Reliable biochemical methane potential testing: insights and recommendations from global interlaboratory study
Abstract
Thirty-one laboratories measured biochemical methane potential (BMP) of six substrates in a project aimed at improving BMP measurement quality. Laboratories used their established measurement procedures, with limited standardization. As in earlier studies, reproducibility was quantified, but here laboratories came from a wide geographic range, and the accuracy of BMP measurements was assessed by comparison with 6 experienced “reference” laboratories. Measurement reproducibility between the remaining “evaluation” laboratories was poor in the first test; relative reproducibility standard deviation was 21–33% for four substrates. Values improved to 9–19% in the second test following review of a detailed analysis of submitted data, troubleshooting meetings, and method modifications by some laboratories. Reference laboratories performed better, with reproducibility standard deviation of 5–12%. Repeatability within laboratories was also better for the reference group, with relative standard deviation of 2–4% vs. 3–7% for evaluation laboratories. Evaluation laboratory results showed a persistent negative bias of 4–16% compared to reference laboratories. Application of cellulose validation criteria improved reproducibility but not accuracy. Most of the extreme BMP values were associated with abnormal methane production curves, and a subjective visual evaluation proved valuable as a screening tool. The cause of measurement error was generally unknown, although data processing and volatile solids measurement errors caused some extreme results, and changes in inoculum source improved performance in two cases. There were no consistent differences among the diverse measurement methods and the sources of error probably vary among laboratories. Consistently accurate BMP measurement is possible for laboratories that follow established guidelines and develop experience.
Related
- Basin-scale evaluation of the Noah-MP land surface model for runoff and snow generation in the Missouri River Basin: insights and recommendations for parameterization scheme selection
- Genome-resolved metagenomics reveals potential biochemical capabilities of a microbial community in an industrial wastewater membrane bioreactor during performance deterioration and recovery
- Vermicomposting Reshapes Microbial Communities and Functional Potential in Sewage Sludge: Insights from 16S and ITS Metabarcoding.
- Molecular-Level Insights into the Spatial Distribution, Transformation, and Potential Sources of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen in the Beidagang Reservoir
- Vanadium Occurrence and Enrichment Mechanisms in Lower-Middle Carboniferous Black Shales of the Central Taurus Belt, Türkiye: Insights into Critical Element Potential
BibTeX
@article{hafner2026reliable,
title = {{Reliable biochemical methane potential testing: insights and recommendations from global interlaboratory study}},
author = {Sasha D Hafner and Estelle Leca and Cecilia Sambusiti and Sergi Astals and Olivier Azam and Konrad Koch and Jing Liu and Henrik B Møller and Mihaela Nistor and Mario Olaya-Rincon and Christine Peyrelasse and Alastair J Ward and Bastien Zennaro and Florian Monlau},
journal = {Bioresource Technology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.biortech.2026.134136},
url = {https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05803726v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Reliable biochemical methane potential testing: insights and recommendations from global interlaboratory study
AU - Sasha D Hafner
AU - Estelle Leca
AU - Cecilia Sambusiti
AU - Sergi Astals
AU - Olivier Azam
AU - Konrad Koch
AU - Jing Liu
AU - Henrik B Møller
AU - Mihaela Nistor
AU - Mario Olaya-Rincon
AU - Christine Peyrelasse
AU - Alastair J Ward
AU - Bastien Zennaro
AU - Florian Monlau
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/16
JO - Bioresource Technology
DO - 10.1016/j.biortech.2026.134136
UR - https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05803726v1
AB - Thirty-one laboratories measured biochemical methane potential (BMP) of six substrates in a project aimed at improving BMP measurement quality. Laboratories used their established measurement procedures, with limited standardization. As in earlier studies, reproducibility was quantified, but here laboratories came from a wide geographic range, and the accuracy of BMP measurements was assessed by comparison with 6 experienced “reference” laboratories. Measurement reproducibility between the remaining “evaluation” laboratories was poor in the first test; relative reproducibility standard deviation was 21–33% for four substrates. Values improved to 9–19% in the second test following review of a detailed analysis of submitted data, troubleshooting meetings, and method modifications by some laboratories. Reference laboratories performed better, with reproducibility standard deviation of 5–12%. Repeatability within laboratories was also better for the reference group, with relative standard deviation of 2–4% vs. 3–7% for evaluation laboratories. Evaluation laboratory results showed a persistent negative bias of 4–16% compared to reference laboratories. Application of cellulose validation criteria improved reproducibility but not accuracy. Most of the extreme BMP values were associated with abnormal methane production curves, and a subjective visual evaluation proved valuable as a screening tool. The cause of measurement error was generally unknown, although data processing and volatile solids measurement errors caused some extreme results, and changes in inoculum source improved performance in two cases. There were no consistent differences among the diverse measurement methods and the sources of error probably vary among laboratories. Consistently accurate BMP measurement is possible for laboratories that follow established guidelines and develop experience.
SN - 0960-8524
ER -