Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Waste bio-reneries for the cassava starch industry: New trends and review MARK
of alternatives

Antonio Santos Sncheza, , Yuri Lopes Silvaa, Ricardo Arajo Kalidb, Eduardo Cohimc, Ednildo
Andrade Torresa
a
Federal University of Bahia, Brazil
b
Federal University of South Bahia, Brazil
c
State University of Feira de Santana, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The cassava starch industrial process generates very pollutant euents that need to be treated before discharge.
Bio-renery A series of successful experiences concerning the transformation of treatment ponds into covered lagoons have
Biogas been conducted in the last years in Brazil, proving that the use of anaerobic digesters could make the worldwide
Co-generation cassava industry more protable. The circular economy approach is used to add the balance of greenhouse
Cassava pulp waste
gases, water and land use to the assessment of a set of waste-to-resource alternatives for this particular
Circular economy
industrial process. The results point out to the convenience of upgrading the covered lagoon solution to a more
complete waste bio-renery that not only focus in electric power generation but also recovers process heat and
biofertilizers as byproducts. Co-generation is very attractive for the resource recovery of this agricultural
residue. It was also found that the higher eciency that characterizes co-generation leads to the lowest level of
greenhouse gases emissions.

1. Introduction
Cassava, tapioca or mandioca (Manihot esculenta) is a native plant
from South America that has a huge nutritional importance in the
tropics, where its root is one of the main sources of carbohydrates.
Besides the fact that only sugarcane and sugar beet have higher yield of
carbohydrates per hectare, cassava has the advantage of requiring a low
agrochemical input [13]. It is also one of the most drought-tolerant
crops and can be successfully grown on marginal soils. It constitutes a
valuable agricultural resource that can be either processed and
exported or consumed locally as a staple crop. In addition, it is a
common practice for local farmers to use Cassava hay and tubers for
animal feed, as it is done worldwide in the Tropics. But it is in times of
drought where the importance of this plant arises as it becomes a
survival crop for cattle and goats. Cassava can also be a source of
biofuel [46]. Its root stores starch which can be transformed into
glucose and then undergo alcoholic fermentation. One ton of cassava
roots can produce 188 l of ethanol [79] and the stillage that is
generated during the distillation process can undergo anaerobic
fermentation and produce biogas [1012]. However, given the im-
portance of this crop as a food source for humans and animals, its
direct use for bioenergy doesnt seem as a convenient option.
The rst cassava biomass residue is available on the elds after the
harvest. The roots are collected, carried and transported. Some stems
are used for the further propagation of the crop while the greatest part
of the green mass is left on the soil. There, it decomposes and some
nutrients return to the soil. A cassava plantation produces 200 kg of
usable dry mass for each ton of cassava roots that is harvested [13].
Cassava stalk can also undergo fast pyrolysis producing bio-oil [14], in
yields of around 63 wt% in a uidised-bed reactor [15] or around 70 wt
% in a free-fall reactor [16]. But this rst form of cassava residues
appears scattered among the cultivation elds, where there is no other
energy demand besides the harvest machinery. It could be pre-
processed and transported to facilities located in the villages for direct
burning or pyrolysation at the expense of the energy required in its
transportation. A second form of cassava residues appears in a more
concentrated form and where there is indeed an energy demand.
Cassava roots are transported to facilities and undergo two dierent
industrial processes with the aim to obtain two products: starch and
our. Both processes generate solid and liquid wastes that have
bioenergy potential, especially as sources of biogas. In addition, both
processes are energy-intense, in particular the processing of starch that
requires about 2208 MJ/ton of cassava roots in electricity and heat [7].
The production of our is generally performed by small facilities using

Correspondence to: PEI Polytechnic School, Federal University of Bahia, Rua Aristides Novis 2, CEP 40.210-630 Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
E-mail address: sanchezbahia@gmail.com (A.S. Snchez).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.007
Received 15 February 2016; Received in revised form 3 December 2016; Accepted 2 February 2017
Available online 16 February 2017
1364-0321/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.S. Snchez et al.
traditional techniques, especially in Africa and Northeast Brazil, and
the production of starch is much more mechanized and concentrated in
bigger facilities. Two types of biomass are produced in both cassava-to-
our and cassava-to-starch processes: solid residuals and a liquid
euent. While the conuence of energy needs and biomass in the same
place invites to think in any sort of bioenergy exploitation, other
options must also be considered for the residual biomass, aiming
byproducts with the highest added value [1723].
The main solid residuals produced are peel, husk and, in the case of
our processing, a small portion of the our that is wasted and dragged
during the cleaning of the facility. Cassava peel has interest as animal
feed [24] or can be mixed with dung to produce biogas. Cassava husk
can be used as an adsorbent for the removal of metal ions from natural
river water [25] or combusted in the form of pellets, either directly
(3694 kcal/kg) or after pyrolysation (5198 kcal/kg) [26]. In the starch
processing, it is produced a brous material called bagasse that
contains about 3050% starch on dry weight basis and can serve as a
substrate for microbial processes for the production of value added
products (organic acids, cellulose composites, compounds, mush-
rooms) [23]. Regarding energy uses of cassava bagasse, it can be
hydrolysated in order to produce bio-butanol using fed-batch fermen-
tation with gas stripping [27] or used as feedstock for microbial fuel
cells [28]. Bagasse from starch processing can also produce ethanol
through a rst enzymatic hydrolysis that converts cellulosic materials
and starch to fermentable sugar and further ethanol fermentation [29
33]. The liquid euent is constituted of water, starch, bers, minerals
and cyanogenic compounds. This waste stream, despite being diluted in
water, presents a signicant concentration of organic matter and
requires to be treated before being discharged into the nearby water-
courses. Some research has been conducted in the direction of
producing valuable products from this euent [1723]. The presence
of cyanogenics dierentiates cassava solid and liquid process waste
from other agricultural residues. In Brazil, the extraction of cyanogenic
compounds from cassava waste has already been tested for larvicides
against the Aedes aegypti mosquito [34] and aiming the utilization of
cyanine acetone against tumor cells [35].
2. An insight to the industrial process of cassava starch
Cassava starch (either raw or in its modied form) has several
industrial applications [3638] which creates a huge global business.
The raw material is cassava roots. The starch content in the roots varies
by region, climate, soil and cultivation, ranging from 20% to 32%, while
the water content in the roots is around 60% [39].
The industry of cassava starch is composed by a set of process
equipment that aims to conduct the selection and grinding of cassava
roots, extracting the starch from the plant bers and then performing
the drying and subsequent storage of the product. Following, Fig. 1
depicts a complete process diagram of the industrial processing of
cassava, from the arrival of the loaded trucks with the raw product to
the packaging and storing of the processed starch.
The process begins with the reception, weighing and unloading of
the roots. In a starch industrial plant, platforms weigh the loaded
trucks and then tilt to unload them with the use of a front hydraulic lift.
After the unload process, a vibrating screen removes the excess of earth
and impurities that comes with the roots. The product is then
transported to the hopper, where is stored and fed to the washing-
peeling system. Most of the water used in the washing-peeling process
is produced during a later industrial stage: the starch separation
process. The resulting euent is directed to the treatment lagoons
(aerated lagoons and settling ponds) while the peeled roots are
transported through a belt conveyor to the crushing stage. The crushing
is performed by a rotating cylinder that works at high speed, causing
the cells to break and subsequently release the starch. The result is a
ow of crushed pulp that must undergo another process that separates
the starch from the cassava bers using rotating conical sieves. After
1266
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
the sieves, a more starch-concentrated pulp continues the process
while the obtained bers are pumped to a tank that stores them
together with cassava husk and peels. This residual biomass is valuable
as can be used as animal fodder. Meanwhile, the starch-rich pulp
undergoes a further concentration stage. In this stage, the pulp is fed
from the top of the equipment and the centrifugal force separates a
solid concentrate, mostly starch, of a liquid euent, mostly water. The
resulting water is reused in the previous washing of the roots, which
greatly decreases the water consumption of the whole industrial
process. The remaining water within the solid starch must be removed.
To do so, a rst mechanical treatment is performed using hydrocyclone
or centrifugal dewatering equipment. The second treatment consists in
drying. A ash dryer is generally used. It consists in an air lter, a heat
exchanger, an exhaust fan and a pipe. In its nal stage, it has a dust
washing system, which decreases the quantity of starch that is lost
within the air. The resulting product is a starch with moisture content
from 12% to 14%, ready to be packed and commercialized.
3. The problem with cassava pulp euent
The obtaining of starch from cassava is very water intensive and
generates a polluting wastewater stream. Studies assessing the cassava
starch processing in Southern Asia have reported a consumption of
20 m3 of freshwater and a generation of 12 m3 of euent stream
(wastewater) for each ton of cassava processed [40] although other
studies for that region decrease that value to 11 m3 of freshwater
consumption for each ton of cassava processed [41]. Modern cassava-
to-starch factories in Southern Asia have reported water consumption
values per ton of 4.3 m3 [39]. Freshwater intake can be signicantly
reduced with the reuse of water within the process stages. State-of-the-
art values of 6 m3 of freshwater and 6.1 m3 of euent stream are
currently reached by the cassava starch industry in Brazil, as re-
searched by the authors. The processing of cassava in small-scale
traditional facilities makes a less intensive use of water. In such
facilities, peeling and washing of the raw material are generally not
an automated and continuous process and most of the euent is
produced during the pressing of the peeled roots, due to their own
water content. This yields a smaller amount of euent, however more
concentrated. Average values of 0.3 m3 of euent for each ton of
processed raw material have been reported for this type of facilities
[42]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the small-scale processing involves root
preparation (peeling and slicing), size reduction of the root through
grating, and then fermentation followed by drying. Water is squeezed
out of the fermented material to reduce moisture, generating a
polluting euent [43]. In semi-arid regions such as, for example,
Northeast Brazil (where the fermentation stage is not used), most of the
cassava processing occurs in small facilities that discharge this euent
without any treatment to the surroundings, thus polluting groundwater
and rivers. The particular hydrologic conditions of this region, with
intermittent rivers, aggravate this problem.
The rst eect in a water course after the discharge of the euent
would be a dramatic drop in the levels of oxygen, due to its high content
of organic compounds. The analysis of cassava euent available in
literature conrm high values of both biochemical and chemical oxygen
demand (BOD and COD), as shown on Table 1.
Besides the organic pollutants, cassava wastewater presents other
hazards that make this euent unique. Cassava toxicity arises from a
glycoside called linamarin present in every part of the plant which by
hydrolysis yields glucose, acetone and hydrocyanic acid [48]. The toxic
and polluting potential is aggravated by the fact that linamarin is very
soluble in water. Therefore, the discharge of the untreated euent from
cassava processing can pose a serious threat to the fauna from the
surrounding water courses. Linamarin and its methylated relative
lotaustralin can decompose to the toxic chemical hydrogen cyanide
through the enzymes and gut ora present in the intestines of shes or
other animals. The concentrations of organic matter and linamarin in
A.S. Snchez et al.
Fig. 1. Process diagram of the industrial processing of cassava to obtain starch.
the resulting euent are higher in the production of cassava our than
in the cassava-to-starch process, as the latter uses more water and the
pollutants are thus more diluted. Average values for Northeast Brazil
indicate 25 g/L of COD and 80 ppm for cassava-to-our euent and
50 g/L of COD and 140 ppm for cassava-to-our euent [42]. In
addition to the afore-mentioned contaminants, cassava pulp waste also
presents a relative high content of organic acids. Mean concentrations
of 1.4 g/L of Lactic acid and 0.35 mg/L of Acetic acid have been
reported in facilities that use around 11 m3 of water for each ton of
cassava processed [41].
Cassava factories that treat their euents use decant ponds to
remove settleable matter and turbidity and to give a sort of biological
treatment. The ponds can be upgraded to aerated lagoons for an
improved removal of the biochemical oxygen demand. However, decant
ponds and lagoons produce bad smell and require a considerable area
around the factories. Some factories as well as governmental agencies
are starting to consider the adoption of anaerobic treatment as the
most convenient option for this liquid stream. Anaerobic treatment is
eective in minimizing the cyanide toxicity of this wastewater [49,50].
Meanwhile, the current solution for the euent before its nal
discharge is the use of a series of open ponds. The retention time of
the wastewater in such a system is around 30 days [51]. The rst
lagoon serves as a decantation pond as the microbiological activity is
limited by the high level of cyanides and only around 30% of the DBO is
removed. In the subsequent ponds (anaerobic lagoon and facultative
pond), a substantial decrease in the DBO and DQO occurs. Overall,
such a system of lagoons can achieve eciencies of 95% in the removal
of DBO and DQO from the waste euent of cassava processing [51].
Table 1
Analytical values of the effluent from the cassava starch process.
(Paixo et al.) [44] (Colin et al.) [41]
pH 5.4
total Biochemical Oxygen Demand (g/L) 6.82
total Chemical Oxygen Demand (g/L) 10.36
total solids (g/L) 5.29
volatile solids (g/L) 4.3
Nitrogen (mg/L) 92
Cyanide (mg/L) 3.5 0.5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
4. Bio-digesters as a zero discharge, advanced biological
treatment solution for cassava pulp euent
The production of biogas from agricultural waste is based on two
well-dened technological routes: anaerobic bio-digestion and gasica-
tion, the latter consisting in the thermochemical conversion of biomass
(which has carbon in its composition) to a gaseous fuel product
[52,53]. Gasication technology is generally considered for solid
biomass waste with low humidity and high caloric value (for example
lignocellulosic materials). Bio-digestion is a more appropriate solution
for the energetic transformation of an aqueous organic euent such as
cassava pulp waste [54].
A waste bio-renery based on the bio-digestion of the process
wastewater aims to achieve a double objective. First, the mitigation of
an environmental problem as the anaerobic digestion neutralizes the
polluting potential of the euent. Secondly, signicant resources can
be recovered. Among them, the methane produced through the
anaerobic decomposition is especially valuable as can be used locally
for process heat and electricity [55]. Other researches address the
production of bio-hydrogen from cassava wastewater using dark
fermentation by hydrogen-producing bacteria [11,46,5659] although
this option requires more advanced and robust equipment to deal with
hydrogen. Therefore, this work will focus on the decomposition of the
organic euent into a biogas with a methane content ranging from
40% to 70%. The required technology to do so is mature and reliable
[6063]. It is based on a two-step anaerobic bio-digester. In an
anaerobic digestion where both acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria
are in the same chamber, the process has to deal with instabilities due
(Zhang et al.) [45] (Wang et al.) [46] (Sun et al.) [47]
5.3 0.7 4.23 0.02 4.04 0.01 4.71
1.68 0.75 6.3
4.8 0.81 24.58 0.29 70.42 10.50
3.8 1.305 19.39 0.03 45.9 0.6
1.2 0.56 14.12 0.11 39.5 0.5
105 16 288.96 12.34 304.15 524.5
2.3
1267
A.S. Snchez et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275

Regarding the volumetric composition of the biogas, previous

studies oer values in the range of 6981% of CH4 for a hydraulic
retention time (HRT) of 9.5 h [41] using horizontal ow lter reactors.
Other studies report values as low as 43% of CH4 and 41% CO2 [65]
which indicates insucient HRT in the bio-digester as probably more
hydrogen and carbon dioxide could have been reacted and produced
more methane (see the reaction in Fig. 2). The anaerobic reactor used
in this latter study was a semi-continuously fed stirred tank. One of the
highest methane contents reported for cassava pulp euent was 80%
[44], using also a semi-continuously fed stirred tank. More specically,
it used completely stirred tank reactor, at acidogenic phase, and a
hybrid reactor (up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket with xed bed) at
methanogenic phase.
Regarding the biogas yields for each m3 of cassava pulp euent that
is fed, experimental values range from 3.7 m3 biogas (9.5 h of HRT,
horizontal ow lter reactor [41]) to 0.7 m3 (for semi-continuously fed
stirred tank reactor [65] and up-ow multistage reactor with 6 h of
HRT [47]). Batch experiments with pre-treatment of the cassava
euent have yielded around 1 m3 biogas/m3 euent for both biologi-
cal pretreatment with high cellulose degradation [45] and pre-treat-
ment using thermal-dilute sulfuric acid hydrolysis [66]. These experi-
mental biogas yields found in the literature contrast with the values
that are currently been obtained in cassava-to-starch factories in Brazil
(Paran State). The technique used in these factories is called covered
lagoon. By covering the rst treatment pond with a polyethylene bag, a
huge bio-digester with a single chamber is created. The HRT is as high
Fig. 2. Main microbial processes involved in the anaerobic digestion of cassava waste-
as 10 days. Using this system, it has been reported values of 6.6 m3
water.
biogas/m3 euent with a volumetric composition of 55% CH4 and 35%
CO2 [64]. Apart from methane, the anaerobic decomposition of the
to high levels of acidity. To mitigate this problem, it is used two
starch processing euent produces bio-fertilizer as a valuable bypro-
reactors in series, physically separated, so each one processes one
duct. The anaerobic digestion eliminates the cyanide problem and
single biochemical phase: the rst one promotes the proliferation of
lowers the oxygen demand of the wastewater to acceptable levels,
acid-forming bacteria while the second one promotes the thriving of
sucient to be discharged directly to any watercourse in the surround-
methanobacteria. Some authors refer to the two phases as hydrolytic/
ings. Considerable amounts of macronutrients are dissolved within the
acidogenic phase (rst stage) and acetogenic/methanogenic phase
wastewater, which at this nal part of the process can be considered as
(second stage) [1]. In order to achieve the separation of the two
a liquid bio-fertilizer. Using this resource in the local agriculture seems
phases, several technical solutions can be applied such as membrane
as the best choice to recover the nutrients.
separation or pH and kinetic control. In addition, according to the
temperature, the process can be mesophilic (2545 C) or thermophilic
5. Waste bio-reneries solution for the cassava pulp euent:
(4557 C) with the latter producing faster gas yields with shorter
two alternatives
retention times (1014 days). For tropical climates in which cassava is
cultivated, thermophilic conditions can be achieved without adding
A waste bio-renery facility aims to process residual biomass into a
external heat sources. Cassava wastewater bio-digesters operating in
spectrum of bio-based products (food, feed, chemicals, materials) and
such conditions in Brazil have reported retention times of 10 days [64].
bioenergy (biofuels, power and/or heat) [6773]. For the industrial
Following, Fig. 2 shows the main microbial processes involved in the
process that is being considered, a basic waste bio-renery may consist
anaerobic digestion of cassava wastewater.
in a bio-digester that would benet cassava waste pulp. No pretreat-
As show in Fig. 2, the pre-treatment is used prior to the anaerobic
ment of the biomass input is considered. There are two waste bio-
digestion in order to accelerate the formation of neutral compounds
renery alternatives that can produce signicant amounts of energy
that can easily digested by acidogenic bacteria. The acidogenic phase
and fertilizer. Fig. 3 shows the rst one, based on two separated
itself can achieve a 90% reduction in the free cyanide concentration of
anaerobic chambers for acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria followed
the euent. The overall reduction of chemical oxygen demand and free
by a facility where the biogas is puried and burned for the production
cyanide can be as high as 96% and 98%, respectively [44]. If there is
of heat and electric power.
dierent organic waste available at the local, for example manure,
Biogas ows out of the last digestion chamber as well as the
mixing it with the cassava pulp wastewater could improve the
aqueous euent (liquid bio-fertilizer). The produced biogas is a
performance of the anaerobic digestion, as this would balance the
mixture of gases, with strong predominance of methane and carbon
nutrients and the pH and thus improve the methane yield [46,65] and
dioxide, but also with hydrogen sulde (H2S) and steam. Besides being
the quality of the resulting bio-fertilizer [1]. The pretreatment of the
a highly toxic gas, H2S is oxidized during combustion leading to the
euent before its input in the bio-digester is another interesting
formation of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is corrosive and causes rapid
option. This can be done with the use of batch bioreactors inoculated
over-acidication of the engine oils during combustion. Hydrogen
with a microbial consortium that pre-digest cellulose or lignin, which
sulde can also inactivate the oxidation catalysts used to reduce
are components that arent attractive to the acidogenic and methano-
formaldehyde emissions. Therefore, a biogas purication system is
genic bacteria in the bio-digester. Dierent strategies consider chemi-
required. Such a system can be as simple as two scrubbers that remove
cal, mechanical, thermal, ultrasonic and wet explosion pretreatment
H2S and water from biogas, which is the proposed case, or more
[1,56]. The increase in the methane yield has been reported to be as
advanced solutions that can upgrade the biogas to bio-methane
high as 97% using biological pretreatment [45] or 57% in the case of
containing more than 90% of methane [7481]. In the last stage of
chemical pretreatment [66].
our basic bio-renery, a biogas engine (a gas engine projected to burn

1268
A.S. Snchez et al.
Fig. 3. Alternative 1: CHP (combined heat and power) bio-renery for the treatment and resource recovery of cassava wastewater.
biogas with a content of around 50% of methane) transforms the
methane into carbon dioxide and carbon oxide in its combustion
chamber. The engine is coupled to an alternator that generates electric
power, which can be used locally to supply the industrial process. More
interestingly, as the temperature of the exhaust gas outlet is around
180 C, a heat exchanger placed after the engine can make use of the
hot exhaust gases and thus supply heat to the ash dryer. This solution
is known as CHP (Combined Heat and Power) or co-generation [82
85]. In colder climates part of this heat is diverted to the bio-digester in
order to increase the microbial activity, which is not necessary in the
tropical climates where most of cassava industrial plants are located.
However, there is a simpler waste-to-resource option for this
industrial process. The covered lagoon system consists in the
transformation of the rst (or rsts) treatment pond into a single
chamber bio-digester, through waterproong of the pond and covering
the surface with a high-density polyethylene blanket. The rest of the
treatment ponds can be deactivated. This technique is safe and reliable,
and is widely used in biogas facilities around the world [6063]. The
biogas that is produced is sent through a buried pipe to an ancillary
facility. There, the biogas can undergo cleanup (removal of H2S) prior
to be burned in the furnace that supplies heat for the ash dryer. In
Brazil (State of Paran) the wastewater is applied using irrigation
splinkers in the pasture that surrounds the factory. The euent of a
medium-size factory (200 t of starch/day) is enough to irrigate
annually 250 ha and add, for each ha and year, 350 kg of Nitrogen,
50 kg of Phosphate and 400 kg of Potassium. These values appear to be
common for Brazilian cassava factories that use covered lagoons [64].
Fertigation have allowed local pastures to increase the average head of
cattle per hectare from 2 to 10. As animal fodder (cassava pulp with
bers, husk and peels) is another valuable byproduct of the process,
some Brazilian cassava factories have partnered with cattle exploita-
tions and represent interesting examples of resource recovery from
agricultural waste. Fig. 4 illustrates a covered lagoon bio-renery.
The rst dierence between the two considered alternatives is the
bio-digester type. The two types of bio-digesters admit the use of a CHP
unit and yield a liquid euent that can be used for fertigation. A bio-
digester with separate chambers, as the one shown on Fig. 3, would be
more eective than the covered lagoon depicted on Fig. 4. Higher
eciency means a smaller bio-digester. As a disadvantage, this option
considers the building of a new two-chamber digester instead of just
covering an existing lagoon.
The second dierence between the alternatives is the intended use
for the biogas. Alternative 1 requires more initial investment for the
acquisition of the biogas engine, the electric equipment, the heat
exchanger and a more robust scrubber for the cleanup of the biogas.
In the rst alternative it is mandatory desulfurization to protect the
engine. Alternative 2 performs a more modest cleanup and requires
more basic equipment: basically a are system, a gas holder and a pipe
1269
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
Fig. 4. Alternative 2: Covered lagoon bio-renery for the treatment and resource
recovery of cassava wastewater.
to deliver the gas to the furnace [86].
In the next chapter a study will be conducted, consisting in the
contrast of these two alternatives. The study will assess the inputs
(resources consumed) and the outputs (valuable products and emis-
sions generated) using a circular economy approach.
6. Material and methods
The treatment ponds and the two waste bio-renery alternatives
will be compared. Alternative 1 considers a two chamber bio-digester
with the more sophisticated CHP, while Alternative 2 is a covered
lagoon with direct burning of biogas.
It is generally accepted that two-stage anaerobic digestion should
be more productive than one-stage process [8797]. For the same
hydraulic retention time (that is, the time during which the euent
remains within the digester) and for the same organic loading levels, a
two-stage digester has higher specic methane yield and recovers from
8% to 43% more energy than one-stage digester [88,90]. In other
words, a two-chamber digester is more ecient in the removal of
volatile solids and BOD/COD, recovering most of the biomethane
potential from the organic waste.
Both bio-digesters, the one with two chambers of Alternative 1 and
the covered lagoon of Alternative 2, will be considered as producing the
same yield of biogas with the same composition. The dierence lies in
the land needs of each type of digester. As the two-chamber bio-
digester is more eective, the euent requires less hydraulic retention
time to generate the same ow of methane (or to achieve the same
conversion rate of organic matter). Consequently, it is considered for
this assessment that a two-chamber bio-digester requires only 0.2 ha to
generate the same methane yield than a bigger single-chamber bio-
A.S. Snchez et al.
Table 2
Characteristics of the options for the treatment of the waste effluent.
Treatment ponds
Land use 1.5 ha
Type of bio-digester none
Methane yield per ton of cassava 19 Nm3 CH4
Gas use none
Liquid bio-fertilizer per ton of cassava none
digester with 0.6 ha, which is the area used by a covered lagoon system
in the Brazilian cassava starch factories [64]. Table 2 summarizes the
starting point of this comparison:
The references for the data (land use, methane yield, volume of
treated euent) are current values taken from Brazilian cassava starch
factories that are using covered lagoon systems. The productivity is
3.11 Nm3 of methane for each m3 of fed euent after a retention time
of 30 days. These factories use rewood to supply process heat for the
ash dryer, at a rate of 90 kg for each ton of processed cassava [64]. If
biogas is used to replace rewood the thermal eciency in the
production of process heat rises from 26.5% (wood furnace) to 45.2%
(CHP engine) or 50.9% (direct burning). The thermal needs of the
process of ash drying were evaluated as 405.5 MJ/ton of starch
processed. The NPK content of the bio-fertilizer is taken also from
data reported by Brazilian factories that irrigate pasture with the
euent. The production of bio-fertilizer was considered as 1.86 kg for
each to of cassava processed. In order to assess the emissions that
would be avoided with the use of this bio-fertilizer, it was regarded the
CO2 footprint of an equivalent chemical fertilizer, which is 3.6 kg CO2/
kg of N-based fertilizer [98].
The electricity consumption of the process was assessed as 70 kWh
for modern cassava starch factories with a process capacity of 200 t/
day. The electricity supplied from the grid has a carbon footprint that
has to be taken into consideration for the analysis. The CO2 content for
each kWh that is consumed from the grid varies from country to
country. For this assessment, the Brazilian electric grid will be
considered. This is one of the world's cleanest energy matrix [99],
whose composition was considered for this study as 2.5% coal, 8.5%
natural gas, 6.5% oil and the rest a mixture of renewable sources (69%
hydro, 7% sugarcane bagasse, 4.5% wind, 2% nuclear). The indirect
carbon emissions from these renewable sources were disregarded and
thus only the percentage due to coal, natural gas and oil has an impact
on the CO2 content of the grid's electricity.
Finally, for the CHP unit used on Alternative 1 it was considered a
GE's Jenbacher type 4 engine running on biogas, whose characteristics
are included in the following Table 3. It is considered that all the
available methane reacts to CO2 during its combustion. Therefore, for
every ton of cassava that is processed are generated 19 Nm3 of CH4 that
in the case of Alternative 1 produce 342 MJ of usable thermal energy
and 84.9 kWh of electricity while in the case of Alternative 2 produce
385.3 MJ of usable thermal energy.
7. Assessment through the circular economy approach and
results
Circular economy is opposed to linear economy and refers to an
adequate conguration of the industrial activity that aims to minimize
the generation of waste and pollution and return usable resources to
the environment. In other words, aims to close resource loops [100
102]. This concept, applied to the particular industrial process that is
being assessed implies, rst, that the biological nutrients that compose
the organic output must reenter the biosphere safely. Secondly, that the
emissions of greenhouse gases (methane and carbon dioxide) that are
generated during the process and congure its inorganic output must
be taken into consideration. The conversion of the raw material into a
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
Waste bio-renery: Alternative 1 Waste bio-renery: Alternative 2
0.2 ha 0.6 ha
two chambers single chamber (covered lagoon)
19 Nm3 CH4 19 Nm3 CH4
CHP (heat and power) direct burning (heat)
6.1 m3 6.1 m3
value-added industrialized product must be performed using minimal
external resources, measured in terms of water, fuel, electricity and
land usage. Following this approach, it is necessary to characterize the
resource consumption and the products/emissions generated for each
ton of raw material that is processed. The results are illustrated
graphically for each of the three considered options in the form of
process diagrams (Figs. 57) and a nal balance of resource consump-
tion and emissions is made in order to compare them.
Fig. 5 shows the inputs and outputs of a cassava-to-starch industrial
process that uses the rst option (treatment ponds) for the euent.
The reader would note that the process needs signicant amounts
of water, heat and electricity. Regarding water consumption, the reuse
of water within the process stages leads to consumption values of 6 m3
of freshwater and to the generation of 6.1 m3 of euent stream for each
ton of cassava that is processed. This wastewater stream enters the
treatment ponds system. From there, after decantation and biological
activity, 20% of the wastewater is evaporated and the rest is discharged
to the local natural water courses. The drying process requires heat to
reduce the moisture content in the starch from 30% to 14%, consuming
90 kg of rewood for each ton of raw material with a thermal eciency
of 26.5%. In addition, 70 kWh of electricity are required to power the
electric motors used in the process stages: washing, crushing, centri-
fugal dewatering, etc. The treatment of the euent through ponds also
requires electricity as input. It was considered an average of three
consecutive pumping processes: a rst one between the decantation
pond and an anaerobic lagoon, a further to a facultative lagoon, and a
third one that nally discharges the euent to natural water streams
such as a local river or lake. No aerators were considered for the
treatment lagoons. Considering 0.1 kWh/m3 for each pumping, the
total energy consumption is 0.3 kWh for each m3 of treated euent.
Considering that 6.1 m3 of euent for each ton of cassava that is
processed, the energy requirement in the treatment lagoons results in
1.8 kWh/ton of cassava input.
Following, the substitution of the treatment ponds by a waste bio-
renery is proposed. As said, two alternatives are available. Both of
them use only one pumping for the treated euent, which is later
applied as fertigation water. Note that due to the use of closed bio-
digesters, no loss of wastewater due to evaporation is considered. For
Alternative 1, Fig. 6 shows the new conguration of inputs and
outputs, some of which (heat and electric power) are reused in the
industrial process.
Alternative 2 considers a covered lagoon and direct burning of the
biogas for process heat. Fig. 7 shows the new conguration of inputs
and outputs:
7.1. Energy
Alternative 1: The use of a biogas-fueled CHP produces enough
electricity to supply the process needs and the irrigation using waste-
water. A surplus of 14.4 kWh is generated and can be sold to the
electric grid. 342 MJ of heat are recovered, which correspond to 84% of
the process heat needed. Still 3.8 kg of rewood are needed for each ton
of cassava that is processed.
Alternative 2: No electricity is produced, but the direct burning of
biogas is able to supply all the process heat that is needed. However,
1270
A.S. Snchez et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275

Table 3
Values of the parameters used in the calculation.

Parameter Value Description

CHP biogas unit el 40.4% Electric efficiency of the engine, at 1800 rpm (60 Hz) and emissions of 500 mg/m3N of NOX
th 45.2% Thermal efficiency of the engine, at 1800 rpm (60 Hz) and emissions of 500 mg/m3N of NOX
tot 85.6% Total efficiency of the CHP gas engine: overall efficiency in the conversion of biogas calorific value
to electric and thermal power
Texhaust 180 C Exhaust gas outlet temperature
Level of incomplete 0% It is considered that all the methane is combusted (no incomplete combustion that would produce
combustion: CO)

Biogas CH4: 55.4% Volumetric composition of the biogas produced in the bio-digester
CO2: 35.0%
CH4: 19 Nm3 Biogas yield per ton of cassava processed
CO2: 12 Nm3
CVCH4 39.82 MJ/Nm3 Calorific value of methane

Firewood CVwood 17 MJ/kg Calorific value of wood with 10% moisture and 45% carbon contents
CO2 content, wood 0.068 kg CO2 produced in the combustion of 1 kg of wood

Electricity from the grid CO2 content, coal 0.9843 kg/kWh Composition of the electricity matrix: 2.5% coal, 8.5% natural gas, 6.5% oil
CO2 content, gas 0.5488 kg/kWh No CO content in the 82.5% remaining (hydro, sugarcane bagasse, wind, nuclear)
TOTAL CO emissions=0.1205 kg/kWh
2
CO2 content, oil 0.7575 kg/kWh 2

Fig. 5. Inputs and outputs of the process, using a lagoon system to treat the euent.

Fig. 7. Inputs and outputs of the process, using a covered lagoon bio-renery to treat the
euent and recover resources.

euent (no losses due to evaporation) and the macronutrients

dissolved within it: 1.86 kg for each to of cassava processed containing
43.5% Nitrogen, 6.4% Phosphorous and 51.1% Potassium.

7.3. Greenhouse gas balance

As this particular industrial process has a negative footprint of

Fig. 6. Inputs and outputs of the process, using a CHP waste bio-renery to treat the
euent and recover resources.
rewood is still necessary to maintain the pilot ame. In total, 95% of
heat process demand is supplied with biogas and the remaining 5% is
still supplied with rewood.
7.2. Fertilizers
By using treatment ponds, the wastewater is discharged in the
watercourses without agricultural use. Around 20% of the wastewater
is evaporated from de open ponds. The nutrients within the wastewater
are lost and can even lead to eutrophication of the watercourses. In
contrast, both alternatives of waste bio-renery use all the stream of
greenhouse gases, a circular economy approach must also consider the
minimization of those emissions. Regarding the balance of greenhouse
gases, only the industrial process was considered in this study. A more
extent discussion could be done by considering the carbon sequestra-
tion capacity of cassava plantations, which act as a natural sink, minus
the equivalent CO2 related to the fertilizers and fuel consumption
during its cultivation and further transport to the processing plant. The
more simplied approach considers the industrial process as a source
of carbon dioxide associated to both the electricity and fuel consump-
tions. The main fuel used as heat source for the ash dryer is wood.
Regarding the CO2 footprint of the electricity, it was considered for this
example the Brazilian energetic matrix, which has a strong predomi-
nance of hydroelectricity. The cassava-to-starch process also generates
methane through the decomposition of organic matter in the treatment
ponds. This methane is liberated to the atmosphere, where it has a brief
but intense role as a greenhouse gas: it traps up to 100 times more heat
in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide within a 5 year period, but lasts
about a decade. A waste bio-renery would have the eect of decom-

1271
A.S. Snchez et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275

Table 4 valuable resource for agriculture. The controlled decomposition of the

Greenhouse gas balance for each ton of cassava processed. organic matter and further combustion of the biogas avoids the
emission of methane to the atmosphere. By burning this biogas,
Description Amount CO2 CH4
content content methane is transformed into carbon dioxide and a new energy source
(kg) (kg) is created, having immediate use in the starch factory. A waste bio-
renery for this industrial process gives adequate treatment to the
1. Without the waste bio-renery/using treatment ponds
wastewater and seems convenient in terms of lesser land use and
Electricity input 82.5% renewable 71.8 kWh 8.652
8.5% natural gas emissions, as well as in terms of energy and nutrients recovery. At this
2.5% coal point, a circular economy approach that conducts a balance of
6.5% oil resources can assist in indicating which alternative for the biogas
Heat input wood 90 kg 6.120 makes the cassava-to-starch process more sustainable. This approach
Biogas output open 31 Nm3 22.176 12.749
can be complementary to any economic viability study. Results point
decomposition of
organic matter in out to the use of CHP units as the most convenient technology for the
the ponds waste bio-renery. The generation of electricity using co-generation
TOTAL of emissions (kg) 36.948 12.749 appears as the most ecient way to obtain the most potential from
waste. Such system can supply 84% of the heat needs of the process and
2. With the waste bio-renery/using bio-digesters/CHP
(Electricity input) 82.5% renewable (70.5 kWh) (8.495) generate an annual surplus of 2.2 GWh of energy that can be exported
8.5% natural gas to the grid, for a cassava-to-starch facility with a capacity of 200 t/day.
2.5% coal While the covered lagoon alternative focus on the direct burning of the
6.5% oil biogas, co-generation produces in addition to heat a high exergy
(Electricity output) biogas (84.9 kWh) (22.368)
resource of economic value whose surplus can be easily commercia-
Net electricity Input minus 14,4 kWh 12.706
consumption output lized. Fig. 8 summarizes the resource balance for the three considered
Heat input (84%) biogas 342 MJ 26.109 options:
Heat input (16%) wood 3.8 kg 0.258

Bio-fertilizer CO2 emissions 0.81 kg N 6.696 8. Conclusion

output avoided 0.12 kg P
0.93 kg K
TOTAL of emissions (kg) 32.377 0
The euent of the cassava-to-starch process presents a good
potential of resource recovery. The covered lagoon-type biodigester is
3. With the waste bio-renery/using bio-digesters/covered lagoon a mature technology that gives an appropriate treatment to the euent
Electricity 82.5% renewable 70.5 kWh 8.495 and generates biogas and bio-fertilizers. The results of this study point
input 8.5% natural gas
out lead to the convenience of upgrading this system to waste bio-
2.5% coal
6.5% oil reneries that focus in electric power generation and recover process
Heat input biogas 385.3 MJ 54.473 heat and bio-fertilizers as byproducts.
(95%) Anaerobic digestion, preferably performed in a two-stage digester,
Heat input wood 0.5 kg 0.034 is the most appropriate treatment for this agro-industrial euent and a
(5%)
combined heat and power system is the most ecient way to recover
Bio- CO2 emissions avoided 0.81 kg N 6.696
fertilizer 0.12 kg P most of its energy potential.
output 0.93 kg K While the covered lagoon alternative focus on the direct burning of
TOTAL of emissions (kg) 56.306 0 the biogas, co-generation produces in addition to heat a valuable
resource whose surplus can be easily commercialized. The higher
eciency that characterizes co-generation leads to a lower level of
posing the organic matter in a controlled way, capturing the methane
greenhouse gases emissions. Overall, the circular economy approach
production and transforming it into carbon dioxide through combus-
resulted useful by adding the balance of greenhouse gases, water and
tion in an engine [103107]. Finally, the production of bio-fertilizer as
land use to the assessment of a set of waste-to-resource alternatives.
a byproduct would avoid the CO2 emissions required to produce the
Future directions for technological development point to more
equivalent synthetic fertilizer. Table 4 summarizes this assessment.
complex waste bio-reneries capable of generating higher value-added
products. The most promising research paths are the production of
7.4. Land use bioplastics and polymers from starch and the extraction of cyanogenic
compounds from cassava residues. Solid waste from the process, such
The land needs are signicantly reduced for the case of a waste bio-
renery. For a cassava-to-starch plant with a process capacity of 200 t/
day, the land use options are the construction of 1.5 ha of wastewater
ponds, the commitment of 0.2 ha for the bio-digesters and biogas
infrastructure or 0.6 ha for the covered lagoon alternative. In the rst
alternative, the volume of a two-chamber bio-digester can be approx-
imate to 4.5 m3 for each ton of cassava processed per day [41]. The
land occupation of the wastewater pond system could be higher than
the considered 1.5 ha (reference values used in Brazil), depending on
its eciency and the quality required for the nal wastewater. In
Thailand, cassava factories with a capacity of 250 t/day have reported
waste stabilization pond systems with 36 ha [51].

7.5. Final balance of resource use and emissions

Fig. 8. Resource balance for the three considered options (values are for each ton of
The use of a waste bio-renery turns the wastewater stream into a cassava that is processed).

1272
A.S. Snchez et al.
as peels and husk, can be diverged before entering the euent stream
and used as a feedstock for other forms of energy conversion dierent
than biogas, such as lignocellulosic ethanol and microbial cells.
References
[1] Okudoh V, Trois C, Workneh T, Schmidt S. The potential of cassava biomass and
applicable technologies for sustainable biogas production in South Africa: a
review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;39:103552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2014.07.142.
[2] Byju G, Nedunchezhiyan M, Hridya AC, Soman S. Site-specic nutrient manage-
ment for cassava in southern India. Agron J 2016;108:83040. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2134/agronj2015.0263.
[3] Ezui KS, Franke AC, Mando A, Ahiabor BDK, Tetteh FM, Sogbedji J, et al.
Fertiliser requirements for balanced nutrition of cassava across eight locations in
West Africa. Field Crops Res 2016;185:6978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.fcr.2015.10.005.
[4] Dai D, Hu Z, Pu G, Li H, Wang C. Energy eciency and potentials of cassava fuel
ethanol in Guangxi region of China. Energ Convers Manag 2006;47(13
14):168699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2005.10.019.
[5] Le LT, van Ierland EC, Zhu X, Wesseler J. Energy and greenhouse gas balances of
cassava-based ethanol. Biomass- Bioenerg 2013;51:12535. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.01.011.
[6] Liu B, Wang F, Zhang B, Bi J. Energy balance and GHG emissions of cassava-
based fuel ethanol using dierent planting modes in China. Energ Policy
2013;56:21020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.052.
[7] Salla DA, Furlaneto FPB, Cabello C, Kanthack RAD. Energetic analysis of the
ethanol production systems of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Rev Bras Eng
Agrc Ambient 2010;14(4):4448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-
43662010000400015.
[8] Sorapipatana C, Yoosin S. Life cycle cost of ethanol production from cassava in
Thailand. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011;15(2):13439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2010.10.013.
[9] Zhang C, Han W, Jing X, Pu G, Wang C. Life cycle economic analysis of fuel
ethanol derived from cassava in southwest China. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2003;7(4):35366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(03)00057-1.
[10] Wang W, Xie L, Luo G, Zhou Q, Lu Q. Optimization of biohydrogen and methane
recovery within a cassava ethanol wastewater/waste integrated management
system. Bioresour Technol 2012;120:16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2012.06.048.
[11] Lin R, Cheng J, Yang Z, Ding L, Zhang J, Zhou J, et al. Enhanced energy recovery
from cassava ethanol wastewater through sequential dark hydrogen, photo
hydrogen and methane fermentation combined with ammonium removal.
Bioresour Technol 2016;214:68691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2016.05.037.
[12] Veiga JPS, Valle TL, Feltran Jc, Bizzo WA. Characterization and productivity of
cassava waste and its use as an energy source. Renew Energ 2016;93:6919.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.078.
[13] Forster-Carneiro T, Berni MD, Dorileo IL, Rostagno MA. Biorenery study of
availability of agriculture residues and wastes for integrated bioreneries in Brazil.
Resour Conserv Recy 2013;77:7888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon-
rec.2013.05.007.
[14] Isahak WNRW, Hisham MWM, Yarmo MA, Hin TY. A review on bio-oil
production from biomass by using pyrolysis method. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2012;16(8):591023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.039.
[15] Pattiya A. Bio-oil production via fast pyrolysis of biomass residues from cassava
plants in a uidised-bed reactor. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(2):195967. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.117.
[16] Pattiya A, Sukkasi S, Goodwin V. Fast pyrolysis of sugarcane and cassava residues
in a free-fall reactor. Energy 2012;44(1):106777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2012.04.035.
[17] Teixeira EM, Pasquini D, Curvelo AAS, Corradini E, Belgacem MN, Dufresne A.
Cassava bagasse cellulose nanobrils reinforced thermoplastic cassava starch.
Carbohyd Polym 2009;78(3):42231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carb-
pol.2009.04.034.
[18] Pasquini D, Teixeira EM, Curvelo AAS, Belgacem MN, Dufresne A. Extraction of
cellulose whiskers from cassava bagasse and their applications as reinforcing agent
in natural rubber. Ind Crop Prod 2010;32(3):48690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.indcrop.2010.06.022.
[19] Teodoro AP, Mali S, Romero N, de Carvalho GM. Cassava starch lms containing
acetylated starch nanoparticles as reinforcement: physical and mechanical char-
acterization. Carbohyd Polym 2015;126:916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carb-
pol.2015.03.021.
[20] Tumwesigye KS, Peddapatla RVG, Crean A, Oliveira JC, Sousa-Gallagher MJ.
Integrated process standardisation as zero-based approach to bitter cassava waste
elimination and widely-applicable industrial biomaterial derivatives. Chem Eng
Process: Process Intensif 2016;108:13950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cep.2016.08.004.
[21] Tumwesigye KS, Oliveira JC, Sousa-Gallagher MJ. Integrated sustainable process
design framework for cassava biobased packaging materials: critical review of
current challenges, emerging trends and prospects. Trends Food Sci Tech
2016;56:10314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.08.001.
[22] Nguyen DM, Do TVV, Grillet AC, Thuc HH, Thuc CNH. Biodegradability of
polymer lm based on low density polyethylene and cassava starch. Int Biodeter
1273
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
Biodegr 2016;115:25765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.09.004.
[23] Pandey A, Soccol CR, Nigam P, Soccol VT, Vandenberghe LPS, Mohan R.
Biotechnological potential of agro-industrial residues. II: cassava bagasse.
Bioresour Technol 2000;74(1):817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)
00143-1.
[24] Lounglawan P, Khungaew M, Suksombat W. Silage production from cassava peel
and cassava pulp as energy source in cattle diets. J Anim Vet Adv
2011;10:100711. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2011.1007.1011.
[25] Jorgetto AO, Silva RIV, Saeki MJ, Barbosa RC, Martines MAU, Jorge SMA, et al.
Cassava root husks powder as green adsorbent for the removal of Cu(II) from
natural river water. Appl Surf Sci 2014;288:35662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apsusc.2013.10.032.
[26] Torii S, Pambudi N, Sudarwanto S, Saptoadi H. Combustion characteristics of bio
mass-based fuel using cassava husk. Int J Earth Sci Eng 2011;4(5):8969.
[27] Lu C, Zhao J, Yang ST, Wei D. Fed-batch fermentation for n-butanol production
from cassava bagasse hydrolysate in a brous bed bioreactor with continuous gas
stripping. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:3807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2011.10.089.
[28] Adekunle A, Raghavan V. Evaluation of the suitability and performance of cassava
waste (peel) extracts in a microbial fuel cell for supplementary and sustainable
energy production. Waste Manag Res 2017;35(1):4755. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X16670487.
[29] Ubalua AO. Cassava wastes: treatment options and value addition alternatives. Afr
J Biotechnol 2007;6(18):206573 http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/
pdf2007/19Sep/Ubalua.pdf.
[30] Elemike EE, Oseghale OC, Okoye AC. Utilization of cellulosic cassava waste for
bio-ethanol production. J Environ Chem Eng 2015;3(4, Part A):2797800. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.10.021.
[31] Moshi AP, Temu SG, Nges IA, Malmo G, Hosea KMM, Elisante E, et al. Combined
production of bioethanol and biogas from peels of wild cassava Manihot glaziovii.
Chem Eng J 2015;279:297306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.006.
[32] Nanssou PAK, Nono YJ, Kapseu C. Pretreatment of cassava stems and peelings by
thermohydrolysis to enhance hydrolysis yield of cellulose in bioethanol production
process. Renew Energ 2016;97:25265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.re-
nene.2016.05.050.
[33] Adekunle A, Orsat V, Raghavan V. Lignocellulosic bioethanol: a review and design
conceptualization study of production from cassava peels. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2016;64:51830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.064.
[34] de Lemos TLG, Machado LL, Monte FJQ, de Mattos MC. Brazilian Patent No. PI
0505112-6 A2. INPI - National Institute of Industrial Property of Brazil; 2007.
[35] Cereda MP, Ramalho RT. Brazilian Patent No. PI 0901830-1 A2. INPI - National
Institute of Industrial Property of Brazil; 2011.
[36] Tonukari NJ. Cassava and the future of starch. Electron J Biotechnol
2004;7(1):58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2225/vol7-issue1-fulltext-i02.
[37] Jaramillo CM, Seligra PG, Goyanes S, Bernal C, Fam L. Biolms based on cassava
starch containing extract of yerba mate as antioxidant and plasticizer. Starch/
Strke 2015;67(910):7809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/star.201500033.
[38] Teodoro AP, Mali S, Romero N, Carvalho GM. Cassava starch lms containing
acetylated starch nanoparticles as reinforcement: physical and mechanical char-
acterization. Carbohyd Polym 2015;126:916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carb-
pol.2015.03.021.
[39] Chavalparit O, Ongwandee M. Clean technology for the tapioca starch industry in
Thailand. J Clean Prod 2009;17(2):10510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2008.03.001.
[40] Kamaraj A, Gopal NO, Venkatachalam P, Sampathrajan A. Biofuel production
from tapioca starch industry wastewater using a hybrid anaerobic reactor. Energy
Sustain Dev 2006;10(3):737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60547-
5.
[41] Colin X, Farinet JL, Rojas O, Alazard D. Anaerobic treatment of cassava starch
extraction wastewater using a horizontal ow lter with bamboo as support.
Bioresour Technol 2007;98(8):16027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2006.06.020.
[42] Barana AC. Despoluio da manipueira e uso em fertilizao do solo. In: I
Simpsio Nacional sobre a Manipueira. Vitria da Conquista: Brazil; 2008.
[43] Westby A. Cassava utilization, storage and small-scale processing. In: Hillocks RJ,
Thresh JM, Bellotti A, editors. Cassava: Biology, production and utilization.
London: CABI Publishing; 2002. p. 281300.
[44] Paixo, MA, Tavares CR, Bergamasco R, Bonifcio AL, Costa RT. Anaerobic
digestion from residue of industrial cassava industrialization with acidogenic and
methanogenic physical separation phases. In: Proceedings of the twenty-rst
symposium on biotechnology for fuels and chemicals, Humana Press; 2000. p.
80919. Doi. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1392-5_64.
[45] Zhang Q, He J, Tian M, Mao Z, Tang L, Zhang J, et al. Enhancement of methane
production from cassava residues by biological pretreatment using a constructed
microbial consortium. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(19):8899906. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.061.
[46] Wang W, Xie L, Chen J, Luo G, Zhou Q. Biohydrogen and methane production by
co-digestion of cassava stillage and excess sludge under thermophilic condition.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102(4):38339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2010.12.012.
[47] Sun L, Wan S, Yu Z, Wang Y, Wang S. Anaerobic biological treatment of high
strength cassava starch wastewater in a new type up-ow multistage anaerobic
reactor. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:2808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2011.11.070.
[48] Fukushima A, Nicoletti M, Rodrigues A, Pressutti C, Almeida J, Brando T, et al.
Cassava our: quantication of cyanide content. Food Nutr Sci 2016;7:5929.
A.S. Snchez et al.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2016.77060.
[49] Gijzen HJ, Bernal E, Ferrer H. Cyanide toxicity and cyanide degradation in
anaerobic wastewater treatment. Water Res 2000;34(9):244754. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00418-2.
[50] Oliveira MA, Reis EM, Nozaki J. Biological treatment of wastewater from the
cassava meal industry. Environ Res 2001;85(2):17783. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/enrs.2000.4118.
[51] Rajbhandari BK, Annachhatre AP. Anaerobic ponds treatment of starch waste-
water: case study in Thailand. Bioresour Technol 2004;95(2):13543. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.01.017.
[52] Patra TK, Sheth PN. Biomass gasication models for downdraft gasier: a state-of-
the-art review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;50:58393. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.012.
[53] Ahmad AA, Zawawi NA, Kasim FH, Inayat A, Khasri A. Assessing the gasication
performance of biomass: a review on biomass gasication process conditions,
optimization and economic evaluation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2016;53:133347.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030.
[54] Meneses-Jcome A, Diaz-Chavez R, Velsquez-Arredondo HI, Crdenas-Chvez
DL, Parra R, Ruiz-Colorado AA. Sustainable energy from agro-industrial waste-
waters in Latin-America. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2016;56:124962. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.036.
[55] Coimbra-Arajo CH, Mariane L, Jnior CB, Frigo EP, Frigo MS, Arajo IRC, et al.
Brazilian case study for biogas energy: production of electric power, heat and
automotive energy in condominiums of agroenergy. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2014;40:82639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.024.
[56] Luo G, Xie L, Zou Z, Wang W, Zhou Q. Evaluation of pretreatment methods on
mixed inoculum for both batch and continuous thermophilic biohydrogen
production from cassava stillage. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(3):95964. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.08.090.
[57] Luo G, Xie L, Zou Z, Zhou Q, Wang JY. Fermentative hydrogen production from
cassava stillage by mixed anaerobic microora: eects of temperature and pH.
Appl Energ 2010;87(12):37107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2010.07.004.
[58] Gomes SD, Fuess LT, Maunga T, Gomes PCFL, Zaiat M. Bacteriocins of lactic
acid bacteria as a hindering factor for biohydrogen production from cassava our
wastewater in a continuous multiple tube reactor. Int J Hydrog Energ
2016;41(19):812031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.186.
[59] Rosa PRF, Gomes BC, Varesche MBA, Silva EL. Characterization and antimicro-
bial activity of lactic acid bacteria from fermentative bioreactors during hydrogen
production using cassava processing wastewater. Chem Eng J 2016;284:19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.088.
[60] Korres NE. Storage and distribution of biomethane. In: Korres NE, O'Kiely P,
Benzie JAH, West JS, editors. Bioenergy production by anaerobic digestion: using
agricultural biomass and organic wastes. Routledge; 2013. p. 18393.
[61] Cheng S, Li Z, Mang HP, Huba EM, Gao R, Wang X. Development and application
of prefabricated biogas digesters in developing countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2014;34:387400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.035.
[62] Torretta V, Copelli S, Contini S, Rada EC. Safety and reliability in biogas plants.
WIT Trans Built Environ 2015;151:22738. http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/
SAFE150201.
[63] Moreno VC, Papasidero S, Scarponi GE, Guglielmi D, Cozzani V. Analysis of
accidents in biogas production and upgrading. Renew Energ 2016;96:112734.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.10.017.
[64] Guimares CE, Teixeira CE, Santos MR. Avaliao do desempenho ambiental do
aproveitamento do Biogs em indstrias processadoras de mandioca por meio de
Indicadores GRI. in: XVI ENGEMA, So Paulo, 13 Dezember; 2014.
[65] Panichnumsin P, Nopharatana A, Ahring B, Chaiprasert P. Production of methane
by co-digestion of cassava pulp with various concentrations of pig manure.
Biomass- Bioenerg 2010;34(8):111724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biom-
bioe.2010.02.018.
[66] Zhang Q, Tang L, Zhang J, Mao Z, Jiang L. Optimization of thermal-dilute sulfuric
acid pretreatment for enhancement of methane production from cassava residues.
Bioresour Technol 2010;102(4):395865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2010.12.031.
[67] Ghatak HR. Bioreneries from the perspective of sustainability: feedstocks,
products, and processes. Renew Energ 2011;15(8):404252. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.034.
[68] Yang X, Choi HS, Park C, Kim SW. Current states and prospects of organic waste
utilization for bioreneries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;49:33549. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.114.
[69] Ravindran R, Jaiswal AK. Exploitation of food industry waste for high-value
products. Trends Biotechnol 2016;34(1):5869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tib-
tech.2015.10.008.
[70] Mohan SV, Nikhil GN, Chiranjeevi P, Reddy CN, Rohit MV, Kumar AN, et al.
Waste biorenery models towards sustainable circular bioeconomy: critical review
and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2016;215:212. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.130.
[71] Verstraete W, Clauwaert P, Vlaeminck SE. Used water and nutrients: recovery
perspectives in a panta rhei context. Bioresour Technol 2016;215:199208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.094.
[72] Budzianowski WM, Postawa K. Total chain integration of sustainable biorenery
systems. Appl Energ 2016;184:143246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2016.06.050.
[73] Zhang M, Xie L, Yin Z, Khanal SK, Zhou Q. Biorenery approach for cassava-based
industrial wastes: current status and opportunities. Bioresour Technol
2016;215:5062. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.026.
1274
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
[74] Ryckebosch E, Drouillon M, Vervaeren H. Techniques for transformation of biogas
to biomethane. Biomass- Bioenerg 2011;35:163345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2011.02.033.
[75] Scholz M, Melin T, Wessling M. Transforming biogas into biomethane using
membrane technology. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;17:199212. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.08.009.
[76] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Development of biogas combustion in combined heat and
power generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;40:86875. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.204.
[77] Sun Q, Li H, Yan J, Liu L, Yu Z, Yu X. Selection of appropriate biogas upgrading
technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilization. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 2015;51:52132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.029.
[78] Budzianowski WM. A review of potential innovations for production, conditioning
and utilization of biogas with multiple-criteria assessment. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2016;54:114871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.054.
[79] Skerman AG, Heubeck S, Batstone DJ, Tait S. Low-cost lter media for removal of
hydrogen sulphide from piggery biogas. Process Saf Environ 2017;105:11726.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.11.001.
[80] Budzianowski WM, Wylock CE, Marciniak PA. Power requirements of biogas
upgrading by water scrubbing and biomethane compression: comparative analysis
of various plant congurations. Energ Convers Manag 2017. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.018, [In press, Available online 21 March].
[81] Budzianowski WM, Brodacka M. Biomethane storage: evaluation of technologies,
end uses, business models, and sustainability. Energ Convers Manag 2017. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.071, [In press, available online 30
August].
[82] Salomn M, Savola T, Martin A, Fogelholm CJ, Fransson T. Small-scale biomass
CHP plants in Sweden and Finland. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011;15(9):445165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.106.
[83] Kimming M, Sundberg C, Nordberg , Baky A, Bernesson S, Norn O, et al.
Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and power plants A
comparative life cycle assessment. Biomass- Bioenerg 2011;35(4):157281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.027.
[84] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Development of biogas combustion in combined heat and
power generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;40:86875. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.204.
[85] Brizi F, Silveira JL, Desideri U, dos Reis JA, Tuna CE, Lamas WQ. Energetic and
economic analysis of a Brazilian compact cogeneration system: comparison
between natural gas and biogas. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;38:193211. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.088.
[86] Wu B, Zhang X, Shang D, Bao D, Zhang S, Zheng T. Energetic-environmental-
economic assessment of the biogas system with three utilization pathways:
combined heat and power, biomethane and fuel cell. Bioresour Technol
2016;214:7228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.026.
[87] Chaiprasert P, Suvajittanont W, Suraraksa B, Tanticharoen M, Bhumiratana S.
Nylon bers as supporting media in anaerobic hybrid reactors: its eects on
systems performance and microbial distribution. Water Res
2003;37(19):460512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00422-6.
[88] Nielsen HB, Mladenovska Z, Westermann P, Ahring BK. Comparison of twostage
thermophilic (68C/55C) anaerobic digestion with onestage thermophilic (55C)
digestion of cattle manure. Biotechnol Bioeng 2004;86(3):291300. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/bit.20037.
[89] Singh SP, Prerna P. Review of recent advances in anaerobic packed-bed biogas
reactors. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2009;13(67):156975. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.006.
[90] Schievano A, Tenca A, Lonati S, Manzini E, Adani F. Can two-stage instead of one-
stage anaerobic digestion really increase energy recovery from biomass?. Appl
Energ 2014;124:33542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.024.
[91] Ariunbaatar J, Di Perta ES, Panico A, Frunzo L, Esposito G, Lens PNL, et al. Eect
of ammoniacal nitrogen on one-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of food
waste. Waste Manag 2015;38:38898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.was-
man.2014.12.001.
[92] Monlau F, Kaparaju P, Trably E, Steyer JP, Carrere H. Alkaline pretreatment to
enhance one-stage CH4 and two-stage H2/CH4 production from sunower stalks:
mass, energy and economical balances. Chem Eng J 2015;260:37785. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.08.108.
[93] Kinnunen M, Hilderbrandt D, Grimberg S, Rogers S, Mondal S. Comparative study
of methanogens in one-and two-stage anaerobic digester treating food waste.
Renew Agr Food Syst 2015;30(6):51523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S1742170514000350.
[94] Akyol C, Aydin S, Ince O, Ince B. A comprehensive microbial insight into single-
stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of oxytetracycline-medicated cattle
manure. Chem Eng J 2016;303:67584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2016.06.006.
[95] Arreola-Vargas J, Flores-Larios AF, Gonzlez-lvarez V, Corona-Gonzlez RI,
Mndez-Acosta HO. Single and two-stage anaerobic digestion for hydrogen and
methane production from acid and enzymatic hydrolysates of Agave tequilana
bagasse. Int J Hydrog Energ 2016;41(2):897904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.11.016.
[96] Moset V, Ottosen LDM, Xavier CAN, Mller HB. Anaerobic digestion of sulfate-
acidied cattle slurry: one-stage vs. two-stage. J Environ Manag
2016;173:12733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.039.
[97] Zhang J, Loh KC, Li W, Lim JW, Dai Y, Tong YW. Three-stage anaerobic digester
for food waste. Appl Energ 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2016.10.116, [In press, Available online 8 November].
[98] Yara International ASA. Calculation of Carbon Footprint of Fertilizer Production,
A.S. Snchez et al.
Open information note. Available at: http://yara.com/doc/122597_2013_
Carbon_footprint-of_AN_Method_of_calculation.pdf; 2014.
[99] Snchez AS, Torres EA, Kalid RA. Renewable energy generation for the rural
electrication of isolated communities in the Amazon Region. Renew Sust Energ
Rev 2015;49:27890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.075.
[100] Pan SY, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang PC. Strategies on
implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy
system: a review. J Clean Prod 2015;108(Part A):40921. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.124.
[101] Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean
Prod 2016;114:1132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.
[102] Winans K, Kendall A, Deng H. The history and current applications of the circular
economy concept. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;68(Part 1):82533. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123.
[103] Moriizumi Y, Suksri P, Hondo H, Wake Y. Eect of biogas utilization and plant co-
location on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of cassava ethanol production. J
1275
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 12651275
Clean Prod 2012;37:32634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.035.
[104] Tran T, Da G, Moreno-Santander MA, Vlez-Hernndez GA, Giraldo-Toro A,
Piyachomkwan K, et al. A comparison of energy use, water use and carbon
footprint of cassava starch production in Thailand, Vietnam and Colombia. Resour
Conserv Recy 2015;100:3140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon-
rec.2015.04.007.
[105] Usubharatana P, Phungrassami H. Carbon footprint of cassava starch production
in north-eastern Thailand. Procedia CIRP 2015;29:4627. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.031.
[106] Hansupalak N, Piromkraipak P, Tamthirat P, Manitsorasak A, Sriroth K, Tran T.
Biogas reduces the carbon footprint of cassava starch: a comparative assessment
with fuel oil. J Clean Prod 2016;134(Part B):53946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.06.138.
[107] Budzianowski WM, Postawa K. Renewable energy from biogas with reduced
carbon dioxide footprint: implications of applying dierent plant congurations
and operating pressures. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;68(Part 2):85268. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.076.