Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/51580460
CITATIONS READS
132 3,742
1 author:
Wilson Parawira
Bindura University
43 PUBLICATIONS 2,357 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Pilot scale biogas production for a local authority; Nanoparticles produced by microbes View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Wilson Parawira on 01 June 2014.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Department of Applied Biology, Kigali Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Avenue de I’ Armee, B.P. 3900 Kigali,
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 41.197.25.6 on 08/19/11
Rwanda
Abstract
Biogas technology provides an alternative source of energy to fossil fuels in many parts of the world. Using local
resources such as agricultural crop remains, municipal solid wastes, market wastes and animal waste, energy (biogas),
and manure are derived by anaerobic digestion. The hydrolysis process, where the complex insoluble organic
materials are hydrolysed by extracellular enzymes, is a rate-limiting step for anaerobic digestion of high-solid organic
solid wastes. Biomass pretreatment and hydrolysis are areas in need of drastic improvement for economic production
of biogas from complex organic matter such as lignocellulosic material and sewage sludge. Despite development of
pretreatment techniques, sugar release from complex biomass still remains an expensive and slow step, perhaps the
most critical in the overall process. This paper gives an updated review of the biotechnological advances to improve
For personal use only.
biogas production by microbial enzymatic hydrolysis of different complex organic matter for converting them into
fermentable structures. A number of authors have reported significant improvement in biogas production when
crude and commercial enzymes are used in the pretreatment of complex organic matter. There have been studies on
the improvement of biogas production from lignocellulolytic materials, one of the largest and renewable sources of
energy on earth, after pretreatment with cellulases and cellulase-producing microorganisms. Lipids (characterised as
oil, grease, fat, and free long chain fatty acids, LCFA) are a major organic compound in wastewater generated from the
food processing industries and have been considered very difficult to convert into biogas. Improved methane yield
has been reported in the literature when these lipid-rich wastewaters are pretreated with lipases and lipase-producing
microorganisms. The enzymatic treatment of mixed sludge by added enzymes prior to anaerobic digestion has been
shown to result in improved degradation of the sludge and an increase in methane production. Strategies for enzyme
dosing to enhance anaerobic digestion of the different complex organic rich materials have been investigated.
This review also highlights the various challenges and opportunities that exist to improve enzymatic hydrolysis of
complex organic matter for biogas production. The arguments in favor of enzymes to pretreat complex biomass
are compelling. The high cost of commercial enzyme production, however, still limits application of enzymatic
hydrolysis in full-scale biogas production plants, although production of low-cost enzymes and genetic engineering
are addressing this issue.
Keywords: Enzymes, hydrolysis, complex organic matter, anaerobic digestion, improved biogas production
Address for Correspondence: Parawira Wilson, Department of Applied Biology, Kigali Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Avenue de
I’ Armee, B.P. 3900 Kigali, Rwanda. Email: parawiradr@yahoo.co.uk
(Received 19 November 2010; revised 17 May 2011; accepted 06 June 2011)
1
2 Parawira Wilson
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 41.197.25.6 on 08/19/11
products by enzymes produced by fermentative bacteria matter such as simple sugars, amino acids, glycerol and
(Figure 1, Group 1) which ferment the substrate to short- fatty acids to facilitate transport through the cell mem-
chain fatty acids, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Fatty brane (Mshandete et al., 2007). Once inside the cell,
acids longer than acetate are metabolized to acetate these simple molecules are used to provide energy and
by obligate hydrogen-producing acetogenic bacteria to synthesize cellular components. Polysaccharides are
(Figure 1, Group 2). The major products after digestion of converted to simple sugars; hydrolysis of cellulose by the
For personal use only.
the substrate by these two groups are hydrogen, carbon cellulase enzyme complex yields glucose; hemicellulose
dioxide, and acetate. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide can degradation results in monosaccharides such as xylose,
be converted to acetate by hydrogen-oxidizing acetogens glucose, galactose, pentoses, arabinose, and mannose,
(Figure 1, Group 3) or methane by carbon-dioxide- while starch is converted to glucose by amylase enzymes.
reducing, hydrogen-oxidizing methanogens (Figure 1, The hydrolysis is normally rate-limiting if the substrate
Group 4). Acetate is also converted to methane by aceti- is in particulate form, and especially the lignocellulose-
clastic methanogens (Figure 1, Group 5). Nearly seventy rich matter. This requires an understanding of hydrolytic
per cent of methane from biogas digesters is derived from enzyme production and activities in the hydrolytic/
acetate. Materials not converted together with microbial acidogenic phase of the anaerobic digestion (Zhang
biomass accumulate as a residue or sludge that can be et al., 2007; Parawira et al., 2005).
used as fertiliser in crop production. The digestate from A complex consortium of microorganisms participates
anaerobic fermentation is a valuable fertilizer due to the in the hydrolysis and fermentation of organic mate-
increased availability of nitrogen and the better short- rial. Microbial diversity in biogas digesters is as great as
term fertilization effect. Methane and carbon dioxide that of rumen wherein seventeen fermentative bacte-
are the principal end products, with minor quantities rial species have been reported to play an important
of nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. role for production of biogas. Bacteria excrete enzymes
Sources that generate biogas are numerous and varied that hydrolyse the particulate substrate to small trans-
and include landfill sites, wastewater treatment plants, portable molecules, which can pass through the cell
and anaerobic digesters. Biogas can be produced from a membrane. Most of the bacteria are strict anaerobes
variety of biodegradable waste feedstocks including sew- such as Bacteriocides, Clostridia and Bifidobacteria.
age sludge, municipal waste, food industry wastewaters, In addition, some facultative anaerobes such as
agricultural residues and energy crops. The vast amounts Streptococci and Enterobactericeae take part (Weiland,
of municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes that 2010). Furthermore, it is the nature of the substrate
are released every day, in every country, create serious that determines the type and extent of the fermenta-
environmental problems. tive bacteria present in the digester (Parawira et al.,
Polymeric carbohydrates, lipids and proteins present 2005). Parawira et al. (2005) reported higher amylase
in particulate organic matter cannot be taken up by activity during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of solid
microbial cells. Therefore, microorganisms produce potato waste compared to other hydrolases, suggesting
and excrete hydrolytic enzymes such as amylases, the presence of many amylolytic microbes. Ramasamy
cellulases, proteases, and lipases to breakdown and et al. (1990) reported a higher presence of proteolytic
solubilize the macromolecular structures into soluble organisms in cow dung-fed digesters and other animal
ment of organic wastes and production of energy from bility of holocellulose (cellulose and hemicelluloses) are
the combustion of biogas (Lettinga, 2001; Lema et al., needed to increase the biogas potential of lignocellulosic
2001; Parawira, 2004). Anaerobic digestion technology material.
has evolved quickly and, at present, can be competitive Many pretreatment methods for increasing the biode-
with aerobic systems, especially for treating industrial gradability of lignocellulosic material have been reported
wastewater and organic solid waste with high chemical (Demirbas, 2008). Pretreatment methods include milling,
oxygen demand. irradiation, steam explosion, ammonia fiber explosion,
supercritical CO2 and its explosion, alkaline hydrolysis,
liquid hot-water pretreatment, organosolv processes,
Studies on the application of enzymes to wet oxidation, ozonolysis, dilute- and concentrated-
pretreat complex organic matter acid hydrolysis. These various pretreatment methods
For personal use only.
florida) treated straw than from untreated straw. They of lignocellulosic waste for bioregenerative life support
had grown twenty two basidiomycetes, mostly white following thermal water treatment and biodegradation
rot fungi on wheat straw and found that this oyster by Fibrobacter succinogenes. The bacterium, Fibrobacter
mushroom showed fastest delignification of the straw. succinogenes is widely considered as one of the most
Their results showed that “myco-straw” can be better active and most important cellulose-digesting anaerobic
hydrolysed and converted to biogas in comparison to bacteria in the rumen.
untreated straw. After biological lignin removal the straw There have been some studies on the use of enzymes
cellulose was better accessible for anaerobic digestion. to pretreat some lignocelluloses for improvement of
The procedure involving microbial delignification and biogas production. Sonakya et al. (2001) pretreated
biogas production, offers the possibility of utilizing and wheat grains with Trizyme (cellulose, α-amylase and
removing the waste wheat straw in a completely bio- protease) prior to anaerobic digestion and observed
For personal use only.
