Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of cow dung on anaerobic digestion characteristics of poplar fuel ethanol wastewater

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Direct disposal of poplar fuel ethanol wastewater (PFEW) and incineration of cow dung caused serious harm to the environment. To investigate the effect of cow dung on the mesophilic digestion of PFEW, the anaerobic mono-digestion (PFEW) and co-digestion (PFEW + cow dung) were performed, respectively. The maximum cumulative methane production of mono-digestion was 254.7 mL/gVS when the substrate concentration of PFEW was 2.58 g/LVS, which was 22.16% higher than that of co-digestion. The volatile fatty acids (VFAs) testing results indicated that the degradation of propionic acid by acetogen was inhibited and the methane process was weakened in anaerobic co-digestion. The analysis of the microbial community showed that norank f Bacteroidetes vadinHA17, Clostridium sensu stricto and Leptolinea were acid-producing bacteria, Anaerolineaceae was acetogen, Methanosarcina and Methanobacterium were methanogens, of which appeared in both co-digestion and mono-digestion. Psychrobacillus which was only found in the co-digestion inhibited the growth of acetogen and affected the methane production, which revealed the exogenous inhibitory effect of cow dung on the anaerobic digestion of PFEW.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

AD:

anaerobic digestion

TS:

total solids

VS:

volatile solids

TOC:

total organic carbon

TN:

total nitrogen

COD:

chemical oxygen demand

VFAs:

volatile fatty acids

PCR:

polymerase chain reaction

PCoA:

principal coordinates analysis

References

  1. Antonio Tursi (2019) A review on biomass: importance, chemistry, classification, and conversion. Biofuel Res J 6(2):962–979. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2019.6.2.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nielsen F, Galbe M, Zacchi G, Wallberg O (2019) The effect of mixed agricultural feedstocks on steam pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and cofermentation in the lignocellulose-to-ethanol process. Biomass Convers Biorefin 10(2):253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00454-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xu R, Zhang K, Liu P, Khan A, Xiong J, Tian F, Li X (2018) A critical review on the interaction of substrate nutrient balance and microbial community structure and function in anaerobic co-digestion. Bioresour Technol 247:1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Singh SK, Juwarkar AA, Pandey RA, Chakrabarti T (2008) Applicability of high rate transpiration system for treatment of biologically treated distillery effluent. Environ Monit Assess 141(1–3):201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9888-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dou WX, Zhou Z, Jiang LM, Jiang AJ, Huang RW, Tian XC, Zhang W, Chen DQ (2017) Sulfate removal from wastewater using ettringite precipitation: magnesium ion inhibition and process optimization. J Environ Manage 196:518–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang ZC, Han XL, Fang SQ, Chang C (2018) Study on the treatment of ethanol fermentation wastewater by membrane separation. Technol Water Treat 44(8):57–60. https://doi.org/10.16796/j.cnki.1000-3770.2018.08.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hu YJ, Hu Q, Gao DW (2016) Advanced treatment of cellulose ethanol wastewater by Fenton oxidation. Chinese J Environ Eng 10(10):5653–5657. https://doi.org/10.12030/j.cjee.201505056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. NavamaniKartic D, Aditya Narayana BC, Arivazhagan M (2018) Removal of high concentration of sulfate from pigment industry effluent by chemical precipitation using barium chloride: RSM and ANN modeling approach. J Environ Manage 206:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang L, Loh KC, Sarvanantharajah S, Tong YW, Wang CH, Dai YJ (2019) Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of soybean curd residue for methane production: characterizing bacterial and methanogen communities and their correlations with organic loading rate and operating temperature. Bioresour Technol 288:121597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Srisowmeya G, Chakravarthy M, Bakshi A, Nandhini Devi G (2021) Improving process stability, biogas production and energy recovery using two-stage mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of rice wastewater with cow dung slurry. Biomass Bioenergy 152:106184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zala M, Solanki R, Bhale PV, S V (2019) Experimental investigation on anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and water hyacinth in batch type reactor under mesophilic condition. Biomass Convers Biorefin 10(3):707–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00522-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou SQ, Wang J, Peng SC, Chen TH, Yue ZB (2021) Anaerobic co-digestion of landfill leachate and acid mine drainage using up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(7):8498–8506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11207-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Xiomara Gómez-Quiroga, Aboudi K, Carlos José lvarez-Gallego, Luis Isidoro Romero-García (2022) Successful and stable operation of anaerobic thermophilic co-digestion of sun-dried sugar beet pulp and cow manure under short hydraulic retention time. Chemosphere 293: 133484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133484

  14. Ugwu SN, Enweremadu CC (2019) Effects of pre-treatments and co-digestion on biogas production from Okra waste. J Renew Sustain Energy 11:1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5049530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Odejobi OJ, Ajala OO, Osuolale FN (2021) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and animal manure: a review of operating parameters, inhibiting factors, and pretreatment with their impact on process performance. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01626-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Venkateshkumar R, Shanmugam S, Veerappan AR (2020) Anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung and cotton seed hull with different blend ratio: experimental and kinetic study. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01006-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen XY, Xiao XZ, Teng J, Dong SY, Lian JF, Zhu YC (2021) Research progress on methanogenic inhibition technology during anaerobic digestion of excess sludge. Environmental Engineering. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2097.X.20210107.0921.002.html

  18. APHA. (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21 st Edition[R], APHA.

  19. Ao TJ, Ran Y, Chen YC, Li RL, Luo YP, Liu XF, Li D (2020) Effect of viscosity on process stability and microbial community composition during anaerobic mesophilic digestion of Maotai-flavored distiller’s grains. Bioresour Technol 297:122460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cao Q, Liu XF, Ran Y, Li ZD, Li D (2019) Methane oxidation coupled to denitrification under microaerobic and hypoxic conditions in leach bed bioreactors. Sci Total Environ 649:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhen GY, Lu XQ, Kobayashi T, Kumar G, Xu KQ (2016) Anaerobic co-digestion on improving methane production from mixed microalgae (Scenedesmus sp., Chlorella sp.) and food waste: kinetic modeling and synergistic impact evaluation. Chem Eng J 299:332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.04.118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang JX, Zhang YB, Quan XQ, Liu YW, An XL, Chen S, Zhao HM (2011) Bioaugmentation and functional partitioning in a zero valent iron-anaerobic reactor for sulfate-containing wastewater treatment. Chem Eng J 174(1):159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.08.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siegert I, Banks C (2005) The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochemistry 40(11):3412–3418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2005.01.02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jiang ZS, Ping JF, Guo YK, Chen XH, Guo JB, Lian J (2016) Effect of different ratios of cow manure and corn straw on the mixed anaerobic fermentation rate. J Hebei Univ Sci Technol 37(4):396–405. https://doi.org/10.7535/hbkd.2016yx04013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou HQ, Brown RC, Wen ZY (2020) Biochar as an additive in anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge: biochar properties and their effects on the digestion performance. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8(16):6391–6401. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c00571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang YY, Zhang YL, Wang JB, Meng L (2009) Effects of volatile fatty acid concentrations on methane yield and methanogenic bacteria. Biomass Bioenergy 33(5):848–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu XJ, Chen C, Wang AJ, Fang N, Yuan Y, Ren NQ, Lee DJ (2012) Enhanced elementary sulfur recovery in integrated sulfate-reducing, sulfur-producing rector under micro-aerobic condition. Bioresour Technol 116:517–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Beniche I, Hungría J, Bari HE, Siles JA, Chica AF, Martín MA (2020) Effects of C/N ratio on anaerobic co-digestion of cabbage, cauliflower, and restaurant food waste. Biomass Convers Biorefin 11(5):2133–2145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00733-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ren NQ, Zhao D, Chen XL, Li JZ (2002) Causes of propionic acid production and accumulation in anaerobic biological treatment and control countermeasures. Sci China 32(1):83–89

    Google Scholar 

  30. Srisowmeya G, Chakravarthy M, Bakshi A, Devi GN (2021) Improving process stability, biogas production and energy recovery using two-stage mesophilic anaerobic codigestion of rice wastewater with cow dung slurry. Biomass and Bioenergy 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106184

  31. Wang SQ, Zhang KQ, Kong DW, Gao WX, Liang JF, Li JJ, Du LZ (2021) Microbial community response to volatile fatty acid inhibition in dry anaerobic fermentation. Journal of Agro-Environment Science. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/12.1347.S.20210722.0734.002.html

  32. Lu QH, Yu ZH, Yu SN, Liang ZW, Li HC, Sun LP, Wang SQ (2019) Organic matter rather than salinity as a predominant feature changes performance and microbiome in methanogenic sludge digesters. J Hazard Mater 377:349–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.05.075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gao J, Li J, Zuo XY, Yuan HR, Liu YP, Li XJ (2020) Effect of biochar-addition on anaerobic digestion performance of wheat straw and its microbial community structer. China Biogas 38(6):14–20

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tang TT, Li J, Yang AJ, Yang Z, Xiang FL, Yuan HY (2020) Effects of straw type and ratio change on microbial community in anaerobic digestion of sludge. Chem Industry Eng Prog 39(2):667–678. https://doi.org/10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2019-0777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hahnke S, Langer T, Koeck DE, Klocke M (2016) Description of Proteiniphilum saccharofermentans sp. nov., Petrimonas mucosa sp. nov. and Fermentimonas caenicola gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from mesophilic laboratory-scale biogas reactors, and emended description of the genus Proteiniphilum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66(3):1466–1475. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.000902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ziganshina EE, Belostotskiy DE, Bulynina SS, Ziganshin AM (2021) Effect of magnetite on anaerobic digestion of distillers grains and beet pulp: operation of reactors and microbial community dynamics. J Biosci Bioeng 131(3):290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2020.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yang CT, Tsedan GU, Liu Y, Hou FJ (2020) Shrub coverage alters the rumen bacterial community of yaks (Bos grunniens) grazing in alpine meadows. J Anim Sci Technol 62(4):504–520. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2020.62.4.504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu F, Zhou XH, Chen X, Chen J, Du GC, Fang F (2018) Analysis of microbial community structer in Fermentation grains of Yanghe Luzhou-flavor liquor fermentation process and its relationship with organic substances correlation of acid synthesis. Acta Microbiol Sin 58(12):2087–2099. https://doi.org/10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20170616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee J, Koo T, Yulisa A, Hwang S (2019) Magnetite as an enhancer in methanogenic degradation of volatile fatty acids under ammonia-stressed condition. J Environ Manage 241:418–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jang SW, Yoou MH, Hong WJ, Kim YJ, Lee EJ, Jung KH (2020) Re-analysis of 16S amplicon sequencing data reveals soil microbial population shifts in rice fields under drought condition. Rice 13(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-020-00403-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee YJ, Romanek CS, Mills GL, Davis RC, Whitman WB, Wiegel J (2006) Gracilibacter thermotolerans gen. nov., sp. nov., an anaerobic, thermotolerant bacterium from a constructed wetland receiving acid sulfate water. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 56(9):2089–2093. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64040-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang RM, Li CX, Lv N, Pan XF, Cai GJ, Ning J, Zhu GF (2021) Deeper insights into effect of activated carbon and nano-zero-valent iron addition on acidogenesis and whole anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 324:124671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee J, Hwang S (2019) Single and combined inhibition of Methanosaeta concilii by ammonia, sodium ion and hydrogen sulfide. Bioresour Technol 281:401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhu XY, Kougias PG, Treu L, Campanaro S, Angelidaki I (2017) Microbial community changes in methanogenic granules during the transition from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101(3):1313–1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-8028-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang FL, Li WZ, Liu CY, Wang MY, Li Q, Sun Y (2019) Impact of total carbon/sulfate on methane production and sulfate removal from co-digestion of sulfate-containing wastewater and corn stalk. J Environ Manage 243:411–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shan LL, Yu YL, Zhu ZB et al (2015) Microbial community analysis in a combined anaerobic and anaerobic digestion system for treatment of cellulosic ethanol production wastewater. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(22):17789–17798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4938-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Han Z, Chen F, Zhong C, Zhou J, Wu XY, Yang XY, Zhou H, Jiang M, Jia HH, Wei P (2016) Effects of different carriers on biogas production and microbial community structure during anaerobic digestion of cassava ethanol wastewater. Environ Technol 38(18):2253–2262. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2016.1255666

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFB1503805) and the science and technology innovation Program of Hunan Province (2021RC4062).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Materials Science and Engineering, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha, 410004, Hunan, China

    Pingping Deng, Xiaofan Yan, Ruixia Liu, Tingting Ding, Jienan Chen & Zhiping Wu

Authors
  1. Pingping Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaofan Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruixia Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tingting Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jienan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhiping Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DPP: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, original draft preparation, review and editing.

YXF: investigation, data curation.

LRX: supporting for formal analysis.

DTT: supporting for formal analysis.

CJN: methodology, project administration

WZP: conceptualization, supervision, project administration, reviewing results and the manuscript, and funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhiping Wu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deng, P., Yan, X., Liu, R. et al. Effect of cow dung on anaerobic digestion characteristics of poplar fuel ethanol wastewater. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 14, 2033–2043 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02549-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02549-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation