Document Type : Research Article


Department of Renewable Energy Research, Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran.


In this study, the impact of digestate treatment after Anaerobic Digestion (AD) process in two scenarios is analyzed in the case of an industrial diary unit in the United States. The first scenario involves production of liquid fertilizer and compost, while the second scenario lacks such a treatment process. Aspen Plus is used to simulate the AD process and evaluate the general properties of biogas and digestate. The results of technical analysis show insignificant changes in the net power production from the CHP unit in Scenario 1. The economic analysis, however, indicates the necessity of digestate treatment for AD systems to be profitable. Furthermore, the results of environmental analysis indicate the mitigation of about 93.4 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Scenario 1, while AD in Scenario 2 saves only 12 kilotonnes of GHG emissions. In other words, digestate treatment has a more significant environmental impact than the power production and its profitability from CHP unit. The reason could be attributed to the enormous consumption of energy during the production of chemical fertilizers where the digestate treatment process (scenario 1) offsets the utilization of chemical fertilizers in the agriculture industry.


Main Subjects

  1. Achinas, S., Martherus, D., Krooneman, J., & Euverink, G.J.W. (2019). Preliminary assessment of a biogas-based power plant from organic waste in the North Netherlands. Energies, 12(21), 4034.
  2. Adiloğlu S.I., Yu, C., Chen, R., Li, J.J., Drahansky, M., Paridah,, Moradbak, A., Mohamed, A., Owolabi, F., Li, H., Taiwo, A., Asniza, M., Abdul Khalid, S.H., Sharma, T., Dohare, N., Kumari, M., Singh, U.K., Khan, A.B., Borse, M.S., Patel, R., Paez, A., Howe, A., Goldschmidt, D., Corporation, C., Coates, J., & Reading, F. (2012). We are IntechOpen, the world’s leading publisher of open access books built by scientists, for scientists TOP 1 %. Intech i:13.
  3. Akbulut, A. (2012). Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from farm-scale biogas plant: Çiçekdaĝi{dotless} case study. Energy, 44(1), 381-390.
  4. Algapani, D.E., Qiao, W., Ricci, M., Bianchi, D.M. Wandera, S., Adani, F., & Dong, R. (2019). Bio-hydrogen and bio-methane production from food waste in a two-stage anaerobic digestion process with digestate recirculation. Renewable Energy, 130, 1108-1115.
  5. Ali, M.M., Ndongo, M., Bilal, B., Yetilmezsoy, K., Youm, I., & Bahramian, M. (2020). Mapping of biogas production potential from livestock manures and slaughterhouse waste: A case study for African countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256.
  6. Al-Rubaye, H., Karambelkar, S., Shivashankaraiah, M.M., & Smith, J.D. (2019). Process simulation of two-stage anaerobic digestion for methane production. Biofuels, 10(2), 181-191.
  7. Al Seadi, T., Rutz, D., Prassl, H., Kottner, M., Finsterwalder, T., & Silke Volk, R.J. (2008).
  8. Ammonia production: Moving towards maximum efficiency and lower GHG emissions. (2014).
  9. Batstone, D.J., & Keller, J. (2003). Industrial applications of the IWA anaerobic digestion model No. 1 (ADM1). Water Science and Technology, 47(12), 199-
  10. D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M., Huisingh, D., & Morone, P. (2021). A circular economy model based on biomethane: What are the opportunities for the municipality of Rome and beyond? Renewable Energy, 163, 1660-1672.
  11. David, C., Ganduri, J., Ragunathan, V., & Natarajan, R. (2021). Characterization of pellets manufactured from plant waste and farm waste residues blended with distillery sludge as a prospective alternative fuel source. Applied Nanoscience.
  12. de Baere, L. (2010). The Dranco Technology: A unique digestion technology for solid organic waste. Organic Waste Systems (OWS) Pub. Brussels, Beligium, 1-8.
  13. Demirel, B., & Scherer, P. (2011). Trace element requirements of agricultural biogas digesters during biological conversion of renewable biomass to methane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(3), 992-998.
  14. Ersek, K. (2021). 8 Advantages And Disadvantages Of Using Organic Fertilizer. Holganix
  15. Fernández, L. (2021). Global consumption of agricultural fertilizer by nutrient from 1965 to 2019. Statista.
  16. Flesch, T.K., Desjardins, R.L., & Worth, D. (2011). Fugitive methane emissions from an agricultural biodigester. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(9), 3927-3935.
  17. Gebrezgabher, S.A., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Prins, B.A.M., & Lansink, A.G.J.M.O. (2010). Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion—A case of Green power biogas plant in The Netherlands. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(2), 109-115.
  18. Havukainen, J., Uusitalo, V., Koistinen, K., Liikanen, M., & Horttanainen, M. (2018). Carbon footprint evaluation of biofertilizers (Open access). International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 13, 1050-1060.
  19. Herbes, C., Roth, U., Wulf, S., & Dahlin, J. (2020). Economic assessment of different biogas digestate processing technologies: A scenario-based analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120282.
  20. Hosseinpour, M., Norouzi, F., & Talebi, S. (2022). Analysis of biogas recovery from liquid dairy manure waste by anaerobic digestion. Journal of Renewable Energy and Environment (JREE), 10(2), 125-132.
  21. Houston, C., Gyamfi, S., & Whale, J. (2014). Evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy generation opportunities for small scale dairy farms: A case study in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Renewable Energy, 67, 20-29.
  22. Kaparaju, P., Ellegaard, L., & Angelidaki, I. (2009). Optimisation of biogas production from manure through serial digestion: Lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Bioresource Technology, 100(2), 701-709.
  23. Kaparaju, P, & Rintala, J. (2011). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by adopting anaerobic digestion technology on dairy, sow and pig farms in Finland. Renewable Energy, 36(1), 31-41.
  24. Karakurt, I., Aydin, G., & Aydiner, K. (2012). Sources and mitigation of methane emissions by sectors: A critical review. Renewable Energy, 39(1), 40-48.