Advertisement

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 25–31 | Cite as

Inactivation of virus during anaerobic digestion of manure in laboratory scale biogas reactors

  • Bente Lund
  • Vibeke Frøkjær Jensen
  • Per Have
  • Birgitte Ahring
Article

Abstract

Reduction of porcine parvovirus, bovine enterovirus and faecal enterococci were measured in biogas reactors continuously run on manure and manure supplemented with household waste at 35°C and 55°C and in batch test run at 70°C. The aim of the experiments was to study the sanitation effect of anaerobic digestion and to evaluate the use of faecal enterococci as an indicator of sanitation. Parallel studies on the reduction of virus and faecal enterococci were done in physiological saline solution. Heat ínactivation was found to be an important factor in thermophilic biogas plants and the overall dominant factor at 70°C. However, other environmental factors with a substantial virucidal and bactericidal effect were involved in inactivation. The death rates for faecal enterococci were generally higher than for porcine parvovirus and lower than for bovine enterovirus. For faecal enterococci, a logarithmic reduction of 4 (corresponding to the recommended minimum guaranteed retention time) was obtained after 300 hours at 35°C and after 1–2 hours at 55°C. In continuously-fed reactors, a high reduction rate was initially seen for the virus tested, followed by a reduction in the rate. For porcine parvovirus, a minimum guaranteed retention time of 11–12 hours is necessary at 55°C in the initial phase (0–4 hours) and 54 hours hereafter (4–48 h). Correspondingly, for bovine enterovirus a MGRT of 23 hours was necessary at 35°C and < 0.5 hours at 55°C. The data indicate that faecal enterococci measurements give a good indication of inactivation of enterovirus and other more heat sensitive virus, especially under thermophilic conditions. Parvovirus is very suitable for comparative investigations on inactivation in the temperature range of 50–80°C, due to the extreme thermal resistance of this virus. However, in stipulating sanitation demands for biogas reactors it seems more reasonable to use less resistant virus, such as a reovirus or picornavirus, which better represents the pathogenic animal virus.

Key words

biogas indicator manure pathogen virus-reduction 

Abbreviations

BEV

bovine enterovirus

CFU

colony forming unit

FE

faecal enterococci

HRT

hydraulic retention time

MGRT

minimum guaranteed retention time

ND

not detected

PPV

porcine parvovirus

TCID50

tissue cell infective dose 50 %

VFA

volatile fatty acids

VS

volatile solids

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelidaki I (1992) Anaerobic thermophilic biogasreactor process: The effect of lipids and ammonia. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Biotechnology, The Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelidaki I & Ahring BK (1993) Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of livestock waste: The effect of ammonia. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 38: 560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg G & Berman D (1980) Destruction by anaerobic mesophilic and thermophilic digestion of viruses and indicator bacteria indigenous to domestic sludges. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 39: 361–368Google Scholar
  4. Bendixen HJ (1994) Safeguards against pathogens in Danish biogas plants.Proc. 7th. Int. Symp. on Anaerobic Digestion, Cape Town, South Africa. 629–638Google Scholar
  5. Bennetsen O & Mikkelsen US (1993) FS-metodens anvendelighed som hygiejnisk kontrolparameter (In Danish). Dansk Veterinær Tidskrift 76: 597–656Google Scholar
  6. Bøtner A (1990) Modelstudier vedr. overlevelse af virus i gylle under traditionel opbevaring og under udrådning i biogasanlæg. Delprojekt 1. Veterinær forskning og rådgivning i forbindelse med etablering og drift af biogasfællesanlæg (In Danish). Statens Veterinære Institut for virusforskning, 64 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Bøtner A (1991) Survival of Aujeszky's disease virus in slurry of various temperatures. Veter. Microbiol. 29: 225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng MY & Cliver DO (1992) Inactivation of Poliovirus Type 1 in Mixed Human and Swine Wastes and Bacteria from Swine Manure. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. June 1992: 2016–2021Google Scholar
  9. Derbyshire JB, Monteith HD & Shannon EE (1986) Virological Studies on an Anaerobic Digestion System for Liquid Pig Manure. Agric. Wastes 18: 309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ilsøe B (1993) Smitterisici ved genanvendelse af organisk affald. (In Danish) Dansk Veterinær Tidsskrift 76: 77–86Google Scholar
  11. Lund E, Lydholm B & Nielsen AL (1983) The Fate of viruses during sludge stabilization especially during thermophilic digestion. In: Bruce AM, Havelaar AH & Hermite P (Eds) Disinfection of Sewage Sludge: Technical, Economic and Microbiological Aspects. Proceedings of a Workshop in Zürich, 11–13 May 1982Google Scholar
  12. McKain N & Hobson PN (1987) A Note on the Destruction of Porcine Enteroviruses in Anaerobic Digestions. Biol. Wastes 22: 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Monteith HD, Shannon EE & Derbyshire JB (1986) The inactivation of a bovine enterovirus and a bovine parvovirus in cattle manure by anaerobic digestion, heat treatment, gammairridiation, ensilage and composting. J. Hygiene, Camb. 97: 175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Munch B & Larsen AB (1990) Forsknings-og overvågningsprogram for biogasanlæg (In Danish). SVS and KVL, 187 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Srivistava RN & Lund E (1980) The stability of bovine parvovirus and its possible use as an indicator for the persistence of enteric viruses. Wat. Res. 14: 1017–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Strauch & Carrington (1992) Hygienic aspects related to treatment and sanitary aspects of slurries and manures. In: Treatment and use of sewage sludge and liquid wastes. Review of COST 68/681 programme 1972–1990. Hall JL, L'Hermite PL & Newman PJ (Eds)Google Scholar
  17. Traub F, Spillmann SK & Wyler R (1986) Method for Determining Virusinactivation during Sludge Treatment Process. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.: 498–503Google Scholar
  18. Tafdrup S (1994) Centralized biogas plants combine agricultural and environmental benefits with energy production. Proc. 7th. International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, Cape Town, South Africa. 460–468Google Scholar
  19. Ward RL, Ashley CS & Moseley RH (1976) Heat Inactivation of Poliovirus in Wastewater Sludges. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 32: 339–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ward RL & Ashley CS (1977) Identification of the Virucidal Agent in Wastewater Sludges. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33: 860–864PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bente Lund
    • 1
  • Vibeke Frøkjær Jensen
    • 2
  • Per Have
    • 2
  • Birgitte Ahring
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyDanish Technological InstituteTaastrupDenmark
  2. 2.Danisch Veterinary Institute for Virus ResearchMinistry of AgricultureKalvehaveDenmark

Personalised recommendations