Biochemical Methane Potential and Kinetics on Anaerobic Co-digestion of Food Waste and Cellulose-based Food Packaging Product

DOI: 10.14416/


  • Nattapon Sawettabut Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University
  • Daoroong Sungthong Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University
  • Nopawan Ratasuk Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University
  • Umarat Santisukkasaem Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University


Biochemical methane potential, Food waste, Cellulose-based food packaging product, Co-digestion, Kinetics


Anaerobic co-digestion is proven to be a promising technology for enhancing the production of methane. In this study, the biochemical methane potential (BMP) from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste (FW) and cellulose-based food packaging product (CFPP) was carried out under mesophilic (35 ± 2°C) condition in a batch mode for 45 days. Three mixing ratios of these two substrates (FW/CFPP 100:0, 40:60, and 0:100 based on volatile solids (VS)) were studied with a substrate-to-inoculum ratio of 0.5. Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) was also added to establish a stable anaerobic digestion process. In addition, four mathematical models (Modified Gompertz model, First-order model, Monod model, and Cone model) were employed to evaluate their suitability for predicting the methane production of the examined substrates. Based on the obtained results, it is found that the maximum cumulative methane yield was observed in FW/CFPP 100:0, followed by 40:60 and 0:100 with the values of 459.15, 381.79, and 355.60 NmL/gVS, respectively. Among all the studied kinetic models, it can be seen that the Modified Gompertz model was the most accurate and appropriate in predicting the methane production of FW/CFPP 100:0 and 0:100. However, in the case of FW/CFPP 40:60, the First-order model was found to be a better fit than the Modified Gompertz model. Besides, their kinetic parameters reveal that the co-digestion of FW/CFPP 40:60 had a faster methane production rate than the mono-digestion of FW or CFPP.


Download data is not yet available.


Q. Yang, B. Wu, F. Yao, L. He, F. Chen, Y. Ma, X. Shu, K. Hou, D. Wang, and X. Li, Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge: co-substrates and influencing parameters, Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 2019, 18(4), 771-793.

K. Hagos, J. Zong, D. Li, C. Liu, and X. Lu, Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 76, 1485-1496.

R. Abbas, A. Agha, and S. Rahman, Enhancement anaerobic digestion and methane production from kitchen waste by thermal and thermo-chemical pretreatments in batch leach bed reactor with down flow, Research in Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 64, 128-135.

T. Radu, R. Blanchard, V. Smedley, A. Wheatley, P. Abdul Salam, and C. Visvanathan, Community scale, decentralised anaerobic digestion for energy and resource recovery, 2016 International Conference on Cogeneration, Small Power Plants and District Energy, Proceeding, 2016.

J. Wang, M. Gao, Q. Wang, W. Zhang, and Y. Shirai, Pilot-scale Open Fermentation of Food Waste to Produce Lactic Acid without Inoculum Addition, RSC Advances, 2016, 6, 104354-104358.

J. Ariunbaatar, A. Panico, L. Frunzo, G. Esposito, P. N. L. Lens, and F. Pirozzi, Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by thermal and ozonation pretreatment methods, Journal of Environmental Management, 2014, 146, 142-149.

I. Angelidaki, M. Alves, D. Bolzonella, L. Borzacconi, J. L. Campos, A. J. Guwy, S. Kalyuzhnyi, P. Jenicek, and J. B. van Lier, Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays, Water Science and Technology, 2009, 59(5), 927-34.

T. L. Hansen, J. E. Schmidt, I. Angelidaki, E. Marca, J. Jansen, H. Mosbaek, and T. H. Christensen, Method for determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste, Waste Management, 2004, 24(4), 393-400.

P. L. McCarty, Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals, Public Work, 1964, 95, 91-126.

APHA, AWW, and WEF, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 2017.

USEPA, METHOD 1684: Total, Fixed, and Volatile Solids in Water, Solids, and Biosolids. United States Environment Protection Agency, D.C., USA, 2001.

D.W. Nelson and L.E. Sommers, Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter: Methods of soil analysis part 3: Chemical Methods (SSSA Book Series 5), Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, WI, USA, 1996.

J. Fagbenro and B. Oyeleye, Relationships between four methods of organic carbon determination in leaves of nitrogen‐fixing trees and lignite‐based organic fertilizers, Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis, 1999, 30, 2345-2362.

ASTM E778-87(2004), Standard Test Methods for Nitrogen in the Analysis Sample of Refuse-Derived Fuel, ASTM International, PA, USA, 2006.

R. Bedoić, A. Špehar, J. Puljko, L. Čuček, B. Ćosić, T. Pukšec, and N. Duić, Opportunities and challenges: Experimental and kinetic analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rendering industry streams for biogas production, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020, 130, 109951.

Y. Li, S. Y. Park, and J. Zhu, Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from organic waste, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2011, 15(1), 821-826.

M. O. L. Yusuf and N. L. Ify, The effect of waste paper on the kinetics of biogas yield from the co-digestion of cow dung and water hyacinth, Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, 35(3), 1345-1351.


Additional Files





บทความวิจัย (Research article)