bib.bib

@article{alduchovImprovedMagnusForm1996,
  title = {Improved {{Magnus}} Form Approximation of Saturation Vapor Pressure},
  author = {Alduchov, Oleg A. and Eskridge, Robert E.},
  year = {1996},
  volume = {35},
  pages = {601--609},
  doi = {10.1175/1520-0450(1996)035<0601:IMFAOS>2.0.CO;2},
  journal = {Journal of Applied Meteorology},
  keywords = {biogas package,BMP-methods bib,GD-BMP paper,software paper 1},
  number = {4}
}

@article{amodeoHowDifferentAre2020a,
  title = {How {{Different Are Manometric}}, {{Gravimetric}}, and {{Automated Volumetric BMP Results}}?},
  author = {Amodeo, Corrado and Hafner, Sasha D. and Teixeira Franco, R{\'u}ben and Benbelkacem, Hassen and Moretti, Paul and Bayard, R{\'e}my and Buffi{\`e}re, Pierre},
  year = {2020},
  month = jun,
  volume = {12},
  pages = {1839},
  publisher = {{Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute}},
  doi = {10.3390/w12061839},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/6/1839},
  urldate = {2021-02-03},
  abstract = {The objectives of this study were to: (1) quantify differences in biochemical methane potential (BMP) measured using three measurement methods, including two popular methods (a commercial automated system (AMPTS II) and manual manometric) and one newer method (gravimetric), and (2) assess the importance of the mixing position in the measurement sequence. Powdered microcrystalline cellulose was used as the substrate in simultaneous tests. All methods gave similar results (\&lt;8\% difference in the mean BMP) and were reasonably accurate (recovery of 80\&ndash;86\% of the theoretical maximum BMP). Manometric BMP values were consistently lower than gravimetric by 4\&ndash;5\%. Precision was lower for the automated method (relative standard deviation (RSD) of about 7\%) than for the manual methods (RSD about 1\&ndash;3\%). Mixing after biogas measurement resulted in 3\% higher BMP for both manual methods than mixing before, due to the lower measured CH4 production from blanks. This effect may be linked to a fraction of CH4 that remains dissolved or even as attached bubbles, and suggests that mixing before measurement is preferable. The automated volumetric and gravimetric methods (mode 2) gave very similar mean BMP values (1\% different). However, kinetic analysis showed that methane production was faster with the automated volumetric method. This could come from an error in the estimation of the CH4 production rate for the automated method, or an increase in the degradation rate due to better mixing. Both automatic volumetric and manual gravimetric measurements met current validation criteria for mean cellulose BMP, but the RSD from the automated system exceeded the limit.},
  copyright = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/},
  journal = {Water},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  language = {en},
  number = {6}
}

@book{bairdStandardMethodsExamination2017,
  title = {Standard {{Methods}} for the {{Examination}} of {{Water}} and {{Wastewater}}},
  author = {Baird, Rodger B. and Eaton, Andrew D and Rice, Eugene W},
  year = {2017},
  publisher = {{American Water Works Association}},
  isbn = {978-1-62576-240-5},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  language = {en}
}

@misc{BMPdoc100req,
  title = {Requirements for {{Measurement}} of {{Biochemical Methane Potential}} ({{BMP}}). {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 100, Version 1.3.},
  author = {Holliger, Christof and {Fruteau de Laclos}, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and Hafner, Sasha D. and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren and Astals, Sergi and Alves, Madalena and Andrade, Diana and Angelidaki, Irini and Appels, Lise and Azman, Samet and Bagnoud, Alexandre and Baier, Urs and Bajon Fernandez, Yadira and Bartacek, Jan and Battista, Federico and Bolzonella, David and Bougrier, Claire and Braguglia, Camilla and Buffi{\`e}re, Pierre and Carballa, Marta and Catenacci, Arianna and Dandikas, Vasilis and {de Wilde}, Fabian and Ekwe, Sylvanus and Ficara, Elena and Fotidis, Ioannis and Frigon, Jean-Claude and Heerenklage, Joern and Jenicek, Pavel and Krautwald, Judith and Lindeboom, Ralph and Liu, Jing and Lizasoain, Javier and Marchetti, Rosa and Moulan, Florian and Nistor, Mihaela and Oechsner, Hans and Oliveira, Jo{\~a}o V{\'i}tor and Pauss, Andr{\'e} and Pommier, S{\'e}bastien and Raposo, Francisco and Ribeiro, Thierry and Schaum, Christian and Schuman, Els and Schwede, Sebastian and Soldano, Mariangela and Taboada, Anton and Torrijos, Michel and {van Eekert}, Miriam and {van Lier}, Jules and Wierinck, Isabella},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-04-19},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs,Standard BMP Methods}
}

@misc{BMPdoc101val,
  title = {Validation Criteria for Measurement of Biochemical Methane Potential ({{BMP}}). {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 101, Version 1.0.},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Koch, Konrad and {Fruteau de Laclos}, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and Holliger, Christof},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-08-04},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs,Standard BMP Methods}
}

@misc{BMPdoc200BMP,
  title = {Calculation of {{Biochemical Methane Potential}} ({{BMP}}). {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 200, Version 1.6.},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Astals, Sergi and Holliger, Christof and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-04-19},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs}
}

@misc{BMPdoc201vol,
  title = {Calculation of {{Methane Production}} from {{Volumetric Measurements}}. {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 201, Version 1.5.},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and L{\o}jborg, Nanna and Astals, Sergi and Holliger, Christof and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-04-19},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs}
}

@misc{BMPdoc202man,
  title = {Calculation of {{Methane Production}} from {{Manometric Measurements}}. {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 202, Version 2.5.},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Astals, Sergi and Buffiere, Pierre and L{\o}jborg, Nanna and Holliger, Christof and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-04-19},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs,Standard BMP Methods}
}

@misc{BMPdoc203grav,
  title = {Calculation of {{Methane Production}} from {{Gravimetric Measurements}}. {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 203, Version 1.0.},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Richards, Brian K. and Astals, Sergi and Holliger, Christof and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-04-19},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs,Standard BMP Methods}
}

@misc{BMPdoc204gasdens,
  title = {Calculation of {{Methane Production}} from {{Gas Density}}-{{Based Measurements}}. {{Standard BMP Methods}} Document 204, Version 1.5.},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Justesen, Camilla and Thorsen, Rasmus and Astals, Sergi and Holliger, Christof and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/en/BMP},
  urldate = {2020-04-19},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,BMP-methods docs,Standard BMP Methods}
}

@book{brownStatisticsEnvironmentalEngineers2002,
  title = {Statistics for {{Environmental Engineers}}, {{Second Edition}}},
  author = {Brown, Linfield C. and Berthouex, Paul Mac},
  year = {2002},
  month = jan,
  publisher = {{CRC Press}},
  abstract = {Two critical questions arise when one is confronted with a new problem that involves the collection and analysis of data. How will the use of statistics help solve this problem? Which techniques should be used? Statistics for Environmental Engineers, Second Edition helps environmental science and engineering students answer these questions when the goal is to understand and design systems for environmental protection. The second edition of this bestseller is a solutions-oriented text that encourages students to view statistics as a problem-solving tool. Written in an easy-to-understand style, Statistics for Environmental Engineers, Second Edition consists of 54 short, "stand-alone" chapters. All chapters address a particular environmental problem or statistical technique and are written in a manner that permits each chapter to be studied independently and in any order. Chapters are organized around specific case studies, beginning with brief discussions of the appropriate methodologies, followed by analysis of the case study examples, and ending with comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches. New to this edition:Thirteen new chapters dealing with topics such as experimental design, sizing experiments, tolerance and prediction intervals, time-series modeling and forecasting, transfer function models, weighted least squares, laboratory quality assurance, and specialized control chartsExercises for classroom use or self-study in each chapterImproved graphicsRevisions to all chaptersWhether the topic is displaying data, t-tests, mechanistic model building, nonlinear least squares, confidence intervals, regression, or experimental design, the context is always familiar to environmental scientists and engineers. Case studies are drawn from censored data, detection limits, regulatory standards, treatment plant performance, sampling and measurement errors, hazardous waste, and much more. This revision of a classic text serves as an ideal textbook for students and a valuable reference for any environmental professional working with numbers.},
  isbn = {978-1-4200-5663-1},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,Error propagation,GD-BMP paper,Leak paper},
  language = {en}
}

@techreport{epaMethod1684Total2001,
  title = {Method 1684 {{Total}}, {{Fixed}}, and {{Volatile Solids}} in {{Water}}, {{Solids}}, and {{Biosolids}}},
  author = {EPA},
  year = {2001},
  address = {{Washington DC}},
  institution = {{U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)}},
  url = {https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/method_1684_draft_2001.pdf},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  number = {EPA-821-R-01-015}
}

@article{hafnerImprovingInterlaboratoryReproducibility2020,
  title = {Improving Inter-Laboratory Reproducibility in Measurement of Biochemical Methane Potential ({{BMP}})},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and {Fruteau de Laclos}, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and Koch, Konrad and Holliger, Christof},
  year = {2020},
  month = jun,
  volume = {12},
  pages = {1752},
  publisher = {{Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute}},
  doi = {10.3390/w12061752},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/6/1752},
  urldate = {2020-06-27},
  abstract = {Biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests used to determine the ultimate methane yield of organic substrates are not sufficiently standardized to ensure reproducibility among laboratories. In this contribution, a standardized BMP protocol was tested in a large inter-laboratory project, and results were used to quantify sources of variability and to refine validation criteria designed to improve BMP reproducibility. Three sets of BMP tests were carried out by more than thirty laboratories from fourteen countries, using multiple measurement methods, resulting in more than 400 BMP values. Four complex but homogenous substrates were tested, and additionally, microcrystalline cellulose was used as a positive control. Inter-laboratory variability in reported BMP values was moderate. Relative standard deviation among laboratories (RSDR) was 7.5 to 24\%, but relative range (RR) was 31 to 130\%. Systematic biases were associated with both laboratories and tests within laboratories. Substrate volatile solids (VS) measurement and inoculum origin did not make major contributions to variability, but errors in data processing or data entry were important. There was evidence of negative biases in manual manometric and manual volumetric measurement methods. Still, much of the observed variation in BMP values was not clearly related to any of these factors and is probably the result of particular practices that vary among laboratories or even technicians. Based on analysis of calculated BMP values, a set of recommendations was developed, considering measurement, data processing, validation, and reporting. Recommended validation criteria are: (i) test duration at least 1\% net 3 d, (ii) relative standard deviation for cellulose BMP not higher than 6\%, and (iii) mean cellulose BMP between 340 and 395 NmLCH4 gVS\&minus;1. Evidence from this large dataset shows that following the recommendations\&mdash;in particular, application of validation criteria\&mdash;can substantially improve reproducibility, with RSDR \&lt; 8\% and RR \&lt; 25\% for all substrates. The cellulose BMP criterion was particularly important. Results show that is possible to measure very similar BMP values with different measurement methods, but to meet the recommended validation criteria, some laboratories must make changes to their BMP methods. To help improve the practice of BMP measurement, a new website with detailed, up-to-date guidance on BMP measurement and data processing was established.},
  copyright = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/},
  journal = {Water},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  language = {en},
  number = {6}
}

@article{hafnerQuantificationLeakageBatch2018,
  title = {Quantification of Leakage in Batch Biogas Assays},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Rennuit, Charlotte and Olsen, Palle J. and Pedersen, Johanna M.},
  year = {2018},
  month = mar,
  volume = {13},
  pages = {52--61},
  doi = {10.2166/wpt.2018.012},
  url = {/wpt/article/13/1/52/38679/Quantification-of-leakage-in-batch-biogas-assays},
  urldate = {2018-10-04},
  journal = {Water Practice and Technology},
  keywords = {AD16 abstract 1,BMP-methods bib,GD-BMP paper,OBA use},
  language = {en},
  number = {1}
}

@article{hafnerSoftwareBiogasResearch2018,
  title = {Software for Biogas Research: {{Tools}} for Measurement and Prediction of Methane Production},
  shorttitle = {Software for Biogas Research},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Koch, Konrad and Carrere, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and Astals, Sergi and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren and Rennuit, Charlotte},
  year = {2018},
  month = jan,
  volume = {7},
  pages = {205--210},
  issn = {2352-7110},
  doi = {10.1016/j.softx.2018.06.005},
  url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352711018300840},
  urldate = {2018-10-04},
  abstract = {Biogas production from organic materials by anaerobic digestion is both a developed technology and an active area of research. In this contribution we describe an R package designed to help standardize biogas research. A web-based application provides access to the main functions. The software can be used to accurately calculate biochemical methane potential (BMP) from a range of biogas measurement types. Additionally, methane potential can be predicted from substrate composition, facilitating experimental design and interpretation of results. By providing access to flexible, efficient, standardized, and transparent algorithms, this software may make biogas research more accurate and efficient.},
  journal = {SoftwareX},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,GD-BMP paper,OBA exercise,OBA use,p3}
}

@article{hafnerSystematicErrorManometric2019,
  title = {Systematic Error in Manometric Measurement of Biochemical Methane Potential: {{Sources}} and Solutions},
  shorttitle = {Systematic Error in Manometric Measurement of Biochemical Methane Potential},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Astals, Sergi},
  year = {2019},
  month = may,
  volume = {91},
  pages = {147--155},
  issn = {0956-053X},
  doi = {10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.001},
  url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X19302934},
  urldate = {2019-05-23},
  abstract = {This work focused on identification and quantification of systematic sources of error in manometric measurement of biochemical methane potential (BMP). Error was determined by comparison to gravimetric measurements and direct measurement of leakage. One out of three types of septa leaked above 1 bar (gauge) headspace pressure, losing 25 to 30\% of biogas produced. But manometric BMP showed a negative bias even in the absence of leakage. Maximum error was 24\% from 160 mL bottles with 40 mL of headspace (headspace fraction of 0.25). Error decreased with increasing headspace fraction, and was small (3\%) for a headspace fraction of 0.75, showing that a high headspace volume is the best approach for minimizing error. Relative error in CH4 production measurement increased with headspace pressure as well, but controlling pressure alone is not sufficient for minimizing error. Calculations showed that observed error may be due to volatilization of CH4 during venting as well as inaccurate headspace volume determination, although these sources do not completely explain the magnitude of error observed. Measurement of biogas composition before and after venting showed that CO2 volatilization can occur, but is probably a minor source of error. Calculations showed that error in estimation of ambient pressure or headspace temperature had only minor effects ({$<$}3\%). Gravimetric measurements, which were unaffected by leakage and insensitive to error in estimation of headspace pressure, temperature or volume, can provide a simple check on manometric results, or a complete replacement.},
  journal = {Waste Management},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,Corrado,GD-BMP paper,OBA exercise,OBA use}
}

@article{hafnerValidationSimpleGravimetric2015,
  title = {Validation of a Simple Gravimetric Method for Measuring Biogas Production in Laboratory Experiments},
  author = {Hafner, Sasha D. and Rennuit, Charlotte and Triolo, Jin M. and Richards, Brian K.},
  year = {2015},
  month = dec,
  volume = {83},
  pages = {297--301},
  issn = {0961-9534},
  doi = {10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.10.003},
  abstract = {This work presents a gravimetric method for measuring biogas or methane production from anaerobic reactors, based on measurement of reactor mass loss. Results are most sensitive to error in biogas methane content, and less so to temperature and pressure. To evaluate the method, we applied it and volumetric methods to 133 laboratory-scale batch and semi-continuous reactors, ranging in size from 37~g to 8.0~kg of reacting mass. For most observations, the relative difference between the two methods was \&lt;10\% when the ``true'' biogas composition was used in calculations. Small systematic differences observed in some cases were probably due to error in estimates of biogas pressure, temperature, and composition, as well as biogas leakage. Based on theory and observation, it is reasonable to expect relative accuracy better than 15\% of the true value.},
  journal = {Biomass and Bioenergy},
  keywords = {AD16 abstract 1,BMP-methods bib,GD-BMP paper,Leak paper,man/grav paper,OBA use,software paper 1}
}

@article{holligerStandardizationBiomethanePotential2016,
  title = {Towards a Standardization of Biomethane Potential Tests},
  author = {Holliger, Christof and Alves, Madalena and Andrade, Diana and Angelidaki, Irini and Astals, Sergi and Baier, Urs and Bougrier, Claire and Buffi{\`e}re, Pierre and Carballa, Marta and {de Wilde}, Vinnie and Ebertseder, Florian and Fern{\'a}ndez, Bel{\'e}n and Ficara, Elena and Fotidis, Ioannis and Frigon, Jean-Claude and {Fruteau de Laclos}, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and S. M. Ghasimi, Dara and Hack, Gabrielle and Hartel, Mathias and Heerenklage, Joern and Sarvari Horvath, Ilona and Jenicek, Pavel and Koch, Konrad and Krautwald, Judith and Lizasoain, Javier and Liu, Jing and Mosberger, Lona and Nistor, Mihaela and Oechsner, Hans and Oliveira, Jo{\~a}o V{\'i}tor and Paterson, Mark and Pauss, Andr{\'e} and Pommier, S{\'e}bastien and Porqueddu, Isabella and Raposo, Francisco and Ribeiro, Thierry and R{\"u}sch Pfund, Florian and Str{\"o}mberg, Sten and Torrijos, Michel and {van Eekert}, Miriam and {van Lier}, Jules and Wedwitschka, Harald and Wierinck, Isabella},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {74},
  pages = {2515--2522},
  doi = {10.2166/wst.2016.336},
  journal = {Water Science and Technology},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,GD-BMP paper,Leak paper,man/grav paper,OBA exercise,software paper 1},
  number = {11}
}

@article{holligerStandardizationBiomethanePotential2021,
  title = {Towards a Standardization of Biomethane Potential Tests: A Commentary},
  shorttitle = {Towards a Standardization of Biomethane Potential Tests},
  author = {Holliger, Christof and Astals, Sergi and {de Laclos}, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne Fruteau and Hafner, Sasha D. and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2021},
  volume = {83},
  pages = {247--250},
  issn = {0273-1223},
  doi = {10.2166/wst.2020.569},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.569},
  urldate = {2021-01-28},
  abstract = {Inter-laboratory reproducibility of biomethane potential (BMP) is dismal, with differences in BMP values for the same sample exceeding a factor of two in some cases. A large group of BMP researchers directly addressed this problem during a workshop held in Leysin, Switzerland, in June 2015. The workshop resulted in a new set of guidelines for BMP tests published in 2016, which is the subject of the present commentary. The work has continued with two international inter-laboratory studies and one additional workshop held in Freising, Germany, in 2018. The dataset generated by the two inter-laboratory studies were used to refine the validation criteria for BMP tests. Based on these new results an update to the original guidelines is proposed here.},
  journal = {Water Science and Technology},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,My pubs},
  number = {1}
}

@article{justesenDevelopmentValidationLowcost2019,
  title = {Development and Validation of a Low-Cost Gas Density Method for Measuring Biochemical Methane Potential ({BMP})},
  author = {Justesen, Camilla G. and Astals, Sergi and Mortensen, Jacob R. and Thorsen, Rasmus and Koch, Konrad and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren and Triolo, Jin Mi and Hafner, Sasha D.},
  year = {2019},
  month = dec,
  volume = {11},
  pages = {2431},
  doi = {10.3390/w11122431},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/12/2431},
  urldate = {2019-11-20},
  abstract = {Accurate determination of biochemical methane potential (BMP) is important for both biogas research and practice. However, access to laboratory equipment limits the capacity of small laboratories or biogas plants to conduct reliable BMP assays, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This paper describes the development and validation of a new gas density-based method for measuring BMP (GD-BMP). In the GD-BMP method, biogas composition is determined from biogas density. Biogas density is based on bottle mass loss and biogas volume, and these can be accurately measured using only a standard laboratory scale, inexpensive syringes, and a simple manometer. Results from four experiments carried out in three different laboratories showed that the GD-BMP method is both accurate (no significant bias compared to gravimetric or volumetric methods with biogas analysis by gas chromatography) and precise (\&lt;3\% relative standard deviation is possible). BMP values from the GD-BMP method were also comparable to those measured for the same substrates with an industry standard automated system (AMPTS II) in two independent laboratories (maximum difference 10\%). Additionally, the GD-BMP method was shown to be accurate even in the presence of leakage by excluding leakage from mass loss measurements. The proposed GD-BMP method represents a significant breakthrough for both biogas research and the industry. With it, accurate BMP measurement is possible with only a minimal investment in supplies and equipment.},
  copyright = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/},
  journal = {Water},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,OBA use},
  language = {en},
  number = {12}
}

@article{kochEvaluationCommonSupermarket2020,
  title = {Evaluation of {{Common Supermarket Products}} as {{Positive Controls}} in {{Biochemical Methane Potential}} ({{BMP}}) {{Tests}}},
  author = {Koch, Konrad and Hafner, Sasha D. and Astals, Sergi and Weinrich, S{\"o}ren},
  year = {2020},
  month = may,
  volume = {12},
  pages = {1223},
  publisher = {{Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute}},
  doi = {10.3390/w12051223},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/5/1223},
  urldate = {2020-10-07},
  abstract = {Biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests are commonly applied to evaluate the recoverable amount of methane from a substrate. Standardized protocols require inclusion of a positive control with a known BMP to check the experimental setup and execution, as well as the performance of the inoculum. Only if the BMP of the positive control is within the expected range is the entire test validated. Besides ignorance of this requirement, limited availability of the standard positive control microcrystalline cellulose might be the main reason for neglecting a positive control. To address this limitation, eight widely available grocery store products have been tested as alternative positive controls (APC) to demonstrate their suitability. Among them, Tic Tacs and gummi bears were very promising, although they are dominated by easily degradable sugars and so do not test for hydrolytic performance. Coffee filters exhibited a similar performance to microcrystalline cellulose, while whole milk might be chosen when a more balanced carbohydrate:protein:lipid ratio is important. Overall, the approach of predicting the BMP of a substrate based on the nutritional composition provided on the product packaging worked surprisingly well: BMP of the eight tested products was 81\textendash 91\% of theoretical maximum BMP based on nutritional information and generic chemical formulas for carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids.},
  copyright = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/},
  journal = {Water},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  language = {en},
  number = {5}
}

@book{negiTextbookPhysicalChemistry1985,
  title = {A {{Textbook}} of {{Physical Chemistry}}},
  author = {Negi, A. S. and Anand, S. C.},
  year = {1985},
  publisher = {{New Age International}},
  abstract = {Written primarily to meet the requirements of students at the undergraduate level, this book aims for a self-learning approach. The fundamentals of physical chemistry have been explained with illustrations, diagrams, tables, experimental techniques and solved problems.},
  googlebooks = {wyP\_V3X8YOIC},
  isbn = {978-0-85226-020-3},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  language = {en}
}

@article{owenBioassayMonitoringBiochemical1979,
  title = {Bioassay for Monitoring Biochemical Methane Potential and Anaerobic Toxicity},
  author = {Owen, W. F. and Stuckey, D. C. and Healy Jr, J. B. and Young, L. Y. and McCarty, P. L.},
  year = {1979},
  volume = {13},
  pages = {485--492},
  doi = {10.1016/0043-1354(79)90043-5},
  journal = {Water Research},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,Gravimetric paper,man/grav paper,software paper 1},
  number = {6}
}

@article{richardsMethodsKineticanalysisMethane1991,
  title = {Methods for Kinetic-Analysis of Methane Fermentation in High Solids Biomass Digesters},
  author = {Richards, B.K. and Cummings, R.J. and White, T.E. and Jewell, W.J.},
  year = {1991},
  volume = {1},
  pages = {65--73},
  doi = {10.1016/0961-9534(91)90028-B},
  abstract = {Methods are presented for kinetic analysis of anaerobic biomass reactors. In some cases, assumptions implicit in kinetic analysis techniques developed for conventional dilute digestion modes are not applicable to systems operating at high rates and/or high solids concentrations. As a result, modified definitions are presented for CST digester retention times and first order kinetic coefficients. Procedures are presented for converting biogas data to standard conditions. Two novel methods for quantifying mass removals, based on direct measurement of reactor mass losses and on biogas production, allow rapid determination of mass removal rates and detection of gas leakage. The use of a per unit mass basis for reporting concentrations and kinetics is recommended.},
  journal = {Biomass and Bioenergy},
  keywords = {Anaerobic digestion,BMP-methods bib,Gravimetric paper,p3,software paper 1},
  number = {2}
}

@article{rozziMethodsAssessingMicrobial2004,
  title = {Methods of Assessing Microbial Activity and Inhibition under Anaerobic Conditions: A Literature Review},
  shorttitle = {Methods of Assessing Microbial Activity and Inhibition under Anaerobic Conditions},
  author = {Rozzi, Alberto and Remigi, Enrico},
  year = {2004},
  month = jun,
  volume = {3},
  pages = {93--115},
  issn = {1569-1705, 1572-9826},
  doi = {10.1007/s11157-004-5762-z},
  abstract = {This work reviews the existing methodologies for assessing microbial activity and inhibition under anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic digestion process consists of several metabolic steps\textendash the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) has attempted to describe these steps in the form of a mathematical model with the intention of providing a reference base for all further efforts in the modelling of anaerobic processes. The existence of a reference point for modelling has highlighted the fact that there is a lack of coherence between the many different methodologies for experimentally assessing anaerobic activity and inhibition. A working group of the International Water Association was recently founded to harmonise the existing methodologies with the ultimate intention of developing a unified reference procedure\textendash{} a primary objective of the group will be the establishment of a standard terminology in the field of anaerobic digestion, activity and inhibition assessment. Secondly, it will compare the existing methodologies and develop standard protocols for assessing the kinetic parameters (e.g. maximum uptake rate, half-saturation constant) of anaerobic processes that may be entered directly into ADM1 and its successors. This paper revises and enlarges a contribution presented by the authors at the workshop ``Harmonisation of anaerobic biodegradation, activity and inhibition assays'' (Ligthart \& Nieman 2002, Proc. workshop held in Orta (Italy) June 7\textendash 8, 2002) and aims to promote a clear understanding of the currently established methodology. Numerous methods have been developed over the past 30 years, since Van den Berg et al. (1974, Biotechnol Bioeng 16(11)\textendash{} 1459\textendash 1469) measured methanogenic activity, by using a manometric device equipped with a photoelectric sensor to quantify the gas production. Methanogenesis is often the rate limiting step of the entire process and since the quantification of gas flowrate is relatively easy to perform, most of the methods reported in literature monitor the production of biogas. These methods can be termed volumetric or manometric methods, as the volume of biogas produced or the pressure increase due to gas production inside a close vessel are assessed, respectively. However, this same concept can be employed to assess activity or inhibition of individual metabolic steps preceding the methanogenic one, providing that they are rate limiting for the whole process. The reliability of activity assessment through gas measurement has been proven to be strongly dependent on the equilibrium between liquid and gas phase in a closed vessel. This can be influenced by many factors, e.g. the amount and characteristics of the test substrate; the concentration of the biomass; the gas-to-liquid ratio\textendash{} all these aspects will need to be addressed in the standard procedure. Other direct or indirect methods, targeting physico-chemical or microbiological parameter exist and have been investigated by many authors. Besides the interest for research purposes, the definition of reference methods to assess activity and inhibition can be of great interest for engineers, both phy. Specific reference procedures might be needed for particular applications, e.g. the (kinetic) study of rate limiting microbial steps and might require ad-hoc methodologies to be devised. A microbiological technique such as FISH, coupled with microsensors have been reported to have a great potential in the near future.},
  journal = {Re/Views in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology},
  keywords = {AD16 abstract 1,Biogas measurement methods,BMP-methods bib,Corrado,GD-BMP paper,Gravimetric paper,Leak paper,man/grav paper,software paper 1},
  language = {en},
  number = {2}
}

@incollection{strachDeterminationTotalSolids2020,
  title = {Determination of Total Solids (Dry Matter) and Volatile Solids (Organic Dry Matter)},
  booktitle = {Collection of {{Methods}} for {{Biogas}}},
  author = {Strach, Katrin},
  editor = {Liebetrau, Jan and Pfeiffer, Diana},
  year = {2020},
  edition = {Second},
  volume = {7},
  publisher = {{DBFZ}},
  address = {{Leipzig, Germany}},
  url = {https://www.dbfz.de/projektseiten/chinares/downloads/},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib},
  series = {Biomass Energy Use}
}

@techreport{vdiFermentationOrganicMaterials2016,
  title = {Fermentation of {{Organic Materials}}: {{Characterisation}} of the {{Substrate}}, {{Sampling}}, {{Collection}} of {{Material Data}}, {{Fermentation Tests}}},
  author = {{VDI}},
  year = {2016},
  address = {{D\"usseldorf, Germany}},
  institution = {{Verein Deutsch er Ingenieure e.V.}},
  keywords = {BMP-methods bib,man/grav paper,software paper 1},
  number = {VDI 4630}
}