
BMP testingFruit, vegetables and their residues
Zucchini and vegetable marrow — BMP: 4 studies, weighted mean 309 m³ CH₄/t VS
Courgette and marrow (Cucurbita pepo) are very watery cucurbit vegetables; waste from cultivation and processing is readily fermentable, but has a low dry matter content.
Photo nociveglia from Appennino Emiliano, Italy / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY 2.0, source file; changes: cropping
- Weighted mean
- 309m³ CH₄/t VS
- Range
- 263–344m³ CH₄/t VS
- Records
- 4studies
- Publications
- 2sources
- Temperatures
- 35 °C, 38 °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.
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.
Add to the co-digestion calculator CSV data
BMP curves from 4 studies
Weighted mean Individual records
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 (309); 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| Source | BMP m³ CH₄/t VS | Temperature | Sample | Curve |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 1 | 263 | 38 °C · mesophilic | Vegetable marrow biomass, bioreactor R11 | end point (model curve) |
| Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 2 | 279 | 38 °C · mesophilic | Vegetable marrow biomass, bioreactor R12 | end point (model curve) |
| Dubrovskis i Plume (2017) · 3 | 280 | 38 °C · mesophilic | Vegetable marrow biomass, bioreactor R10 | end point (model curve) |
| Kouas et al. (2017) DOI | 344 | 35 °C · mesophilic | zucchini | end point (model curve) |
| Weighted mean | 309 | arithmetic mean 292, SD 36 | ||
Process properties
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.
No published process studies
The literature we use does not describe the advantages or drawbacks of digesting this substrate beyond the BMP test results. Below are process characteristics assigned on the basis of the type of material — an editorial classification, not a study result.
- easily degradable
- sugars, starch, glycerol → fast hydrolysis and acidification (VFA), needs buffering
- acidic
- low pH of the substrate (silages, stillage, whey, fruit)
- dilutes the feed (low DM)
- low dry matter, dilutes the feed
- seasonal
- seasonal availability — requires storage
- poor in trace elements
- poor in trace elements — mono-digestion requires supplementation
- carbon-rich
- high C/N → nitrogen deficiency; combine well with nitrogen-rich substrates
- low in nitrogen
- high C/N → nitrogen deficiency; combine well with nitrogen-rich substrates
Co-digestion — what to combine it with, what to watch out for
- combines well
substrates: nitrogen-rich — e.g. Pig slurry, Poultry manure, Waste activated sludge (secondary sludge), Chlorella vulgaris, Nannochloropsis salina
A nitrogen-rich co-substrate balances the low C/N of fruit and vegetable waste (Bouallagui et al. 2009).[1]
- combines well
substrates: high alkalinity (buffer) — e.g. Cattle manure, Pig slurry, Cattle slurry, Duck slurry, Rumen and digestive tract content
Co-digestion of easily degradable substrates with dairy slurry increased the methane yield relative to slurry alone.[2]
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
- Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-substrates addition
- Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates
- Biogas from wastes of pumpkin, marrow and apple
- Robust assessment of both biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetics of solid residues in successive batches
- Effects of size and thermophilic pre-hydrolysis of banana peel during anaerobic digestion, and biomethanation potential of key tropical fruit wastes
- 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
Courgette and marrow are forms of cucurbits (Cucurbita pepo) grown as a vegetable. Waste arises on farms and in sorting plants: overgrown, misshapen, damaged or frost-damaged fruit. The compilation contains several records from several studies: records for marrow (replicates in reactors of a single study, at 38 °C) and for courgette (35 °C).
Properties relevant to digestion
The fruit contains a great deal of water and little dry matter, in which sugars predominate and the share of fibre and protein is small. They are therefore readily and quickly digestible, but the energy per unit of fresh mass is low. At a large dose rapid acidification is a threat, and the low level of nitrogen and trace elements argues for co-digestion with slurry. Overgrown fruit has harder seeds and skin, which require size reduction. Spoiled fruit may contain moulds and increase the microbiological load.
How to read the spread of results
Records for marrow come from a single study and describe replicates in separate reactors, so they are not independent observations. The record for courgette comes from another study and a different temperature. Differences may result from the variety, the ripeness of the fruit, the share of seeds and skin, moisture content, size reduction and the test parameters. From such a small amount of data the full variability cannot be assessed.
In biogas plant practice
Courgette and marrow are a seasonal substrate, most often useful as a local additive. Because of the low dry matter content, transporting it over longer distances is uneconomic. It requires size reduction and mixing with drier material, and the dose must be controlled through pH and volatile fatty acids. As agricultural waste it should be included in the scope of substrates of the installation. Yield is confirmed by a BMP test. For the energy balance, it is worth calculating the value per tonne of fresh matter, and not only per unit of volatile solids, because at very high moisture content the difference is fundamental and affects the profitability of accepting such deliveries. It is also good to establish with the farm whether the fruit was sprayed just before harvest, because residues of plant protection products can affect the digester microflora and the quality of the digestate.
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.
Bibliography
- 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
- 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
All sources of the site: bibliography.





