About usContact

BMP testingMunicipal and green waste, paper and textiles

Office paper — BMP: 9 studies, weighted mean 314 m³ CH₄/t VS

Office paper (office waste paper) is almost pure cellulose with fillers, which digests well, but the range of results in the dataset is very wide.

rating: goodCH₄ ≈ 51 % (estimate)

Published Updated 3 min readFeedstockData Editorial Team

Photo Ajay Suresh from New York, NY, USA / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY 2.0, source file; changes: cropping

Weighted mean
314m³ CH₄/t VS
Range
49–506m³ CH₄/t VS
Records
9studies
Publications
5sources
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 (238 m³ CH₄/t); no particular threats to stability. Handling costs: fibres, floating layer, slow degradation.

Why? Rating factors

Potential per tonne +3

  • +3potential 238 m³ CH₄/t fresh matter (BMP 314 × DM 94.9 % × VS 79.8 %)

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 9 studies

Weighted mean Individual records

BMP curves: Office paperCumulative methane production over time for 9 records and the weighted mean of 314 m³ CH₄/t VS. 7 of the curves are model curves (first-order kinetics).02004006000510152025303540time [d]m³ CH₄/t VSKabay i Şirin (2026) · CU0 · reaktor 2: 49 m³ CH₄/t VS (measurement)Kabay i Şirin (2026) · CU0 · reaktor 1: 60 m³ CH₄/t VS (measurement)Li et al. (2020): 284 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dubrovskis et al. (2019): 506 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Nallathambi Gunaseelan (1997): 369 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 1: 340 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 2: 345 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 3: 370 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Krause et al. (2018) · 4: 380 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)mean314

Dashed lines are a model curve (first-order kinetics, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt)); the end point comes from the publication. Solid lines are measurements (2).

Cumulative methane production over the test [m³ CH₄/t VS]. The thick line is the weighted mean of all records (314); 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
Kabay i Şirin (2026) · CU0 · reaktor 2 DOI49— · mesophilicOffice waste paper, CU0 controlmeasurement (40 pts)
Kabay i Şirin (2026) · CU0 · reaktor 1 DOI60— · mesophilicOffice waste paper, CU0 controlmeasurement (40 pts)
Li et al. (2020) DOI284—Office paper ()end point (model curve)
Dubrovskis et al. (2019) DOI50638 °C · mesophilicOffice paper (unprinted)end point (model curve)
Nallathambi Gunaseelan (1997) DOI36935 °C · mesophilic(orig.: “office Paper”): value quoted in a literature reviewend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 1 DOI34035 °C · mesophilicoffice paperend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 2 DOI34555 °C · thermophilicoffice paperend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 3 DOI37055 °C · thermophilicoffice paperend point (model curve)
Krause et al. (2018) · 4 DOI38035 °C · mesophilicoffice paperend point (model curve)
Weighted mean314arithmetic mean 300, SD 151

Typical composition

Dry matter (DM)
94.9% (range 94.9–94.9)
Volatile solids (VS)
79.8 % DM (range 77.1–92.7)
Nitrogen
0.1 % DM
C/N ratio
379

Median and range of the determinations reported in the publications behind this substrate's BMP records (read from: BCBPD, MY-D); dry matter: 1 determination, volatile solids: 3 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); 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 314.5 m³ CH₄/t VS (SD 151.3; 9 records, 5 sources).
  • Office paper: a source of cellulose, no risk of ammonia or acidification (Hendriks and Zeeman 2009).

Drawbacks and risks

  • Poor in N and P - in mono-digestion requires supplementation (Hagos et al. 2017).
  • Fillers (calcium carbonate, kaolin) lower the VS share.

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

Office paper is paper for printers, copiers and documents, made mainly from kraft pulp and mineral fillers. As office waste paper it goes to recycling, and to digestion only when it is contaminated, printed with special inks or unsuitable for processing. The dataset contains office paper samples from several studies, including control series from parallel reactors and tests under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions.

Properties relevant to digestion

Office paper contains very little lignin because the pulp has been bleached. The main component is cellulose, degraded more slowly than sugars because of its crystallinity, and fillers (calcium carbonate, kaolin), making up a dozen or so per cent of the mass. The low nitrogen and phosphorus content requires nutrient supplementation. Ink and toner are present in small amounts and usually do not inhibit the process. Shredded paper quickly absorbs water and forms a dense mass, which makes mixing difficult.

How to read the spread of results

The spread in the dataset is very wide, which results mainly from the test conditions and not from differences in the material. Finely milled paper degrades faster than paper in sheets. Influences include the inoculum (its cellulolytic activity), temperature (mesophilic or thermophilic), test length, substrate-to-inoculum ratio and the presence of nutrient additions. Low values may indicate a nutrient deficiency or too short a test, and some records were cited from a review without a full description of conditions.

In biogas plant practice

Office paper is attractive as a co-substrate only in niche cases, because material recycling is usually more advantageous. In mixes with protein-rich wastes it can balance the C/N ratio, but requires size reduction and an addition of trace elements. The risks are viscosity and a floating crust. Paper is waste (group 20 or 15), and its acceptance requires a plant permit; confidential documents require destruction in accordance with data protection rules.

Compared with newsprint, office paper contains an almost completely bleached chemical pulp, so its degradation is much easier. This difference illustrates well that the type of pulp matters more than the label "paper" itself, and it is therefore worth determining what material a specific batch comes from.

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. Kabay, B.; Sirin, U. (2026). Enhanced Biomethane Recovery From Source‐Separated Cow Urine via Co‐Digestion With Waste Paper. GCB Bioenergy 18(7), e70153. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.70153 DOI
  2. 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
  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

All sources of the site: bibliography.

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