Effect of Adding Cellulase-Producing Compound Flora on Biogas Production by Anaerobic Dry Fermentation

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0009

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the utilization rate of crop straws and livestock manure, a cellulose-degrading compound flora is added to the biogas anaerobic fermentation system to improve gas production performance. The experiment used corn stalk and cow dung as raw materials. The fermentation condition was: 37℃ of fermentation temperature, 20% of total solid concentration, 30% of inoculum content, 1:2 of manure-to-grass ratio, and 1% of the compound flora was added to anaerobic dry fermentation to produce biogas. The results show that the compound flora consisting of Bacillus siamensis and Bacillus subtilis subsp. Stercoris could increase biogas production by 25% and methane production by 55%, and gas production rate of raw materials is 86.4 mL/gTS and 111.4 mL/gVS, respectively. The experiment could provide certain reference value for the utilization of biomass energy containing cellulose.

Key words: corn straw, cow manure, dry fermentation, compound flora, volumetric biogas yield

CLC Number:

S216.2

Zhang Chen, Yan Hongxin, Ji Dong, Wei Zhihao, Yao Zhisong, CAMARA ZOUMANA, Su Youyong. Effect of Adding Cellulase-Producing Compound Flora on Biogas Production by Anaerobic Dry Fermentation[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(17): 144-150.

Figures/Tables 11

References 36

[1]	BP. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020[R]. London, June, 2020.
[2]	Zeng X Y, Ma Y T, Ma L R. Utilization of straw in biomass energy in China[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2007,11(5).
[3]	毕于运, 高春雨, 王亚静, 等. 中国秸秆资源数量估算[J]. 农业工程学报, 2009,25(12):211-217.
[4]	再协. 《关于推进农业废弃物资源化利用试点的方案》解读[J]. 中国资源综合利用. 2016(10):15-16.
[5]	苏家磊. 牛粪转化为乙酰丙酸类化学品和碳基固体酸催化剂研究[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2018.
[6]	Hong J, Ren L, Hong J, et al. Environmental impact assessment of corn straw utilization in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016,112(JAN.20PT.2):1700-1708. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.081 URL
[7]	Shi T T, Liu Y Q, Zhang L B, et al. Burning in agricultural landscapes: an emerging natural and human issue in China[J]. LANDSCAPE ECOL, 2014, 2014,29(10):1785-1798.
[8]	毕于运, 高春雨, 王红彦, 等. 农作物秸秆综合利用和禁烧管理国家法规综述与立法建议[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2019,40(8):1-10.
[9]	O'Sullivan A C . Cellulose: the structure slowly unravels[J]. Cellulose, 1997,4(3):173-207. doi: 10.1023/A:1018431705579 URL
[10]	Ahrring B K, Licht D, Schmidt A S, et al. Production of ethanol from wet oxidised wheat straw by Thermoanaerobacter mathranii[J]. Bioresource Technology, 1999,68(1):3-9. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00077-7 URL
[11]	Liu H W, Walter H K, Vogt G M, et al. Steam pressure disruption of municipal solid waste enhances anaerobic digestion kinetics and biogas yield[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2002,77(2):121-130. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0290 URL
[12]	Sapci Z. The effect of microwave pretreatment on biogas production from agricultural straws[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013,128:487-494. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.094 URL
[13]	He Y F, Pang Y Z, Liu Y P, et al. Physicochemical Characterization of Rice Straw Pretreated with Sodium Hydroxide in the Solid State for Enhancing Biogas Production[J]. Energy & Fuels, 2008,22(4):2775-2781. doi: 10.1021/ef8000967 URL
[14]	Wang S Q, Li F, Wu D, et al. Enzyme Pretreatment Enhancing Biogas Yield from Corn Stover:Feasibility,Optimization,and Mechanism Analysis[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2018,66:10026-10032. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b03086 URL
[15]	王海滨, 韩立荣, 冯俊涛, 等. 高效纤维素降解菌的筛选及复合菌系的构建[J]. 农业生物技术学报, 2015,23(4):421-431.
[16]	张无敌, 尹芳. 生物质能实验[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2017. 5-8.
[17]	Liu G, Zhang R, El-Mashad H M, et al. Effect of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas yields of food and green wastes[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2009,100(21):5103-5108. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.081 URL
[18]	王艳飞, 徐锐, 史珊, 等. 蔬菜废弃物厌氧发酵制沼气的工艺条件研究[J]. 可再生能源, 2019,37(8):1107-1112.
[19]	Yang L, Xu F, Ge X, et al. Challenges and strategies for solid-state anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass[J]. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015,44(apr.):824-834.
[20]	任海伟, 王宇杰, 李金平, 等. 温度对蔬菜垃圾与猪粪混合消化产沼气特性的影响[J]. 太阳能学报, 2018,39(8):2088-2095.
[21]	魏本平, 陈闯, 卢秀红, 等. 醋糟干发酵产沼气潜力研究[J]. 中国沼气, 2012,30(3):30-33.
[22]	李浩, 班婷, 郭兆峰, 等. 常见农作物秸秆的物料特性及切碎方法研究[J]. 农业与技术, 2019,39(22):23-26.
[23]	牛文娟. 主要农作物秸秆组成成分和能源利用潜力[D]. 北京:中国农业大学, 2015.
[24]	刘双, 郭文政, 苏志伟, 等. 不同农作物秸秆厌氧消化的产甲烷潜力[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2020,48(11):105-109.
[25]	Papa G, Rodriguez S, George A, et al. Comparison of different pretreatments for the production of bioethanol and biomethane from corn stover and switchgrass[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015,183:101-110. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.121 pmid: 25725408
[26]	Cao C, Yang Z, Han L, et al. Study on in situ analysis of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin distribution linked to tissue structure of crop stalk internodal transverse section based on FTIR microspectroscopic imaging[J]. Cellulose, 2015,22(1):139-149. doi: 10.1007/s10570-014-0525-7 URL
[27]	史旭洋, 钱程, 刘艳, 等. 不同方法预处理的玉米秸秆结构与酶解分析[J]. 分析化学, 2018,46(9):1501-1506.
[28]	赵晨, 崔馨月, 刘广青, 等. 提高玉米秸秆厌氧消化产气能力的预处理技术研究进展[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2015,31(5):640-646.
[29]	赵肖玲. 产纤维素酶菌株筛选优化及对秸秆厌氧发酵的促进机制[D]. 北京:中国农业大学, 2018.
[30]	潘云霞, 刘思琪, 贺亚清, 等. 复合菌系预处理稻秆半连续厌氧发酵产甲烷性能[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020,36(11):261-266.
[31]	朱继英, 钟慧, 陆玉, 等. 接种物耐酸驯化对菌糠厌氧干发酵产气的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020,36(5):249-254.
[32]	席江, 艾平, 袁萧, 等. 接种比例和接种物驯化对榨汁橙渣厌氧发酵的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2019,50(3):309-316.
[33]	李春曦, 王佳, 叶学民, 等. 我国新能源发展现状及前景[J]. 电力科学与工程, 2012,28(4):1-8.
[34]	周鹭, 李巧瑜, 刘婧. 太阳能光伏扶贫的模式研究[J]. 当代经济, 2018,476(8):34-35.
[35]	陈慧敏. 农村沼气发展的政策研究[D]. 长沙:中南大学, 2009.
[36]	李景明, 徐文勇, 李冰峰, 等. 关于中国沼气行业发展困境和出路的思考[J]. 可再生能源, 2020,38(12):1563-1568.

原料	TS/%	VS/%	木质素/%	半纤维素/%	纤维素/%
接种物	13.87	8.81	1.91	0.50	1.19
玉米秸秆	90.18	81.95	10.18	18.77	35.95
牛粪	55.98	37.49	12.49	7.62	7.77

原料	TS/%	VS/%	木质素/%	半纤维素/%	纤维素/%
接种物	13.87	8.81	1.91	0.50	1.19
玉米秸秆	90.18	81.95	10.18	18.77	35.95
牛粪	55.98	37.49	12.49	7.62	7.77

组别	粪草比	发酵浓度/%	粪草TS添加量/g	粪草实际添加量/g	发酵总质量/g
空白组	-	-	-	-	200
对照组	1:2	20	11.26:22.53	25.8:25.0	200
试验组	1:2	20	11.26:22.53	25.8:25.0	200

组别	粪草比	发酵浓度/%	粪草TS添加量/g	粪草实际添加量/g	发酵总质量/g
空白组	-	-	-	-	200
对照组	1:2	20	11.26:22.53	25.8:25.0	200
试验组	1:2	20	11.26:22.53	25.8:25.0	200

菌株编号	鉴定结果
ZC-1	Bacillus tequilensis
ZC-3	Bacillus velezensis
NF-3	Bacillus siamensis
NF-4	Bacillus subtilis subsp. Stercoris
YJ-2	Pantoea dispersa
YJ-5	Cronobacter dublinensis subsp. lausannensis