About usContact

BMP testingFruit, vegetables and their residues

Apples — BMP: 8 studies, weighted mean 357 m³ CH₄/t VS

Apples and their waste (non-commercial fruit, residues from markets and processing) are a moist, sugar-rich substrate, degrading quickly and readily acidifying the digester.

CH₄ ≈ 52 % (estimate)

Published Updated 3 min readFeedstockData Editorial Team

Photo Oxfordian Kissuth / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY-SA 3.0, source file; changes: cropping

Weighted mean
357m³ CH₄/t VS
Range
317–478m³ CH₄/t VS
Records
8studies
Publications
5sources
Temperatures
35 °C, 38 °C, 55 °Cof the test

Methane in biogas

Medium methane content · ≈ 5.2 kWh/m³ of biogas

estimate from the substrate type The collected studies contain no measurement. The interval follows from the approximate composition (carbohydrate-dominated (no protein or fat characteristics)) and the yields of compound groups according to FNR.

How we calculate it and what the zones mean

Rating for biogas plants

not rated — editorial rating for biogas plants

Not rated: no dry matter or volatile solids in the data. We calculate the rating when the dry matter and volatile solids of the material are known.

Editorial rating per the methodology

Add to the co-digestion calculator CSV data

BMP curves from 8 studies

Weighted mean Individual records

BMP curves: ApplesCumulative methane production over time for 8 records and the weighted mean of 357 m³ CH₄/t VS. 8 of the curves are model curves (first-order kinetics).0200400600051015202530time [d]m³ CH₄/t VSBuffiere et al. (2006): 317 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 1: 412 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 2: 464 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 3: 478 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Aybek et al. (2017) · 1: 335 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Aybek et al. (2017) · 2: 344 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Kouas et al. (2017): 355 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Nogueira et al. (2026): 321 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)mean357

Dashed lines are a model curve (first-order kinetics, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt)); the end point comes from the publication. All curves are model curves.

Cumulative methane production over the test [m³ CH₄/t VS]. The thick line is the weighted mean of all records (357); dots mark the end values given in the publications. Point at the chart to read values; click a legend item to hide or show a record.

Records and sources

Download CSV
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS		TemperatureSampleCurve
Buffiere et al. (2006) DOI31755 °C · thermophilicAppleend point (model curve)
Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 141238 °C · mesophilicappleend point (model curve)
Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 246438 °C · mesophilicappleend point (model curve)
Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 347838 °C · mesophilicappleend point (model curve)
Aybek et al. (2017) · 1 DOI335—Appleend point (model curve)
Aybek et al. (2017) · 2 DOI344—Appleend point (model curve)
Kouas et al. (2017) DOI35535 °C · mesophilicappleend point (model curve)
Nogueira et al. (2026) DOI321—Non-marketable apples (AW), mono-digestionend point (model curve)
Weighted mean357arithmetic mean 378, SD 64

Process properties

  • easily degradable
  • acidic
  • dilutes the feed (low DM)
  • seasonal
  • poor in trace elements
  • carbon-rich
  • low in nitrogen
  • editorial classification

Low confidence: the description is based on general characteristics of the substrate group, not on studies of this material. Treat it as a hint to be verified.

Advantages

  • Methane yield in the compendium: median 350 (range 317-478) m³ CH₄/t VS, 8 records from 5 studies (weighted mean 357).
  • Non-marketable apples were studied in co-digestion with pig slurry (study by Nogueira et al.) (Nogueira et al. (2026))

Co-digestion — what to combine it with, what to watch out for

Dosing

No source limits on the dose for this substrate.

Introduce gradually, starting with a small dose and monitoring the process (e.g. FOS/TAC, pH, gas composition).

Sources of the process data

  1. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Gerbera Flower Residues, Non-Marketable Apples and Pig Slurry: Biochemical Methane Potential, Synergistic Effects and Kinetic Modelling
  2. Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-substrates addition
  3. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates
  4. Towards new indicators for the prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties
  5. Biogas from wastes of pumpkin, marrow and apple
  6. Determination and evaluation of biogas and methane productions of vegetable and fruit wastes with Hohenheim Batch Test method
  7. Robust assessment of both biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetics of solid residues in successive batches
  8. Effects of size and thermophilic pre-hydrolysis of banana peel during anaerobic digestion, and biomethanation potential of key tropical fruit wastes
  9. Effect of particle size on biogas generation from biomass residues

The co-digestion calculator will assess a specific mixture containing this substrate.

What it is and where it comes from

Poland is one of the largest apple producers in Europe, so in orchards, sorting plants, cold stores and processing plants considerable quantities of non-commercial fruit arise: damaged, small, frost-damaged or spoiled. A separate fraction is pomace from juice production, which may be described separately in the compendium. The compilation contains several records from several studies: apple fruit under mesophilic conditions and one thermophilic result, market waste ground to different fractions, and non-commercial fruit in mono-digestion.

Properties relevant to digestion

Apples consist mainly of water, simple sugars, pectins and a small amount of fibre, with a very small share of protein. Sugars and pectins are rapidly hydrolysed, which gives a fast start to biogas production, but also a risk of abrupt acid formation, a fall in pH and inhibition of methanogenesis, particularly in mono-digestion. The low level of nitrogen and trace elements makes co-digestion with slurry or another buffering substrate advantageous. Seeds and stalks introduce a small fraction that is harder to degrade. Spoiled fruit may contain alcohol and acids from aerobic fermentation, and moulds.

How to read the spread of results

The records concern material of differing degrees of ripeness and spoilage: from fresh fruit to market waste and non-commercial fruit. The variety, sugar content, moisture content and share of seeds affect the result. Size reduction is of great importance (one study compared grinding to 1 and 3 mm), because pectins and peel degrade differently in fine and coarse particles. The results come from different temperatures, including one from thermophilic conditions, and from different substrate-to-inoculum ratios; in some studies the temperature is not stated.

In biogas plant practice

Apples are a seasonal substrate, available mainly in autumn and after storage. They require size reduction, removal of contaminants (soil, stones, packaging) and dosing in a limited share, with control of pH and volatile fatty acids. They can be ensiled together with straw or other dry material in order to limit leachate and stabilise the raw material. As plant waste from agriculture or food processing, they require conformity with the scope of substrates in the installation's permit or register entry. The yield of a batch is worth confirming with a BMP test, and in the mixture the dose should be chosen so as not to overload the digester. When purchasing or accepting waste, it is worth establishing with the supplier whether the batch contains stone fruit or other fruit, whether it has previously been fermented to sourness and whether it contains preservatives, because all these factors change the behaviour of the raw material in the digester.

Methodology in brief

BMP is the amount of methane obtained from volatile solids (VS) in a batch test, given in m³ CH₄ per tonne of VS (numerically the same as NmL CH₄/g VS in the publications) and converted to normal conditions (0 °C, 101.325 kPa). The weighted mean gives each publication a total weight of 1, split equally between its results for the substrate — a paper testing twenty varieties does not outweigh a paper with a single sample. In inter-laboratory programmes the unit is the laboratory (total weight 1), and within it the weight of a test grows with the number of bottles (replicates). Results after pretreatment (e.g. thermal, chemical, enzymatic) are shown separately and are not included in the mean.

Solid lines are curves measured in the tests. Where a publication gives only the final result, we draw a first-order kinetic model, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt): only the end point comes from the publication, and the shape of the curve serves purely as visualisation — do not read the production on a particular day from it. For this substrate k = 0.245 d−1 was assumed (median of rate constants k reported in the sources and/or fitted to the mean measured curves).

The statistics describe the spread of published results — a descriptive compilation, not a meta-analysis or a guarantee of plant yield.

Full methodology and correction policy

Bibliography

  1. Buffiere, P.; Loisel, D.; Bernet, N.; Delgenes, J.P. (2006). Towards new indicators for the prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties. Water Science and Technology 53(8), 233–241. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2006.254 DOI
  2. Dubrovskis, V.; Plume, I. (2017). Biogas from wastes of pumpkin, marrow and apple. Agronomy Research 15(1), 69–78. https://agronomy.emu.ee/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Vol15Nr1_Dubrovskis.pdf source
  3. Aybek, A.; Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Biosystems Engineering, KahramanmarasSutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey; 茜ok, S. (2017). Determination and evaluation of biogas and methane productions of vegetable and fruit wastes with Hohenheim Batch Test method. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering 10(4), 207–215. DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20171004.2864 DOI
  4. Kouas, M.; Torrijos, M.; Sousbie, P.; Steyer, J.P.; Sayadi, S.; Harmand, J. (2017). Robust assessment of both biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetics of solid residues in successive batches. Waste Management 70, 59–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.001 DOI
  5. Nogueira, M.; Popich, M.R.; Sousa, C.C.; Fragoso, R. (2026). Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Gerbera Flower Residues, Non-Marketable Apples and Pig Slurry: Biochemical Methane Potential, Synergistic Effects and Kinetic Modelling. Energies 19(17), 3946. DOI: 10.3390/en19173946 DOI

All sources of the site: bibliography.

Other substrates in the group “Fruit, vegetables and their residues”