Evaluation of Anaerobic Microbial Community and Physicochemical Parameters in Small Scale Biodigesters within Uasin Gishu County
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2200/aerj.v5i2.255Keywords:
Bacterial Consortia, Biogas, BiodigestersAbstract
Anaerobic digestion is a sequential biological activity that accepts the efficient capture of methane for energy production. The dependence on fossil and wood fuels as a primary energy source has led to multitudes of problems such as global warming, environmental degradation and human respiratory health complications. The objective of this research was to characterize, identify and study physicochemical requirement of the digesters in relation to methanogenic bacteria identified from cow dung and improve their efficiency in biogas production. Six study sites were selected within Uasin Gishu County, opande, energy, beta farm, radar, nettos and langas, which varied in both volume and biogas production capacity. The cow dung which had been fed to biodigesters were collected aseptically in sterile jars and bacteria were isolated in Biotechnology laboratory, University of Eldoret under anaerobic conditions in a Gas pak jar at a mesophilic temperature of 35oC for seven days. Pure isolates were obtained using streak plate method and evaluation of physicochemical parameters were done in situ. Identification of isolates was done using cultural, morphological and biochemical characteristics. Laboratory scale set up of anaerobic digester for biogas production was done to evaluate their efficiency in biogas production. Three, 500ml erlernymer flask were half filled with cow dung and inoculated with Methanococcus sp. and Methanosaeta sp. separately and a combination of both isolates. This was done in triplicate with different inoculum ratios at 10:500, 20:500 and 30:500 mls, respectively and a control experiment with cow dung alone and allowed to run for 31 days. Gas generated was collected by volume displacement of water and measured at an interval of 0:10, 11:21 and 21:31 days. The temperature and the pH were regulated and monitored regularly. The study identified 7 different anaerobic bacteria species as Methanococcus, Sulfolobus, Methanosaeta, Methanospirillium, Methanosarcina, Methanomicrobium and Methanothrix species. The most predominant methanogenic bacterial strains, which occurred in at least 5 digesters were Methanococcus sp. and Methanosaeta sp which also produced the highest volume of biogas with maximum production being observed in 21-31 days at a ratio of 30:500. Methanococcus sp. and Methanosaeta sp. synergistic activity yielded the highest gas production of 74.23 mls versus 22.50 mls in control and 64.23 mls versus 50 mls from Methanosaeta and Methanococcus sp. respectively. In conclusion, study on the 6 bio digesters showed that physicochemical parameters plays a paramount role in biogas production and should be maintained at an optimum range. The study shows that predominant methanogens Methanococcus sp. and Methanosarcina sp. when inoculated in the digesters increase the quantity of biogas produced. Research recommends that digesters encompasses diverse group of methanogens which works in syntrophic association in the fermentation process thus should be maintained for increase in biogas production.
References
Abbas, I., Liu, J., Noor, R. S., Faheem, M., Farhan, M., Ameen, M., & Shaikh, S. A. (2020). Development and performance evaluation of small size household portable biogas plant for domestic use. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 1-13.
Ananthu, O. S. (2019). Small Scale Biogas Production by using Food Waste-Examples from three Restaurants. Masters’ thesis, Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science
APHA- American Public Health Association (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (21st ed.). Washington, DC.
Arutyunov, V. S., & Lisichkin, G. V. (2017). Energy resources of the 21st century: Problems and forecasts. Can renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels. Russian Chemical Reviews, 86 (8), 777.
Awasthi, M. K., Sarsaiya, S., Patel, A., Juneja, A., Singh, R. P., Yan, B., Awasthi, S. K., Jain, A., Liu, T., & Duan, Y. (2020). Refining biomass residues for sustainable energy and bio-products: An assessment of technology, its importance, and strategic applications in circular bio-economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 127, 109876.
Barisa, A., Kirsanovs, V., & Safronova, A. (2020). Future transport policy designs for biomethane promotion: A system dynamics model. Journal of Environmental Management, 269, 110842.
Bongaerts, P., Cooke, I. R., Ying, H., Wels, D., den Haan, S., Hernandez-Agreda, A., Brunner, C. A., Dove, S., Englebert, N., & Eyal, G. (2021). Morphological stasis masks ecologically divergent coral species on tropical reefs. Current Biology, 31 (11), 2286–2298.
Brzeszcz, J., & Kaszycki, P. (2018). Aerobic bacteria degrading both n-alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons: An undervalued strategy for metabolic diversity and flexibility. Biodegradation, 29(4), 359–407.
Chae, K. J, S. G., Rhee, C., Shin, S. G., Shin, J., Mohamed, H. O., Choi, Y. J., & Park. (2019). Methanogenesis stimulation and inhibition for the production of different target electrobiofuels in microbial electrolysis cells through an on-demand control strategy using the coenzyme M and 2-bromoethanesulfonate. Environment international, 131, 105006.
Dalkılıc, K., & Ugurlu, A. (2022). Biogas production from chicken manure at different organic loading rates in a mesophilic-thermopilic two stage anaerobic system. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 120 (3), 315–322.
Hamid, A., Mallick, S. A., Moni, G., Sachin, G., & Haq, M. R. U. (2019). Amelioration in gliadin antigenicity and maintenance of viscoelastic properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars with mixed probiotic fermentation. Journal of food science and technology, 56(9), 4282-4295.
Harirchi, S., Wainaina, S., Sar, T., Nojoumi, S. A., Parchami, M., Parchami, M.. & Taherzadeh, M. J. (2022). Microbiological insights into anaerobic digestion for biogas, hydrogen or volatile fatty acids (VFAs): a review. Bioengineered, 13(3), 6521-6557
Hobbs, S. R., Landis, A. E., Rittmann, B. E., Young, M. N., & Parameswaran, P. (2018). Enhancing anaerobic digestion of food waste through biochemical methane potential assays at different substrate: Inoculum ratios. Waste Management, 71, 612–617.
Hossain, M. S., Onik, M. H., Kumar, D., Rahman, M. A., Yousuf, A., & Uddin, M. R. (2022). Impact of temperature, inoculum flow pattern, inoculum type, and their ratio on dry anaerobic digestion for biogas production. Scientific reports, 12(1), 1-13
Kadam, R., & Panwar, N. (2017). Recent advancement in biogas enrichment and its applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 892–903.
Kern, T., Fischer, M. A., Deppenmeier, U., Schmitz, R. A., & Rother, M. (2016). Methanosarcina flavescens sp. Nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from a full-scale anaerobic digester. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 66(3), 1533–1538.
Khanthong, K., Purnomo, C. W., & Daosud, W. (2021). Microbial diversity of marine shrimp pond sediment and its variability due to the effect of immobilized media in biohydrogen and biohythane production. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9 (5), 106166.
Masaki, Y., Tsutsumi, K., Hirano, S., & Okibe, N. (2016). Microbial community profiling of the Chinoike Jigoku (“Blood Pond Hell”) hot spring in Beppu, Japan: Isolation and characterization of Fe (III)-reducing Sulfolobus sp. Strain GA1. Research in Microbiology, 167 (7), 595–603.
McVoitte, W. P.-A. (2018). Thermal pretreatment of dairy cow manure for solid-state anaerobic digestion. McGill University (Canada).
Patel, V. R. (2017). Cost-effective sequential biogas and bioethanol production from the cotton stem waste. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 111, 335–345.
Seruga, P., Krzywonos, M., Paluszak, Z., Urbanowska, A., Pawlak-Kruczek, H., Niedźwiecki, Ł., & Pińkowska, H. (2020). Pathogen reduction potential in anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and food waste. Molecules, 25(2), 275.
Sharma, A., Gupta, S., Bhardwaj, A., Goel, A., Chaubey, K. K., & Singh, S. V. (2022). Managing Cow Manure for Clean Energy: An Approach Towards Sustainable Conservation. In Animal Manure (pp. 261–274). Springer
Sharma, P., Bano, A., Singh, S. P., Srivastava, S. K., Iqbal, H., & Varjani, S. (2022). Different stages of microbial community during the anaerobic digestion of food wasteJournal of Food Science and Technology, 1-13.
Sharma, S. N., & Biswas, A. (2016). Best practices for ensuring total sanitation. International Journal for Social Studies, ISSN, 2455–3220.
Shindell, D., & Smith, C. J. (2019). Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels. Nature, 573(7774), 408–411.
Sun, M.-T., Fan, X.-L., Zhao, X.-X., Fu, S.-F., He, S., Manasa, M., & Guo, R.-B. (2017). Effects of organic loading rate on biogas production from macroalgae: Performance and microbial community structure. Bioresource Technology, 235, 292–300.
Wainaina, S., Lukitawesa, Kumar Awasthi, M., & Taherzadeh, M. J. (2019). Bioengineering of anaerobic digestion for volatile fatty acids, hydrogen or methane production: a critical review. Bioengineered, 10(1), 437-458.
Wang, P., Wang, H., Qiu, Y., Ren, L., & Jiang, B. (2018). Microbial characteristics in anaerobic digestion process of food waste for methane production–A review. Bioresource Technology, 248, 29–36.
Wassie, Y. T., & Adaramola, M. S. (2020). Analysing household biogas utilization and impact in rural Ethiopia: Lessons and policy implications for sub-Saharan Africa. Scientific African, 9, e00474.
Whitman, W. B., Rainey, F., Kämpfer, P., Trujillo, M., Chun, J., & DeVos, P. (2015). Bergey’s manual of systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (Vol. 410). Wiley Online Library.
Yerima, I., & Grema, M. Z. (2018). The potential of coconut shell as biofuel. The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences, 4 (8), 11-15.
