482

31 Critical Issues That Can Underpin the Drive for Sustainable Anaerobic Biorefinery

was no specific shift toward psychrophilic microorganisms [48, 49]. McHough et al.

studied the biological treatment of VFAs and sucrose-based wastewaters in continu-

ous digestion at 16–37 ^∘C for 300 days where a proliferation of Methanocorpusculum

parvum sp. was detected [50]. Similarly, Leclerc et al. detected the presence of M.

parvum sp. in a mesophilic lab-scale anaerobic digester treating sludge and glucose

for 100 days [51]. The separation at the archaeal genus levels within the reactors

treating different carbon sources is most likely related to differences in the pro-

cess parameter [52]. Sundberg et al. conducted an archaeal DNA sequence analysis

from full-scale biogas reactors treating various combinations of wastes from slaugh-

terhouses, restaurants, and households [53]. The development and distribution of

microorganisms that degrade cellulosic materials were modeled based on isotopic

data from batch experiments and showed that the majority of the Archaea fell within

the hydrogenotrophic genus Methanobacterium [54].

31.5

Perspectives Toward the Revitalization of the

Anaerobic Biorefineries

31.5.1

Reciprocity Between Research, Industry, and Government

Recent research efforts indicate the potency of biogas production from biowaste.

However, the process typically has technical challenges that originate from a poor

understanding of the ideal reactor operation. Innovation becomes more expensive

due to the complexity of AD and the increased risk that is involved in investment

in new AD technologies [55]. These constraints, affecting the improvement of the

AD, should be overcome by active collaboration between the research institutes,

the biogas industry, and the observing government [56]. Universities often work

together with R&D departments of biogas companies to mature AD technology.

Subsequently, governments facilitate the implementation of biomethane in the

transportation fuel markets and meeting their interests. Ultimately, the improved

innovative concepts in AD persuade governmental institutes to supply additional

subsidies for further technology development by research institutes and industries.

The resemblance in stakes of research, industry, and the government is the

understanding of AD science and technology and the evaluation of the impact of

economic, ecological, and technical barriers. The approaches to improve unitary

stakes, however, differ very much per stakeholder. For example, design engineers

in the industry usually apply a problem-solving approach, whereas research

engineers tend to start with the science-related empirical approach. However, the

combination of both methods in research engineering and design engineering

would be more favorable since engineers require research to define design quality

and decisions, and researchers have to design their experiments. The combination

will thus lead to much more effectivity and efficacy in the research and design

process. The crossovers between research engineering (academia) and design

engineering (industry) are often misunderstood. Figure 31.6 presents a joint

incentive cycle between academia, government, and industry that should overcome

misunderstanding between stakeholders.