Eco-Friendly Post-Consumer Waste Management Utilizing Vermitechnology

  • M. Vasanthy
  • V. Sivasankar
  • M. Prabhakaran
  • A. Karthika
  • D. Tamilselvi
  • Kiyoshi Omine
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Solid waste could be defined as the unwanted solid fractions which are generated from domestic and commercial sectors, trade centres, industrial activities, agricultural practices, various institutions and mining activities. Out of the various categories of municipal solid waste, post-consumer waste was of our concern as these wastes are no longer recycled and have the possibility of creating aesthetic pollution in particular. One of the post-consumer wastes is the paper cups which are found in large quantum occupying the MSW. Though there exists many numbers of techniques to manage these wastes, vermitechnology was found to be the simplest, cost-effective methodology for its management. Equal ratio of paper cup waste and cow dung was formed to get decomposed into manure with a C/N ratio<20 within a period of 19 weeks due to the activity of Eudrilus eugeniae. The bacterial strains such as Bacillus anthracis (KM289159), Bacillus endophyticus (KM289167), Bacillus funiculus (KM289165), Virigibacillius chiquenigi (KM289163), Bacillus thuringiensis (KM289164), Bacillus cereus (KM289160), Bacillus toyonensis (KM289161), Acinetobacter baumannii (KM289162) and Lactobacillus pantheries (KM289166) were identified and are confirmed by 16srRNA sequencing. The enzymes such as amylase, cellulose and protease were assayed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Further the cellulose degradation was confirmed with the bacterial consortia using high performance liquid chromatography(HPLC) analysis. The arearetention (380,620–245,696) and height reduction (6061–3303) confirmed the same. The change in the catalase, glutathione-S-transferase, and glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase was recorded. On comparison, the SOD is found to vary during the paper cup decomposition and thus the parameter acts as a biomarker. During the plastic separation from the paper cup by the earthworm in the 8th week, the morphological and histological changes were also recorded. But it was clear that the earthworms required their lost weight when introduced into fresh waste again. Hence, vermicomposting is one of the eco-friendly methods for the post-consumer waste degradation.

Keywords

Municipal Solids Waste Post-Consumer Waste Eudrilus eugeniae Vermicomposting 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors from Bharathidasan University acknowledge the UGC-NON SAP, DST-FIST for providing the necessary facilities in the department and expresses thanks to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change (MoEF), New Delhi for the sanctioning of the project.

References

  1. Abbasi SA, Ramasamy EV (2001) Solid waste management with earthworms. Discovering Publication House, New Delhi, pp. 1–178Google Scholar
  2. Ahsan N (1999) Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Ind J Environ Protect 19(2):90–95Google Scholar
  3. Aira M, Monroy F, Dominguez J (2005) Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) activates fungal growth triggering cellulose decomposition during vermicomposting. Microb Ecol 52:738–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akiba S, Kimura Y, Yamamoto K, Kumagai H (1995) Purification and characterization of a protease-resistant cellulase from Aspergillus niger. J Fermentat Bioeng 79:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allison SD, Gartner TB, Holland K, Weintraub M, Sinsabaugh RL (2007) Soil enzymes: linking proteomics and ecological processes. In: Hurst CJ, Crawford RL, Garland JL, Lipson DA, Mills AL, Stetzenbach LD (eds) Manual of environmental microbiology, 3rd edn. ASM, Washington, DC, pp 704–711Google Scholar
  6. Alwin A, Prem A, Sripathi K (2004) Digestion of cellulose and xylan by symbiotic bacteria in the intestine of the Indian flying fox (Pteropusgiganteus). Acta Chiropterologica 14:233–239Google Scholar
  7. Ambulkar AR, Shekdar AV (2004) Prospects of biomethanation technology in Indian context: a pragmatic approach. J Resour Conserv Recycl 40(2):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ansari AA, Sukhraj K (2010) Effect of vermiwash and vermicompost on soil parameters and productivity of okra (abelmoschusesculentus) in Guyana Pakistan. J Agric Res 123(3–4):137–142Google Scholar
  9. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Welch C, Metzger JD (2004) Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries-1: effects on growth and yields. Bioresour Technol 93:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atiyeh RM, Dominguez J, Subler S, Edwards CA (2000) Change in biochemical properties of cow manure processed by earthworms (Eisenia andreii) and their effect on plant growth. Pedobilogia 44:709–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bansal N, Tewari R, Soni R, Soni SK (2012) Production of cellulase from Aspergillus niger NS- in solid state fermentation on agricultural and kitchen waste residues. Waste Manage 32:1341–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ben-David EA, Zaady E, Sher Y, Nejiday A (2011) Assessment of the spatial distributionof soil microbial communities in patchy arid and semi arid landscapes of the Negev Desert using combined PLFA and DGGE analyses. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhawalkar VU, Bhawalkar US (1993) Vermiculture: the Bionutrition System. National Seminar on Indigenous Technology for Sustainable Agriculture I.A.R.I. New Delhi, March 23–24:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Bijayani B, Sachin K, Singh RK (2013) Production of hydrocarbon liquid by thermal pyrolysis of paper cup waste. J Waste Management 2013:7Google Scholar
  15. Brown GG (1995) How do earthworms affect microfloral and faunal community diversity? Plant and Soil 170:209–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CanesiL CC, Lorusso LC, Betti M, Gallo G, Pojana G (2007) Effect of triclosan on Mytilus galloprovincialts heomocyte function and digestive gland enzyme activities: possible modes of action on non target organism. Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol Toxicol Endocrinol 145:464–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chakrabarty P, Srivastava VK, Chakrabarti SN (1995) Solid waste disposal and the environment—a review. Ind J Environ Protect 15(1):39–43Google Scholar
  18. CPCB (2000) Status of municipal solid waste generation, collection, treatment and disposal in Class I CitiesGoogle Scholar
  19. Dominquez J, Aira M, Gomez-Brandon M (2010) Vermicomposting: earthworm enhances the work of microbs. In: Insam H, Franke-Whittle I, Goberna M (eds) Microbes at work: from waste to resources. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Echeverria MC, Cardelli R, Bedini S, Agnolucci M, Cristani C, Saviozzi A, Nuti M (2011) Composting wet olive husks with a starter based on oil-depleted husks enhances compost humification. Compost Sci Utiliz 19:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Esakku S, Swaminathan A, Parthiba KO, Kurian J, Palanivelu K (2007) Municipal solid waste management in Chennai city, India Proceedings Sardinia. Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  23. Federici E, Pepi M, Esposito A, Scargetta S, FidatinL GS, Cenci G, Altieri R (2011) Two phase olive mill waste composting: community dynamics and functional role of resident microbiota. Bioresour Technol 102:10965–10972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flohe L (1982) Glutathione peroxidise brought into focus. In: Mason RP (ed) Free radicals in biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gajalakshim S, Ramasamy EV, Abbasi SA (2001) Potential of two epigeic and two anecic species in vermicomposting of water hyacinth. Bioresour Technol 76:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garg S, Prasad B (2003) Plastic waste generation and recycling in Chandigarh. Ind J Environ Protect 23(2):121–125Google Scholar
  27. Gea T, Ferrer P, Alvaro G, Valero F, Artola A, Sancez A (2007) Co Composting of sewage sludge: fats mixture and characteristics of lipase involved. Bio Chem Eng J 33:275–283Google Scholar
  28. Ghosh C (2004) Integrated vermin—pisciculture—an alternative option for recycling of municipal solid waste in rural India. J Bioresour Technol 93(1):71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gomez-Brandon M, Aira M, Lores M, Dominquez J (2011) Epigeic earthworms exert a bottleneck effect on microbial communities through gut associated processes. PLoS One 6:24786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graff O (1981) Preliminary experiments of vermicomposting of different waste material using Eudriluseugeniae Kinberg. In Workshop on the Role of Earthworms in the Stabilization of Organic Residues M. Appelhof, Compiler 1:179–191Google Scholar
  31. Gupta PK, Jha AK, Koul S, Sharma P, Pradhan V, Gupta V, Sharma C, Singh N (2007) Methane and nitrous oxide emission from bovine manure management practices in India. J Environ Pollut 146(1):219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Habibu Nisha, M (2014) Dynamics of microbial communities related to enzymatic activities during vermicomposting maturation of cotton wastes. M.Phil. dissertation. Bharathidasan University, TrichyGoogle Scholar
  33. Hand P, Hayes WA, Frankland JC, Satchell JE (1988) The vermicomposting of cow slurry. In: Earthworms in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 49–63Google Scholar
  34. Hashim SO, Delgado OD, Martinez MA, Kaul RH, Mulaa FJ, Mattiasson B (2005) Alkaline active maltohexaose forming α- amylase from bacillus halodurans LBK 34. Enzyme Microbial Technol 36:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Immanuel G, Dhanusa R, Prema P, Palavesam A (2006) Effect of different growth parameters on endoglucanase enzyme activity by bacteria isolated from coir retting effluents of estuarine environment. Int J Environ Sci Tech 3(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ingrid H, Franke W, Alberto C, Heribert I, Mirko S, Ina K (2014) Changes in the microbial communities during co-composting of digestates. Waste Manag 34(3):632–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jha MK, Sondhi OAK, Pansare M (2003) Solid waste management—a case study. Ind J Environ Protect 23(10):1153–1160Google Scholar
  38. Kansal A (2002) Solid waste management strategies for India. Ind J Environ Protect 22(4):444–448Google Scholar
  39. Karthika A (2015) Vermitechnological approach for degrading disposable paper cup wastes by employing Eudrilus eugeniae—an ecofriendly solution to solid waste pollution. Ph.D. Thesis. Bharathidasan University. TrichyGoogle Scholar
  40. Karthika A, Anbuarasi V, Vasanthy M, Seetha DG, Swabna V, Susila S (2014b) Role of micro organisms in Temple wastes management assisted by Eudrillus eugenia. Malays J Sci 33(1):50–62Google Scholar
  41. Karthika A, Seetha DG, Vasanthy M, Swabna V, Susila S, Vivekanadhan M (2014a) Potentiality of Eisenia fetida to degrade disposable paper cup waste—an eco friendly solution to solid waste pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3456-9 Google Scholar
  42. Karthika A, Vasanthy M, Seetha DG, Susila S, Swabna V (2014c) Postconsumer waste management by virtue of vermicomposting with the help of leaf litter. Ind J Chem Biol Phys Sci 4(2):1765–1772. http://www.jcbsc.org/journal/Paper/Vol4(I2)2014/D17.pdf
  43. Karthika A, Vasanthy M, Seetha DG, Swabna V (2015) Efficacy of vermicomposting for recycling Tectona grandis and Casuarina leaf litter for organic fertilizer production. Ind J Adv Chem Sci 3(2):122–127Google Scholar
  44. Kaur K, Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2010) Nutritional evaluation of Pleurotus florida harvested spent wheat-rice straw based diets in goats. Ind J Anim Sci 80(8):750–753Google Scholar
  45. Kaushik P, Garg VK (2004) Dynamics of biological and chemical parameters during vermicomposting of solid textile mill sludge mixed with cow dung and agricultural residues. Bioresour Technol 94:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kennedy G Dixie cup (2012) Appollo glossary, NASA 2–6Google Scholar
  47. Khan RR (1994) Environmental management of municipal solid wastes. Ind J Environ Protect 14(1):26–30Google Scholar
  48. Kumar V, Singh KP (2001) Enriching vermicompost by nitrogen fixing and phosphate solublilizing bacteria. Bioresour Technol 76:173–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lakshmi P, Indira AJ, Jeyaraaj R, Srinivasa R (2007) Comparative studies on the digestive enzymes in the gut of earthworm Eudrillus Eugenia and Eisenia fetida. Indian J Biotechnol 6:567–569Google Scholar
  50. Lapied E, Moudilou E, Exbrayat JM, Oughton DH, Joner EJ (2010) Silvernano particles exposure causes apoptotic response in the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris (oligochaeta). Nanomed 5:975–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lattaud C, Zhang BG, Locati S, Rouland C, Lavelle P (1997) Activities of the digestive enzymes in the gut and in tissue culture of a tropical geophagous earthworm, Polypheretima elongata (megascolecidae). Soil Biol Biochem 29(314):335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Laverack MS (1963) The physiology of earthworms. Pergamon Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lebayon RC, Binet F (2006) Earthworm changes the distribution and availability of phosphorus in organic substrates. Soil Biol Biochem 38:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lehninger AL, Nelson DL, Cox MM (1993) Principles of biochemistry, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Maboeta MS, Van RL (2003) Vermicomposting of industrially produced wood chips and sewage sludge utilizing Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 56(2):265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Madhuri N, Garama D, Jyoti D, Kiran K, Datta M, Amita R (2014) Production, purification, characterization od novel GH 12 family endogulcanase from Aspergillus terreus and its application in enzymatic degradation of delignified rice straw. Int Biodeter Biodegr 88:152–161Google Scholar
  57. Maki M, Leung KT, Qin W (2009) The prospects of cellular producing bacteria for the bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Int J BioSci 5:500–516Google Scholar
  58. Mannervik B (1987) The enzymes of glutathione metabolism: an overview. Biochem Soc Trans 15(4):717–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maria G, Velasco PA, Nickolas T (2011) Generation and disposition of municipal solid waste in Mexico and potential for improving waste management in Toluca Municipality. Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT)Google Scholar
