Top

Published in:

26-09-2021 | Original Article

Anaerobic co-digestion of raw glycerol and swine manure: microbial communities

Authors: Fidel Aguilar-Aguilar, Libertad Adaya, E. Ernestina Godoy-Lozano, L. A. Pantoja, Alexandre Soares dos Santos, Delfeena Eapen, P. J. Sebastian

Published in: Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery | Issue 8/2023

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In the present study, we evaluated the biogas production from the anaerobic co-digestion of raw glycerol (RG) in combination with swine manure (SM) and the interaction of the microbial community during anaerobic co-digestion. In the same way, different RG and SM concentrations were examined in the range of 6 to 15 g L⁻¹ and 7.5 to 22.5 g L⁻¹, respectively. According to the results, the highest values for biogas yield and methane yield were observed in test 1(6 g RG/7.5 g SM) with 340 mL g⁻¹ COD, test 2 (6 g RG/22.5 g SM) with 330 mL g⁻¹ COD, test 4 (15 g RG/22.5 g SM) with 344 mL g⁻¹ COD, and test 5 (3.75 g RG/15 g SM) with 328 mL g⁻¹ COD. Although the concentration of substrates increases, glycerol remains between 20 and 21% of RG for both tests (2 and 5). An increase in the concentration of RG (> 21% w/w) generated inhibitory effects for the co-digestion process since there was an overload of organic acids, which increase the impurity concentration and lower the biogas yield. Thus, the microbial consortium is a function of the organic load of the RG/SM ratio. The greater the concentration of RG, the higher the population of clostridium and low biogas yield in anaerobic co-digestion.

previous article Statistical optimization of sodium hydroxide pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover powder for enhancing sugar production using response surface methodology

next article Enhancement of Kraft lignin molecular relaxation based on laccases from Pycnoporus sanguineus produced in instrumented bioreactors

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Puyol D, Batstone DJ, Hülsen T, Astals S, Peces M, Krömer JO (2017) Resource recovery from wastewater by biological technologies: opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Front Microbiol 7:1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02106CrossRef

Khan MA, Ngo HH, Guo WS, Liu Y, Nghiem LD, Hai FI, Deng LJ, Wang J, Wu Y (2016) Optimization of process parameters for production of volatile fatty acid, biohydrogen and methane from anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 219:738–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.073CrossRef

Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:849–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7CrossRef

Shuba ES, Kifle D (2018) Microalgae to biofuels: ‘promising’ alternative and renewable energy, review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:743–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.042CrossRef

Ponsá S, Gea T, Sánchez A (2011) Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with several pure organic co-substrates. Biosyst Eng 108:352–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.01.007CrossRef

OECD, FAO, Meat, OECD-FAO Agric (2017) Outlook 2016–2025. Spec. Focus Sub-Saharan Africa. https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm

Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Croize T, Jiang Y, Morrison L, Gardiner GE, Zhan X (2016) Synergism and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid concentrations during food waste and pig manure anaerobic co-digestion. Waste Manag 56:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.032CrossRef

Konrad O, Koch FF, Lumi M, Tonetto JF, Bezama A (2014) Potential of biogas production from swine manure supplemented. Eng Agrícola 34:844–853. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162014000500004CrossRef

Mariscal G (2007) Tratamiento Excretas Cerdos, FAO, Prod. Porc. 1–9. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Tratamiento+excretas+cerdos#0. Accessed 23 Nov 2020

10.

Kusch-Brandt (2021) Urban renewable energy on the upswing: a spotlight on renewable energy in cities in REN21’s “Renewables 2021 Global Status Report”. https://www.ren21.net/reports/global-status-report/. Accessed 23 Nov 2020

11.

Ohimain EI (2007) A review of the Nigerian biofuel policy and incentives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 22(2013):246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.037CrossRef

12.

Kolesárová N, Hutan M, Bodík I, Špalková V (2011) Utilization of biodiesel by-products for biogas production. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/126798

13.

Valerio O, Horvath T, Pond C, Misra M, Mohanty A (2015) Improved utilization of crude glycerol from biodiesel industries: synthesis and characterization of sustainable biobased polyesters. Ind Crops Prod 78:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.10.019CrossRef

14.

Astals S, Nolla-Ardèvol V, Mata-Alvarez J (2012) Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate. Bioresour Technol 110:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.080CrossRef

15.

Nartker S, Ammerman M, Aurandt J, Stogsdil M, Hayden O, Antle C (2014) Increasing biogas production from sewage sludge anaerobic co-digestion process by adding crude glycerol from biodiesel industry. Waste Manag 34:2567–2571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.017CrossRef

16.

Athanasoulia E, Melidis P, Aivasidis A (2014) Co-digestion of sewage sludge and crude glycerol from biodiesel production. Renew Energy 62:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.040CrossRef

17.

Kanchanasuta S, Sillaparassamee O (2017) Enhancement of hydrogen and methane production from co-digestion of palm oil decanter cake and crude glycerol using two stage thermophilic and mesophilic fermentation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42:3440–3446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.032CrossRef

18.

Fountoulakis MS, Manios T (2009) Enhanced methane and hydrogen production from municipal solid waste and agro-industrial by-products co-digested with crude glycerol. Bioresour Technol 100:3043–3047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.016CrossRef

19.

Wang X, Lu X, Li F, Yang G (2014) Effects of temperature and Carbon-Nitrogen (C/N) ratio on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure and rice straw: focusing on ammonia inhibition. PLoS ONE 9:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097265CrossRef

20.

González-Fernández C, García-Encina PA (2009) Impact of substrate to inoculum ratio in anaerobic digestion of swine slurry. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1065–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.03.008CrossRef

21.

Yenigün O, Demirel B (2013) Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process Biochem 48:901–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012CrossRef

22.

Palatsi J, Viñas M, Guivernau M, Fernandez B, Flotats X (2011) Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste: main process limitations and microbial community interactions. Bioresour Technol 102:2219–2227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.121CrossRef

23.

Ziganshin AM, Liebetrau J, Pröter J, Kleinsteruber S (2013) Microbial community structure and dynamics during anaerobic digestion of various agricultural waste materials. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:5161–5174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4867-0CrossRef

24.

Da Silva C, Astals S, Peces M, Campos JL, Guerrero L (2017) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests: Reducing test time by early parameter estimation. Waste Manag 71:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.009CrossRef

25.

Moody L, Burns R, Wu-Haan W, Spajić R (2009) Use of biochemical methane potential (BMP) assays for predicting and enhancing anaerobic digester performance. Proc 4th Int 44th Croat Symp Agric 930–934. http://sa.agr.hr/pdf/2009/sa2009_p1009.pdf

26.

Labatut RA, Angenent LT, Scott NR (2011) Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour Technol 102:2255–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035CrossRef

27.

Addison S, Slade A, Dennis M (2011) Effects of substrate composition on the structure of microbial communities in wastewater using fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Syst Appl Microbiol 34:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2010.10.006CrossRef

28.

Marone A, Varrone C, Fiocchetti F, Giussani B, Izzo G, Mentuccia L, Rosa S, Signorini A (2015) Optimization of substrate composition for biohydrogen production from buffalo slurry co-fermented with cheese whey and crude glycerol, using microbial mixed culture. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.11.008CrossRef

29.

Sathish S (2011) Optimization of different parameters affecting biogas production from rice straw : an analytical approach. J Biogas 78–84. https://doi.org/10.5013/IJSSST.a.15.02.11

30.

Aguilar-Aguilar FA, Longoria A, Juan Torena A, Sebastian PJ (2019) optimization of hydrogen yield from the anaerobic digestion of crude glycerol and swine manure. Catalysts. 9:316. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal9040316CrossRef

31.

Hitit ZY, Lazaro CZ, Hallenbeck PC (2017) Single stage hydrogen production from cellulose through photo-fermentation by a co-culture of Cellulomonas fimi and Rhodopseudomonas palustris. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42:6556–6566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.035CrossRef

32.

American Public Health Association (1995) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA), 21st ed., 21st ed. American Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC. https://smww.aphapublications.org/

33.

Ghosh D, Sobro IF, Hallenbeck PC (2012) Stoichiometric conversion of biodiesel derived crude glycerol to hydrogen: Response surface methodology study of the effects of light intensity and crude glycerol and glutamate concentration. Bioresour Technol 106:154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.12.021CrossRef

34.

Khuri AI, Mukhopadhyay S (2010) Response surface methodology, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev Comput Stat 2:128–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.73CrossRef

35.

Aguilar-Aguilar AS, Nelson FA, Pantoja DL, Santos LA (2017). Study of anaerobic co-digestion of crude glycerol and swine manure for the production of biogas study of anaerobic co-digestion of crude glycerol and swine manure for the production of biogas. Rev Virtual Quím 9 https://doi.org/10.21577/1984-6835.20170142

36.

Chernicharo CAL (2007) Biological Wastewater Treatment Vol.4: Anaerobic Reactors, IWA Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

37.

L.O. Aquino, F.S., Chernicharo C.A.L. Foresti E.Florêncio M.L.S., Monteggia (2007) Metodologias para determinação da Atividade Metanogênica Específica (AME) em Lodos Anaeróbios. Eng Sanit Ambient 12: 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522007000200010

38.

Green MR, Sambrook J (2012) Chapter I, isolation and quantification of DNA. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1141.2012.01075

39.

Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, Glöckner FO (2013) Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res 41:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks808CrossRef

40.

Magoč T, Salzberg SL (2011) FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27:2957–2963. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507CrossRef

41.

Essid M, Trabelsi K, Jerbi E, Boubaker S, Gorgi Y, Ayed K, Azzouz MM (2003) L’atrophie villositaire au cours de l’epilepsie essentielle. Tunisie Med 81:270–272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089323CrossRef

42.

Bengtsson-Palme J, Hartmann M, Eriksson KM, Pal C, Thorell K, Larsson DGJ, Nilsson RH (2015) metaxa2: improved identification and taxonomic classification of small and large subunit rRNA in metagenomic data. Mol Ecol Resour 15:1403–1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12399CrossRef

43.

Escobar-Zepeda A, Godoy-Lozano EE, Raggi L, Segovia L, Merino E, Gutiérrez-Rios RM, Juarez K, Licea-Navarro AF, Pardo-Lopez L, Sanchez-Flores A (2018) Analysis of sequencing strategies and tools for taxonomic annotation: defining standards for progressive metagenomics. Sci Rep 8:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30515-5CrossRef

44.

McMurdie PJ, Holmes S (2013) Phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data, PLoS One 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217

45.

R.K. Jari Oksanen, F. Guillaume Blanchet, Michael Friendly, R.B.O. Pierre Legendre, Dan McGlinn, Peter R. Minchin, E.S. Gavin L. Simpson, Peter Solymos, M. Henry H. Stevens, H. Wagner (2018) Community Ecology Package. ISBN 0–387–95457–0.

46.

Bharathiraja B, Sudharsanaa T, Bharghavi A, Jayamuthunagai J, Praveenkumar R (2016) Biohydrogen and biogas – an overview on feedstocks and enhancement process. Fuel 185:810–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.08.030CrossRef

47.

Glanpracha N, Annachhatre AP (2016) Anaerobic co-digestion of cyanide containing cassava pulp with pig manure. Bioresour Technol 214:112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.079CrossRef

48.

J. Fierro, E.J. Martinez, J.G. Rosas, R.A. Fern??ndez, R. Lopez, X. Gomez (2016) Co-digestion of swine manure and crude glycerine: increasing glycerine ratio results in preferential degradation of labile compounds. Water Air Soil Pollut 227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-2773-7

49.

Astals S, Musenze RS, Bai X, Tannock S, Tait S, Pratt S, Jensen PD (2015) Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and algae: impact of intracellular algal products recovery on co-digestion performance. Bioresour Technol 181:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.039CrossRef

50.

