Enhancing methane yield from crude glycerol anaerobic digestion by coupling with ultrasound or A. niger/E. coli biodegradation

  • Larissa O. Paulista
  • Rui A. R. Boaventura
  • Vítor J. P. Vilar
  • Alexei L. N. Pinheiro
  • Ramiro J. E. MartinsEmail author
Research Article


Anaerobic digestion of crude glycerol from biodiesel production is a feasible way for methane production. However, crude glycerol (CG) contains impurities, such as long-chain fatty acids (LCFA) that can inhibit methanogenic microorganisms. Ultrasound promotes the hydrolysis of LCFA and deagglomerates the microorganisms in biological flocs. Furthermore, Aspergillus niger and Escherichia coli produce lipases capable of degrading LCFA. This study aims at improving the methane yield from anaerobic digestion by coupling with ultrasound or E. coli/A. niger biodegradation. The effect of the different treatments was first assessed in a perfectly mixed batch reactor (PMBR), using diluted CG at concentrations of 0.2%, 1.7%, and 3.2% (v/v). Later, the best conditions were replicated in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor to simulate full-scale practical applications. Experiments in the PMBR showed that ultrasound or A. niger biodegradation steps improved methane yield up to 11% for 0.2% CG and 99% for 1.7% CG, respectively. CG biodegradation by E. coli inhibited the subsequent anaerobic digestion for all concentrations tested. Using a UASB digester, ultrasonic treatment of CG led to an average increase of 29% in methane production. The application of ultrasound led to a lower accumulation of propionic acid in the digested material and increased biogas production. On the other hand, an average 77% increase in methane production was achieved using a preliminary CG biodegradation step by A. niger, when operated at a loading rate of 2.9 kg COD m-3 day-1. Under these conditions, an energy gain of 0.48 kWh day-1, with the production of the 0.434 m3 CH4 kg-1 CODremoval and 0.573 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS, and a biogas quality of 73% in methane were obtained. The digested material was analyzed for the detection and quantification of added-value by-products in order to obtain a broad assessment of the CG valorization through anaerobic digestion. In some experiments, propionic and oxalic acid were detected. However, the accumulation of propionic caused the inhibition of the acetogenic and methanogenic microorganisms.


Crude Glycerol Biogas Ultrasound Biodegradation Batch UASB 


Funding information

This work was financially supported by: Associate Laboratory LSRE-LCM - UID/EQU/50020/2019 - funded by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). L.O. Paulista acknowledges FCT for his scholarship (SFRH/BD/137639/2018). V.J.P. Vilar acknowledges the FCT Individual Call to Scientific Employment Stimulus 2017 (CEECIND/01317/2017).


  1. Afabor E, Salama A, Ibrahim H (2017) Packed bed reactor modeling of the catalytic auto-thermal reforming of synthetic crude glycerol. J Environ Chem Eng 5:4850–4857. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Jamal W, Mahmoud N (2009) Community onsite treatment of cold strong sewage in a UASB-septic tank. Bioresour Technol 100:1061–1068. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almena A, Martín M (2015) Technoeconomic analysis of the production of epichlorohydrin from glycerol. Ind Eng Chem Res 55:3226–3238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. André A, Diamantopoulou P, Philippoussis A, Sarris D, Komaitis M, Papanikolaou S (2010) Biotechnological conversions of bio-diesel derived waste glycerol into added-value compounds by higher fungi: production of biomass, single cell oil and oxalic acid. Ind Crop Prod 31:407–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apha A (1998) Wef. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewaterGoogle Scholar
  6. Biebl H, Menzel K, Zeng A-P, Deckwer W-D (1999) Microbial production of 1, 3-propanediol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 52:289–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchauer K (1998) A comparison of two simple titration procedures to determine volatile fatty acids in influents to waste-water and sludge treatment processes. Water SA-Pretoria 24:49–56Google Scholar
  8. Castrillón L, Fernández-Nava Y, Ormaechea P, Marañón E (2013) Methane production from cattle manure supplemented with crude glycerin from the biodiesel industry in CSTR and IBR. Bioresour Technol 127:312–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatzifragkou A, Papanikolaou S (2012) Effect of impurities in biodiesel-derived waste glycerol on the performance and feasibility of biotechnological processes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 95:13–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clomburg JM, Gonzalez R (2013) Anaerobic fermentation of glycerol: a platform for renewable fuels and chemicals. Trends Biotechnol 31:20–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Da Silva GP, Mack M, Contiero J (2009) Glycerol: a promising and abundant carbon source for industrial microbiology. Biotechnol Adv 27:30–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobrowolski A, Mituła P, Rymowicz W, Mirończuk AM (2016) Efficient conversion of crude glycerol from various industrial wastes into single cell oil by yeast Yarrowia lipolytica. Bioresour Technol 207:237–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez-Garcia R, McCubbin T, Navone L, Stowers C, Nielsen L, Marcellin E (2017) Microbial propionic acid production. Fermentation 3:21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. He S, Muizebelt I, Heeres A, Schenk NJ, Blees R, Heeres HJ (2018) Catalytic pyrolysis of crude glycerol over shaped ZSM-5/bentonite catalysts for bio-BTX synthesis. Appl Catal B Environ 235:45–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu S, Luo X, Wan C, Li Y (2012) Characterization of crude glycerol from biodiesel plants. J Agric Food Chem 60:5915–5921. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutňan M, Kolesárová N, Bodík I (2013) Anaerobic digestion of crude glycerol as sole substrate in mixed reactor. Environ Technol 34:2179–2187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iyyappan J, Baskar G, Bharathiraja B, Saravanathamizhan R (2018) Malic acid production from biodiesel derived crude glycerol using morphologically controlled Aspergillus niger in batch fermentation. Bioresour Technol 269:393–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kubicek C, Schreferl-Kunar G, Wöhrer W, Röhr M (1988) Evidence for a cytoplasmic pathway of oxalate biosynthesis in Aspergillus niger. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:633–637Google Scholar
  19. Kumaran P, Hephzibah D, Sivasankari R, Saifuddin N, Shamsuddin AH (2016) A review on industrial scale anaerobic digestion systems deployment in Malaysia: opportunities and challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:929–940. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leoneti AB, Aragão-Leoneti V, De Oliveira SVWB (2012) Glycerol as a by-product of biodiesel production in Brazil: alternatives for the use of unrefined glycerol. Renew Energy 45:138–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu L, Zhu Y, Li J, Wang M, Lee P, Du G, Chen J (2012) Microbial production of propionic acid from propionibacteria: current state, challenges and perspectives. Crit Rev Biotechnol 32:374–381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. López JÁS, Santos MÁM, Pérez AFC, Martín AM (2009) Anaerobic digestion of glycerol derived from biodiesel manufacturing. Bioresour Technol 100:5609–5615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo G, Xie L, Zhou Q, Angelidaki I (2011) Enhancement of bioenergy production from organic wastes by two-stage anaerobic hydrogen and methane production process. Bioresour Technol 102:8700–8706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall A, Haverkamp R (2008) Production of hydrogen by the electrochemical reforming of glycerol–water solutions in a PEM electrolysis cell. Int J Hydrog Energy 33:4649–4654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martínez-Campos R, de la Torre M (2002) Production of propionate by fed-batch fermentation of Propionibacterium acidipropionici using mixed feed of lactate and glucose. Biotechnol Lett 24:427–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mulinari J, Venturin B, Sbardelotto M, Dall Agnol A, Scapini T, Camargo AF, Baldissarelli DP, Modkovski TA, Rossetto V, Dalla Rosa C, Reichert FW, Golunski SM, Vieitez I, Vargas GDLP, Dalla Rosa C, Mossi AJ, Treichel H (2017) Ultrasound-assisted hydrolysis of waste cooking oil catalyzed by homemade lipases. Ultrason Sonochem 35:313–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Munir E, Yoon JJ, Tokimatsu T, Hattori T, Shimada M (2001) A physiological role for oxalic acid biosynthesis in the wood-rotting basidiomycete Fomitopsis palustris. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:11126–11130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nuchdang S, Phalakornkule C (2012) Anaerobic digestion of glycerol and co-digestion of glycerol and pig manure. J Environ Manag 101:164–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pachapur VL, Kutty P, Brar SK, Ramirez AA (2016) Enrichment of secondary wastewater sludge for production of hydrogen from crude glycerol and comparative evaluation of mono-, co-and mixed-culture systems. Int J Mol Sci 17:92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Panpong K, Srisuwan G, Sompong O, Kongjan P (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of canned seafood wastewater with glycerol waste for enhanced biogas production. Energy Procedia 52:328–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Papanikolaou S, Fakas S, Fick M, Chevalot I, Galiotou-Panayotou M, Komaitis M, Marc I, Aggelis G (2008) Biotechnological valorisation of raw glycerol discharged after bio-diesel (fatty acid methyl esters) manufacturing process: production of 1, 3-propanediol, citric acid and single cell oil. Biomass Bioenergy 32:60–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Przystałowska H, Lipiński D, Słomski R (2015) Biotechnological conversion of glycerol from biofuels to 1, 3-propanediol using Escherichia coli. Acta Biochim Pol 62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pullammanappallil PC, Chynoweth DP, Lyberatos G, Svoronos SA (2001) Stable performance of anaerobic digestion in the presence of a high concentration of propionic acid. Bioresour Technol 78:165–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Razaviarani V, Buchanan ID (2015) Anaerobic co-digestion of biodiesel waste glycerin with municipal wastewater sludge: microbial community structure dynamics and reactor performance. Bioresour Technol 182:8–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Serrano A, Siles JA, Chica AF, Martin MA (2014) Improvement of mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of agri-food waste by addition of glycerol. J Environ Manag 140:76–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shah P, Chiu F-S, Lan JC-W (2014) Aerobic utilization of crude glycerol by recombinant Escherichia coli for simultaneous production of poly 3-hydroxybutyrate and bioethanol. J Biosci Bioeng 117:343–350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silva FMS, Mahler CF, Oliveira LB, Bassin JP (2018) Hydrogen and methane production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion system by co-digestion of food waste, sewage sludge and glycerol. Waste Manag 76:339–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silvestre G, Fernández B, Bonmatí A (2015) Addition of crude glycerine as strategy to balance the C/N ratio on sewage sludge thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion. Bioresour Technol 193:377–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tiehm A, Nickel K, Zellhorn M, Neis U (2001) Ultrasonic waste activated sludge disintegration for improving anaerobic stabilization. Water Res 35:2003–2009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valcke D, Verstraete W (1983) A practical method to estimate the acetoclastic methanogenic biomass in anaerobic sludges. J Water Pollut Control Fed:1191–1195Google Scholar
  41. Weemaes MP, Verstraete WH (1998) Evaluation of current wet sludge disintegration techniques. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 73:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiland P (2008) Wichtige Messdaten für den Prozessablauf und Stand der Technik in der Praxis. Gülzower Fachgespräche 27:17–31Google Scholar
  43. Yadvika S, Sreekrishnan TR, Kohli S, Rana V (2004) Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniques––a review. Bioresour Technol 95:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang A, Yang S-T (2009) Propionic acid production from glycerol by metabolically engineered Propionibacterium acidipropionici. Process Biochem 44:1346–1351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Separation and Reaction Engineering-Laboratory of Catalysis and Materials (LSRE-LCM), Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de QuímicaUniversidade Tecnológica Federal do ParanáLondrinaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Chemical and Biological Technology, Superior School of TechnologyPolytechnic Institute of BragançaBragançaPortugal

Personalised recommendations