  60. Marx MC, Wood M, Javis S (2001) A microplate fluorimetric assay for the study of enzymes diversity in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1633–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Michiels C, Raes M, Toussaint O, Remacle J (1994) Importance of Se-glutathione peroxidase, catalase, and Cu/Zn-SOD for cell survival against oxidative stress. Free Radic Biol Med 17:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification (2011) 12th May 2011 on e-waste (Management and Handling) Rules. moef.nic.in/downloads/rules-and-regulations/1035e_eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
  63. Miranda M, Michael D, Kam TL, Wensheng Q (2011) Characterization of some efficient cellulose producing bacteria isolated from paper mill sludges and organic fertilizers. Int J Biochem Mol Biol 2:146–154Google Scholar
  64. MOEF (2000) Municipal solid waste management and handling rules. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  65. Mor S, Ravindra K, Visscher AD, Dahiya RP, Chandra A (2006) Municipal solid waste characterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: a case study. J Sci Total Environ 371(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nair J, Kuruvilla M, Goen H (2007) Earthworms and composting worms-Basics towards composting applications. Paper at ‘Water for All Life-A Decentralised Infrastructure for a Sustainable Future Marriott Water front Hotel, Baltimore, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Nannipieri P, Ceccanti B, Cervelli S, Matarese E (1980) Extraction of phosphatase, urease, protease, organic carbon and nitrogen from soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:1011–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Northwood T, Oakley-Hill D (1999) Wastebook. Luton friends of earth, Environment agency and the building research establishment.Google Scholar
  69. Parmik P, Ghosh GK, Ghosal PK, Banik P (2007) Changes in organic C, N, P and K and enzyme activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under liming and microbial inoculants. Bioresour Technol 98:2485–2494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pason P, Kosugi A, Waeonukul R, Tachappaikoon C, Ratanakhanokchai K, Arial T, Murata Y, Nakajima J, Mori Y (2010) Purification and characterization of a multienzyme complex produced by Paenibacillus curdianalyticus B-6. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Paul EA, Clark FE (1996) Soil microbiology and biochemistry, 2nd edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  72. Portillo M, Villahermosa D, Corzo A, Gonzalez J (2011) Microbial community fingerprinting by different display- denturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl Environ Microiol 77:351–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ranjith K, Annepu NJ, Themelis ST (2012) Sustainable Solid Waste Management in India Columbia University in the City of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. Rob M (2007) Tully’s Coffee and International Paper Introduce Fully Renewable and Compostable Paper CupGoogle Scholar
  75. Sabatini SE, Juarez AB, Eppis MR, Bianchi L, Luquet CM, Rios De Molina MC (2009) Oxidative stress and antioxidant defenses in two green microalgae exposed to copper. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 72(4):1200–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sahnouna M, Bejara S, Sayaria A, Triki MA, Kammoun R (2012) Production, purification and characterization of two α- amylase isoforms from a newly isolated Aspergillus Oryzae strain S2 process. Biochem 47:18–25Google Scholar
  77. Sai K (2013) Bioconversion of postconsumer waste material into vermicompost by using Eisenia fetida and Eudrillus eugeniae. M. Phil Dissertation. Bharathidasan University, TrichyGoogle Scholar
  78. Sang JH, Yong JY, Hyen SK (1995) Characterization of a bi functional cellulose and its structural gene. J Biol Chem 270(43):26012–26019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sannigrahi AK, Chakrabortty S (2002) Beneficial management of organic waste by vermicomposting. Ind J Environ Protect 22(4):405–408Google Scholar
  80. Schönholzer F, Hahn D, Zeyer J (1999) Origin and fate of fungi and bacteria in the gut of L. terrestris L. studied by image analysis. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 28:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Seetha DG, Karthiga A, Susila S, Vasanthy M (2012) Bioconversion of fruit waste into vermicompost by employing Eudrillus eugeniae and Eisenia fetida. Int J Plant Animal Environ Sci 2(4):245–252. ISSN:2231–4490. http://www.ijpaes.com/admin/php/uploads/262_pdf.pdf
  82. Senesi N (1989) Composted materials as organic fertilizers. Sci Total Environ 81(82):521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Senesi N, Brunetti G (1996) Chemical and physic chemical parameters for quality evaluation sewage sludge using Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol Environ 56:256–270Google Scholar
  84. Shankar T, Mariappan V, Isaiarasu L (2011) Screening cellulolytic bacteria from the mid gut of the popular composting earthworm Eudrillus eugeniae. World J Zool 6(2):142–148Google Scholar
  85. Sharpey AN, Syers JK (1976) Potential role of Earthworm casts for the phosphorus enrichment of runoff waters. J Soil Biol Biochem 8:341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simibe MM, Banni S, Angioni E, Corta G, De Migeio WMR, Muroni MR, Calvisc DF, Canu A, Pascale RM, Feo F (2001) 5-Methyl thioadenosine administration prevents lipid peroxidation and fibrogenesis induced in rat liver by carbon tetrachloride intoxication. J Hepatol 34:386–394, Soil, Plant, and Environment. Int J Innov Res Sci, Eng Technol 3:1Google Scholar
  87. Srivastava PK, Kushreshtha K, Mohanty CS, Pushpangadan P, Singh A (2005) Stakeholder-based SWOT analysis for successful municipal solid waste management in Lucknow, India. J Waste Manage 25(5):531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Suhane RK (2007) Vermicompost (In Hindi); Pub. of Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Bihar 88 (www.kvksmp.org) (Email:info@kvksmp.org)
  89. Suthar S (2010) Recycling of agro-industrial sludge through vermictechnology. Ecol Engg 36:703–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tandon HLS (2009) Methods of analysis of soils plants, waters, fertilisers and organicmanurees. FDCO, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  92. Thiruneelakandan R, Subbulakshmi G (2014) Vermicomposting: a superlative for soil, plant, and environment. Int J Innov Res Sci Engg Technol 3:1Google Scholar
  93. Tiquia SM (2001) Evaluation of extra cellular enzyme activities during manure composting. J Appl Microbiol 92(4):764–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tomati U, Galli E, Pasetti L, Volterra E (1995) Bioremediation of olive mill waste waters by composting. Waste Manage Res 13:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Trasar-Cepeda C, Hernández T, García C, Rad C, González-Carcedo S (eds) (2012) Soil enzymology in the recycling of organic wastes and environmental restoration. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  96. Tripathi G, Bhardwaj P (2004) Comparative study on biomass production, life cycle and efficiency of Eisenia foetida (Savigny) and Lampitomauritii (Kingberg). Bioresour Technol 92:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Urbasek F, Pizl V (1991) Activity of digestive enzymes in the gut of five earthworm species (Oligochaeta; Lumbricidae). Revue d’ Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol 28(4):461–468Google Scholar
  98. Vaidya (2014) Zinc sulphate induced changes in xanthine oxidase activity in different tissues of the earthworm. Perionyx excavates Appl Res Dev Inst J 12(10):50–53Google Scholar
  99. Vargas-Garcia MC, Suarez EF, Lopez MJ, Moreno J (2010) Microbial population dynamics and enzyme activities i composting process with different starting material. Waste Manag 30:771–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Viljoen SA, Reinecke AR (1992) The temperature requirements of the epigeic earthworm species Eudrillus eugeniae (Oligochaeta)—a laboratory study. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1345–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Virendra SB, Tarun KG (1981) Biodegradation of cellulosic materials: substrates, microorganisms, enzymes and products. Enzyme Microb Technol 3Google Scholar
  102. Yasir M, Aslam Z, Kim SW, Lee SW, Jeon CO, Chung YR (2009) Bacterial community composition and chitinase gene diversity of vermicompost with antifungal activity. Bioresour Technol 100(19):4396–4403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yung CL, Ganesh DS, Wen MC, Ming DB, Jo SC (2009) Isolation of cellulose hydrolytic bacteria and applications of the cellulolytic enzymes for cellulosic biohydrogen production. Enzymes Micro Technol 44:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zeng G, Yu Z, Chen Y, Zhang J, Li H, Yu M, Zhao M (2001) Response of compost maturity and microbial community composition to pentachlorophenol (PCP)- contaminated soil during composting. Bioresour Technol 102:5905–5911CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Vasanthy
    • 1
  • V. Sivasankar
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Prabhakaran
    • 4
  • A. Karthika
    • 1
  • D. Tamilselvi
    • 1
  • Kiyoshi Omine
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Biotechnology, School of Environmental SciencesBharathidasan UniversityTiruchirappalliIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, School of EngineeringNagasaki University, Nagasaki-DaigakuNagasakiJapan
  3. 3.Post Graduate and Research Department of ChemistryPachaiyappa’s CollegeChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Post Graduate and Research Department of BotanyPachaiyappa’s CollegeChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations