Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 184, Issue 4, pp 1219–1231 | Cite as

Effect of Feedstock Concentration on Biogas Production by Inoculating Rumen Microorganisms in Biomass Solid Waste

  • Na Li
  • Fenglin Yang
  • Huining Xiao
  • Jian Zhang
  • Qingwei Ping


A methane production system with continuous stirred-tank reactor, rumen liquid as inoculate microorganisms, and paper mill excess sludge (PES) as feedstock was studied. The work mainly focused on revealing the effect of feedstock concentration on the biogas production, which was seldom reported previously for the current system. The optimal fermentation conditions were found as follows: pH = 7, T = 39 ± 1 °C, sludge retention time is 20 days, sludge with total solids (TS) are 1, 2, 3.5, 5, 10, and 13% in weight. Daily gas yields were measured, and biogas compositions were analyzed by gas chromatograph. Under such conditions, the optimum input TS was 10 wt%, and the biogas yield and volume gas productivity were 280.2 mL/g·TS and 1188.4 mL L−1·d−1, respectively. The proportions of CH4 and CO2 in the biogas were 65.1 and 34.2%. The CH4 yield reached 182.7 mL/g VS (volatile suspended solid), which was higher than previously reported values. The findings of this work have a significant effect on promoting the application of digesting PES by rumen microorganisms and further identified the technical parameter.


Excess sludge Rumen microorganisms Lignocellulose biodegradation Biogas production Feedstock concentration 



This work was supported by the State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper Engineering [grant numbers 201608] China and NSERC Canada.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as adopted and promulgated by the United National Institutes of Health. All experimental protocols were approved by the Review Committee for the Use of Human or Animal Subjects of Dalian Polytechnic University.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict interest.


  1. 1.
    Bayr, S., & Rintala, J. (2012). Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill primary sludge and co-digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Water Research, 46, 4713–4720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boshoff, S., Gottumukkala, L. D., van Rensburg, E., & Görgens, J. (2016). Paper sludge (PS) to bioethanol: evaluation of virgin and recycle mill sludge for low enzyme, high-solids fermentation. Bioresource Technology, 203, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, H., Han, Q., Daniel, K., Venditti, R., & Jameel, H. (2014). Conversion of industrial paper sludge to ethanol: fractionation of sludge and its impact. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 174, 2096–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elliott, A., & Mahmood, T. (2012). Comparison of mechanical pretreatment methods for the enhancement of anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper waste activated sludge. Water Environment Research, 84, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayr, S., Kaparaju, P., & Rintala, J. (2013). Screening pretreatment methods to enhance thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill wastewater treatment secondary sludge. Chemical Engineering Journal, 223, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Várnai, A., Siika-aho, M., & Viikari, L. (2010). Restriction of the enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-pretreated spruce by lignin and hemicellulose. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 46, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendriks, A., & Zeeman, G. (2009). Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 100, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lu, P., Zhang, W., He, M., Yan, Y., & Xiao, H. (2016). Cellulase-assisted refining of bleached softwood kraft pulp for making water vapor barrier and grease-resistant paper. Cellulose, 23, 891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, Z.-H., Yue, Z.-B., Yu, H.-Q., Liu, S.-Y., Harada, H., & Li, Y.-Y. (2012). Mechanisms of microwave irradiation pretreatment for enhancing anaerobic digestion of cattail by rumen microorganisms. Applied Energy, 93, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kivaisi, A., & Eliapenda, S. (1995). Application of rumen microorganisms for enhanced anaerobic degradation of bagasse and maize bran. Biomass and Bioenergy, 8, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, C.-T., Yang, C.-M. J., & Chen, Z.-S. (2012). Rumen microbial volatile fatty acids in relation to oxidation reduction potential and electricity generation from straw in microbial fuel cells. Biomass and Bioenergy, 37, 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selinger, L., Forsberg, C., & Cheng, K.-J. (1996). The rumen: a unique source of enzymes for enhancing livestock production. Anaerobe, 2, 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lü, Y., Li, N., Gong, D., Wang, X., & Cui, Z. (2012). The effect of temperature on the structure and function of a cellulose-degrading microbial community. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 168, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu, Z.-H., Liu, S.-Y., Yue, Z.-B., Yan, L.-F., Yang, M.-T., & Yu, H.-Q. (2007). Microscale analysis of in vitro anaerobic degradation of lignocellulosic wastes by rumen microorganisms. Environmental Science & Technology, 42, 276–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu, Z.-H., & Yu, H.-Q. (2006). Anaerobic digestion of cattail by rumen cultures. Waste Management, 26, 1222–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Sullivan, C., Burrell, P., Pasmore, M., Clarke, W., & Blackall, L. (2009). Application of flowcell technology for monitoring biofilm development and cellulose degradation in leachate and rumen systems. Bioresource Technology, 100, 492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bao, L., Huang, Q., Chang, L., Sun, Q., Zhou, J., & Lu, H. (2012). Cloning and characterization of two β-glucosidase/xylosidase enzymes from yak rumen metagenome. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 166, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jimenez-Flores, R., Fake, G., Carroll, J., Hood, E., & Howard, J. (2010). A novel method for evaluating the release of fermentable sugars from cellulosic biomass. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 47, 206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mizrahi, I. (2013). Rumen symbioses , in The Prokaryotes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 533–544.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jin, W., Xu, X., Gao, Y., Yang, F., & Wang, G. (2014). Anaerobic fermentation of biogas liquid pretreated maize straw by rumen microorganisms in vitro. Bioresource Technology, 153, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rice, E., & Bridgewater, L. (2012). Association APH: Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health. pp. 256–265.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Association., A. P. H. (1960). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-Water including Bottom Sediments and Sludges. Prepared and published jointly by American Public Health Association and American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 11th Ed. pp. 396–399.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qi, X.-j., Gou, J.-x., Han, X.-j., & Yan, B. (2004). Study on measuring reducing sugar by DNS reagent. Journal of Cellulose Science and Technology, 3, 17–20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pandey, P. K., Ndegwa, P. M., Soupir, M. L., Alldredge, J. R., & Pitts, M. J. (2011). Efficacies of inocula on the startup of anaerobic reactors treating dairy manure under stirred and unstirred conditions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 2705–2720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Griffin, M. E., McMahon, K. D., Mackie, R. I., & Raskin, L. (1998). Methanogenic population dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and biosolids. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 57, 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, W.-m., Hickey, R., & Zeikus, J. (1991). Characterization of metabolic performance of methanogenic granules treating brewery wastewater: role of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 57, 3438–3449.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McInerney, M. J., & Gieg, L. M. (2004). An overview of anaerobic metabolism. Strict and facultatie anaerobes: medical and environmental aspects. Horiz Biosci, Norfolk, 56, 27–66.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masse, D. I., Masse, L., Verville, A., & Bilodeau, S. (2001). The start-up of anaerobic sequencing batch reactors at 20° C and 25° C for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 76, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Björnsson, L., Mattiasson, B., & Henrysson, T. (1997). Effects of support material on the pattern of volatile fatty acid accumulation at overload in anaerobic digestion of semi-solid waste. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 47, 640–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen, C., Zheng, D., Liu, G. J., Deng, L. W., Long, Y., & Fan, Z. H. (2015). Continuous dry fermentation of swine manure for biogas production. Waste Management, 38, 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vavilin, V., & Angelidaki, I. (2005). Anaerobic degradation of solid material: importance of initiation centers for methanogenesis, mixing intensity, and 2D distributed model. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 89, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ahn, H. K., Smith, M., Kondrad, S., & White, J. (2010). Evaluation of biogas production potential by dry anaerobic digestion of switchgrass–animal manure mixtures. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 160, 965–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lokshina, L. Y., Vavilin, V., Salminen, E., & Rintala, J. (2003). Modeling of anaerobic degradation of solid slaughterhouse waste. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 109, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Feng, Y., Zhang, Y., Quan, X., & Chen, S. (2014). Enhanced anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge digestion by the addition of zero valent iron. Water Research, 52, 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mirzaei, A., & Maheri-Sis, N. (2015). Factors affecting mitigation of methane emission from ruminants: microbiology and biotechnology strategies. JABB-Online Submission System, 4, 22–31.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khazaal, K., Dentinho, M., Ribeiro, J., & Ørskov, E. (1993). A comparison of gas production during incubation with rumen contents in vitro and nylon bag degradability as predictors of the apparent digestibility in vivo and the voluntary intake of hays. Animal Science, 57, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khazaal, K., Dentinho, M. T., Ribeiro, J. M., & Ørskov, E. R. (1993). A comparison of gas production during incubation with rumen contents in vitro digestibility and the voluntary intake of hays. Agricultural & Biological Chemistry, 57, 105–112.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jarvis, G. N., Strömpl, C., Burgess, D. M., Skillman, L. C., Moore, E. R., & Joblin, K. N. (2000). Isolation and identification of ruminal methanogens from grazing cattle. Current Microbiology, 40, 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bujoczek, G., Oleszkiewicz, J., Sparling, R., & Cenkowski, S. (2000). High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure. JAER, 76, 51–60.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Koster, I., & Lettinga, G. (1984). The influence of ammonium-nitrogen on the specific activity of pelletized methanogenic sludge. Agricultural Wastes, 9, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Velsen, A. (1979). Adaptation of methanogenic sludge to high ammonia-nitrogen concentrations. Water Research, 13, 995–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koster, I. W. (1986). Characteristics of the pH-influenced adaptation of methanogenic sludge to ammonium toxicity. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 36, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karlsson, A., Truong, X. B., Gustavsson, J., Svensson, B. H., Nilsson, F., & Ejlertsson, J. (2011). Anaerobic treatment of activated sludge from Swedish pulp and paper mills–biogas production potential and limitations. Environmental Technology, 32, 1559–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Puhakka, J. A., Viitasaari, M., Latola, P., & Määttä, R. (1988). Effect of temperature on anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper industry wastewater sludges. Water Science and Technology, 20, 193–201.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Park, N. D., Helle, S. S., & Thring, R. W. (2012). Combined alkaline and ultrasound pre-treatment of thickened pulp mill waste activated sludge for improved anaerobic digestion. Biomass and Bioenergy, 46, 750–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hagelqvist, A. (2013). Batchwise mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of secondary sludge from pulp and paper industry and municipal sewage sludge. Waste Management, 33, 820–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lin, Y., Wang, D., Wu, S., Wang, L., & Lin, Z. (2010). Methane production in anaerobic digestion of paper mill sludge by alkali/biological pretreatment. China Environmental Science, 30, 650–657.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Na Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Fenglin Yang
    • 4
  • Huining Xiao
    • 3
  • Jian Zhang
    • 1
  • Qingwei Ping
    • 1
  1. 1.Liaoning Province Key Laboratory of Plup and Papermaking EngineeringDalian Polytechnic UniversityDalianChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper EngineeringSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Limerick Pulp & Paper Centre and Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada
  4. 4.Key Laboratory of Industrial Ecology and Environmental Engineering (MOE), School of Environment Science and TechnologyDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations