Journal of Applied & Environmental Microbiology
ISSN (Print): 2373-6747 ISSN (Online): 2373-6712 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/jaem Editor-in-chief: Sankar Narayan Sinha
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
Journal of Applied & Environmental Microbiology. 2014, 2(6), 294-302
DOI: 10.12691/jaem-2-6-5
Open AccessArticle

Microbial Population Dynamics during Anaerobic Digestion of Guinea Grass (Panicum maximum)

Ogbonna C. B.1, , Ibiene A. A.1 and Stanley H. O.1

1Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Science, College of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, P.M.B. 5323 Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Pub. Date: November 26, 2014

Cite this paper:
Ogbonna C. B., Ibiene A. A. and Stanley H. O.. Microbial Population Dynamics during Anaerobic Digestion of Guinea Grass (Panicum maximum). Journal of Applied & Environmental Microbiology. 2014; 2(6):294-302. doi: 10.12691/jaem-2-6-5

Abstract

The effect of rumen fluid on microbial population dynamics during anaerobic digestion of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) at ambient condition with respect to time was investigated. A one stage batch-typemesophilic anaerobic digestion system was configured using rumen fluid (RF) as inoculums (ADRF) and a low solid loading of approximately 7.0% total solid (TS). Physicochemical parameters such as process temperature (PTMRF), process pHRF, chemical oxygen demand (CODRF) and volatile fatty acid (VFARF) were monitored with time. Selected indicator microbial populations were monitored by standard cultural enumerations based on metabolic capacity and oxygen sensitivity with respect to time. Furthermore, their respective growth rates and population proportions were determined. Result showed that the average PTMRF increased from 27.5°C to 35.2°C while average process pHRF ranged from 6.5 to 7.9 with time, respectively. The CODRF decreased from 11,250.60 mg/L to 2,865.20 mg/L, while VFARF ranged from 1,080.00 mg/L to 4,800.33 mg/L with time, respectively. In terms of metabolic capacity, the populations of cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF), lactose fermenting bacteria (LFBRF) and glucose fermenting bacteria (GFBRF) ranged from 3.6 x 104 MPN/ml to 2.9 x 105 MPN/ml, 3.4 x 104 MPN/ml to 2.9 x 105 MPN/ml and 4.4 x 104 MPN/ml to 4.6 x 105 MPN/ml respectively with time. The populations of propionate oxidizing bacteria (POBRF), ethanol oxidizing bacteria (EOBRF) and acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF) ranged from 2.9 x 104 MPN/ml to 2.4 x 105 MPN/ml, 2.7 x 104 MPN/ml to 2.1 x 105 MPN/ml and 1.4 x 104 MPN/ml to 2.1 x 105 MPN/ml respectively with time. In terms of O2-sensitivity, the populations of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF) and facultative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria (FAABRF) ranged from 2.12 x 105 CFU/ml to 4.53 x 106 CFU/ml and 4.6 x 105 CFU/ml to 4.74 x 106 CFU/ml respectively with time. The population of GFBRF had the highest growth rate of 0.057 day-1 while the population of EOBRF had the lowest growth rate of 0.021 day-1. In terms of O2-sensitivity, the population of FAABRF had the highest growth rate of 0.051 day-1 compared to the population of OABRF with growth rate of 0.040 day-1. The population of GFBRF predominated (26.3%), while the population of AOMRF were the minority (10.44%). In terms of O2-sensitivity, the population of FAABRF predominated (56.73%) compared to the population of OABRF (43.23%). Rumen fluid significantly (p < 0.05) increased the microbial populations inside ADRF with respect to time. Therefore, rumen fluid could be used to boost the microbial population in anaerobic digesters as this could enhance depolymerisation, obtain higher degradation rates of cellulosic (or lignocellulosic) substrates and thus higher energy (biogas/methane) benefits.

Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion (AD) Guinea grass Rumen fluid microbial population dynamics

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Ahn, H.K., Smith, M.C., Konrad, S.L. and White, J.W. (2010). Evaluation of biogas production potential by dry anaerobic digestion of Switchgrass (Panicumvirgatum)-animal manure mixtures. Applied Biochemical Biotechnology, 160: 965-975.
 
[2]  Allison and Leek (1993). Rumen microbiology and fermentation in "Dukes’ Physiology of Domestic Animals" by Swenson & Reece, ed. (1993). "http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/," and others.
 
[3]  Aurora, S.P. (1983). Microbial Digestion in Ruminants. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
 
[4]  Azeem, K., Muhammad, A., Muzammil, A., Tariq, M. and Lorna, D. (2011). The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Management, 31: 1737-1744.
 
[5]  Barnes, S.P. and Keller, J. (2003). Cellulosic waste degradation by rumen-enhanced anaerobic digestion. Water Science Technology, 48: 155-162.
 
[6]  Barnes, S.P. and Keller, J. (2004). Anaerobic rumen SBR degradation of cellulosic material. Water Science Technology, 50: 305-311.
 
[7]  Beatrice, M.S., Jerry, D.M. and Catheria, M.O. (2009). What is the energy balance of grass biomethane in Ireland and other temperate northern European climates? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13: 2349-2360.
 
[8]  Bryant, M.P. (1972). Commentary on Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 25: 1324-1327.
 
[9]  Buchauer, K. (1998). A Comparison of Two Simple Titration Procedures to Determine the Concentration of Volatile Fatty Acids in Influents of Waste Water and Sludge Treatment Procedures. Water SA, 24 (1): 49-56.
 
[10]  Budiyono, Widiasa, Seno Johari, Sunaro, (2009). Increasing biogas production rate from cattle manure using rumen fluid as inoculums. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 10: 1.
 
[11]  Chanakya, H.N. and Sreesha, M. (2012). Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy from Agro-Residues and other solid wastes-An over view of science, technology and sustainability. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, 92:1
 
[12]  Chanakya, H.N., Ramachandra, T.V., and Vijayachamundeeswari, M. (2007). Resource recovery potential from secondary components of segregated municipal solid wastes. Environ. Monitoring Assessment, 135: 119-127.
 
[13]  Claudia, J.S.L., Marisol, V.M., Mariela, C.A. and Edgar, F.C.M (2009). Microbiological characterization and specific methanogenic activity of anaerobe sludge used in urban solid waste treatment. Waste Management, 29: 704-711.
 
[14]  Cuzin, N., Farinet, L.J., Segretain, C. and Labat, M. (1992). Methanogenic Fermentation of Cassava Peel Using a Pilot Plug Flow Digester. Bioresource Technology, 41: 259-264.
 
[15]  Dalhoff, R., Rababah, A., Sonakya, V., Raizada, N. and Wilderer, P.A. (2003). Membrane separation to improve degradation of road side grass by rumen enhanced solid incubation. Water Science Technology, 48: 163-168.
 
[16]  Diaz, M., Espitia, V. and Molina, P. (2002). Anaerobic Digestion: One approximation to technology. First edition. Institute of Biotechnology, National University of Colombia, Bogota, Colombia.
 
[17]  Dong, L., Zhenhong, Y., Yongming, S., Xiaoying, K. and Yu, Z. (2009). Hydrogen production characteristics of organic fraction of municipal solid wastes by anaerobic mixed culture fermentation. Int. J. Hydr. Energy, 34: 812-820.
 
[18]  Dubey, R.C. and Maheshwari, D.K. (2008). Practical Microbiology. Chand, S. and Company Ltd Ram Nagar, New Delhi-110055, p. 184-185.
 
[19]  Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I. and Sales, D. (2007). Dry-thermophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of the municipal solid waste: focusing on the inoculum sources. Bioresources and Technology, 98: 3195-3203.
 
[20]  Gerin P.A., Vliegen, F. and Jossart, J.M. (2008). Energy and CO2 balance of maize and grass as energy crops for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology, 99 (7): 2620-2627.
 
[21]  Hobson, P.N., and Shaw, B.G. (1973). The bacterial population of piggery-waste anaerobic digesters. Water Research, 8: 507-516.
 
[22]  Hu, Z.H. and Yu, H.Q. (2005). Application of rumen microorganisms for enhanced anaerobic fermentation of Corn Stover. Process Biochemistry, 40: 2371-2377.
 
[23]  Iannotti, E.L., Fischer, J.R. and Sievers, D.M. (1978) Medium for the enumeration and isolation of bacteria from a swine waste digester. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 36: 555-566.
 
[24]  Jagadabhi, P. S., Kaparaju, P. and Rintala, J. (2010). Application of rumen cultures to enhance hydrolysis during anaerobic digestion of grass silage in one stage leach bed reactors. Manuscript.
 
[25]  Kim, J.K., Nhat, L., Chun, Y.N. and Kim, S.W. (2008). Hydrogen production condition from food waste by dark fermentation with Clostridium beijerinckii KCTC 1785. Journal of Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering, 13: 499-504.
 
[26]  Labat, M. and Garcia, J.L. (1986). Study on the development of methanogenicmicroflora during anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pulp. Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,25: 163-168.
 
[27]  Lesteur, M., Bellon-Maurel, V., Gonzalez, C., Latrille, E., Roger, J.M., Junqua, G. and Steyer, J.P. (2010). Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: a review. Process Biochemistry, 45: 431-440.
 
[28]  Ljupka, A. (2010). Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product. An M.S. Thesis: Submitted to the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University.
 
[29]  Lopes, W.S., Leite, V.D. and Prasad, S. (2004). Influence of inoculum on performance of anaerobic reactors for treating municipal solid waste. Bioresources and Technology, 94: 261-266.
 
[30]  O’Sullivan, C.A., Burrell, P.C., Clarke, W.P. and Blackall, L.L. (2006). Comparison of cellulose solubilisation rates in rumen and landfill leachate inoculated reactors. Bioresource Technology, 97: 2356-2363.
 
[31]  Oblinger, J.L. and Koburger, J.A. (1975). "Understanding and Teaching the Most Probable Number Technique." Journal of Milk Food Technology, 38 (9): 540-545.
 
[32]  Ralph, S. W. (2011). Techniques for Cultivating Methanogens. Methods in enzymology, 494: 1-22.
 
[33]  Reaffirmed (2006). Experiment on the Determination of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Indian Standard (IS): 3025 (Part 58).
 
[34]  Schnurer, A. and A. Jarvis (2010). Microbiological handbook for biogas plants. Swedish Gas Centre Report 207, pp: 13-138.
 
[35]  Susan, B.L. (1995). Cellulose degradation in anaerobic environments. Annual Reviews of Microbiology, 49: 399-426.
 
[36]  Themelis, N.J. and Ulloa, P.A. (2007). Methane generation in landfills. Renewable Energy, 32: 1243-1257.
 
[37]  Ueki, A., Miyagawa, E., Minato, H., Huma, T., and Suto, T. (1978) Enumeration and isolation of anaerobic bacteria in sewage digestor fluids. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology, 24: 317-332.
 
[38]  USEPA methods 1684 (2001). Total, fixed and volatile solids in water, solids and bio-solids. Draft, pp: 11-13.
 
[39]  Uzodinma, E.O. and Ofoefule, A.U. (2009). Biogas production from blends of field grass (Panicum maximum) with some animal wastes. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 4 (2): 91-95.
 
[40]  Yadvika, S., Sreekrishnan, T.R., Kohli, S. and Rana, V. (2004). Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniques-a review. Bioresource Technology, 95: 1-10.
 
[41]  Yassar, H.F. (2011). Feasibility of compact, high-rate anaerobic digesters for biogas generation at small dairy farms. NYSERDA 9888, Report 11-02. Albany, NY www.nyserda.org.
 
[42]  Yu, H. and Huang, G.H. (2009). Effects of sodium as a pH control amendment on the composting of food waste. Bioresources and Technology, 100: 2005-2011.
 
[43]  Yue, Z.B., Yu, H.Q., Harada, H., and Li, Y.Y. (2007). Optimization of anaerobic acidogenesis of an aquatic plant, Canna indica L., by rumen cultures. Water Research, 41: 2361-2370.