Enhancing biogas production from co-digestion of organic wastes mixed with cattle manure using rumen fluid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F

Mulugeta Fentahun; Birhanu Kahsay

doi:10.12688/f1000research.161561.1

Home Browse Enhancing biogas production from co-digestion of organic wastes mixed...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Enhancing biogas production from co-digestion of organic wastes mixed with cattle manure using rumen fluid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F

[version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]

Mulugeta Fentahun ¹, Birhanu Kahsay²

PUBLISHED 13 Feb 2025

Author details Author details

¹ College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Department of Biology, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Amhara, 269, Ethiopia
² Institute of Biotechnology, Mekelle University, Mek'ele, Tigray, Ethiopia

Mulugeta Fentahun
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Birhanu Kahsay
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Energy gateway.

Abstract

Background

Biogas production from different types of biodegradable wastes used as an alternative for fossil fuels for energy consumption and biodegradable waste management. Biogas is a cost-effective, ecologically friendly, sustainable energy source that is also a reliable method to handle food waste.

Methods

This study used rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F to maximize the production of biogas from household consumption of three substrates such as cattle manure, cafeteria leftover foods, and fruit and vegetable wastes. Plastic 0.6 L digesters operating at a mesophilic temperature (30°C) were used to produce biogas from the mixed waste. Biogas production was recorded after the 60-day retention period. Standard methods were used to figure out parameters like pH, total solids, organic carbon volatile solids, and moisture content of the raw mixed wastes. This study was carried out experimentally using factorial patterns and a completely randomized 6 × 2 design. The water displacement method was used to estimate the average amount of biogas generated by a 0.6 L digester.

Result

The corresponding VS/TS ratios for cattle manure, fruit and vegetable waste, and leftover cafeteria food waste were 91.2%, 80.2%, and 78.3%. More biogas was produced using rumen fluid and the S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F than from mixed wastes without inoculums. The highest volume of biogas (6900.3 ml) was generated by mixing 10 ml of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F with the rumen fluids (100 ml). The digester that included 100 ml of rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae was the optimum performance for biogas production.

Conclusion

This result suggests that using rumen fluid and the S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F as inoculums in a biogas digestor can enhance the production of biogas.

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion, Biogas production, Inoculum, Rumen fluid

Corresponding author: Mulugeta Fentahun

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research was supported by Debre Markos University.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2025 Fentahun M and Kahsay B. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Fentahun M and Kahsay B. Enhancing biogas production from co-digestion of organic wastes mixed with cattle manure using rumen fluid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:199 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161561.1) First published: 13 Feb 2025, 14:199 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161561.1) Latest published: 13 Feb 2025, 14:199 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161561.1)

1. Introduction

The sources of renewable energy have gained attention due to growing concern about the negative environmental effects of fossil fuels and the depletion of global petroleum reserves (Akinbami et al., 2001; Imri and Valeria, 2007). Long-term possible strategies for sustainable growth should be address the world’s current environmental issues and potential fossil fuel crisis (Farid, 2022). Under this situation one of the most promising and feasible options appears to be renewable energy (Alemayehu, 2014). Biogas remains in use worldwide as a source of renewable energy, less expensive, environmentally friendly, clean and readily available (Abdulkareem, 2005; Arthur and Brew-Hammond, 2010; Alemayehu, 2014). Biogas may be generated from bio-waste or biomass and used for cooking, heating, lighting and absorption refrigeration, compressing gas for storage, use in vehicles, and generating electricity (Harris, 2008; Corral et al., 2008, Nasir et al., 2012).

Biogas is generated when bacteria, and microorganisms break down bio-waste or biomass without oxygen (Membere et al., 2012). An innovative solution to increase anaerobic waste digestion yields are co-digestion due to inexpensive, simple technology, enhance the rate anaerobic digestion process by creating a better nutrient balance from the materials mixed to feed the digester, provide positive synergism for bacterial growth, and increased in biogas production (Sosnowski et al., 2003; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2000; Mshandete et al., 2004; Leta et al., 2015). Several studies have used co-digestion to increase the rate at which organic matter is converted biologically in the biogas system to improving biogas performance (Huang et al., 2016; Alemayehu, 2014; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014; Abbas et al., 2021).

Three useful bacteria groups break down complex organic materials such as fermentative, acidogenic, and methanogenic microbes interdependently during anaerobic digestion. These microorganisms are in responsible of the four-stage process that transforms complex organics into biogas. The hydrolysis stage comes first, followed by the acidogenesis stage, the acetogenesis stage, and the methanogenesis stage (Jia et al., 2020). One of the waste products from slaughterhouses that is regularly dumped into drainage systems is rumen fluids (Zhang et al., 2016). A diverse range of fungus, bacteria, protozoa, and archaea inhabit the rumen, an anaerobic microbial habitat (Sylvester et al., 2004; Sonakya et al., 2003). The rumen contains a variety of microorganisms, including cellulolitic and methanogenic bacteria (Lopes et al., 2004; Yue and Yu, 2009). Rumen could be helpful as an activator in the anaerobic fermentation process that produces biogas. This fermentation process resembles the biogas digester process (Achmad et al., 2011). Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an anaerobic microorganism that can increase fibre degradation, stimulate cellulolytic bacterial, fungal growth, and increase pH in digesters through organic acid production (Lynd et al., 2002; Achmad et al., 2011).

Debre Markos University one of the Ethiopia’s federal universities and currently there are above 20,000 resident students in the main campus during regular academic year and summer time. For this reason, these students have their meal in the university. We have an enormous amount organic waste and leftover food, which might all be utilized as inputs for the generation of anaerobic biogas. The primary ingredients of the meals provided to students at Debre Markos University include bread, injera, spaghetti, rice, meat, and various stews and sauces. The majority of the food leftovers were disposed of near the fence in the back of the male student home, which produced an unpleasant odor and suitable environment for the growth of harmful bacteria. However, various juice house wastes are among the municipal wastes that are becoming difficult to manage, this kind of waste is typically dumped in landfills along with other household wastes, which greatly pollutes the environment in Debre Markos town. Finding alternate ways to handle those organic wastes and convert them into a source of energy is therefore necessary.

Therefore, by co-digestion of these organic wastes with rumen fluids and Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an excellent opportunity to produce biogas, which would be a useful way to manage those wastes and a potential source of energy for different homes enterprises. Even though, there is information on production biogas from students cafeteria wastes and juice house wastes (Alemayehu, 2014; Abayneh et al., 2014; Hammad et al., 2018; Earnest and Singh, 2013) but there is limited report on method for increasing biogas generation particularly the one that using rumen fluids and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The aim of this study was designed to know the effect of rumen fluids and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F as fermentation activator on the amount of biogas generated from food waste co-digestion in anaerobic conditions and cattle manure and also to optimize the volume of rumen fluids and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F for biogas production. Therefore, this study may lead to better management of animal dung and other solid wastes, lower ground water contamination, better health and reduced respiratory infections, improved air quality, and less deforestation and consequent soil erosion.

2. Methods

2.1 The study area

The research was carried out in microbiology laboratory of department of biology, Debre Markos University, East Gojjam, Ethiopia. The university is found in Debre Markos town. Debre Markos is located at latitude and longitude of 10°20’N 37°43’E/10.330°N 37.717°E, elevation of 2,446 meters above sea level. It is 300 km away from Addis Abeba, capital city of Ethiopia and 265 km from Bahir Dar regional state of Amhara. In Debre Markos, there are 107,684 residents, comprising 49,893 men and 57,791 women (Aynalem et al., 2014). The average annual rainfall is 380 mm, while the lowest and maximum temperatures are 150°C and 220°C, respectively.

2.2 Yeast strain used in experiments

Test of strain Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F (OR209280.1) with accession numbers from the National Center for Biotechnology Information was acquired from previously isolated traditional fermented alcoholic beverage (Tej) in Ethiopia. These strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F (OR209280.1) were obtained in our stock cultures from the previous study (Fentahun and Andualem, 2024).

2.3 Substrate collection and preparation

The study was aimed at evaluating the effect of ruminant fluids and Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F (OR209280.1) on biogas generation from various mixed organic wastes under co-digestion with cattle manure. Various wastes from fruits and vegetables were gathered from the town fruit houses, leftovers food from Debre Markos University student cafeteria, fresh cattle manure (CM) from Monkorer Agroindustry Enterprise and rumen fluids (RL) from nearby slaughterhouse was taken and used as activator for biogas production.

Waste from fruits and vegetables was gathered from Debre Markos town’s juice shops. Unwanted which are non-digestible materials was carefully separated from the substrate. Food scraps from leftovers were gathered from cafeteria of students found in the Main Campus of Debre Markos University daily for a week. Indigestible wastes, such bones, were carefully removed from the substrate from the gathered meal. The mixture of substrates includes peels of bread, injera, spaghetti, papaya, mango, banana, and avocado were used in this research work. To improve and maintain anaerobic digestions process, the organic wastes were manually chopped to a size of 1-4 mm (Leta et al., 2015). The CM were separated and allowed to dry for two days in direct sunlight on a plastic tray then it was shredded to an average particle size of 2 mm and kept in a refrigerator at 4°C (Tamrat et al., 2013). After measuring the samples of total solids (TS), the de-sized cattle manure and food waste were mixed separately with distilled water in 1:5 (solid waste: distilled water) volume ratio, in order to maintain the total solid in the digester between 8 to 15%, which is the optimum value for wet anaerobic digestion (Ituen et al., 2007).

2.4 Preparation of inoculums

After filtering the rumen fluids, the filtrate was stored in a refrigerator until used. Then, different amount of the filtrate was added into each digester to start up the reaction (Aurora, 1983; Genet et al., 2018). The S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F inoculum was prepared in Yeast Extract Peptone Dextrose Broth (YEPD Broth) (Sigma-Aldrich (Oxoid Limited, USA) medium containing (g/l): yeast extract 10, peptone 20, and dextrose 20. The media was sterilized at 121°C for 15 min in an autoclave. A loop full of a chosen 48 hrs old culture was inoculated into a 250 ml flask with 100 ml of the medium, and it was then shaken at room temperature at 25°C on a rotary shaker (SHKA4450-1CE) (121rpm) for 72 hrs. The inoculums were specific to each digester.

2.5 Analysis of the physic-chemical properties of the substrate

Total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), moisture content, organic carbon, and pH were measured in each sample of biodegradable cattle manure, cafeteria leftovers, and fruit and vegetable wastes using the standard methods (APHA, 1999).

2.5.1 Total solids (TS)

An evaporating dish (crucible) was cleaned and dried for one hour at 105°C, cooled in desiccators and weighed immediately before use 5 gram of cattle manure, fruit and vegetable waste. Five gram of sample was weighed separately applying for an standard analytical balance (LX200ABL) and placed on a pre-dried and weighed evaporating dish. Then the dish (crucible) was placed inside an oven (Contherm 260M) maintained at 105°C. The dish (crucible) was allowed to stay in the oven (Contherm 260M) for 24 hrs and then removed and allowed to cool in desiccators and weighed.

Using the formula stated in APHA (1999), the percentage of the TS was determined as follows.

% TS = \frac{mDS}{mFS} \times 100

Where,

% TS = percentage of total solid

mDS = mass of dry sample

mFS = mass of fresh sample.

2.5.2 Volatile solids (VS)

The total solid was ignited at 550°C in a muffle furnace (BiBBY, Stuart) for 3 hrs to determine the volatile and fixed solids of the sample. Then volatile solid content in the sample was determined using the formula: APHA (1999).

% VS = \frac{mDS - m (ash)}{mDS} \times 100

Where, mDS= mass of dry samples whereas m(ash) = mass of ash

2.5.3 Organic carbon (C)

According to Haug (1993), using data from volatile solids and an empirical equation, the organic carbon was calculated, and the organic carbon content of the sample was calculated by taking into account the volatile solids content, which was expressed as a percentage:

% carbon = \frac{% VS}{1.8}

2.5.4 Moisture content determination

Oven-dying method was used to figure out the amount of moisture as the percentage of wet (initial) weight of the material lost through heating. To achieve this, 10 g of sample was dried in an oven (Contherm 260M) at 105°C for 24 hrs and weighed. Moisture content was then calculated using the formula (Elias et al., 2010):

% MC = \frac{W - D}{W} \times 100

where W is the sample’s initial weight (g), D is the sample’s weight during a 24 hrs drying period at 105°C, and M is the moisture content.

2.5.5 pH determination

A digital pH meter was applied for measurement the pH value (Hanna ECI pH meter, Hanna scientific, USA). The pH meter was calibrated using pH 4.0 and 7.0 buffers prior to measuring the samples of pH, resulting in a measurement that was within the proper pH range (Arogo et al., 2009).

2.6 Experimental set up

This study was consisted of anaerobic digestion of substrate in 12 treatments. The 12 treatment types used for anaerobic co-digestion digestion was cattle manure (CM), fruit and vegetable wastes (FVW) and leftover foods (LF) in mixtures. The first factor was dosage of rumen liquid i.e. 0 ml/100 gram, 25 ml/100 gram, 50 ml/100 gram, 75 ml/100 gram, and 100 ml/100 gram, while the second factor was dosage of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F i.e. 5 ml/100 gram, and 10 ml/100 gram of the mixed organic waste. Three replicates were used for the treatments. The study was conducted at the room temperature (30°C). Each digester water content was calculated in accordance with the suggestion of (Ituen et al., 2007). Feed stocks was mixed with distilled water to get about 8% of TS suspension. The following formula was then used to determine how much water needed to be added:

8 % = \frac{mFTS}{A + B}

where A is the mass of the freshly added sample, B is the amount of water and inoculums to be added in order to achieve an 8% TS suspension in the digester, and mFTS is the mass of the fixed total solid.

2.7 Construction of the anaerobic digesters for batch system

Anaerobic digesters (plastic bottle) were constructed for bench-scale experiments with which biogas was produced out of the degradation of substrates in 0.6 L digester. The three plastic bottles were set up so that the substrate was in the first bottle, the acidified brine solution was in the center, and the last bottle was collecting the brine solution that was expelled from the second container. All the three containers were interconnected with a plastic tube having a diameter of 1 cm. The lids of all digester were sealed tightly using super glue in order to control the entry of oxygen and loss of biogas.

2.8 Biogas measurements

An acidified brine solution was produced by adding NaCl to water until a solution that was supersaturated formed. The brine solution was then acidified by adding two to three drops of sulfuric acid by the method of (Elijah et al., 2009). Finally, this formed solution was contained in the second chamber. The biogas was moved to the second chamber while it was being produced in the fermentation chamber. A pressure buildup served as the catalyst for the solution displacement because the biogas is insoluble in it. The amount of gas collected was equal to the amount of water that was pushed from the cylinder. By looking at the cylinder’s graduation, the displacement of water was measured. According to Budiyono et al. (2010), the “liquid displacement method” was used to measure the amount of biogas produced.

2.9 Burning test

The measurement cylinder was filled with gas after collecting. The lit match sticks were positioned close to the cylinder mouth. The gas formed in the digester that contains methane was burnable. If no flame forms the gas produced in the digester was non-burnable.

2.10 Data analysis

Version 23.0 of SPSS (IBM SPSSInc., Chicago, IL, SPSS (RRID:SCR_002865), https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-23) was used to analyze the data. The mean and standard deviations of the triplicates analysis were calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Analysis of the physic-chemical properties and composition of the mixed wastes

The physical-chemical properties of different mixed wastes, including their moisture contents, pH, organic carbon, total solids, and volatile solids, are shown in Table 1. Pre-digestion of three mixed wastes, including cattle manure, cafeteria leftovers, and vegetable and fruit wastes were varied in the amount of the composition, which was due to the variability in the composition of the samples of the different substrates. Each digester mixed wastes had between 6.8 and 7.6 in pH. High moisture content percentage of mixed wastes were ranged from 62.5 to 77.6, which makes anaerobic digestion facilitates (Fernández et al., 2008). The mixed wastes physicochemical characteristics were showed a low percentage of volatile solids relative to total solids. The VS of cafeteria leftover food waste was greater (30.8%) than that of cattle manure and fruit and vegetable wastes, suggesting a comparatively higher energy content that is advantageous for biogas production. The VS/TS ratios for cafeteria leftover food waste and cattle manure were 78.3% and 91.2%, respectively. For effective biogas generation, the amount of biodegradable organic matter should be between 70 and 95 percent of the dry matter content (Steffen et al., 1998; Buffiere et al., 2006).

Table 1. Physico chemical properties of mixed wastes (mean ± SD).

No	Component	Percent by weight (% w/w)	Total solid (TS)	Volatile solids (VS)	Organic carbon (C)	Moisture content (MC)	pH	VS/TS (%)
1	Cafeteria leftover food	22.5 ± 0.15	39.4 ± 0.06	30.8 ± 0.12	41.6 ± 0.23	62.5 ± 0.21	7.6 ± 0.21	78.3 ± 0.36
2	Fruit waste and Vegetable	17.3 ± 0.1	31.5 ± 0.3	25.2 ± 0.06	34.4 ± 0.15	66.3 ± 0.06	6.8 ± 0.06	80.2 ± 0.87
3	Cattle manure waste	47.8 ± 0.12	21.3 ± 0.15	19.4 ± 0.1	25.3 ± 0.1	77.6 ± 0.12	6.8 ± 0.06	91.2 ± 1
	Total	100	-	-	-	-	-	-

All of the substrates were considered acceptable for anaerobic digestion because all the mixed wastes had the highest ratio of VS to TS in Table 1. Cattle dung is used to speed up the production of biogas by promoting bacterial growth in the digester. Co-digestion has a positive synergistic effect by neutralising pH, increasing buffering capacity, reducing the effects of harmful compounds, and supplying more balanced nutrients like vitamins, trace metals, and other substances required for microbial growth (Fang, 2010; Aragaw et al., 2013; Jianzheng et al., 2011).

3.2 The effect of rumen liquid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F on biogas production

The amount of biogas generated from biogas production using rumen fluids and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F as a fermentation activator is presented in Table 2. The production of biogas at the mesophilic temperature (30°C) using rumen fluid and the S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F was more intense than that without inoculums. Rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F inoculums increased production biogas more than by four times in compare to a mixed substrate without inoculums. This implies that the high anaerobic bacterial concentration in rumen fluid efficiently breaks down organic substrate from a mixed waste. The findings are consistent with the work of other researchers (Tamirat, 2012; Sakar et al., 2008; Yitayal, 2011; Forster-Carneiro et al., 2008; Abdullahi et al., 2011).

Table 2. The effect biogas production on 12 treatments used in anaerobic digestion of mixed wastes combinations with rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F doses (ml).

Treatments	Mixed Wastes (MW) 100 g	Rumen fluid	S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F	Methane (mean ± SD)

T1	MW₁	0 ml RF	5 ml	1600 ± 0.49 ml
T2	MW₂	0 ml RF	10 ml	1600 ± 0.62 ml
T3	MW₃	25 ml RF	5 ml	2100.7 ± 0.67 ml
T4	MW₄	25 ml RF	10 ml	2300.3 ± 0.17 ml
T5	MW₅	50 ml RF	5 ml	3400.4 ± 0.49 ml
T6	MW₆	50 ml RF	10 ml	3800.6 ± 0.56 ml
T7	MW₇	75 ml RF	5 ml	6000.4 ± 0.17 ml
T8	MW₈	75 ml RF	10 ml	6500.5 ± 0.25 ml
T9	MW₉	100 ml RF	5 ml	6800.4 ± 0.12 ml
T10	MW₁₀	100 ml RF	10 ml	6900.3 ± 0.26 ml
T11	MW₁₁	150 ml RF	5 ml	6300.57 ± 0.47 ml
T12	MW₁₂	150 ml RF	10 ml	6350.13 ± 0.06 ml
T control	MW₀	0 ml RF	0 ml	1500.2 ± 0.1 ml

According to the results, the maximum amount of biogas (6900.3 ml) was produced by combining 100 ml of rumen fluids with 10 ml of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F/100 gram mixed waste, followed by 100 ml of rumen fluids and 5 ml of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F/100 gram mixed waste. As the digester rumen content varies, the results also showed that the amount of biogas generated increases when the dose of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F is increased from 5 ml to 10 ml. The addition of the S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F culture to the digester enhanced the number of ruminal bacteria and their activity while also improving the digestibility of dry matter, crude protein, and hemicelluloses (Lynd et al., 2002; Wiedmeier et al., 1987; Wilson, 2011). According to the findings, 100 ml of rumen fluid mixed with 10 ml of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F was the optimum quantity to provide the best performance of biogas production.

3.3 pH variations in digestor T10 during fermentation

The pH value was checked every 10 days to examine the effect of change during digestion on bacterial activity ( Figure 1). The pH value drops rapidly, reached 4.3 on day forty. After that, the pH value then increased to 6.4 over the period of the following sixty days. This low pH value was permitted very little methanogenic bacterial activity and the acid-formers might yet be able to proliferate and generate large amounts of volatile acids, which lowers the pH of the digester’s contents (Joyce et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; Stabnikova et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2011). On the other hand, the pH starts to rise on day forty of fermentation. This could be because proteins break down to release ammonia, which causes alkalinity (Gerardi, 2003). This also brings the pH closer to neutral, which makes it easier for methanogenic microbes to multiply and produce methane. Methanogenic bacteria the optimum pH values between 6.8 and 7.2 (Anunputtikul and Rodtong, 2004; Budiyono et al., 2010).

Figure 1. T10 pH variation during the digestion process.

3.4 Combustibility of biogas

A Bunsen burner attached to the digester gas outlet was utilized to evaluate the biogas combustibility after the 60^th day of the digestion period in a 0.6 L digester. The flammable gas was observed at the burner’s mouth confirming presence of methane in the biogas ( Figure 2).

Figure 2. Performance of biogas production after 60 days observation.

A. Mix of wastes which was subjected to digesters; B. 0.6 L plastic bottle digesters; and C. Combustibility of Biogas.

4. Conclusion

S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F and Rumen fluid seeded to a biodigester significantly impacted the total amount of biogas produced. Rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F inoculums enhanced production of biogas by more than four times in comparison to a mixed substrate without inoculums. The optimal results for biogas production were achieved with a 100 ml rumen fluid. A mixture of 100 ml of rumen fluids and 10 ml of S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F/100 grams of mixed waste produced the highest volume of biogas (6900.3 ml). Biodegradation, microbial strength, and biogas generation can all be enhanced by using animal rumen fluid and the S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F as inoculums in biogas digesters.

Author contribution statement

Conceptualization, M.F. and B.K; Methodology, B.K.; Data analysis, M.F.; Investigation, M.F. and B.K.; Resources, M.F. and B.K.; Writing – original draft, M.F.; Writing – review and editing, M.F. and B.K.; Visualization, M.F.; Funding acquisition, M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published the manuscript.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

Underlying data

Figshare: The effect biogas production on 12 treatments used in anaerobic digestion of mixed wastes combinations with rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F doses (ml) of data analysis. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28284806 (Fentahun and Kashay, 2025a).

This project contains the following underlying data:

- Raw data. Physico chemical properties of mixed wastes of data analysis.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

We want to express our gratitude to Debre Markos University for financial support.

References

Abayneh L, Kebede A, Muthuswamy M, et al.: Biogas production from co-digestion of coffee pulp waste and cow dung under mesophilic conditions. The Journal of Energy and Environmental Science. Photon. 2014; 128: 444–450.
Abbas Y, Yun S, Wang K, et al.: Static-magnetic-field coupled with fly-ash accelerant: A powerful strategy to significantly enhance the mesophilic anaerobic-co-digestion. Bioresource Technology. 2021; 327: 124793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Abdulkareem AS: Refining biogas produced from biomass: An alternative to cooking gas. Leonardo. Journal of Science. 2005; 7: 1–8.
Abdullahi I, Ismail A, Musa OA, et al.: Effect of Kinetic Parameters on Biogas Production from Local Substrate using a Batch Feeding Digester. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2011; 2011(57): 626–634.
Achmad KT, Gani SA, Sunarto SI, et al.: The use of rumen liquid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as activators in biogas production from fresh market garbage. Lucrări Ştiinţifice. 2011; 56.
Akinbami JFK, Ilori MO, Oyebisi TO, et al.: Biogas energy use in Nigeria: current status, future prospects and policy implications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2001; 5: 97–112. Publisher Full Text
Alemayehu G: Anaerobic co-digestion of biodegradable municipal solid waste with human excreta for biogas production: A review. American Journal of Applied Chemistry. 2014; 2: 55–62. Publisher Full Text
Anunputtikul W, Rodtong S: Laboratory scale experiments for biogas production from cassava tubers. The Joint International Conference on “Sustainable Energy and Environment”. 2004; 1: 238–243.
APHA (American Public and Health Association): Standard method for the Examination of water and waste water. Parts 1000 and 4000, 216, 240. Hand book of water purity and quality.1999.
Aragaw T, Mebeaselassie A, Amare G: Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums. International Journal of the Physical Sciences. 2013; 8: 443–450.
Arogo J, Wen O, Ignosh J, et al.: Bio-methane Technology College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University publication; 2009; pp. 442–881.
Arthur R, Brew-Hammond A: Potential biogas production from sewage sludge: A case study of the sewage treatment plant at Kwame Nkrumah university of science and technology, Ghana. International Journal of Energy and Environment. 2010; 1: 1009–1016.
Aurora SP: Microbial Digestion in Ruminants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1983; 2: 85–94.
Aynalem A, Helmut K, Terefe D: Evaluation of the 2007 Ethiopian Census Data with an Emphasis on Coverage in Amhara Region. Ethiopian Journal of Development Research. 2014; 36.
Budiyono W, Johari IN, Sunarso S: The kinetic of biogas production rate from cattle manure in batch mode. International journal of chemical and biological enginnering. 2010; 3: 39–44.
Buffiere P, Loisel D, Bernet N, et al.: Towards new indicators for the prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties. Water Science & Technology. 2006; 53: 233–241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Corral MM, Samani ZA, Hanson G, et al.: Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 8288–8293. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Earnest VP, Singh LP: Biomethanation of Vegetable and Fruit Waste in Co-digestion Process. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering. 2013; 3: 250–2459.
Elias J, Hameed S, Araya A, et al.: Renewable biogas energy production from Cladodes of opuntiaficus- indica. Journal of Food and Agriculture Science. 2010; 1: 44–48.
Elijah T, Iyagba IA, Yahaya SM: The study of cow dung as co-substrate with rice husk in biogas production. Scientific Research Essay. 2009; 4: 861–866.
Fang C: Biogas production from food-processing industrial wastes by anaerobic digestion. Technical University of Denmark; 2010. PhD Thesis.
Farid G: The new global energy order: shifting players, policies, and power dynamics. Chapter 2. Public Responses to Fossil Fuel Export. 2022; pp. 25–44.
Fentahun M, Andualem B: Characterization of wild indigenous yeasts that can withstand different stresses from traditional fermented beverages in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Food Science and Applied Biotechnology. 2024; 7: 262–277. Publisher Full Text
Fentahun M, Kashay B: Figshare: The effect biogas production on 12 treatments used in anaerobic digestion of mixed wastes combinations with rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F doses (ml) of data analysis.2025a. Publisher Full Text
Fentahun M, Kashay B: Figshare: Mixed wastes include leftover cafeteria food, fruit and vegetable waste and cattle manure.2025b.
Fernández J, Pérez M, Romero LI: Effect of substrate concentration on dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 6075–6080. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Forster-Carneiro T, Pérez M, Romero LI: Influence of total solid and inoculum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 6994–7002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Genet T, Birhanu A, Solomon K: Optimization of bio gas production from slaughterhouse wastes. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 12: 283–295. Publisher Full Text
Gerardi MH: The Microbiology of anaerobic digesters. Wiley Interscience; 2003; pp. 1–85.
Hammad EI, Al-Agha MR, El-Nahhal Y: Enhancing Biogas Production: Influence of Mixing Cow and Chicken Manures. Energy Power Eng. 2018; 10: 383–397. Publisher Full Text
Harris P: Biogas Notes. AFEST, University of Adelaide and IOBB; 2008.
Haug RT: The practical handbook of compost engineering. Florida, USA: Lewis Publishers; 1993.
Huang X, Yun S, Zhu J, et al.: Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of aloe peel waste with dairy manure in the batch digester: Focusing on mixing ratios and digestate stability. Bioresource Technology. 2016; 218: 62–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Imri K, Valeria N: Experiments on the maximum biogas production. 7^th International Multidisciplinary Conference. Baia Mare, Romania: 2007; pp. 309–310.
Ituen EE, John N, Bassey M: Biogas production from organic waste in AkwaIbom. Appropriate Technologies for Environmental Protection in the Developing World.2007; 93–99.
Jia B, Yun S, Shi J, et al.: Enhanced anaerobic mono- and co-digestion under mesophilic condition: Focusing on the magnetic field and Ti-sphere core-shell structured additives. Bioresource Technology. 2020; 310: 123450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Jianzheng L, Ajay K, Jha J, et al.: Assessment of the effects of dry anaerobic codigestion of cow dung with waste water sludge on biogas yield and biodegradability. International Journal of the Physical Sciences. 2011; 6: 3679–3688.
Joyce A, Ijaz UZ, Nzeteu C, et al.: Linking microbial community structure and function during the acidified anaerobic digestion of grass. Front. Microbiol. 2018; 9: 540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Leta D, Solomon L, Chavan RB, et al.: Production of biogas from fruit and vegetable wastes mixed with different wastes. Environment and Ecology Research. 2015; 3: 65–71.
Li D, Ran Y, Chen L, et al.: Instability diagnosis and syntrophic acetate oxidation during thermophilic digestion of vegetable waste. Water Research. 2018; 139: 263–271. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lin J, Zuo J, Gan L, et al.: Effects of mixture ratio on anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China. Journal of Environmental Science. 2011; 23: 1–15.
Lopes WS, Leite VD, Prasad S, et al.: Influence of inoculum on performance of anaerobic reactors for treating municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology. 2004; 94: 261–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, Van ZWH: Microbial Cellulose Utilization: Fundamentals and Biotechnology. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2002; 66: 506–577. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza M, et al.: A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 36: 412–427. Publisher Full Text
Mata-Alvarez JS, Macé S, Llabrés P: Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes: An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology. 2000; 74: 3–16. Publisher Full Text
Membere EA, John U, Akan UE: Biomechanization Potential of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) from Co-Digestion of Pig and Cow Dung. International Journal of Environmental Science. 2012; 2: 2387–2399.
Mshandete AA, Kivaisi A, Rubindamayugi B, et al.: Anaerobic digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes. Bioresource Technology. 2004; 95: 19–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Nasir IM, Mohd GTI, Omar R: Anaerobic Digestion Technology in Livestock Manure Treatment for Biogas Production: A Review. Engineering in Life. 2012; 12: 258–269. Publisher Full Text
Sakar S, Yetilmezsoy K, Kocak E: Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock treatment - a literature review. Waste Management & Research. 2008; 27: 3–18.
Sonakya V, Raizada N, Dalhoff R, et al.: Elucidation mechanism of organic acids production from organic matter (grass) using digested and partially digested cattle feed. Water Science & Technology. 2003; 48: 255–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Sosnowski P, Wieczorek A, Ledakowicz S: Anaerobic codigestion of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Advances in Environmental Research. 2003; 7: 609–616. Publisher Full Text
Stabnikova O, Ang S, Liu X, et al.: The use of hybrid anaerobic solid liquid system for the treatment of lipid-containing food waste. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 2005; 80: 455–461. Publisher Full Text
Steffen R, Szolar O, Braun R: Feedstocks for anaerobic digestion. Institute for Agrobiotechnology Tulln University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna; 1998.
Sylvester JT, Karnati SKR, Yu TZ, et al.: Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR. The Journal of Nutrition. 2004; 134: 3378–3384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Tamirat A, Mebeaselassie A, Amare G: Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums. International Journal of Physical Sciences. 2013; 8: 443–450.
Tamrat A: Effects of Co-Digestion of Cattle Manure with Organic Kitchen Waste Using Rumen Fluid as Inoculums on the Rate and Amount of Biogas Yield. Haramaya university; 2012. Master’s thesis.
Wiedmeier RD, Arambel MJ, Walters JL: Effect of yeast culture and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on ruminal characteristics and nutrient digestibility. The Journal of Dairy Science. 1987; 70: 2063–2068. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Wilson DB: Microbial diversity of cellulose hydrolysis. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2011; 14: 259–263. Publisher Full Text
Yitayal A: Study on biogas energy production from leaves of Justicia schimperiana (hochst.ex a. Nees) t. Anders. Addis Ababa University, School of graduate studies Environmental Science Program; 2011.
Yue ZB, Yu HQ: Anaerobic batch degradation of cattail by rumen cultures. International Journal of Environmental Pollution. 2009; 38: 299–308. Publisher Full Text
Zhang H, Zhang P, Ye J, et al.: Improvement of methane production from rice straw with rumen fluid pretreatment: A feasibility study. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2016; 113: 9–16. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Feb 2025

Author details Author details

¹ College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Department of Biology, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Amhara, 269, Ethiopia
² Institute of Biotechnology, Mekelle University, Mek'ele, Tigray, Ethiopia

Mulugeta Fentahun
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Birhanu Kahsay
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research was supported by Debre Markos University.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 13 Feb 2025, 14:199

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161561.1

Copyright

© 2025 Fentahun M and Kahsay B. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Fentahun M and Kahsay B. Enhancing biogas production from co-digestion of organic wastes mixed with cattle manure using rumen fluid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:199 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161561.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 Feb 2025

Views

0

Reviewer Report 19 Aug 2025

Jovine Kamuhabwa Emmanuel, Chemistry, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177603.r401840

Title

The title captures the content of the current work.

Abstract

The abstract has no information on the study, methodology used and key findings ... Continue reading

Title

The title captures the content of the current work.

Abstract

The abstract has no information on the study, methodology used and key findings and recommendation based on findings. Authors must re-write this to reflect the current work. Other comments are found in the main document.

Introduction

The section has not been written properly and not easy to follow and understand. Authors must write this in a scholarly manner to reflect an article for publication. The novelty is not well feature thus, authors must reveal the novelty of the work. Other comments are found in the main document.

Materials and methods

Proper details and step after step must be provided for readers to follow. Authors need to take time and re-do it properly. Other comments are found in the main document.

Results and discussion

Results are not well organized and discussed with previous work. Authors need to re-think on how they can organize these data for publication. Other comments are found in the main document.

Conclusions and recommendations

This section is not well written thus, must be re-written for clarity. Only key findings and recommendation must be presented and not otherwise. Other comments are found in the main document.

General comment

The manuscript must benefit from a serious English Language editing before being indexed.
The manuscript must be enriched with up-to-date citations which are available in the literature. Other comments are found in the main document.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Catalysis, materials science and bioenergy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Feb 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 1 13 Feb 25	read

Jovine Kamuhabwa Emmanuel, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

0 Views

19 Aug 2025 | for Version 1

Jovine Kamuhabwa Emmanuel, Chemistry, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

0 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

Title

The title captures the content of the current work.

Abstract

The abstract has no information on the study, methodology used and key findings and recommendation based on findings. Authors must re-write this to reflect the current work. Other comments are found in the main document.

Introduction

The section has not been written properly and not easy to follow and understand. Authors must write this in a scholarly manner to reflect an article for publication. The novelty is not well feature thus, authors must reveal the novelty of the work. Other comments are found in the main document.

Materials and methods

Proper details and step after step must be provided for readers to follow. Authors need to take time and re-do it properly. Other comments are found in the main document.

Results and discussion

Results are not well organized and discussed with previous work. Authors need to re-think on how they can organize these data for publication. Other comments are found in the main document.

Conclusions and recommendations

This section is not well written thus, must be re-written for clarity. Only key findings and recommendation must be presented and not otherwise. Other comments are found in the main document.

General comment

The manuscript must benefit from a serious English Language editing before being indexed.
The manuscript must be enriched with up-to-date citations which are available in the literature. Other comments are found in the main document.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Catalysis, materials science and bioenergy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Abayneh L, Kebede A, Muthuswamy M, et al.: Biogas production from co-digestion of coffee pulp waste and cow dung under mesophilic conditions. The Journal of Energy and Environmental Science. Photon. 2014; 128: 444–450.

[2] Abbas Y, Yun S, Wang K, et al.: Static-magnetic-field coupled with fly-ash accelerant: A powerful strategy to significantly enhance the mesophilic anaerobic-co-digestion. Bioresource Technology. 2021; 327: 124793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] Abdulkareem AS: Refining biogas produced from biomass: An alternative to cooking gas. Leonardo. Journal of Science. 2005; 7: 1–8.

[4] Abdullahi I, Ismail A, Musa OA, et al.: Effect of Kinetic Parameters on Biogas Production from Local Substrate using a Batch Feeding Digester. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2011; 2011(57): 626–634.

[5] Achmad KT, Gani SA, Sunarto SI, et al.: The use of rumen liquid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as activators in biogas production from fresh market garbage. Lucrări Ştiinţifice. 2011; 56.

[6] Akinbami JFK, Ilori MO, Oyebisi TO, et al.: Biogas energy use in Nigeria: current status, future prospects and policy implications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2001; 5: 97–112. Publisher Full Text

[7] Alemayehu G: Anaerobic co-digestion of biodegradable municipal solid waste with human excreta for biogas production: A review. American Journal of Applied Chemistry. 2014; 2: 55–62. Publisher Full Text

[8] Anunputtikul W, Rodtong S: Laboratory scale experiments for biogas production from cassava tubers. The Joint International Conference on “Sustainable Energy and Environment”. 2004; 1: 238–243.

[9] APHA (American Public and Health Association): Standard method for the Examination of water and waste water. Parts 1000 and 4000, 216, 240. Hand book of water purity and quality.1999.

[10] Aragaw T, Mebeaselassie A, Amare G: Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums. International Journal of the Physical Sciences. 2013; 8: 443–450.

[11] Arogo J, Wen O, Ignosh J, et al.: Bio-methane Technology College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University publication; 2009; pp. 442–881.

[12] Arthur R, Brew-Hammond A: Potential biogas production from sewage sludge: A case study of the sewage treatment plant at Kwame Nkrumah university of science and technology, Ghana. International Journal of Energy and Environment. 2010; 1: 1009–1016.

[13] Aurora SP: Microbial Digestion in Ruminants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1983; 2: 85–94.

[14] Aynalem A, Helmut K, Terefe D: Evaluation of the 2007 Ethiopian Census Data with an Emphasis on Coverage in Amhara Region. Ethiopian Journal of Development Research. 2014; 36.

[15] Budiyono W, Johari IN, Sunarso S: The kinetic of biogas production rate from cattle manure in batch mode. International journal of chemical and biological enginnering. 2010; 3: 39–44.

[16] Buffiere P, Loisel D, Bernet N, et al.: Towards new indicators for the prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties. Water Science & Technology. 2006; 53: 233–241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] Corral MM, Samani ZA, Hanson G, et al.: Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 8288–8293. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] Earnest VP, Singh LP: Biomethanation of Vegetable and Fruit Waste in Co-digestion Process. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering. 2013; 3: 250–2459.

[19] Elias J, Hameed S, Araya A, et al.: Renewable biogas energy production from Cladodes of opuntiaficus- indica. Journal of Food and Agriculture Science. 2010; 1: 44–48.

[20] Elijah T, Iyagba IA, Yahaya SM: The study of cow dung as co-substrate with rice husk in biogas production. Scientific Research Essay. 2009; 4: 861–866.

[21] Fang C: Biogas production from food-processing industrial wastes by anaerobic digestion. Technical University of Denmark; 2010. PhD Thesis.

[22] Farid G: The new global energy order: shifting players, policies, and power dynamics. Chapter 2. Public Responses to Fossil Fuel Export. 2022; pp. 25–44.

[23] Fentahun M, Andualem B: Characterization of wild indigenous yeasts that can withstand different stresses from traditional fermented beverages in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Food Science and Applied Biotechnology. 2024; 7: 262–277. Publisher Full Text

[24] Fentahun M, Kashay B: Figshare: The effect biogas production on 12 treatments used in anaerobic digestion of mixed wastes combinations with rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F doses (ml) of data analysis.2025a. Publisher Full Text

[25] Fentahun M, Kashay B: Figshare: Mixed wastes include leftover cafeteria food, fruit and vegetable waste and cattle manure.2025b.

[26] Fernández J, Pérez M, Romero LI: Effect of substrate concentration on dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 6075–6080. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] Forster-Carneiro T, Pérez M, Romero LI: Influence of total solid and inoculum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresource Technology. 2008; 99: 6994–7002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] Genet T, Birhanu A, Solomon K: Optimization of bio gas production from slaughterhouse wastes. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 12: 283–295. Publisher Full Text

[29] Gerardi MH: The Microbiology of anaerobic digesters. Wiley Interscience; 2003; pp. 1–85.

[30] Hammad EI, Al-Agha MR, El-Nahhal Y: Enhancing Biogas Production: Influence of Mixing Cow and Chicken Manures. Energy Power Eng. 2018; 10: 383–397. Publisher Full Text

[31] Harris P: Biogas Notes. AFEST, University of Adelaide and IOBB; 2008.

[32] Haug RT: The practical handbook of compost engineering. Florida, USA: Lewis Publishers; 1993.

[33] Huang X, Yun S, Zhu J, et al.: Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of aloe peel waste with dairy manure in the batch digester: Focusing on mixing ratios and digestate stability. Bioresource Technology. 2016; 218: 62–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] Imri K, Valeria N: Experiments on the maximum biogas production. 7^th International Multidisciplinary Conference. Baia Mare, Romania: 2007; pp. 309–310.

[35] Ituen EE, John N, Bassey M: Biogas production from organic waste in AkwaIbom. Appropriate Technologies for Environmental Protection in the Developing World.2007; 93–99.

[36] Jia B, Yun S, Shi J, et al.: Enhanced anaerobic mono- and co-digestion under mesophilic condition: Focusing on the magnetic field and Ti-sphere core-shell structured additives. Bioresource Technology. 2020; 310: 123450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] Jianzheng L, Ajay K, Jha J, et al.: Assessment of the effects of dry anaerobic codigestion of cow dung with waste water sludge on biogas yield and biodegradability. International Journal of the Physical Sciences. 2011; 6: 3679–3688.

[38] Joyce A, Ijaz UZ, Nzeteu C, et al.: Linking microbial community structure and function during the acidified anaerobic digestion of grass. Front. Microbiol. 2018; 9: 540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] Leta D, Solomon L, Chavan RB, et al.: Production of biogas from fruit and vegetable wastes mixed with different wastes. Environment and Ecology Research. 2015; 3: 65–71.

[40] Li D, Ran Y, Chen L, et al.: Instability diagnosis and syntrophic acetate oxidation during thermophilic digestion of vegetable waste. Water Research. 2018; 139: 263–271. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] Lin J, Zuo J, Gan L, et al.: Effects of mixture ratio on anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China. Journal of Environmental Science. 2011; 23: 1–15.

[42] Lopes WS, Leite VD, Prasad S, et al.: Influence of inoculum on performance of anaerobic reactors for treating municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology. 2004; 94: 261–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, Van ZWH: Microbial Cellulose Utilization: Fundamentals and Biotechnology. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2002; 66: 506–577. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza M, et al.: A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 36: 412–427. Publisher Full Text

[45] Mata-Alvarez JS, Macé S, Llabrés P: Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes: An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology. 2000; 74: 3–16. Publisher Full Text

[46] Membere EA, John U, Akan UE: Biomechanization Potential of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) from Co-Digestion of Pig and Cow Dung. International Journal of Environmental Science. 2012; 2: 2387–2399.

[47] Mshandete AA, Kivaisi A, Rubindamayugi B, et al.: Anaerobic digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes. Bioresource Technology. 2004; 95: 19–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] Nasir IM, Mohd GTI, Omar R: Anaerobic Digestion Technology in Livestock Manure Treatment for Biogas Production: A Review. Engineering in Life. 2012; 12: 258–269. Publisher Full Text

[49] Sakar S, Yetilmezsoy K, Kocak E: Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock treatment - a literature review. Waste Management & Research. 2008; 27: 3–18.

[50] Sonakya V, Raizada N, Dalhoff R, et al.: Elucidation mechanism of organic acids production from organic matter (grass) using digested and partially digested cattle feed. Water Science & Technology. 2003; 48: 255–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] Sosnowski P, Wieczorek A, Ledakowicz S: Anaerobic codigestion of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Advances in Environmental Research. 2003; 7: 609–616. Publisher Full Text

[52] Stabnikova O, Ang S, Liu X, et al.: The use of hybrid anaerobic solid liquid system for the treatment of lipid-containing food waste. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 2005; 80: 455–461. Publisher Full Text

[53] Steffen R, Szolar O, Braun R: Feedstocks for anaerobic digestion. Institute for Agrobiotechnology Tulln University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna; 1998.

[54] Sylvester JT, Karnati SKR, Yu TZ, et al.: Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR. The Journal of Nutrition. 2004; 134: 3378–3384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[55] Tamirat A, Mebeaselassie A, Amare G: Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums. International Journal of Physical Sciences. 2013; 8: 443–450.

[56] Tamrat A: Effects of Co-Digestion of Cattle Manure with Organic Kitchen Waste Using Rumen Fluid as Inoculums on the Rate and Amount of Biogas Yield. Haramaya university; 2012. Master’s thesis.

[57] Wiedmeier RD, Arambel MJ, Walters JL: Effect of yeast culture and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on ruminal characteristics and nutrient digestibility. The Journal of Dairy Science. 1987; 70: 2063–2068. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[58] Wilson DB: Microbial diversity of cellulose hydrolysis. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2011; 14: 259–263. Publisher Full Text

[59] Yitayal A: Study on biogas energy production from leaves of Justicia schimperiana (hochst.ex a. Nees) t. Anders. Addis Ababa University, School of graduate studies Environmental Science Program; 2011.

[60] Yue ZB, Yu HQ: Anaerobic batch degradation of cattail by rumen cultures. International Journal of Environmental Pollution. 2009; 38: 299–308. Publisher Full Text

[61] Zhang H, Zhang P, Ye J, et al.: Improvement of methane production from rice straw with rumen fluid pretreatment: A feasibility study. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2016; 113: 9–16. Publisher Full Text

Enhancing biogas production from co-digestion of organic wastes mixed with cattle manure using rumen fluid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F

Abstract

Background

Methods

Result

Conclusion

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1 The study area

2.2 Yeast strain used in experiments

2.3 Substrate collection and preparation

2.4 Preparation of inoculums

2.5 Analysis of the physic-chemical properties of the substrate

2.6 Experimental set up

2.7 Construction of the anaerobic digesters for batch system

2.8 Biogas measurements

2.9 Burning test

2.10 Data analysis

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Analysis of the physic-chemical properties and composition of the mixed wastes

Table 1. Physico chemical properties of mixed wastes (mean ± SD).

3.2 The effect of rumen liquid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F on biogas production

Table 2. The effect biogas production on 12 treatments used in anaerobic digestion of mixed wastes combinations with rumen fluid and S. cerevisiae isolate MUTJ0F doses (ml).

3.3 pH variations in digestor T10 during fermentation

Figure 1. T10 pH variation during the digestion process.

3.4 Combustibility of biogas

Figure 2. Performance of biogas production after 60 days observation.

4. Conclusion

Author contribution statement

Consent for publication

Ethical approval

Data availability statement

Underlying data

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated