UTILIZATION OF FERMENTATIVE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM Α-CELLULOSE BY COMBINING ANAEROBIC SLUDGE AND CATTLE MANURE

Abstract

Batch fermentation experiments were performed for utilizing bio-hydrogen production from α- cellulose solution (2 ±1 g L-1) by combining anaerobic mixed culture and cattle manure. Mixed cultures of anaerobic sludge (AÇ) and cattle manure (SG) were used with different initial biomass ratios, changed between 1/ 2 and 1/ 15, in order to determine the optimum AÇ/ SG ratio yielding the highest hydrogen gas formation and yield. Hydrogen production by only AÇ and SG mixed cultures were also realized along with the combined fermentations by growing them on αcellulose and glucose. The highest hydrogen formation (HF = 10 mmol L-1 culture), hydrogen yield (13 mmol H2 gr-1 cellulose) were obtained with AÇ/ SG ratio of 1/5. Hydrogen fermentations done with strains alone also yielded considerable hydrogen gas amounts, however less than the mixed ones. The best AÇ/SG ratio of 1/5 were tested for its hydrogen gas formation yield, percent cellulose conversion with time and 10.88 mmol H2 L-1culture, 52 %, were found respectively at 192 h. Acetic acid was the highest volatile fatty acid obtained in the experiments

Keywords

• biohydrogen, co-culture, cattle manure, anaerobic sludge, α-cellulose

FERMENTATİF HİDROJEN ÜRETİMİNİN Α-SELÜLOZ İLE ANAEROBİK ÇAMUR VE SIĞIR GÜBRESİ KARIŞIMLARINI KULLANARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Anaerobik karışık kültür ve sığır gübresi karışımları ile kesikli deneylerde α-selülozun (2 ±1 g L-1) bio-hidrojen üretim performansı değerlendirilmiştir. Anaerobik çamur (AÇ) ve sığır gübresi (SG); 1/ 2- 1/ 15 arasında değişen giriş biyomas oranlarında karıştırılarak en iyi hidrojen üretim verimi ve miktarını veren optimum AÇ/ SG oranı saptanmıştır. Ayrıca AÇ ve SG karıştırılmadan hem α-selüloz hem de glukoz üzerindeki hidrojen üretimleri, karışımların performansları ile karşılaştırıl -mıştır. En yüksek hidrojen oluşumu (HF = 10 mmol L-1 kültür), üretim verimi (13 mmol H2 g -1 selüloz) AÇ/SG oranı 1/5 olduğunda elde edilmiştir. Kültürler ayrı ayrı, kayda değer hidrojen üretim verimleri vermesine rağmen, karışımlardan daha düşük değerlerde kalmıştır. Deneyler sonucuda elde edilen en iyi AÇ/ SG oranı olan 1/5 ile yeni bir deney yapılmış ve zamana karşı hidrojen üretim performansını belirleyen değerlerden hidrojen üretimi, yüzde selüloz dönüşümü, 192. saatte sırasıyla 10.88 mmol H2 L-1 kültür ve %52 olarak bulunmuştur. Asetik asit en yüksek uçucu yağ asidi olarak tayin edilmiştir

Keywords

• Biyo-hidrojen, birleşik kültür, sığır gübresi, Anaerobik çamur, α-selüloz

References

1. Kapdan IK, Kargi F. 2006. Biohydrogen waste materials. Enzyme Microb. Technol. Cilt. 38, s. 569-582. DOI:10.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.09. from Kotay S.M., Das D.
2. Biohydrogen as a renewable energy resource - Prospects and potentials. Int J Hydrogen Energy. Cilt. 1016/j.ijhydene.2007.07.031
3. Manish S., Banerjee R. 2008. Comparison of biohydrogen production
4. Hydrogen Energy. Cilt 33, s. 279- 1016/j.ijhydene.2007.07.026
5. Ni M., Leung, D.Y.C., Leung M.K.H., Sumathy K. 2006. An overview of hydrogen biomass. Fuel Process. Technol. Cilt , 1016/j.fuproc.2005.11.003
6. V-Vazquez I, P-Valardo M. 2009. Hydrogen fermentation consortia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Cilt 13:5, s. 1000-1013. DOI: 1016/j.rser.2008.03.003 by
7. Gupta P., Samant K. and Sahu A. Isolation of Cellulose- Degrading Determination of Their Cellulolytic Potential. Int. of Microbiology. International Microbiology. Cilt. 2012, s. 5 sayfa. DOI: 10.1155/2012/578925
8. Levin D. B., Carere C. R., Cicek N., Sparling R. 2009. Challenges for bio-hydrogen production via direct lignocellulose fermentation Int. J.

9. Hydrogen Energy. Cilt 34, s. 7390- , 1016/j.ijhydene.2009.05.091
10. Geng A., He Y., Qian C., Yan X., Zhou Z. 2010. Effect of key factors on hydrogen production from cellulose in a co-culture of
11. Clostridium thermocellum and Clostridium Bioresource :11, 1016/j.biortech.2010.01.042
12. Kaparaju P., Serrano M., Thomsen A. B., Kongjan P., Angelidaki I. Bioethanol, biohydrogen and biogas production from wheat straw in a biorefinery concept . Bioresource Technology. Cilt 100:9, s. 1016/j.biortech.2008.11.011 DOI: Biohydrogen mesophilic generation anaerobic microcrystalline cellulose. Biotech. and Bioeng. Cilt 74:4, s. 280–287. DOI: 10.1002/bit.1118 of
13. Ren Z, Ward T.E., Logan B.E., Regan J.M. 2007. Characterization of the cellulolytic and hydrogen- producing mesophilic Clostridium species. J
14. Appl Microbiol. Cilt 103: 6, s. 66. DOI: 2007.03477.x of six 1111/j.1365
15. Saratale G.D., Chen S.-D., Lo Y.-C., Saratale R. G.and Chang J. S. 2008.
16. Outlook of biohydrogen production from using dark fermentation- a review. J. Science and Industrial Research. Cilt http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123 /2424 feedstock , s. 979. DOI:
17. Wang A., Gao L., Ren N., Xu J. and Liu production from cellulose by sequential co-culture of cellulosic hydrogen bacteria of Enterococcus gallinarum G1 and Ethanoigenens harbinense B49. Biotechnology Letters. Cilt 31:9, s. 1321-1326. DOI: 10.1007/s10529-009-0028-z
18. Girija D, Deepa K, Xavier Francis, Antony Irin, Shidh P R. 2013.
19. Analysis of cow dung microbiota— A metagenomic approach Indian Journal of Biotechnology. Cilt. 12, s. 378. http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/ DOI:
20. Hagenkamp-Korth F., Ohl S., Hartung E. 2015. Effects on the biogas and methane production of cattle manure treated with urease inhibitor, Biomass and Bioenergy. Cilt. 75, s. 75-82. DOI: 1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.014
21. León E., Martín M. 2016. Optimal production of power in a combined cycle from manure based biogas, Energy
22. Management. Cilt. 14, s. 89-99. DOI: 1016/j.enconman.2016.02.002
23. Tsapekos P, Kougias P.G, Treu L., Campanaro S., Angelidaki I. 2017. Process comparative metagenomic analysis during co-digestion of manure and lignocellulosic biomass for biogas production, Applied Energy. Cilt. :1, 1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.081 Ozmihci S, Kargi F. 2010a.
24. Comparison of different mixed cultures production from ground wheat starch by combined dark and light fermentation. Biotechnol. Cilt. 37, s. 341-347. DOI: 10.1007/s10295-009-0679-8
25. Ozmihci S, Kargi F. 2010b. Effects of performance of combined fed batch fermentation of ground wheat production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. Cilt. 35, s. 1106-1111. DOI: 1016/j.ijhydene.2009.11.048
26. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F. 1956. Colorimetric determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem Cilt. , for s. –366. DOI: 1021/ac60111a017 Kargi F, Ozmihci S.
27. Utilization of cheese whey powder for ethanol fermentations: effects of operating conditions. Enzyme Microb Technol Cilt. 38, s. 711– DOI: 10.1007/s00449-006- 0
28. Greenberg, A. E., Clesceri, L. S., Eaton, A. D., 2005. Eds. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 21st edn. American Public Health , s. 939. DOI:
29. Feasibility of hydrogen production in fermentation by natural anaerobes. Bioresource Tecnology. Cilt. 98, s. 2239. 1016/j.biortech.2006.09.039
30. Wang A., Ren N., Shi Y., Lee D-J. Bioaugmented hydrogen production from microcrystalline cellulose Clostridium acetobutylicum X9 and Ethanoigenens harbinense B49. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. Cilt. 33, s. 912- 1016/j.ijhydene.2007.10.017
31. Ren N.-Q., Xu J.-F., Gao L.- F., Xin L., QiuJ., Su D.-X. 2010., Fermentative bio-hydrogen production from cellulose by cow dung compost enriched cultures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. Cilt. 35:7, s. 2742-2746. DOI: 1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.057
32. Fan Y.-T., Xing Y., Ma H.-C., Pan C.- M., Hou H.-W. 2008. Enhanced cellulose-hydrogen from corn stalk by lesser panda manure. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. Cilt. 33:21, s. 6058-6065. DOI: 1016/j.ijhydene.2008.08.005