Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29725572›Full record

Review3 Biotech2018

Biogas production from different lignocellulosic biomass sources: advances and perspectives.

Emir Martínez-Gutiérrez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in 3 Biotech, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review on anaerobic digestion of rice straw for biogas production.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Emir Martínez-GutiérrezCONACYT-Institute of Ecology (INECOL), Carretera Antigua a Coatepec No. 351, El Haya, Xalapa, Veracruz, 91070 Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-9138-2686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present work summarizes different sources of biomass used as raw material for the production of biogas, focusing mainly on the use of plants that do not compete with the food supply. Biogas obtained from edible plants entails a developed technology and good yield of methane production; however, its use may not be sustainable. Biomass from agricultural waste is a cheap option, but in general, with lower methane yields than those obtained from edible plants. On the other hand, the use of algae or aquatic plants promises to be an efficient and sustainable option with high yields of methane produced, but it necessary to overcome the existing technological barriers. Moreover, these last raw materials have the additional advantage that they can be obtained from wastewater treatment and, therefore, they could be applied to the concept of biorefinery. An estimation of methane yield per hectare per year of the some types of biomass and operational conditions employed is presented as well. In addition, different strategies to improve the yield of biogas, such as physical, chemical, and biological pretreatments, are presented. Other alternatives for enhanced the biogas production such as bioaugmentation and biohythane are showed and finally perspectives are mentioned.

Indexed as

AlgaeAquatic plantsBiogasLignocellulosicPretreatments

Identifiers

PMID29725572
PMCPMC5928011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.