AD isadvantageous over other biomass-driven processes like bioethanolproduction, as various types of substrates could successfully un-dergo AD [34]. A comparison of different biomass and waste con-version technologies is presented inTable 1. According to Reijndersand Huijbregts [35], biomethane has the highest calori 󿬁 c valueamong the most widely used transport biofuels like biodiesel,bioethanol, and biomethanol. On the other hand, biogas burnsmore ef  󿬁 ciently in comparison with  󿬁 rewood and cow dung (60% vs.  5 e 8% and 3 e 5%, respectively) [36].Biogas is also of great importance environmentally when ob-tained through the AD of various wastes such as agricultural andlivestock/slaughterhouse wastes and is subsequently used forelectricity generation [43]. Similarly, its potential bene 󿬁 ts could beexploited in the transportation sector as a replacement for fossil-oriented energy carriers. Table 2 shows the annual reduction of CO 2  emissions (kg) that could be potentially achieved by the usersof different transportation means running on biogas [44].The productivity of biogas production processes could beimproved through innovations in different domains. These includefacilitated access to economic raw materials and pretreatment of such feedstocks as well as those of low digestibility using differentprocesses such as milling, comminution, disintegration, hydrolysis,and thermal and chemical treatments to increase their biogasproduction yields [45]. Innovations have also been proposed con-cerning the processes attributed to AD performance, includingstirring and mixing techniques, additives, and measurements andcontrol systems. Furthermore, innovations have been targeted atpromoting enhanced novel and more economically viable reactorsdesigns and the supporting units in operation of biogas plants. Theintegration of AD into biore 󿬁 nery frameworks has also been takeninto account as a strategy to further innovate biogas productionsystems [46]. Overall, most of the innovations registered as patents(about48%)arerelatedtonewtypesofequipmentforADprocesses[47]. Table 3 concisely summarizes examples of some of the in- novations reported in the mentioned domains for biogas produc-tion in 2013 e 2018.The present work is aimed at comprehensively examining anddiscussing the biological innovations targeted in enhancing thebiogas production process. Generally, the biological strategiesproposed to boost biogas production can be classi 󿬁 ed into threedifferent categories, i.e., upstream, mainstream, and downstream  Table 1 Different biomass and waste conversion technologies.Technology Advantages GHGeffectOdor Air/WaterpollutionConversionconditionsHumanhealthbene 󿬁 tsSpeedof processEnergyyieldCost Main products ByproductDisadvantages Refs..AD -Commercially proven-Treating high moisturecontent (80 e 90%) organicwastes-High conversion ef  󿬁 ciency(10 e 16%) þþþþ þ þþþþ  35 e 55  CAnaerobic þþ þ þ þþ  Gas(CH 4 , CO 2 )Sludge -Low substratelevels inside thereactor-Possible badodors[37 e 40]Fermentation Large-scale application  þþþþ þþ þþþþþ  30 e 35  CpH 4.5 e 6.0Anaerobic þþþþ þþþ þþþ þþ  EthanolCO 2 Animalfeed-Complexity(especiallylignocellulosicbiomass)[38,40] Gasi 󿬁 cation -More compact and lesscostly gas cleaningequipment-High ef  󿬁 ciencies (40 e 50%)-Small quantities of char andash þþþ þþþþ þþþ  350 e 1800  CAir,Oxygen, orsteam þ þþþþ þþþ þþþ  Gas(CO, CH 4 ,N 2 ,H 2 ,CO 2 )Ash -Complexity(especiallylignocellulosicbiomass)-Pre-pilot stage-High emissionof NOx, Co 2 , ash[38 e 40]Pyrolysis -High ef  󿬁 ciency (up to 80%)  þþþ þþþþ þþþ  250 e 750  CAnaerobic þ þþþþ þþþ þþþ  CharOil or tarGas(CO, CH 4 ,hydrocarbons, H 2 ,CO 2 )Char -Poor thermalstability-Corrosivity-UnfavorableBiomassconditions[39 e 42]Liquefaction Direct conversion of biomassto liquid fuelsNA NA NA 180 e 220  C NA NA NA  þþ  NA Ash -Complexity-Expensive[38 e 40]Combustion -Most important and maturetechnology availablenowadays for biomassutilization-Ef  󿬁 cientNA NA NA 1200 e 1900  CNA NA NA NA Gas(CO, hydrocarbonsHC, oxides of nitrogen andsulfur)Ash -Relativelyexpensive-Signi 󿬁 cantpollutantformation[38,42] *NA: Not Available.  Table 2 Annual reduction of CO 2  emission (kg) by the users of different transportation means [44].Motorcycle Buggy Vehicle (within the premises) Vehicle (outside the premises)Biogas storage capacity (m 3 ) 1 3.5 0.5 12.5Annual reduction of CO 2  emissions (kg) for biogas uses 44.1 193 221 1577 M. Tabatabaei et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 1204 e 1220 1206   Table 3 Recent innovations in biogas production over the 5-year period (2013 e 2018).InnovationdomainInnovation Aim(s) Achievement Scale of innovationRef.Reactor design Multi-layer membrane bioreactor Elevating the rate of biogas production by entrappingmethane-producing microorganisms using semi-permeablesynthetic membranesBiogas production: Control: 50 e 121mL/d Innovative strategy: 1016 e 1960mL/dLab-scale [48]Two phase-pressurized AD system including a CSTR (acidogenesis reactor) and a pressurized bio 󿬁 lmanaerobic reactor (methanogenesis reactor)Improving the calori 󿬁 c value of the generated biogas withoutthe need for further upgrading facilityBiogas production: Control : 406mL/gCOD Innovative strategy: 450mL/g CODLab-scale [49]AD e MEC coupled system Co-cultivation of   Geobacter   with  Methanosarcina  in a coupledAD e MEC system for enhancing the rate of methaneproductionMethane yield: Control : 273.5mL/gCOD Innovative strategy :360.2mL/g CODLab-scale [50]Portable digester built from textile Developing a portable digester using textile for householdapplications.Biogas production: Control: 315L/kgVS/d Innovative strategy: Biogas:570L/kgVS/dLab-scale [51]Integrating MEC and anaerobic bioreactor Increasing the biomethane production rate using two ADsystems partitioned  via  anion exchange membraneMethane productionrate: Control: 54mL/g COD Innovative strategy: 54 e 122mL/g CODLab-scale [52]Two-phase AD system including threeacidogenesis-LBR and one pressure-resistantanaerobic  󿬁 lterUnderstanding the effect of pressure on two-phase ADprocessMethane content: Control:  66% Innovative strategy: 75%Lab-scale [53]AD with phase separation integrated with ananaerobic structured-bed reactorIncreasing organic matter removal and energy productionfrom sugarcane vinasse using a thermophilic digesterMethane yield: Control: 249mL CH 4 /g COD Innovative strategy: 301mL CH 4/ g CODLab-scale [54]Full automatic digester Developing a digester for solid waste management andincreasing the biogas production rate by taking into accountthe major design parametersMethane content: Control:  28 e 30% Innovative strategy: 56 e 60%Pilot-scale [55]Two-phase continuous LBR digester coupled withan anaerobic  󿬁 lterInvestigating the feasibility of biogas production on demandfrom maize silage under different feeding patterns andavoiding digester failure through the integration of LBR andanaerobic  󿬁 lterMethane yield: Control: 320L/kg Innovative strategy: 372.4L/kgLab-scale [56]Modi 󿬁 ed UASB Redesigning an UASB reactor for improving the biogasproductionratefromabeveragevinassebyannexinganextramicroorganisms bed within the reactorBiogas production: Control : 1840mL CH 4 /d Innovative strategy: 2140mL CH 4 /d[57]Operation Granular sludge size management Investigating the effect of granule size (large, medium, andsmall) on biogas production rateBiogas production:Large: 0.031m 3 /kgVSS/dMedium: 0.016m 3 /kgVSS/dSmall: 0.006m 3 /kgVSS/dLab-scale [58]Agitation interval identi 󿬁 cation Improving the biogas production rate from corn stover bypreventing 󿬂 oating layers formation through identi 󿬁 cation of appropriate agitation intervalBiogas production: Control:  1.00L/d Innovative strategy: 8.27L/dLab-scale [59]Operation/additiveAir stress during storage, subjecting to air at feed-out, and treating with chemical additivesIncreasing the biomethane production rate by manipulatingthe aerobic storage conditions and using chemical additivesMethane yield Control :310L/kgODM Innovative strategy :340L/kg ODMLab-scale [60]Additive Trace elements (Co, Fe, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, W, Zn)supplementationSupplementing urea and trace elements for improving thebiogas production rate and stabilizing the AD processSpeci 󿬁 c methaneproduction: Control: 0.77mL/g CODLab-scale [61]( continued on next page ) M. Tabatabaei et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 1204 e 1220  1207   Table 3  ( continued )InnovationdomainInnovation Aim(s) Achievement Scale of innovationRef. Innovative strategy: 239mL/g CODBiochar supplementation Improving the biogas production rate and the methane yieldin a solid-state fermentation through biochar additionMethane yield:Control: 243.9L/kgODMBiogas production:516.8L/kg ODMInnovative strategy:279.8L/kg ODMBiogas production:449.6L/kg ODMIndustrial-scale[62]Addition of biodegradable polymers produced fromcassava starchComparing the effect of supplementation of biodegradablepolymers obtained from cassava starch and glycerol on thebiogas production rate and the biomethane yieldBiogas production: Control: 1.59L/dMethane yield:6.66L/d Innovative strategy: Biogas production:8.33L/dMethane yield:6.669L/dLab-scale [63]Nanoparticles additives (trace metals Co, Ni, Fe,Fe 3 O 4 )Comparing the effects of various nanoparticlessupplementation on the biogas and methane productionrates from AD of cattle dung slurryBiogas production Control: 6.67L/dMethane yield:0.326L/d Innovative strategy: Biogas production:1.1908 L/dMethane yield:0.7071L/dLab-scale [64]Trace elements (Fe 0 , Fe 2 þ , Co 2 þ , Ni 2 þ )supplementationOptimizing the concentrations of trace elements formaximizing the methane yieldMethane yield: Control: 228.8mL/g VS Innovative strategy: 312.9mL/g VSLab-scale [65]IntegratedstrategyCombined cultivation/fermentation strategy Addressing problematic issues associated with algal biomassdigestion like inef  󿬁 cient degradation and low C/N ratios forimproving the biogas production rateBiogas production: Control: 42.3mL/g VS Innovative strategy: 706mL/g VSLab-scale [66]Mixing regime Continuous mixing at agitation speeds of 25 and150rpm and intermittent mixing modesEvaluating the effects of mixing regimes on digestion of freshsubstrate as well as post-digestion of OFMSWBiogas production: Control: 113, 134, and130mL/g VS Innovative strategy: 295, 317, and304mL/g VSLab-scale [67]SupportingunitEf  󿬂 uent continuous recirculation Elevating OLR and lowering HRT in a semi-continuous two-stage AD unit using the CSTR and UASBMethane content: Control: 82% Innovative strategy: 91%Lab-scale [68]Ef  󿬂 uent continuous recirculation Understanding dynamics of acidogenic and methanogenicprocesses in two-stage AD of vegetable waste as affected byOLR and ef  󿬂 uent recirculationBiogas production: Control: 1.2L/dMethane content:27.4% Innovative strategy: Biogas production:4.4L/dMethane content:60.5%Lab-scale [69]MeasurementsandmonitoringsystemsMicrobiologic indicator Quantifying microbial groups of sludge samples using qRT-PCR in order to develop a summary indicator for measuringAD performanceBiogas production:Mixed system:0.74m 3 /VSSSecondary system:0.61m 3 /VSSFull-scale [70]Enzyme-based multi-parameter biosensor Developing a biosensor for measuring formate, D- and L-lactateMinimumsensitivity: 1.3  m Am/M in (0.8%glutaraldehyde)Maximumsensitivity: 0.4  m Am/M (0.2%glutaraldehyde) e  [71] M. Tabatabaei et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 1204 e 1220 1208
Advertisement
MostRelated
View more
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x