POME as a Source of Biomethane

POME-BiogasDuring the production of crude palm oil, large amount of waste and by-products are generated. The solid waste streams consist of empty fruit bunch (EFB), mesocarp fruit fibers (MF) and palm kernel shells (PKS). Reuse of these waste streams in applications for heat, steam, compost and to lesser extent power generation are practised widely across Southeast Asia. POME or Palm Oil Mill Effluent is an underutilized liquid waste stream from palm oil mills which is generated during the palm oil extraction/decanting process and often seen as a serious environmental issue but it is a very good source for biomethane production. Therefore, discharge of POME is subject to increasingly stringent regulations in many palm oil-producing nations.

Anaerobic Digestion of POME

POME is an attractive feedstock for biomethane production and is abundantly available in all palm oil mills. Hence, it ensures continuous supply of substrates at no or low cost for biogas production, positioning it as a great potential source for biomethane production. (Chin May Ji, 2013).

POME is a colloidal suspension containing 95-96% water, 0.6-0.7% oil and 4-5% total solids, which include 2-4% suspended solids. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) generally ranges between 25,000 and 65,714 mg/L, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ranges between 44,300 and 102,696 mg/L.

Most palm oil mills and refineries have their own treatment systems for POME, which is easily amenable to biodegradation due to its high organic content. The treatment system usually consists of anaerobic and aerobic ponds. (Sulaiman, 2013).

Open pond systems are still commonly applied. Although relatively cheap to install, these system often fail to meet discharge requirements (due to lack of operational control, long retention time, silting and short circuiting issues).

Moreover, the biogas produced during the anaerobic decomposition of POME in open pond systems is not recovered for utilization. The produced gas dissipates into the atmosphere where it causes adverse environment effects (due to the fact that CH4 is a twenty times stronger greenhouse gas then CO2 (Chin May Ji, 2013).

Biogas capture from POME can be carried out using a number of various technologies ranging in cost and complexity. The closed-tank anaerobic digester system with continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR), the methane fermentation system employing special microorganisms and the reversible flow anaerobic baffled reactor (RABR) system are among the technologies offered by technology providers. (Malaysian Palm Oil Board, 2015).

Biogas production largely depends on the method deployed for biomass conversion and capture of the biogas, and can, therefore, approximately range from 5.8 to 12.75 kg of CH4 per cubic meter of POME. Application of enclosed anaerobic digestion will significantly increase the quality of the effluent/ discharge stream as well as the biogas composition, as mentioned in table below.

 Table: Performance comparison between open and closed digester systems

Parameters Open digester system Closed anaerobic digester
COD removal efficiency (%) 81% 97%
HRT (days) 20 10
Methane utilization Released to atmosphere Recoverable
Methane yield (kg CH4/kg COD removed) 0.11 0.2
Methane content (%) 36 55
Solid discharge (g/L) 20 8

*This table has been reproduced from (Alawi Sulaiman, 2007)

A closed anaerobic system is capable of producing and collecting consistently high quality of methane rich biogas from POME. Typical raw biogas composition will be: 50-60 % CH4, 40-50 % CO2, saturated with water and with trace amounts of contaminants (H2S, NH3, volatiles, etc.).

Biomethane Potential in Southeast Asia

The amount of biomethane (defined as methane produced from biomass, with properties close to natural gas) that can be potentially produced from POME (within the Southeast Asian region) exceeds 2.25 billion cubic meter of biomethane (on a yearly basis).

Especially Indonesia and Malaysia, as key producers within the palm oil industry, could generate significant quantities of biomethane. An impression of the biomethane potential of these countries including other feedstock sources is being highlighted below (VIV Asia, 2015).

Indonesia (4.35 billion m3 of biomethane):

  • 25 billion m3 of biomethane from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME).
  • 2 billion m3 of bio-methane from Sewage Treatment Plant (STP).
  • 9 billion m3 of bio-methane from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

Malaysia (3 billion m3 of biomethane):

  • 1 billion m3 of biomethane from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME).
  • 2 billion m3 of biomethane from Sewage Treatment Plant (STP).
  • 8 billion m3 of biomethane from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

The Asian Pacific Biogas Alliance estimates that the potential of conversion of biomass to biomethane is sufficient to replace 25 percent of the natural gas demand by renewable biogas (Asian Pacific Biogas Alliance, 2015).

To sum up, due to the high fraction of organic materials, POME has a large energetic potential. By unlocking the energetic potential of these streams through conversion/ digesting and capture of biomethane, plant owners have the opportunity to combine waste management with a profitable business model.

Co-Authors: H. Dekker and E.H.M. Dirkse (DMT Environmental Technology)


Alawi Sulaiman, Z. B. (2007). Biomethane production from pal oil mill effluent (POME) in a semi-commercial closed anaerobic digester. Seminar on Sustainable Palm Biomass initiatives. Japan Society on Promotion of Science (JSPS).

Asia Biogas Group. (2015, 08 15). Retrieved from Asia Biogas : http://www.asiabiogas.com

Asian Pacific Biogas Alliance. (2015). Biogas Opportunities in South East Asia. Asian Pacific Biogas Alliance/ICESN.

Chin May Ji, P. P. (2013). Biogas from palm oil mill effluent (POME): Opportunities and challenges from Malysia’s perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 717-726.

Malaysian Palm Oil Board. (2015, 08 26). Biogas capture and CMD project implementation for palm oil mills. Retrieved from Official Portal Of Malaysian Palm Oild Board:

Sulaiman, N. A. (2013). The Oil Palm Wastes in Malaysia. In M. D. Matovic, “Biomass Now – Sustainable Growth and Use”. InTech.

VIV Asia. (2015, 08 26). The international platform from feed to food in Asia. Retrieved from http://www.vivasia.nl

Note: This is the first article in the special series on ‘Sustainable Utilization of POME-based Biomethane’ by Langerak et al of DMT Environmental Technology (Holland)

Biogas from Agricultural Wastes

The main problem with anaerobic digestion of agricultural wastes is that most of the agricultural residues are lignocellulosic with low nitrogen content. To obtain biogas from agricultural wastes, pre-treatment methods like size reduction, electron irradiation, heat treatment, enzymatic action etc are necessary. For optimizing the C/N ratio of agricultural residues, co-digestion with sewage sludge, animal manure or poultry litter is recommended.

Types of Agricultural Wastes

Several organic wastes from plants and animals have been exploited for biogas production as reported in the literature. Plant materials include agricultural crops such as sugar cane, cassava, corn etc, agricultural residues like rice straw, cassava rhizome, corn cobs etc, wood and wood residues (saw dust, pulp wastes, and paper mill waste)

Others include molasses and bagasse from sugar refineries, waste streams such as rice husk from rice mills and residues from palm oil extraction and municipal solid wastes, etc. However, plant materials such as crop residues are more difficult to digest than animal wastes (manures) because of difficulty in achieving hydrolysis of cellulosic and lignocellulosic constituents.

Codigestion of Crop Wastes

Crop residues can be digested either alone or in co-digestion with other materials, employing either wet or dry processes. In the agricultural sector one possible solution to processing crop biomass is co-digested together with animal manures, the largest agricultural waste stream.

In addition to the production of renewable energy, controlled anaerobic digestion of animal manures reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, nitrogen and odour from manure management, and intensifies the recycling of nutrients within agriculture.

In co-digestion of plant material and manures, manures provide buffering capacity and a wide range of nutrients, while the addition of plant material with high carbon content balances the carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the feedstock, thereby decreasing the risk of ammonia inhibition.

The gas production per digester volume can be increased by operating the digesters at a higher solids concentration. Batch high solids reactors, characterized by lower investment costs than those of continuously fed processes, but with comparable operational costs, are currently applied in the agricultural sector to a limited extent.

Codigestion offers good opportunity to farmers to treat their own waste together with other organic substrates. As a result, farmers can treat their own residues properly and also generate additional revenues by treating and managing organic waste from other sources and by selling and/or using the products viz heat, electrical power and stabilised biofertiliser.

A Glance at Biogas Storage Systems

Selection of an appropriate biogas storage system makes a significant contribution to the efficiency and safety of a biogas plant. There are two basic reasons for storing biogas: storage for later on-site usage and storage before and/or after transportation to off-site distribution points or systems. A biogas storage system also compensates fluctuations in the production and consumption of biogas as well as temperature-related changes in volume.

There are two broad categories of biogas storage systems: Internal Biogas Storage Tanks are integrated into the anaerobic digester while External Biogas Holders are separated from the digester forming autonomous components of a biogas plant. The simplest and least expensive storage systems for on-site applications and intermediate storage of biogas are low-pressure systems. The energy, safety, and scrubbing requirements of medium- and high-pressure storage systems make them costly and high-maintenance options for non-commercial use. Such extra costs can be best justified for biomethane or bio-CNG, which has a higher heat content and is therefore a more valuable fuel than biogas.

Low-Pressure Storage

Floating biogas holders on the digester form a low-pressure storage option for biogas systems. These systems typically operate at pressures below 2 psi. Floating gas holders can be made of steel, fiberglass, or a flexible fabric. A separate tank may be used with a floating gas holder for the storage of the digestate and also storage of the raw biogas. A major advantage of a digester with an integral gas storage component is the reduced capital cost of the system.

The least expensive and most trouble-free gas holder is the flexible inflatable fabric top, as it does not react with the H2S in the biogas and is integral to the digester. These types of covers are often used with plug-flow and complete-mix digesters. Flexible membrane materials commonly used for these gas holders include high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), and chlorosulfonated polyethylene covered polyester. Thicknesses for cover materials typically vary from 0.5 to 2.5 millimeters.

Medium-Pressure Storage

Biogas can also be stored at medium pressure between 2 and 200 psi. To prevent corrosion of the tank components and to ensure safe operation, the biogas must first be cleaned by removing H2S. Next, the cleaned biogas must be slightly compressed prior to storage in tanks.

High-Pressure Storage

The typical composition of raw biogas does not meet the minimum CNG fuel specifications. In particular, the CO2 and sulfur content in raw biogas is too high for it to be used as vehicle fuel without additional processing. Biogas that has been upgraded to biomethane by removing the H2S, moisture, and CO2 can be used as a vehicular fuel. Biomethane is less corrosive than biogas, apart from being more valuable as a fuel. Since production of such fuel typically exceeds immediate on-site demand, the biomethane must be stored for future use, usually either as compressed biomethane (CBM) or liquefied biomethane (LBM).

Two of the main advantages of LBM are that it can be transported relatively easily and it can be dispensed to either LNG vehicles or CNG vehicles. Liquid biomethane is transported in the same manner as LNG, that is, via insulated tanker trucks designed for transportation of cryogenic liquids.

Biomethane can be stored as CBM to save space. The gas is stored in steel cylinders such as those typically used for storage of other commercial gases. Storage facilities must be adequately fitted with safety devices such as rupture disks and pressure relief valves. The cost of compressing gas to high pressures between 2,000 and 5,000 psi is much greater than the cost of compressing gas for medium-pressure storage. Because of these high costs, the biogas is typically upgraded to biomethane prior to compression.