Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 473–482

Biotechnological intensification of biogas production

  • Zoltán Bagi
  • Norbert Ács
  • Balázs Bálint
  • Lenke Horváth
  • Krisztina Dobó
  • Katalin R. Perei
  • Gábor Rákhely
  • Kornél L. Kovács
Environmental Biotechnology

Abstract

The importance of syntrophic relationships among microorganisms participating in biogas formation has been emphasized, and the regulatory role of in situ hydrogen production has been recognized. It was assumed that the availability of hydrogen may be a limiting factor for hydrogenotrophic methanogens. This hypothesis was tested under laboratory and field conditions by adding a mesophilic (Enterobacter cloacae) or thermophilic hydrogen-producing (Caldicellulosyruptor saccharolyticus) strain to natural biogas-producing consortia. The substrates were waste water sludge, dried plant biomass from Jerusalem artichoke, and pig manure. In all cases, a significant intensification of biogas production was observed. The composition of the generated biogas did not noticeably change. In addition to being a good hydrogen producer, C. saccharolyticus has cellulolytic activity; hence, it is particularly suitable when cellulose-containing biomass is fermented. The process was tested in a 5-m3 thermophilic biogas digester using pig manure slurry as a substrate. Biogas formation increased at least 160–170% upon addition of the hydrogen-producing bacteria as compared to the biogas production of the spontaneously formed microbial consortium. Using the hydrogenase-minus control strain provided evidence that the observed enhancement was due to interspecies hydrogen transfer. The on-going presence of C. saccharolyticus was demonstrated after several months of semicontinuous operation.

Keywords

Biogas Hydrogen Interspecies electron transfer Intensification Syntrophy Thermophilic 

References

  1. Achnich C, Bak F, Conrad R (1995a) Competition for electron donors among nitrate reducers, ferric iron reducers, sulfate reducers and methanogens in anoxic paddy soil. Biol Fertil Soils 19:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achnich C, Schuhmann A, Wind T, Conrad R (1995b) Role of interspecies H2 transfer to sulfate and ferric iron-reducing bacteria in acetate consumption in anoxic paddy soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 16:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahring BK (2003) Perspectives for anaerobic digestion. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 81:1–30Google Scholar
  4. Ahring BK, Westermann P (1988) Product inhibition of butyrate metabolism by acetate and hydrogen in a thermophilic coculture. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:2393–2397Google Scholar
  5. Ahring BK, Westermann P, Mah RA (1991) Hydrogen inhibition of acetate metabolism and kinetics of hydrogen consumption by Methanosarcina thermophila TM-1. Arch Microbiol 157:38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagi Z, Perei K, Rákhely G, Kovács KL (2004) Biotechnological procedure for the intensification of biogas production in a thermophilic system. Hungarian Patent no. P0402444/2004Google Scholar
  7. Bernstead J, Archer DB, Lloyd D (1990) Role of hydrogen in the growth of mutualistic methanogenic cocultures. In: Bélaich J-P, Bruschi M, Garcia J-L (eds) Microbiology and biochemistry of strict anaerobes involved in interspecies transfer. Plenum, New York, pp 161–171Google Scholar
  8. Boone DR, Bryant MP (1980) Propionate-degrading bacterium, Syntrophobacter wolinii sp. nov. gen. nov. from methanogenic ecosystems. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:626–632Google Scholar
  9. Bryant MP, Wolin EA, Wolin MJ, Wolfe RS (1967) Methanobacillus omelianskii, a symbiotic association of two species of bacteria. Arch Microbiol 59:20–31Google Scholar
  10. Cayol J-L, Fardeau M-L, Garcia J-L, Ollivier B (2002) Evidence of interspecies hydrogen transfer from glycerol in saline environments. Extremophiles 6:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conrad R, Bonjour F, Aragno M (1985a) Aerobic and anaerobic microbial consumption of hydrogen in geothermal spring water. FEMS Microbiol Lett 29:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad R, Phelps TJ, Zeikus JG (1985b) Gas metabolism evidence in support of juxtaposition of hydrogen-producing and methanogenic bacteria in sewage sludge and lake sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 50:595–601Google Scholar
  13. Conrad R, Lupton FS, Zeikus JG (1987) Hydrogen metabolism and sulfate-dependent inhibition of methanogenesis in eutrophic lake sediment (Lake Mendota). FEMS Microbiol Ecol 45:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Das D, Veziroglu TN (2001) Hydrogen production by biological processes: a survey of literature. Int J Hydrogen Energy 26:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolfing J (1985) Kinetics of methane formation by granular sludge at low substrate concentrations, the influence of mass transfer limitation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 22:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolfing J, Blomen WGBM (1985) Activity measurements as a tool to characterize the microbial composition of methanogenic environments. J Microbiol Methods 4:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernandez AS, Hashsham SA, Dollhope SL, Raskin L, Glagoleva O, Dazzo FB, Hickey RF, Criddle CS, Tiedje JM (2000) Flexible community structure correlates with stable community function in methanogenic bioreactor communities perturbed by glucose. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:4058–4067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray NF (2004) Biology of wastewater treatment (2nd edn.). Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Guyer W, Zehnder AJB (1982) Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 15:1457–1461Google Scholar
  20. Hallenbeck PC, Benemann JR (2002) Biological hydrogen production: fundamentals and limiting processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 27:1185–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hashsham SA, Fernandez AS, Dollhope SL, Dazzo FB, Hickley RF, Tiedje JM, Criddle CS (2000) Parallel processing of substrate correlates with greater functional stability in methanogenic bioreactor communities perturbed by glucose. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:4050–4057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofman-Bang J, Zheng D, Westermann P, Ahring BK, Raskin L (2003) Molecular ecology of anaerobic reactor systems. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 81:153–203Google Scholar
  23. Kovács KL, Polyák B (1991) Hydrogenase reactions and utilization of hydrogen in biogas production and microbiological denitrification systems. In: Proc. 4th IGT Symp. on Gas, Oil, and Environmental Biotechnology, Chapter 5, Colorado Springs, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  24. Kovács KL, Bagyinka C, Verebély I (1985) Procedure for the augmentation of biogas production in anaerobic fermentation using mixed bacterial populations. Hungarian Patent no. 195 978Google Scholar
  25. Kovács KL, Kovács ÁT, Maróti G, Bagi Z, Csanádi G, Perei K, Bálint B, Balogh J, Fülöp A, Mészáros LS, Tóth A, Dávid R, Latinovics D, Varga A, Rákhely G (2004) Improvement of biohydrogen production and intensification of biogas formation. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 3(3):321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krylova NI, Janssen PH, Conrad R (1997) Turnover of propionate in methanogenic paddy soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 23:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lettinga G, Haandel AC (1993) Anaerobic digestion for energy production and environmental protection. In: Johanson TB (ed) Renewable energy: sources for fuels and electricity. Island Press, California, pp 817–839Google Scholar
  28. Lovley DR, Dwyer DF, Klug MJ (1982) Kinetic analysis of competition between sulfate reducers and methanogens for hydrogen in sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 43:1373–1379Google Scholar
  29. Magalon A, Böck A (2000) Analysis of the HypC–HycE complex, a key intermediate in the assembly of the metal center of the Escherichia coli hydrogenase 3. J Biol Chem 275:21114–21120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miron YG, Zeeman G, van Lier JB, Lettinga G (2000) The role of sludge retention time in the hydrolysis and acidification of lipids, carbohydrates and proteins during digestion of primary sludge in CSTR systems. Water Res 34(5):1705–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pind PF, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK (2003) Dynamics of the anaerobic process: effects of volatile fatty acids. Biotechnol Bioeng 82(7):791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rainey FA, Donnison AM, Janssen PH, Saul D, Rodrigo A, Bergquist PL, Daniel RM, Stackebrandt E, Morgan HW (1994) Description of Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus gen. nov., sp. nov.: an obligately anaerobic, extremely thermophilic, cellulolytic bacterium. FEMS Microbiol Lett 120:263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual (2nd edn.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NYGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt JE, Ahring BK (1993) Effects of hydrogen and formate on the degradation of propionate and butyrate in thermophilic granules from an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:2546–2551Google Scholar
  35. Thiele JH, Zeikus JG (1988a) Control of interspecies electron flow during anaerobic digestion: significance of formate transfer versus hydrogen transfer during syntrophic methanogenesis in flocs. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:20–29Google Scholar
  36. Thiele JH, Zeikus JG (1988b) Interactions between hydrogen- and formate-producing bacteria and methanogens during anaerobic digestion. In: Erickson LE, Fung DY (eds) Handbook on anaerobic fermentation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 537–547Google Scholar
  37. Thiele JH, Chartrain M, Zeikus JG (1988) Control of interspecies electron flow during anaerobic digestion: role of floc formation in syntrophic methanogenesis. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:10–19Google Scholar
  38. van Niel EWJ, Budde MAW, de Haas GG, van der Wal FJ, Claassen PAM, Stams AJM (2002) Distinctive properties of high hydrogen producing extreme thermophiles, Caldicellulosyruptor saccharolyticus and Thermotoge elfi. Int J Hydrogen Energy 27:1391–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Niel EW, Claassen PAM, Stams AJM (2003) Substrate and product inhibition of hydrogen production by the extreme hyperthermophile, Caldicellulosyruptor saccharolyticus. Biotechnol Bioeng 81:255–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolin MJ (1975) Interspecies hydrogen transfer between H2-producing and methane-producing species. In: Schlegel HG, Gottschalk G, Pfenning N (eds) Symposium on microbial production and utilization of gases. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Göttingen, Germany, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  41. Wu W-M, Hickey RF, Zeikus JG (1991) Characterization of metabolic performance of methanogenic granules treating brewery wastewater: role of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:3438–3449Google Scholar
  42. Zeeman G, Lettinga G (1999) The role of anaerobic digestion of domestic sewage in closing the water and nutrient cycle at community level. Water Sci Technol 39(5):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zoltán Bagi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Norbert Ács
    • 1
    • 2
  • Balázs Bálint
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lenke Horváth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Krisztina Dobó
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katalin R. Perei
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gábor Rákhely
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kornél L. Kovács
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Biophysics, Biological Research CenterHungarian Academy of SciencesSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations