# Anaerobic digestion and recycling of kitchen waste: a review

Qingchen Meng, Hongbo Liu, Haodong Zhang, Suyun Xu, Eric Lichtfouse, Yunbo Yun

► To cite this version:

Qingchen Meng, Hongbo Liu, Haodong Zhang, Suyun Xu, Eric Lichtfouse, et al., Anaerobic digestion and recycling of kitchen waste: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 2022, 20, pp.1745-1762.
10.1007/s10311-022-01408-x. hal-03590494

HAL Id: hal-03590494

https://hal.science/hal-03590494

Submitted on 27 Feb 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Anaerobic digestion and recycling of kitchen waste: a review

Qingchen Meng<fnref n="1" /> · Hongbo Liu<fnref n="1" /> · Haodong Zhang<fnref n="1" /> · Suyun Xu<fnref n="1" /> · Eric Lichtfouse<fnref n="2" /> · Yunbo Yun<fnref n="3" />

## Abstract

About 1.6 billion tons of food are wasted worldwide annually, calling for advanced methods to recycle food waste into energy and materials. Anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste allows the efficient recovery of energy, and induces low-carbon emissions. Nonetheless, digestion stability and biogas production are variables, due to dietary habits and seasonal diet variations that modify the components of kitchen waste. Another challenge is the recycling of the digestate, which could be partly solved by more efficient reactors of anaerobic digestion. Here, we review the bottlenecks of anaerobic digestion treatment of kitchen waste, with focus on components inhibition, and energy recovery from biogas slurry and residue. We provide rules for the optimal treatment of the organic fraction of kitchen waste, and guidelines to upgrade the anaerobic digestion processes. We propose a strategy using an anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor to improve anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste, and a model for the complete transformation and recycling of kitchen waste, based on component properties.

**Keywords** Kitchen waste · Anaerobic digestion · Component characteristics · Full quantitative utilization · Regulatory strategies

## Introduction

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, currently the global volume of food wastage amounts to about 1.6 billion tonnes per year, with carbon footprint estimated to be 3.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalents. Kitchen waste, a major component of municipal solid waste, includes food waste and peels (Ajay et al. 2021). These organic wastes are discharged from various sources

including households, schools, restaurants, and leftovers from food industries. Kitchen waste consists of raw food and deli food residues consisting of rice, meat, fruits, vegetables, bones, oil, and inert substances (Hafid et al. 2017).

The growth rate of kitchen waste is gradually increasing with the development progress of economic and population (O'Connor et al. 2021). According to the China Statistical Yearbook (2020), municipal solid waste production in China has been continuously increasing at a steady growth rate of 5–6%, with a total amount of 254.79 million tons in 2020, while kitchen waste production in 2020 is about 72.44–127.40 million tons in China, accounting for 30–50% of municipal solid waste (Wang et al. 2019). With the change in culinary habits and food consumption, the proportion of kitchen waste in municipal solid waste is increasing (Bolzonella et al. 2018). Statistics from the Shanghai Greening and Amenities Administration indicated that the average amount of wet waste, mainly kitchen waste, was 9453 tons per day in 2020, representing a 23.2% increase from the end of 2019 (Xiao et al. 2020). Since large amounts of kitchen waste could cause environmental problems and bring about the waste of resources, recycling and utilization of kitchen waste are necessary.

Kitchen waste treatment and disposal include landfilling, incineration, and resource recovery (Chiu and

<footnote>Qingchen Meng and Hongbo Liu have contributed equally to this work.</footnote>

<footnote>Hongbo Liu
liuhb@usst.edu.cn</footnote>

<footnote>Suyun Xu
xusy@usst.edu.cn</footnote>

<footnote>Eric Lichtfouse
eric.lichtfouse@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, 516, Jungong Road, Shanghai 200093, China</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Aix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, INRAE, CEREGE, 13100 Aix en Provence, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Hangzhou Water Technology Co., Ltd., 1600 Kejiguan Street, Hangzhou 310051, China</footnote>
Lo 2016). Disposal of municipal solid waste in China is mainly using sanitary landfill and incineration, with an environmentally sound treatment rate of over 90% (Jin et al. 2021). Although sanitary landfill is generally cheap, the high moisture content of kitchen waste can easily cause secondary pollution during transportation and disposal stages (Zhang et al. 2019b). The high cost of incineration with low-resource utilization rate is not a sustainable option for the management of kitchen waste (Li et al. 2015). Therefore, low-energy biological treatments are preferred in recent years for kitchen waste disposal (Wang et al. 2021b).

Three main processes are used to treat and dispose kitchen waste, i.e., anaerobic digestion, composting, and feedification (Ajay et al. 2021). Although composting is proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is adapted to decentralized kitchen waste treatments, the composting process produces malodorous gases such as ammonia ($NH_3$) and hydrogen sulfide ($H_2S$) (Yuan et al. 2015). Feeding kitchen waste to animals is not desirable neither, due to the protein homogeneous pollution, which is a potential risk for disease transmission from animals that consume animal-derived feed produced from the meat, bone, blood, and other animal tissues (Jin et al. 2021). Kitchen waste is a suitable substrate for anaerobic digestion since it is enriched in biomass, carbon, moisture and is generally biodegradable (Ajay et al. 2021). Anaerobic digestion also has a lower global warming footprint than composting and landfilling (Edwards et al. 2018). Moreover, anaerobic digestion is optimal to treat organic waste since it has a low life cycle cost in aspects of economic sustainability (Lee et al. 2020). Therefore, anaerobic digestion treatment of kitchen waste is promising in the context of fossil fuel exhaustion and the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Kitchen waste characteristics are changing with seasons and dietary habits, calling for suitable treatment and disposal adaptations. Due to differences in the components of kitchen waste, the application of simple conventional treatment processes is difficult to achieve the efficient utilization of organic components. Kitchen waste management has been reviewed before (Li et al. 2019), but there are few focus perspectives on the impact of kitchen waste components on anaerobic digestion performances and further use of the digestate. Therefore, this review focuses on inhibition effects of kitchen waste components on performances of the anaerobic digestion process and the challenges of digestate utilization after anaerobic digestion treatment. Then, a quantitative model aiming at the complete transformation and recycling of kitchen waste is proposed based on literature reviewing.

# Constraints of anaerobic digestion performances in kitchen waste disposal

Due to regional differences in dietary habits, the nature of kitchen waste components varies greatly. Table 1 shows the composition of kitchen waste in China by physical and chemical properties. Generally, kitchen waste contains organic matter, oil and grease, and salt. The anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste is vulnerable to ammonia inhibition and acidification. The presence of inert materials can also inhibit the performance of anaerobic digestion.

## Ammonia inhibition

Ammonia inhibition is a major factor influencing anaerobic digestion treatment of kitchen waste because a high concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) is generated during the digestion process (Li et al. 2018a). Free ammonia nitrogen ($NH_3$-N, FAN) and ionized ammonia ($NH_4^+$-N) are the two forms of reduced inorganic nitrogen that exist in equilibrium depending upon the pH and temperature of the aqueous phase (Mutegoa et al. 2020). Free ammonia nitrogen is considered to be the main contributor to ammonia inhibition (Tian et al. 2018). Excess ammonium causes an increase in pH and a higher proportion of free ammonia nitrogen, which could penetrate bacterial cell membranes, changing intracellular pH and affecting proton balance and ion concentration (Chen et al. 2008). In addition, high FAN/TAN ratios inhibit methanogenesis and thus decrease methane production (Capson-Tojo et al. 2020). The temperature could also change the concentration of free ammonia nitrogen. The thermophilic digestion operates typically at 50-55 °C, which is more likely to be inhibited than the mesophilic treatment below 35 °C (Jiang et al. 2019; Yenigün and Demirel 2013). To overcome ammonia inhibition, recent researches focus on the domestication of ammonia-tolerant methanogenic consortia (Tian et al. 2017). For example, domestication increased methanogen relative abundance and in turn enhanced ammonia tolerance and gas production up to 58 L/d during anaerobic digestion treatment of kitchen waste (Gao et al. 2015). In practical engineering, the complexity of the feedstock and the diversity of the process make the anaerobic digestion process particularly complicated. Exploring microbial community distribution and metabolic pathways can be one of the options to alleviate the impact of ammonia inhibition.

## Hydrolytic acidification

Since kitchen waste is biomass-rich, the hydrolytic acidification of soluble organic matter produces an excess of volatile
<table><caption>**Table 1** Composition of Chinese kitchen waste</caption><thead><tr><th>Protein (%TS)</th><th>Carbohydrate (%TS)</th><th>Lipid (%TS)</th><th>Na<sup>+</sup> (g/L)</th><th>Total Solids (%w)</th><th>Volatile Solids (%w)</th><th>C (%TS)</th><th>H (%TS)</th><th>O (%TS)</th><th>N (%TS)</th><th>S (%TS)</th><th>C/N (%TS)</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>13.20</td><td>73.60</td><td>3.40</td><td>NR</td><td>10.57</td><td>10.36</td><td>44.5</td><td>2.64</td><td>NR</td><td>2.6</td><td>NR</td><td>17.12</td><td>Li et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>3.07</td><td>82.10</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>82.30</td><td>81.20</td><td>47.80</td><td>4.72</td><td>27.3</td><td>5.71</td><td>0.87</td><td>8.37</td><td>Tian et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>15.26</td><td>89.14</td><td>25.39</td><td>1.84</td><td>22.74</td><td>20.27</td><td>50.30</td><td>7.10</td><td>29.1</td><td>2.70</td><td>NR</td><td>18.63</td><td>Zhang et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>25.10</td><td>22.64</td><td>46.70</td><td>6.60</td><td>44.2</td><td>2.20</td><td>0.30</td><td>21.23</td><td>Wang et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>16.88</td><td>21.60</td><td>33.82</td><td>NR</td><td>22.17</td><td>NR</td><td>54.05</td><td>6.59</td><td>35.72</td><td>2.87</td><td>0.27</td><td>13.98</td><td>Wang et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>14.97</td><td>46.43</td><td>30.27</td><td>NR</td><td>18.81</td><td>17.24</td><td>51.83</td><td>7.50</td><td>NR</td><td>2.75</td><td>0.50</td><td>18.85</td><td>Tian et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>14.90</td><td>52.30</td><td>28.10</td><td>NR</td><td>13.10</td><td>12.50</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>27.30</td><td>Chen et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>21.41</td><td>42.62</td><td>23.15</td><td>NR</td><td>29.26</td><td>26.78</td><td>51.16</td><td>8.52</td><td>29.27</td><td>2.08</td><td>NR</td><td>24.60</td><td>Wang et al. (2017a)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Protein, carbohydrate, lipid and VS were present in %TS based on TS; moisture and TS contents were present in %w based on wet weight; NR: not reported

fatty acids (VFAs) (Nikitina et al. 2020), which cannot be metabolized fast enough by methanogenic archaea. This leads to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids such as propionic acid, butyric acid, and valeric acid, and in turn causes microbial inhibition, pH decrease, and decline of biogas production (Wang et al. 2021a; Yun et al. 2018). To solve this issue, Wang et al. (2021c) proposed the addition of iron/ carbon in the acidification and methanogenesis phases to change the distribution of volatile fatty acids and enhance the methanogenic performance, with a methane yield of 475.47±4.68 mL/g volatile solids (VS), with the biodegradation rate up to 87.6%. Similarly, Wang et al. (2017b) used Na₂CO₃ as the initial buffer and 10 mol/L NaOH as the regulator to control pH in the acidification stage, thus improving the removal of total solids (TS) up to 44.8% and volative solids (VS) up to 58.7%. One of the difficulties in the practical application of anaerobic digestion for kitchen waste disposal is to consume the accumulated volatile fatty acids rapidly and attain a speedy recovery of methane production. Monitoring the changes in concentration of volatile fatty acids closely and using exogenous additives when necessary are of significant importance to maintain the stability of the anaerobic digestion system.

## Accumulation of greasy long-chain fatty acids

The accumulation of greasy long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) inhibits the biodegradation of kitchen waste (Bong et al. 2018). The accumulation of long-chain fatty acids can form a blocking layer on the cell surface, limit the access of microorganisms to nutrients, and thus lead to an imbalance in intracellular homeostasis (Elsamadony et al. 2021). In addition, the hydrophobic lipids can trap biogas and trigger biogas bubbling, which results in abundant foaming (Lienen et al. 2014). Due to differences in dietary habits, the oil content of kitchen waste varies in different regions, and the biogas production performance varies with concentrations of initial substrates. For example, Li et al. (2018d) found that the highest methane production from kitchen waste digestion was achieved at an extract/volatile solid ratio of 43% and an inoculum ratio of 0.7. Carbon-rich hydrated compounds tend to cause acidic inhibition, which will increase the amount of volatile fatty acids and limit the β-oxidation of long-chain fatty acids, thus induce their accumulation (Srivastava et al. 2021). Synergistic inhibition by different components is likely due to complicated compositions of kitchen waste. Therefore, changes of intermediate product concentrations should be monitored to achieve stable operation of biogas plants. It is possible to detect problems of the anaerobic digestion process in advance based on effective monitoring of the intermediate products and then improve the stability of process operation by adjusting process parameters such as feed load, temperature, pH, and hydraulic retention time
(HRT). On the other hand, the oil and grease compositions in kitchen waste could be converted into bio-diesel by bio-refining, which increases the commercial value of anaerobic digestion (Li et al. 2018c).

## Inhibition by high salt content

An appropriate salt concentration (Na⁺) facilitates the growth of methanogens and methane production from kitchen waste with anaerobic digestion disposal, yet the performance of anaerobic digestion could be inhibited when salt concentration in kitchen waste is high (Li et al. 2021). *Methanogens* are more sensitive to rise salt concentrations compared to other bacteria, resulting in inhibition of microbial growth and cell death by dehydration (Zhang et al. 2020). In addition, salt accumulation inhibits fermentation when the biogas slurry is recirculated, which is detrimental to the reuse of derived by-products after anaerobic digestion disposal. Therefore, efficient desalination techniques have been sought to avoid inhibition of high salt contents to the performance of anaerobic digestion. For example, Liu et al. (2019) added 2.5 g/L of glycine betaine into an anaerobe's reactor containing kitchen waste with a sodium content of 10 g/L and increased the methane production by 63.5%. The presence of high salt and oil may have a complex inhibitory effect on the anaerobic digestion system. However, it has also reported that adding 6 g/L of salt to the system can trigger positive effects when the concentration of oil is below 15 g/L (Liu and Jiang 2020). Liu et al. (2017) found that the coexistence of salt content at 6 g/L and oil content at 5 g/L in kitchen waste resulted in a steady increase in VFA content, which is beneficial to subsequent anaerobic digestion process. Overall, osmoprotectant dosage, diluting of salt concentration, and balancing the concentrations of salts and oils are essential measures to improve anaerobic digestion performances for kitchen waste disposal.

## Presence of inert materials

The mixing of inert materials such as plastic tableware and disposable chopsticks in kitchen waste is a real challenge to its anaerobic digestion disposal (Yates et al. 2021). Worldwide kitchen waste is still mixed with other domestic wastes in many cities, which results in large amounts of plastic materials and disposable chopsticks collected with food waste. Studies show contrasting results regarding the effect of plastics on anaerobic digestion. Zhang et al. (2021) found that mixing of high-density polyethylene and polystyrene with kitchen waste enhanced the rate of acidic fermentation and thus facilitated the generation of volatile fatty acids. In addition, the incorporation of plastic materials increased the relative abundance of dominant bacterial populations, which favored the increase of plastics biodegradation. However, the

presence of plastics inhibits methanogenic processes with rising inhibition effects increasing with surface area (Lim et al. 2018). Wei et al. (2019) found that toxic substances such as bisphenol-A polyvinyl chloride were released from the surface layer of microplastics, and that 90.6% of methanogens were inhibited at a microplastic concentration of 20 particles per g or total solids. Although solid materials can be biodegraded during anaerobic digestion, it is not recommended to use anaerobic digestion as a disposal route for inert materials in kitchen waste (Selke et al. 2015). Ideally, inert materials should be separated before fermentation and digestion, then treated by pyrolysis to generate energy that could be used to heat the anaerobic digestion system, achieving full utilization of the whole compositions of kitchen waste.

## Performance optimization of anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste

### Pre-treatments

Hydrolysis is considered to be the rate-limiting step of anaerobic digestion (Zou et al. 2020). The rate of hydrolysis depends on the nature and concentrations of organic fractions of kitchen waste. In general, hydrolysis is slowed down by high lignin content, high grease levels, coarse fibers, and large particle-size matter. Table 2 shows pre-treatment methods in common practice, including physical pre-treatments (such as ultrasonic, pyrolysis, hydrolysis, microwave, hyperbaric, freezing and mechanical grinding), chemical pre-treatments (such as acidation, alkalization, and oxidation), biological pre-treatments (such as enzymes and micro-oxygen), and combined pre-treatments (such as microwave-alkali, thermal-alkali/acid, and acid-enzymes). Yue et al. (2021) indicated that ultrasound and microwave pre-treatments slowed the accumulation of fatty acids in the system and thus enhanced substrate utilization by microorganisms. They also observed that the energy conversion using ultrasound pre-treatment was 18% higher than the microwave pre-treatment. Sun et al. (2020) used microwave-Ca(OH)₂ to pretreat kitchen waste seeking better pre-treatment effects and achieved enhanced protease activity with methane production capacity of 430.4 N mL CH₄/g VS.

Pre-treatment steps are necessary to accelerate the decomposition of resistant organic matter, reduce particle size, and disaggregate flocs, colloids, and cells and thus improve the efficient use of organic fraction of kitchen waste and enhance its solubility and methane production rate. Besides beneficial effects, pre-treatments have also drawbacks such as the consumption of more energy (Zhao et al. 2016). Therefore, appropriate biogas engineering
<table><caption>**Table 2** Pre-treatments of kitchen waste prior to anaerobic digestion and disposal</caption><thead><tr><th>Digestion substrates</th><th>Pre-treatments</th><th>Details/Parameters</th><th>Performances</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Kitchen waste (KW)</td><td>Separation screen</td><td>10-mm screen</td><td>Up to 98% biogas recovery</td><td>Alessi et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + sugarcane rind slurry (SR)</td><td>Microwave-Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub></td><td>4% Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub> coupled with microwave heating</td><td>Enhancing process stability, methane production of 430.4 mL/g VS</td><td>Sun et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Lactic acid</td><td>Lactobacillus casei</td><td>Promoting bacteriostatic and hydrolytic acidification effects</td><td>Zhao et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Ultrasound</td><td>28 kHz, 1600 W for 30 min</td><td>Enhancing the caproic acid production (207.80 mg COD/g) and reducing volatile fatty acids</td><td>Ma et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Micro-oxygen</td><td>Micro-oxygen at 20 mL</td><td>Cumulative methane yield 399.25 mL/g VS</td><td>Zhen et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Potassium ferrate</td><td>0.4 g/g total suspended solids</td><td>Maximal hydrogen yield 173.5 mL/g</td><td>Kuang et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Microwave</td><td>145 °C, 2.7 °C/min</td><td>SCOD/TCOD ratios increase from 0.38–0.44 to 0.42–0.51</td><td>Shahriari et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Hydrothermal</td><td>225°C, 4.5 h</td><td>Increasing methane yield up to 19%</td><td>Zhou et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)</td><td>Enzymatic pre-hydrolysis</td><td>Aspergillus niger fermentation at 50 °C and pH of 4.5</td><td>Methane potential increased by 220%</td><td>Mlaik et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Acid-enzymatic hydrolysis</td><td>Hydrochloric acid 1.5% (v/v), 85 U/mL glucomylase</td><td>Fermentable sugar production increase 2.04-fold with conversion efficiency of 86.8%</td><td>Hafid et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Kitchen waste</td><td rowspan="2">Thermal</td><td>90–120 °C for 15–30 min</td><td>Organic nitrogen in total nitrogen content decreases by 3.0–47.9%</td><td>Li et al. (2016b)</td></tr><tr><td>55–160 °C for 15–120 min</td><td>Improve the subsequent anaerobic digestion efficiency and longer treatment durations</td><td>Li et al. (2016a)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Thermo-alkali and enzymatic hydrolysis</td><td>1% KOH, 0 °C, 20 min 1.1% α-amylase, 0.4 amyl glucosidase</td><td>The glucose concentration increased by 300%, total soluble sugars yield increases by 75.6%</td><td>Vavouraki et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Thermo-acid and enzymatic hydrolysis</td><td>2% HCl, 80 °C, 80 min 0.1% α-amylase, amyl glucosidase</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + distillers' grain</td><td>Ethanol pre-fermentation</td><td>0.5% of the alcohol active dry yeast at 35 ± 2 °C for 24 h</td><td>Remain system stable; methane yield increased by 26.8%</td><td>Yu et al. (2018)</td></tr></tbody></table>

KW: kitchen waste. VS: volatile solids. VFA: volatile fatty acids. SR: sugarcane rind slurry. OFMSW: organic fraction of municipal solid waste, DG: distillers' grain; SCOD: dissolved chemical oxygen demand; TCOD: total chemical oxygen demand

should consider trade-off of the technical and economic benefits and drawbacks of pre-treatment methods. Typically, high energy consumption pre-treatments are not logically reasonable when energy consumption is higher than energy produced. Physical pre-treatments such as mechanical grinding, pyrolysis, and hydrolysis are widely used in engineering applications.

## Co-digestion of kitchen waste with other substrates

Kitchen waste is typically enriched in carbohydrates and the COD/NH₄-N ratio of 200/0.14–0.36 is much higher than the recommended value of 200/5 according to anaerobic digestion guidelines (COD: chemical oxygen demand) (Hassan et al. 2017; Odejobi et al. 2021). Consequently, too rapid degradation of organics in kitchen waste causes the
accumulation of volatile fatty acids, which may decrease the performance of anaerobic digestion. To solve this issue, co-digestion of kitchen waste with nitrogen-rich substrates such as municipal sludge, toilet water, animal manure, microalgae, and agricultural waste could balance the COD/NH₄-N ratio, promote nutrient balance, dilute toxic agents, and enhance the operational stability. Therefore, co-digestion is an attractive strategy to improve anaerobic digestion performance and increase multi-resource utilization efficiency. Table 3 presents examples of co-digestion processes for kitchen waste disposal. Zhao and Ruan (2013) increased the C/N ratio of kitchen waste to 15/1 by adding algae, and the biogas yield raised to 388.6 mL/g TS, which was 1.18-fold higher than without algae dosage. Li et al. (2020a) found that co-digestion of kitchen waste and fruit-vegetable waste effectively prevents the accumulation of volatile fatty acids and maintains the system's stability, leading to a maximum

methane production rate of 354.51 mL/g VS with a kitchen waste/fruit-vegetable waste ratio of 2/3.

Anaerobic co-digestion with several substrates is an effective approach for optimal resource utilization of kitchen waste, which increases biogas production and reduces CO₂ emissions (Guo and Dai 2017). Wu et al. (2020) even recovered phosphorus in the form of blue vivianite crystals with a purity of 83.1% during the co-digestion of waste activated sludge and kitchen waste. Co-digestion substrates for kitchen waste include municipal sludges, agricultural waste, livestock manure, brown water, and microalgae. In engineering applications, suitable nitrogen-rich materials can be selected for co-digestion according to the characteristics of local kitchen waste components to improve the maximum recycling of materials for the full utilization of regional waste. Further research should focus on deciphering synergistic mechanisms and improving the recovery of biogas and

<table><caption>**Table 3** Co-digestion of kitchen waste with other substrates</caption><thead><tr><th>Digestion substrates</th><th>Ratios</th><th>Digestion conditions</th><th>Performances of co-digestion</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Kitchen waste + fruit/vegetable waste</td><td>2:3(VS)</td><td>T=37 ± 0.5 °C, V=500 mL</td><td>Methane yield 354.51 mL/g VS</td><td>Li et al. (2020a)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + black water</td><td>2:1(VS)</td><td>T=35 °C, 120 rpm, V=500 mL</td><td>Hydrolysis efficiency 87 ± 8%, methane yield 449 ± 32 mL/g VS</td><td>Zhang et al. (2019a)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + corn stalk</td><td>4:1(VS)</td><td>T=37°C, V=10L</td><td>Bio-methane production increased by 41.55%</td><td>Zhou et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + algae</td><td>1:15(C/N)</td><td>T=55 ± 1 °C, 70 rpm</td><td>Biogas yield 388.6 mL/g TS</td><td>Zhao and Ruan (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + sewage sludge</td><td>50:50(VS)</td><td>T=37 ± 1 °C, stirring for 1 min after every 30 min at 50 rpm</td><td>Highest biodegradability up to 91%</td><td>Varsha et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + poultry manure</td><td>2:1(gm)</td><td>Constant loading rate 300 mg/L with 50 gm cow manure at 30 °C</td><td>Cumulative biogas yield 920 ± 11 mL, methane content 48%</td><td>Rahman et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + black water</td><td>1:1(TS)</td><td>T=38 ± 1 °C, V=500 mL</td><td>Cumulative methane yield 313.2 mL/g</td><td>Wang et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + wastewater sludge</td><td>1:1(TS)</td><td>T=35 ± 1 °C, total volume of the tank 300 m³</td><td>Methane content 43.6%</td><td>Antony and Murugavelh (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + rice straw</td><td>0.4:1(VS)</td><td>Water bath at 37 ± 1 °C, V=2.5 L</td><td>Methane content 45.9-70.0%</td><td>Ye et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + fruit/vegetable waste</td><td>8:5(VS)</td><td>T=35 ± 1 °C, 120 r/min, V=1.5L</td><td>Methane yield 725 mL CH₄/g VS</td><td>Wang et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + excess sludge</td><td>4:1(TS)</td><td>T=35 °C, V=1000 mL</td><td>COD, TS and VS degradation reach 49.7%, 37.8% and 30.0%</td><td>Han et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + cow manure</td><td>2.5:1(VS)</td><td>T=39 °C, 120 rpm, V=120 mL, OLR 1.07 ± 0.01 g COD/L/d</td><td>Methane production 441 mL CH₄/g VS</td><td>Xing et al. (2020a)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + cow manure</td><td>3.4:1(VS)</td><td>T=39 °C, V=0.7 L, domesticated sludge 550 d</td><td>Increasing the contents of enzyme and lignocellulose</td><td>Xing et al. (2020b)</td></tr><tr><td>Kitchen waste + floatable oil (FO)</td><td>25:1(Mass)</td><td>T=35°C, FO concentration 5-40 g/L</td><td>TS and VS reductions 70.7% ~ 86.1% and 87.5% ~ 91.4%, methane yield 846.9 mL/g VS</td><td>Meng et al. (2015)</td></tr></tbody></table>

VS volatile solids, TS total solids, COD chemical oxygen demand
nutrients. In addition, decentralized treatment models based on life cycle assessment are needed for rural areas.

## Additives

Additives play an important role in maintaining efficient methane production of biogas plants and long-term operational stability of the anaerobic digestion system. In recent years, studies have increasingly focused on investigating the gas production efficiency and process stability by adding additives to anaerobic digestion reactors (Cai et al. 2017). Table 4 shows the commonly used additives, including trace elements such as iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo) and tungsten (W), solid additives such as biochar, mineral, graphite, bentonite and clinoptilolite, and biological additives such as bactericide, gene bacteria, rumen bacteria and enzyme. Wu et al. (2015) found that the dosage of potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and manganese (Mn) accelerated the digestion of kitchen waste, with optimal micro-metal additions of 720.2 mg of K, 47.3 mg of Mg, and 11.6 mg of Mn per g of COD. Jiang et al. (2020b) found that when citrus biochar at 1.5 g/g VS was used as solid additive, the methanogenic lag time was reduced to 3.5 days and the specific methane production rate was increased by 33.0%. Jiang et al. (2020a) used bioaugmentation to increase the population of *archaea*, and the volumetric biogas production (VBP) increased 12-fold compared to the control group in optimal conditions of 0.25 g/(L-d) per three-day dosing. In addition, synergistic effect of multiple additive

materials is also one of the main research directions at present. Capson-Tojo et al. (2019) further obtained a higher methane yield of 1.75 L/day when a combined biochar-FeCl₃ additive was dosed.

It is necessary to understand the potential environmental risk of the dosage of additives clearly, with a focus on exploring the nutrient elements content in digestate products and reducing the accumulation of heavy metals (Yuan. et al. 2021). The optimal dosage should be optimized to ensure the stability of anaerobic digestion based on different fermentation substrates and process technologies, while reducing its negative impact on the environment. Carbon-based materials and enzymes are often used as additives to promote methane production due to its high efficiency and low environmental risk (Yuan et al. 2021). Reusing biogas residues as biochar additives promotes methane production and can be used as one of the disposal methods for full quantitative utilization. In particular, it is essential to introduce high-performance organisms and improve the number of specific microbial populations according to the digestive characteristics of different substrates, while strengthening the economic feasibility analysis to meet profit maximization.

## Process optimization

The improvement of anaerobic digestion performance can be achieved by multi-stage digestion, reactor optimization and process combination. Table 5 presents recent studies on optimizing the anaerobic digestion performance

<table><caption>**Table 4** Strategies of additive dosage to improve methane production</caption><thead><tr><td>Additive types</td><td>Digestion substrate</td><td>Dosages</td><td>Performances</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Carbon nutrition</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Biochar (10–100 g/L)—FeCl<sub>3</sub> (0.1–0.2 g/L)</td><td>Maximum methane production rates from 897 up to 1494 mL/day</td><td>Capson-Tojo et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Trace metals</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Ni 1 mg/L, Co 1 mg/L, Mo 0.2 mg/L, W 0.2 mg/kg, Se 0.2 mg/L,</td><td>Methane yield increased by 50%</td><td>Molaey et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Micro-materials</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Zero-valent iron 5 g/L</td><td>Enhancing the hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis pathway</td><td>Yuan et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Graphite</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Graphite 1 g/L</td><td>Biogas yield 1128.46 mL/g VS (increased by 19.57%)</td><td>Muratcobanoglu et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon-based materials</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Citrus peel biochar 1.5 g/g VS</td><td>Promoting DIET, methane yield 250.8 mL/g VS</td><td>Jiang et al. (2020b)</td></tr><tr><td>Biological additives</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Bioaugmentation seed 0.25 g/ (L-d)</td><td>The abundance of metanephric increased by 81%–86%, VBP increased 12 times</td><td>Jiang et al. (2020a)</td></tr><tr><td>Rumen bacteria</td><td>Cattle manure</td><td>Rumen fluid volume fraction 20%</td><td>Enhancing lignocellulose degradation and increasing methane production</td><td>Nagler et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Enzyme</td><td>Chicken manure</td><td>1% enzyme-treated</td><td>Improving hydrolysis, methane yield 460.8 mL/g VS</td><td>Bhatnagar et al. (2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

VS volatile solids, DIET direct interspecies electron transfer, VBP volumetric biogas production
<table><caption>**Table 5** Process optimization to improve anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste</caption><thead><tr><th>Optimization subjects</th><th>Digestion substrates</th><th>Configuration of reactors</th><th>Performances</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Start-up</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Continuous stirred tank reactor</td><td>Methane yield 217.28–325.92 mL/L</td><td>Feng et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Two-stage</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Psychrophilic</td><td>Higher substrate utilization, methane yield 0.80 m3 kg/VS</td><td>Rusin et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Two-stage</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>High-solid system</td><td>Improving methane production (113.4 mL/g VS) and removal efficiency (increased by 57.30%)</td><td>Li et al. (2018b)</td></tr><tr><td>Modeling approach</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Multi-criteria decision modeling</td><td>Multi-performance optimization, methane yield 544 ± 65 mL/g VS</td><td>Kesharwani and Bajpai (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Combined process</td><td>Effluent from kitchen waste</td><td>Combined process</td><td>High NH + 4-N and NO-2-N removal efficiency (88% and 96%)</td><td>Gao et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Mixer</td><td>Cow manure + municipal solid waste + kitchen waste</td><td>Pneu-mechanical mixers</td><td>Increasing methane production (by 123%) and enrich microbial community (by 3000%)</td><td>Mahmoodi-Eshkaftaki and Ebrahimi (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Reactor</td><td>Kitchen waste</td><td>Inclined plug flow reactor</td><td>Hydrogen production 72 mL/g VS</td><td>Jayalakshmi et al. (2009)</td></tr></tbody></table>

VS volatile solids

of kitchen waste disposal. For example, a two-stage anaerobic system provides optimal process stability, increased energy efficiency and better control over crucial parameters governing performance and energy recovery (Srisowmeya et al. 2020). The separate operation of the hydrolytic acidification and the methanogenesis phases in two reactors enhances the buffering capacity of the system and optimizes the microbial population structure. Li et al. (2018b) compared the performance of single-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste and showed that the two-stage digestion had higher process stability, leading to an increase in removal efficiency of 57.3%. The energy recovery rate from the two-stage digestion of kitchen waste is 20% higher than the one-stage digestion (De Gioannis et al. 2017). Rusin et al. (2021) optimized the process parameters for the two-stage operation and found that the utilization of the kitchen waste substrate was higher under psychrophilic conditions, with a 6.5% increase in biogas production compared to medium temperature. Mahmoodi-Eshkaftaki and Ebrahimi (2019) developed a new mechanical mixer, which increased methane production rate by 123% and enriched microbial community richness by 30 times. Nonetheless, due to the higher economic cost, two-stage processes are not cost-effectively applied in large scales. It is important to optimize the process parameters and develop economically viable processes.

## Recycling of the treated residue

### Constraints on digestive recovery

The treated residue from anaerobic digestion is enriched in nutrients, e.g., nitrogen/phosphorus/potassium (N/P/K) and trace elements such as Fe, Mn, Mg, and Zn (Liang et al. 2021). The treated residue after anaerobic digestion treatment is generally used in agriculture to enhance soil fertility. Yu et al. (2010) indicated that the application of concentrated digestion improved the quality of tomatoes, including increases in organic matter, and fruit contents of amino acids, protein and soluble sugar. Nonetheless, the treatment and discharge of increased total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) of the treated residue is still a major issue (Tan et al. 2021). The remains of digested manure (the treated residue) are nutrient-rich with excessive nitrogen and phosphorus potentially causing eutrophication of groundwater (Nkoa 2013). In addition, soil enzyme activity may be negatively affected by the properties of organic matter and the presence of organic pollutants in the treated residue, which could reduce the quality of agricultural soils (Kocyigit et al. 2017; Zheng et al. 2021). Pathogenic microorganisms and plant toxins in the treated residue can also pollute soils and contaminate humans and other animals via the food chain
(Arthurson 2009). There is a tendency to accumulate and enrich tetracyclines and antibiotic resistance genes in soil with the application period of treated residue (Lu et al. 2021). Zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), and other heavy metals are commonly found in treated residue, which may cause heavy metal pollution and affect the cultivation of edible crops (Lichtfouse et al. 2005). Duan et al. (2012) found that the long-term application of anaerobic digestion-treated pig manure residue in rice fields induced the As, Cd, Cu, and Zn accumulation in the tillage layer.

## Utilization pathway of kitchen waste

Graded utilization of digestion products is one of the effective disposal methods for kitchen waste. The treated residue can be divided into biogas slurry and biogas residue after solid-liquid separation. The biogas slurry is considered as a kind of potential organic fertilizer due to its high decomposition and facile absorption by crops. Algae can effectively absorb NH₄-N and phosphate in the biogas slurry as a source of nitrogen and phosphorus (Zhu et al. 2016). Li et al. (2020b) found that *Chlorella* could efficiently uptake nutrients from chicken manure and digestate biogas slurry, respectively, with the highest removal rates of 90.6% and 89.8% for TN. In addition, specific microbial populations are enriched in the biogas slurry, which not only dilutes the feed salt ion concentration, but also promotes anaerobic digestion performance after returning to the system. The biogas residue could be used as plant fertilizer, soil conditioner and biochar after treatment. Pyrolysis is an effective method for the sustainable treatment of biogas residues. The produced biochar is cheap, is stable, and can be applied to in situ soil remediation, in complement to the commercial activated carbon (Pan et al. 2020). Biochar with conductive surface alkaline can maintain pH balance of the system as well as contain a variety of organic functional groups that can effectively improve direct interspecies electron transfer (DIET) (Zhao et al., 2021). Alghashm et al. (2018) used biogas residue from the anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste to prepare biochar with pyrolysis at 900 °C. They found that the biochar had better P adsorption than other biochars and could be used as a soil conditioner for cabbage growth. Similarly, Kizito et al. (2019) prepared digestion-rich biochar that improved soil organic matter by 232%-514% and nutrients by 110%-230%. Biochar production from biogas residue is an effective method for subsequent anaerobic digestion treatment. Reusing it to the anaerobic digestion system not only promotes methane production, but also enables the full quantitative utilization of kitchen waste.

## Carbon neutrality in anaerobic digestion disposal of kitchen waste

### Energy supply chains for anaerobic digestion disposal of kitchen waste

The optimization of kitchen waste digestion for energy production is rapidly developing. Besides optimizing process parameters, front-end waste sorting and end-product recycling are also important measurements to reach carbon peaks and carbon neutrality. Life cycle and carbon footprint investigations show that unsatisfactory front-end sorting of kitchen waste causes waste of food resources and unnecessary greenhouse gases emissions during transportation and storage (Lee et al. 2020). Although the coupling of bio-refinery technology and biogas engineering has enabled the development of bio-diesel, there is still a lack of systematic industrial planning for the digested product, including the promotion of agricultural recycling of digested products, which hindered the rapid development of the industry (Sakarika et al. 2020).

Figure 1 demonstrates layout optimization of the energy supply chains for anaerobic digestion treatment of kitchen waste. It is crucial to well manage the sorting of kitchen waste at the front-end strictly because the source separation of wet and dry wastes is a prerequisite to achieve efficient utilization of kitchen waste. Incineration of the dry waste is an important manifestation to low-carbon economy. The mid-end treatment of kitchen waste contributes to carbon neutrality. The waste oil extracted by the grease extraction system can be converted to bio-diesel by transesterification. After oil-water separation, kitchen waste is converted into biogas for combined heat and power generation. Residual products after anaerobic digestion treatment of kitchen waste are converted into soil conditioners or organic liquid fertilizers reused in the eco-farmland. The energy chains enable the assessment of carbon emissions from land-use change and provide a reference achieving circular economy and low-carbon emission development.

### Reduction of carbon emissions by anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste

On the one hand, anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste reduces carbon emissions through the production of biogas and bio-diesel that could replace fossil fuels and is considered as a renewable, carbon-neutral source (Sarkar et al. 2021). Carbon emissions in anaerobic digestion treatment include consumption of external energy and materials during the collection and treatment process, and indirect
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1 Optimization of the energy supply chain layout for anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste based on source separation and carbon reduction</figcaption></figure>

carbon emissions such as methane leakage from the system. Here we evaluated carbon emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent with the net carbon emission, the system carbon emission, and the carbon reduction calculated by Eqs. (1), (2), and (3), respectively.

$$ \Delta E_{CO_2} = \Delta M_{emission} - \Delta N_{reduction} \quad (1) $$

$$ \Delta M_{emission} = C_{extra} + C_{indirect} \quad (2) $$

$$ \Delta N_{reduction} = W_{biogas} \cdot \rho + \alpha \cdot Q_{crude} \cdot \eta \quad (3) $$

where $\Delta E_{CO_2}$: the net carbon emission (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $\Delta M_{emission}$: the system carbon emission (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $\Delta N_{reduction}$: the carbon reduction (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $C_{extra}$: the additional carbon emissions (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $C_{indirect}$: the indirect carbon emissions (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $W_{biogas}$: the biogas outgoing power (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $\rho$: the carbon emission factor of external power transmission; $Q_{crude}$: the amount of crude oil (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹); $\alpha$: the efficiency of bio-diesel conversion; $\eta$: the carbon emission factor of diesel fuel.

According to the literature (Amon et al. 2021; Di et al. 2007; Uusitalo et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2020), the additional carbon emissions from anaerobic digestion ranged from 34.3 to 82.8 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹) with 70 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹) as a reference value in this study. The organic matter degradation rate of kitchen waste is 60%–80%, and the rate of biogas production per unit of organic matter from

degradation is 1m³·kg⁻¹ with 60–70% methane content. In this study, the organic matter degradation rate was 70% and the methane content was 65%. The methane leakage rate was 5% according to International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which resulted in 3.75 m³·t (2.36 kg·t⁻¹) of methane leakage, corresponding to 66.08 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹) of carbon emission. The calorific value of biogas was 6.02 kWh·m⁻³, and the heat efficiency of biogas utilization was 33.5%. Therefore, the external power of biogas was 232.93 kWh·t⁻¹. The carbon reduction factor for outgoing electricity was 0.88 kg·(kWh)⁻¹. The crude oil yield was 25 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹), and the bio-diesel conversion efficiency was 80%, with a diesel carbon emission factor of 3.1 kg·kg⁻¹. The final calculation results were $\Delta M_{emission}$ = 136.08 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹), $\Delta N_{reduction}$ = 220.98 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹), $\Delta E_{CO_2}$ = -84.90 (kg CO₂ equivalent·t⁻¹). Therefore, it has a high potential for carbon reduction and conforms to the sustainable development route.

## Anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor for better waste disposal

Anaerobic digestion has the advantages of efficient energy recovery and low-carbon emissions, which makes it the mainstream technology for the treatment of kitchen waste with lower global warming potential than aerobic composting and sanitary landfills (Edwards et al. 2018). However, the conventional anaerobic digestion process such as continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) still hold specific drawbacks,
such as a long start-up time in order to maintain high bio-
mass retention in the reactor and a deteriorating performance
with operational instability that limits the performance of the
anaerobic digestion process significantly (Lin et al. 2013;
Song et al. 2018). The CSTR process has the disadvantage
of high energy supplementation and low nutrient recovery
rate. The digested products are rich in nitrogen and phos-
phorus, which requires subsequent treatments (Maaz et al.
2019). One of the main challenges that the CSTR process
is currently facing is recovering the high concentration of
dissolved methane in the effluent. Dissolved methane can be
released into the environment, causing the accumulation of
greenhouse gases (Velasco et al. 2021). Therefore, to remedy
the deficiencies of conventional anaerobic digestion, it is
increasingly important to select high-performance processes
and optimize the reactor configuration constantly.

In recent years, there has been increasing interests in
applying anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) for
kitchen waste treatment. The shortcomings of conventional
anaerobic digestion are avoided by combining bioreactors
with microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes. Due to
the high mass transfer area of the membrane, it has a high
potential to recover dissolved methane (Dereli et al. 2012).
AnMBR separates the hydraulic retention time from the
solids retention time (SRT) and retains the total biomass
retention, which results in efficient removal of organic mat-
ter and high-quality effluent (Aslam et al. 2018). Membrane
separation processes can achieve selective separation or
direct recovery of nutrients (Ma et al. 2018). Compared to
conventional processes, AnMBR has the advantages of a

small carbon footprint, low sludge production rate, strong
resistance to inhibitory or toxic substrates, and the ability
to produce methane-rich biogas. In addition, AnMBR can
reduce net energy demand by almost 37.3% (Hu et al. 2016).
Therefore, the use of AnMBR brings about energy neutral-
ity and positive effects for anaerobic digestion treatment of
kitchen waste. Cheng et al. (2020) indicated that AnMBR
had a high methane yield of 570 mL/g VS for the long-
term anaerobic digestion operation of kitchen waste. Jeong
et al. (2017) used AnMBR to treat kitchen waste recycling
wastewater with a high COD removal rate of 98.3 ± 1.0%
and an average methane production of 0.21 ± 0.1 L CH4/g
CODremoved.

However, the issue of membrane fouling and expensive
membrane cost are two major constraints to the engineer-
ing application of AnMBR. In recent years, dynamic mem-
brane (DM) technology has been proposed as an effective
alternative to microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes
because of its high membrane flux, low membrane cost, and
convenient membrane cleaning properties (Hu et al. 2018).
Figure 2 shows the competitive advantages of anaerobic
dynamic membrane bioreactors (AnDMBR). AnDMBR
uses a more extensive pore size support material (non-woven
fabric, screen, industrial filter cloth, etc.) as the filtration
substrate. The support layer retains the suspended particles
and forms a biomass filtration layer on its surface, which
acts as a secondary membrane filtration layer (Hu et al.
2020). In addition, it is easy to use back-washing to control
membrane fouling because the cake layer consists mainly
of the sludge cake and microorganisms, and the dynamic

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Competitive advantages of the anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) for kitchen waste disposal compared to conventional anaerobic bioreactors (CSTR)</figcaption></figure>
membrane formation cycle is as short as 8 h (Ersahin et al. 2016). Although the combination of dynamic membrane technology with the anaerobic reactor is still in the early research stage, it has excellent treatment and economic benefits for kitchen waste disposal and can realize the recycling of resources. Therefore, AnDMBR can be used as one of the major options for the full quantitative utilization of kitchen waste in the future.

## A quantitative model for recycling kitchen waste

The bio-refinery-based kitchen waste conversion model can meet resource treatment requirements (Ren et al. 2018). However, the model does not involve the effect of non-organic matter fractions on performance of anaerobic digestion, nor does it address the resource utilization of the treated residue. Therefore, we propose a fully quantitative utilization model as shown in Fig. 3 after literature reviewing. Kitchen waste is firstly separated and pre-treated to separate oil from water efficiently, leaving solid organic phase and inert materials. Waste oils and grease are purified and transformed into bio-diesel, while water and organic components are recycled stepwise. Kitchen waste contains some non-organic component substances, such as plastics,

lunch boxes, chopsticks, and other inert substances, whose presence can affect the stability of the anaerobic digestion process. Pyrolysis is an excellent treatment method that effectively treats solid inert materials and generates thermal energy to power the anaerobic digestion system. This review suggests a novel anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) as an entire quantification reactor for organic slurries based on literature reviewing. Biogas is used as an energy source, and the membrane effluent is reused. The specific bacteria cultured with biogas slurry are introduced to the anaerobic digestion system to enhance the abundance and diversity of archaeal microorganisms. Biogas residue biochar can alleviate dynamic membrane pollution and enhance methanogenic performance and improve reactor performances. The full quantitative utilization model realizes the efficient resource utilization of the whole industrial chain from the front to the end of kitchen waste disposal, enhances the utilization efficiency of derived by-products of anaerobic digestion, and strives for carbon neutrality of kitchen waste disposal.

Researches on measurements to improve anaerobic digestion performance of kitchen waste (pre-treatments, co-digestion, dosing additives, process optimization) are relatively extensive. However, the digestion of kitchen waste in the future still needs to be strengthened from the following aspects: (i) it is necessary to establish a characterization system for kitchen waste disposal.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Proposed full quantitative model for recycling kitchen waste</figcaption></figure>
waste in the context of disposal adaptability; (ii) in order to realize the step transformation and utilization of kitchen waste components with low-carbon footprint, the mass flow of kitchen waste could be further introduced to the whole life cycle of kitchen waste from collection, transportation, and disposal to achieve the goal of “zero-carbon emission and zero pollution”; (iii) it is essential to fulfill the efficient conversion and full quantification of organic components in kitchen waste, as well as to promote the recovery of nutrients (N, P) from the digestion products of kitchen waste disposal; and (iv) studies on the synergistic inhibition effect of multiple components on the anaerobic digestion performance of kitchen waste disposal should be strengthened in future researches.

## Conclusion

Anaerobic digestion is an efficient method for kitchen waste treatment and disposal. Pre-treatments, co-digestion, dosing of additives, and process optimization are effective measures to alleviate the inhibition of hazardous kitchen waste components on the performance of the anaerobic digestion process. Resource utilization efficiency of the kitchen waste could be enhanced by selecting suitable process configurations and optimizing parameters according to the regional characteristics of the components of kitchen waste. The reuse of treated residue can increase the additional value of derived products from anaerobic digestion significantly and improve the commercial value of kitchen waste to biogas projects. Compared with the conventional anaerobic digestion technology, anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor can break the bottleneck of anaerobic digestion on kitchen waste disposal and is considered as an appealing alternative to kitchen waste treatment. In addition, this paper proposes a full quantitative utilization model based on literature reviewing, which forms a closed-loop resourcelization chain from the front to the end to achieve the fine management and full quantitative consumption of kitchen waste.

**Acknowledgements** This work was financially co-supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFD1100502-01) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52070130).

## Declarations

**Competing interest** The authors declare that there has been no competing financial interest or personal relationship conflict in this article.

## References

Ajay CM, Mohan S, Dinesha P (2021) Decentralized energy from portable biogas digesters using domestic kitchen waste: a

review. Waste Manag 125:10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.031

Alessi A, Lopes A, Muller W, Gerke F, Robra S, Bockreis A (2020) Mechanical separation of impurities in biowaste: Comparison of four different pretreatment systems. Waste Manag 106:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.03.006

Alghashm S, Qian S, Hua Y, Wu J, Zhang H, Chen W, Shen G (2018) Properties of biochar from anaerobically digested food waste and its potential use in phosphorus recovery and soil amendment. Sustainability 10(12):4692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124692

Amon B, Çinar G, Anderl M, Dragoni F, Kleinberger-Pierer M, Hörtenhuber S (2021) Inventory reporting of livestock emissions: the impact of the IPCC 1996 and 2006 Guidelines. Environ Res Lett 16(7):848. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0848

Antony D, Murugavelh S (2016) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and wastewater sludge: biogas-based power generation. Biofuels 9(2):157–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2016.1234195

Arthurson V (2009) Closing the global energy and nutrient cycles through application of biogas residue to agricultural land – potential benefits and drawback. Energies 2(2):226–242. https://doi.org/10.3390/en20200226

Aslam M, Ahmad R, Yasin M, Khan AL, Shahid MK, Hossain S, Khan Z, Jamil F, Rafiq S, Bilad MR, Kim J, Kumar G (2018) Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for biohydrogen production: recent developments, challenges and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 269:452–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.050

Bhatnagar N, Ryan D, Murphy R, Enright A-M (2020) Trace element supplementation and enzyme addition to enhance biogas production by anaerobic digestion of chicken litter. Energies 13(13):13133477. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133477

Bolzonella D, Battista F, Cavinato C, Gottardo M, Micolucci F, Lyberatos G, Pavan P (2018) Recent developments in biohythane production from household food wastes: a review. Bioresour Technol 257:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.02.092

Bong CPC, Lim LY, Lee CT, Klemeš JJ, Ho CS, Ho WS (2018) The characterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production during anaerobic digestion—a review. J Clean Prod 172:1545–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199

Cai Y, Hua B, Gao L, Hu Y, Yuan X, Cui Z, Zhu W, Wang X (2017) Effects of adding trace elements on rice straw anaerobic monodigestion: focus on changes in microbial communities using high-throughput sequencing. Bioresour Technol 239:454–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.071

Capson-Tojo G, Girard C, Rouez M, Crest M, Steyer J-P, Bernet N, Delgenès J-P, Escudié R (2019) Addition of biochar and trace elements in the form of industrial FeCl3 to stabilize anaerobic digestion of food waste: dosage optimization and long-term study. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 94(2):505–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5797

Capson-Tojo G, Moscoviz R, Astals S, Robles Á, Steyer JP (2020) Unraveling the literature chaos around free ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 117:109487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109487

Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresour Technol 99(10):4044–4064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057

Chen Y, Zhu R, Jiang Q, Sun T, Li M, Shi J, Chai H, Gu L, Ai H, He Q (2019) Effects of green waste participation on the co-digestion of residual sludge and kitchen waste: A preliminary study. Sci Total Environ 671:838–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.339

Cheng H, Li Y, Li L, Chen R, Li Y-Y (2020) Long-term operation performance and fouling behavior of a high-solid anaerobic
membrane bioreactor in treating food waste. Chem Eng J 394:124918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.124918

Chiu SLH, Lo IMC (2016) Reviewing the anaerobic digestion and co-digestion process of food waste from the perspectives on biogas production performance and environmental impacts. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(24):24435-24450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7159-2

De Gioannis G, Muntoni A, Polettini A, Pomi R, Spiga D (2017) Energy recovery from one- and two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste Manag 68:595-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.013

Dereli RK, Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, Ozturk I, Jeison D, van der Zee F, van Lier JB (2012) Potentials of anaerobic membrane bioreactors to overcome treatment limitations induced by industrial wastewaters. Bioresour Technol 122:160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.139

Di X, Nie Z, Yuan B, Zuo T (2007) Life cycle inventory for electricity generation in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):217-224. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.05.331

Duan G, Zhang H, Liu Y, Jia Y, Hu Y, Cheng W (2012) Long-term fertilization with pig-biogas residues results in heavy metal accumulation in paddy field and rice grains in Jiaxing of China. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 58(5):637-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2012.726597

Edwards J, Othman M, Crossin E, Burn S (2018) Life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of seven contemporary food waste management systems. Bioresour Technol 248(Pt A):156-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.070

Elsamadony M, Mostafa A, Fujii M, Tawfik A, Pant D (2021) Advances towards understanding long chain fatty acids-induced inhibition and overcoming strategies for efficient anaerobic digestion process. Water Res 190:116732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116732

Ersahin ME, Tao Y, Ozgun H, Spanjers H, van Lier JB (2016) Characteristics and role of dynamic membrane layer in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 113(4):761-771. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25841

Feng L, Kou H, Zhang X, Li R (2015) Rapid start-up of mesophilic dry anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste in a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR). Toxicol Environ Chem 97(3-4):326-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2015.1050185

Gao S, Zhao M, Chen Y, Yu M, Ruan W (2015) Tolerance response to in situ ammonia stress in a pilot-scale anaerobic digestion reactor for alleviating ammonia inhibition. Bioresour Technol 198:372-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.044

Gao S, Ying SuY, Xu J, Zhao Y (2020) Treatment of anaerobically digested effluent from kitchen waste using combined processes of anaerobic digestion-complete nitritation-ANAMMOX based on reflux dilution. Water Environ Res 92(2):202-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1186

Guo Q, Dai X (2017) Analysis on carbon dioxide emission reduction during the anaerobic synergetic digestion technology of sludge and kitchen waste: taking kitchen waste synergetic digestion project in Zhenjiang as an example. Waste Manag 69:360-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.033

Hafid HS, Nor'Aini AR, Mokhtar MN, Talib AT, Baharuddin AS, Umi Kalsom MS (2017) Over production of fermentable sugar for bioethanol production from carbohydrate-rich Malaysian food waste via sequential acid-enzymatic hydrolysis pretreatment. Waste Manag 67:95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.017

Han W-b, Zhao Y-z, Chen H (2016) Study on biogas production of joint anaerobic digestion with excess sludge and kitchen waste. Procedia Environ Sci 35:756-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.089

Hassan M, Ding W, Umar M, Rasool G (2017) Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of goose manure with alkali solubilized wheat straw: a case of carbon to nitrogen ratio and organic loading rate regression optimization. Bioresour Technol 230:24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.025

Hu Y, Wang XC, Tian W, Ngo HH, Chen R (2016) Towards stable operation of a dynamic membrane bioreactor (DMBR): operational process, behavior and retention effect of dynamic membrane. J Membr Sci 498:20-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.10.009

Hu Y, Wang XC, Ngo HH, Sun Q, Yang Y (2018) Anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) for wastewater treatment: a review. Bioresour Technol 247:1107-1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.101

Hu Y, Cheng H, Ji J, Li Y-Y (2020) A review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment with a focus on multicomponent biogas and membrane fouling control. Environ Sci: Water Res Technol 6(10):2641-2663. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ew00528b

Jayalakshmi S, Joseph K, Sukumaran V (2009) Bio hydrogen generation from kitchen waste in an inclined plug flow reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(21):8854-8858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.048

Jeong Y, Hermanowicz SW, Park C (2017) Treatment of food waste recycling wastewater using anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor for biogas production in mainstream treatment process of domestic wastewater. Water Res 123:86-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.06.049

Jiang Y, McAdam E, Zhang Y, Heaven S, Banks C, Longhurst P (2019) Ammonia inhibition and toxicity in anaerobic digestion: a critical review. J Water Process Eng 32:100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.100899

Jiang J, Li L, Li Y, He Y, Wang C, Sun Y (2020a) Bioaugmentation to enhance anaerobic digestion of food waste: Dosage, frequency and economic analysis. Bioresour Technol 307:123256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123256

Jiang Q, Chen Y, Yu S, Zhu R, Zhong C, Zou H, Gu L, He Q (2020b) Effects of citrus peel biochar on anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge and its direct interspecies electron transfer pathway study. Chem Eng J 398:125643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.125643

Jin C, Sun S, Yang D, Sheng W, Ma Y, He W, Li G (2021) Anaerobic digestion: an alternative resource treatment option for food waste in China. Sci Total Environ 779:146397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146397

Kesharwani N, Bajpai S (2020) Batch anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sludge: a multi criteria decision modelling (MCDM) approach. SN Appl Sci 2(8):1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03265-1

Kizito S, Luo H, Lu J, Bah H, Dong R, Wu S (2019) Role of nutrient-enriched biochar as a soil amendment during maize growth: exploring practical alternatives to recycle agricultural residuals and to reduce chemical fertilizer demand. Sustainability 11(11):3211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113211

Kocyigit R, Sartlan H, Oguz I (2017) Short-term effect of biogas residue on some soil enzymes activities under maize and clover growth in a semiarid ecosystem. Int J Agric Biol 19(03):459-464. https://doi.org/10.17957/ijab/15.0302

Kuang Y, Zhao J, Gao Y, Lu C, Luo S, Sun Y, Zhang D (2020) Enhanced hydrogen production from food waste dark fermentation by potassium ferrate pretreatment. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 27(15):18145-18156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08207-3

Lee E, Oliveira D, Oliveira L, Jimenez E, Kim Y, Wang M, Ergas SJ, Zhang Q (2020) Comparative environmental and economic life cycle assessment of high solids anaerobic co-digestion for
biosolids and organic waste management. Water Res 171:115443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115443

Li Y, Zhao X, Li Y, Li X (2015) Waste incineration industry and devel-
opment policies in China. Waste Manag 46:234–241. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.008

Li Y, Jin Y, Li J, Li H, Yu Z (2016a) Effects of thermal pretreatment on the biomethane yield and hydrolysis rate of kitchen waste. Appl Energy 172:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.080

Li Y, Jin Y, Li J, Nie Y (2016b) Enhanced nitrogen distribution and biomethanation of kitchen waste by thermal pre-treatment. Renew Energy 89:380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.029

Li D, Chen L, Liu X, Mei Z, Ren H, Cao Q, Yan Z (2017) Insta-
bility mechanisms and early warning indicators for mesophilic
anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste. Bioresour Technol 245(Pt
A):90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.098

Li L, Peng X, Wang X, Wu D (2018a) Anaerobic digestion of food waste: a review focusing on process stability. Bioresour Technol 248(Pt A):20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.012

Li W, Loh K-C, Zhang J, Tong YW, Dai Y (2018b) Two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste and horticultural waste in high-solid system. Appl Energy 209:400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.042

Li Y, Cui T, Wang Y, Ge X (2018c) Isolation and characterization of a novel bacteriumPseudomonas aeruginosafor biofertilizer production from kitchen waste oil. RSC Adv 8(73):41966–41975.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ra09779h

Li Y, Jin Y, Borrion A, Li J (2018d) Influence of feed/inoculum ratios and waste cooking oil content on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste Manag 73:156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.027

Li Y, Jin Y, Borrion A, Li H (2019) Current status of food waste gen-
eration and management in China. Bioresour Technol 273:654–
665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.083

Li P, Liu Z, Zhao M, Dai X, Ruan W (2020a) Evaluation of biogas performance and process stability from food, kitchen, and fruit/ vegetable waste by mono-, co-, and tridigestion. Energy Fuels 34(10):12734–12742. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c02598

Li Z, Wang G, Cao Z, Sui C, Zou J, Wang Z (2020b) Effects of different addition ratios of unsterilized chicken manure biogas slurry on Chlorella cultivation. Energy Sources Part A 2020:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1822464

Li XF, Hu TN, Huang JJ, Liu YY, Peng DP, Wu Z, Huang T (2021) Study of salt effect on semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of food waste with modified first-order model. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 701(1):012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/701/1/012032

Liang F, Xu L, Ji L, He Q, Wu L, Yan S (2021) A new approach for biogas slurry disposal by adopting CO2-rich biogas slurry as the flower fertilizer of Spathiphyllum: feasibility, cost and environmental pollution potential. Sci Total Environ 770:145333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145333

Lichtfouse E, Sappin-Didier V, Denaix L, Caria G, Metzger L, Amel-
lal-Nassr N, Schmidt J (2005) A 25-year record of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in soils amended with sewage sludges.
Environ Chem Lett 3(3):140–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10311-005-0010-5

Lienen T, Kleybocker A, Verstraete W, Wurdemann H (2014) Foam formation in a downstream digester of a cascade running full-scale biogas plant: influence of fat, oil and grease addition and abundance of the filamentous bacterium Microthrix parvicella. Bioresour Technol 153:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.017

Lim JW, Ting DWQ, Loh KC, Ge T, Tong YW (2018) Effects of dis-
posable plastics and wooden chopsticks on the anaerobic diges-
tion of food waste. Waste Manag 79:607–614. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2018.08.033

Lin H, Peng W, Zhang M, Chen J, Hong H, Zhang Y (2013) A review on anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Applications, membrane fouling and future perspectives. Desalination 314:169–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.01.019

Liu N, Jiang J (2020) Valorisation of food waste using salt to alleviate inhibition by animal fats and vegetable oils during anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenerg 143:105826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105826

Liu N, Wang Q, Jiang J, Zhang H (2017) Effects of salt and oil con-
centrations on volatile fatty acid generation in food waste fer-
mentation. Renewable Energy 113:1523–1528. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.042

Liu Y, Yuan Y, Wang W, Wachemo AC, Zou D (2019) Effects of add-
ing osmoprotectant on anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste with
high level of salinity. J Biosci Bioeng 128(6):723–732. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2019.05.011

Lu Y, Li J, Meng J, Zhang J, Zhuang H, Zheng G, Xie W, Ping L, Shan S (2021) Long-term biogas slurry application increased antibiotics accumulation and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) spread in agricultural soils with different properties. Sci Total Environ 759:143473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143473

Ma H, Guo Y, Qin Y, Li YY (2018) Nutrient recovery technologies integrated with energy recovery by waste biomass anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 269:520–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.114

Ma H, Lin Y, Jin Y, Gao M, Li H, Wang Q, Ge S, Cai L, Huang Z, Van Le Q, Xia C (2021) Effect of ultrasonic pretreatment on chain elongation of saccharified residue from food waste by anaerobic fermentation. Environ Pollut 268(Pt B):115936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115936

Maaz M, Yasin M, Aslam M, Kumar G, Atabani AE, Idrees M, Anjum F, Jamil F, Ahmad R, Khan AL, Lesage G, Heran M, Kim J (2019) Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: Novel configurations, fouling control and energy considerations. Bioresour Technol 283:358–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.061

Mahmoodi-Eshkaftaki M, Ebrahimi R (2019) Assess a new strategy and develop a new mixer to improve anaerobic microbial activities and clean biogas production. J Clean Prod 206:797–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.024

Meng Y, Li S, Yuan H, Zou D, Liu Y, Zhu B, Chufo A, Jaffar M, Li X (2015) Evaluating biomethane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of food waste and floatable oil (FO) skimmed from food waste. Bioresour Technol 185:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.036

Mlaik N, Khoufi S, Hamza M, Masmoudi MA, Sayadi S (2019) Enzy-
matic pre-hydrolysis of organic fraction of municipal solid waste
to enhance anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenerg 127:105286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105286

Molaey R, Bayrakdar A, Sürmeli RÖ, Çalli B (2018) Influence of trace element supplementation on anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: linking process stability to methanogenic population dynamics. J Clean Prod 181:794–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.264

Muratcobanoglu H, Gokcek OB, Mert RA, Zan R, Demirel S (2020) Simultaneous synergistic effects of graphite addition and co-digestion of food waste and cow manure: Biogas production and microbial community. Bioresour Technol 309:123365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123365

Mutegoa E, Hilonga A, Njau KN (2020) Approaches to the mitigation of ammonia inhibition during anaerobic digestion—a review.
Water Pract Technol 15(3):551-570. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2020.047

Nagler M, Kozjek K, Etemadi M, Insam H, Podmirseg SM (2019) Simple yet effective: Microbial and biotechnological benefits of rumen liquid addition to lignocellulose-degrading biogas plants. J Biotechnol 300:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2019.05.004

Nikitina AA, Ermoshin AA, Zhuravleva EA, Kovalev AA, Kovalev DA, Panchenko V, Litti YV (2020) Application of polyacrylamide flocculant for stabilization of anaerobic digestion under conditions of excessive accumulation of volatile fatty acids. Appl Sci 11(1):0100. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010100

Nkoa R (2013) Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 34(2):473-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0196-z

O'Connor J, Hoang SA, Bradney L, Dutta S, Xiong X, Tsang DCW, Ramadass K, Vinu A, Kirkham MB, Bolan NS (2021) A review on the valorisation of food waste as a nutrient source and soil amendment. Environ Pollut 272:115985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115985

Odejobi OJ, Ajala OO, Osuolale FN (2021) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and animal manure: a review of operating parameters, inhibiting factors, and pretreatment with their impact on process performance. Biomass Conver Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01626-3

Pan J, Gao B, Wang S, Guo K, Xu X, Yue Q (2020) Waste-to-resources: Green preparation of magnetic biogas residues-based biochar for effective heavy metal removals. Sci Total Environ 737:140283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140283

Rahman MA, Shahazi R, Nova SNB, Uddin MR, Hossain MS, Yousuf A (2021) Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion using kitchen waste and poultry manure as substrate-part 1: substrate ratio and effect of temperature. Biomass Convers Biorefin 2021:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01604-9

Ren Y, Yu M, Wu C, Wang Q, Gao M, Huang Q, Liu Y (2018) A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: research updates and tendencies. Bioresour Technol 247:1069-1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.109

Rusin J, Chamradova K, Basinas P (2021) Two-stage psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste: Comparison to conventional single-stage mesophilic process. Waste Manag 119:172-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.039

Sakarika M, Stavropoulos K, Kopsahelis A, Koutra E, Zafiri C, Kornaros M (2020) Two-stage anaerobic digestion harnesses more energy from the co-digestion of end-of-life dairy products with agro-industrial waste compared to the single-stage process. Biochem Eng J 153:107404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.107404

Sarkar O, Katakojwala R, Venkata Mohan S (2021) Low carbon hydrogen production from a waste-based biorefinery system and environmental sustainability assessment. Green Chem 23(1):561-574. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0gc03063e

Selke S, Auras R, Nguyen TA, Castro Aguirre E, Cheruvathur R, Liu Y (2015) Evaluation of biodegradation-promoting additives for plastics. Environ Sci Technol 49(6):3769-3777. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504258u

Shahriari H, Warith M, Hamoda M, Kennedy K (2013) Evaluation of single vs. staged mesophilic anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste with and without microwave pretreatment. J Environ Manag 125:74-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.042

Song X, Luo W, Hai FI, Price WE, Guo W, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD (2018) Resource recovery from wastewater by anaerobic membrane bioreactors: opportunities and challenges. Bioresour Technol 270:669-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.001

Srisowmeya G, Chakravarthy M, Nandhini Devi G (2020) Critical considerations in two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste—a

review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 119:109587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109587

Srivastava N, Srivastava M, Abd Allah EF, Singh R, Hashem A, Gupta VK (2021) Biohydrogen production using kitchen waste as the potential substrate: a sustainable approach. Chemosphere 271:129537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129537

Sun C, Xie Y, Hou F, Yu Q, Wang Y, Wang X, Miao C, Ma J, Ge W, Zhang T, Cao W, Zhao Y (2020) Enhancement on methane production and anaerobic digestion stability via co-digestion of microwave-Ca(OH)2 pretreated sugarcane rind slurry and kitchen waste. J Clean Prod 264:121731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121731

Tan F, Zhu Q, Guo X, He L (2021) Effects of digestate on biomass of a selected energy crop and soil properties. J Sci Food Agric 101(3):927-936. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10700

Tian H, Duan N, Lin C, Li X, Zhong M (2015) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and pig manure with different mixing ratios. J Biosci Bioeng 120(1):51-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.11.017

Tian H, Fotidis IA, Mancini E, Angelidaki I (2017) Different cultivation methods to acclimatise ammonia-tolerant methanogenic consortia. Bioresour Technol 232:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.034

