Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of nano structure of agro-industrial by-products on biogas production kinetics and methane emission

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past decades, the agro-industrial by-products (AIBP) have received considerable attention. In this context, we aimed to investigate the effect of AIBP as a source of non-fiber carbohydrates on biogas production kinetic, methane emission, and fermentation characteristics. Experimental treatments were (1) sugar beet pulp (SBP) (control), (2) apple pomace (AP), (3) orange pulp (OP, (4) 33% AP + 66% OP, (5) 50% AP + 50% OP, and (6) 66% AP + 33% OP. Field emission scanning electron microscope was used to show the nano structural differences of the AIBP. Results of proximate analyzes, demonstrated significant differences of the crude protein among the treatments (P < 0.05). Biogas production and methane emission were significantly higher in SBP and OP treatments (P < 0.05). The highest and the lowest amounts of acetate were observed for AP and OP (61.84 mmol/L, 58.15 mmol/L), respectively. More broken edges were obvious in OP images. Yet, particle size was rather smaller in SBP. Images of AP showed a sleek surface which may act as a shield preventing more digestion. To conclude, utilization of AIBP, as non-fiber energy source, not only could contribute towards reducing environmental contamination but could also positively affect degradation, biogas kinetics, methane emission and in vitro fermentation parameters.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical protocol was approved by the experimental animal ethics committee of University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

Abbreviations

AIBP:

Agro-Industrial By-Products

SBP:

Sugar beet pulp

AP:

Apple pomace

OP:

Orange pulp

CP:

Crude protein

EE:

Ether extract

ME:

Metabolizable energy

NDF:

Neutral detergent fiber

ADF:

Acid detergent fiber

TMR:

Total mixed ration

DOM:

Digestible organic matter

SCFA:

Short-chain fatty acid

References

  1. Rusinamhodzi L (2020) Challenges in maximizing benefits from ecosystem services and transforming food systems, in The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems. 2020, Elsevier. p. 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816436-5.00013-5

  2. Greening C, Geier R, Wang C, Woods LC, Morales SE, McDonald MJ, Rushton-Green R, Morgan XC, Koike S, Leahy SC, Kelly WJ (2019) Diverse hydrogen production and consumption pathways influence methane production in ruminants. ISME J 13(10):2617–2632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0464-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thauer RK (2012) The Wolfe cycle comes full circle. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(38):15084–15085. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213193109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chun H, Leung C, Wen SW, McDonald J, Shin HH (2020) Maternal exposure to air pollution and risk of autism in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut 256:113307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arku RE, Brauer M, Ahmed SH, AlHabib KF, Avezum Á, Bo J, Choudhury T, Dans AM, Gupta R, Iqbal R, Ismail N (2020) Long-term exposure to outdoor and household air pollution and blood pressure in the prospective urban and rural epidemiological (PURE) study. Environ Pollut 262:114197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson JO, Thundiyil JG, Stolbach A (2012) Clearing the air: a review of the effects of particulate matter air pollution on human health. J Med Toxicol 8(2):166–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-011-0203-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu J, Wu T, Liu Q, Wu S, Chen JC (2020) Air pollution exposure and adverse sleep health across the life course: a systematic review. Environ Pollut 262:114263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JS (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Res 37:195–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Correddu F, Lunesu MF, Buffa G, Atzori AS, Nudda A, Battacone G, Pulina G (2020) Can agro-industrial by-products rich in polyphenols be advantageously used in the feeding and nutrition of dairy small ruminants? Animals 10(1):131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Riera PF, García AC (2021) Valorisation of mediterranean agro-industrial by-products in pig production as feed and anaerobic co-digestion of slurry. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Valencia. Pp. 224.

  11. Ribeiro GO, Oss DB, He Z, Gruninger RJ, Elekwachi C, Forster RJ, Yang W, Beauchemin KA, McAllister TA (2017) Repeated inoculation of cattle rumen with bison rumen contents alters the rumen microbiome and improves nitrogen digestibility in cattle. Sci Rep 7(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01269-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lan W, Yang C (2019) Ruminal methane production: associated microorganisms and the potential of applying hydrogen-utilizing bacteria for mitigation. Sci Total Environ 654:1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, Jonker A, Young W, Janssen PH (2015) Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci Rep 5(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Palangi V, Macit M (2021) Indictable mitigation of methane emission using some organic acids as additives towards a cleaner ecosystem. Waste and Biomass Valori 12:4825–4834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01347-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leahy SC, Kelly WJ, Altermann E, Ronimus RS, Yeoman CJ, Pacheco DM, Li D, Kong Z, McTavish S, Sang C, Lambie SC (2010) The genome sequence of the rumen methanogen Methanobrevibacterruminantium reveals new possibilities for controlling ruminant methane emissions. PLoS ONE 5(1):e8926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fontenot JP, Bovard KP, Oltjen RR, Rumsey TS, Priode BM (1977) Supplementation of apple pomace with nonprotein nitrogen for gestating beef cows I Feed intake and performance. J Anim Sci 45(3):513–522. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.453513x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Toyokawa K, Yamada K, Takayasu I, Tsubomatsu K (1977) Studies on the utilization of rice straw. VII. The effect of rice straw on making silage of apple pomace as addition and its rearing effect for lambs as roughage. Bull Fac Agric Hirosaki Univ.

  18. Zema DA, Calabrò PS, Folino A, Tamburino VI, Zappia G, Zimbone SM (2018) Valorisation of citrus processing waste: a review. Waste Manage 80:252–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kara K, Guclu BK, Baytok E, Aktug E, Oguz FK, Kamalak A, Atalay AI (2018) Investigation in terms of digestive values, silages quality and nutrient content of the using pomegranate pomace in the ensiling of apple pomace with high moisture contents. J Appl Anim Res 46(1):1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1490300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Paya H, Taghizadeh A, Lashkari S, Shirmohammadi S (2012) Evaluation of rumen fermentation kinetics of some by-products using in situ and in vitro gas production technique. Slovak J Anim Sci 45(4):127–133

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lashkari S, Taghizadeh A (2015) Digestion kinetics of carbohydrate fractions of citrus by-products. Vet Res Forum 6(1):41–48

    Google Scholar 

  22. Muela CR, Ramírez HR, Plascencia DD, Bocourt R, Álvarez CA (2017) Concentration of acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber and lignin during solid state fermentation of apple (Malus domestica) derivates. Cuban J Agric Sci 51(1).

  23. Münnich M, Khiaosa-Ard R, Klevenhusen F, Hilpold A, Khol-Parisini A, Zebeli Q (2017) A meta-analysis of feeding sugar beet pulp in dairy cows: effects on feed intake, ruminal fermentation, performance, and net food production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 224:78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. García-Rodríguez J, Ranilla MJ, France J, Alaiz-Moretón H, Carro MD, López S (2019) Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and rumen fermentation kinetics of agro-industrial by-products. Animals 9(11):861. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shirmohammadi S, Taghizadeh A, Hosseinkhani A, Moghaddam GA, Salem AZ, Pliego AB (2021) Ruminal and post-ruminal barley grain digestion and starch granule morphology under three heat methods. Ann Appl Biol 178(3):508–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. AOAC (2005) Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC international. AOAC international. Maryland, USA.

  27. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in ration to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74(10):3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parakhia MV (2017 Jun) (2017) Application of scanning electron microscope in agriculture. New Delhi: MedCrave Group LLC, India 29:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  29. McDougall EI (1948) Studies on ruminant saliva 1 The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochem J 43(1):99–109. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0430099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fedorah PM, Hrudey SE (1983) A simple apparatus for measuring gas production by methanogenic culture in serum bottles. Environ Technol Let 4:425–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593338309384228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Adejoro FA, Hassen A, Akanmu AM, Morgavi DP (2020) Replacing urea with nitrate as a non-protein nitrogen source increases lambs’ growth and reduces methane production, whereas acacia tannin has no effect. Anim Feed Sci Technol 259:114360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Khajehdizaj FP, Taghizadeh A, Nobari BB (2014) Effect of feeding microwave irradiated sorghum grain on nutrient utilization, rumen fermentation and serum metabolites in sheep. Livest Sci 167:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Broderick GA, Kang JH (1980) Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci 63(1):64–75. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Larsen M, Hansen NP, Weisbjerg MR, Lund P (2020) Evaluation of the ororuminal FLORA sampling device for rumen fluid sampling in intact cattle. J Dairy Sci 103(1):447–450. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hosseinpour S, AlaviMilani MMR, Pehlivan H (2018) A step-by-step solution methodology for mathematical expressions. Symmetry 10(7):285. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10070285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Getachew G, Makkar HP, Becker K (2002) Tropical browses: contents of phenolic compounds, in vitro gas production and stoichiometric relationship between short chain fatty acid and in vitro gas production. J Agric Sci 139(3):341–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859602002393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W (1979) The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci 93(1):217–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600086305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mirzaei-Aghsaghali A, Maheri-Sis N (2008) Nutritive value of some agro-industrial by-products for ruminants-a review. World J Zool 3(2):40–46

