Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018 www.renewableenergyfocus.

com

RESEARCH REVIEW
Current updates on waste to energy (WtE)
technologies: a review
Hayelom Dargo Beyene1,*, Adhena Ayaliew Werkneh2 and
Tekilt Gebregergs Ambaye3,4
1
Department of Chemistry, Adigrat University, Ethiopia
2
Department of Environmental Health, Mekelle University, Ethiopia
3
Department of Chemistry, Mekelle University, Ethiopia
4
IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education, 2601DA Delft, The Netherlands

Economic development and related increase in global energy demand has created pressure on the
supply of energy resources. To promote sustainable development a safe and renewable energy is
required. For this, municipal solid waste (MSW) contributes significantly in creating a safe environment
and renewable energy. Currently in developing countries, the scarcities of energy and ordinary ways of
MSW disposal have generated a number of environmental and socioeconomic problems. This situation
invites researchers to develop different waste to energy (WtE) conversion alternatives under several
scenarios. A related review show that energy conversion technologies such as incineration, pyrolysis,
gasification, anaerobic digestion, ethanol fermentation, landfill and future trends like microbial fuel
cell (MFC) and microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) are the main ways. Among those WtE technologies are
ecologically green that convert MSW into electricity, hydrogen gas and other chemical feedstocks. The
review suggests that MFC and MEC technologies forecast future WtE for fabrication of biohydrogen
from MSW.

Introduction unreliable energy request are related with numerous environmen-

Economic growth of any country is extremely energy dependent
[1]. Nowadays, safe and renewable energy supplies are one of the
governments extreme alarms [2]. The energy requirement for the
industrialized world increases exponentially and non-renewable
source of energy have decreased due to steep increment in the
utilization of fossil fuel. This has resulted in an increase in pollu-
tion levels across the globe [3,4].
Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is highly linked with
factors like economic growth and industrial development [5,6].
This indicates that industrialized nations with the better economic
standards will generate a higher amount of MSW [5,7]. In devel-
oping countries, other factors such as urban expansion, popula-
tion growth, and technological development are contribute to
increasing MSW generation [8]. Growing waste generation and
*Corresponding author: P.O. Box: 50 Adigrat, Ethiopia. Beyene, H.D. (hayeda21@gmail.com)
tal problems, such as greenhouse gas emission, air pollution, and
water pollution [9,10].
In 2011, two billion tons of MSW were produced globally and
this is expected to reach 9.5 billion per year by 2050 [1113].
World Bank 2012 report also has similar findings due to the
urban and economic development [12,13]. MSW generation is
predicted to take above the urbanization degree in 2025 reaching
2.2 billion tons/year [7,14]. In the coming decades, the total
MSW generation rate in developing countries will also increase
rapidly [7,15].
MSW is commonly defined as waste composed of municipalities
or other local authorities. It includes mainly domestic waste, com-
mercial, and institutional wastes [1517]. It can be classified as
biodegradable waste, recyclable materials, inert waste, composite
waste and waste plastics, domestic hazardous waste, and toxic waste
[13,18,19]. In the same line, according to Inter-governmental Panel

1755-0084/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2017.11.001

1
 RESEARCH REVIEW Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018

on Climate Change (IPCC), MSW is composed of food waste (25
70%), plastic, metal, glass, textiles, wood, rubber, leather, paper and
others [13,20,21].
An ecological practice is a factor assists resource exhaustion and
waste generation to an acceptable level, a positive help to the
fulfillment of human needs, and deliver continuing economic
value to the business creativity [22,23]. Renewable energy is clean
and carbon zero discharge energy, the share of which in world
electricity production increases from year to year [24,25]. In recent
years, biomass conversion into energy has been growing rapidly
RESEARCH REVIEW
waste like size, density and moisture are crucial; lesser size organic
waste decomposes at a fast rate and vice versa. The high density
indicates eco-friendly waste and will undertake faster decomposi-
tion compared to less density waste that signifies more combustible
material (paper, cardboard, plastics). The high moisture content
makes the waste more suitable for anaerobic digestion, landfill gas
and bio-digester gas [32]. For example, a large content of food waste,
kitchen waste and leftovers from residences, restaurants, cafeterias,
factory lunch-rooms, and markets are categorized as an organic
fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) due to their high

worldwide due to climate change, low price energy, increase in
safety supply and reduced environmental impact [24,26]. Devel-
oping countries focus on conversion of waste to energy (WtE) due
to the growing of price with non-renewable energy generation
[16,27]. The sustainability of energy production from waste has
been reviewed by many authors using various approaches such as
Energy cost analysis [7,28], Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [29], and
Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) [30,31].
This review focuses on the recent and emerging WtE technolo-
gies which advance toward using MSW to produce renewable
energy. It explains current and future WtE conversion technolo-
gies. In addition, the authors suggested future WtE trends, direc-
tions for efficient ways of converting MSW for renewable energy
generation from the waste recovery point of view. This review
highlights recent and emerging WtE technologies which are less
published. Specifically, production of hydrogen energy from MSW
is the new insight in the field of WtE conversion technology.
When MSW disposed to the environment GHG emission, soil and
water pollution are the critical problems. These impacts on the
environment can be reduced by conversion of MSW to Energy by
different technologies. WtE conversion technology can help to
recover renewable energy and minimize GHG from MSW.
Characteristics of municipal solid waste (MSW)
The composition MSW differs with the topographical site, life
smartness, the standard of living, the population of city, etc.
[32]. Poor and medium-income nations mostly generate MSW
containing higher organic/biodegradable which is used for gasifica-
tion, composting and landfilling. The physical composition of the
moisture and high biodegradability [33,34] (Table 1).
Waste to energy (WtE) conversion technologies
The promising WtE conversion technologies are thermal conver-
sion methods (incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification), biochem-
ical conversion, and landfill [8,43,44]. Electricity, heat, fuel gases,
liquids, and solids are the primary recovery products of those
technologies. In practice, combinations of two or more of these
methods may be used, but there are various difficulties with these
current technologies [45].
Thermal conversion
Incineration
Incineration is a technique essentially applied by waste devasta-
tion in a furnace by monitoring burning at high temperatures
which takes place between 750 and 1100  C [8,46]. The aim of this
technique is the degradation and destruction of organic elements
in MSW, with the presence of oxygen to decrease the weight and
the volume of MSW to convert into heat and energy as shown in
Fig. 1 [47,48]. It is capable of reducing the almost 70% of the total
waste mass and 90% of total volume [8,47] or solid wastes up to 80
85% [13,48] depending on composition and degree of recovery of
certain materials like metals from the ash for recycling [48].
Incineration is a practice which generates gaseous pollutants
such as Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Carbon Oxides (COx), and Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx), Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and heavy
metals which are dangerous and need to be additional treatment
in the state of the art flue-gas cleaning system before the final
emission in the atmosphere (Fig. 1) [8,13,37,49]. The major

TABLE 1
Characteristics MSW samples from various scenarios.
S. No Waste type Density Moisture content Volatile matter Fixed carbon Ash content Ultimate analysis % Calorific value Ref.
(kg m3) (MC %) (VM %) (FC %) (AC %) (kcal kg1)
C H O S N HCV LCV
1 Mixed MSW 197 8.6 52.21 24.48 24.42 22.78 5.92 46.73 0.07 0.28 4456 2744 [16]
2 Wet MSW 3040 4060 0.62 2666.7 3333.3 [35]
3 Wet MSW 232.5 85.67 12.49 17 46.68 5.75 43.32 0.74 1.66 4081.8 [36]
4 OFMSW 913.7 79.41 [37]
5 RDF 5.8 71.6 13.8 13.7 49.4 6.7 28.1 1 0.3 4848.5 4036.5 [38]
6 MSW-Paper 200 3.2 85.7 11.7 47.75 7.40 33.62 0.00 0.13 [39]
7 MSW-meat 450 27.7 60.3 10.8 51.12 7.77 17.42 0.88 12.0 [39]
8 MSW 2.3 87 5.3 7.7 40.3 5.6 53 0.2 3702.1 [40]
9 MSW 4.63 77.93 5.32 16.73 [12]
10 MSW 4.67 75.93 10.86 8.54 42.43 5.58 32.28 1.5 3869.3 [41]
11 MSW-cereals 5.5 73.5 1.9 43 5.89 41.4 0.12 2.16 4743.5 4160.7 [42]
Peanuts
12 MSW-peanuts 4.6 79.1 2.2 49 6.66 34.7 0.10 1.93 5911.4 5285.7 [42]
Note: MSW, municipal solid waste; OFMSW, organic fraction of municipal solid waste.

2
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
FIGURE 1
The schematic of incineration process.
importance of incineration is for the production of heat, and
steam from MSW. The amount and thermal potential of the
collected material, the effectiveness of the processing system,
and nature of energy manufactured are major factors determine
WtE recovery. The energy efficiency for generation of heat, cogen-
eration (steam and electricity), and pure electricity is ranges from
80%, 2030% and 20% respectively [50,51].
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is destructive distillation process [52] in which thermal
decomposition is taken place in the absence of oxygen at the range
of temperature 3001300  C [53]. The three common types of
pyrolysis methods are conventional pyrolysis (550900 K), fast
pyrolysis (8501250 K), and flash pyrolysis (10501300 K) [8,45].
There are two sets of thermal degradation specifically major
decomposition of MSW and conversion volatile organic product
into low molecular weight gases and char. The reaction products
are a gaseous product, a pyrolytic liquid, and char, with ash as an
undesirable residue (Fig. 2) [5].
The pyrolysis products yield and composition of MSW are
affected by the feedstock, temperature range, heating rate and
type of reactor used [54]. For example, as the pyrolysis temperature
varies, the product spreading pattern is changed. Lower and higher
pyrolysis temperatures usually produce more liquid products and
gaseous yields respectively. Product distribution is also influenced
by the speed of the process and the rate of heat transfer [44].
When changing MSW into energy by pyrolysis process, there are
numerous drawbacks for example air pollution due to HCl, H2S,
NH3, SOx, NOx, odor impacts and emission of exhaust gases [54].
To minimize the problems, emission control strategies are always
furnished with pyrolysis services, and measures for improving the
quality of the gas, liquid and char products should be developed to
make MSW pyrolysis a more environmentally beneficial process
[45]. Pyrolysis is one of the justifiable solutions for cost profitable
and reduces environmental pollution specifically in terms of waste
reduction and carbon recovery. The major advantages pyrolysis
FIGURE 2
The schematic diagram of pyrolysis.
RESEARCH REVIEW
practice are suitable for carbonaceous waste to produce liquid oil as
a primary product with a high calorific value of about 38 MJ/kg
[53,55,56], reduce the volume of residual to be landfilled and
recovery of the condensate [39,42].
Kuan et al. [41] reported that pyrolysis generated high quality of
crude oil which has the potential to be used as a chemical feedstock
that replaced fuel and refined oil to obtain valuable industrial
chemicals including aromatics and phenols. It is also possible and
potential to pyrolysis MSW for producing valuable pyrolytic oils.
The liquid yields from MSW pyrolysis are chemically very com-
RESEARCH REVIEW
plex, containing a remarkable fraction of water [41,54].
The MSW pyrolysis method is growing in the application as a
newly distributed MSW treatment practice and as an effective
waste-to-energy converter. The common pyrolysis reactors are
fixed-bed, rotary kiln, fluidized-bed and tubular reactors, but
rotary kilns and tubular reactors are conveniences at large scale.
Uniform products (Eq. (1)) other than heat or power must be
established, to formulate the expansion and use of single stage
pyrolysis technology [54].
CxHyOz Heat ! Char Liquid Gas H2 O (1)
Gasification
Gasification is a third method thermo-chemical transformation of
combustible MSW into hydrocarbon gases (hydrogen (H2), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and low
molecular weight hydrocarbons), hydrocarbon liquids (oils); char
(carbon black and ash) [57] reacting at high temperatures (800
1200  C), without combustion, with a controlled amount of oxy-
gen and/or steam [58]. Reactor design and operating parameters of
gasification process also generate other higher hydrocarbons (HC)
besides CH4. The production of green gaseous fuels from MSW is
one sparingly and universally capable choice for dealing with these
difficulties [8].
Nowadays, it can also expect that gasification can represent an
attractive alternative to the well-established thermal treatment
systems for the recovery of renewable energy from municipal solid
wastes [38]. A syngas that produced by Gasification is characterized
as heat improved, is cleaned and used depends on its favorite.
Comparable to incineration, gasification similarly generates bot-
tom ash (Fig. 3) that needs to be detached and accurately preserved
[35].
Coal, petroleum-based materials, and organic based materials
are usually raw materials used in gasification. The raw materials are
ready and enter as dry form into the reactor. It is exposed to the
reactor or gasifier in either absence or presence of oxygen at high
heat and pressure that need an energy basis to produce heat [57].
The syngas produced in gasification method contain mainly of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide which combusted in an isolated
container to harvest electricity and chemicals as indicated (Fig. 3)
[59]. The gasification process varies from other practice by various
features such as reactor atmosphere, reactor design, internal and
external heating and operating temperature [57].
Biochemical conversion
Biochemical conversion processes apply bacteria, other microor-
ganisms, and enzymes to break down biomass. Biochemical con-
version is unique method that offers an environmental lovely
3
 RESEARCH REVIEW
RESEARCH REVIEW
FIGURE 3
The schematic of gasification [57].
course for finding energy from MSW. The widely used biochemical
methods which apply microorganisms for conversion process are
anaerobic digestion and fermentation [60].
Anaerobic digestion (AD)
Anaerobic digestion is a biological method with the absence of
oxygen that decomposes organic matter to generate biogas mostly
composed of methane and carbon dioxide [61]. Nowadays, bio-
solids, livestock manure, and wet organic materials and MSW at
large can be used as a feedstock [13,57]. Usually, the anaerobic
digestion process has three common steps. The AD first step is
broken down of MSW by bacteria, and the complex organic species
is changed into simple soluble units (i.e., amino acids, monosac-
charides and fatty acids). At the second phase translation of
disintegrated material to organic acids (Acidogenesis) change into
simpler products, such as volatile fatty acids (VFA), H2 and CO2.
Methanogens are the third phase of AD that converts organic acid
to CH4 gas (Fig. 4) [13,60,62]. The CH4 gas can substitute energy
resulting from fossil fuel. Other nutrient-rich digestants are
formed as a by-product used for fertilizer. The general procedures
and denoted by chemical Eq. (2) [63,64].
Organicmatter ! CH4 CO2 H2 NH3 H2 S (2)
When energy generation via anaerobic digestion (AD) from
organic wastes gases like CH4, CO2, and traces gases such as
NOx, SOx, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) leak into the atmosphere
and pollute the environment [65]. High concentration of free
ammonia (NH3) resulting from degradation of nitrogen-rich
FIGURE 4
Schematic reactions anaerobic digestion (AD) of complex organic matter [64].
4
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
protein constituents can demonstrate poisonous to the precise
action of methanogenic bacteria, producing thoughtful effects to
the AD method. Food wastes contain typically of organic consti-
tuents constructing the AD as a better choice for alternative energy
generation. But, high salt applications in food waste hinder AD
due to the occurrence of cations such as sodium, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium [13,63].
AD has many environmental benefits including the manufacture
of renewable energy, the option of nutrient recovering, and the
decrease of waste capacities. Several studies have publicized that
AD advances the biogas harvest depending on the waste raw material
and the method scheme, biogas is characteristically 4050% [13], 55
75% [57] unadulterated CH4. The main benefits of AD involve co-
digestion of food waste on bio-reactor with diverse substrates to
empower waste administration and the manufacture of anticipated
yields, suitable for high moisture content waste and safe future energy
request by generating cheap biogas [56]. However, a numberof factors
are donated to the productivity of AD process, and essential to be
optimized to attain supreme profits. Some of the factors are type
reactors, the formation and quality of co-substrates, process variables
(temperature, pH, etc.), and microbial dynamics, etc. [13,63].
Currently, several categories of bioreactors are used for AD.
However, batch, continuous one-stage, and continuous two-stage
reactors are the three main schemes usually applied with a vari-
ability of methanogens. Continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR),
a tubular reactor, anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR), up-
flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and fixed film reactor are
examples of these reactors [13].
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
Ethanol fermentation
It is a biochemical reaction which encompasses hydrolysis sucrose
and fermentation of sugars. First, sucrose transforms into fructose
and glucose via hydrolysis of the enzyme. Then, fructose and
glucose are converted into ethanol through the enzymatic reac-
tion. At last, enzymatic hydrolysis is formerly continued by fer-
mentation, distillation, and dehydration to yield anhydrous
bioethanol (Fig. 5) [63].
Bio-ethanol has been manufactured from several food wastes,
such as banana peel [66], grape pomace [67] potato peel waste [68],
cafeteria food waste [69] and household food waste [70]. Various
pretreatment methods have been applied such as acid, alkali,
thermal and enzymatic methods in order to increase cellulose
solubility, due to the complex nature of the lignocellulosic con-
stituent of food wastes [71]. Enzymatic hydrolysis is possibly the
top common pretreatment technique in ethanol making from
food waste. Ethanol fermentation is a practice that is achievable,
and attractive technology; which reduces food waste and lowers
the carbon footprint to synthesize ethanol from foodstuff waste.
However, the sustainability and total cost of the manner it is
carried out should still be researched to lower the price of ethanol
invention from food waste [13].
Landfill processes
Landfilling is a choice for WtE technology that uses manufacturing
values to keep solid waste to minimum space and decrease it to the
lowermost permissible size. In hygienic practice, the sanitary
landfill can be clear as a scientific dumping of MSW using
FIGURE 5
Schematic of the ethanol fermentation organic matter.
FIGURE 6
Schematic of landfill process with its process.
RESEARCH REVIEW
manufacturing facility which involves detailed planning and spe-
cifications, careful construction and efficient task. The schematic
symbol of a characteristic landfilling process with its stages is
shown in Fig. 6 [7,72].
The landfill is usually applied in developing nations as an
effective frame that is required to entertain waste for reprocesses
and recover. Landfilling creates thoughtful fears such as the envi-
ronmental pollution of soil, water, and air. The reformed WtE
method will displays a special role MSW administrations since it
can decrease the waste by 90% and 70% in volume and weight
RESEARCH REVIEW
respectively [73].
A landfill has two life stages; (i) operating stage where MSW is
being put and biogas fabrication starts and (ii) closed stage when
the loading volume delivered its extreme biogas production.
When MSW is landfilled, biochemical degradation of the organic
content takes place, which is actually anaerobic digestion that
occurs in three stages in turn resulting CH4 generation in the form
of biogas (Fig. 7) (i) Liquefaction, bacteria convert carbohydrates,
fats, proteins and other insoluble, fibrous materials into soluble
substances, (ii) Acid forming, acid-forming bacteria convert solu-
ble organic matter into volatile acids in the second step, and (iii)
biogas production, methane-forming bacteria convert these VFA
into biogas. The biogas formed typically consists of CH4 (5075%),
NH3 (0.11%), N2 (3.94.1%), O2 (0.91.1%), non-methane vola-
tile organic compounds 0.010.60%, CO2 (2550%), and water
vapor 66.5% [74].
Every year, around 3070 million tons of CH4 is released from
landfills. Water, CH4, CO2, and heat are the major products
5
 RESEARCH REVIEW
RESEARCH REVIEW
FIGURE 7
The three stages of MSW anaerobic digestion.
resulting from aerobic and anaerobic processes occurring in damp
sites [75]. Bacterial decay, volatilization, and chemical reactions
are major processes that result in the development of Landfill gases
(LFG) [37]. The major factors which affect LFG generation are
waste composition, availability of biodegradable organic materi-
als, the age of waste, moisture content, pH, and temperature [7].
The over-dependence on landfilling has caused in the emission of
CH4 gas, a more potent GHG than CO2, through anaerobic
decomposition of solid waste [76].
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) investigates that
on a universal scale, landfilling still exemplifies the chief removal
technique for MSW [77]. The LFG produced via biological decom-
position has a composition of CH4 (4560%), CO2 (4055%) and
trace components which are used as energy in an interior burning
machines, gas turbines and steam boilers for electricity or heat
production [78].
Mechanical biological treatment (MBT)
MBT is pretreatment system for further processing waste treatment
process which incorporated two phases: (i) mechanical treatment
(MT) and (ii) biological treatment (BT). In the first Phase, the larger
size MSW is identified through the mechanical treatment as
burnable matter managed to refuse derived fuel (RDF) for energy
production, while the identified MSW after MT (MT residue) is
used for producing organic fertilizer and biogas by engaging the BT
phase.
The MBT method allows us to recycle resources and to decrease
the greenhouse gas discharges while receiving the yield by creating
sustainable fuels from MSW to decrease the extent of waste
directed to landfill and to upgrade the possible recovery of
resources. The MBT practices operate and translate feed waste into
diverse streams, which are directed to material reprocessing, waste
disposal and energy reuse [40,79]. The mechanical separation is
done using numerous mechanisms, such as near-infrared (NIR)
separators, ballistic separators and magnets, and hand gathering
for the elimination of heavy and large objects. In order to ease
separation, waste like glass and plastic materials are shredded to
the average size of a few hundred millimeters [80].
New trends (WtE) technologies
Biological hydrogen production
Hydrogen is the extremely available element on earth and does not
exist in elemental form. Fossils are the major sources for the
6
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
industrial production of H2 molecule via steam reforming of
natural gas, water-splitting electrolysis process, and as a by-prod-
uct from some industrial processes [81,82]. Currently, the total
hydrogen production is above one billion m3/day from different
sources such as natural gas (48%), oil (30%), coal (18%), and water
electrolysis (4%). Nowadays, researchers forecast H2 will be fuel of
the future, and non-renewable fuels replaced by renewable bio-
hydrogen energy globally [81,83].
Production of H2 from waste via biological method has emerging
demand due to its renewability and sustainable nature. Microor-
ganisms have flexible and various metabolic mechanism to change
MSW to biohydrogen energy [80]. Biologically synthesized H2 is
beneficial, due to low energy requirement [84,85] and low invest-
ment cost, high energy yield of 142 kJ g1 (2.75 times superior
than any hydrocarbon fuel) [82,83], free of GHG [86,87], and high
calorific value fuel [88,89]. And eventually H2 is an important
feedstock to the chemical industry [90,91].
The two primary H2 production methods are named as physical
chemical and biological methods. Physicalchemical methods are
very energy exhaustive and generate greenhouse gases [82] which
influence global warming while biological methods are environ-
mentally sustainable [89], reduce energy depletion [90] and have a
low-cost substrate [87]. Biological H2 manufacturing is principally
donated by anaerobic fermentation, which is generally categorized
into two core groups: light independent and light dependent.
Currently, biohydrogen has attracted scientist as new research
area [80,81,90].
Photobiological process
It shows the dependence of light to harvest Biohydrogen as it is
arbitrated by some phototrophic bacteria (like Rhodobacter sphaer-
oides, Rhodopseudomonas capsulate, Rhodopseudomonas palustris,
and Rhodospirillum rubrum) by applying the organic carbon as
substrates. The bacteria have not enzymes similar to nitrogenase
and hydrogenase to ferment the substrate into biohydrogen, CO2,
and organic acids. Moreover, these bacteria lose photosystem II
which assists in eradicating O2 existing in the system and sus-
tained anaerobic situations through the practice [19,85].
Dark fermentation
It is characterized by decomposition of an organic substrate by
anaerobic bacteria in an environment with the absence of light
and oxygen to produce biohydrogen by conversion of complex
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018 RESEARCH REVIEW

organic compounds such as carbohydrate-rich materials. These
organic polymers were initially hydrolyzed into sugar molecule,
which undergoes a series of chemical reactions to produce biohy-
drogen [17]. The fate of the dark fermentation process for the
quantity of H2 produced depends on the bacteria involved in the
process and formation of acids. According to Eq. (3), the dark
fermentation process of 1-mole glucose yields 4 mole H2 by acetate
pathway and 2 mole H2 through butyrate pathways, respectively
[18,85].
3 effect on H2 potential manufacture. Carbohydrate-rich OFMSW is
dark fermentative hydrogen production from various types of
organic wastes. According to nutrient composition, and the feed-
stock belonging to a carbohydrate-rich group show higher H2
yields than the other group feedstock [93].
Carbohydrates are the prime substrate for dark fermentative H2
production than proteins, lipids, and lignocelluloses when it
compares H2 production potential among seven diversity of
organic fractions of MSW [94]. Luca et al. [34] indicated that
the unevenness of waste variability of OFMSW produced a marked

RESEARCH REVIEW
C6 H12 O6 2H2 O ! CH3 COOH CO2 4H2 Acetic acid
C6 H12 O6 ! CH3 CH2 CH2 COOH CO2 2H2 Butyric acid 7 7
characterized by high H2 potentials while protein and lipid-rich
C6 H12 O6 2H2 ! CH3 CH2 COOH H2 OPropionic acid 7 fractions, characterized by low hydrogen potentials. Variations in
7
C6 H12 O6 2H2 ! COOHCH2 CH2 OCOOH CO2 Malic acid 5 the waste composition may result in important changes on H2
C6 H12 O6 ! CH3 CH2 OH CO2 Ethanol yields, but less influenced for methane productions [34]. The
3 major problems dark fermentation for Biohydrogen from waste
Fermentative conversion of an organic substrate to its products are low generation and yield [95].
involves a flow interconnected biochemical reactions, viz., hydro-
lysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. The com- Bioelectrochemical process
plex organic compounds are decomposed to smaller units during Microbial fuel cells (MFC)
hydrolysis by hydrolytic microorganisms. Then, acidogenic bacte- Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are bio-electrochemical devices accus-
ria ferment the monomers into a mixture of low molecular weight tomed generate organic phenomenon from a wide range of sub-
VFA along with H2 (Eq. (3)). The reversible conversion of acetate strates by using bio electrogenic microorganisms, to produce
production from H2 and CO2 by acetogenins and homoacetogens energy. The MFC device uses electrochemically active microorgan-
can also be considered for H2 production. Finally, the acetoclastic isms (EAM) to come up with electricity. MFC involves aerobic and
methanogens convert these organic acids to CH4 and CO2 during anaerobic treatments using bacteria as a catalyst is an encouraging
methanogenesis. Acetogens grow in syntrophic association with approach for the generation of biohydrogen fabrication. A range of
the hydrogenotrophic methanogens and keep the H2 partial pres- organic substrates such as domestic waste, animal waste, and
sure low enough to allow acidogenesis to become thermodynami- wasted sludge will be utilized as a feedstock [85].
cally favorable for interspecies H2 transfer. Henceforth, the metha- The MFC is promising an ecological technology to satisfy grow-
nogenic activity needs to be suppressed to make H2 a major ing energy requests by renovating MSW into electricity and H2 gas.
metabolic by-product (Eq. (4)) [4,92]. MFC can generate electricity by microbes relocation options due
3 electron passage cable onto an electrode surface whereas ATP
C6 H12 O6 2H2 O ! 2CH3 COOH 2CO2 4H2
7 generation thanks to fabricating a nucleon driver [96] (Figs 8
C6 H12 O6 2H2 O ! 2CH3 CH2 COOH 2CO2 2H2 7
Pyruvate CoA 2Fdox ! Acetayl  CoA Fdred CO2 5 and 9). Washington et al. [97] confirms that fruits waste which
contains monosaccharides, disaccharides and polysaccharides are
2H Fdred ! H2 Feox
4 often utilized in the metabolic means of high microbic popula-
tions for the organic phenomenon production whereas vegetable
Dark fermentative bio-hydrogen production from MSW is a waste contains polysaccharides are requested a better consump-
potentially promising method for continuously improving H2. tion of energy for their decomposition and involvement within
Biohydrogen yield depends on reactor conditions, components the metabolic courses [97].
of the MSW and types of substrates. Besides that, the degradation MFC is an outstanding way to demonstrate electron allocation
of monosaccharides and glycerol is the most common pathway for principles which work by redox reactions within bacterium will

FIGURE 8
Conceptual MFC schematic of direct electricity generation.

7
 RESEARCH REVIEW
RESEARCH REVIEW
FIGURE 9
Schematic of the microbial fuel cell transfer of electrons from bacteria to
the anode, then transfer to cathode connected via electric wire [95].
feed off a substrate or food (MSW). The bacterium is reserved in
situation missing oxygen which would usually decrease their
growth. This is often as a result of oxygen typically performances
as an electron acceptor. What happens within the metabolism of
the substrates from the waste stream is that electrons in sugars,
fats, proteins, or alternative bioavailable molecules are taken by
the bacterium and transferred through a microorganism metabolic
pathway the simplest way that the electrons will be employed by
the cells for energy (Fig. 9) [97].
In the second section, pyruvate distraction takes place inside
mitochondrial cells that converts into CO2 and acetyl-CoA. Con-
sequently, acetyl-CoA is changed to oxaloacetate, after which it
participates in the Krebs cycle. NADH is an end product which
stored CO2 and high-energy electrons. The Krebs cycle keeps to
continuously regenerate NAD+ by using molecular oxygen. In the
membrane-bound electron transport chain, NADH permits its
high energy electrons to O2, which would later produce water.
Finally, within the third section, membrane-bound organic pro-
cess happens once aldohexose is catabolized to get energy [98].
The electron transport chain takes place within mitochondrial
and cellular membranes in eukaryotic and prokaryote cells respec-
tively. As protons move back across the membrane, ADP is phos-
phorylated to form ATP. Electron carriers include NADH, FADH2,
and QH2, which are coenzymes that reduce O2. Electrons are
moved to the anode by electron mediators, by direct mem-
brane-associated electron transfer or by so-called nanowires [98].
Microbial electrolysis cells (MEC)
Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) is a hypothetically smart green
technology to challenge the global warming and energy demand,
which works electrochemically energetic bacteria to change MSW
into H2 and chemicals, such as CH4, acetate, hydrogen peroxide,
ethanol, and formic acid [99]. This method parallels to MFCs, but
the cathode of MECs is not open to air [100]. Presently, MEC has
gained growing attention in the recent years as a capable avenue
for obtaining clean and justifiable energy from wastes [97]. More-
over, MEC has higher H2 recovery and wider substrate diversity
compared to dark, photo fermentation and MFC [101].
Figure 10 demonstrated that MECs could change any biodegrad-
able waste into H2, biofuels, and other value-added products, but
8
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
FIGURE 10
Single chamber microbial electrolysis cell.
the system value can differ meaningfully when using various
substrates or are applied in diverse environments. Electrons are
transferred to the cathode to reduce the protons for H2 production.
Because the microbial electrolysis is endothermic (positive Gibbs
free energy) so it would not occur spontaneously unless hydrogen
partial pressure is extremely low [102104].
This approach brings a way for encompassing H2 production to
pass through the endothermic barrier forced by the microbial
creation of fermentation products, and the potential required is
moderately low related to the theoretically applied voltage of
1.23 V for water electrolysis. Application of external voltage results
in the selective growth of electrochemically active bacteria, which
can efficiently sink electrons [104]. Research on MEC accepts
above 90% of H2 retrieval against 33% with the dark fermentation
process. MEC showed an ability to change a variability of soluble
organic matter to H2 or CH4 with immediate wastewater treatment
[80].
According [104], the MEC stage holds excessive potentials for
future waste biorefineries. MECs translate biodegradable waste
into value-added energy carriers and bioproducts, making the
system probably energy-positive and carbon-neutral. The yield
and rate of MEC are promoted when integrated with the fermen-
tation process. Exploitation of new materials, reactor configura-
tions, and prices are often reduced, and system efficiency is
improved. Experiments show higher understanding of the syn-
trophic and competition among completely different microorgan-
ism groups. Therefore, ways for promoting syntrophic interactions
or minimizing energy and merchandize losses are often developed
for system proportion and application [105] (Table 2).
Future perspectives
This review has indicated that every country has to adopt a
sustainable development strategy that will support to improve
the quality of life of current and future generations with the
application of effective waste management and resource effi-
ciency. MFC and MEC are the most appropriate eco-friendly
WtE option to convert MSW to energy. However, application of
this technology to realize high-energy yields in the form of hydro-
gen requires a lot of modification with the feedstock, bioreactor
design and optimization of operational parameters. Although a
number of MSW pre-treatment methods have been greatly stud-
ied, there are still challenges that need further investigation and
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018 RESEARCH REVIEW

TABLE 2
Comparison summery of WtE technologies [56,58,63,81,85,89,93,94,101111].
S. No. WtE technologies
1 Incineration
2 Pyrolysis
Benefits
Suitable for high calorific
value
Reduce volume and mass up
to 80% and 70% respectively
Produce high-quality fuel
Reduces flue gas treatment
Limitation
The high capital,
maintenance, and operation
costs
Produces harmful pollutants
generation of solid residues
High viscosity of pyrolysis
High operating, maintenance
Primary product Application
Heat Generation, electricity and
steam/heat
Char, bio-oil and syngas Electricity, production
chemicals and solvents

3 Gasification
4 Landfill
5 Anaerobic digestion (AD) Preferred for biomass with
6 Ethanol fermentation
7 Photobiological process A wide spectral energy can be Nitrogenize enzymes get
8 Dark fermentation
9 Microbial fuel cell (MFC) An effective method of
10 Microbial electrolysis
cell (MEC)
suitable for carbonous waste and capital cost
Decrease MSW volume up to
5090%
Production of fuel gas/oil,
which can be used for various competitive technologies
purpose
Low cost, natural resources
are recycled to soil
high water content
Higher composition of
methane (CH4) and lower
composition of carbon
dioxide (CO2) than landfill
Does not contribute to the
increase in CO2 emissions
used by photosynthetic
bacteria
Utilizing wide range of
biodegradable substrates
More feasible for mass
production of H2, light-
independent process
electricity generation and
odor removal from waste
Zero contribution to GHG
emission
High product (H2) recovery, The yield effects by substrate H2 gas, CH4, acetate,
and substrate degradation
than the photo, dark
fermentation, and MFC
High hydrogen translation
efficiency
Low energy requirement
Applicability to numerous
organic substrates
RESEARCH REVIEW
Immature, inflexible, less Syngas producer gas Generation electricity and
chemicals
High risk of failure
Soil and groundwater Landfill gas Electricity
pollution
Large land area required
Unsuitable for wastes Biogas and dig estate Electricity, nitrogen rich
containing less organic fertilizer Agricultural, and
matter food biorefinery
Lignin can persist for very
extended periods of time to
degrade
It is limited only on starch/ Bioethanol Fuel, agricultural biorefinery
cellulose/rich MSW
H2 gas CO2, organic acids Bioelectricity
inhibited in the presence of
O2. Light conversion
efficiency is low
H2 gas Bioelectricity
It does not function at very H2 gas Bioelectricity, biohydrogen
low temperatures because production, wastewater
microbial reactions are slow treatment
at low temperatures
Used for generation of
composition hydrogen peroxide, electricity and immediate
High internal resistance and formic acid wastewater treatment
Dense architecture
High capital cost

improvement. Chemical pre-treatment leads to residual chemical
disposal problems and extra cost for neutralization of chemical-
treated feedstock before MFC and MEC. Hence, further research is
needed to focus on microbial pre-treatment especially focusing on
the development of a viable microbial consortium with efficient
MSW activity, since MSW degradation requires sequential inter-
play of different individual microbial strains. Furthermore, the
problems associated with organic biomass clogging of conven-
tional high-rate bioreactors and process failure due to feedstock
floatation need more research into the development of solid-
state, MFC and MEC digesters that are more tailored for biohy-
drogen of high solid feedstocks such as organic biomass including
energy crops and MSW. Since MSW waste has high moisture
content, it could be digested without additional water require-
ment. The design and engineering of a future solid-state digester
tailored for, MFC and MEC of organic biomass should ensure
that it:
Operates in a semi-continuous mode to allow sustainable gas
production all throughout without interruption like that
caused by batch reactors.
Has mixing devices to circulate incoming MSW with the
inoculums.
Re-circulates effluent slurry to re-inoculate the incoming MSW
and minimize water usage.

9
 RESEARCH REVIEW
Lastly, further research into standardization of optimal opera-
tional parameters for, MFC, MEC and MSW reactors design will be
imperative for full-scale application of the technology for indus-
trial and large-scale energy generation.
Conclusion
Municipal solid waste is collective and miscellaneous trash col-
lected from households, commerce, and organizations, including
packing, food waste, paper waste, and both durable and nondura-
ble materials. Its compositions vary considerably based on their
RESEARCH REVIEW
sources. Waste to energy conversion is an ecologically and eco-
nomically attractive practice which is rapidly growing associated
with energy demand, waste disposal, and environmental moni-
toring. The commonly known thermal WtE technologies are
thermal conversion (incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification),
Biochemical conversion (anaerobic digestion and fermentation)
and landfill. Incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification are a practice
which generates heat, and steam, gases and char, syngas methane
and low molecular weight from MSW respectively. Those methods
release gaseous pollutant to the atmosphere like sulfur oxides
(SOx), carbon oxides (COx), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), polyaro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAH), heavy metals, hydrogen chloride
(HCl), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ammonia (NH3). Biochemical
conversion methods apply bacteria, other microorganisms, and
enzymes to break down biomass which possess advantages such as
simplicity, environmental lovely and low capital cost. Anaerobic
digestion and ethanol fermentation are Biochemical WtE conver-
sions that generate biogas and bioethanol from MSW respectively.
However, they have disadvantages of an extensive treatment
period and organic and trace gas emissions to the atmosphere.
In the last few years, microbial fuel cell (MFC) and microbial
electrolysis cell (MEC) are the newest, promising ecological WtE
conversion technologies which change MSW into electricity,
hydrogen, and chemicals. Since biologically synthesized Hydro-
gen is null GHG, superior energy yield than other carbon source
fuel, MFC and MEC attracted the attention of the researchers and it
is that forecasted that future WtE for fabrication of Biohydrogen
from MSW will depend on this.
References
[1] C. Pirlogea, C. Cicero, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 57185726.
[2] F.J. Saez-Martnez, G. Lefebvre, J.J. Hernandez, J.H. Clark, J. Clean. Prod. (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.094.
[3] D.I. Stern, Ecol. Econ. Rev. 1219 (2011) 2651.
[4] K. Rupam, S.C. Rahul, J.B. Neon, S. Ruprekha, S. Debashis, N. Rumi, G. Lina, G.N.
Nikhil, S. Omprakash, M.S. Venkata, in: S. Anoop, R. Dheeraj (Eds.),
Sustainability of Current Technology and Future Perspective, Springer, New
Delhi, 2017, pp. 207235.
[5] H. Rahman, Int. J. Chem. Environ. Biol. Sci. 1 (4) (2013) 678681.
[6] Waste to Energy, World Energy Resources: World Energy Council, 2013.
[7] F. Alireza, B. Farzaneh, J. Leila, C.S. Nor Azwadi, E.B. Ali, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 58 (2016) 10071016.
[8] T. Alperen, O. Emrah, A. Ayegul, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 809815.
[9] Ogboo,H.A.K. Hussain, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 16 (4) (2014) 693710.
[10] O.M. Amoo, R.L. Fagbenle, Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 4 (2013) 4259.
[11] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)., The State of Food and Agriculture,
2009 Rome.
[12] C. Ying-Chu, Waste Manag. 58 (2016) 408414.
[13] T.P. Thi Phuong, K. Rajni, K.P. Ganesh, M. Russell, B. Rajasekhar, Waste Manag.
12 (2014) 4.
[14] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers, World Bank, 2012.
10
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
[15] M.S.Z. Jibran, F.A. Shazia, Energy Convers. Manag. 44 (2015) 117131.
[16] S.K. Muhammad, B.M. Rasool, A.U. Muhammad, Energy Convers. Manag. 124
(2016) 333343.
[17] P. Martin, T. Michal, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 11 (2009) 1929.
[18] B. Mahsa, T. Alessandro, C. Roberto, T. Cristian, F. Daniele, C. Valerio, Renew.
Energy 90 (2016) 458468.
[19] T.E. Boukelia, M.S. Mecibah, Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 3 (2012) 17.
[20] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), in: S. Eggleston, L.
Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe (Eds.), Waste Generation, Composition,
and Management Data, 2006.
[21] P. Albores, K. Petridis, P.K. Dey, Proc. Environ. Sci. 35 (2016) 265278.
[22] S.R. Wan Alwi, Z.A. Manan, J.J. Kleme, D. Huisingh, J. Clean. Prod. 71 (2014) 1
10.
[23] World Final Consumption 2012, International Energy Agency, 2014 Sankey
Diagram.
[24] L. Cutz, P. Haro, D. Santana, F. Johnsson, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (2016)
14111431.
[25] I.S. Antonopoulos, G. Perkoulidis, D. Logothetis, C. Karkanias, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 86 (2014) 149159.
[26] N. Apergis, J.E. Payne, Appl. Energy 88 (1) (2011) 343347.
[27] C. Monojit, S. Chhemendra, P. Jitendra, K.G. Prabhat, Energy Conversat. Manag.
75 (2013) 249255.
[28] I.S. Antonopoulos, G. Perkoulidis, D. Logothetis, C. Karkanias, Resour.
Conservat. Recycl. 86 (2014) 149159.
[29] T. Vandermeersch, R. Alvarenga, P. Ragaert, J. Dewulf, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
87 (2014) 5764.
[30] S. Toniolo, A. Mazzi, V.G. Garato, F. Aguiari, A. Scipioni, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
91 (2014) 109116.
[31] H.A. Arafat, K. Jijakli, A. Ahsan, J. Clean. Prod. 105 (2015) 233240.
[32] S.Z.M. Jibran, F.A. Shazia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44 (2015) 117131.
[33] A. Beylot, J. Villeneuve, G. Bellenfant, Waste Manag. 33 (2013) 401411.
[34] A. Luca, C. Raffaello, Waste Manag. 36 (2015) 147155.
[35] S. Zarook, E. Ali, T. Stanley, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10098-015-0904-2.
[36] H. Mian, G. Dabin, M. Caifeng, H. Zhiquan, Z. Beiping, X. Bo, L. Siyi, W. Jingbo,
Energy (2015) 17.
[37] M. Elsamadon, A. Tawfik, Bioresour. Technol. 196 (2015) 916.
[38] W. Wei, Z. Xianchao, Z. Peng, L. Wei, D. Deji, W. Shaozhuo, W. Yamiao, Proc.
Environ. Sci. 31 (2016) 505513.
[39] D. Jocelyn, L. Jean-Philippe, F. Sherif, C. Jamal, Waste Biomass Valoriz. 5 (1)
(2014) 19.
[40] K. Daegi, P. Pandji, Y. Kunio, J. Combust. 2012 (2012) 8.
[41] D. Kuan, Z. Zhaoping, Z. Daoxu, B. Zhang, Q. Xiaoxiao, Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 18 (2016) 11111121.
[42] G. Barbora, K. Ivan, P. Adrian, Bioresour. Technol. 218 (2016) 12031207.
[43] K.A. Kalyani, K.K. Pandey, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31 (2014) 113120.
[44] A.A.A. Abdulhakim, M.H. Yousif, A.H. Tarek, W. John, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 4
(2014) 9298.
[45] V.G. Vidyadhar, R. Iyyaswami, Nat. Resour. Res. 21 (2012) 1.
[46] M.H. Kim, H.B. Song, Y. Song, I.T. Jeong, J.W. Kim, Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 4
(2013) 112.
[47] K. Efstratios, B. Athanasios, K. Manolis, J.T. Nickolas, in: K. Avraam (Ed.), Waste
to Energy, Springer, London, 2012, pp. 219235.
[48] A. Erik, A. Min, M. Huan, C. Paul, R. Roger, Bioresour. Technol. 222 (2016) 202
