Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Relationship between Temperature, Ph and Population of Selected Microbial Indicators during Anaerobic Digestion of Guinea Grass (Panicum Maximum)

Ogbonna. C. B.*, Berebon. D. P., Onwuegbu. E. K.

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

Abstract: In this study, the relationship between process temperature, process pH and population of selected microbial indicators during anaerobic digestion of guinea grass (Panicum maximum) at ambient condition was investigated. A one stage batch-type mesophilic 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 and volatile fatty acid (VFARF) were monitored with time. Selected indicator microbial populations were monitored by standard cultural techniques based on metabolic capacity and oxygen sensitivity with respect to time. Result showed that average PTMRF increased from 27.5°C to 35.2°C, average process pHRF ranged from 6.5 to 7.9 and VFARF ranged from 1,080.00 mg/L to 4,800.33 mg/L with time. In terms of metabolic capacity and oxygen sensitivity, the populations of cellulolytic bacteria (CBRF), lactose and glucose fermenting (acidogenic) bacteria (LFBRF and GFBRF), propionate and ethanol oxidizing (acetogenic) bacteria (POBRF and EOBRF), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF) increased (about 10-fold) respectively with time. Correlation analysis showed positive relationships between the process temperature (PTMRF) and the population of selected microbial indicators with time. However, there were negative relationships between the process pHRF and the population of selected microbial indicators with time. Furthermore, there were positive relationships between the populations of selected microbial indicators with time. Rumen fluid significantly (P < 0.05) affected the dynamics of the process temperature (PTMRF) and process pHRF inside the ADRF system with time respectively. These kinds of relationships between biotic factors and between biotic and abiotic factors could be used to monitor the state of anaerobic digestion process with respect to time.

Keywords: relationship, microbial populations, temperature, pH, anaerobic digestion, guinea grass

Received December 01, 2014; Revised December 31, 2014; Accepted January 08, 2015

Citation: Ogbonna. C. B., Berebon. D. P., Onwuegbu. E. K., Relationship between Temperature, Ph and Population of Selected Microbial Indicators during Anaerobic Digestion of Guinea Grass (Panicum Maximum). American Journal of Microbiological Research, 3 (1). 14-24. January 2015. doi:10.12691/ajmr-3-1-3

1. Introduction

Anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic matter has been recognized as a valuable resource that can be converted into useful products via microbial mediated transformations (Chanakya et al., 2007; Guermoud et al., 2009; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). There are four stages involved in the AD process for biogas production. These include hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis. These processes are carried out by different microbial populations (or communities) which, have to work together for the AD process to proceed efficiently (Dassonville and Renault, 2002; Ljupka, 2010; Schink, 1997; Zhou et al., 2009). The nature of a substrate can determine the type and extent of bacteria populations present in an anaerobic digester (Zinder, 1984; Ramasamy et al., 1990; Preeti Rao et al., 1993; Zhou et al., 2009). Anaerobic digestion of cellulosic (or lignocellulosic) materials is limited mainly by the rate of hydrolysis of the polymeric compounds and to be efficiently fermented, require suitable inoculation for biogas production (Labat and Garcia, 1986; Lopes et al., 2004; Forster-Carneiro et al., 2007; Dong et al., 2009; Uzodinma and Ofoefole, 2009). The potential application of rumen microorganisms in anaerobic digestion systems for the conversion of lignocellulosic materials have been investigated by several researchers (Allison and Leek, 1993; Ogbonna et al., 2014).

The microorganisms that participate in anaerobic digestion process may be specific for each degradation step and thus could have different environmental (e.g., temperature and pH) requirements (Azeem et al., 2011). Various researchers have reported significant effects of temperature on microbial communities during anaerobic digestion (AD) process (Dela-Rubia et al., 2002; Bouallagui et al., 2009b; Riau et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2006; Trzcinski and Stuckey, 2010; Kashyap et al., 2003; Briski et al., 2007; Fezzani and Cheikh, 2010; Ward et al., 2008). Generally, the AD process is carried out at mesophilic temperatures (El-Mashad et al., 2003) because operation in the mesophilic range is more stable and requires a smaller energy expense (Fernandez et al., 2008; Ward et al., 2008). Overall, a temperature range between 35 and 37°C is considered suitable for the production of methane (Azeem et al., 2011). A number of researchers such as Agdag and Sponza (2007),Ward et al., (2008), Lee et al., (2009b), Kim et al., (2003) and Liu et al., (2008) have also reported a range of pH values suitable for anaerobic digestion but the optimal pH for methanogenesis has been found to be around 7.0 (Huber et al., 1982; Yang and Okos, 1987).

The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between process temperature, process pH and population of selected microbial indicators during anaerobic digestion of guinea grass (Panicum maximum) at ambient condition.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Anaerobic Digestion Set-Up

One-stage anaerobic digestion (AD) systems were conFigured for batch-type mesophilic reactors as described by Ogbonna et al., (2014). The anaerobic digestion system with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) was the experimental set-up, while the anaerobic digestion system without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) was the control set-up. Anaerobic digestion (AD) of the feed was performed (at ambient conditions) inside the mesophilic fermentors with a retention time of 105 days. The feed for anaerobic digestion was also prepared as described by Ogbonna et al., (2014).

2.2. Sample Collection and Determination of Physicochemical/Microbial Parameters

To monitor the AD process, digester slurry samples were collected with respect to time. Daily ambient temperature (ATM), process temperature (PTM) and weekly process pH were measured using thermometer (SCT-lilliput, Scichem Tech.) and a general purpose pH meter (SCT-lilliput, Scichem Tech.), respectively. Process temperature and pH were respectively determined by dipping the thermometer and the pH meter into the digester slurry samples immediately after collection in beakers. Volatile fatty acid (VFA) was determined using the titrimetric method described by Buchauer (1998). Bacteria populations were monitored by enumerating selected indicator groups based on metabolic capacity and oxygen sensitivity with respect to time (Ogbonna et al., 2014). According to metabolic capability, the microbial populations that were selected included cellulolytic bacteria (ACB), lactose fermenting (acidogenic) bacteria (LFB), glucose fermenting (acidogenic) bacteria (GFB), propionate oxidizing (acetogenic) bacteria (POB), ethanol oxidizing (acetogenic) bacteria (EOB) and acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOM). The O₂-sensitive populations that were selected included obligate anaerobic bacteria (OAB) and total facultative anaerobic bacteria (FAAB) respectively.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Using SPSS software (version 20), multiple correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationships among microbial populations, process temperature (PTM) and process pH inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) and the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) with respect to time. Furthermore, the effect of rumen fluid on the dynamics of process temperature and process pH with time was determined using one – way ANOVA. Finally, Chi – square (Goodness of fit) analysis was used to determine the stability of the process temperature and process pH with respect to time.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Microbial and Physicochemical Analysis

The population dynamics of selected indicator microbial groups observed during 105 days retention time of anaerobic digestion of Panicum maximum have been presented in Ogbonna et al., (2014). Generally, these microbial populations increased about 10-fold with respect to time inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) respectively. Average ambient temperature (ATM) around the anaerobic digesters ranged from 27.5°C to 29.5°C with time (Figure 1a). In the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF), average process temperature (PTMRF) increased from 27.5°C (at day 0) to 35.2°C (at day 70) and then dropped to 33.3°C at day 105. In the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF), average process temperature (PTMNRF) increased from 27.5°C (at day 0) to 34.4°C at day 105 (Figure 1a). This result showed that the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) was slightly more heated than the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) with time. Nevertheless, the temperatures observed in both anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) lie within the operational mesophilic temperature requirement (i.e., 20°C to 45°C) for biogas production during anaerobic digestion of organic matter with the optimum at around 35°C to 37°C (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Azeem et al., 2011). Average process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) of the feed inside the anaerobic digest er with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) and anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) dropped from 7.9 and 8.1 (at day 0) to 6.5 and 6.8 (at day 42 and day 56) and then increased again to 7.4 and 7.3 at day 105 respectively (Figure 1b). These pH ranges that were observed in both anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) lie within the operational pH requirement (i.e., 6.0 to 8.5) for biogas production during anaerobic digestion of organic matter with the optimum at around 7.0 (Huber et al., 1982; Yang and Okos, 1987; Ward et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2009b; Kim et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2008).

In the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF), the concentration of volatile fatty acid (VFARF) increased from 1,080.00 mg/L (at day 0), peaked at 4,800.33 mg/L (at day 42) and then dropped to 1,630.53 mg/L at day 105. Likewise, in the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF), the concentration of volatile fatty acid (VFANRF) increased from 729.34 mg/L (at day 0), peaked at 4,632.04 mg/L (at day 56) and then dropped to 2,694.70 mg/L at day 105 (Figure 2). This result correlates with findinds of Claudia et al., (2009) who also reported significant increase (and decrease) in the concentration of volatile fatty acid during anaerobic digestion of municipal soild waste (MSW).

Figure 1. (a) Ambient (ATM) and process temperature dynamics (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and (b) Process pH dynamics (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF)

Figure 2. Volatile fatty acid dynamics (VFARF and VFANRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF)

3.2. Relationship between Process Temperature and Microbial Population with Respect to Time

Generally, the process temperature (PTMRF and PTMNRF) inside both anaerobic digesters(ADRF and ADNRF) increased with time (Figure 1a). This underscored the strong positive relationship (r = 0.79 and r = 0.99) between the process temperatures (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and the retention time (Figure 3). There was a strong positive relationship (r = 0.76) between ambient temperature(ATM) and the process temperature(PTMRF) inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) and a moderate positive relationship (r = 0.54) between ambient temperature(ATM) and the process temperature (PTMNRF) inside the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) with time (Figure 3). This was predicted because the temperature of the environment where any biodigester is situated may affect the temperature inside the biodigester to some degree with time (Svahn, 2006; Geradi, 2003; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Azeem et al., 2011). Generally, there were positive relationships(with varying degrees) between the process temperatures (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and the populations of selected indicator microbial groups inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) and the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) with time (Figure 3). This may be further underscored by the near sigmoid pattern exhibited by the process temperatures (PTMRF and PTMNRF) with time (Ogbonna et al., 2014). This was also predicted because anaerobic degradation of organic matter by microbes leads to the production of little amount of heat energy which may accumulate with time and thus increase the temperature of the anaerobic digester environment (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Our result also suggested that the process temperatures (PTMRF and PTMNRF) inside both anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) were likely to be more favourable to the other microbial populations than the population of the methanogens (Geradi, 2003; Azeem et al., 2011). This is because the positive relationship between the process temperature (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and the population of the methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) was the weakest (Figure 3).

There was a moderate positive relationship(r = 0.67 and r = 0.60) between the process temperature (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and the concentration of volatile fatty acids (VFARF and VFANRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with respect to time (Figure 3). An increase in the concentration of volatile fatty acids to some degree have been associated with a decrease in process pH (see Figure 4) especially when alkalinity of the AD process was significantly consumed by accumulation of these acids (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Claudia et al., 2009; Azeem et al., 2011). Figure 3 underscores this phenomenon because it showed that there was a strong negative relationship (r = 0.80 and r = 0.79) between the process temperature (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with time. In other words, as process temperature inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) increased to some degree with time, the microbial populations and consequently degree of digestion of the substrate also increased and “vice versa” (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Geradi, 2003; Azeem et al., 2011). This may have led to a corresponding rise in the concentration of volatile fatty acids (VFARF and VFANRF) to some degree and a consequent fall in the process pH (see Figure 3 and Figure 4) inside both anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) with time and “vice versa” (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Kim et al., 2003).

Chi-square (goodness of fit) analysis suggested that there were no significant (p > 0.05) highs or lows in the process temperature inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with time. However, one-way ANOVA suggested that there was a significant difference between the temperature dynamics (PTMRF) inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) and the temperature dynamics (PTMNRF) inside the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) with time. The process temperature (PTMRF) of the ADRF system was always higher than the process temperature (PTMNRF) of the ADNRF system during the anaerobic digestion process (Figure 1a). This may be attributed to the influence of rumen fluid inoculation inside the ADRF system. Rumen fluid contains various microbial groups that are specialized in anaerobic digestion of cellulosic substrates for biogas production and was added for the purpose of increasing the microbial populations inside the ADRF system (Aurora, 1983; Allison and Leek, 1993; Budiyono et al., 2009). As discussed earlier, there were positive correlations between the process temperature and the microbial populations inside ADRF and ADNRF systems with time (Figure 3). Therefore, the anaerobic digester (ADRF) with higher microbial populations should exhibit higher (or more efficient) degree of digestion of the substrate. This should lead to the production of higher amount of heat energy and thus, a higher process temperature with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Levén et al., 2007).

Figure 3. Relationship between process temperature (PTMRF and PTMNRF) and ambient temperature (ATM), process pH, volatile fatty acid (VFA), cellulolytic bacteria (ACB), lactose fermenting bacteria (LFB), glucose fermenting bacteria (GFB), propionate oxidizing bacteria (POB), ethanol oxidizing bacteria (EOB), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOM), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OAB) and total facultative bacteria (FAAB) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with respect to time

3.3. Relationship between Process pH and Microbial Population with Respect to Time

The addition of rumen fluid may have affected the dynamics of the process pHRF inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) because one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the dynamics of the process pHRF inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF) and the process pHNRF inside the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF).The pHRF inside the ADRF system dropped at a faster rate than the pHNRF inside the ADNRF system with time (Figure 1b). This may have been due to the higher microbial populations (and consequently higher degree of digestion of the substrate) inside the digester with rumen fluid (ADRF) than the digester without rumen fluid (ADNRF) (Ogbonna et al., 2014; Azeem et al., 2014). In the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculum (ADRF), the population of lactose and glucose fermenting (acidogenic) bacteria (LFBRF and GFBRF) and cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF)groups were strongly negatively associated with the process pHRF than the populations of ethanol and propionate oxidizing (acetogenic) bacteria (EOBRF and POBRF) and acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF), respectively (Figure 4). In terms of O₂-sensitivity, the population of total facultative bacteria (FAABRF) were more strongly negatively associated with the process pHRF than the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF) with time (Figure 4). However, in the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculum (ADNRF), apart from the population of lactose and glucose fermenting (acidogenic) bacteria (LFBNRF and GFBNRF) and cellulolytic bacteria (ACBNRF), the population of ethanol and propionate oxidizing (acetogenic) bacteria (EOBNRF and POBNRF) were also strongly negatively associated with the process pHNRF with time. In terms of O₂-sensitivity, the population of total facultative bacteria (FAABNRF) and obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABNRF) were strongly negatively associated with the process pHNRF with respect to time (Figure 4).

However, Figure 4 showed that the negative relationship between the process pH and the population of acidogenicbacteria (LFB and GFB) was the strongest in both anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) with time. This suggested (to a higher degree) that the acidogenicbacteria groups may have been responsible for the drop in process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculum (ADRF) and the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculum (ADNRF) with time (Ogbonna et al., 2014; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Kim et al., 2003; Ike et al., 2010). This is underscored by the fact that the period when the population of acidogenic bacteria (LFBRF and LFBNRF and GFBRF and GFBNRF) peaked as reported in Ogbonna et al., (2014), correlated with the same period when volatile fatty acid (VFARF and VFANRF) production peaked inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) as shown in Figure 2. This also correlated with the same period when the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) dipped respectively (Figure 1b). This period may in fact be the peak period of the acidogenic phase of the anaerobic digestion process inside the ADRF and the ADNRF systems respectively (Ogbonna et al., 2014; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Ike et al., 2010). During the AD process, it may have been possible that some of the bacteria species belonging to the population of cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF and ACBNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) partook in sugar fermenting acidogenesis (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This may be a possible reason why they were also strongly negatively associated with the process pH in both AD systems with respect to time (Figure 4). Moreover, the population of acetogenic bacteria (EOB and POB) convert alcohols and fatty acid such as propionic acid to acetic acid (Sousa et al., 2007; Drake et al., 2008). These may also make the process pH of both AD systems drop especially if the acetic acid accumulates with time (Ike et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2006). This could also be a possible reason why the population of acetogenic bacteria (EOBNRF and POBNRF) were strongly negatively correlated with the process pH (pHNRF) inside the digester without rumen fluid inoculum (ADNRF) with time (Figure 4).

In terms of O₂-sensitivity, the population of total facultative bacteria (FAABRF and FAABNRF) was strongly negatively associated with the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with time (Figure 4). Also, because they may be facultative in nature, some of them may be able to thrive in obligate anaerobic condition to some degree (Agdag and Sponza, 2004; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This may be a possible reason why the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABNRF) was strongly negatively associated with the process pHNRF inside the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculation (ADNRF) with time (Figure 4). There was a weak negative relationship between the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) and the population of acetotrophic methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with time (Figure 4). This was predicted because when acetic acid (which is the main substrate for acetotrophic methanogenesis) was being produced, it was expected that the methanogens present at the time would metabolize the acid and convert it to biogas (Zinder, 1993; Liu and Whitman, 2008; Garcia et al., 2000; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). As the acetic acid accumulated, more of it would have been available to the methanogens as substrate and as they utilized the substrate for conversion into biogas, their population should have increased to some degree with time (Claudia et al., 2009; Labat and Garcia, 1986; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This may have been a possible reason why there was a weak negative relationship between the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) and the population of acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) in both AD systems (ADRF and ADNRF) with respect to time (Figure 4).

Moreover, it was observed in Figure 1b that the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculum (ADRF and ADNRF) decreased from day zero, dipped at day 42 and day 56 and then increased again until day 105 respectively. If it was possible that accumulation of volatile fatty acid (VFA), especially acetic acid led to a drop in the process pH with time, it may also have been possible that its removal by the methanogens (via conversion to biogas) caused a corresponding rise in the process pH. Although, metabolites such as CO₂ and NH₃ may have also contributed to the rise in process pH with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Zinder, 1993; Liu and Whitman, 2008; Garcia et al., 2000).

Chi-square analysis suggested that there were no significant highs or lows in the process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid (ADRF and ADNRF) with time respectively. This has been predicted for most substrates (or feedstock) with low or moderate degradability (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Matured guinea grass (used as substrate in this study) is not readily biodegradable due to its lignocellulose content. Because of this, the rate of organic acid production during anaerobic biodegradation of the grass may have been slow or moderate (Susan, 1995). Therefore, the effect on the process pH may not have been as significant as it would if the substrate was easily degradable (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). An easily degradable substrate degrades faster and may rapidly produce higher concentration of VFAs which may lead to a significant drop in the process pH and thus, negatively affecting the anaerobic digestion process by slowing or inhibiting methanogenesis (Ogbonna et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2008; Azeem et al., 2011; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010).

Figure 4. Relationship between process pH (pHRF and pHNRF) and volatile fatty acid (VFA), cellulolytic bacteria (ACB), lactose fermenting bacteria (LFB), glucose fermenting bacteria (GFB), propionate oxidizing bacteria (POB), ethanol oxidizing bacteria (EOB), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOM), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OAB) and total facultative bacteria (FAAB) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) with respect to time

3.4. Relationship between Microbial Populations with Respect to Time

The interaction (or relationship) among microbial populations in anaerobic digestion(AD) process may either be positive, neutral or negative with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Correlation analysis (in Figure 5 to Figure 7) showed that there were positive relationships between the microbial populations selected to indicate various metabolic and O₂-sensitive stages of the AD process inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF)with time (Ogbonna et al., 2014). However, the degree (or strength) of these relationships among the microbial populations may not have been equal. For example, the population of cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF and ACBNRF) was very strongly and positively associated with the population of lactose and glucose fermenting acidogens (LFBRF and GFBRF and LFBNRF and GFBNRF) followed by the population of propionate and ethanol oxidizing acetogens (POBRF and EOBRF and POBNRF and EOBNRF) and the population of acetateoxidizing methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) to a lesser degree inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) respectively with time (Figure 5a). This may be because of the fact that the populations of acetogens and methanogens are not usually directly associated metabolically with the population of polymer hydrolysing (or cellulolytic) bacteria as does the population of acidogens along theanaerobic digestion food chain (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Yassar, 2011; Chanakya and Sreesha, 2012). However, this positive correlation was still strong and moderate for the acetogens and methanogens, respectively (Figure 5a). Generally during anaerobic digestion process, hydrolysis must first occur to some degree before acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesisin this order (Ljupka, 2010; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Yassar, 2011; Chanakya and Sreesha, 2012).

Moreover, it is possible that some (or most) of the microbial populations responsible for hydrolysis may also be the same ones taking part in acidogenesis inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This may also be a reason why the populations of cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF and ACBNRF) and acidogenic bacteria (LFBRF and GFBRF and LFBNRF and GFBNRF) were very strongly and positively associated with one another in both AD systems (ADRF and ADNRF) with time. In terms of O₂-sensitivity, the population of cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF and ACBNRF) was very strongly positively related to (or associated with) the population of total facultative bacteria (FAABRF and FAABNRF) than the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF and OABNRF) which was also strong, inside both AD systems (ADRF and ADNRF) with respect to time (Figure 5a). This was predicted because cellulose hydrolysis can occur in either aerobic, microaerobic or anaerobic conditions (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Furthermore, it is highly likely that oxygen was present inside the biodigesters (ADRF and ADNRF) because it may not have been possible to evacuate all the air (oxygen) from the 500L-capacity anaerobic digestion tanks before loading.

The population of propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF and POBNRF) was very strongly and positively related to (or associated with) the populations of ethanol oxidizing acetogens (EOBRF and EOBNRF) and acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) with time inside both AD systems (ADRF and ADNRF), respectively (Figure 6b). The population of these acetogens (POBRF and EOBRF and POBNRF and EOBNRF) may have increased or decreased together because they may have been positively influenced by the population of the acidogens (LFBRF and GFBRF and LFBNRF and GFBNRF) during acidogenesis as indicated in Figure 5b and Figure 6a which showed that there were very strong positive relationships between the acetogens and the acidogens inside the anaerobic digester with rumen fluid inoculum (ADRF) and the anaerobic digester without rumen fluid inoculum (ADNRF) with time(Labat and Garcia, 1986; Claudia et al., 2009; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Yassar, 2011). The population of propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF and POBNRF) may have correlated strongly and positively with the population of acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) as shown in Figure 6b because propionate oxidation usually produces CO₂, H₂ and acetic acid which is the substrate for acetotrophic methanogenesis (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010; Yassar, 2011; Chanakya and Sreesha, 2012).

In terms of O₂-sensitivity, the population of propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF and POBNRF) was very strongly and positively related to (or associated with) the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF and OABNRF) than with the population of total facultative bacteria (FAABRF and FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) respectively with time (Figure 6b). This may be because acetogenesis (via propionate oxidation) may only proceed under obligate anaerobic condition (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Furthermore, if propionate oxidation (for acetogenesis) may only occur under anaerobic conditions, then the population of facultative bacteria (FAABRF and FAABNRF) which are capable of consuming any oxygen that may have been present inside the biodigesters (ADRF and ADNRF) at the beginning of the AD process must increase to some degree with time (Claudia et al., 2009; Labat and Garcia, 1986; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Therefore, as the concentration of the oxygen inside the digester reduced with time (because of an increase in the population of total facultative bacteria), the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria like the propionate oxidizing acetogens (POB) may also begin to increase and become established with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This may have been one of the reasons why the population of propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF and POBNRF) increased together with the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF and OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria(FAABRF and FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) to some degree with time (Figure 6b).

Likewise, the population of acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF and AOMNRF) was very strongly and positively related to (or associated with) the population of obligate anaerobic (OABRF and ADNRF) than with the population of facultative aerobes and anaerobes (FAABRF and FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digesters with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF and ADNRF) respectively with time (Figure 7b). Methanogenesis can only occur in an obligate anaerobic environment (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This may explain (to some degree) why their population was strongly positively related to the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (Figure 7b). Their population may have also increased together with the population of total facultative bacteria because they may have needed the population of the facultative groups to create the anaerobic environment that enabled them increased with respect to time (Ogbonna et al., 2014; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). Facultative bacteria are capable of consuming any oxygen which may have been present inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) at the start of the AD process thus, eliminating all the oxygen inside the anaerobic digesters with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This would have promoted the growth of obligate (or strict) anaerobic bacteria population such as the methanogens to some degree with time (Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010).

This fact may be further underscored by Figure 7c which showed that as the population of total facultative bacteria (FAABRF and FAABNRF) increased, the population of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF and OABNRF) also increased to some degree inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) with time and “vice versa”. In fact some authors like Labat and Garcia (1986) and Schnurer and Jarvis (2010) have suggested that an AD process may not be seriously negatively affected if there was an accidental introduction of air (or oxygen) inside the bio-digesters because the facultative bacteria groups may quickly consume any oxygen that was introduced before it significantly harms the population of obligate (or strict) anaerobes. Of course there may have been other factors (such as the process temperature and pH) which may have also affected the populations of these microbial groups in such a way that would have made them to increase or decrease together to some degree with time (Figure 5 to Figure 7).

It is very important to note that an increase in the population of methanogens may also positively affect the populations of hydrolytic bacteria and acid (and hydrogen) forming (i.e., acidogenic and acetogenic) bacteria groups to some degree with time (Figure 5 to Figure 7). This is because when the respective populations of hydrolytic, acidogenic and acetogenic bacteria increased with time, hydrolysis, acidogenesis and acetogenesis also increased to some degree (Ogbonna et al., 2014). Some of the products of acidogenesis and acetogenesis include alcohols, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, organic acids (or acetic acids in the case of acetogenesis), etc. Therefore, as acidogenesis and acetogenesis increase with respect to time, the concentrations of these by-products may also increase with time. The accumulation of hydrogen and organic acids (and/or acetic acid) to some degree may be inhibitive to the respective populations of the hydrolytic, acidogenic, acetogenic and even the methanogenic groups with time (Hickey et al., 1987; Labib et al., 1992). Thus, sufficient system assimilation capacity for hydrogen and acetate removal must be maintained to ensure continuous acid production (Yassar, 2011). The methanogens usually convert the hydrogen (with carbon dioxide) and acetate to biogas. As their populations increase with time, this conversion rate may also increase to some degree and thus, continuously keeping the concentration of these by-products below inhibitory levels (Parkin and Owen, 1986; Yassar, 2011; Schnurer and Jarvis, 2010). This metabolic relationship between the population of methanogens and the population of other bacteria groups monitored in this study may be one of the reasons why their populations increased together to some degree with time and “vice versa” (Figure 5 to Figure 7).

Figure 5. (a) Relationship between the population of cellulolytic bacteria (ACBRF& ACBNRF) and the populations of lactose fermenting acidogens (LFBRF& LFBNRF), glucose fermenting acidogens (GFBRF& GFBNRF), propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF& POBNRF), ethanol oxidizing acetogens (EOBRF& EOBNRF), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF& AOMNRF), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) respectively with time at ambient condition. (b) Relationship between the population of lactose fermenting acidogens (LFBRF& LFBNRF) and the populations of glucose fermenting acidogens (GFBRF& GFBNRF), propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF& POBNRF), ethanol oxidizing acetogens (EOBRF& EOBNRF), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF& AOMNRF), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) respectively with time at ambient condition

Figure 6. (a) Relationship between the population of glucose fermenting acidogens (GFBRF& GFBNRF) and the populations ofpropionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF& POBNRF), ethanol oxidizing acetogens (EOBRF& EOBNRF), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF& AOMNRF), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) respectively with time at ambient condition.(b) Relationship between the population of propionate oxidizing acetogens (POBRF& POBNRF) and the populations of ethanol oxidizing acetogens (EOBRF& EOBNRF), acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF& AOMNRF), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) respectively with time at ambient condition

Figure 7. (a) Relationship between the population of ethanol oxidizing acetogens (EOBRF& EOBNRF) and the populations of acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF& AOMNRF), obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) with time at ambient condition.(b) Relationship between the population of acetate oxidizing methanogens (AOMRF& AOMNRF) and the populations of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and total facultative bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) respectively with time at ambient condition.(c) Relationship between the populations of obligate anaerobic bacteria (OABRF& OABNRF) and the populations of total facultative anaerobic bacteria (FAABRF& FAABNRF) inside the anaerobic digester with and without rumen fluid inoculation (ADRF& ADNRF) respectively with time at ambient condition

4. Conclusion

The biogas generation process is a natural biological process that requires co-operation among different microbial populations. This co-operation is underscored by the positive correlations among the microbial indicator populations selected and monitored with respect to time (Figure 5 to Figure 7). There were positive correlations between the process temperature and the microbial populations inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) with time (Figure 3). However, there were negative correlations between the process pH and the microbial populations inside the anaerobic digesters (ADRF and ADNRF) with time (Figure 4). These relationships amongbiotic factors and between biotic and abiotic factors could indicate bad running of the AD process. Specific correlations (or relationships) with time could possibly explain process failure. Therefore, the best result will only be obtained when a total understanding of the microbial ecological processes inform and guide applications of biogas production technology.

Nomenclature

AD: anaerobic digestion

RF: rumen fluid

NRF: no (or without) rumen fluid

ADRF: anaerobic digester with RF inoculation

ADNRF: anaerobic digester without RF inoculation

ACBRF: cellulolytic bacteria inside ADRF

ACBNRF: cellulolytic bacteria inside ADNRF

LFBRF: lactose fermenting bacteria in ADRF

LFBNRF: lactose fermenting bacteria in ADNRF

GFBRF: glucose fermenting bacteria in ADRF

GFBNRF: glucose fermenting bacteria in ADNRF

POBRF: propionate oxidizing bacteria in ADRF

POBNRF: propionate oxidizing bacteria in ADNRF

EOBRF: ethanol oxidizing bacteria in ADRF

EOBNRF: ethanol oxidizing bacteria in ADNRF

AOMRF: acetate oxidizing methanogens in ADRF

AOMNRF: acetate oxidizing methanogens in ADNRF

FAABRF: facultative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in ADRF

FAABNRF: facultative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in ADNRF

OABRF: obligate anaerobic bacteria inside ADRF

OABNRF: obligate anaerobic bacteria inside ADNRF

MPN: most probable number

CFU: colony forming unit

ML: millimetre

TS: total solid

PTMRF: process temperature in ADRF

PTMNRF: process temperature in ADNRF

pHRF: process pH inside ADRF

pHNRF: process pH inside ADNRF

VFARF: volatile fatty acid inside ADRF

VFANRF: volatile fatty acid inside ADNRF

References

[1]   | Agdag, O.N. and Sponza, D.T. (2004). Effect of aeration on the performance of a simulated landfilling reactor stabilizing municipal solid waste. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A-Toxic and Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 39: 2955-2972.
[2]   | Agdag, O.N., Sponza, D.T. (2007). Co-digestion of mixed industrial sludge with municipal solid wastes in anaerobic simulated landfilling bioreactors. J. Hazard. Mat. 140: 75-85.
[3]   | 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.
[4]   | Aurora, S.P. (1983). Microbial Digestion in Ruminants. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
[5]   | Azeem, K., Muhammad, A., Muzammil, A., Tariq, M., and Lorna, D. (2011). The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Management, 31: 1737-1744.
[6]   | Bouallagui, H., Rachdi, B., Gannoun, H., Hamdi, M. (2009b). Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of abattoir wastewater and fruit and vegetable waste in anaerobic sequencing batch reactors. Biodegradation, 20: 401-409.
[7]   | Briski, F., Vukovic, M., Papa, K., Gomzi, Z., Domanovac, T. (2007). Modelling of compositing of food waste in a column reactor. Chem. Pap. 61: 24-29.
[8]   | Bryant, M.P. (1972). Commentary on Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria. American Journal of Clinical Nutritions, 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]   | Dasonville, F. and Renault, P. (2002). Interactions between microbial processes and geochemical transformations under anaerobic conditions: a review. Agronomie, 22: 51-68.
[15]   | Dela-Rubia, M.A., Perez, M., Romero, L.I., Sales, D., (2002). Anaerobic mesophilic and thermophilic municipal sludge digestion. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Qual. 16: 119-124.
[16]   | 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.
[17]   | Drake, H. L., Gössner, A., and Daniel, S. (2008). Old acetogens, new light.Annual New York Academy of Sciences, 1125: 100-128.
[18]   | El-Mashad, H.M., Wilko, K.P., Loon, V., Zeeman, G. (2003). A model of solar energy utilisation in the anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. Biosyst. Eng. 84: 231-238.
[19]   | Fernandez, J., Perez, M., Romero, L.I. (2008). Effect of substrate concentration on dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Bioresour. Technol. 99: 6075-6080.
[20]   | Fezzani, B. and Cheikh, R.B. (2010). Two-phase anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill wastes in semi-continuous digesters at mesophilic temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 101: 1628-1634.
[21]   | 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.
[22]   | Gerardi, M. H. (2003). The microbiology of anaerobic digesters. In: Wastewater microbiology series, John Wiley & Sons Inc. New Jersey, USA.
[23]   | Guermoud, N., Ouagjnia, F., Avdelmalek, F., Taleb, F., and Addou, A. (2009). Municipal solid waste in Mostagnem city (Western Algeria). Waste Management, 29: 896-902.
[24]   | Hickey, R. F., Vanderwielen, J., and Switzenbaum, M.S. (1987). “The Effects of Organic Toxicants on Methane Production and Hydrogen Gas Levels during the Anaerobic Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge.” Water Research, 21 (11): 1417-1427.
[25]   | Huber, H., Thomm, M., Konig, H., Thies, G., Stetter, K.O. (1982). Methanococeus thermolithotrophicus, a novel thermophilic lithotrophic methanogen. Arch. Microbiol. 132: 47-50.
[26]   | Ike, M., Inoue, D., Miyano, T., Liu, T.T., Sei, K., Soda, S., and Kadoshin, S. (2010). Microbial population dynamics during startup of a full-scale anaerobic digester treating industrial food waste in Kyoto eco-energy project. Bioresource Technology, 101: 3952-3957.
[27]   | Kashyap, D.R., Dadhich, K.S., Sharma, S.K. (2003). Biomethanation under psychrophilic conditions: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 87: 147-153.
[28]   | Kim, J., Park, C., Kim, T.H., Lee, M., Kim, S., Kim, S.W., Lee, J. (2003). Effects of various pretreatments for enhanced anaerobic digestion with waste activated sludge. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 95: 271-275.
[29]   | 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.
[30]   | Kim, J.K., Oh, B.R., Chun, Y.N., Kim, S.W. (2006). Effects of temperature and hydraulic retention time on anaerobic digestion of food waste. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 102: 328-332.
[31]   | Labat, M. and Garcia, J.L. (1986). Study on the development of methanogenic microflora during anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pulp. Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 25: 163-168.
[32]   | Labib, F., Ferguson, J.F., Benjamin, M.M., Merigh, M., and Ricker, N.L. (1992). “Anaerobic Butyrate Degradation in a Fluidized-Bed Reactor: Effects of Increased Concentrations of H2 and Acetate.” Environmental Science and Technology, 26 (2): 369-376.
[33]   | Lee, D.H., Behera, S.K., Kim, J., Park, H.S. (2009b). Methane production potential of leachate generated from Korean food waste recycling facilities: a lab scale study. Waste Manage.29: 876-882.
[34]   | Levén, L., Eriksson, A., and Schnürer, A. (2007). Effect of process temperature on bacterial and archaeal communities in two methanogenic bioreactors treating organic household waste. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 59: 683-693.
[35]   | Liu, C., Yuan, X., Zeng, G., Li, W., Li, J. (2008). Prediction of methane yield at optimum pH for anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 99: 882-888.
[36]   | Liu, Y. and Whitman, W.B. (2008). Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Annual New York Academy of Sciences, 1125: 171-189.
[37]   | 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.
[38]   | 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.
[39]   | Ogbonna, C. B., Ibiene, A. A. and Stanley, H. O. (2014). Microbial population dynamics during anaerobic digestion of guinea grass (Panicum maximum). Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2 (6): 294-302.
[40]   | Parkin, G. F. and Owen, W.F. (1986). “Fundamentals of Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Sludges.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 24 (8): 867-920.
[41]   | Preeti Rao, P., D. Shivaraj and G. Seenayya (1993). “Improvement of methanogenesis from cow dung and poultry litter waste digesters by addition of iron”. Indian Journal of Microbiology, 33: 185-189.
[42]   | Ramasamy, K., Nagamani, B., and Kalaichelvan, G. (1990). In 31st Annual Conference of AMI held at TNAU, Coimbatore, pp: 96.
[43]   | Riau, V., De la Rubia, M.A., Pérez, M. (2010). Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) to obtain class A biosolids: a semi-continuous study. Bioresour. Technol. 101: 2706-2712.
[44]   | Schink, B. (1997). Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation. Microbiological Molecular Biological Review, 61: 262-280.
[45]   | Schnurer, A. and Jarvis, A. (2010). Microbiological handbook for biogas plants. Swedish Gas Centre Report 207, pp: 13-138.
[46]   | Sousa, D. Z., Pereira, A.M., Stams, A.J.M., Alves, M.M., and Smith, H. (2007). Microbial communities involved in anaerobic degradation of unsaturated long-chain fatty acids. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73: 1054-1064.
[47]   | Susan, B.L. (1995). Cellulose degradation in anaerobic environments. Annual Reviews of Microbiology, 49: 399-426.
[48]   | Svahn, J. (2006). Energioptimering av biogasproduktion-hur primärenergibehov till biogasanläggning kan minskas med energiåtervinning och isolering. Report Energiteknik, Umeå University.
[49]   | Trzcinski, A.P., Stuckey, D.C. (2010). Treatment of municipal solid waste leachate using a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor at mesophilic and psychrophilic temperatures: analysis of recalcitrants in the permeate using GC-MS. Water Res. 44: 671-680.
[50]   | 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.
[51]   | Ward, A.J., Hobbs, P.J., Holliman, P.J., Jones, D.L., 2008. Optimization of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour. Technol. 99: 7928-7940.
[52]   | Yang, S.T. and Okos, M.R. (1987). Kinetic study and mathematical modeling of methanogenesis of acetate using pure cultures of methanogens. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 30: 661-667.
[53]   | 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.
[54]   | Zhou, Z. H., Liu, F.H., and Wang, S.B. (2009). The structure of bacterial and archaeal community in a biogas digester as revealed by denaturation gradient gel electrophoresis and 16S rDNA sequencing analysis. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 106: 952-966.
[55]   | Zinder, S. H. (1984). Microbiology of anaerobic conversion of organic wastes to methane: recent developments. ASM News, 50: 294-298.
[56]   | Zinder, S.H. (1993). Physiological ecology of methanogenesis. In Methanogenesis: Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Genetics (Ferry, J.G., ed.). New York, Chapman and Hall, pp: 128-206.