Biohydrogen production from acidic and alkaline hydrolysates of paddy straw using locally isolated facultative bacteria through dark fermentation

  • Jerry Mechery
  • Daniya M. Thomas
  • C. S. Praveen Kumar
  • Laigi Joseph
  • V. P. SylasEmail author
Original Article


The hydrogen production from hydrolysates of acid and alkali pretreated paddy straw using locally isolated facultative bacteria, Proteus mirabilis, was investigated. Acidic and alkaline pretreatments have increased the total sugar content in the hydrolysates, thus enhanced hydrogen production. Acidic hydrolysate produced higher yield of hydrogen than alkaline with a maximum cumulative hydrogen volume of 833.43 ± 21.72 mL H2, which was 3.33-fold higher than that of untreated substrate. The initial pH 6 was observed to be the optimum with 1.03 mol H2mol−1 glucose for the acidic hydrolysate. Similarly, the temperature 34 °C was found to be the most favourable with 1.00 mol H2mol−1 glucose for the acidic hydrolysate among the different experimental conditions studied. The present study confirms the clean energy production from waste biomass through dark fermentation by native bacteria and has potential scope for further studies.


Biohydrogen Proteus mirabilis Lignocellulose Paddy straw hydrolysate Acid pretreatment Alkali pretreatment 



The author (JM) is thankful to KSCSTE, Govt. of Kerala, for providing research fellowship. All authors are thankful to Dr. A.P. Thomas, Director, Advanced Centre for Environmental Sciences and Sustainable Development and Dr. C.T. Aravindakumar, Director, IUIC (DST-SAIF) Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala India for providing support and necessary research help. The authors are also thankful to State Plan Fund (2015), Govt. of Kerala, KSCSTE–SARD and DST-FIST and DST- PURSE for the technical support to the present work.


  1. 1.
    Staffell I, Scamman D, Abad AV, Balcombe P, Dodds PE, Ekins P, Shah N, Ward KR (2019) The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ Sci 12:463–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karthic P, Shiny J (2012) Comparison and limitations of biohydrogen production processes. Res J Biotechnol 7:59–71Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar G, Shobana S, Nagarajan D, Lee DJ, Lee KS, Lin CY, Chang JS (2018) Biomass based hydrogen production by dark fermentation—recent trends and opportunities for greener processes. Curr Opn in Biotech 50:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mishra P, Krishnan S, Rana S, Singh L, Sakinah M, Ab WZ (2019) Outlook of fermentative hydrogen production techniques: an overview of dark, photo and integrated dark-photo fermentative approach to biomass. Ener Strat Rev 24:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hay JXW, Wu TY, Juan JC, Jahim J (2013) Biohydrogen production through photo fermentation or dark fermentation using waste as a substrate: overview, economics and future prospects of hydrogen usage. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 7:334–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chong ML, Sabaratnam V, Shirai Y, Hassan MA (2009) Biohydrogen production from biomass and industrial wastes by dark fermentation. Int J Hydrog Energy 34:3277–3287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gadde B, Bonnet S, Menke C, Garivait S (2009) Air pollutant emissions from rice straw open field burning in India. Thailand and the Philippines Environ Pollut 157:1554–1558Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen HV, Nguyen CD, Tran TV, Hau HD, Nguyen NT, Gummert M (2016) Energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost of rice straw collection in the Mekong River delta of Vietnam. Field Crops Res 198:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gadde B, Menke C, Wassmann R (2009) Rice straw as a renewable energy source in India, Thailand, and the Philippines: overall potential and limitations for energy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1532–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andini A, Bonnet S, Rousset P, Hasanudin U (2018) Impact of open buring of crop residues on air pollution and climate change in Indonesia. Curr Sc 115:2259–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gadde B, Bonnet S, Menke C, Garivait S (2009) Air pollutant emission from rice straw open field burning in India, Thailand and the Philippines. Environ Pollut 157:1554–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oanh NTK, Bich TL, Tipayarom D, Manadhar BR, Prapat P, Simpson CD, Liu LJS (2011) Characterization of particulate matter emission from open burning of rice straw. Atmos Environ 45:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang KL, Thitikornamorn J, Hsieh JF, Ou BM, Chen SH, Ratanakhanokchai K, Huang PJ, Chen ST (2011) Enhanced enzymatic conversion with freeze pretreatment of rice straw. Biomass Bioenergy 35:90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar AK, Sharma S (2017) Recent updates on different methods of pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks: a review. Bioresour Bioprocess 4:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zheng Y, Zhao J, Xu F, Li Y (2014) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biogas production. Prog Energy Combust 42:35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang J, Yin Y (2017) Principle and application of different pretreatment methods for enriching hydrogen-producing bacteria from mixed cultures. Int. J. of Hydr. Ener 42(8):4804–4823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Badiei M, Asim N, Jahim JM, Sopian K (2014) Comparison of chemical treatment methods for cellulosic biomass. APCBEE Procedia 9:170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar K, Roy S, Das D (2013) Continuous mode of carbon dioxide sequestration by C. sorokiniana and subsequent use of its biomass for hydrogen production by E. cloacae IIT-BT 08. Bioresour Technol 145:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sangian HF, Widjaja A (2017) Effect of pretreatment method on structural changes of coconut coir dust. Bioresources 12:8030–8046Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li C, Fang HHP (2007) Fermentation hydrogen production from wastewater and solid wastes by mixed cultures. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 37:1–39MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mechery J, Biji B, Thomas DM, Sylas VP (2017) Biohydrogen production by locally isolated facultative bacterial species using the biomass of Eichhornia crassipes: effect of acid and alkali treatment. Energ Ecol Environ 2:350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DuBois M, Gilles K, Hamilton J, Rebers P, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Segal L, Creely JJ, AEJr M, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the x-ray diffractometer. Tex Res J 29:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lay CH, Sen B, Chen CC, Wu JH, Lee SC, Lin CY (2013) Co-fermentation of water hyacinth and beverage wastewater in powder and pellet form for hydrogen production. Bioresour Technol 135:610–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fang HHP, Liu H (2002) Effect of pH on hydrogen production from glucose by a mixed culture. Bioresour Technol 82:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association;19th edn, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Faloye FD, Kana EBG, Schmidt S (2013) Optimization of hybrid inoculum development techniques for biohydrogen production and preliminary scale up. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:11765–11773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    DiLallo R, Albertson OE (1961) Volatile acids by direct titration. Water Pol Contr Fed 33:356–365Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moodley P, Kana G (2017) Optimization of operational parameters for biohydrogen production from waste sugarcane leaves and semi-pilot scale process assessment. Bioresour 12:2015–2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Logan BE, Oh SE, Kim IS, Ginkel SV (2002) Biological hydrogen production measured in batch anaerobic respirometers. Environ Sci Technol 36:2530–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patel SKS, Purohit H, Kalia VC (2010) Dark fermentative hydrogen production by defined mixed microbial cultures immobilized on lignocellulosic waste materials. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:10674–10681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel SKS, Lee JK, Kalia VC (2017) Dark fermentative biological hydrogen production from mixed biowastes using defined mixed cultures. Indian J Microbiol 57:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cui M, Yuan Z, Zhi X, Wei L, Shen J (2010) Biohydrogen productionfrom poplar leaves pretreated by different methods usinganaerobic mixed bacteria. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:4041–4047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cui M, Shen J (2012) Effects of acid and alkaline pretreatments on the biohydrogen production from grass by anaerobic dark fermentation. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:1120–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sindhu R, Kuttiraja M, Binod P, Sukumaran RK, Pandey A (2014) Bioethanol production from dilute acid pretreated Indian bamboo varaiety (Dendrocalamussp.) by separate hydrolysis and fermerntaion. Ind Crop Prod 52:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baadhe RR, Potumarthi R, Mekala NK (2014) Influence of dilute acid and alkali pretreatment on reducing sugar production from corncobs by crude enzymatic method:a comparative study. Bioresour Technol 162:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibrahim MM, El-Zawawy WK, Abdel-Fattah YR et al (2011) Comparison of alkaline pulping with steam explosion for glucose production from rice straw. Carbohydr Polym 83(2):720–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yan J, Wei Z, Wang Q, He M, Li S, Irbis C (2015) Bioethanol production from sodium hydroxide/hydrogen peroxide pretreated water hyacinth via simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with a newly isolated thermotolerant Kluyveromyces marxianu strain. Bioresour Technol 193:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bensah EC, Mensah M (2013) Chemical pretreatment methods for the production of cellulosic ethanol: technologies and innovations. Int J Chem Eng.
  41. 41.
    Salimi MN, Lim SE, Yusoff AHM, Jamlos MF (2017) Conversion of rice husk into fermentable sugar by two stage hydrolysis. J Phys Conf Series 908:012056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kassim MA, Kheang LS, Bakar NA, Aziz AA, Som RM (2011) Bioethanol production from enzymatically saccharified empty fruit bunches hydrolysate using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Res J Environ Sci 5:573–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jonsson LJ, Martin C (2016) Pretreatment of lignocellulose: formation of inhibitory by-products and strategies for minimizing their effects. Bioresour Technol 199:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zu S, Li WZ, Zhang M, Li Z, Wang Z, Jameel H, Chang HM (2014) Pretreatment of corn stover for sugar production using dilute hydrochloric acid followed by lime. Bioresour Technol 152:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ghali AE, Marzoug IB, Baouab MHV, Roudesli MS (2012) Separation and characterization of new cellulosic fibres from the Juncusacutus plant. Bio Resources 7:2002–2018Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xiao LP, Sun ZJ, Shi ZJ, Xu F, Sun RC (2011) Impact of hot compressed water pretreatment on the structural changes of woody biomass for bioethanol production. Bio Resources 6:1576–1598Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ding TY, Hii SL, Ong LGA (2012) Comparison of pretreatment strategies for conversion of coconut husk fiber to fermentable sugars. Bio Resources 7:1540–1547Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ibrahim MM, Agblevor FA, El-Zawawy WK (2010) Isolation and characterization of cellulose and lignin from steam-exploded lignocellulosic biomass. Bio Resources 5:397–418Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kahar P (2013) Synergistic effects of pretreatment process on enzymatic digestion of rice straw for efficient ethanol fermentation. In M. Petre (ed.) Environmental Biotechnology-New Approaches and Prospective Applications. pp. 73–77.
  50. 50.
    Rahnama N, Mamat S, Shah UKM, Ling FH, Rahman NAA, Ariff AB (2013) Effect of alkali pretreatment of rice straw oncellulase and xylanaseproduction by local TrichodermaharzianumSNRS3 under solid state fermentation. Bioresources 8:2881–2896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xing Y, Sq F, Zhang JN, Fan YT, Hou HW (2011) Enhanced biohydrogen producyion from corn stalk by anaerobic fermentation using response surface methodology. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:12770–12779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ramos LP (2003) The chemistry involved in the steam treatment oflignocellulosic materials. Quim Nova 26:863–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pan C, Zhang S, Fan Y, Hou H (2010) Bioconversion of corncob to hydrogen using anaerobic mixed microflora. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:2663–2669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sills DL, Gossett JM (2011) Assessment of commercial hemicellulases for saccharification of alkaline pretreated perennial biomass. Bioresour Technol 102:1389–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gottumukkala LD, Sukumaran RK, Mohan SV, Valappil SK, Sarkar O, Pandey A (2015) Rice straw hydrolysate to fuel and volatile fatty acid conversion by Clostridium sporogenes BE01: bioelectrochemical analysis of the electron transport mediators involved. Green Chem 17:3047–3058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wongthanate J (2014) ChinnacotpongK,Khumpong M. Impacts of pH, temperature, and pretreatment method on biohydrogen production from organicwastes by sewage microflora. Int J Energy Environ Eng 5:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lay CH, Lin HC, Lin CY, Lee CW, Chen CC (2010) Optimal pH and substrate concentration for fermentative hydrogen production from preserved fruits soaking solution. Sust Environ Res 20:35–41Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mohan SV, Babu VL, Sarma PN (2008) Effect of various pretreatment methods on anaerobic mixed microflora to enhance biohydrogen production utilizing dairy wastewater as substrate. Bioresour Technol 99:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhu H, Beland M (2006) Evaluation of alternative methods of preparing hydrogen producing seeds from digested wastewater sludge. Int J Hydrog Energy 31:1980–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fan Y, Li C, Lay JJ, Hou H, Zhang G (2004) Optimization of initial substrate and pH levels for germination of sporing hydrogen-producing anaerobes in cow dung compost. BioresourTechnol 91:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Khanal SK, Chen WH, Li L, Sung S (2004) Biological hydrogen production: effects of pH and intermediate products. Int J Hydrog Energy 29:1123–1131Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sun JY, Yu SH, Ryu KG, Lee TJ (2008) Kinetic study of pH effects on biological hydrogen production by a mixed culture. J Microbiol Biotechnol 18:1130–1135Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wang G, Mu Y, Yu HQ (2005) Response surface analysis to evaluate the influence of pH, temperature and substrate concentration on the acidogenesis of sucrose-rich wastewater. Biochem Eng J 23:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fang HHP, Li CL, Zhang T (2006) Acidophilic biohydrogen production from rice slurry. Int J Hydrog Energy 31:683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Muri P, Crnivec IGO, Djinovi P, Pintar A (2016) Biohydrogen production from simple carbohydrateswith optimization of operating parameters. Acta Chim Slov 63:154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ghimire A, Frunzo L, Pirozzi F, Trably E, Escudie R, Lens PML, Esposito G (2015) A review on dark fermentative biohydrogen production from organic biomass: process parameters and use of by-products. Appl Energy 144:73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mu Y, Zheng XJ, Yu HQ, Zhu RF (2006) Biological hydrogen production by anaerobic sludge at various temperatures. Int J Hydrog Energy 31:780–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fangkum A, Reungsang A (2011) Biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate by elephant dung: effects of initial pH and substrate concentration. Int Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36:8687–8696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kargi F, Eren NS, Ozmihci S (2012) Hydrogen gas production from cheese whey powder (CWP) solution by thermophilic dark fermentation. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:2260–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Reungsang A, Sreela-or C (2013) Bio-hydrogen production from pineapple waste extract by anaerobic mixed cultures. Energies 6:2175–2190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Liu CM, Chu CY, Lee WY, Li YC, Wu SY, Chou YP (2013) Biohydrogen production evaluation from rice straw hydrolysate by concentrated acid pre-treatment in both batch and continuous systems. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:15823–15829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Singhal Y, Singh R (2014) Effect of microwave pre-treatment of mixed culture on biohydrogen production from waste of sweet produced from Benincasa hispida. Int J of Hydrogen Energy 39:7534–7540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Marone A, Izzo G, Mentuccia L, Massini G, Paganin P, Rosa S, Varrone C, Signorini A (2014) Vegetable waste as substrate and source of suitable microflora for bio-hydrogen production. Renew Energy 68:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dhar BR, Elbeshbishy E, Hafez H, Lee HS (2015) Hydrogen production from sugar beet juice using an integrated biohydrogen process of dark fermentation and microbial electrolysis cell. BioresourTechnol 198:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Argun H, Dao S (2016) Bio-hydrogen production from waste peach pulp by dark fermentation: effect of inoculum addition. Int J Hydrog Energy 42:2569–2574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wang S, Ma Z, Zhang T, Bao M, Su H (2017) Optimization and modeling of biohydrogen production by mixed bacterial cultures from raw cassava starch. Front ChemSci Eng 11:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fatehizadeh A, Amin M, Bina B, Zare MR, Ghasemian M, Taheri E (2018) Biohydrogen production as clean fuel from physically pretreated mixed culture. Adv Biomed Res 7:80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sheng T, Zhao L, Gao L, Liu W, Wu G, Wu J, Wang A (2018) Enhanced biohydrogen production from nutrient-free anaerobic fermentation medium with edible fungal pretreated rice straw. RSC Adv 8:22924–22930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sekoai PT, Daramola MO (2018) Effect of metal ions on dark fermentative biohydrogen production using suspended and immobilized cells of mixed bacteria. ChemEngComm 205(8):1011–1022Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Alkaya E, Demirer GN (2011) Anaerobic acidification of sugar-beet processing wastes: effect of operational parameters. Biomass Bioenergy 35:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Penniston J, Kana EBG (2018) Impact of medium pH regulation on biohydrogen production in dark fermentation process using suspended and immobilized microbial cells. BiotechnolBiotechnologic Equip 32:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    O-Thong S, Prasertsan P, Intrasungkha N, Dhamwichukorn S, Birkeland NKÅ (2008) Optimization of simultaneous thermophilic fermentative hydrogen production and COD reduction from palm oil mill effluent by Thermoanaerobacterium- rich sludge. Int J Hydrog Energy 33:1221–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lakshmidevi R, Muthukumar K (2010) Enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of paper and pulp industry effluent for biohydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:3389–3400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kumar G, Sivagurunathan P, Lin CY (2013) Hydrogen fermentation potential of E. coli XL1 blue using various carbon sources. J Environ Appl Biores 1:19–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesMahatma Gandhi UniversityKottayamIndia
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryGoverment CollegeKottayamIndia

Personalised recommendations