About usContact

BMP testingMunicipal and green waste, paper and textiles

Cardboard and paperboard — BMP: 14 studies, weighted mean 278 m³ CH₄/t VS

Corrugated board and cardboard are cellulosic packaging wastes containing lignin; they ferment more slowly than office paper, but the results are relatively clustered.

rating: goodCH₄ ≈ 51 % (estimate)

Published Updated 3 min readFeedstockData Editorial Team

Photo Romy2702 / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY-SA 3.0, source file; changes: cropping

Weighted mean
278m³ CH₄/t VS
Range
172–388m³ CH₄/t VS
Records
14studies
Publications
7sources
Temperatures
35 °C, 38 °C, 55 °Cof the test

Methane in biogas

Low methane content · ≈ 5.1 kWh/m³ of biogas

estimate from the substrate type The collected studies contain no measurement. The interval follows from the approximate composition (protein from total nitrogen (N 0.1 % DM × 6.25)) and the yields of compound groups according to FNR.

How we calculate it and what the zones mean

Rating for biogas plants

good — editorial rating for biogas plantsStable, usually accepted without a fee

Potential per tonne of fresh matter: very high (258 m³ CH₄/t); no particular threats to stability. Handling costs: fibres, floating layer, slow degradation.

Why? Rating factors

Potential per tonne +3

  • +3potential 258 m³ CH₄/t fresh matter (BMP 278 × DM 95.2 % × VS 97.7 %)

Process stability 0

  • 0no factors

Handling and costs −1

  • −0.5fibres, floating layer — shredding and intensive mixing
  • −0.5slow degradation — long retention time

Total points: 2 · thresholds: ≥ 2.5 very good, ≥ 1 good, below — neutral; negative with cumulative process risk.

Editorial rating per the methodology · confidence of the rating: medium · excluding market prices

Add to the co-digestion calculator CSV data

BMP curves from 14 studies

Weighted mean Individual records

BMP curves: Cardboard and paperboardCumulative methane production over time for 14 records and the weighted mean of 278 m³ CH₄/t VS. 14 of the curves are model curves (first-order kinetics).01002003004005000510152025303540time [d]m³ CH₄/t VSLi et al. (2020): 244 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Guo et al. (2011): 273 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dubrovskis et al. (2019): 388 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Nallathambi Gunaseelan (1997): 278 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 1: 172 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 2: 190 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 3: 220 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 4: 235 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 5: 240 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 6: 255 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 7: 275 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Llanos-Lizcano et al. (2024) · 1: 250 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Llanos-Lizcano et al. (2024) · 2: 271 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Zhang et al. (2019): 274 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)mean278

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 (278); 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.

  • Show the remaining records in the legend (2)

Records and sources

Download CSV
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS		TemperatureSampleCurve
Li et al. (2020) DOI244—Corrugated board ()end point (model curve)
Guo et al. (2011) DOI273—cardboardend point (model curve)
Dubrovskis et al. (2019) DOI38838 °C · mesophilicCardboard (unprinted)end point (model curve)
Nallathambi Gunaseelan (1997) DOI27835 °C · mesophiliccorrugated cardboard (orig.: “corrugated Paper”): value quoted in a literature reviewend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 1 DOI17255 °C · thermophiliccardboardend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 2 DOI19055 °C · thermophiliccardboardend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 3 DOI22035 °C · mesophiliccardboardend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 4 DOI23555 °C · thermophilicpaperboardend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 5 DOI24035 °C · mesophilicpaperboardend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 6 DOI25555 °C · thermophilicpaperboardend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 7 DOI27535 °C · mesophiliccardboardend point (model curve)
Llanos-Lizcano et al. (2024) · 1 DOI250—Cardboard waste (CBW), ISR 1end point (model curve)
Llanos-Lizcano et al. (2024) · 2 DOI271—Cardboard waste (CBW), ISR 2end point (model curve)
Zhang et al. (2019) DOI274—Card packaging (CP)end point (model curve)
Weighted mean278arithmetic mean 255, SD 50

Typical composition

Dry matter (DM)
95.2% (range 92.8–95.8)
Volatile solids (VS)
97.7 % DM (range 89.5–98.5)
Nitrogen
0.1 % DM
C/N ratio
455

Median and range of the determinations reported in the publications behind this substrate's BMP records (read from: BCBPD, MY-D); dry matter: 3 determinations, volatile solids: 5 determinations. C/N was calculated as the ratio of C and N content (% DM) from the same source. Samples were tested dried/air-dry – the DM refers to the material in the test, not to fresh material.

Sources: Li et al. (2020); Guo et al. (2011); Nallathambi Gunaseelan (1997); Krause et al. (2018).

The composition of the raw material varies between batches — for plant calculations use an analysis of your own sample. The calculator inserts typical values automatically.

Process properties

  • fibrous
  • carbon-rich
  • low in nitrogen
  • slowly degrading
  • poor in trace elements
  • 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 potential in the Substraty.pl BMP dataset: weighted mean 277.7 m³ CH₄/t VS (SD 50.1; 14 records, 7 sources).
  • Cardboard and board: a source of cellulose, no risk of ammonia or acidification (Hendriks and Zeeman 2009).

Drawbacks and risks

  • Contamination with fat or food residues.

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

Dosing

No source threshold.

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

Practical requirements

  • Shred: shredding increases the surface available for degradation and speeds it up, but does not necessarily raise the final gas yield (FNR 2010, Ch. 3 “Triturado”).

Sources of the process data

  1. Hagos et al. (2017). Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
  2. Weiland (2010). Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
  3. Hendriks, Zeeman (2009). Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol.
  4. FNR (2010). Guía sobre el Biogás – Desde la producción hasta el uso (hiszp. wydanie „Leitfaden Biogas”, GIZ 2013)

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

What it is and where it comes from

Corrugated board and cardboard are packaging materials made from cellulose, often from secondary fibres from waste paper. They arise as waste in trade, logistics and households and are one of the basic streams of material recycling. The dataset contains samples of corrugated board, cardboard and cardboard packaging, tested under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions, some from literature reviews.

Properties relevant to digestion

Board consists mainly of cellulose and hemicelluloses, with a share of lignin originating from secondary fibres and mechanical pulps. It contains starch glue, which degrades easily, and also coatings, fillers and printing. The nitrogen and phosphorus content is low, so for stable digestion nutrients should be supplemented. Under anaerobic conditions board degrades more slowly than paper from chemical fibres. Chopped board absorbs water and increases the viscosity of the suspension. Board contaminated with fat or food residues is harder to recycle, so more often ends up in digestion.

How to read the spread of results

The results are relatively clustered, but differ depending on the type of board (corrugated, solid, coloured cardboard), the share of virgin and secondary fibres, fillers and the degree of chopping. Additional influences are temperature (thermophilic speeds up hydrolysis), inoculum, nutrient additions, the substrate-to-inoculum ratio and test length. Some records come from reviews, where the conditions are described more sparsely. The differences described do not concern individual deliveries at a plant.

In biogas plant practice

Board can serve as a structural material and a source of carbon in mixtures with nitrogen-rich wastes, but requires chopping. Because of material recycling it is usually directed to paper mills, and reaches a biogas plant contaminated. It is a waste (group 15 or 20), and its acceptance requires the plant's permit. In practice the presence of starch glue and fillers must be taken into account in the volatile solids balance.

For comparison with office paper, board contains more secondary fibres and lignin, and is therefore a more recalcitrant substrate. At the same time, because it is common, it is sometimes a convenient auxiliary material, provided the plant can cope with its chopping and the viscosity of the suspension.

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 = 0.110 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. Li, W.; Khalid, H.; Amin, F.R.; Zhang, H.; Dai, Z.; Chen, C.; Liu, G. (2020). Biomethane production characteristics, kinetic analysis, and energy potential of different paper wastes in anaerobic digestion. Renewable Energy 157, 1081–1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.035 DOI
  2. Guo, M.; Trzcinski, A.; Stuckey, D.; Murphy, R. (2011). Anaerobic digestion of starch–polyvinyl alcohol biopolymer packaging: Biodegradability and environmental impact assessment. Bioresource Technology 102(24), 11137–11146. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.061 DOI
  3. Dubrovskis, V.; Plume, I.; Straume, I. (2019). Methane production potential from variety of unprinted papers. Engineering for Rural Development. DOI: 10.22616/erdev2019.18.n112 DOI
  4. Nallathambi Gunaseelan, V. (1997). Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: A review. Biomass and Bioenergy 13(1-2), 83–114. DOI: 10.1016/s0961-9534(97)00020-2 DOI
  5. Krause, M.J.; Chickering, G.W.; Townsend, T.G.; Pullammanappallil, P. (2018). Effects of temperature and particle size on the biochemical methane potential of municipal solid waste components. Waste Management 71, 25–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.015 DOI
  6. Llanos-Lizcano, R.; Senila, L.; Modoi, O.C. (2024). Evaluation of Biochemical Methane Potential and Kinetics of Organic Waste Streams for Enhanced Biogas Production. Agronomy 14(11), 2546. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy14112546 DOI
  7. Zhang, W.; Torrella, F.; Banks, C.J.; Heaven, S. (2019). Data related to anaerobic digestion of bioplastics: Images and properties of digested bioplastics and digestate, synthetic food waste recipe and packaging information. Data in Brief 25, 103990. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.103990 DOI

All sources of the site: bibliography.

Other substrates in the group “Municipal and green waste, paper and textiles”