Tian H, Karachalios P, Angelidaki I, Fotidis IA (2018) A proposed mechanism for the ammonia-LCFA synergetic co-inhibition effect on anaerobic digestion process. Chem Eng J 349:574-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.05.083

Uusitalo V, Väisänen S, Havukainen J, Havukainen M, Soukka R, Luoranen M (2014) Carbon footprint of renewable diesel from palm oil, jatropha oil and rapeseed oil. Renewable Energy 69:103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.020

Varsha SSV, Soomro AF, Baig ZT, Vuppaladadiyam AK, Murugavelh S, Antunes E (2020) Methane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of kitchen waste and sewage sludge: synergy study on cumulative methane production and biodegradability. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00884-x

Vavouraki AI, Volioti V, Kornaros ME (2014) Optimization of thermochemical pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of kitchen wastes. Waste Manag 34(1):167-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.027

Velasco P, Jegatheesan V, Thangavadivel K, Othman M, Zhang Y (2021) A focused review on membrane contactors for the recovery of dissolved methane from anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) effluents. Chemosphere 278:130448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130448

Wang L, Shen F, Yuan H, Zou D, Liu Y, Zhu B, Li X (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and fruit/vegetable waste: lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Waste Manag 34(12):2627-2633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.005

Wang C, Hong F, Lu Y, Li X, Liu H (2017a) Improved biogas production and biodegradation of oilseed rape straw by using kitchen waste and duck droppings as co-substrates in two-phase anaerobic digestion. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0182361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182361

Wang Y, Zang B, Gong X, Liu Y, Li G (2017b) Effects of pH buffering agents on the anaerobic hydrolysis acidification stage of kitchen waste. Waste Manag 68:603-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.041

Wang H, Xu J, Sheng L (2019) Study on the comprehensive utilization of city kitchen waste as a resource in China. Energy 173:263-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.081

Wang H, Li Z, Zhou X, Wang X, Zuo S (2020) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and blackwater for different practical application scenarios in decentralized scale: from wastes to energy recovery. Water 12(9):2556. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092556
Wang G, Li Q, Yuwen C, Gong K, Sheng L, Li Y, Xing Y, Chen R (2021a) Biochar triggers methanogenesis recovery of a severely acidified anaerobic digestion system via hydrogen-based syn- trophic pathway inhibition. Int J Hydrogen Energy 46(15):9666–9677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.115

Wang M, Wang G, Qian L, Yong X, Wang Y, An W, Jia H, Zhou J (2021b) Biochar production using biogas residue and their adsorption of ammonium nitrogen and chemical oxygen demand in wastewater. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s13399-021-01510-0

Wang P, Ye M, Cui Y, Xiao X, Zou D, Guo R, Liu Y (2021c) Enhance- ment of enzyme activities and VFA conversion by adding Fe/C in two-phase high-solid digestion of food waste: Performance and microbial community structure. Bioresour Technol 331:125004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125004

Wei W, Huang QS, Sun J, Wang JY, Wu SL, Ni BJ (2019) Polyvinyl chloride microplastics affect methane production from the anaer- obic digestion of waste activated sludge through leaching toxic Bisphenol-A. Environ Sci Technol 53(5):2509–2517. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07069

Wu L-J, Kobayashi T, Kuramochi H, Li Y-Y, Xu K-Q (2015) Effects of potassium, magnesium, zinc, and manganese addition on the anaerobic digestion of de-oiled grease trap waste. Arab J Sci Eng 41(7):2417–2427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1879-3

Wu Y, Cao J, Zhang T, Zhao J, Xu R, Zhang Q, Fang F, Luo J (2020) A novel approach of synchronously recovering phosphorus as vivianite and volatile fatty acids during waste activated sludge and food waste co-fermentation: performance and mechanisms. Bioresour Technol 305:123078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort ech.2020.123078

Xiao S, Dong H, Geng Y, Francisco MJ, Pan H, Wu F (2020) An overview of the municipal solid waste management modes and innovations in Shanghai. China Environ Sci Pol- lut Res Int 27(24):29943–29953. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-020-09398-5

Xing BS, Cao S, Han Y, Wen J, Zhang K, Wang XC (2020a) Sta- ble and high-rate anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cow manure: optimisation of start-up conditions. Bioresour Technol 307:123195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123195

Xing BS, Han Y, Cao S, Wang XC (2020b) Effects of long-term accl- matization on the optimum substrate mixture ratio and substrate to inoculum ratio in anaerobic codigestion of food waste and cow manure. Bioresour Technol 317:123994. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biortech.2020.123994

Yates J, Deeney M, Rolker HB, White H, Kalamatianou S, Kadiyala S (2021) A systematic scoping review of environmental, food security and health impacts of food system plastics. Nature Food 2(2):80–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00221-z

Ye J, Li D, Sun Y, Wang G, Yuan Z, Zhen F, Wang Y (2013) Improved biogas production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Manag 33(12):2653–2658. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.014

Yenigün O, Demirel B (2013) Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic diges- tion: a review. Process Biochem 48(5-6):901-911. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012

Yu F-B, Luo X-P, Song C-F, Zhang M-X, Shan S-D (2010) Concen- trated biogas slurry enhanced soil fertility and tomato quality. Acta Agricul Scand Section B Plant Soil Sci 60(3):262–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710902893385

Yu M, Gao M, Wang L, Ren Y, Wu C, Ma H, Wang Q (2018) Kinetic modelling and synergistic impact evaluation for the anaerobic co-digestion of distillers' grains and food waste by ethanol pre-fermentation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25(30):30281–30291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3027-6

Yu Q, Li H, Deng Z, Liao X, Liu S, Liu J (2020) Comparative assess- ment on two full-scale food waste treatment plants with different

anaerobic digestion processes. J Clean Prod 263:121625. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121625

Yuan J, Yang Q, Zhang Z, Li G, Luo W, Zhang D (2015) Use of addi- tive and pretreatment to control odors in municipal kitchen waste during aerobic composting. J Environ Sci (china) 37:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.03.028

Yuan T, Shi X, Sun R, Ko JH, Xu Q (2021) Simultaneous addition of biochar and zero-valent iron to improve food waste anaerobic digestion. J Clean Prod 278:123627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.123627

Yue L, Cheng J, Tang S, An X, Hua J, Dong H, Zhou J (2021) Ultra- sound and microwave pretreatments promote methane production potential and energy conversion during anaerobic digestion of lipid and food wastes. Energy 228:120525. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.energy.2021.120525

Yun S, Fang W, Du T, Hu X, Huang X, Li X, Zhang C, Lund PD (2018) Use of bio-based carbon materials for improving biogas yield and digestate stability. Energy 164:898–909. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.energy.2018.09.067

Zhang W, Zhang L, Li A (2015) Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by trace metal elements supplementation and reduced met- als dosage by green chelating agent [S, S]-EDDS via improving metals bioavailability. Water Res 84:266–277. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.watres.2015.07.010

Zhang L, Guo B, Zhang Q, Florentino A, Xu R, Zhang Y, Liu Y (2019a) Co-digestion of blackwater with kitchen organic waste: effects of mixing ratios and insights into microbial community. J Clean Prod 236:117703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 117703

Zhang X, Jiang C, Shan Y, Zhang X, Zhao Y (2019b) Influence of the void fraction and vertical gas vents on the waste decomposition in semi-aerobic landfill: Lab-scale tests. Waste Manag 100:28– 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.039

Zhang J, Zhang R, He Q, Ji B, Wang H, Yang K (2020) Adaptation to salinity: response of biogas production and microbial communi- ties in anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste to salinity stress. J Biosci Bioeng 130(2):173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc. 2019.11.011

Zhang L, Tsui TH, Loh KC, Dai Y, Tong YW (2021) Effects of plas- tics on reactor performance and microbial communities during acidogenic fermentation of food waste for production of volatile fatty acids. Bioresour Technol 337:125481. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biortech.2021.125481

Zhao M-X, Ruan W-Q (2013) Biogas performance from co-digestion of Taihu algae and kitchen wastes. Energy Convers Manag 75:21– 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.05.037

Zhao N, Yu M, Wang Q, Song N, Che S, Wu C, Sun X (2016) Effect of ethanol and lactic acid pre-fermentation on putrefactive bac- teria suppression, hydrolysis, and methanogenesis of food waste. Energy Fuels 30(4):2982–2989. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energ yfuels.5b02779

Zhao Z, Cao Y, Li S, Zhang Y (2021) Effects of biowaste-derived bio- char on the electron transport efficiency during anaerobic acid orange 7 removal. Bioresour Technol 320(Pt A):124295. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124295

Zhen X, Zhang X, Li S, Li M, Kang J (2020) Effect of micro-oxy- gen pretreatment on gas production characteristics of anaero- bic digestion of kitchen waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 22(6):1852–1858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01072-9

Zheng X, Dong J, Zhang W, Xiang J, Yin X, Han L (2021) Biogas residue biochar shifted bacterial community, mineralization, and molecular structure of organic carbon in a sandy loam Alfisol. GCB Bioenergy 13(5):838–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb. 12813

Zhou Q, Yuan H, Liu Y, Zou D, Zhu B, Chufo WA, Jaffar M, Li X (2015) Using feature objects aided strategy to evaluate the
biomethane production of food waste and corn stalk anaerobic
co-digestion. Bioresour Technol 179:611-614. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2014.12.014

Zhou Y, Engler N, Li Y, Nelles M (2020) The influence of hydrother-
mal operation on the surface properties of kitchen waste-derived
hydrochar: biogas upgrading. J Clean Prod 259:121020. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121020

Zhu L, Yan C, Li Z (2016) Microalgal cultivation with biogas slurry for biofuel production. Bioresour Technol 220:629-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.111

Zou L, Wan Y, Zhang S, Luo J, Li Y-Y, Liu J (2020) Valorization of food waste to multiple bio-energies based on enzymatic pretreatment: a critical review and blueprint for the future. J Clean Prod 277:124091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124091