Review

From Organic Wastes to Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added

Products for Urban Sustainability and Circular Economy:
A Review
Agapi Vasileiadou

Department of Energy Systems, University of Thessaly, Gaiopolis Campus, 41500 Larissa, Greece;
[email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: Energy is a crucial factor for urban development. Cities have a crucial role in climate
change, as they use 2/3 of the world’s energy, producing 70% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In
order to reduce the large ecological footprint of the utilization of conversional energy sources (coal,
gas, and oil) and enhance a nation’s energy independence (security), it is crucial to find alternative
fuels. Biomass residues are characterized as a sustainable and carbon-neutral energy source. Hence,
this review describes a critical assessment of not only the quality characteristics of several waste
and biomass residues for bioenergy production and biofuels but also the value-added products that
could be produced from wastes to enhance industry (e.g., pharmaceutical, cosmetics, packaging
industry, etc.). Furthermore, the challenges and potential solutions of waste utilization for bioenergy
production and the transformation of value-added products for urban sustainability are also explored.
Despite the high-quality characteristics and the availability of these wastes, several critical factors
should be taken into account. Biomass residues could contribute to sustainable development goals
(SDG), such as sustainable cities and communities, clean energy, responsible consumption and
production, the economic growth of a country, and, as a result, urban development.

Keywords: anaerobic digestion; biochemical conversion; catalysis; gasification; integrated energy

systems; thermochemical analysis; transesterification; urban development; value-added products;
Citation: Vasileiadou, A. From waste/biomass to energy (W/BtE)
Organic Wastes to Bioenergy, Biofuels,
and Value-Added Products for Urban
Sustainability and Circular Economy:
A Review. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121. 1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/ The management of solid waste (e.g., food waste, organic waste, paper/cardboard,
urbansci8030121
textiles, plastic non-biodegradable waste, etc.) in an urban society is a challenge and
Academic Editor: Antonio a global concern, even today. In addition, the management of biomass waste resulting
Marco Pantaleo from agriculture, animal husbandry (biodegradable substrates—manure), and industry
(e.g., spent brewer’s grains, winery, low-quality compost from municipal solid waste,
Received: 15 July 2024
etc.) remains an essential unsolved issue. The growing volume and complexity of waste
Revised: 16 August 2024
management is a major concern for society, with many negative effects on the environment
Accepted: 19 August 2024
and society. It is imperative to develop environmentally friendly waste management
Published: 22 August 2024
techniques in order to assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of solid waste.
Substantial energy and resources are needed to create new products from scratch.
The utilization of the above-mentioned waste constitutes a promising renewable,
Copyright: © 2024 by the author. sustainable source of energy for every city, when combined with modern technologies to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. optimize their conversion into sustainable energy and value-added products and technolo-
This article is an open access article gies to reduce gas emissions. In addition, the transition of the above-mentioned wastes to
distributed under the terms and new value-added products (e.g., in the pharmaceutical industry, etc.) is an important tool
conditions of the Creative Commons for the economic development of an area. The practices of waste to energy (WtE) and waste
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// to value-added products can minimize the ecological impact and reduce the needed costs
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ for the production of a new product.
4.0/).

Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8030121 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci

Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 2 of 45

Moreover, due to the continuous growth of the population, industrialization, techno-

logical evolution, and urbanization, global energy consumption has significantly increased.
Bioenergy significantly contributes to sustainable energy transitions and climate targets.
For urban development and the reduction of the ecological footprint of the cities, it is
crucial to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs (7: affordable and clean
energy, 11: sustainable towns and urban areas, 12: attentive consumption and production,
13: climate action) [1], circular economy, WtE, and zero waste practices.
Biomass waste has emerged as a promising source of sustainable energy, as it does not
affect land, food, or water needs. Physicochemical as well as biological methods of energy
production from biomass have developed, particularly in recent years.
Several studies have been conducted regarding the energy recovery of municipal
solid waste (MSW), biomass wastes, animal manure, and sludges. Zhou and Zhang [2]
suggest incineration compared to landfills in the Greater Bay Area of China, as they es-
timated that by combusting MSW, it could generate 31,346 GWh electricity by 2030 and
77,748 GWh by 2060. Mahmudul et al. [3] explored Australia’s potential for sustainable
energy production from household food waste, finding that processing 10% FDW could
produce 1.22 to 35.4 GWh/year, reducing GHG emissions and positively impacting the
nation’s economy. A recent study showed that agricultural biomass residues (such as
maize stalk/husk, rice husk/straw, wheat straw/husk, sweet potato peelings, ground-
nuts shells/husks/straw, straw beans, banana stem, peels, leaves, sugar cane bagasse,
tops/leaves, coffee and cocoa husks, cotton stalk) and MSW could cover a significant part
of energy demand (580 PJ and 26 PJ, respectively, in 2020, in Cameroon) and mitigate
climate change through the CO2 capture (1,600,000,000 kgCO2 ) of biogas production [4].
For the first time in published research, Jin et al. [5] showed how food waste can be ef-
fectively converted to acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) through continuous integrated cell
fermentation, even in the face of low yield and expensive feedstock. A novel, efficient
method for recovering sludge energy (using free nitrous acid) into medium-chain fatty
acids was performed [6]. Cevrim and Caner [7] studied the biomass source potential in
Erzurum (Turkey) from animal wastes between 2002 and 2021. The findings demonstrated
that it could collect 9,582,132 tons/year of manure and produce 251,977,679 m3 CH4 /year.
Another study [8] showed that by treating rice straw with CO2 nanobubbles, anaerobic
digestion (AD) can increase methane production. In addition, membranes (porous and
non-porous) are a successful viable method for purification, separation, and reaction in the
synthesis of biofuels, which enhances process intensification, while recovering catalysts
and alcohol improves process costs and promotes a circular economy. Heat and power
generation from rice straw and microalgae and syngas production with CO2 capture using
gasification and solar energy were investigated [9]. The Russia–Ukraine war has caused
changes in the energy system’s configuration. The Energy Research Center (Ukraine) states
that there are two approaches to improving system stability: to find and send all equipment
that is readily available to Ukraine, especially transformers, and to outfit communities’
vital infrastructures with alternative energy sources, WtE, to meet the necessary thermal
and electrical energy. The results revealed that the wastes that are used for bioenergy pro-
duction in Ukraine are limited, but there are some successful practices in Ukraine of waste
management (Illintsi Territorial region, Vinnytsia) that should follow other communities
to achieve the integration of the National Waste Management practices in Ukraine 2030,
developing bioenergy recovery guidelines from wastes. This study proposed that organic
unused wastes be used for biogas and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) fuel production to boost
the community’s energy independence, reduce GHG emissions, and reuse these wastes for
new sustainable value-added products (e.g., fertilizers) [10].
A recent review of methods for converting various organic wastes into energy and
new products is rare in the literature. There is a need to bring together the recent progress
of various methods of converting waste into useful products and energy.
Therefore, the goal of this work is to investigate the potential applications of solid
organic wastes (biomass residues, MSW, animal manure, and their combination) for bioen-
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 3 of 45

ergy recovery and production of several sustainable value-added materials with a literature
review (from 2000 to 2024) of the current waste management practices of the cities, from
these wastes using several traditional and new methods (such as gasification, pyrolysis,
anaerobic digestion, immobilized-cell fermentation, dark fermentation, transesterifica-
tion, hydrothermal carbonization (HTC), co-hydrothermal carbonization, combustion, co-
combustion, digestion, co-digestion, liquefication, co-liquefication, pyrolysis, co-pyrolysis,
co-torrefaction, etc.) in order to achieve energy security, green biofuel for heating, cooling
and for vehicles, eliminate gas emissions and wastes volume of a country, implementing
simultaneously a better waste management system (circular economy, waste to energy,
zero waste practice) and SDG goals for a sustainable urban development and environment
protection. Additionally, the paper explores recent technological achievements, such as
integrated systems, nanomaterials, green catalysts, and additives for synergistic effects,
and the consequences of such methods. This review will shed light on technological
methods supporting a long-term plan for converting waste into sustainable bioenergy and
value-added products.

2. Methodological Approach
The Scopus database was used in the current review study. The search string was
refined for the ‘Article’, ‘Review’, Book chapter’, and ‘Book’ document types between 2020
and 2024 (18 February 2024).
Exclusion criteria: Document type: conference paper, conference review, editorial,
letter, erratum, note, short survey, reports, retracted, data paper, review, thesis, Timeframe:
before 2020, Language: other than English, Study focus: other than energy recovery from
biomass residues and solid wastes.
Applied search keywords: energy recovery, bioenergy, wastes, biomass residues,
energy production. Excluded keywords: wastewater, battery, seawater.
Subject areas: energy & environmental science.
Scopus advanced query: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (energy AND recovery) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (bioenergy) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (wastes) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (biomass AND
residues) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (energy AND production) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustain-
able) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (wastewater) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (battery) AND
NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (seawater)) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND
(LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cp”) OR EXCLUDE
(DOCTYPE, “cr”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ed”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “sh”) OR
EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ab”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “rp”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE,
“no”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “le”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “er”) OR EXCLUDE
(DOCTYPE, “tb”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “dp”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND
(EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “COMP”) OR EXCLUDE
(SUBJAREA, “PHYS”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENER”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,
“ENVI”)).

3. Waste to Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products

3.1. Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products from Urban Wastes/Municipal Solid Wastes
Organic solid waste is a promising source for circular economy principles that promote
conversion into bioenergy and sustainable new value-added materials. Using empirical
models (Landfill Gas Emissions Model, LandGEM 3.02) and several statistical data of
the Kanuru (in Vijayawada landfill, solid wastes from Nandigama, Tiruvuru, and Vi-
jayawada), such as the MSW generation and population (0.569 kg/capita/day in 2021
with 1,396,853 population, and 0.81 kg/capita/day with 6,328,761 population in 2040), the
calorific value of the MSW (year 2016: 3216 kcal/kg), the ash content (range of 30.2 to 47.7%),
and the moisture content (27.4–51.9%). Ramprasad et al. [11] estimated methane and CO2
emissions and calculated the potential H2 generation for clean energy. A maximum of
43.3 Gg/y of renewable H2 during 2042 might be produced at the Kanuru landfill site using
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 4 of 45

the steam reforming reaction. In landfills, a gas recovery system with an efficiency of about
80% is crucial for energy recovery.
Dodo and Ashigwuike [12] performed a comprehensive analysis of the physico-
chemical properties and grid electricity prospects of Abuja’s (Nigeria) MSW. Accord-
ing to this study, more than 69% of the 257,500 tons of MSW (with an average net
calorific value: 18.1 MJ/kg) produced annually (0.53 kg/person/day) can generate energy,
power, and grid power of 2274.42 MWh, 28.43 MW, and 19.19 MW, respectively, and save
67.5 million metric tons/year of CO2 emissions.
Vasileiadou et al. [13] performed a comprehensive analysis regarding the combus-
tion features, highest amount of gas emissions, empirical chemical formulas, secondary
waste formation, fouling and slagging, kinetic and thermodynamic analysis, and sev-
eral case study scenarios for energy that could be covered, in Greece and in Europe,
of 4 different MSW: food waste (FDW), green waste (GNW), paper waste (PAP), and
organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW). These wastes were examined separately and in 12 dif-
ferent blends of lignite (LIGA). Additionally, several prediction models have been de-
veloped and compared with the literature. Raw MSWs revealed better quality char-
acteristics (gross calorific value, GCV:FDW: 18.9 MJ/kg > OFMSW: 16.6 kJ/kg > PAP:
16.0 kJ/kg > GNW: 12.2 MJ/kg > LIGA: 12.7 MJ/kg, ash content per produced mega-
joule: FDW: 0.0025 kg/MJ > PAP: 0.0042 kg/MJ > OFMSW: 0.0067 kg/MJ > GNW:
0.0144 kg/MJ > LIGA: 0.0307 kg/MJ, lower maximum CO2 /MJ, NO/MJ and SO2 /MJ
emission factors per produced megajoule, MJ) than lignite (reference sample). The findings
demonstrated that MSW as a raw alternative fuel and MSW blended with lignite are both
viable alternative options for energy production. In addition, these wastes could cover a sig-
nificant amount of energy demand: 0.91 Mtoe/year, up to 5% in Greece and 36.8 Mtoe/year,
up to 12.1% in Europe, respectively. (Basic used variables: waste generation: Europe
1.18 kg/capita/year in 2017, 1.30 kg/capita/year in 2030, and 1.45 kg/capita/year in
2060. In Greece, it was 503.7 kg/capita/year in 2017, and it is expected to be 491.1 in
2030, and 547.7 in 2060. The primary energy production (in 2017) was 758.2 Mtoe/year in
Europe, and 7.5 Mtoe/year in Greece. The population (in 2017) was 511.8 million in Europe
and 10.77 million in Greece, and it is expected to increase by +13% in 2030 and +36% in
2060). However, further studies should be performed on the denitrogenation process and
the reduction process of chlorine. Cesaro et al. [14] used dark fermentation and formic
acid pretreatment of the OFMSW (collected from an Italian municipality) for increased
energy production and biochemicals. Results showed that H2 yield was 31.6 mL/gVS
when OFMSW was pretreated with 5% formic acid accumulating metabolites (e.g., acetic
acid, butyric acid), and ethanol was recovered. The study reveals that acid concentration
significantly influences the biological conversion of OFMSW, and adjusting operating
temperature and treatment time can optimize processes for sustainable energy carriers or
building blocks.
AD of energy crops, residues, and waste is gaining interest for its potential to reduce
GHG emissions and promote sustainable energy development. Food waste is organic waste
originating from a variety of places, for instance, food processing facilities, restaurants,
households, and commercial and institutional establishments. Oliveira et al. [15] assessed
the effect of forced continuous aeration pretreatment and aerobic storage time on food
waste’s biochemical methane potential. The finding illustrates a rise in CH4 yield concern-
ing the total volatile solids (TVS) of FDW (425 NmL CH4 /g TVS) compared to samples
without pre-processing (375 NmL CH4 /g TVS). After applying forced and continuous
aeration pretreatment to food waste for 4 days, produced 456 NmL CH4 /g TVS for the
leachate, which is 1.22 times more than when food waste was not stored. One alternative
way to boost CH4 production from food waste is to apply an aeration pretreatment prior
to AD. Another study [16], transformed FDW into multiple products using 2 anaerobic
processes: 1. anaerobic fermentation (AF) at 55 ◦ C, pH 5.8, 20.1 d hydraulic retention time,
and then 2. AD and open mixed cultures. Sustainable production was made possible
by this multiproduct strategy by producing bioproducts (ethanol and short-chain fatty
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 5 of 45

acids) and bioenergy (CH4 and H2 ). Since Australia does not yet have as many large-scale
AD plants as those in the USA and Germany, Mahmudul et al. [3] studied the viability of
clean energy generation using the AD process from domestic FDW in Australia. Between
2008–09 and 2017–18, Australia’s primary energy consumption increased by an average
of 0.9%, from 5843.6 PJ to 6171.7 PJ. Using only 10% FDW from Australia could produce
1.22 GWh–35.4 GWh of energy per year (0.54–15.7 million AUD) with a reduction of about
639,850 tons GHG emissions. Therefore, FDW is a very effective source of sustainable
energy that could also have a positive impact on the nation’s economy and GHG emissions.
Jin et al. [5] successfully converted FDW to acetone, butanol, and ethanol (ABE) using
continuous immobilized cell fermentation, overcoming challenges like high feedstock costs
and reduced efficiency, using Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum deltptabuk as raw mate-
rial. The reunification high-butanol generation strain Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum
deltptabuk was used as feedstock, achieving 19.65 g/L ABE with 0.43 yield and 4.56 g/L/h
with 23-fold better productivity compared to batch fermentation.
The findings of Phuthongkhao et al. [17] showed that paper sludge waste could
successfully be converted to carbonaceous hydrochar via HTC under controlled conditions.
According to the results, paper sludge waste can be transformed into high-quality solid
fuel and substituted for lignite.
Other study [6], presented a novel efficient method of recovering sludge energy (using
free nitrous acid) into medium-chain fatty acids. Applying 1.78 mg N/L without nitrous
acid pre-processing to sewage sludge (SS) resulted in a maximum medium-chain fatty
acids (MCFA) yield in the anaerobic fermentation of the sludge that was found to be
10.6 times higher than the control. Appropriate doses of free nitrous acid pretreatment
(0.71 to 1.78 mg N/L) greatly increased the carbon flow from sewage sludge into MCFA
in the fermentation system. However, because of its toxicity to living cells, its direct
addition significantly reduced the generation of complete materials (e.g., complex alcohols,
carboxylates) in sludge (dropping to 8.3%–13.9%). The outcomes are encouraging for
achieving sustainable SS utilization. In addition, SS could be used to enhance the production
of SCFAs through pretreatment using ferrate strengthened with percarbonate [18]. About
3670 mg COD/L SCFAs under ideal pretreatment (enhanced 551% compared to the control).
As valuable renewable energy and chemical sources, SCFAs highlight the significance of
optimizing SCFA production for viable waste management practices.
Several methods have been used in order to evaluate the quantity of MSW in a country.
For instance, Alidoosti et al. [19] proposed a model (numerous objective optimization based
on mixed integer nonlinear programming) for a viable MSW system to optimally extract
various bioenergies that take into account all three dimensions of economic, environmental,
and social sustainability under uncertain conditions. A variety of techniques based on
interactive fuzzy programming were used to address uncertainty in this network. The
data was collected from Arad Kooh in Iran, and the General Algebraic Modeling System
(GAMS) modeling language was utilized. The suggested solution method resulted in the
production of bioenergy through treatment technologies.
In general, it can be concluded that the quantity and quality of MSW physicochemical
characteristics are increased in countries with a lower–middle income (e.g., Greece) than in
lower income economies countries (e.g., Nigeria). Moreover, the MSW could contribute
to covering a considerable percentage of energy demand. In addition, the quality (type)
and the quantity of the acid treatment that is implemented in the anaerobic digestion (or
anaerobic fermentation) process of MSW for CH4 production (or for MCFA products) are
crucial factors and affect the conversion process, and as a result, the biofuel (or value-
added products) yield. In addition, total management (collection, storage, pretreatment,
conversion to bioenergy or to ABE products) of domestic FDW should be implemented by
municipal local authorities in countries that have not yet implemented a sustainable waste
management system for sustainable cities. Last but not least, sewage sludge management
(e.g., anaerobic fermentation) could contribute to short- and medium-chain fatty acids
(SCFAs and MCFA).
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 6 of 45

Table 1 presents the main results of the abovementioned studies that transformed
MSW into bioenergy and value-added products.

Table 1. Municipal solid wastes to sustainable bioenergy, biofuels, and value-added products.

Biomass Residue Enhance

Method Biofuel/Result Refs.
Source Treatment/Additives
Hydrogen production, steam
reforming reaction (Vijayawada
landfill, solid wastes from
Nandigama, Tiruvuru, and Maximum of 43.3 Gg/y
MSW Vijayawada), 0.569 kg/capita/day - Hydrogen production [11]
in 2021 with 1,396,853 population, during 2042
0.81 kg/capita/day and 6,328,761,
in 2040, 3216 kcal/kg, Landfill Gas
Emissions Model, LandGEM 3.02
Energy, reduced CO2
emissions,
Physicochemical analysis, grid More than 69% of
electricity prospect of Abuja’s, 257,500 tons/y could produce
MSW average net calorific value: - energy, power, and grid power [12]
18.1 MJ/kg, 0.53 kg/person/day of 2274.42 MWh, 28.43 MW,
(Nigeria) and 19.19 MW, respectively,
and save 67.5 million metric
CO2 t/year.
Combustion, all cities in Greater
Best: 31,346 GWh by 2030 &
MSW Bay Area of China, 2 scenarios 15% [2]
77,748 GWh by 2060 electricity
and 30% efficiency
Physicochemical, kinetic, Enhanced energy GCV (avg.
thermodynamic, environmental 15.9 MJ/kg): FDW: 18.9 MJ/kg
impact, modelling, energy cover > OFMSW: 16.6 kJ/kg > PAP:
for Greece and Europe, empirical 16.0 kJ/kg > GNW: 12.2 MJ/kg
chemical formulas, Maximum > LIGA: 12.7 MJ/kg, reduced
potential emission factors, waste ash/MJ: FDW: 0.0025 kg/MJ >
generation: Europe PAP: 0.0042 kg/MJ > OFMSW:
4 types of raw MSW: 1.18 kg/capita/year in 2017, 0.0067 kg/MJ > GNW:
FDW, GNW, PAP, & 1.30 kg/capita/year in 2030, and 0.0144 kg/MJ > LIGA:
- [13]
OFMSW were 1.45 kg/capita/year in 2060. 0.0307 kg/MJ, reduced CO2 ,
examined separately In Greece, 503.7 kg/capita/year in NO and SO2 emissions per MJ,
2017, 491.1 in 2030, and 547.7 in could cover energy demand
2060. Primary energy production (0.91 Mtoe/y, up to 12.1% in
(in 2017): Europe 758.2 Mtoe/year, Greece. 36.8 Mtoe/y, 5% in
Greece 7.5 Mtoe/year. Population Europe), a sustainable
(in millions, 2017): Europe 511.8, approach for substituting part
Greece 10.77 (+13% in 2030, +36% of lignite with an eco-friendly,
in 2060) low-cost alternative
Model (multi-objective
possibilistic mixed-integer
non-linear programming),
interactive fuzzy programming Economic, environmental, and
MSW - [19]
was used to address uncertainty in social sustainability
network, General Algebraic
Modeling System (GAMS)
software Arad Kooh, Iran
H2 yield 31.6 mL/gVS with 5%
Organic fraction of Formic acid
Dark fermentation formic acid pretreatment, [14]
municipal solid waste pretreatment
biochemicals
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 7 of 45

Table 1. Cont.

Biomass Residue Enhance

Method Biofuel/Result Refs.
Source Treatment/Additives
CH4 ,
Enhanced TVS of pretreated
Forced continuous FDW: 425 NmL CH4 /g TVS
FDW Biochemical methane potential [15]
aeration pretreatment (samples without
pre-processing: 375 NmL
CH4 /g TVS
ABE, 19.65 g/L ABE, 23-fold
Continuous immobilized-cell
FDW - better productivity compared [5]
fermentation
to the batch fermentation
2 anaerobic processes (anaerobic
Bioproducts (ethanol and
fermentation, AF and then
FDW - Short-chain fatty acids) and [16]
anaerobic digestion, AD) & open
bioenergy (CH4 and H2 )
mixed cultures
6 states, Australia’s potential for
sustainable energy, primary Energy, reduced CO2
energy production 2017–18: emissions, using 10% FDW
6171.7 PJ, population (2017): from Australian could produce
Household FDW - [3]
24.4 million, AD, in 2016–17: 1.22 GWh–35.4 GWh/y,
2.5 Mt of domestic FDW, 2 kWh of reduction of about 639,850 tons
electricity and 7.7 MJ of heat can GHG emissions
be generated per m3 of biogas
High quality carbonaceous
Paper sludge wastes HTC under controlled conditions - hydrochar, substitute the use [17]
of lignite
Fermentation, and several
Increased SCFAs production
analytical methods TSS (total Ferrate strengthened
(under optimal pretreatment:
SS suspended solids), VSS (volatile with percarbonate [18]
3670.2 mg COD/L SCFAs
suspended solids), etc. pretreatment
production)
(Tianjin, China)
Novel efficient method using free Free nitrous acid
SS Medium-chain fatty acids [6]
nitrous acid pretreatment

3.2. Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products from Solid Animal Waste (Manure)
Biogas production via anaerobic digestion presents several economic and sustain-
able environmental benefits. Several studies use AD to produce biogas, and they are
presented below.
A spatial and economic analysis of biogas production in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s
southern areas (Pakistan), originating from livestock farm manure, was performed [20].
According to the analysis, it is feasible to build 868 biogas plants, which would produce
909.34 MWe electric power. A large number of biodigestors are used in China for residential
use. Another study [21] showed that the hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) of beef cattle
manure could increase bioenergy production in limited feed varieties.
Cevrim and Caner [7] studied the biomass source potential in Erzurum (Turkey) from
animal wastes between 2002 and 2021. The results showed that it is possible to collect
9,582,132 tons/year of manure and produce 251,977,679 m3 CH4 . The potential energy
from animal waste could cover 96% of Erzurum province’s annual electricity consumption.
Latifi et al. [22] studied the potential for methane recovery (by AD) from the organic
matter of Iranian slaughterhouse wastes (SHW). The results showed that about 111 mil-
lion m3 per year of CH4 could be produced by combined heat–power (CHP) plants (about
1000 GWh of electricity) and reduce Iran’s CO2 emissions by 482,000 tons.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 8 of 45

Madrigal et al. [23] studied the impact of biochar made of animal manure (bovine) as
a sustainable additive to enhance the AD of cheese whey (CWP). Bovine manure and pure
CWP contain increased levels of organic substances, which, if released into the environment,
could pose serious environmental problems. AD can mitigate these effects. More than
163 mL CH4 /g VSadd impeded from direct AD of CWP. Adding biochar seems to be one
method of avoiding the inhibition of AD. The results showed that the biochemical methane
potential (BMP) of the CWP and 2 g biochar/gVS base revealed 358 mL CH4 /g VSadd .
Filho et al. [24] evaluated the possibility of producing biogas from organic waste using
BMP bench-test biodigesters at the Supply and Logistics Center of Pernambuco. The biogas
produced by inoculating waste with ruminant manure was found to be the lowest, whereas
treatments involving sludge and mixtures yielded the highest volumes. Based on the biogas
generated, an estimated 359 kWh/d of electric power could be produced.
Ziala Village, Bangladesh, is well known for producing biogas and managing cow
dung. Large volumes of organic residues and biogas are utilized as organic fertilizer and
fuel in Ziala Village. Renewable energy transfer plants improve cooking environments,
reduce firewood collection time, and preserve forest resources. This leads to improved
environmental conditions and socio-economic profiles [25].
Sustainable and economically feasible activated carbons from biocollagenic waste
(leather industry) were introduced by Cabrera-Codony et al. [26], through chemical acti-
vation at various temperatures and weight ratios in order to be used for biogas enhance-
ment. The resultant microporous adsorbents had a maximum siloxane adsorption capacity
of 500 mg/g, and favorable textural and chemical characteristics (total pore volume of
0.76 cm3 /g, Brunauer–Emmett–Teller BET specific surface area: 1600 m2 /g). These materi-
als were found to be effective for applications that reduce gaseous pollutants.
Physicochemical parameters of abattoir waste, fecal sludge, and vegetable and fruit
wastes were examined [27]. The outcomes demonstrated that these wastes could be utilized
for enhanced soil for agricultural productivity and biogas production.
Generally, it can be concluded that hydrothermal liquefaction of animal manures could
increase bioenergy production. Moreover, the potential energy from animal waste could
cover a high percentage of the annual electricity consumption and reduce CO2 emissions.
Last but not least, slaughterhouse waste could contribute to enhanced bioenergy production.
This type of animal waste is used in not fully industrial countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Turkey, and African countries, e.g., Burkina Faso. One important issue regarding such
wastes is the possibility of extracting high value-added products before using them as fuel.
Table 2 illustrates the main results of the above-mentioned studies that transomed
animal wastes to bioenergy, biofuels, and value-added products.

Table 2. Solid animal waste to sustainable bioenergy, biofuels, and value-added products.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Result Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Biogas source analysis, in
Erzurum (Turkey), between
CH4 production, possible to
2002 and 2021, biogas heating
Animal wastes produce 251,977,679 m3 CH4 /y,
value: 22.7 MJ/m3 , methane - [7]
(manure) cover 96% of Erzurum province’s
heating value: 36 MJ/m3 ,
annual electricity consumption
efficiency 35%, electricity
consumption 919,749.00 MWhe
Livestock farm manure Spatial and economic analysis - Feasible to build biogas plants [20]
Increase energy recovery in higher
Beef cattle manure HTL at 200–300 ◦ C, 60 min - temperature, biocrude oil: [21]
30–35 MJ/kg
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 9 of 45

Table 2. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Result Refs.
Treatment/Additives
CH4 production and CO2 emissions
reduction, ~111 million m3 /y CH4
Slaughterhouse wastes Combined heat–power (CHP) could produce into CHP plants
- [22]
(SHW) plants (~1000 GWh electricity), and reduce
Iran’s CO2 emissions by
482,000 tons.
Pure cheese whey Biochar/CH4 , (358 mL CH4 /g
AD Bovine manure [23]
(CWP) VSadd , 2 g biochar/gVS)
Inoculating waste with
Biogas production (359 kWh.d−1 of
ruminant manures, BMP bench-test biodigesters - [24]
electric power could be produced)
sludge and mixtures
Biogas plant, samples from
Cow dung 12 dairy farms, Ziala Village at Biogas production [25]
Tala Sub-District in Satkhira
Biocollagenic waste Chemical activation at various Low-cost and sustainable activated
- [26]
(leather industry) temperatures and weight ratios carbons, microporous adsorbents.
Enhanced soil, biogas production
Faecal sludge (FS), (90% fecal sludge & 10% of fruits
Physicochemical analysis, in
abattoir waste, and and vegetables waste: 29.4 L/kg of
Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso - [27]
fruit and vegetable biogas, settled sludge and semi-solid
(Africa)
waste material: 54.4 L/kg of biogas with
51% of CH4 ).

3.3. Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products from Biomass Waste/Residues

Biomass waste transformation into sustainable fuels and biochemicals is a strategic
approach to reducing fossil feedstock use, reducing waste accumulation, not depleting
resources for food consumption, reducing environmental impact, lessening financial losses,
and making a feasible transition to a sustainable society. Moreover, thermochemical analyt-
ical experimental methods (e.g., proximate analysis, gross calorific value determination,
ultimate analysis, scanning electron microscopy/energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry,
thermogravimetric, and differential thermogravimetric analysis, etc.) are useful tools for
the evaluation, characterization, and categorization of fuels. Moreover, the results of the
thermochemical analytical experimental methods could help (in combination with other
statistical data, such as energy consumption, population, etc.) to calculate the energy cover
of a country. In the last two decades, there has been an increase in interest in the research
community due to the energy crisis and environmental pollution. Researchers utilized
these methods in order to find sustainable alternative biofuels from wastes. Several inves-
tigations have been conducted concerning this shift. Sustainable energy generation from
olive stones (OLS) and extracted olive pomace (EOP) from an olive oil mill was studied
by Vasileiadou et al. [28] with several thermochemical experimental analyses and several
calculated methods in order to characterize these wastes for potential alternative solid
biofuels and estimate the possible energy cover. Thermodynamic and kinetic modeling,
maximum emission factors, and empirical chemical formulas were performed. Moreover,
several case studies were examined for sustainable practices of oil (olive) industry solid
wastes for potential energy cover. Solid mill wastes resulting from oil (olive) produc-
tion revealed attractive properties as solid biofuels. In comparison to lignite, they have
nearly twice the value on gross calorific value (~21 MJ/kg), eight times less ash production
(<7 wt.%) (secondary waste), and lower activation energy, COx , NOx and SOx emissions.
Moreover, they showed lower activation energy, which is translated to a faster combustion
rate. The results of this study showed that these wastes could be used effectively as a
main source for bioenergy production in small-scale applications or as auxiliary/secondary
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 10 of 45

fuels (e.g., with lignite blends, substituting part of lignite with eco-friendly fuels) [28]. The
combustion of 100% brewers’ spent grain and BSG co-combustion with lignite, in several
proportions, were studied as alternative agro-industrial waste management and sustainable
energy production [29]. More specifically, the author, via multiple experimental analyses
(ultimate analysis, higher heating value analysis, proximate analysis, environmental impact
analysis regarding secondary solid wastes, ash elemental analysis, thermogravimetric
analysis and synergistic effect, chlorides, and sulfate sulfur determination, thermodynamic
analysis, kinetic analysis, empirical chemical formulas determination, maximum potential
CO2 , SO2 , and NO emission factors, case studies for sustainable management), suggested
an alternative sustainable management of BSG for energy recovery, as new studies have
shown that BSG should not be used as animal feed due to microbial activity. In addition,
Vasileiadou [30] investigated grape marc (winery solid waste) as a potential sustainable
biofuel and as a supplemental fuel for lignite. The study found that grape marc is a good
potential substitute biofuel because of its superior fuel qualities (e.g., enhanced energy
content: more than 19 MJ/kg, low activation energy: 65 kJ/mol, low ash content: less
than 5.7 wt.%, low gas emission per produced megajoule: 98.5 gCO2 per produced MJ,
0.5 gSO2 per produced MJ, and 0.5 gNO per produced MJ, etc.). Moreover, the quality
of the solid composite fuels was enhanced in blends (containing lignite in 30%, 50%, and
70%) as the proportion of grape marc increased. Forestry waste residues of breadfruit tree
(BFT), Macaranga spp. (MCG), Acacia mangium (ACM), and fig tree leaves (FGL) of Malaysia
were examined using several thermochemical analyses for energy recovery. According
to the results, the ACM may produce more pyrolysis bio-oils and bio-gases, while the
FGL’s large residual mass makes it the most suitable for producing biochar [31]. Şen [32]
evaluated the possibilities for the generation of bioenergy for heating and CO2 emissions
implementation from the palletization of greenhouse post-harvest wastes (using leaf and
stem wastes of pepper, tomato, and eggplant). Tomato, pepper, and eggplant pellets
had a gross calorific values ranging from 17.3 to 17.8 MJ/kg. The findings of the pellet
biofuels were compared with ISO and EU standards, as well as with sawdust. Accord-
ing to the findings, 10 tons/hectare of waste could be produced, which would provide
about 50 MWh of energy. In addition, these wastes could produce over 6.5 tons/hectare
CO2 and be utilized in the greenhouse during the cold season for photosynthesis. Diaz
et al. [33] examined the potential of biomass residues/wastes (such as grape residues,
potato residues, tomato grape residues, potato residues, tomato residues, and banana re-
sides and banana resides, resulting both from the fields and from industry) using statistical
data for renewable energy sources in the Canary Islands. The calculated findings revealed
that the annual production of these residues in the Canary Islands is about 235,000 tons
(banana agriculture: ~111,000 tn/year, tomato agriculture: ~53,000 tn/year, potato agricul-
ture: ~40,000 tn/year, and grape agriculture: ~30,000 tn/year) and could generate about
1.39 petajoule (PJ) of energy (~4.79% of the current energy usage in the Canary Islands).
Another theoretical estimation of potential energy was performed by Fitri et al. [34] who
studied several biomass residues of the West Nusa Tenggara region in Indonesia, such
as corn kernels, corn and paddy straw, rice, coffee, and cacao. The overall calculation of
the total energy of the analyzed agricultural wastes was found to be almost 42.4 PJ. Del
Valle et al. [35] used one of the major rural areas in China to study straw management
decisions, focusing on climate, agricultural kinds, agricultural situations, economic costs,
social networks, government planning, and individual attributes. The results demonstrated
that increasing the use of straw for bioenergy and sustainable development can be achieved
through a variety of targets for straw utilization, balanced policies, and actions pertaining
to agricultural mechanization, land consolidation, and spatial planning. The development
and enhancement of crop straw management initiatives can be guided by these findings.
Last but not least, Holmatov et al. [36] studied worldwide bioethanol production and GHG
emission savings from crop-based lignocellulosic biomass by using 123 crop residues in
192 countries. 20 case studies (optimistic and realistic) were examined. The results showed
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 11 of 45

that bioethanol production ranges from 7.1 to 34.0 EJ/year, which could replace 7 to 31% of
oil products for transportation, saving 338 Mt to 1836 Mt of CO2 emissions.
Direct combustion is a thermochemical method that burns biomass residue fuels in the
presence of excess air. Brunerová et al. [37], investigate how Vietnam manages its sugarcane
processing waste by using high-pressure briquetting technology (a hydraulic high-pressure
briquetting press Briklis, type BrikStar 30-12), according to technical European Committee
for Standardization standards (e.g., EN ISO 17831-2, EN ISO 18122, EN ISO 17225-1,
EN 15234-1), to direct combustion. Reduced ash content (0.97 wt.%) and an increased
calorific value (18.4 MJ/kg) were found, making it suitable for direct combustion practices.
The bagasse’s structural performance was also positive, indicating its potential for energy
recovery and sustainable technologies. Proto et al. [38] use a 30 kW combustor fitted with a
multicyclone filtration system to study emissions behavior of different pruning residues
(wood biomasses). Regarding emissions and energy yield, the results showed that olive
residues were the most promising biomass. Wastes produced by fruits (jackfruit), such as
seeds (JS) and peels (JP), have potential as a bioenergy source. Alves et al. [39] evaluated the
suitability of combusting these wastes for sustainable energy generation. The combustion
characteristics of JS and JP showed favorable burning performance, high heating value
(~16.5 MJ/kg) and volatiles (75–81%), and reduced COx and SOx radiations. This study
contributes to the establishment of these wastes as sustainable energy sources.
Le et al. [40] studied the potential for sustainable fuel (bioethanol) and chemical
production (lignin, silica, and nutrients) from paddy wastes (rice straw) at a pilot-scale
biorefinery. Up to 96% silica and 79% pure lignin were obtained from the alkaline pretreat-
ment of black liquor. The solid matter remaining after distillation served as a source of
N2 and was utilized for saccharification and fermentation in a manner analogous to corn
steep alcohol with 1.6 weight percent ethanol production (160 h). The final liquid waste
was repurposed for acidification. This zero-waste biorefinery model showed an energy
efficiency of 0.53, encouraging the integration of the biomass industry and sustainable
agricultural development.
Several biomass wastes (potato peel wastes, Conocarpus wastes, Eucalyptus pruning
wastes, sugarcane baggage, microalgal biomass, banana peel wastes, maize stalks, pi-
geon pea) have been used in several studies conducted in recent years in pyrolysis (the
breakdown of organic compounds without oxygen). Potato is one of the major cash crops
worldwide, generating from 15 to 40 wt.% peel waste depending on the peeling method
used (steam, abrasion, lye, etc.). Potato wastes are promising for bio-derived chemicals and
biofuels. Daimary et al. [41] studied potato peels as a viable material for bio-oil, biochar,
and a green catalyst for biodiesel production. The byproduct, biochar, can be converted
into bio-based mixed metal oxides and carbonates. The optimal pyrolysis temperature for
this process is 500 ◦ C, resulting in high bio-char (~30%) and bio-oil (~24%) production.
The synthesized catalyst revealed strong catalytic activity with a high potassium content,
achieving a maximum oil conversion of 97.5% under optimized parameters (60 ◦ C, 2 h,
catalyst 3 wt.%, and 9:1 methanol:oil ratio). Large volumes of potato peel waste (PPW)
are produced by the potato processing industry. This process turns potato waste into
valuable, recyclable, and environmentally friendly products. Wallikhani et al. [42] studied
bioenergy and biochar generation from eucalyptus and Conocarpus pruning residues using
pyrolysis in Khuzestan (Iran) and found that by utilizing these wastes, they could generate
167,510 tons of biochar and 312 GWh of electricity. Biochar production from maize stalks
and pigeon peas at different pyrolysis temperatures (400, 500, 600 ◦ C) was studied [43].
Elevated pyrolysis temperatures lead to increased levels of essential nutrients (Ca, Mg, S, K,
etc.) but lower N content. Lower temperature-produced biochar is suitable for controlling
fertilizer nutrients and removing soil contaminants. Higher temperature-produced biochar
results in materials that are comparable to environmental remediation, activated carbon,
and reduced polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Thermogravimetric analysis and kinetic
investigation of sesame stalk non isothermal pyrolysis (nitrogen inert) were performed by
Huang et al. [44] at a 5–20 K/min heating rate, 350–900 ◦ C. The results showed an average
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 12 of 45

activation energy of 140 to 150 kJ/mol for stage II (629–800 K) and 125–136 kJ/mol for
stage I (450 to 629 K). The results of the study indicate that waste from sesame stalks is
a suitable renewable feedstock for producing bioenergy, and the findings of the kinetics
and thermodynamics modeling calculations may also be used to develop future pyrolysis
reactors that are appropriate for using sesame stalk biomass.
Catalytic pyrolysis has been used by several researchers. More specifically, sugarcane
baggage (SCB) was studied [45] using several analytical methods (e.g., Pyrolysis Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Py-GC MS, thermogravimetric analysis TGA, X-ray
Fluorescence XRF, and X-ray fluorescence) to determine the physicochemical properties
of SCB. Different mechanisms were involved in catalytic pyrolysis, and the SCB results
evidenced that the activation energy changed as the transition coefficient shifted. When
zeolite catalysts ZSM-5 was added at a weight percentage of 20%, the amount of furfurals
and hydrocarbons enhanced by about 4 wt.% and 3 wt.%, respectively, while acid and
phenols decreased by about 9 wt.% and 15 wt.%, respectively. The results showed that
the characteristics of the pyrolysis products were enhanced by the addition of zeolite
catalysts, and oxygenated compounds decreased. Under ideal circumstances, up to 2.4 g/L
of bioethanol was found. Lee et al. [46] synthesized a biochar-nickel composite using
Microcystis aeruginosa waste, a toxic microalgal biomass, as a catalyst for syngas production
in CO2 -feeding pyrolysis.
Kwon et al. [47] investigated the pyrolysis of banana peel waste to improve waste
management and energy recovery. Carbon dioxide was utilized instead of N2 environment,
and syngas production was examined. Pyrolysis using CO2 accelerates the thermal cracking
of volatile pyrolysates, promoting CO formation at 420 ◦ C. By using no catalyst, this
method also increases the biocrude aromaticity and dehydrogenation of liquid pyrolysates.
According to this study, pyrolysis using CO2 is an ingenious and strategic thermochemical
practice for valuing household scraps.
Qureshi et al. [48] studied cotton stalk acidified in 5 wt.% hydrochloric acid (HCL)
(to eliminate cotton stalk’s undesired amorphous material) to generate clean energy using
pyrolysis and combustion at 4 leaching times from 0–180 min, under N2 environment
from 0–500 ◦ C, and air from 500–900 ◦ C. Several experiments (e.g., ultimate analysis, X-ray
diffraction XRD, proximate analysis, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-
ray spectroscopy SEM-EDS, kinetic analysis, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy FTIR,
energy content, thermogravimetric, etc.) were performed at various rates of procedure. The
results showed that cotton stalk leaching for 180 min perfectly infused HCL and helped
to increase gross calorific value and fixed carbon. Moreover, thermogravimetric analysis
showed increased conversion efficiency. According to SEM results, the acidulation process
was enhanced, which resulted in larger pores.
Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) is a promising thermochemical conversion method
as it transforms biomass with high moisture content (wet biomass) into bioenergy and
biochemicals under hot, compressed water without a pre-drying process. Yard wastes,
wood residues, and industrial wastes (agave bagasse, apple wastes, and BSG) were used in
the HTC process recently. More specifically, Zhang et al. [49] used wet biomass waste (yard
waste) via HTC with and without N2 pressurization to improve carbon storage in hydrochar
using less water. Improvements in carbon usage and energy storage were achieved by
decreasing the amount of process water, which also boosted the hydrochar’s calorific
value (26.3 MJ/kg) and carbon recovery (~60%). Moreover, the pressurization enhanced
hydrochar stability but reduced yield and increased production costs. In a zero-residue
bio-economy, HTC was found [50] to be a profitable method for recovering industrial apple
waste. Retaining energy (82 to 96%) and carbon (80 to 93%) in solids creates CO2 neutral
solid fuels with an energy content of 30 MJ/kg. Solid by-products enhance soil quality and
generate aqueous streams with saturated fatty acids and phenolic compounds, which are
economically advantageous. Weber et al. [51] compare HTC and steam explosion (SE) for
the pretreatment of beverage industry semi-solid wastes, brewers’ spent grain (BSG), and
agave bagasse for biogas production. The CH4 yield was 162 to 173 mL/g COD (Chemical
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 13 of 45

Oxygen Demand) for HTC preprocessing, and 316 to 362 mL/g COD for SE preprocessing.
Agave bagasse yielded the maximum COD in the liquid stage when HTC was applied.
Another study [52] investigated the conversion of wood residue into biofuels using
HTL and found that pretreatment with 4% NaOH boosted recovery and glucose yield
(90 g/L) compared to unwrought wood. During the pretreatment stage, glucose produced
246 kJ of energy, and during the liquefaction stage, the Net Energy Ratio was 63% for
glucose. These findings could help find new waste conversion techniques for sustainable
biofuel production using continuous flow HTL.
Transesterification of oil extracted from biomasses is one of the most common practices
for biodiesel production. Grain bran is an agricultural residue produced from rice process-
ing. Most of the studies used KOH as an alkanine catalyst for transesterification. Lourenço
et al. [53] used vegetable oil from grain bran using homogeneous basic transesterification.
Except for kinematic velocity, the produced biodiesels met EN (European Standards), ASTM
(American Society for Testing and Materials), and ABNT (Brazilian National Standards
Organization) standards. Further studies should be performed in order to use rice oil
for biodiesel production. Ash and indium oxide (In2 O3 ) were also used as catalysts in
biodiesel production. Bananas pseudostem was used [54] for biochar production, which
was further processed for heterogeneous catalyst synthesis or sustainable high alkaline
solution preparation. Waste cooking oil was converted into biodiesel using synthesized ash
as a heterogeneous catalyst. About 97.6% of the leftover cooking oil was converted into
FAME, and the lignin recovery was ~43 wt.%. The hydrothermal reaction was utilized to
recover lignin from bamboo leaves using an ash-based alkaline solution. This approach
provides a sustainable way to transform waste into biochemicals and biofuels. A current
study [55] using a membrane reactor to generate viable biodiesel from inedible Cordia myxa
seed oil (37 wt.%), and transesterification was catalyzed by a green heterogenous indium
oxide (In2 O3 ) nano catalyst with Boerhavia diffusa leaf extract. The biodiesel yield reached
95 weight percent (7:1 methanol to oil, 0.8 wt.% catalyst, 82.5 ◦ C, 180 min.). The catalyst also
showed reusability for up to 5 transesterification cycles. The biodiesel was found to contain
5, 8-octadecenoic acid (as the main fatty acid methyl ester, FAME), as detected using nuclear
magnetic resonance and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. The biodiesel fuel quality
characteristics were found to be similar to EN-14214 and ASTM D 6571 standards. Due
to their multiple benefits (widely available, non-corrosive, non-toxic, biodegradable, low-
cost material, and eliminating wastewater production), biomass-derived heterogeneous
catalysts have been examined extensively in recent years. In other words, these green
catalysts aid in overcoming the drawbacks of traditional catalysts, like toxicity, leaching,
microporosity, environmental unfriendliness, and a lack of active sites.
Several biomass wastes, such as pine needle forest biomass, rice straw, lime fruit
wastes, organic residues generated in grasslands, açaí seeds, hemp, watermelon, sugarcane
wastes, and palm agro-industrial residues (date cake, trunk, leaves, pedicels, seeds, and leaf
sheath), were used in the biochemical conversion of anaerobic digestion. More specifically,
Mahajan et al. [56] investigate the structural alterations in lignocellulosic complex in
pine needle forest biomass after preprocessing, such as acid-base-acid treatment, steam
explosion, and milling. The results showed that AD of the pretreated biomass revealed
21.4% enhanced CH4 than those from untreated pine litter. Moreover, coalescent materials
and lignin droplets that might be employed as possible nanocomposites were found to
be present on the biomass surface. AD of rice straw using CO2 nanobubble treatment
enhances the degradation of amorphous cellulose, enhances the predicted factional enzyme
by 14% in the process of hydrolytic acidification, and methane production by 4.2–7.8% [8].
After citrus is processed to extract juice, a huge amount of the fruit mass is disposed of
as waste. This waste material has the potential to be an important source of cellulosic
biomass for the recovery of bioenergy (biogas). However, the high concentration of soluble
sugars in citrus wastes, particularly d-limonene, can hinder the conversion process. A
study by Ogundare and Olukanni [57], found that pretreatment of lime fruit waste (using
hexane as the solvent in a solid–liquid extraction practice) can decrease the impact of d-
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 14 of 45

limonene. For a duration of 28 days, mesophilic conditions were used to digest pretreated
and untreated lime waste substrates in batches. The study found that untreated lime
waste revealed an almost 67 mL/g VS biogas yield, while the pretreated waste showed
more than 93 mL/g VS (40% enhanced). The findings suggest a viable biogas recovery
option for lime waste. The nitrogen content was high in citrus and grapevine. Therefore, it
might be essential to use a deNOx system when olive waste shows high energy content
and low emissions. Moreover, olive pruning residue is the most common wood fuel
in Europe, holding significant opportunities for sustainable development. The organic
residues generated in grasslands were studied by Achinas and Euverink [58] via a new
simplified theoretical model in order to determine the theoretical biogas potential (AD
process) for a better waste management system. The results showed that this method can be
used effectively for several feedstock materials for dimensioning reactors in AD processes.
High-rich methane biogas recovery was performed [59] using anaerobic digestion of açaí
seeds (dry regime, mesophilic temperature). The findings showed that more than 6 L of
biogas were generated, and the experimental methane yield was about 156.65 mL/g TS
(greater compared to the theoretical one, ~116 mL/g TS). Hemp, watermelon, and sugarcane
wastes were used separately in another study [60], as feedstock for bioethanol production
using different treatments (pH, temperature). pH 4.5, and 35 ◦ C are the optimum values
for bioethanol generation. The study’s findings demonstrated that producing bioethanol
from lignocellulosic biomass through biological transformation is an environmentally
friendly practice that could be used instead of petroleum products. According to [61],
a biorefinery platform can be used to manufacture second generation ethanol, methane,
and lignin on a commercial scale by using different date palm agro-industrial residues,
such as the date cake, trunk, leaves, pedicels, seeds, and leaf sheath. Liquid hot water,
catalyzed ethanol organosolv, and ethanol organosolv pretreatments were used. The results
showed a great capacity for ethanol, lignin production, and methane production. Another
study [62], used BSG for bioethanol and biogas production, which resulted in enhanced
ethanol yield (45%) and enhanced biogas (raw BSG: 379 ± 19 mL biogas/g, defatted BSG:
235 ± 21 mL biogas/g, and stillage: 168 ± 39 mL biogas/g).
In order to produce bioethanol with NaOH (Sodium hydroxide) pretreatment, Ran-
jithkumar et al. [63] investigated the efficient use of 10 different textile mill wastes from
cotton spinning. Cotton spring wastes were found to have a cellulose content of 55–86 wt.%.
In optimal conditions (5 ◦ C, 12% NaOH, 3 h), cellulose content was 98% and crystallinity
reduction was 88%. Saccharification under ideal conditions produced a maximum of 65%
ethanol at 60 h and 82% hydrolysis efficiency. Microalgae, tiny cell factories, are being
explored as an alternative renewable energy source due to their sustainable lipid accumula-
tion under nutrient starvation. Pardilhó et al. [64] conclude that marine macroalgae waste
is a useful supplementary raw material for sustainable bioethanol production by thermal
acid hydrolysis, studying 3 variables: acid concentration 0.1–2.5% v/v H2 SO4 , 10 to 60 min
reaction time, and biomass:acid ratio of 5–15% w/v on efficiency and sugar concentration.
Because the yeast did not consume all available sugars, the biomass:acid ratio increase
resulted in a decrease in the bioethanol concentration. For the production of bioethanol
from marine macroalgae waste, the condition involving a biomass:acid ratio of 10% (w/v)
seems to be the most suitable, allowing both a higher biomass conversion yield to sugars
and a higher bioethanol yield.
Lapo et al. [65] investigate the recovery of rare earth elements (REE) (Tb3+, Nd3+,
Y3+, Eu3+, and Dy3+) utilizing banana wastes, primarily banana peel, pseudo-stem, and
rachis. The adsorbent materials were studied using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy,
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, zeta potential, and scanning electron microscopy with
an energy dispersive X-ray probe (SEM-EDX). The results showed that banana rachis had
the most potent adsorption capacity. By utilizing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)
as the desorbing solution, 97% of the REE was recovered from the adsorbent, suggesting
that banana rachis is a promising renewable bioresource with a high adsorption capacity
and a moderate processing cost for recovering REE.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 15 of 45

Using cutting-edge environmentally friendly solvents, such as natural deep eutectic

solvents (glycerol-tartaric acid, xylitol-tartaric acid, glycerol-citric acid, and xylitol-citric
acid) and acetosolv, and intense ultrasonication, sugarcane bagasse was sustainably recycled
into nanofibrillated cellulose recently [66]. Without significantly losing cellulose, the
combination of glycerol-citric acid and acetsolv produced the maximum solubilization of
lignin and hemicellulose. A remarkable 84.4% yield of cellulose from sugarcane bagasse
was produced. Using intense ultrasonication helped to successfully disintegrate all of the
extracted cellulosic fibers, accelerating the production of nanofibrillated cellulose (≥90%).
Finore et al. [67] explore sustainable methods for producing hemicellulolytic catalysts
from Thermoanaerobacterium thermostercoris strain buff, using industrial processing residues
of tomatoes, fennel, potato, and carrot as carbon sources. Moreover, the bioconversion
reaction of the stems and leaves of cardoons and the polymer fraction from the rhizome of
giant reeds was examined using hemicellulolytic enzymes derived from T. thermostercoris.
The findings demonstrated that residual biomass from the agricultural industry could be
used to produce T. thermostercoris cell biomass and its cellulolytic enzymes in a sustainable
manner. Furthermore, it was found that T. thermostercoris could produce biohydrogen and
bioethanol directly from raw vegetable wastes, such as the residues of energy crops.
The continuous production of hydrocarbon fuels from waste oils (including linseed,
cottonseed, olive, palm, and sea buckthorn oils) through the photoenzymatic decarboxy-
lation of free fatty acids was studied [68]. Photoenzymatic decarboxylation (based on
visible light) is a technology at mild conditions that is an alternative to the hydrotreating of
oils. At concentrations ranging from 8.97 to 15.3 mM, different oils were transformed into
C1-shortened alka(e)nes. Achieving a 204.3 kJ/L/h energy production rate proved to be
highly efficient in producing high-grade biofuel. The hydrolysis and decarboxylation of
sustainable oil wastes in a cascade system without the addition of organic solvents resulted
in the sustainable and continuous production of hydrocarbon fuel.
Generally, there are a huge amount of biomass wastes (crops, residues, forest, indus-
trial biomass origin solid wastes, etc.) that can be transformed into bioenergy or other
value-added products using several technologies (AD, HTC, gasification, pyrolysis, com-
bustion, etc.). The scientific community still seeks the optimum treatments/additives or
the optimum biomass waste blends for a positive synergistic effect (for capturing Cl and S
in the ash and not releasing them as emissions) for enhanced bioenergy yield and reduced
emissions. Catalysts such as nanocatalysts, zeolite catalysts, nickel/biochar composite
catalysts, ash catalysts, and several pretreatment methods, e.g., using alkaline, HCL, NaOH,
and H2 SO4 seem to be some of the feasible options for dealing with this problem.
Table 3 presents the main results of the transformation of biomass residues (wastes)
into bioenergy, biofuels, and value-added products.

Table 3. Biomass wastes/residues into bioenergy, biofuels, and value-added products.

Waste Source Method Enhance Treatment/ Biofuel/Results Refs.

Additives
CO2 Biogas/Methane (CH4 ),
micro-nanobubble, Nanobubbles (especially CO2
Rice straw Hydrolytic acidification of AD N2 - & H2 - [8]
nanobubble nanobubbles) enhanced H2 yield
technology (74–94 times)

100% olive stones, 100% Energy generation, sustainable

extracted olive pomace, and management, energy cover,
Olive stones (OLS) and energy cover,
lignite blends, several blends with lignite, low ash content (<7 wt.%), high
extracted olive pomace thermochemical analyses, GCV (~21 MJ/kg), and low
- [28]
(EOP) thermal characterization, activation energy.
(olive oil solid wastes kinetics, thermodynamic Sustainable approach for
from the oil industry) analysis, and several scenarios substituting part of lignite with an
for sustainable practices eco-friendly, low-cost alternative
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 16 of 45

Table 3. Cont.

Waste Source Method Enhance Treatment/ Biofuel/Results Refs.

Additives
Combustion, co-combustion, Energy generation, alternative use
thermochemical methods, of BSG,
thermal analysis, proximate GCV: 19.05 MJ/kg, ash < 5 wt.%,
analysis, ultimate analysis, max gCO2 /MJ: 91.9, max
BSG alone (raw), empirical chemical formulas, Raw BSG, gSO2 /MJ:1 (lower than lignite), but
BSG blends with lignite case studies for sustainable BSG blends with max potential gNO/MJ emissions: [29]
in several mixes management, environmental lignite 4.8 (higher than lignite), deNOx
impact, maximum emission system maybe is needed, sustainable
factors, kinetic and management, sustainable approach
thermodynamic analysis, ash for substituting part of lignite with
elemental analysis an eco-friendly, low-cost alternative
GCV: 19.3 MJ/kg, ash: 5.74 wt.%,
Combustion, thermochemical CaO: 75.5%, MgO:6.8%.
Winery solid waste: methods, kinetic and promising alternative sustainable
thermodynamic analysis, ash - [30]
grape marc (GM) solid biofuels (enhanced fuel
analysis, etc. characteristics, low COx , NOx , SOx
emissions per Megajoule)
Forestry waste residues
breadfruit tree (BFT), Energy recovery,
Macaranga spp. (MCG), CM for pyrolysis bio-oils and
Thermochemical analyses - [31]
Acacia mangium (ACM), bio-gases, FGL for biochar
and fig tree (FGL) production
leaves
Greenhouse
post-harvest wastes Bioenergy and CO2 for greenhouse
(stem and leaves of Palletization, thermochemical - during cold season to [32]
pepper, tomato, and analysis
photosynthesis
eggplant)
Grape residues, potato
Potential of biomass Renewable energy production for
residues, tomato residues/wastes and potential - [33]
residues, and banana energy the Canary Islands
residues
collected data from various
sources: Statistics Indonesia,
Several biomass One Data WNT, Department of Renewable energy production for
residues (paddy straw, Agriculture and Plantation of - the West Nusa Tenggara region [34]
rice, corn straw and WNT, Department of Energy
kernels, coffee, cacao) (Indonesia)
and Resources, and journal
articles
Study on management
Straw decisions in rural regions - Bioenergy, and sustainable [35]
management
(China)
Non-crop based
lignocellulosic biomass 20 case studies optimistic and
- Bioethanol production, GHG [36]
by using 123 crop realistic emission saving
residues in
192 countries

High-pressure Energy content 18.4 MJ/kg, ash

Sugarcane Direct combustion process briquetting 0.97 wt.%, sustainable waste [37]
management of sugarcane
technology processing
Different pruning
Combustion (boiler 30 kW, LHV: avg. 18–18.7 MJ/kg, grapevine
residues: citrus, multicyclone filter bags), -
grapevine, olive (wood [38]
emission behavior (Italy) and citrus: high N content
biomasses)
Bioenergy,
Jackfruit peels and
Combustion - high heating value (~16.5 MJ/kg), [39]
seeds waste
low CO, CO2 and SO2 emissions
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 17 of 45

Table 3. Cont.

Waste Source Method Enhance Treatment/ Biofuel/Results Refs.

Additives
Sustainable fuel (bioethanol) and
chemical production (pure lignin up
to 79%, silica up to 96%, and
Paddy wastes (rice A pilot-scale biorefinery, Alkaline
pretreatment nutrient), energy efficiency 0.529 > [40]
straw) gasification system
energy efficiency of current process:
0.449, zero-waste biorefinery
practice
Fixed bed pyrolysis reactor Bio-oil, biochar, and a green catalyst
Potato peel wastes (450–550 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C/min -
(Potato peel pyrolyzed calcined
[41]
(PPW) heating rate, residence time biochar catalyst) for biodiesel
30 min) synthesis
Conocarpus and Biochar (167,510 tons) and bioenergy
Eucalyptus pruning Pyrolysis - [42]
wastes production (312 GWh)

Lower temperature-produced
biochar: suitable for controlling
fertilizer nutrients and removing
Maize stalks and soil contaminants.
pigeon pea Pyrolysis at 400, 500, 600 ◦ C - Higher temperature-produced [43]
biochar: comparable to
environmental remediation and
activated carbon, and reduced
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Thermogravimetric and kinetic Energy generation, multi-stage

Waste from sesame - [44]
stalks analysis, pyrolysis reactions in pyrolysis of sesame stalk
seems
Pyrolysis, several analytical
Sugarcane baggage methods (e.g., Py-GC-MS, Enhanced pyrolysis products with
Zeolite catalysts [45]
(SCB) TGA, XRF, and X-ray zeolite catalysts
fluorescence)
Nickel/biochar Synthesis of nickel/biochar
Microcystis aeruginosa Synthesis of nickel/biochar composite (as catalyst composite that used as catalyst for
waste (a toxic composite, CO2 -feeding [46]
microalgal biomass) in CO2 -feeding syngas production in CO2 -feeding
pyrolysis pyrolysis) pyrolysis
Syngas production, CO formation at
Banana peel waste Pyrolysis CO2 environment [47]
420 ◦ C
Clean energy generation (eliminate
Pyrolysis and combustion, Acidified 5% wt.
Cotton stalk HCL cotton stalk’s undesired amorphous [48]
thermochemical analysis
material)
Wet biomass waste HTC with and without N2 Improved carbon storage in
- [49]
(yard waste) pressurization hydrochar, less water consumption
By retaining energy (82–96%) and
Industrial apple waste HTC - carbon (80–93%) in solids, it creates [50]
CO2 neutral solid fuels with
~30 MJ/kg
HTC and steam biogas production, 162 to 173 mL/g
Brewers’ spent grain On-site biogas production, explosion (SE) for the COD for HTC preprocessing, 316 to
pretreatment, and [51]
(BSG), agave bagasse hydrothermal carbonization 362 mL/g COD for SE
combination pre-processing
Sustainable biofuels, pretreatment
HTL Pretreatment with 4%
Wood residue NaOH
enhanced by 1.8 times glucose [52]
production
Vegetable oil from
Homogeneous basic
Rice oil grain bran (as a Biodiesel production [53]
transesterification
catalyst)
Heterogenous catalyst, Ash (as Biodiesel production, highly alkaline
Pseudostem of bananas, an alkaline solution (from the heterogeneous
ash) was used for lignin catalyst in biodiesel solution, biochar production, 97.6%
bamboo leaves, waste [54]
cooking oil recovery from bamboo leaves production from conversion (of cooking oil waste)
by hydrothermal reaction waste cooking oil) into FAME, lignin recovery ~43 wt.%
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 18 of 45

Table 3. Cont.

Waste Source Method Enhance Treatment/ Biofuel/Results Refs.

Additives
Green heterogenous
Membrane reactor to generate Enhanced biodiesel yield (up to
indium oxide (In2 O3 )
Cordia myxa seed oil viable biodiesel, nano catalyst with 95 wt.%), similar to fuels with [55]
transesterification quality standards ASTM D 6571 &
Boerhavia diffusa leaf EN14214
extract
21.4% enhanced methane
production with pretreatment
Steam explosion,
compared to the untreated, the
Pine needle forest AD, structural alterations in milling, and [56]
biomass lignocellulosic complex biomass surface was found to
acid-base-acid contain coalescent materials and
treatment lignin droplets that could be utilized
as potential nanocomposites
Digestion (untreated and Pretreatment using
pretreated lime waste) in hexane as the solvent Enhanced (40%) biogas in pretreated
Lime fruit waste [57]
batches under mesophilic in a solid–liquid waste 93.2 mL/g VS
conditions (28 d) extraction process
Organic residues
AD - Better waste management system [58]
generated in grasslands
AD (dry regime, mesophilic CH4 yield 156.65 mL/g TS,
Açaí seeds [59]
temperature) enhanced biogas production
Hemp, watermelon, Biological transformation Different treatment Bioethanol production (optimum
[60]
and sugarcane wastes Anaerobic fermentation pH and temperature values: pH 4.5, and 35 ◦ C)
Liquid hot water, Enhanced methane, ethanol, and
Palm agro-industrial Biorefinery platform, lignin production. I. ethanol:
ethanol organosolv,
residues (date cake, 2 scenarios: I. Maximum lignin 807 mL/kg, CH4 : 903 L/kg, lignin:
trunk, leaves, pedicels, generation, II. Maximum and catalyzed ethanol [61]
organosolv 528 g/kg residue. II. Energy equal to
seeds, and leaf sheath) bioenergy.
pretreatments 1553 mL of gasoline
acid pretreatment Enhanced bioethanol and biogas
enzymatic hydrolysis production [raw BSG:
Dehydration and the recovery
BSG with CellicCTec2 and 379 ± 19 mL biogas/g, defatted [62]
of used oil
fermentation with S. BSG: 235 ± 21 mL biogas/g, and
cerevisiae stillage: 168 ± 39 mL biogas/g]
10 different textile mill Bioethanol production, maximum
waste from cotton Saccharification NaOH pretreatment [63]
spinning 65% ethanol in optimal conditions

Thermal acid hydrolysis,

Marine macroalgae Acid concentration Enhanced bioethanol production,
waste response surface methodology (0.1–2.5% v/v H2 SO4 ) [64]
2.4 g/L
(RSM)
Rare earth elements (REE)
(Nd3+, Eu3+, Y3+, Dy3+, and
Banana wastes, 97% of the REE was recovered from
primarily banana peel, Tb3+) recovery from aqueous Ethylenediaminetetraacetic the adsorbent, suggesting that
pseudo-stem, and solutions study, acid (EDTA) as the banana rachis is a promising [65]
the adsorbent materials were desorbing solution
rachis renewable bioresource
characterized using analytical
techniques
Cutting-edge environmentally
Sugarcane bagasse friendly solvents and intense - Nanofibrillated cellulose. [66]
ultrasonication
Hemicellulolytic T. thermostercoris cell biomass
Industrial processing enzymes from production, cellulolytic enzymes,
residues of tomatoes, Thermoanaerobacterium T. thermostercoris was T. thermostercoris could produce
thermostercoris [67]
fennel, potato, and from giant reed
biohydrogen and bioethanol directly
carrot as carbon sources rhizome and cardoon
leaves and stems from raw

Photoenzymatic
decarboxylation of free fatty
Waste oils: palm, olive,
acids, Without using
linseed, sea buckthorn, High quality HC biofuels [68]
hydrolysis and organic solvents
cottonseed oils
decarboxylation using a
cascade system
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 19 of 45

3.4. Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products from Mixed Feedstock (Biomass Residues,
Wastes, Manure Etc.), Catalyst, or/and Integrated Energy Systems
Increased research interest currently exists regarding mixed sustainable feedstocks
and integrated systems for energy generation.
Gasification (thermochemical conversion) of several feedstock processes has been
implemented recently by several studies. More specifically, co-processing synthetic MSW
and gypsum from drywall wastes (1:1) using gasification has the potential to yield economic
feasibility and enhanced energy recovery. 10 g of synthetic MSW and 10 g of gypsum from
drywall wastes were mixed and tested at 800 and 900 ◦ C, in two environments: oxidizing
(2.1 slpm of O2 /N2 mixture with 10%O2 ) and pyrolysis (2.1 slpm of N2 ). The results showed
lower char yields and higher syngas generation due to the synergistic effect and CaSO4
char oxidation [69]. A novel idea was proposed [70] to enhance wood waste hydrochar
gasification using the co-hydrothermal carbonization of FDW digestate. Findings showed
that the hydrochar’s gasification activity was greatly increased up to 7.2 folds (at 900 ◦ C)
and the gasification reaction period was shortened by the addition of food waste digestate.
Moreover, the hydrochar produced by co-hydrothermal carbonization exhibited a high
concentration of metal components (e.g., up to 124 mg/g Ca) and surface functional groups.
Pyrolysis (thermochemical conversion) has also been used by several researchers in
the last few years using mixed feedstocks, such as sludges with glucose, and municipal
mixed wastes. More specifically, Tiwari et al. [71] used thermo-kinetic methods to char-
acterize peels from kaner fruit, seeds from kaner fruit, and yellow oleander (Cascabela
thevetia). The results demonstrated that these biomass wastes could be effectively used for
bioenergy production through pyrolysis. In a recent study [72], pyrolysis was evaluated
to produce pyrolysis oil (py-oil) from FDW, with and without different wastes (bones,
chopsticks, plastic, and eggshell). The optimal yield was 37.5 wt.% from pure FDW when
performed at 20 ◦ C/min, 400 ◦ C, and 20 min. Waste like eggshells, polypropylene, and
bones improved the organic fraction of py-liquid from 6.5 to 10.7 wt.%. Treatment with
eggshells and activated biochar catalysts highly increased hydrocarbon production (GCV:
36–44.4 MJ/kg). The resulting pyrolysis oil has the potential to be used as a traditional
liquid fuel. SS due to the fact that it has several nitrogen species, could be used in a sustain-
able way by decreasing sugar and co-pyrolyzing the Maillard reaction. Among the three
blended samples (DSS75Glc25, DSS50Glc50, and DSS25Glc75), the best appropriate glucose
ratio was 50 wt.% for nitrogen heterocyclic compound (NHC) production [73]. Another
study [74] investigates the use of CO2 in catalytic (using Ni/SiO2 ) pyrolysis of tea waste
(TW) to enhance syngas formation. CO was formed in the presence of CO2 as a result
of a homogenous reaction with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) resulting from TW
pyrolysis. Catalytic pyrolysis enhanced syngas formation at low temperatures, resulting in
28 times more H2 and CO generation. Compared to biochar produced by pyrolysis in N2 ,
CO2 can be used as a reactive gas medium to produce biochar with a 34–35 weight percent
yield, competitive porosity, and surface area.
Another study [75] explored microalgae co-hydrothermal liquefaction with fecal
sludge at several proportions (0:100, 100:0, 75:25, 25:75, 50:50) for high-quality biocrude
production. Microalgal planting and processing are expensive and energy-consuming pro-
cedures. For these reasons, the research illustrates a sustainable approach for substituting
part of microalgae with an eco-friendly, low-cost alternative fecal sludge. A microalgae-
fecal sludge ratio of 25:75 reveals the highest biocrude production (38% biocrude yield,
GCV ~34 MJ/kg, and reduced nitrogen content of 2.8%). Moreover, economic benefits
were found, as fecal sludge was a low-cost substitution. Operating a co-HTL facility next
to an algae-based wastewater treatment plant and an FS disposal plant could lower the
overall costs. Moreover, solar panels could be used to lower costs. Furthermore, reusing
carbon and nutrients from biochar residues from co-HTL could enhance a sustainable
bioenergy system.
Other studies have used combined AD and HTC systems for energy recovery. For
instance, Allegue et al. [76] studied a closed-loop integrated biorefinery using FDW and
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 20 of 45

purple phototrophic bacteria and AD after thermal hydrolysis. Thermal hydrolysis, AD,
and photofermentation are combined in this process to recover bioenergy resources and
create value-added products. Anaerobic digestibility and biogas production are both
enhanced by thermal hydrolysis. This environmentally friendly, energy-efficient method
is appropriate for combined heat and power plants because it reduces waste disposal by
78.6%. By using a purple phototrophic bacteria-based mixed culture for phototrophic
treatment of the hydrolysate, biomass expansion with 65% wt.% protein was achieved.
Additionally, the system produces polyhydroxyalkanoates and H2 , which together account
for a total valorization of 16.9% of the raw food waste’s initial total solids. The best option
can be selected with the nitrogen composition of the food waste modified so that low
nitrogen promotes the production of hydrogen and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). On the
other hand, increased protein synthesis results from high nitrogen levels. The potential
of AD and HTC to improve the efficiency and energy production of garden waste was
investigated by Wang et al. [77]. AD achieved the highest heating value. The combined
system achieved an energy production of 90.2% (12% CH4 and 78.2% biochar) on leaves
(with AD, 21 d), 81.2% (66.8% biochar and 14.4% CH4 ) on branches and grass (AD, 14 d),
and reduced secondary waste. This research improves the efficiency of energy utilization
and decreases the production of secondary waste, offering important new insights into AD
in conjunction with HTC technology.
Another study [78] produced biodiesel from waste seed oil from Citrus aurantium
by utilizing recyclable zirconium oxide nanoparticles made from Alternanthera pungens
aqueous leaf extract. At 87.5 ◦ C, reaction period 120 min, methanol:oil ratio 6:1, catalyst
of 0.5 wt.%, response surface methodology, the maximum yield of 94% was attained,
demonstrating the potential of this waste to provide sustainable energy and support the
circular bioeconomy practice. A novel method combining transesterification and CO2 -
assisted pyrolysis was put forth by Cho et al. [79] in an effort to recover as much energy
and value-added product as possible from swine manure, including syngas, biodiesel, and
biochar. The biodiesel yield was increased (>94%) due to silica and swine manure biochar
at 400 and 220 ◦ C, respectively. Biochar acts as an alkaline catalyst. The residual solid after
transesterification was then valorized with pyrolysis with CO2 (as a co-reactant) for a more
sustainable method. A Ni/SiO2 catalyst was used: 2 wt.% and 5 wt.%. The combined
effects of CO2 and the Ni/SiO2 catalyst greatly increased the formation of syngas. The
results confirm that swine manure is a valuable resource for fuel and chemicals.
Agricultural wastes from corn cob and spelt husk were pretreated using ultrasound-
assisted ozone [80] yielding high purity lignin (~92% with 95% purity) and cellulose
pulp (~84% with 78% purity). Better quality separation of the components of biomass
improves value-added product conversion downstream, increasing cost effectiveness and
sustainability. The study emphasizes the potential of biomass lignocellulose in production
of energy, fuels, and chemicals.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) vials and dried Daniella oliveri leaf (weigh radio
9:1) were used to develop hybrid biochar in a low-temperature self-regulated reactor. The
results revealed promise for energy recovery and a better waste management system [81].
A huge amount of research interest has been found in recent years regarding anaer-
obic (co-)digestion technology for transforming mixed wastes into enhanced sustainable
biofuels. The combined biological process of FDW was developed by [82] using semi-
continuous anaerobic co-digestion (ACoD) of wheat straw, FDW, and cattle manure (CM)
to examine the connection between the mixtures and C:N load at several organic load rates
(2–3.6 kg VS/m3 ·d). The optimal mono-digested biomass surpassed 565.5 LN/kg VSin at a
2.4 kg VS/m3 ·d organic load rate. The ideal mixture ratio for co-digested substrates was
FDW:CM 75:25, where the biogas yield increased by 62%, 39.89%, 91.26%, 130.9%, and
119.97% for organic loading rates ranging from 2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.2, and 3.6 kg VS/m3 ·d, respec-
tively. According to another study [83], the spent mushroom substrate (SMS) was utilized
in AD to estimate improved biomethane production. The research demonstrates that fun-
gal pre-processing applying Pleurotus ostreatus (PO) to individual and mixed agricultural
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 21 of 45

wastes, rice straw (RS), pearl millet straw (PMS), and wheat straw (WS) in equal ratios,
together with the biochar addition (5, 7, and 10%), can shorten the pretreatment period and
enhance biomethane yield. The addition of biochar reduces the overall pretreatment time
in comparison to non-biochar materials. The bio-methane yield (187 mL/gVS) rose about
83% from SMS and combination WS + PMS + RS with 10% biochar, which is translated to
increased CH4 production by 9.4%, 22.2%, and 57.1% times than individuals (those without
biochar addition) SMS of PMS, RS, and WS, respectively. This study demonstrates how
biochar could enhance energy production, reduce the biological pre-processing period, and
eliminate the need for lignocellulosic biomass in order to produce energy (bio-methane).
Duarte et al. [84] proposed an approach to evaluating the energy content of livestock ma-
nure and mixed SS by integrating agro-food biowastes, which include non-edible crops,
manures, vegetable/fruit wastes, fish canning industry wastes, and coffee wastes. The
findings demonstrate improved energy performance (from 30 to 250% for livestock manure
and 62 to 539% for mixed SS), which encourages a circular bioeconomy and wise use of
AD in both rural and urban development. Cow dung and cassava wastes (peels, stem, and
mill effluent) in several doses were used effectively for bioelectricity and biogas production
via the AD approach [85]. Srivastava et al. [86] evaluated anaerobic defatted microalgae
residue (Desmodesmus GS12, and Chlorella CG12) co-digestion with rice straw (RS), with
a C/N ratio of 30, for sustainable development. The results showed that this practice
shows potential for sustainable biorefinery development, increasing the biomethane yield
by 49.87% (382 mL/g-VS, CG12 + RS) and 22.26% (311 mL/g-VS, GS12 + RS) compared to
the control. Because of their intricate structures, microalgae cells are resistant to AD, which
suggests pretreatment methods for improved biomass solubilization and methane yield,
with solar energy being under investigation.
Vassalle et al. [87] used solar pretreatment for biomass solubilization for enhanced
methane production (AD) of sewage co-digestion with microalgal biomass, comparing an
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor fed only raw sewage and another UASB
reactor that co-digested with microalgal sewage. Anaerobic-aerobic treatment solutions,
including UASB reactors and high-rate algal ponds, have proven efficient for removing
contaminants and micropollutants, as well as energy recovery from sewage co-digestion
with microalgal. The solar pretreatment achieved 32% organic matter solubilization and 45%
methane yield in the anaerobic co-digestion of raw sewage compared to mono-digestion.
Bioenergy production from dried household food waste was achieved through bio-
conversion based on microbiological processes [88]. Dried household food waste (FORBI)
was fermented with ethanol and H2 , or extracted with water, resulting in sugar-rich liquid
fractions and solid residues. Effluents were used for methane production through AD. For
alcoholic fermentation, mono-cultures and co-cultures of C5 and C6 yeasts were utilized,
and for H2 production, mixed acidogenic consortia were utilized. The maximum ethanol
yield was 0.16 g per kg of this waste for separate waste fermentation, while the highest hy-
drogen yield was 210.44 ± 4.02 L H2 /kg TS of this waste for 1% solids loading and addition
of cellulolytic enzymes. Direct AD of dried household food waste or its fractions resulted
in reduced energy generation than that obtained when fermentation and subsequent AD
were performed. According to Ref. [89], Methanosarcina mazei improved with palm oil mill
effluent (POME) sludge from pineapple peel could increase biohythane gas (H2 , CH4 , and
CO2 ) production using a single-stage AD procedure using mesophilic batch conditions
for sustainable energy recovery. Co-digestion of daily animal manure and a variety of
Salix (lignocellulosic energy crops, 6 types) were studied in order to enhance compressed
biomethane gas (CBG) production [90]. According to the energy performance results, Salix
might be a viable product for co-digestion with dairy manure. The production of bioenergy
from rice husk (RH) and melon husk (MH) co-digested (for 200 days, at different RH and
MH ratios) with cow dung (CD) (as inoculant) was investigated by Mohammed et al. [91].
A mixture-process variable design was used, with NaOH concentrations ranging from
8 to 9% and total solids ranging from 8% to 10%. The highest biogas yield was found
at RH100:MH0 while RH0:MH100 revealed the lowest yield. Cucina et al. [92] used an
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 22 of 45

AD plant to co-digest 3 bioplastic wastes (two polylactic-acid based and one starch-based)
with SS. The bioplastics’ biomethane potential was 135 ± 23 NLCH4 kg/Volatile Solids.
The AD of biodegradable plastics could be a viable method to enhance biogas yield and
minimize leakage. The outcomes showed that this treatment could have a positive impact
on the sustainable life chain of bioplastics, demonstrating the potential of AD. In another
study, Thompson et al. [93] co-digested seaweeds—Caribbean pelagic sargassum (PS)—and
FDW at different ratios for biogas and biofertilizer production. The results showed that
hydrothermal preprocessing enhanced the hydrolysis of food wastes and organic Caribbean
pelagic sargassum of mono-substrate digestion by approximately 200% and 10%, respec-
tively, compared to untreated samples. Co-pretreated FDW with Caribbean PS at a 25:75
weight ratio could produce 292.18 ± 8.70 mL/gVS CH4 yield. Hasan et al. [94] evaluate
seasonal variation of fruits, vegetables, and agrowastes (FVA) generated in wholesale
market wastes in New Delhi, India. Anaerobic co-digestion (mesophilic conditions for
30 d) with sewage sludge and cattle manure of organic fraction for biogas potential. Four
different mixes were formulated based on the different seasons. The experimental results
were compared to the modeling results (modified Gompertz model). The results showed a
positive synergistic effect of co-digestion. The synergistic impact of pig manure (PM) co-
digesting sargassum (Sar) biomass was also evaluated by Rivera-Hernández et al. [95] for
maximum biochemical methane potential BMP. Several blends were examined (0Sar:100PM,
100Sar:0PM, 50Sar:50PM, 65Sar:35PM, 30Sar:70PM). According to the results, co-digestion
significantly improved BMP (79–160.4%) compared to mono-digestion procedures. The
best (BMP ~441 mLCH4 /gVSFed ) was found in 50Sar:50PM blend, with a 16.8 C:N ratio.
D’ Silva et al. [96] investigate the fruit and vegetable wastes (FVW) anaerobic co-digestion
(AcoD) with cow dung (CD) and dry fell leaves (DFL) in the absence of an active inoculum.
12 different mixtures were created with the percentage of DFL and FVW changing while
CD content remained at 6% total solids and the temperature at 37 ◦ C. The reactor generated
the highest amount of biogas yield when the DFL: FVW ratio was 100:0 (809 ± 96 mL/g
VSinput ). On the other hand, a reactor with a DFL to FVW ratio of 40:60 demonstrated
a maximum CH4 production of 388 ± 131 mL/g VSinput while conserving 2 wt.% of ad-
ditional water compared to the former. Due to its advantageous features, the suggested
co-digestion strategy may find widespread use.
Increased research interest has been found in the last few years in the combination
of bioprocesses and integrated systems (such as gasification with pyrolysis, thermal with
biological technologies, and solar with WtE systems) for bioenergy generation. More specif-
ically, Niedzialkoski et al. [97] studied the combination of bioprocesses (vermicomposting,
composting, fraction separation, hydration, and AD) to make greater use of agricultural-
industrial poultry wastes. The combination of bioprocesses in poultry waste management
offers a sustainable alternative for nutrient recycling and energy recovery, resulting in a
high-quality organic fertilizer with a germination index above 100% and greater energy
recovery (461.8 L CH4 /kg VSadd ). For many years, the US military has utilized open air
burn pits (OBPs) for garbage disposal (such as paper, food waste, plastic, etc.). OBPs can be
replaced with gasification and pyrolysis technologies. Tovkach et al. [98] developed a struc-
tured multi-step decision-making method using 3 gasification and 3 pyrolysis technologies
for the treatment of solid waste to bioenergy on forward operating bases (FOBs) that are
decentralized of 3 dimensions: 120-person, 1200-person, and 12,000-person. The results
showed that the military could probably need to set up a microgrid on each FOB in order to
integrate various WtE technologies into a cohesive system. Moreover, the findings indicate
that choosing the right technology depends largely on the size of the community and the
stakeholders’ functional perspectives. Sette et al. [99] focus on the valorization of grape
and apple residues resulting from the wine and cider industries by gasifying/pyrolyzing
and extracting bioactive compounds and residual solids to produce value-added chemical
materials (e.g., biochar). The grape stalk extract showed the highest polyphenol content
and antioxidant capacity. The resulting biochars can be used to reinforce soil structure and
generate activated carbon for use in fuel processes. Khan et al. [100] proposed an innovative
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 23 of 45

design for an integrated solar—WtE factory to maximize efficiency. More specifically, a

solar thermal system warms the steam produced by the MSW combustor even more to
improve its quality before it enters the steam turbine. Furthermore, the flue gas powers an
iso-butane organic Rankine cycle, which generates electricity that is utilized by a reverse
osmosis system for clean water generation and a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer
for H2 production.
Moura et al. [101] applied the sustainable value approach to compare several types
of waste (biomass agro-industrial residues, paper mill sludge, slurries, and effluents,
pulp, piggery effluents, and OFMSW) and conversion technologies to produce energy
and biofuels (electricity and heat by combustion, H2 by dark fermentation, bio-oils by
pyrolysis or HTL, synthesis gas, and biogas by gasification). Based on 14 criteria, including
material and energy inputs and outputs, process technology, and stakeholder adoption, the
numerator ‘Functional Performance’ of the Sustainable Value Index (SVI) was calculated.
The technologies’ performance was categorized by assigning values to each criterion,
such as the level of satisfaction (S) and relative importance (φ). The final SVI ranking
showed gasification > combustion > AD > (trans) esterification > fermentation to ethanol
and pyrolysis > hydrothermal liquefaction > dark fermentation, respectively, as the most
proper waste processes. Process and input criteria had a bigger impact on thermochemical
conversions than did output and social acceptance criteria for biochemical conversions.
The SVI proved to be an effective tool for evaluation and decision-making.
Several researchers have recently calculated energy potential using integrated sus-
tainable technologies and mixed biofuels in specific regions for sustainable cities. More
specifically, Madhesh et al. [102] investigate a novel cascade system of Organic Rankine
Cycle (ORC) and Kalina for cooling and green hydrogen using a combination of MSW
biogas production and solar energy. Four different regions with different climatic condi-
tions (Delhi, Guwahati, Chennai, and Mumbai) were examined in India in order to find
the optimal case study. In terms of energy utilization and efficiency, the organic Rankine
cycle—vapor compressor refrigeration system (ORC-VCRS) system is inferior to the cascade
ORC—Kalina system. Although the ORC-VCRS system has a marginally higher energy
efficiency, the cascade Kalina-ORC system is a more appealing long-term solution. In order
to effectively combine biogas and solar sources for a future sustainable energy transition,
the study emphasizes the great promise of artificial intelligence-enhanced renewable energy
cooling systems. A recent study [103] also combined AD with solar energy as a solution
for livestock farms. Due to its widespread spread across the globe, pig manure has been
regarded as a model substrate. Economic analysis for the hybrid anaerobic digestion–solar
system on 5 locations (Laixi in China, Soria in Spain, Iowa in USA, Santa Catarina in Brazil,
Odense in Denmark) was performed. This novel system of solar hybrid panels could
deliver enough power for biofuel production (biogas, biomethane), ensuring higher energy
efficiency with lower production costs, in isolated or non-isolated communities and cities.
Khalil end Dincer [104], developed an integrated hydrogen and renewable energy
systems (solar photovoltaics, wind plants, and biomass-based systems) for sustainable cities:
bioethanol and biogas production (combined electricity and heat production), hydrogen
production—via a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer. 4 countries (Canada, S. Africa,
Netherlands, and Denmark) were studied. All regions showed good potential for energy
production. Large quantities of biomass residues (MSW and solid woody biomass) are
available in Kalundborg (Denmark) for bioethanol and biogas production.
Yong et al. [105] explored the economic and environmental benefits of producing
biofertilizers and biogas from OFMSW in Malaysia. It reveals that organic waste con-
tributes 45% of the total MSW. Utilizing 50% of this waste via AD could generate electricity
(3941 MWh/d) and biofertilizer (2500 t/d), reducing landfilling region and CO2 emissions
(2735 t/d CO2 emissions, 1128 m2 /d of landfilling area, and leachate of 481 m3 /d can be
evaded). This approach aligns with sustainable waste management practices.
Organic solid waste and fecal sludge were co-liquefied (at 320 ◦ C for 60 min) to produce
low phenolic naphtha-rich biocrude [106]. The water:ethanol co-solvent (0:1, 1:0, 1:1, 3:1,
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 24 of 45

1:3) and sourcing (1:1, 1:0, 0:1) were optimized. With a calorific value of about 37.5 MJ/kg,
the findings revealed that the greatest biocrude production (55.7%) was obtained at 1:1
water:ethanol co-solvent, 50% OSW, and 50% FS, suggesting that it could ultimately take
the place of petrocrude (42 to 49 MJ/kg). The biocrude’s composition (hydrocarbon: 25%,
organic acid: 15%, ester: 58%, and phenol: less than 1%) guarantees the least number of
phenolic compounds, preventing phenolic toxicity. The fact that the highest API value
was 23.3 emphasizes how similar it is to the standard petroleum API gravity (medium
lighter crude). With energy recovery and consumption ratios of 88% and 0.38, respectively,
a metric ton of feedstock could bring in US$ 550 in revenue, indicating the possibility of
sustainable energy production.
Yang et al. [107] utilize integrated pyrolysis and AD of grass biomass to produce
biomethane, biogas, biochar, and biooil. According to the results, as the AD duration grew
from 3 to 15 days, the methane yield rose from about 33 mL/g VS to 250 mL/g VS. Biochar
was produced from about 29% to 35%, while the biooil and pyrolysis gas slowly decreased.
A net calorific value of 2 MJ/kg and the highest energy efficiency, about 72%, were attained
at a 12-day AD time. Food sludge co-torrefaction with 6 lignocellulose biowaste using
microwave-assisted for biochar production and nutrient recovery was performed by Zheng
et al. [108]. The maximum GCV (19.6 MJ/kg), lower ash level, higher carbon content,
and enhanced biochar quality were achieved by blending sludge with macadamia husk at
25:75 db%. Biochar showed high combustion efficiency, thermal stability, and combustion
characteristics, making it a great coal alternative for producing electricity. Green and
sustainable waste management is promoted by the enhanced protein and carbohydrate
content of the food sludge supernatant, which was co-torrefied with biowaste. This allowed
for recycling back into the activated sludge unit. Another study [109] used potato peel
wastes for sustainable bioconversion into biogas and ethanol using organosolv pretreatment
using 50–75% v/v ethanol solution with/without catalyst (1 wt.% H2 SO4 ). Catalyzed
organosolv pretreatment with 50% v/v ethanol at 120 ◦ C produced a high hydrolysate
yield of 539.8 g glucose per kg dry PPW, which was subsequently followed by enzymatic
hydrolysis. The hydrolysate was successfully fermented to produce 224.2 g ethanol/kg
dry PPW. The liquid portion of the pretreatment was recovered, and the unhydrolyzed
particles from enzymatic hydrolysis were digested anaerobically to recover further energy.
The AD yielded 57.9 L of CH4 for every kilogram of dry PPW. Consequently, 8112 kJ/kg of
the energy were produced of dry PPW by the biorefinery, which included solvent recovery,
ethanolic organosolv pretreatment, ethanolic fermentation, AD, and enzymatic hydrolysis
of wastes.
Syngas production with CO2 capture using gasification and solar energy, heat, and
power generation from system 1: rice straw and system 2: microalgae was investigated [9]
through energy, exergy, technological, economic, and environmental evaluation. System
1 has the potential to produce higher H2 at a lower amount of O2 carries, has higher
energy efficiency (~4.3%), is more environmentally friendly and sustainable, and has a
lower exergetic product cost than system 2. Using supercritical water gasification, Ruya
et al. [110] investigated H2 generation using a palm oil mill and empty fruit bunch waste.
The study examined the effects of alternative H2 separation processes, H2 S adsorption,
and CH4 steam reformers on gross hydrogen generation and performance of the system.
Achieving a significant amount of biomass (25 wt.% empty fruit bunch and palm oil
mill effluent) resulted in 98% increased net H2 output, 70% energy performance (with no
reformer), and 58.3% (with reformer). Sotoodeh et al. [111] introduced an integrated WtE
multi-system for heating, cooling, power, and fuel production that contains a steam gasifier,
Brayton waste heat recovery, organic Rankine, absorption refrigeration systems, domestic
heating systems, and H2 production. An absorption chiller’s condenser and absorber are
used to retrieve the heat that was rejected for thermoelectric generators, which enhances
power generation by 12% on average. The study reveals that gasification temperature
significantly impacts system performance, with energetic and exergetic efficiencies of 52.3%
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 25 of 45

and 41.3%, respectively, and the steam gasification subsystem has the maximum exergy
destruction rate (great opportunity for increasing energy efficiency).
By using bio-iron nanoparticles and lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysate, Sakthi Vig-
nesh et al. [112] were able to enhance microalgal biomass production and, consequently, the
lipid content. Nitrogen starvation increased the lipid content and allowed FAME to recover.
It was found that the bio-iron nanoparticle-mediated FAME conversion was a good option
for enhancing biodiesel production.
The industry produces huge quantities of waste that could be reused to transform
them into value-added products. Remón et al. [113] convert almond wastes produced from
almond industries into value-added products (high-purity xylo- and cello- oligomer, small
oxygenates) via carbon-neutral Ru CNF (carbon nanofibers) catalysts reinforced by carbon
nanofibers and hydrothermal hydrogenation.
With a focus on specific areas of Northest Europe (the Netherlands and Belgium),
the impact of using roadside grass clippings as a substitute source on the environment
(digested and co-digested with pig manure) for biogas production was investigated [114].
The results showed that co-digestion of roadside grass clippings with pig manure is more
eco-friendly than mono-digestion or composting. The potential economic growth and their
export potential of 25 biowastes (Low-Income Potential: animal manure of goat and sheep,
cashew nutshell, cotton stalk, non-edible seed oil, neem seeds, ceper seed oil, olive residue,
coconut oil cake, corn cob; Medium-Income Potential: rice straw, sugar cane, porcine, and
husk, wheat husk and straw, sunflower waste cooking oil, soya bean oil and cake, long
wood sticks; High-Income Potential: food and vegetable waste, grass waste, cellulose, fat
fraction from leather fleshing waste, MSW, poultry fattening and chicken fat, pine sawdust,
duck tallow, animal manure, vegetable oils) of 7 biomass-enriched countries (USA, Brazil,
Argentina, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, China) were assessed by Ayub et al. [115] using the
innovative economic Product Space Model. With a focus on affordable, clean, and sufficient
energy, the study offers useful implications from economic, social, and environmental
angles. The results of this study showed that Pakistan has a wealth of biomass resources
that could be used for bioenergy. In 2019, the United States, China, and India produced the
most sophisticated products. Canola oil, among all biowastes, has the greatest potential
for profit and contributes fairly to worldwide export revenue (financial advantages of its
export). The United States exports bagasse effectively; it could be a sustainable source for
energy production in these countries due to the significant quantities produced in these
nations. Based on the global export value, soya bean oil cake is the most exportable biomass
feedstock. As a result, it projects that nations that produce more soy bean oil cakes will
reap significant benefits.
Kowalski et al. [116] described the design procedures of the Polish Śmiłowo Eco Park,
which promotes a business strategy that encloses the whole life cycle of the products.
This park is an ecological industrial park that greatly boosts environmental and economic
efficiency among co-operating companies by promoting efficient waste, energy, water, and
material exchange. Utilizing new technologies, modernizing current processes, reducing
and reusing waste, recycling, recovering materials and energy, substituting wastes for
raw materials, and thermally treating wastes and using them as sustainable biofuels are
some of the strategies used to prevent pollution of the environment. At Śmiłowo Eco-Park,
300,000 t meat waste is utilized, 110,000 t of meat bone meal biofuel is produced, 120,000 t
of pig manure is used as fertilizer, 460,000 GJ of bioenergy is generated, and 92,000 t CO2
emissions are eliminated.
Several thermochemical conversion methods have been used in recent years using
mixed feedstock wastes and biomass residues. More specifically, Vasileiadou et al. [28]
showed that blending olive stone with lignite and blending extracted olive pomace with
lignite in several proportions (30%, 50%, and 70%) could produce alternative high-quality
biofuels. Moreover, via co-combustion, reduce the use of fossil fuels, as part of the fuel is
substituting lignite with sustainable biomass residue. This waste-to-energy practice could
contribute to sustainable bioenergy generation, and sustainable waste management. More-
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 26 of 45

over, for the first time in the literature, Vasileiadou [29] studied blends of brewers’ spent
grain (resulted from a beer industry) and their co-combustion with lignite (in several pro-
portions, 30–50–70%) for bioenergy production using several thermochemical experimental
methods (thermal analysis, thermogravimetric analysis, proximate analysis, ultimate analy-
sis, ion chromatography, ash elemental analysis, etc.), and several calculated methods, by
using the experimental results, such as empirical chemical formulas, kinetic and thermo-
dynamic analysis, environmental impact, maximum emission factors. Moreover, several
case studies of energy cover were developed. The results showed that BSG blends revealed
much higher fuel characteristics than lignite (reference sample), similar Cl content with
lignite (~0.03 wt.%), reduced activation energy, but increased N content. Synergistic effects
were found. More specifically, BSG70 LIG30: more than 18 MJ/kg, ash: 0.0080 kg ash/MJ
(−74% ash production compared to lignite), BSG50 LIG50: about 16 MJ/kg, 0.0132 kg ash
per MJ, and BSG30 LIG70: more than 14 MJ/kg, 0.0197 kg ash/MJ [lignite: 12.7 MJ/kg, ash:
0.0307 kg ash/MJ]. De Souza et al. [117] evaluated the use of coffee processing residues
with forest eucalyptus wood for pellet production, focusing on energy generation via
thermochemical analytical methods. Six combinations of coffee residues blended with
forest biomass were created using varying ratios. Biomass blend pellets showed a high
energy content of 16.51–17.08 MJ/kg. Pellets with eucalyptus/parchment/coffee husk
(ECPCH) revealed 11.60 GJ/m3 , higher durability of 98.2%, Type B according to European
standards. The results showed better energy characteristics with biomass blends compared
to pellets made with coffee husks and silver skin. The biomass blends also improved
the bulk density, mechanical durability, and combustibility of pellets. A synergistic effect
was also shown [30] during the devolatilization and decarbonization stages of grape marc
(GM) co-combustion with lignite. Compared to lignite, GM blends had a higher energy
content, lower ash content, lower emissions per produced MJ, lower activation energy, and
lower maximum possible emission factors per produced MJ. The ashes from GM blends
with lignite were found to be Type C (high melting temperature), which means fewer
ash-related combustion problems. The experimental results showed that co-combusting
grape marc with lignite is viable. In another study [13], four types of municipal solid
wastes (food wastes, green wastes, organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, and paper
wastes) were blended with lignite in three proportions (30:70, 50:50, and 70:30) for potential
alternative fuels. 12 blends were examined experimentally via in-depth analytical and
calculated methods (ash elemental analysis, gross calorific value, ion chromatography,
proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, thermogravimetric analysis, kinetic modeling and
thermodynamic analysis, maximum emission factors, environmental footprint index, etc.).
The findings showed that these blends are an attractive option for energy production,
as most of them revealed enhanced fuel characteristics compared to lignite (reference),
and a better waste management system. Another study [118] used coal in blends in the
co-incineration process. The results showed that coal co-incineration with 11% tire waste in
cement plants, with or without raw mills in function, could enhance energy recovery, and
reduce CO2 emissions. Deep Singh et al. [119] determine India’s energy demand by using
MSW, agricultural residues, and animal manure. The average MSW calorific value was
1751 kcal/kg, and the biomass potential was 20 MJ/m3 . The findings showed that utilizing
these wastes can produce 1.29 × 103 PJ of biogas and 7.79 × 102 PJ of cellulosic ethanol
per year. The bioenergy potential of livestock waste and agricultural residues in 602 rural
districts of India was calculated [120]. The results indicate that livestock wastes could
produce about 37% of the energy demand (AD processes). The combination of livestock
wastes and crop residues could cover about 55.6% of energy demand in rural districts.
Chaudhary et al. [121] examine a self-sufficient rural bio-energy design in Uttar Pradesh,
India, estimating a biogas production of 400,329 m3 /year from animal and agricultural
waste, allowing for the establishment of biogas plants in centralized (20–100 m3 ) or de-
centralized (2–20 m3 ) systems. Several case studies were examined: (a) combined thermal
energy and electricity production, (b) for direct cooking, and (c) depending on energy
needs, a maximum amount of electricity production (up to 800,658 kWh) and thermal
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 27 of 45

energy (1,200,988 kWh) potential. A quantity of more than 162,500 kg/year of firewood,
443,000 kg/year of dung cake, about 71,000 kg/year of charcoal, and about 13,500 kg of
liquified petroleum gas might be swapped out with the generated raw biogas, which is
enhanced if the biogas is upgraded. In case c, where all wastes are co-digested, a maximum
surplus of approximately 222,000 m3 /year of upgraded biogas, and about 170,000 m3 /year
of raw biogas, is possible.
Ocak and Acar [122] studied theoretically the potential of biofuels from agricultural
and livestock wastes in the Marmara Region, Turkey. The findings demonstrated that
these wastes could meet more than 50% of the area under study’s electricity needs. Direct
combustion and the production of biogas from animal waste were found to be cost effective.
Another study [123] performed an economic feasibility of two WtE scenarios (I. im-
plementing transesterification and AD, and II. AD) using SHW for sustainable waste
management in Saudi Arabia. Wastes of approximately 43% of the cattle and 12% of the
sheep body are produced. Massive volumes of waste are dumped in landfills without any
kind of energy or material recovery. According to this study, the amount of solid waste
produced by slaughtering activities was estimated to be 0.08 million tons in 2016 and might
reach 0.2 million tons by 2030. In 2030, scenario I’s and scenario II’s potential revenue
contributions to the national economic circle will be 288 MSAR and 319 MSAR, respectively.
Through the development of a mathematical formulation to determine the ideal
network design for treatment facilities for both urban (municipal solid waste, MSW) and
rural wastes (cattle manure), Argentina’s integrated urban-rural waste management was
studied [124] emphasizing reduced carbon emissions and high energy regeneration. Three
different scenarios were examined in order to determine the best approach for integrated
processes for MSW and manure treatment. Anaerobic co-digestion is preferred in the
centralized configuration, with a blend of 70% MSW and 30% manure. Transporting
garbage from remote locations is justified by the high methane yield. On the other hand,
AD for decentralized models revealed suitability for the biggest communities (with more
than 5 tons of organic waste per day) and feedlots (with more than 30 tons of manure per
day). The results demonstrated that MSW and animal manure co-digestion are attractive
strategies for sustainable waste management and energy production. d’Espiney et al. [125]
evaluated the bioenergy potential of 3 types of residues (municipal wastes, agricultural
residues, and forestry residues) with a case study of the region of Lafões in Portugal
with biochemical and thermochemical routes. In comparison to the thermochemical route
(543 TJ/year), the biochemical conversion route revealed a 765 TJ/year energy potential.
A few studies have used stimulation software programs for bioenergy generation.
More specifically, Kaushal et al. [126] explore cow dung, FDW co-digestion with algae via
Stat-Ease Design-Expert Software-13 in batch-type digesters to increase biogas yield. The
findings showed that the biogas yield and hydrolysis were improved by co-digestion and
pretreatment. De Lorena Diniz Chaves et al. [127] performed a system dynamic modeling
analysis for sustainable refuse-derived fuel generation in Espírito Santo, Brazil. The analy-
sis estimates the availability of recyclable waste streams for RDF production and discusses
possible intervention strategies. The model was simulated over a 20-year period, and the
results show that with partial implementation of the proposed solid waste management
policy, there will be sufficient waste streams for RDF generation. The study also highlights
the indirect environmental benefits of sustainable RDF production in the cement industry.
Compared to a directly fired biomass power plant, the integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) configuration conserves more energy. Because of its high energy performance
(more than 50%) and possibilities for improvements through the use of solar energy, IGCC
is becoming more and more popular. Ansari et al. [128] using ASPEN Plus simulation
software, assessed crop wastes for energy and biofertilizer generation. According to the
results, temperature and pressure have an effect on gas yield, whereas biomass composition
affects the yield of biofertilizer. The solar biomass-based IGCC system is highly efficient,
producing 0.55 MW of electricity at a low cost compared to other conversion systems.
Altan et al. [129] investigated the possibility of using biological and thermal technologies
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 28 of 45

to produce energy from livestock waste. Four mixed wastes were analyzed: sheep, cattle,
chicken, and goat waste. Several processes were applied: combustion, gasification, pyrol-
ysis (thermal processes at 550 and 750 ◦ C), along with anaerobic digestion (biochemical
process). A defined design algorithm with important parameters was utilized (ASPEN Plus
stimulation) in 7 geographical areas (Marmara, Aegean, Black Sea, Mediterranean, Central
Anatolia, EA, SEA) in Turkey. The results showed that combustion was the most efficient
(0.43 MWe /t), followed by gasification (0.34 MWe /t, 21% lower than combustion) and
pyrolysis (0.30 MWe /t at 750 ◦ C, and 0.15 MWe /t at 550 ◦ C). AD showed a 0.21 MWe /t
recovery potential. Energy recovery from livestock waste contributes to waste to energy
practice, reducing emissions, and promoting sustainability.
Novel technologies (such as fuzzy programming, and machine learning) have recently
been used in bioenergy production. Constructing installations to use agricultural and
livestock waste (wheat, maize, and rice straw, hen and cow manure) from the Iranian
region of Fars were studied [130] in order to create a supply chain bioenergy network.
To manage the uncertainty, a strategy relying on the fuzzy programming method was
utilized. The group best–worst method and the fuzzy goal programming technique were
combined to solve the mathematical model. The results show that the network generates
approximately 87% of its total revenue from the sale of bioelectricity. The establishment
of facilities, the procurement of supplies, and production account for the majority of the
network’s total costs.
Conventional HTL is time-consuming and requires significant effort to produce high-
quality bio-oil (e.g., low N content). Li et al. [131] used Machine Learning (ML) algorithms
to enhance the energy of bio-oil production and reduce the nitrogen content from the
HTL of biomass containing high humidity (e.g., sludge, algae, food waste, and manure),
taking into account associated elements in HTL such as solvents, process parameters, and
elemental and biochemical compositions of biomass. The results indicated that for the
multi-task prediction (bio-oil yield, N oil, and energy recovery ER_oil), the random forest
(RF) algorithm was the most superior (avg. R2 = 0.8). Since the modeling and experimental
results matched, the experiment validation was successful.
Generally, it can be concluded that in the last five years, there has been a huge research
interest in mixed feedstocks of organic wastes and intergraded energy systems for bioenergy
and value-added product generation. By mixing feedstock, optimum fuel quality charac-
teristics can be achieved. Several different alternative mixed fuels (e.g., MSW & biomass
residues, MSW & sludges & biomass residues) could be created in order to be available
in every place, season, etc. In addition, multiple combinations of sustainable energy sys-
tems (e.g., AD with pyrolysis, gasification with pyrolysis, integrated exchange membrane
electrolyzers with renewable energy systems, such as solar photovoltaics, wind plants, and
biomass-based systems, AD and HTC) could be used for enhanced efficiency and reduced
energy losses. Catalytic treatment is essential for enhanced bioenergy yield. Simulations,
and machine learning can help to generate the optimum fuel (for every country) with en-
hanced quality characteristics, create the optimum integrated energy system with enhanced
efficiency, reduced energy losses, and reduced emissions for sustainable cities.
Multiple advantages can be achieved by utilizing all the above-mentioned organic
solid wastes, such as: (1) the availability of biofuel, as multiple sustainable sources with
similar quality fuel characteristics can be generated from several wastes (not dependent on
one feedstock); (2) reduced costs, as energy comes from wastes (not consuming fossil fuels,
natural gas, etc.); (3) reduced CO2 emissions, as biomass (residue) is considered as carbon-
neutral fuel [4,30]; (4) reduced SOx emissions, as several organic wastes showed limited
sulfur content [30]; (5) reduced SOx , HCl as synergistic effects exist in blends (capture the
sulfur and Cl in the ash of the fuel) [29,30,69]; (6) reduced plant costs, as in many cases,
these wastes could be used in the existing coal-fired power plants with small adjustments;
(7) significant energy cover enhanced the energy independence (security) of a country,
as these wastes (biofuels) resulted from the country [4,13,28,122]; (8) reduced secondary
wastes (sustainable waste management) [123]; (9) enhanced the local (energy) market; etc.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 29 of 45

Table 4 presents the main results of the above-mentioned studies that utilized several
mixed feedstocks, catalysts, and/or integrated energy systems to generate sustainable
energy and value-added products.

Table 4. Bioenergy, biofuels, and value-added products produced from mixed feedstocks, or inte-
grated energy systems.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Gasification,
thermogravimetric analysis
Synthetic MSW & synthetic Lower char yields and higher
and differential scanning
gypsum from drywall MSW-gypsum mixtures syngas generation, synergistic [69]
calorimetry, lab-scale fixed bed
wastes 1:1 mass ratio effect and CaSO4 char oxidation
reactor, 800 ◦ C & 900 ◦ C,
2 different environments
Co-hydrothermal carbonization
Co-hydrothermal
Wood waste hydrochar Co-hydrothermal exhibited a high concentration of
carbonization for enhance the [70]
& food waste digestate carbonization metal components, such as Ca and
gasification
surface functional groups
Activation energy of fruit peels
from KAS and FWO: 184.8 kJ/mol
& 182.3 kJ/mol,
Thermo-kinetic
respectively.Activation energy
Yellow oleander, fruit characterization,
fruit peels from KAS and FWO:
seeds & peels from Kissinger-Akahira-Sunose - [71]
140.1 kJ/mol & 139.2 kJ/mol,
Kaner (KAS) and Flynn-Wall-Ozawa
respectively. Kaner fruit peels and
(FWO) methods
seeds have a great deal of promise
for pyrolysis-based bioenergy
production
With & without Eggshell treatment and activated
different impurities biochar catalysts significantly
Pyrolysis pure FDW at 500 ◦ C (plastic, chopsticks, boost hydrocarbon production,
FDW [72]
& co-pyrolysis eggshell and bones), GCV: 36–44.4 MJ/kg, pyrolysis
activated biochar oil’s could be used as a traditional
catalysts liquid fuel
Co-pyrolysis maillard reaction
SS and glucose, 3 with reducing sugar,
Best appropriate glucose ratio:
blends DSS75Glc25, thermogravimetric-Fourier
- 50%, nitrogen heterocyclic [73]
DSS50Glc50, and transform infrared
compounds (NHCs)
DSS25Glc75 spectroscopy-mass
spectrometry (TG-FTIR-MS)
Enhanced 28 times more H2 and
Tea waste (TW) Catalytic pyrolysis with CO2 Ni/SiO2 [74]
CO production
Sustainable approach for
Microalgae and faecal substituting part of micro-algae
Co-hydrothermal liquefaction [75]
sludge mixes with an eco-friendly, low-cost
alternative fecal sludge
Closed-loop integrated Purple phototrophic Bioenergy resources recover, value
biorefinery, purple bacteria-based mixed added products:H2,
FDW phototrophic bacteria, culture for polyhydroxyalkanoates, PHA, [76]
combined thermal hydrolysis, phototrophic treatment protein synthesis from the high
AD, and photofermentation of the hydrolysate nitrogen
AD and HTC, combined Enhanced energy efficiency,
Garden waste [77]
system reduced secondary wastes
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 30 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Recyclable zirconium
Biodiesel production
oxide nanoparticles
Waste seed oil from (methanol:oil 6:1 ratio, reaction
made from Sustainable bioenergy [78]
Citrus aurantium time 120 min, 87.5 ◦ C,
Alternanthera pungens
0.5 wt.% catalyst)
aqueous leaf extract
maximize energy recovery and
transesterification and Ni/SiO2 catalyst
Swine manure value-added products (biodiesel, [79]
CO2 -assisted pyrolysis (2 wt.% and 5 wt.%)
biochar, and syngas)
Agricultural residues High purity lignin (~92% with
Biomass fractionation, Ultrasound assisted
from corn cob and spelt 95% purity) and cellulose pulp [80]
analytical methods ozone
husk yielding (~84% with 78% purity)
Dried leaves of Daniella
oliveri and polyethylene
Low-temperature
terephthalate (PET) - Hybrid biochar production [81]
self-regulated reactor
bottles (weigh radio
9:1)
Cattle manure (CM),
Semi-continuous anaerobic Ideal mix W:CM 75:25 revealed
FDW, wheat straw and - [82]
co-digestion 119.97% for OLRs 3.6 kg VS/m3 ·d
mixes
Spent mushroom Enhanced biomethane yield,
substrate (SMS), mixed biochar reduces the overall
Fungal pretreatment,
agro-waste wheat straw pretreatment time, avg. CH4 yield:
AD biochar (5%, 7% and [83]
(WS), rice straw (RS), 187 mL/gVS (~83% enhanced
10%)
and pearl millet straw compared to untreated SMS of
(PMS) PMS + WS + RS)
Livestock manure,
mixed SS, non-edible
Enhanced energy performance
crops, manures,
(from 30 to 250% for livestock
vegetable/fruit wastes, AD - [84]
manure and 62 to 539% for
fish canning industry
mixed SS)
wastes, and coffee
wastes
Cow dung and cassava
wastes (peels, stem, Effectively bioelectricity and
AD - [85]
and mill effluent) in biogas production
blends
Potential for sustainable
Defatted microalgae
biorefinery development,
residue (Chlorella CG12
Anaerobic co-digestion - increasing biomethane yield [86]
and Desmodesmus
311 mL/g-VS (GS12 + RS) &
GS12), rice straw (RS)
382 mL/g-VS (CG12 + RS)
Sewage with Solar pretreatment for
AD co-digestion Enhanced methane production [87]
microalgal biomass biomass solubilization
Higher energy recovery was
Dried household food AD, bioconversion based on
obtained when fermentation and [88]
waste (FORBI) microbiological processes
subsequent AD performed
AD single-stage system,
POME sludge from Increased biohythane gas (H2 ,
mesophilic batch process - [89]
pineapple peel CH4 , and CO2 ) production
conditions
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 31 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Daily animal manure
and a variety of Salix SO2 -catalyzed steam Enhanced compressed biomethane
Co-digestion, 1:1 [90]
(lignocellulosic energy explosion gas (CBG) production
crops, 6 types)
Rice husk (RH), melon Highest biogas yield was found at
husk, (MH) and cow Co-digestion RH100:MH0, the lowest yield [91]
dung (CD), revealed at RH0:MH100
Bioplastics’ bio-methane potential:
3 bioplastics wastes: 135 ± 23 NL CH4 kg Volatile
1 starch-based and Solids−1, AD of bio-plastics can
AD co-digest - [92]
2 polylactic-acid based be a sustainable method (biogas
with SS production, and leakage
reduction)
Enhanced biogas
Seaweeds -Caribbean (292.18 ± 8.70 mL/gVS of
Hydrothermal
pelagic sargassum (PS)- Co-digestion co-pretreated pelagic [93]
pretreatment
and FDW blends Sargassum:FDW, 25:75) and
biofertilizer production
Evaluating biogas potential,
anaerobic co-digestion
(mesophilic conditions for Radish leaves combined with
SS and cattle manure 30 d), seasonal variation of waste activated sludge (WAS)
- [94]
mixes fruits, vegetables and showed the highest biogas yield
agrowastes (FVA) with sewage (407.2 mL/g VSfed )
sludge and cattle manure),
New Delhi (India)
Enhanced biomethane potential,
Sargassum (S) biomass
the highest BMP (~441 mL
with pig manure (PM) Co-digestion - [95]
CH4 /gVSFed) was found in
blends
50S:50PM blend, (16.8 C:N)
Co-digestion revealed several
Fruit and vegetable advantageous features, maximum
wastes (FVW), cow methane yield of 388 ± 131 mL/g
In the absence of an
dung (CD) & dry fell AcoD VSinput (blend: 40DFL:60FVW), [96]
active inoculum
leaves (DFL), 12 maximum biogas yield:
mixtures 809 ± 96 mL/g VSinput (blend:
100DFL: 0FVW)
Combination of bioprocesses:
Agro-industrial poultry vermicomposting, composting, High-quality organic fertilizer,
- [97]
wastes fraction separation, hydration, high energy recovery
and AD
Solid waste to bioenergy,
3 gasification & 3 pyrolysis
Solid waste - decentralized FOB of 3 sizes: 120-, [98]
technologies
1200-, and 12,000-person
Apple and grape waste Extracting bioactive Value-added chemical products:
from the cider and compounds, - biochar, activated carbon, fuel [99]
wine industries pyrolyzing/gasifying applications, soil reinforcement
Integrated solar—waste to
H2 and clean water production
energy incineration plant,
(2.87 g/s & 26.96 kg/s,
iso-butane organic Rankine
MSW - respectively rate production), [100]
cycle, proton exchange
efficiency: thermal 21.34% &
membrane electrolyzer, reverse
exergy 16.64%
osmosis system
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 32 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Biomass agro-industrial Bioenergy & biofuels
Conversion technologies:
residues, paper mill production,Final rank: gasification
electricity and heat by
sludge, slurries and > combustion > AD >
combustion, H2 by dark
effluents, pulp and, - (trans)esterification > pyrolysis [101]
fermentation, bio-oils by
organic fractions of and fermentation to ethanol >
pyrolysis or HTL, biogas and
MSW and piggery hydrothermal liquefaction > dark
synthesis gas by gasification
effluents fermentation
a novel cascade system of ORC
and Kalina using a
Green hydrogen production and
combination of MSW biogas
cooling, biogas. Energy ratio 0.76,
MSW production and solar energy, - [102]
exergy efficiency 21.6%, total cost
4 regions (Delhi, Guwahati,
$58,677
Chennai, and Mumbai) in
India
Hybrid AD—solar energy,
economic analysis for the
AD/solar system of 5 locations: Enhanced biomethane/biogas
Livestock farms - [103]
Soria (Spain), Iowa (USA), production, lower costs
Odense (Denmark), Santa
Catarina (Brazil), Laixi (China)
An integrated hydrogen
(proton exchange membrane
electrolyzer) and renewable
energy systems (solar Sustainable cities,Sustainable
MSW & solid woody
photovoltaics, wind plants, - hydrogen, biogas, and bioethanol [104]
biomass
and biomass-based systems), production
4 communities (Canada,
S. Africa, Netherlands, and
Denmark) were studied
Sustainable biogas and
biofertilizer production. Utilizing
Organic municipal Environmental and economic 50% of the wastes: 3941 MWh/d
[105]
solid waste analysis in Malaysia (via AD) electricity, 2500 t/d biofertilizer,
and 2735 t/d reduced CO2
emissions
Fecal sludge and
Co-liquefication (320 ◦ C, Low phenolic naphtha-rich
organic solid waste - [106]
60 min) biocrude, low toxicity
mixes
Enhanced biomethane, biogas,
Grass biomass Integrated AD and pyrolysis - [107]
biochar, and biooil production
The maximum calorific value,
lower ash level, higher carbon
Food sludge and 6 Co-torrefaction, using content, and enhanced biochar
[108]
lignocellulose biowaste micro-wave-assisted quality achieved by blending
sludge with macadamia husk at
25:75 db%
Biorefinery which included
Organosolv
ethanolic organosolv
pretreatment using
Potato peel wastes pretreatment, solvent recovery, Biogas, ethanol, 57.9 L CH4 /kg
50–75% (v/v) ethanol [109]
(PPW) enzymatic hydrolysis, dry PPW
solution with/without
ethanolic fermentation, and
catalyst (1 wt.% H2 SO4 )
AD
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 33 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Gasification and solar energy,
Syngas production with CO2
Rice straw (system 1) heat and power generation,
capture, system 1 has the potential
and microalgae energy, exergy, - [9]
to produce higher H2 with higher
(system 2) techno-economic and
energy efficiency
environmental analysis
Palm oil mill effluent &
Supercritical water gasification - H2 production [110]
empty fruit bunches
waste to energy integrated
multi-system for power,
heating, cooling and fuel
production that contains steam
gasifier, Brayton waste heat
Wastes recovery, organic Rankine, - WtE integrated system [111]
absorption refrigeration
systems, domestic heating
systems and H2 production,
Engineering Equation Solver
(EES) software
Enhance microalgal biomass
Lignocellulosic production (enhanced lipid
Hydrolysate Bio-iron nanoparticles [112]
biomass hydrolysate content), FAME recovery,
enhanced biodiesel production
Almond wastes from Carbon-neutral catalysts:
Ru/CNF catalyst Value-added liquids [113]
almond industries Hydrothermal hydrogenation
Roadside grass clippings as a
substitute source on the
Roadside grass Biogas production, co-digestion is
environment (digested and - [114]
clippings, pig manure an eco-friendly method
co-digested with pig manure),
Netherlands, and Belgium
innovative economic Product
Space Model, 7 Economic, social, and
25 biowastes biomass-enriched countries - environmental benefits of [115]
(USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, bioenergy production
Indonesia, Pakistan, China)
Ecological industrial park
Śmiłowo Eco-Park, (Poland),
Wastes, pig manure,
environmental and economic Sustainable waste management &
meat waste, meat bone - [116]
efficiency among companies, bioenergy, reduced CO2 emissions
meal
efficient waste, energy, water
and material exchange
Energy generation, sustainable
Several OLS blends with management, energy cover,GCV:
Olive stones (OLS) and
lignite, several EOP blends OLS70 LIG30 > OLS50 LIG50 >
lignite blends,
with lignite, thermochemical EOP70 LIG30 > EOP50 LIG50 >
extracted olive pomace
analyses, thermal EOP30 LIG70 > OLS30 LIG70 >
(EOP) and lignite
characterization, kinetics, - LIGA, Ash content: OLS blends: [28]
blends, in
thermodynamicanalysis, and 14.6 to 27.8 wt.% & EOP blends:
30–50–70%(olive oil
several scenarios for 15.2 to 28.6 wt.%,sustainable
solid wastes from oil
sustainable practices for approach for substituting part of
industry)
energy cover lignite with an eco-friendly,
low-cost alternative
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 34 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Blends revealed higher GCV than
lignite, lower ash per produced
MJ, lower COx , SOx maximum
Co-combustion,
potential emissions per MJ but
thermochemical methods,
higher potential NOx, better fuel
thermal analysis, proximate
characteristics, activation energy:
analysis, ultimate analysis,
lower in blends (synergy
BSG blends with lignite empirical chemical formulas,
effect)Energy generation,
in several mixes case studies for sustainable BSG blends with lignite [29]
alternative use of BSG, sustainable
(70–50–30 wt.%) management, environmental
management, sustainable
impact, maximum emission
approach for substituting part of
factors, kinetic and
lignite with an eco-friendly,
thermodynamic analysis, ash
low-cost alternative, sustainable
elemental analysis
approach for substituting part of
lignite with an eco-friendly,
low-cost alternative
Forest biomass (coffee Bioenergy generation,
Thermochemical methods,
processing & eucalyptus-parchment-coffee husk
6 blends in different - [117]
eucalyptus wood) ECPCH pellets: 11.6 GJ/m3 ,
proportion, pellet production
residues blends blends shod ~17 MJ/kg
Ash per Megajoule (better>worst):
GM: 0.0030 kg/MJ > GM70LIG30:
0.0082 kg/MJ > GM50LIG50:
0.0131 kg/MJ > GM30LIG70:
0.0205 kg/MJ > LIGA:
Co-combustion,
3 grape marcblends 0.0307 kg/MJ, promising
thermochemical methods,
with lignite - alternative sustainable solid [30]
kinetic and thermodynamic
(30–50–70 wt.%) biofuels (enhanced fuel
analysis, ash analysis, etc.
characteristics, low COx , NOx ,
SOx emissions per Megajoule),
sustainable approach for
substituting part of lignite with an
eco-friendly, low-cost alternative
GCV: FDW blends 13.9 to
Physicochemical, kinetic, 16.6 MJ/kg, GNW blends 12.4 to
MSW: FDW, GNW, thermodynamic, 13.1 MJ/kg, OFMSW blends 13.4
PAP and OFMSW were environmental impact, to 15.3 MJ/kg, PAP blends 13.8 to
blended (12 blends) modelling, energy cover for - 17.5. MJ/kg, Enhanced energy, [13]
with lignite, in Greece and Europe, empirical reduced emissions, energy cover,
30–50–70 wt.% chemical formulas, Maximum sustainable approach for
potential emission factors substituting part of lignite with an
eco-friendly, low-cost alternative
Co-incineration in cement With or without raw Enhanced energy recovery,
11% tire waste and coal [118]
plants mill in function reduced CO2 emissions
Energy demand that can be
MSW, agricultural 1.29 × 103 PJ biogas/year, and
met in India, avg. MSW
residues, and animal - 7.79 × 102 PJ cellulosic [119]
calorific value: 1751 kcal/kg,
manure ethanol/year
biomass potential: 20 MJ/m3
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 35 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Rural India needs 1927 TJ/day
(2.75 MJ/capita/day) energy for
cooking, livestock wastes could
Livestock waste and Calculated methods, AD, generate 715 TJ/day
[120]
agriculture residues 602 rural districts of India (1.02 MJ/capita/day) ~37% of
energy demand, using crop
residue can generate 2296 TJ/day
(3.27 MJ/capita/day)
In case of co-digestion of all
Case studies for estimating wastes, a maximum
Agricultural residues &
biogas potential Uttar Pradesh, - 170,000 m3 /year of raw biogas and [121]
animal waste
(India), co-digestion 222,000 m3 /year of upgraded
biogas is possible
Theoretical study of potential
Agricultural and Cover more than half of the
biofuels and energy cover in - [122]
livestock wastes electricity demand
Marmara Region, (Turkey)
Economic feasibility analysis,
2 WtE scenarios,
transesterification and AD,
Sustainable waste management in
SHW Saudi Arabia. By 2030, - [123]
Saudi Arabia
national economic circle:
288 MSAR (scenario I) and
319 MSAR (scenario II)
Energy recovery, and reduced
carbon emissions, Anaerobic
co-digestion is preferred in the
centralized solution, with a blend
Blends of rural wastes
of 30% manure and 70% MSW, AD
(cattle manure) and 3 case studies (scenarios) - [124]
for decentralized designs is
MSW urban wastes
appropriate for larger cities (with
more than 5 tons of organic
waste/day) and feedlots (with
more than 30 tons manure)
3 biomass residues Bioenergy, biochemical conversion
Case studies of the region
(municipal wastes, route revealed 765 TJ/year energy
Lafões (Portugal), biochemical - [125]
agricultural residues, potential while thermochemical
and thermochemical routes
and forestry residues) route 543 TJ/year
MSW & agricultural
crop residues (coffee
and cocoa husks, maize
stalk/husk, wheat
straw/husk rice Significant energy cover demand,
husk/straw, sugar cane (MSW: 26 PJ & agro-waste: 580 PJ,
Biogas production in
baggase, sweet potato in 2020, in Cameroon), migrate [4]
Cameroon
peelings, groundnuts climate change
shells/husks/straw, (1,600,000,000 kgCO2 )
straw beans, banana
stem, peels, leaves,
tops/leaves, cotton
stalk)
Co-digestion in batch-type
Cow dung, food waste KOH & sodium
digester, Stat Ease Design Increased biogas yield [126]
and algae hydroxide
Expert Software 13
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 36 of 45

Table 4. Cont.

Enhance
Waste Source Method Biofuel/Results Refs.
Treatment/Additives
Municipal and A system dynamic modeling
- Sustainable RDF production [127]
industrial waste analysis
Solar biomass-based IGCC
Co-production of power &
Crop residues system, ASPEN Plus [128]
biofertilizer
simulation software
Thermal and biological
technologies: combustion,
gasification, pyrolysis (at 550 Combustion was the most efficient
Livestock mixed and 750 ◦ C), and AD, a defined (0.43 MWe/t), followed by
wastes: cattle, sheep, design algorithm with - gasification and pyrolysis. AD [129]
goat, and chicken waste important parameters, showed a 0.21 MWe/t recovery
7 geographical areas studied in potential
Turkey, ASPEN Plus
stimulation
Livestock &
Building biogas plants were bioenergy supply chain network,
agricultural waste
studiedfuzzy programming sale of bioelectricity accounts for
(such as maize straw, - [130]
method was utilized to ~87% of the network’s overall
wheat straw, rice straw,
manage the uncertainty revenue
cow and hen manure)
Machine Learning (ML)
Biomass with high algorithms taking into account Enhanced energy of bio-oil,
moisture (algae, sludge, several factors (solvents, reduced Nitrogen content, random
- [131]
manure, and food process parameters, elemental forest (RF) algorithm was the
waste) and biochemical compositions best one
of biomass) from HTL

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Most countries in the world have not yet developed a system for dealing with crucial
issues, such as national energy security, sustainable bioenergy (waste to energy practices,
reduced carbon emissions), and a sustainable management system (circular economy, zero
waste practices).
This review paper summarizes various waste-to-energy (WtE) practices that were used
(from 2020 to 18 February 2024) by the scientific community for sustainable development.
Three main categories of wastes were examined: municipal solid wastes, animal solid
wastes, and biomass wastes.
The results showed that WtE practice is a feasible solution to the problem of sustainable
urban development in communities. Several studies have effectively used physicochemical
experimental analyses for the characterization and categorization of wastes. The results
of this study showed that biomass wastes (forest biomass wastes, yard wastes, agave
bagasse, brewers’ spent grain, jackfruit peels and seeds waste, textile mill waste from
cotton spinning, potato residues, tomato residues, and banana residues, grape marc, straw,
crop residues, etc.), animal wastes (e.g., manure, slaughterhouse wastes), and municipal
solid wastes (e.g., food wastes, green wastes, organic fraction of municipal solid wastes,
paper wastes) are viable sources of sustainable bioenergy production. Biomass residues are
effectively transformed into bio-fuels and sustainable chemicals through various thermal,
physicochemical, or biochemical conversion techniques, such as anaerobic digestion (AD),
hydrothermal carbonization (HTC), combustion, gasification, and transesterification. By
using sustainable green catalysts, e.g., utilization of green heterogenous indium oxide (nano
catalyst) with Boerhavia diffusa leaf extract in the transesterification process for biodiesel
production from Cordia myxa seed oil, a zeolite catalyst in sugarcane baggage pyrolysis,
energy yield can be enhanced.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 37 of 45

Increased research interest has been found regarding mixed sustainable feedstocks
(such as wood waste with food wastes, agricultural residues, and animal waste, biomass
waste with lignite, fruit and vegetable wastes with dung and dry fell leaves, sewage with
microalgal biomass, MSW with solid woody biomass, MSW with lignite, rural wastes
-cattle manure- with MSW urban wastes, etc.) and integrated systems for energy generation,
such as gasification with solar energy, AD with HTC, integrated solar-WtE, integrated
hydrogen and renewable energy systems (solar photovoltaics, wind plants, and biomass-
based systems), solar biomass-based IGCC system, integrated solar-AD system, etc.
The shift from mono-(combustion, digestion, gasification, etc.) to co-(combustion,
co-digestion, gasification, etc.) and to novel integrated sustainable energy systems (that
combines with other renewable energy forms, e.g., wind, solar, etc.), taking into account
the climatic and geo-morphological characteristics of the area, with the aim of energy
security (the independence from other countries for energy coverage), the local green
energy production (the use of biofuels in vehicles and in urban transport such as buses,
taxis), the strengthening of the local economy and the labor market (agriculture, industry,
trade in biofuels and waste products, etc.), can lead to a proper waste management (zero
waste), reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the cities, with the ultimate goal of creating
sustainable green cities in a country. There are cases in which this is already a reality, e.g.,
bioethanol production in Brazil.
Energy consumption and production are critical criteria for determining the level of
industrial development in countries. Each country can calculate the amount occupied by
these wastes and the energy they could produce from them, alone as alternative biofuels
or in combination with each other, but also between various technologies and/or various
pretreatments (e.g., gasification, combustion, pyrolysis, catalysis, etc.). Moreover, the
combination with other technologies, such as solar, can lead to better results in areas with
high sunshine or winds. In addition, the use of combined cooling, heating, and power
(CCHP) production in the energy network is a sustainable solution for achieving efficient
energy conversion by enhancing energy savings, flexibility in the operation of the system,
and the efficient recovery of waste heat. In other words, specialized research should be
carried out per region so that the most appropriate combination of the above-mentioned
systems can be chosen, which will give the best result for every country, depending on the
availability of biomass, weather conditions, etc.
Huge opportunities to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions could arise by
replacing chemical products (e.g., fertilizers) with organic products (e.g., organic fertiliz-
ers, green catalysts, etc.), contributing to the local circular economy in less economically
developed countries (such as Greece) that need strong efforts to reduce CO2 emissions,
in order to achieve the GHG emissions target (net zero emissions by 2050, according to
the National Climate Law). The results of this review showed that the majority of the
wastes can be effectively reused and transformed into high-value products such as biogas,
biohydrogen, bioethanol, butanol, organic acids, proteins, activated carbons, and other
industrial products.
Future studies should focus on the use of innovative tools, such as artificial intelli-
gence, machine learning, fuel quality indicators, and simulation, in order to choose the
alternative fuels with the best quality characteristics per site, seasonal variation, predict
the performance of complex alternative biofuels, optimize system performance, assess the
environmental footprint, and help find the best possible solutions for each rural community,
town, country, and season, taking into account their special characteristics (climate, mor-
phology, etc.). In addition, critical decisions should be made on the production, collection,
transportation, and storage of waste and biomass residues for the possibility of energy pro-
duction in decentralized collection points of this waste (e.g., landfills, concentration camps,
industries, etc.) with the participation of each municipality and citizen in this achievement.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 38 of 45

Abbreviations

ABE acetone-butanol-ethanol
ABNT Brazilian National Standards Organization
ACM Acacia mangium
ACoD anaerobic co-digestion
AD anaerobic digestion
AF anaerobic fermentation
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
avg. average
BET Brunauer–Emmett–Teller
BMP biochemical methane potential
BFT breadfruit tree
BSG brewers’ spent grain
Ca calcium
CaSO4 calcium sulfate (or calcium sulphate)
CCHP integrated system for cooling, heating, and power
CD cow dung
CH4 methane
CHP combined heat–power
CNF carbon nanofibres
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COD chemical oxygen demand
CWP pure cheese whey
deNOx system process for NOx emissions removal
DFL dry fell leaves
ECPCH eucalyptus/parchment/coffee husk
ECPCH eucalyptus-parchment-coffee husk
EDTA ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
EN European standards
FAME fatty acid methyl ester
FDW food waste
FGL fig tree leaves
FOBs forward operating bases
FORBI dried household food waste
FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
FVW vegetable and fruit wastes
GAMS General Algebraic Modeling System
gCO2 per produced MJ grams of carbon dioxide per produced megajoule
GCV gross calorific value
GHGs greenhouse gas emissions
Glc glucose
gNO per produced MJ grams of nitric oxide per produced megajoule
GNW green waste
gSO2 per produced MJ grams of sulfur dioxide per produced megajoule
GWh gigawatt hours
H2 hydrogen
HCL hydrochloric acid
HTC hydrothermal carbonization
HTL hydrothermal liquefaction
IASNPs ionic liquid amphiphilic silica nanoparticles
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle
In2 O3 indium oxide
JP peels from jackfruits
JS seeds from jackfruits
K potassium
kJ kilojoule
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 39 of 45

LHV lower heating value

LFG landfill gas
LIGA or LIG lignite (Greek)
MCFA medium-chain fatty acids
MCG Macaranga spp.
Mg magnesium
MH melon husk
MJ megajoule
ML machine learning
MSW municipal solid waste
Mt or Mtonnes megatons
MWe megawatts electric power (electricity)
N nitrogen
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NHCs nitrogen heterocyclic compounds
NHCs nitrogen heterocyclic compounds
NL normal litter
OBPs open air burn pits
OFMSW and organic fraction of municipal solid waste
ORC organic rankine cycle
PAP paper waste
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate
PJ petajoule
PM pig manure
POME palm oil mill effluent
PPW potato peel waste
Py-GC MS pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
RDF refuse derived fuel
REE rare earth elements
RF random forest algorithm
RH rice husk
RSM response surface methodology
S sulfur
Sar sargassum
SCB sugarcane baggage
SCFAs short-chain fatty acids
SDG sustainable development goals
SE steam explosion
SEM-EDS or SEM-EDX scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
SHW slaughterhouse wastes
SS sewage sludge
SVI sustainable value index
TGA thermogravimetric analysis or thermal gravimetric analysis
TS total solid
TVS total volatile solids
TW tea waste
UASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (reactor)
v/v volume per volume
VCRS vapor compressor refrigeration system
VOCs volatile organic compounds
VS volatile solids
W/BtE or WtE waste/biomass to energy or waste to energy
wt.% weight percent
XRD X-ray diffraction
XRF X-ray fluorescence
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 40 of 45

References
1. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report, SDGs. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021
/Overview/ (accessed on 18 February 2024).
2. Zhou, Z.; Zhang, L. Sustainable waste management and waste to energy: Valuation of energy potential of MSW in the Greater
Bay Area of China. Energy Policy 2022, 163, 112857. [CrossRef]
3. Mahmudul, H.M.; Rasul, M.G.; Akbar, D.; Narayanan, R.; Mofijur, M. Food waste as a source of sustainable energy: Technical,
economical, environmental and regulatory feasibility analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 166, 112577. [CrossRef]
4. Tanyi, R.J.; Adaramola, M.S. Bioenergy potential of agricultural crop residues and municipal solid waste in Cameroon. AIMS
Energy 2023, 11, 31–46. [CrossRef]
5. Jin, Q.; An, Z.; Damle, A.; Poe, N.; Wu, J.; Wang, H.; Wang, Z.; Huang, H. High Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol Production from Food
Waste by Recombinant Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum in Batch and Continuous Immobilized-Cell Fermentation. ACS
Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 9822–9832. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wei, W.; Chen, X.; Mannina, G.; Ni, B.J. A novel strategy for efficiently transforming waste activated
sludge into medium-chain fatty acid using free nitrous acid. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 862, 160826. [CrossRef]
7. Cevrim, I.; Caner, A.M. Analysis of Biogas Sources in the Context of Renewable Energy; Erzurum Province as an Example. Pol. J.
Environ. Stud. 2023, 32, 3053–3062. [CrossRef]
8. Zhu, Y.; Lyu, T.; Li, D.; Zhang, Z.; Guo, J.; Li, X.; Xiong, W.; Dong, R.; Wang, S. Process mechanisms of nanobubble technology
enhanced hydrolytic acidification of anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 480, 147956. [CrossRef]
9. Osat, M.; Shojaati, F.; Osat, M. A solar-biomass system associated with CO2 capture, power generation and waste heat recovery
for syngas production from rice straw and microalgae: Technological, energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and environmental
assessments. Appl. Energy 2023, 340, 120999. [CrossRef]
10. Honcharuk, I.; Tokarchuk, D.; Gontaruk, Y.; Hreshchuk, H. Bioenergy recycling of household solid waste as a direction for
ensuring sustainable development of rural areas. Polityka Energetyczna 2023, 26, 23–42. [CrossRef]
11. Ramprasad, C.; Anandhu, A.; Abarna, A. Quantification of Methane Emissions Rate Using Landgem Model and Estimating
the Hydrogen Production Potential from Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Site. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 2023, 22, 1845–1856.
[CrossRef]
12. Dodo, U.A.; Ashigwuike, E.C. In-depth physico-chemical characterisation and estimation of the grid power potential of municipal
solid wastes in Abuja city. Energy Nexus 2023, 10, 100192. [CrossRef]
13. Vasileiadou, A.; Zoras, S.; Dimoudi, A. A comprehensive experimental study of municipal solid waste (MSW) as solid biofuel
and as composite solid fuel in blends with lignite: Quality characteristics, environmental impact, modeling, and energy cover.
Energy Ecol. Environ. 2023, 8, 211–240. [CrossRef]
14. Cesaro, A.; Conte, A.; Carrère, H.; Trably, E.; Paillet, F.; Belgiorno, V. Formic acid pretreatment for enhanced production of
bioenergy and biochemicals from organic solid waste. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 133, 105455. [CrossRef]
15. Oliveira, B.P.D.; Sganzerla, W.G.; Léo, P.; Forster-Carneiro, T.; Martins, G. Determination of the biochemical methane potential of
food waste after aerobic storage and aeration pretreatment. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2022, 16, 1733–1743. [CrossRef]
16. Greses, S.; Tomás-Pejó, E.; González-Fernández, C. Food waste valorization into bioenergy and bioproducts through a cascade
combination of bioprocesses using anaerobic open mixed cultures. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 372, 105455. [CrossRef]
17. Phuthongkhao, P.; Phasin, K.; Boonma, P.; Khunphonoi, R.; Kanchanatip, E.; Suwannaruang, T.; Shivaraju, H.P.; Wantala, K.
Preparation and characterization of hydrothermally processed carbonaceous hydrochar from pulp and paper sludge waste.
Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023, 14, 15493–15510. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, X.; Guo, H.; Zhu, T.; Ni, B.J.; Liu, Y. Percarbonate-strengthened ferrate pretreatment for enhancing
short-chain fatty acids production from sewage sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 904, 166771. [CrossRef]
19. Alidoosti, Z.; Sadegheih, A.; Govindan, K.; Pishvaee, M.S. Sustainable network design of bioenergies generation based on
municipal solid waste (MSW) management under uncertainty. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2023, 15, 013103. [CrossRef]
20. Khan, A.A.; Khan, S.U.; Kipperberg, G.; Javed, T.; Ali, M.A.S.; Ullah, R.; Luo, J. Unlocking biogas potential: Spatial analysis,
economic viability, and climate resilience in southern regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 911,
168810. [CrossRef]
21. Posmanik, R.; Darzi, R.; Glicksberg, R.; Shabtay, A.; Cohen-Zinder, M. Hydrothermal conversion of beef cattle manure can
enhance energy recovery in confined feedlots. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6, 1125–1138. [CrossRef]
22. Latifi, P.; Karrabi, M.; Shahnavaz, B. Estimating the potential of energy generation by anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse
wastes toward sustainable waste management strategy: A case study. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2021.
[CrossRef]
23. Madrigal, G.; Huaraya, M.; Sancho, T.; Mendieta, O.; Jaimes-Estévez, J. Biochar from bovine manure as a sustainable additive to
improve the anaerobic digestion of cheese whey. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2022, 20, 101258. [CrossRef]
24. Filho, D.A.S.; de Oliveira, L.R.G.; Penteado, M.C.; Schirmer, W.N.; Sobrinho, M.A.D.M.; Jucá, J.F.T. Energy sustainability of supply
centers from the codigestion of organic waste. Detritus 2020, 9, 76–82. [CrossRef]
25. Shaibur, M.R.; Husain, H.; Arpon, S.H. Utilization of cow dung residues of biogas plant for sustainable development of a rural
community. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 3, 100026. [CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 41 of 45

26. Cabrera-Codony, A.; Ruiz, B.; Gil, R.R.; Popartan, L.A.; Santos-Clotas, E.; Martín, M.J.; Fuente, E. From biocollagenic waste
to efficient biogas purification: Applying circular economy in the leather industry. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101229.
[CrossRef]
27. Christiane, Q.N.S.; Amankwah, E.; Awafo, E.A.; Sodre, S. Valorization of faecal sludge and organic waste in Bobo-Dioulasso,
Burkina Faso to improve sanitation, enhance soil and improve agricultural productivity. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 4951–4959. [CrossRef]
28. Vasileiadou, A.; Zoras, S.; Iordanidis, A. Bioenergy production from olive oil mill solid wastes and their blends with lignite:
Thermal characterization, kinetics, thermodynamic analysis, and several scenarios for sustainable practices. Biomass Convers.
Biorefinery 2023, 13, 5325–5338. [CrossRef]
29. Vasileiadou, A. Energy recovery from brewers’ spent grain combustion/co-combustion with lignite. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2024, 21, 5335–5350. [CrossRef]
30. Vasileiadou, A. Sustainable energy production from grape marc: From thermo-analytical and chemical analysis to kinetic
modeling and environmental impact assessment. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2023, 8, 471–484. [CrossRef]
31. Nyakuma, B.B.; Oladokun, O.; Ivase, T.J.P.; Moveh, S.; Otitolaiye, V.O. Energy potential of malaysian forestry waste residues. Pet.
Coal 2020, 62, 238–243.
32. Şen, B. Investigation of the potential of greenhouse post-harvest wastes for bioenergy production and utilization for heating and
carbon dioxide application. Environ. Res. Technol. 2022, 5, 272–277. [CrossRef]
33. Díaz, L.; Señorans, S.; González, L.A.; Escalante, D.J. Assessment of the energy potential of agricultural residues in the Canary
Islands: Promoting circular economy through bioenergy production. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 437, 140735. [CrossRef]
34. Fitri, H.; Gürdil, G.A.K.; Demirel, B.; Cevher, E.Y.; Roubík, H. Biomass potential from agricultural residues for energy utilization
in West Nusa Tenggara (WNT), Indonesia. GCB Bioenergy 2023, 15, 1405–1414. [CrossRef]
35. Del Valle, T.M.; Zhu, J.; Jiang, P. Drivers of straw management in rural households: Options for the development of the bioenergy
sector in China. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 71, 341–351. [CrossRef]
36. Holmatov, B.; Schyns, J.F.; Krol, M.S.; Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Can crop residues provide fuel for future transport?
Limited global residue bioethanol potentials and large associated land, water and carbon footprints. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2021, 149, 111417. [CrossRef]
37. Brunerová, A.; Roubík, H.; Brožek, M.; Van Dung, D.; Phung, L.D.; Hasanudin, U.; Iryani, D.A.; Herák, D. Briquetting of
sugarcane bagasse as a proper waste management technology in Vietnam. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 1239–1250. [CrossRef]
38. Proto, A.R.; Palma, A.; Paris, E.; Papandrea, S.F.; Vincenti, B.; Carnevale, M.; Guerriero, E.; Bonofiglio, R.; Gallucci, F. Assessment
of wood chip combustion and emission behavior of different agricultural biomasses. Fuel 2021, 289, 119758. [CrossRef]
39. Alves, J.L.F.; da Silva, J.C.G.; Mumbach, G.D.; Domenico, M.D.; da Silva Filho, V.F.; de Sena, R.F.; Machado, R.A.F.; Marangoni,
C. Insights into the bioenergy potential of jackfruit wastes considering their physicochemical properties, bioenergy indicators,
combustion behaviors, and emission characteristics. Renew. Energy 2020, 155, 1328–1338. [CrossRef]
40. Le, T.M.; Tran, U.P.N.; Duong, Y.H.P.; Nguyen, Q.D.; Tran, V.T.; Mai, P.T.; Le, P.K. Sustainable bioethanol and value-added
chemicals production from paddy residues at pilot scale. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2022, 24, 185–197. [CrossRef]
41. Daimary, N.; Eldiehy, K.S.H.; Boruah, P.; Deka, D.; Bora, U.; Kakati, B.K. Potato peels as a sustainable source for biochar, bio-oil
and a green heterogeneous catalyst for biodiesel production. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107108. [CrossRef]
42. Wallikhani, A.H.; Asakereh, A.; Farrokhian Firouzi, A. Biochar and bioenergy production by pyrolysis of Conocarpus and
Eucalyptus wastes: A case study, Khuzestan province, Iran. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 5839–5848. [CrossRef]
43. Kumar, N.V.; Sawargaonkar, G.; Rani, C.S.; Pasumarthi, R.; Kale, S.; Prakash, T.R.; Triveni, S.; Singh, A.; Davala, M.S.; Khopade,
R.; et al. Harnessing the potential of pigeonpea and maize feedstock biochar for carbon sequestration, energy generation, and
environmental sustainability. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2024, 11, 5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Huang, Z.; Wang, X.J.; Ren, X. Kinetic study of sesame stalk pyrolysis by thermogravimetric analysis. Renew. Energy 2024, 222,
119878. [CrossRef]
45. Mishra, R.K.; Mohanty, K.; Wang, X. Pyrolysis kinetics behavior and pyrolysate compositions analysis of agriculture waste toward
the production of sustainable renewable fuel and chemicals. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2024, 43, e14357. [CrossRef]
46. Lee, T.; Nam, I.H.; Jung, S.; Park, Y.K.; Kwon, E.E. Synthesis of nickel/biochar composite from pyrolysis of Microcystis aeruginosa
and its practical use for syngas production. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 300, 122712. [CrossRef]
47. Kwon, D.; Lee, S.S.; Jung, S.; Park, Y.K.; Tsang, Y.F.; Kwon, E.E. CO2 to fuel via pyrolysis of banana peel. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 392,
123774. [CrossRef]
48. Qureshi, T.; Farooq, M.; Imran, S.; Munir, M.A.; Javed, M.A.; Sohoo, I.; Sultan, M.; Rehman, A.U.; Farhan, M.; Asim, M.; et al.
Structural and thermal investigation of lignocellulosic biomass conversion for enhancing sustainable imperative in progressive
organic refinery paradigm for waste-to-energy applications. Environ. Res. 2024, 246, 118129. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, Q.; Cao, Y.; He, M.; Lei, H.; Song, H.; Alessi, D.S.; Tsang, D.C.W. Improved energy recovery from yard waste by
water-starved hydrothermal treatment: Effects of process water and pressure. Bioresour. Technol. 2024, 394, 130211. [CrossRef]
50. Suárez, L.; Benavente-Ferraces, I.; Plaza, C.; de Pascual-Teresa, S.; Suárez-Ruiz, I.; Centeno, T.A. Hydrothermal carbonization as a
sustainable strategy for integral valorisation of apple waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 309, 123395. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Weber, B.; Ayala-Mercado, I.D.; Stadlbauer, E.A. Steam explosion versus hydrothermal carbonization: Evaluation of applicability
for pretreatment of semi-solid waste from beverage industries to facilitate on-site biogas production. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery
2022, 14, 7659–7671. [CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 42 of 45

52. Acaru, S.F.; Abdullah, R.; Lim, R.C. Sustainable Valorization of Wood Residue for the Production of Biofuel Materials Via
Continuous Flow Hydrothermal Liquefaction. Waste Biomass Valorization 2023, 14, 3081–3095. [CrossRef]
53. Lourenço, V.A.; Nadaleti, W.C.; Vieira, B.M.; Li, H. Investigation of ethyl biodiesel via transesterification of rice bran oil: Bioenergy
from residual biomass in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul-Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 144, 111016. [CrossRef]
54. Daimary, N.; Eldiehy, K.S.H.; Bora, N.; Boruah, P.; Rather, M.A.; Mandal, M.; Bora, U.; Deka, D. Towards integrated sustainable
biofuel and chemical production: An application of banana pseudostem ash in the production of biodiesel and recovery of lignin
from bamboo leaves. Chemosphere 2023, 314, 137625. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Alsaiari, M.; Ahmad, M.; Zafar, M.; Harraz, F.A.; Algethami, J.S.; Šljukić, B.; Santos, D.M.F.; Akhtar, M.S. Transformation of waste
seed biomass of Cordia myxa into valuable bioenergy through membrane bioreactor using green nanoparticles of indium oxide.
Chemosphere 2023, 314, 137604. [CrossRef]
56. Mahajan, R.; Chandel, S.; Puniya, A.K.; Goel, G. Effect of pretreatments on cellulosic composition and morphology of pine needle
for possible utilization as substrate for anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 141, 105705. [CrossRef]
57. Ogundare, O.J.; Olukanni, D.O. Potential recovery of biogas from lime waste after juice extraction using solid–liquid extraction
process. Recycling 2020, 5, 14. [CrossRef]
58. Achinas, S.; Euverink, G.J.W. Effect of temperature and organic load on the performance of anaerobic bioreactors treating grasses.
Environments 2020, 7, 82. [CrossRef]
59. Sganzerla, W.G.; Ampese, L.C.; Parisoto, T.A.C.; Forster-Carneiro, T. Process intensification for the recovery of methane-rich
biogas from dry anaerobic digestion of açaí seeds. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023, 13, 8101–8114. [CrossRef]
60. Waseem, W.; Noor, R.S.; Umair, M. The anaerobic transformation of agricultural waste for bioethanol production. Biomass Convers.
Biorefinery 2023, 14, 14163–14174. [CrossRef]
61. Shokrollahi, S.; Shavandi, A.; Valentine Okoro, O.; Denayer, J.F.M.; Karimi, K. Sustainable biorefinery development for valorizing
all wastes from date palm agroindustry. Fuel 2024, 358, 130291. [CrossRef]
62. Kavalopoulos, M.; Stoumpou, V.; Christofi, A.; Mai, S.; Barampouti, E.M.; Moustakas, K.; Malamis, D.; Loizidou, M. Sustainable
valorisation pathways mitigating environmental pollution from brewers’ spent grains. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 270, 116069.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Ranjithkumar, M.; Rajarathinam, R.; Kumar, P.S.; Rangasamy, G.; Gurunathan, B.; Ethiraj, B.; Thanabal, V. Insight into the effective
utilization of cotton spinning wastes from textile mills for the production of bioethanol. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 53,
102770. [CrossRef]
64. Pardilhó, S.; Oliveira, J.; Pires, J.C.; Maia Dias, J. Bioethanol Production from Marine Macroalgae Waste: Optimisation of Thermal
acid Hydrolysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 2024, 15, 3639–3649. [CrossRef]
65. Lapo, B.; Bou, J.J.; Hoyo, J.; Carrillo, M.; Peña, K.; Tzanov, T.; Sastre, A.M. A potential lignocellulosic biomass based on banana
waste for critical rare earths recovery from aqueous solutions. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Pandey, A.; Kalamdhad, A.S.; Sharma, Y.C. Sustainable upcycling of sugarcane bagasse into nanofibrillated cellulose utilizing
novel green solvents and high intensity ultrasonication. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2024, 37, 101373. [CrossRef]
67. Finore, I.; Romano, I.; Leone, L.; Di Donato, P.; Nicolaus, B.; Poli, A.; Lama, L. Biomass valorization: Sustainable methods for
the production of hemicellulolytic catalysts from thermoanaerobacterium thermostercoris strain buff. Resources 2021, 10, 115.
[CrossRef]
68. Li, F.; Xia, A.; Guo, X.; Zhang, W.; Huang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, X.; Liao, Q. Continuous hydrocarbon fuels production by photoenzy-
matic decarboxylation of free fatty acids from waste oils. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 110748. [CrossRef]
69. Burra, K.R.G.; Hernández, I.F.; Castaldi, M.J.; Goff, S.; Gupta, A.K. Effect of Gypsum Waste Inclusion on Gasification of Municipal
Solid Waste. J. Energy Resour. Technol. Trans. ASME 2023, 145, 021701. [CrossRef]
70. Zhu, X.; Guo, W.; Luo, Z.; Zhu, X.; Cai, W.; Zhu, X. Combined with co-hydrothermal carbonation of wood waste and food waste
digestate for enhanced gasification of wood waste. Fuel 2023, 331, 125789. [CrossRef]
71. Tiwari, A.K.; Prasad, N.; Kapoor, A.; Arya, A.K.; Pal, D.B. Sustainable valorization of Cascabela thevetia fruit peel and seed waste
biomass: Characterization and thermo-kinetic analysis. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023. [CrossRef]
72. Okopi, S.I.; Wang, J.; Kong, W.; Yu, Z.; Ndudi, E.A.; Che, L.; Gu, Z.; Xu, F. Valorization of food waste impurities by catalytic
co-pyrolysis for production of pyrolysis oil with high energy potential. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2023, 170, 105918. [CrossRef]
73. Zhai, J.; Han, X.; An, Q.; Jiang, X. Insights into the nitrogen transformation process in Maillard reaction of sewage sludge and
glucose towards nitrogen resource recovery and environmental sustainability. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2024, 177, 106282. [CrossRef]
74. Kim, J.H.; Jung, S.; Park, Y.K.; Kwon, E.E. CO2 -cofed catalytic pyrolysis of tea waste over Ni/SiO2 for the enhanced formation of
syngas. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 396, 122637. [CrossRef]
75. Islam, M.B.; Khalekuzzaman, M.; Kabir, S.B.; Hossain, M.R.; Alam, M.A. Substituting microalgal biomass with faecal sludge for
high-quality biocrude production through co-liquefaction: A sustainable biorefinery approach. Fuel Process. Technol. 2022, 225,
107063. [CrossRef]
76. Allegue, L.D.; Puyol, D.; Melero, J.A. Food waste valorization by purple phototrophic bacteria and anaerobic digestion after
thermal hydrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 142, 105803. [CrossRef]
77. Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Y.; Yan, B.; Wu, W.; Zhong, L.; Li, N.; Chen, G.; Hou, L. Hydrothermal carbonization of garden
waste by pretreatment with anaerobic digestion to improve hydrohcar performance and energy recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,
807, 151014. [CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 43 of 45

78. Ahmad, M.; Zafar, M. Conversion of waste seed oil of Citrus aurantium into methyl ester via green and recyclable nanoparticles
of zirconium oxide in the context of circular bioeconomy approach. Waste Manag. 2021, 136, 310–320. [CrossRef]
79. Cho, S.H.; Jung, S.; Park, Y.K.; Lin, K.Y.A.; Chen, W.H.; Tsang, Y.F.; Kwon, E.E. Biofuel Production as an Example of Virtuous
Valorization of Swine Manure. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 13761–13772. [CrossRef]
80. Ibrahim, H.H.; Bilsborrow, P.E.; Phan, A.N. Intensification of pre-treatment and fractionation of agricultural residues. Chem. Eng.
Process.-Process Intensif. 2021, 159, 108231. [CrossRef]
81. Adeniyi, A.G.; Amusa, V.T.; Emenike, E.C.; Iwuozor, K.O. Hybrid biochar production from biomass and pigmented plastic for
sustainable waste-to-energy. Emergent Mater. 2023, 6, 1481–1490. [CrossRef]
82. Chaher, N.E.H.; Engler, N.; Nassour, A.; Nelles, M. Effects of co-substrates’ mixing ratios and loading rate variations on food and
agricultural wastes’ anaerobic co-digestion performance. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023, 13, 7051–7066. [CrossRef]
83. Talwar, P.; Upadhyay, A.; Verma, N.; Singh, R.; Lindenberger, C.; Pareek, N.; Kovalev, A.A.; Zhuravleva, E.A.; Litti, Y.V.;
Masakapalli, S.K.; et al. Utilization of agricultural residues for energy and resource recovery towards a sustainable environment.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023. [CrossRef]
84. Duarte, E.; Fragoso, R.; Smozinski, N.; Tavares, J. Enhancing bioenergy recovery from agro-food biowastes as a strategy to
promote circular bioeconomy. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2021, 9, 1080320. [CrossRef]
85. Aduba, C.C.; Ndukwe, J.K.; Onyejiaka, C.K.; Onyeiwu, S.C.; Moneke, A.N. Integrated Valorization of Cassava Wastes for
Production of Bioelectricity, Biogas and Biofertilizer. Waste Biomass Valorization 2023, 14, 4003–4019. [CrossRef]
86. Srivastava, G.; Kumar, V.; Tiwari, R.; Patil, R.; Kalamdhad, A.; Goud, V. Anaerobic co-digestion of defatted microalgae residue
and rice straw as an emerging trend for waste utilization and sustainable biorefinery development. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery
2022, 12, 1193–1202. [CrossRef]
87. Vassalle, L.; Passos, F.; Rosa-Machado, A.T.; Moreira, C.; Reis, M.; Pascoal de Freitas, M.; Ferrer, I.; Mota, C.R. The use of
solar pre-treatment as a strategy to improve the anaerobic biodegradability of microalgal biomass in co-digestion with sewage.
Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131929. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Antonopoulou, G.; Alexandropoulou, M.; Ntaikou, I.; Lyberatos, G. From waste to fuel: Energy recovery from household food
waste via its bioconversion to energy carriers based on microbiological processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139230. [CrossRef]
89. Kopli, P.N.S.M.; Hassim, M.H.; Asli, U.A.; Wahab, F.A. Biohythane production from pineapple peel using Methanosarcina mazei
enhanced with palm oil mill effluent (POME) sludge in single-stage anaerobic digestion. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2023, 33, 95–106.
[CrossRef]
90. Kalita, S.; Ohlsson, J.A.; Karlsson Potter, H.; Nordberg, Å.; Sandgren, M.; Hansson, P.A. Energy performance of compressed
biomethane gas production from co-digestion of Salix and dairy manure: Factoring differences between Salix varieties. Biotechnol.
Biofuels Bioprod. 2023, 16, 165. [CrossRef]
91. Mohammed, I.S.; Aliyu, M.; Abdullahi, N.A.; Alhaji, I.A. Production of bioenergy from rice-melon husk co-digested with COW
dung as inoculant. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2020, 22, 108–117.
92. Cucina, M.; Carlet, L.; De Nisi, P.; Somensi, C.A.; Giordano, A.; Adani, F. Degradation of biodegradable bioplastics under
thermophilic anaerobic digestion: A full-scale approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 368, 133232. [CrossRef]
93. Thompson, T.M.; Young, B.R.; Baroutian, S. Enhancing biogas production from caribbean pelagic Sargassum utilising hydrother-
mal pretreatment and anaerobic co-digestion with food waste. Chemosphere 2021, 275, 130035. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Hasan, B.; D’Silva, T.C.; Gaur, R.Z.; Singh, G.; Khan, A.A. Evaluating biogas potential of organic fraction of wholesale market
wastes in New Delhi, India: Anaerobic co-digestion with sewage sludge and cattle manure. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2023, 9, 365–381.
[CrossRef]
95. Rivera-Hernández, Y.; Hernández-Eugenio, G.; Balagurusamy, N.; Espinosa-Solares, T. Sargassum-pig manure co-digestion: An
alternative for bioenergy production and treating a polluting coastal waste. Renew. Energy 2022, 199, 1336–1344. [CrossRef]
96. D’Silva, T.C.; Isha, A.; Verma, S.; Shirsath, G.; Chandra, R.; Vijay, V.K.; Subbarao, P.M.V.; Kovács, K.L. Anaerobic co-digestion of
dry fallen leaves, fruit/vegetable wastes and cow dung without an active inoculum—A biomethane potential study. Bioresour.
Technol. Rep. 2022, 19, 101189. [CrossRef]
97. Niedzialkoski, R.K.; Marostica, R.; Damaceno, F.M.; Costa, L.A.D.M.; Costa, M.S.S.D.M. Combination of biological processes for
agro-industrial poultry waste management: Effects on vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 297,
113127. [CrossRef]
98. Tovkach, A.E.; Boyle, J.C.; Nagelli, E.A.; James, C.M.; Sheehan, P.L.; Pfluger, A.R. Structured decision making for assessment of
solid waste-to-energy systems for decentralized onsite applications. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2023, 43, 54–71. [CrossRef]
99. Sette, P.; Fernandez, A.; Soria, J.; Rodriguez, R.; Salvatori, D.; Mazza, G. Integral valorization of fruit waste from wine and cider
industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118486. [CrossRef]
100. Khan, M.S.; Huan, Q.; Yan, M.; Ali, M.; Noor, O.U.; Abid, M. A novel configuration of solar integrated waste-to-energy
incineration plant for multi-generational purpose: An effort for achieving maximum performance. Renew. Energy 2022, 194,
604–620. [CrossRef]
101. Moura, P.; Henriques, J.; Alexandre, J.; Oliveira, A.C.; Abreu, M.; Gírio, F.; Catarino, J. Sustainable value methodology to compare
the performance of conversion technologies for the production of electricity and heat, energy vectors and biofuels from waste
biomass. Clean. Waste Syst. 2022, 3, 100029. [CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 44 of 45

102. Madhesh, K.; Devesh, D.R.; Vivin, T.; Praveen Raj, M.; Phelan, P.E.; Vignesh Kumar, V.; Praveen Kumar, G. Analysis and
multi-objective evolutionary optimization of Solar-Biogas hybrid system operated cascade Kalina organic Rankine cycle for
sustainable cooling and green hydrogen production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024, 301, 117999. [CrossRef]
103. García Álvaro, A.; Ruiz Palomar, C.; Muñoz Torre, R.; Hermosilla Redondo, D.; de Godos Crespo, I. Hybridization of anaerobic
digestion with solar energy: A solution for isolated livestock farms. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2023, 20, 100488. [CrossRef]
104. Khalil, M.; Dincer, I. Development and assessment of integrated hydrogen and renewable energy systems for a sustainable city.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 98, 104794. [CrossRef]
105. Yong, Z.J.; Bashir, M.J.K.; Hassan, M.S. Biogas and biofertilizer production from organic fraction municipal solid waste for
sustainable circular economy and environmental protection in Malaysia. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145961. [CrossRef]
106. Khalekuzzaman, M.; Fayshal, M.A.; Adnan, H.M.F. Production of low phenolic naphtha-rich biocrude through co-hydrothermal
liquefaction of fecal sludge and organic solid waste using water-ethanol co-solvent. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 436, 140593. [CrossRef]
107. Yang, J.; Tang, S.; Song, B.; Jiang, Y.; Zhu, W.; Zhou, W.; Yang, G. Optimization of integrated anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis
for biogas, biochar and bio-oil production from the perspective of energy flow. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 872, 162154. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
108. Zheng, N.Y.; Lee, M.; Lin, Y.L.; Samannan, B. Microwave-assisted wet co-torrefaction of food sludge and lignocellulose biowaste
for biochar production and nutrient recovery. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020, 144, 273–283. [CrossRef]
109. Soltaninejad, A.; Jazini, M.; Karimi, K. Sustainable bioconversion of potato peel wastes into ethanol and biogas using organosolv
pretreatment. Chemosphere 2022, 291, 133003. [CrossRef]
110. Ruya, P.M.; Lim, S.S.; Purwadi, R.; Zunita, M. Sustainable hydrogen production from oil palm derived wastes through autothermal
operation of supercritical water gasification system. Energy 2020, 208, 118280. [CrossRef]
111. Sotoodeh, A.F.; Ahmadi, F.; Ghaffarpour, Z.; Ebadollahi, M.; Nasrollahi, H.; Amidpour, M. Performance analyses of a waste-to-
energy multigeneration system incorporated with thermoelectric generators. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 49, 101649.
[CrossRef]
112. Sakthi Vignesh, N.; Vimali, E.; Sangeetha, R.; Arumugam, M.; Ashokkumar, B.; Ganeshmoorthy, I.; Varalakshmi, P. Sustainable
biofuel from microalgae: Application of lignocellulosic wastes and bio-iron nanoparticle for biodiesel production. Fuel 2020, 278,
118326. [CrossRef]
113. Remón, J.; Sevilla-Gasca, R.; Frecha, E.; Pinilla, J.L.; Suelves, I. Direct conversion of almond waste into value-added liquids using
carbon-neutral catalysts: Hydrothermal hydrogenation of almond hulls over a Ru/CNF catalyst. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 825,
154044. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114. Ravi, R.; de Souza, M.F.; Adriaens, A.; Vingerhoets, R.; Luo, H.; Van Dael, M.; Meers, E. Exploring the environmental consequences
of roadside grass as a biogas feedstock in Northwest Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 344, 118538. [CrossRef]
115. Ayub, A.; Ali Shah, S.F.; Qyyum, M.A.; Habib, D.E.Y.; Murtaza, M.A.; Rehan, M.; Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Waqas, M.;
Nizami, A.S. Sustainable economic growth potential of biomass-enriched countries through bioenergy production: State-of-the-art
assessment using product space model. Front. Energy Res. 2023, 11, 1123262. [CrossRef]
116. Kowalski, Z.; Kulczycka, J.; Makara, A.; Mondello, G.; Salomone, R. Industrial Symbiosis for Sustainable Management of Meat
Waste: The Case of Śmiłowo Eco-Industrial Park, Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117. de Souza, H.J.P.L.; Arantes, M.D.C.; Vidaurre, G.B.; Andrade, C.R.; Carneiro, A.D.C.O.; de Souza, D.P.L.; Protásio, T.D.P.
Pelletization of eucalyptus wood and coffee growing wastes: Strategies for biomass valorization and sustainable bioenergy
production. Renew. Energy 2020, 149, 128–140. [CrossRef]
118. Vasiliu, L.; Gencel, O.; Damian, I.; Harja, M. Capitalization of tires waste as derived fuel for sustainable cement production.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 56, 103104. [CrossRef]
119. Deep Singh, A.; Gajera, B.; Sarma, A.K. Appraising the availability of biomass residues in India and their bioenergy potential.
Waste Manag. 2022, 152, 38–47. [CrossRef]
120. Kumar, R.; Kumar, V.; Nagpure, A.S. Bio-energy potential of available livestock waste and surplus agriculture crop residue: An
analysis of 602 rural districts of India. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 889, 163974. [CrossRef]
121. Chaudhary, V.P.; Chandra, R.; Denis, D.M.; D’Silva, T.C.; Isha, A. Agri-biomass-based bio-energy supply model: An inclusive
sustainable and circular economy approach for a self-resilient rural India. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2022, 16, 1284–1296.
[CrossRef]
122. Ocak, S.; Acar, S. Biofuels from wastes in Marmara Region, Turkey: Potentials and constraints. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28,
66026–66042. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Ali, A.M.; Nawaz, A.M.; Al-Turaif, H.A.; Shahzad, K. The economic and environmental analysis of energy production from
slaughterhouse waste in Saudi Arabia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 4252–4269. [CrossRef]
124. Morero, B.; Lorenzon, A.B.; Cafaro, D.C. Integrated management of urban and rural wastes with energy recovery and low carbon
emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 139729. [CrossRef]
125. d’Espiney, A.; Pinheiro, H.M.; Marques, I.P.; Kretzschmar, J.; Cyffka, K.F.; Thrän, D. Biomass and bioenergy potentials of
bioresidues: Assessment methodology development and application to the region of Lafões. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023.
[CrossRef]
126. Kaushal, R.; Sandhu, S.; Kumar Soni, M. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, algae, and cow dung for biogas yield enhancement
as a prospective approach for environmental sustainability. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102236. [CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 121 45 of 45

127. de Lorena Diniz Chaves, G.; Siman, R.R.; Chang, N.B. Policy analysis for sustainable refuse-derived fuel production in Espírito
Santo, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126344. [CrossRef]
128. Ansari, S.H.; Ahmed, A.; Razzaq, A.; Hildebrandt, D.; Liu, X.; Park, Y.K. Incorporation of solar-thermal energy into a gasification
process to co-produce bio-fertilizer and power. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
129. Altan, H.S.; Orhon, D.; Sözen, S. Energy Recovery Potential of Livestock Waste with Thermal and Biological Technologies:
Analysis on Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Chicken Manure. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2022, 12, 39–52. [CrossRef]
130. Zarrinpoor, N. Bioenergy production from agro-livestock waste under uncertainty: A sustainable network design. Biomass
Convers. Biorefinery 2024, 14, 1149–1172. [CrossRef]
131. Li, J.; Zhang, W.; Liu, T.; Yang, L.; Li, H.; Peng, H.; Jiang, S.; Wang, X.; Leng, L. Machine learning aided bio-oil production with
high energy recovery and low nitrogen content from hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass with experiment verification. Chem.
Eng. J. 2021, 425, 130649. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.