Viana MB, Freitas AV, Leitão RC, Pinto GAS, Santaella ST (2012) Anaerobic digestion of crude glycerol: a review. Environ Technol Rev 1:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.692723CrossRef

51.

Siles JA, Martín MA, Chica AF, Martín A (2010) Anaerobic co-digestion of glycerol and wastewater derived from biodiesel manufacturing. Bioresour Technol 101:6315–6321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.042CrossRef

52.

Zeng S, Yuan X, Shi X, Qiu Y (2010) Effect of inoculum/substrate ratio on methane yield and orthophosphate release from anaerobic digestion of Microcystis spp. J Hazard Mater 178:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.01.047CrossRef

53.

Eskicioglu C, Ghorbani M (2011) Effect of inoculum / substrate ratio on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of bioethanol plant whole stillage in batch mode. Process Biochem 46:1682–1687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2011.04.013CrossRef

54.

Nghiem LD, Nguyen TT, Manassa P, Fitzgerald SK, Dawson M, Vierboom S (2014) Co-digestion of sewage sludge and crude glycerol for on-demand biogas production. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 95:160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.04.023CrossRef

55.

Wang L, Liu W, Kang L, Yang C, Zhou A, Wang A (2014) Enhanced biohydrogen production from waste activated sludge in combined strategy of chemical pre-treatment and microbial electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39:11913–11919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.006CrossRef

56.

S. Baena, M. Fardeau, B. Ollivier, M. Labat, P. T, A. De (1993) A mesophilic, anaerobic, amino-acid-utilizing bacterium. Int J Syst Bacteriol

57.

Yamada T, Imachi H, Ohashi A, Harada H, Hanada S, Kamagata Y, Sekiguchi Y (2007) Bellilinea caldifistulae gen. nov., sp. nov and Longilinea arvoryzae gen. nov., sp. nov., strictly anaerobic, filamentous bacteria of the phylum Chloroflexi isolated from methanogenic propionate-degrading consortia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57:2299–2306. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.65098-0CrossRef

58.

Rubiano-Labrador C, Baena S, Díaz-Cárdenas C, Patel BKC (2013) Caloramator quimbayensis sp. nov., an anaerobic, moderately thermophilic bacterium isolated from a terrestrial hot spring. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 63:1396–1402. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.037937-0

59.

Guo Y, Zeng W, Li N, Peng Y (2018) Effect of electron acceptor on community structures of denitrifying polyphosphate accumulating organisms in anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (A2O) process using DNA based stable-isotope probing (DNA-SIP). Chem Eng J 334:2039–2049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.11.170CrossRef

60.

Tian H, Duan N, Lin C, Li X, Zhong M (2015) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and pig manure with different mixing ratios. J Biosci Bioeng 120:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.11.017CrossRef

Title: Anaerobic co-digestion of raw glycerol and swine manure: microbial communities
Authors: Fidel Aguilar-Aguilar
Libertad Adaya
E. Ernestina Godoy-Lozano
L. A. Pantoja
Alexandre Soares dos Santos
Delfeena Eapen
P. J. Sebastian
Publication date: 26-09-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery / Issue 8/2023
Print ISSN: 2190-6815
Electronic ISSN: 2190-6823
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01914-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 8/2023

Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion using kitchen waste and poultry manure as substrate—part 1: substrate ratio and effect of temperature

Co-combustion properties of torrefied rice straw-sub-bituminous coal blend and its Hardgrove Grindability Index

Nano β-Mo2C supported on ordered mesoporous carbon for Kraft lignin decomposition to aromatic monomers

A sustainable cultivation of microalgae using dairy and fish wastes for enhanced biomass and bio-product production

Optimization of physical activation process for activated carbon preparation from water caltrop husk

Transesterifying Madhuca indica and waste cooking oil blends with C1–C3 alcohol mixtures: two-step catalysis using Delonix regia and Mesua ferrea linn supports