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sun K, Wang H, Peng H, Wu Y, Ma G, Lei Z (2015) Manganese oxide nanorods supported on orange peel-based carbon nanosheets for high performance supercapacitors. Int J Electrochem Sci 10:2000–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lashkari S, Taghizadeh A (2013) Nutrient digestibility and evaluation of protein and carbohydrate fractionation of citrus by-products. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 97(4):701–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2012.01312.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Taghizadeh A, Janmohamadi H, Moghadam GA, Shodja J (2008) In vitro gas production profiles in some concentrate ingredients. J Anim Vet Adv 7(2):137–139

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hynes DN, Stergiadis S, Gordon A, Yan T (2016) Effects of concentrate crude protein content on nutrient digestibility, energy utilization, and methane emissions in lactating dairy cows fed fresh-cut perennial grass. J Dairy Sci 99(11):8858–8866. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pirmohammadi R, Rouzbehan Y, Rezayazdi K, Zahedifar M (2006) Chemical composition, digestibility and in situ degradability of dried and ensiled apple pomace and maize silage. Small Rumin Res 66(1–3):150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.07.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mojtahedi M, Mesgaran MD (2011) Effects of the inclusion of dried molassed sugar beet pulp in a low-forage diet on the digestive process and blood biochemical parameters of Holstein steers. Livest Sci 141(2–3):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shahmoradi A, Alikhani M, Riasi A, Ghorbani GR, Ghaffari MH (2016) Effects of partial replacement of barley grain with beet pulp on performance, ruminal fermentation and plasma concentration of metabolites in transition dairy cows. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 100(1):178–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Strobel HJ, Russell JB (1986) Effect of pH and energy spilling on bacterial protein synthesis by carbohydrate-limited cultures of mixed rumen bacteria. J Dairy Sci 69(11):2941–2947. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(86)80750-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Poulsen M, Jensen BB, Engberg RM (2012) The effect of pectin, corn and wheat starch, inulin and pH on in vitro production of methane, short chain fatty acids and on the microbial community composition in rumen fluid. Anaerobe 18(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Steyn L, Meeske R, Cruywagen CW (2017) The effect of dried apple pomace as a replacer for maize in the concentrate for Jersey cows grazing ryegrass pasture on production and rumen metabolism. Anim Feed Sci Technol 234:264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.10.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Toral PG, Hervás G, Bichi E, Belenguer Á, Frutos P (2011) Tannins as feed additives to modulate ruminal biohydrogenation: effects on animal performance, milk fatty acid composition and ruminal fermentation in dairy ewes fed a diet containing sunflower oil. Anim Feed Sci Technol 164(3–4):199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mahmoud AE, Cieslak A, Szulc P, Lukomska A, Szumacher-Strabel M (2019) Impact of inclusion dried sugar beet pulp in ruminant’s ration on rumen parameters in vitro. Pakistan J Zool 51(6):2281. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2019.51.6.2281.2286

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was made possible by the grants number 788 from University of Tabriz.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, 51666, Tabriz, Iran

    Shahram Shirmohammadi, Akbar Taghizadeh, Hamid Paya, Arash Javanmard, Behnam Hajimohammadi Darabi & Nazanin Shokrani

  2. Department of Animal Science, Agricultural Faculty, Ataturk University, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey

    Valiollah Palangi

  3. Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods (INAF), Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada

    Soheila Abachi

  4. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

    Saeed Narimani Gharajeh

Authors
  1. Shahram Shirmohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akbar Taghizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamid Paya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arash Javanmard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valiollah Palangi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Soheila Abachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Behnam Hajimohammadi Darabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Saeed Narimani Gharajeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nazanin Shokrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SS and AT contributed to the project idea, design and execution of the study. HP, AJ, BHD, SNG, and NS were in charge of laboratory analyses. VP and SA were responsible for statistical analyses, scientific editing and finalizing the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Akbar Taghizadeh or Valiollah Palangi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Statement of novelty

Agro-industrial by-products (AIBP) contaminate the environment leading to health problems. Determining biogas production capacity of AIBP, its methane emission and fermentation characteristics can assist in designing the best bio-recycling method. With this notion, the biodegradation pattern of AIBP, as non-fiber carbohydrate source, by ruminal anaerobic microorganisms can be monitored using field emission scanning electron microscope. In this study, we studied the digestion kinetics as well as biogas production pattern of composited and non-composited AIBP.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shirmohammadi, S., Taghizadeh, A., Paya, H. et al. Impact of nano structure of agro-industrial by-products on biogas production kinetics and methane emission. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 13, 13785–13793 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-02094-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-02094-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation