Cited by 176Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques

Thermophilic versus Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Review

Open access
Gebreeyessus, Getachew, Jenicek, Pavel·2016·Bioengineering

Abstract

During advanced biological wastewater treatment, a huge amount of sludge is produced as a by-product of the treatment process. Hence, reuse and recovery of resources and energy from the sludge is a big technological challenge. The processing of sludge produced by Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) is massive, which takes up a big part of the overall operational costs. In this regard, anaerobic digestion (AD) of sewage sludge continues to be an attractive option to produce biogas that could contribute to the wastewater management cost reduction and foster the sustainability of those WWTPs. At the same time, AD reduces sludge amounts and that again contributes to the reduction of the sludge disposal costs. However, sludge volume minimization remains, a challenge thus improvement of dewatering efficiency is an inevitable part of WWTP operation. As a result, AD parameters could have significant impact on sludge properties. One of the most important operational parameters influencing the AD process is temperature. Consequently, the thermophilic and the mesophilic modes of sludge AD are compared for their pros and cons by many researchers. However, most comparisons are more focused on biogas yield, process speed and stability. Regarding the biogas yield, thermophilic sludge AD is preferred over the mesophilic one because of its faster biochemical reaction rate. Equally important but not studied sufficiently until now was the influence of temperature on the digestate quality, which is expressed mainly by the sludge dewateringability, and the reject water quality (chemical oxygen demand, ammonia nitrogen, and pH). In the field of comparison of thermophilic and mesophilic digestion process, few and often inconclusive research, unfortunately, has been published so far. Hence, recommendations for optimized technologies have not yet been done. The review presented provides a comparison of existing sludge AD technologies and the gaps that need to be filled so as to optimize the connection between the two systems. In addition, many other relevant AD process parameters, including sludge rheology, which need to be addressed, are also reviewed and presented.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/bioengineering3020015

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The review by Gebreeyessus and Jenicek indicated a preference for the mesophilic system because of lower stability issues associated with this technology.

    “the review performed by Gebreeyessus and Jenicek [114] indicated a preference for the mesophilic system because of the lower stability issues associated with this technology.”

    From Biogas Production from Organic Wastes: Integrating Concepts of Circular Economy (2021) · cites this paper as Gebreeyessus and Jenicek [114]

    The Conclusions (section 5) say process stability issues favor mesophilic systems, supporting the stated reason. But they also say thermophilic digestion is often preferred because it digests sludge faster and requires a shorter retention time. The review therefore does not express the overall preference for mesophilic digestion attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Ocansey F.N. New Trends In Treatment of Reject Water from Dewatering of Sludge Master’s Thesis Lundto University Lund, Sweden 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebreeyessus, G., & Jenicek, P.
Affiliations
  • Kotebe University of Education (ET)
  • Water Technology and Environmental Engineering, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague 6—Dejvice, Czech Republic
Corresponding author
Gebreeyessus, Getachew
Venue
Bioengineering
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-06-18
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
15
ISSN
2306-5354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2434489056
Cited by
176
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioengineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Composting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Keywords
sewage sludge, anaerobic digestion, thermophilic digestion, mesophilic digestion, biogas yield, digestate quality, sludge dewatering, sludge rheology, wastewater treatment plants, sludge disposal, temperature effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review