209.
[49] WHO, Report of a WHO Workshop, 2930 March 2007, Rome, Italy, 2007.
[50] K.P. Evan, C. Paolo, E.A. Mohamed, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55 (2015) 113.
[51] L. Alec, R. Fei, Y.L. Wenlin, W. Jing-Yuan, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4 (2015)
165188.
[52] P. Bajpai, in: P. Bajpai (Ed.), Management of Pulp and Paper Mill Waste, Springer,
Patiala, 2014, pp. 4578.
[53] V. Chhabraa, Y. Shastria, S. Bhattacharya, Proc. Environ. Sci. 35 (2016) 513527.
[54] C.Y. Dezhen, W. Huan, H. Pinjing, Waste Manag. 37 (2015) 116136.
[55] I. Velghe, R. Carleer, J. Yperman, S. Schreurs, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 92 (2) (2011)
366375.
[56] A.S. Nizami, K. Shahzad, M. Rehan, O.K.M. Ouda, M.Z. Khan, I.M.I. Ismail, T.
Almeelbi, J.M. Basahi, A. Demirbas, Appl. Energy 186 (2) (2016) 189196.
[57] J.R. Marc, S. Francois, Waste-to-Energy, 2nd ed., Technologies and Project
Implementation, New York, 2011.
[58] K.A. Kalyani, K.K. Pandey, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31 (2014) 113222.
[59] N.B. Klinghoffer, N.J. Themelis, in: K. Naomi, C. Marco (Eds.), Waste to
Energy Conversion Technology, Woodhead Publishing Series, New York, 2013,
pp. 178.
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24, Number 00
March 2018
[60] T.E. Boukelia, M.S. Mecibah, Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 3 (2012) 1719.
[61] K.M. Kangle, S.V. Kore, V.S. Kore, G.S. Kulkarni, Univ. J. Environ. Res. Technol. 2
(2010) 210221.
[62] C.T. Gabriel, R. Maxime, C. Marion, S. Jean-Philippe, D. Jean-Philippe, E.
Renaud, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 15 (2016) 499503.
[63] R. Abdur, Y.H. Mohammad, S. Rabia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59 (2016) 264
275.
[64] J.C. Akunna, in: A. Hill (Ed.), Brewing Microbiology Managing Microbes,
Ensuring
, pp. 407424.
Quality and Valorising Waste, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, 2015
[65] B. Zhu, P. Gikas, R. Zhang, J. Lord, B. Jenkins, X. Li, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (3)
(2009) 11221129.
[66] H.S. Oberoi, P. Vadlani, L. Saida, S. Bansal, J.D. Hughes, Waste Manag. 31 (7)
(2011) 15761584.
[67] L.A. Rodrguez, M.E. Toro, F. Vazquez, M.L. Correa-Daneri, S.C. Gouiric, M.D.
Vallejo, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (11) (2010) 59145917.
[68] D. Arapoglou, T. Varzakas, A. Vlyssides, C. Israilides, Waste Manag. 30 (10) (2010)
18981902.
[69] J.H. Kim, J.C. Lee, D. Pak, Waste Manag. 31 (2011) 21212125.
[70] L. Matsakas, D. Kekos, M. Loizidou, P. Christakopoulos, Biotechnol. Biofuels 7
(2014) 413.
[71] A.I. Vavouraki, E.M. Angelis, M. Kornaros, Waste Manag. 33 (3) (2013) 740745.
[72] P.N. Pressley, T.N. Aziz, J.F. DeCarolis, M.A. Barlaz, F. He, F. Li, J. Clean. Prod. 70
(2014) 145153.
[73] N.S. Bolan, R. Thangarajan, B. Seshadri, U. Jena, K.C. Das, H. Wang, Bioresour.
Technol. 135 (2013) 578587.
[74] S. Jibran, M. Zuberi, F.A. Shazia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44 (2015) 117131.
[75] Q. Guitar-Virgen, P. Taboada-Gonzalez, S. Ojeda-Bentez, S. Cruz-Sotelo, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 30 (2014) 412419.
[76] T. Sitting, H. Haslenda, L. Chewton, R.T. Mohd, Y. Jinyue, Energy Proc. 61 (2014)
704708.
[77] ISWA, Guidelines for Design and Operation of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in
Tropical Climates, ISWA International Solid Waste Association, 2012.
[78] N. Scarlet, V. Motola, J.F. Dallemand, F. Monforti-Ferrario, M. Linus, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015) 12691286.
[79] R. Bayard, G.D.J. Araujo Morais, F. Achour, M. Rouez, R. Gourdon, J. Hazard.
Mater. 175 (2010) 2332.
[80] K. Dimitrios-Sotirios, K. Sotirios, K. Spiros, K. Georgios, P. Panagiotis, K.
Emmanuel, Waste Biomass Valoriz. 6 (4) (2015) 605617.
[81] K. Rupam, S.C. Rahul, J.B. Neon, S. Ruprekha, S. Debashis, N. Rumi, G. Lina, G.N.
Nikhil, S. Omprakash, M.S. Venkata, Biohydrogen Prod. Sustain. Curr. Technol.
Future Perspect. (2017).
[82] S. Amirhomayoun, A. Nithiya, S. Takayuki, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 11 (2015)
5971.
[83] S. Suksaman, R. Alissara, L. Chiu-Yue, Sustain. Environ. Res. 26 (2016) 5.
[84] R.K. Goud, O. Sarkar, P. Chiranjeevi, V. Mohan, Bioresour. Technol. 165 (2014)
223232.
RESEARCH REVIEW
[85] V.P. Vinayak, A. Shamshad, P. Arya, V.T. Vineet, D. Buddhi, K. Richa, Curr.
Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 3 (2016) 101107.
[86] C. Hernandez-Mendoza, G. Buitron, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 89 (1) (2013)
143149.
[87] G. Kumar, C.Y. Lin, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014) 19.
[88] Z. Lai, M. Zhu, X. Yang, J. Wang, S. Li, Biotechnol. Biofuels 7 (119) (2014) 111.
[89] K. Abudukeremu, S.K. Mohd, A. Peyman, K. Chandrasekhar, M. Azah, F.A. Nadia,
L. Washington, S. Yibadatihan, A.H. Aidil, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61 (2016)
501525.
[90] S. Zahedi, R. Solera, J.L. Garca-Morales, D. Sale, Fuel 180 (2016) 343347.
[91] M.S. Fountoulakis, T. Manios, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) 30433047.
[92] O. Sarkar, A.N. Kumar, S. Dahiya, K.V. Krishna, D.K. Yeruva, S.V. Mohan, RSC
RESEARCH REVIEW
Adv. 6 (2016) 1864118653.
[93] K. Takuro, X. Kai-Qin, L. Yu-You, I. Yuhei, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012)
1571115718.
[94] D. Li, Z. Yuan, Y. Sun, X. Kong, Y. Zhang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 812
820.
[95] A. Tawfik, M. El-Qelish, Bioresour. Technol. 168 (2014) 127.
[96] L. Wen-Wei, Y. Han-Qing, H. Zhen, Energy Environ. Sci. 7 (2014) 911924.
[97] L. Washington, R. Geovany, R. Celso, E. Magdy, C. Ana, Energy Proc. 75 (2015)
20092014.
[98] B.B. Kumara, A. Varma, Microbial Resources for Sustainable Energy, 2016 Noida:
India.
[99] A. Kadier, P. Abdeshahian, Y. Simayi, M. Ismail, A.A. Hamid, M.S. Kalil, Energy 90
(2015) 15561562.
[100] A. Kadier, Y. Simayi, P. Abdeshahian, N.F. Azman, K. Chandrasekhar, M.S. Kalil,
Alex. Eng. J. 55 (2016) 427443.
[101] R. Mostafa, A. Arash, D. Soheil, Z. Alireza, O. Sang-Eun, Alex. Eng. J. (2015).
[102] M.Z. Khan, A.S. Nizami, M. Rehan, O.K.M. Ouda, S. Sultana, I.M. Ismail, K.
Shahzad, Appl. Energy 185 (2017) 410420.
[103] G. Nikhil, S.V. Mohan, Y. Swamy, Bioresour. Technol. 188 (2015) 6572.
[104] L. Lu, J.R. Zhiyong, Bioresour. Technol. (2016).
[105] G. Robert, F.H. Joseph, O. Mackay, H. Oliver, Biotechnol. Biofuels 10 (2017) 1139.
[106] O.K.M. Ouda, S.A. Raza, A.S. Nizami, M. Rehan, R. Al-Waked, N.E. Korres, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 61 (2016) 328340.
[107] Md. Khan, N. Khan, S. Sultana, R. Joshi, S. Ahmed, E. Yu, K. Scott, A. Ahmad, M.Z.
Khan, Process Biochem. 57 (2017) 141158.
[108] A.S.O. Ogunjuyigbe, T.R. Ayodele, M.A. Alao, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80
(2017) 149162.
[109] A.R. Mohammad, G. Hossein, B.D. Behrouz, H. Reinout, A. Mortaza, T. Meisam,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (2017) 414439.
[110] R.L. Christian, D. Stefan, Z. Imanol, M. Adeline, Z. Christian, Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. 16 (2017) 81130.
[111] A.S. Nizami, M. Rehan, M. Waqas, M. Naqvi, O.K.M. Ouda, K. Shahzad, R.
Miandad, M.Z. Khan, M. Syamsiro, I.M.I. Ismail, P. Deepak, Bioresour. Technol.
241 (2017) 11011117.
11