3.8 Review

Comparison of pretreatment methods that enhance biomethane production from crop residues - a systematic review

Journal

BIOFUEL RESEARCH JOURNAL-BRJ
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages 1080-1089

Publisher

Alpha Creation Enterprise
DOI: 10.18331/BRJ2019.6.4.4

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion; Biogas; Biomethane potential; Feedstock; Organic matter

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinhoyi University of Technology through Staff Development Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A systematic literature review was conducted to compare the efficacy of biological, chemical, physical, and combined pretreatments in enhancing biomethane production from crop residues (CR). Three electronic databases viz., Science Direct, EBSCOhost, and PubMed were used to identify the studies in literature. The pretreatment methods were compared in terms of their advantages and disadvantages with reference to techno-economic aspects. The techno-economic aspects considered included rate of hydrolysis, energy use, effectiveness, cost, and formation of toxic compounds. A total of 3167 studies, covering the period 2014 - 2018, were screened for relevance to the study. Forty-four records (n=44) consisting of 36 research papers (n=36) and eight narrative reviews (n=8) met the inclusion criteria. The results show that physical and chemical methods are the most effective and fastest. These methods have limited utility due to high cost of resources, operation, and energy as well as formation of inhibitory by-products. Despite generation of toxic compounds, combined methods are regarded as fast and cost-effective. Biological method is inexpensive, eco-friendly, and low energy-consuming. However, it is a nascent technology that is still developing. A combination of trends in research and development provide the best pretreatment alternative to improve the biomethane production from CR. (C) 2019 BRTeam. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available