logical way. The useful products from this process are an increase in methane production by 7–14%. These
mushroom in the first step and methane in the second studies suggest that the addition of exogenous enzymes
step. Geeta et al. (1994) found that sugarcane bagasse can improve the performance of anaerobic digestion
pretreated with Phanerochaete chrysosporium for 3 weeks systems. However, enzyme activity can be affected by
under ambient temperature conditions produced higher many factors including the substrate, incubation time,
biogas compared with cattle excreta. Phanerochaete system configuration, and environmental conditions
chrysosporium is the most investigated fungus for lignin (e.g., temperature and pH). More research is needed to
degradation. Akao et al. (1992) reported enhanced determine if and when the addition of enzymes such as
anaerobic digestion of citrus peels with an enzyme cellulases and hemicellulases to the anaerobic diges-
solution from Aspergillus sp. A-1. The enzyme solution tion system will improve digestion rates and biogas
was reported to have cellulase and pectinase activities yields of lignocellulosic biomass. For example, enzymes
that allowed the anaerobic digester to be operated at a could be added into a single-stage anaerobic digester or
higher organic loading rate. Biological ensilage additives could be used to pre-treat the biomass material prior to
with hetero- and homo-fermentative activity (Silasil anaerobic digestion. In two-stage anaerobic digestion,
energy®) as well as enzymes (Sil-all 4 x4®) or bacteria enzymes could be added to the hydrolysis stage prior to
and yeasts (Microferm®) effectively increased the biogas biogasification. Romano et al. (2009) addressed these
production per organic dry matter of maize (11.8, 10.1, questions by investigating the effect of enzyme addi-
and 14.7%, respectively) after 7 weeks of pretreatment tion on Jose Tall Wheat Grass (wheat grass). Anaerobic
(Vervaeren et al., 2010). However, treatment rate is very digestion systems were performed using batch reactors
low in most biological pretreatment processes. At present operated at 50°C. The application of enzyme products in
the process of decomposing cellulose and other complex three digestion configurations were simulated and inves-
molecules into simple sugars and other compounds tigated: (1) enzyme addition to a single-stage digester,
relies on naturally occurring bacteria. The efficiency of (2) pre-treatment of wheat grass with enzymes followed
cellulose breakdown could be improved by using better by a single-stage anaerobic digestion and (3) enzyme
strains, particularly for cellulolysis, the limiting step of addition to the first stage (hydrolysis and acidification)
the process. Guedon et al. (2002) demonstrated that of a two-stage digestion system. The enzyme products
fermentation of cellulose, the most abundant and renew- showed positive effects on the solubilization of wheat
able polymer on earth, can be greatly improved by using grass when used alone to treat the wheat grass. However,
a genetically engineered Clostridium cellulolyticum no significant difference in biogas and methane yields
with improved cellulolytic properties. Bagi et al. (2007) and volatile solids reduction resulted when the enzyme
demonstrated an increase of biogas production by about products were tested in the anaerobic digestion systems.
organic matters found in food wastes and some industrial and acetotrophic methanogenic archaea, which convert
wastewaters, such as those from slaughterhouses, edible the intermediates resulting from the ß-oxidation of LCFA
oil processing industry, restaurant waste, dairy indus- process. Different values of inhibition concentration for
tries, fish industry or fat refineries, and sewage sludge different LCFA are reported, for example concentrations
(Gannoun et al., 2009; Luste et al., 2009; Fernandez et al., of inhibition are in the range of 30–300 mg1l–1 for oleic
2005; Perle et al., 1995; Cirne et al., 2006). Lipids included acid, 100–300 mg1l–1 for stearic acid and 30 mg1l–1 for
in food waste and wastewater consists mainly of triacylg- linoleic acid (Fernandez et al., 2005).
lycerides and long-chain fatty acids (LCFA). In anaerobic Different pretreatment methods have been investi-
treatment systems, triacylglycerides can be hydrolysed gated to address the problems caused by oily wastewa-
by extracellular lipases to LCFA and glycerol. Glycerol is ter and improve the digestion process. These methods
converted to acetate by acidogenesis while LCFA are suc- include removing the oil and grease by using equipment
For personal use only.
cessively degraded via ß-oxidation pathway to acetate like grease boxes; oil/water separators and flotation
and hydrogen, which in turn are converted to methane. systems; chemical pretreatment of the waste by NaOH,
If compared with other organic matter like carbohydrates Ca(OH)2 or HCl; and biological pretreatment using
and proteins, lipids are attractive for biogas production enzymes or lipolytic microorganisms. However, each of
due to the fact that they are reduced materials and have these methods has its own drawbacks. When using grease
a high theoretical methane potential which can contrib- boxes, dissolved and/or emulsified oil and grease are
ute to increased biogas production and consequently not retained in these units and enter into the anaerobic
improves the plant economy (Salminen and Rintala, 2002; treatment systems, causing considerable problems. Masse
Pereira et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2004). Theoretically 1.01 L of and coworkers (2001) did not recommend pretreatment
methane at standard temperature and pressure (STP) can with an alkali because it results in an increase in pH in the
be produced from for example 1 g of oleate (unsaturated digestion process. Among these strategies, the alternative
LCFA, C18:1), whereas only 0.37 L can be produced from of using specific enzymes, lipases, has recently gained
1 g of glucose (Cavaleiro et al., 2008). In this context, lipid- more attention because of stringent environmental regu-
rich waste can be regarded as a large potential renewable lations and clean and friendly application of enzymes
energy source. However, anaerobic treatment of organic (Cammarota et al., 2001; Jeganathan et al., 2007; Mendes
wastes with high lipid and protein content present sev- et al., 2005). Adding enzymes into anaerobic digesters
eral operational problems which limit the potential to treating food-processing wastes have been reported to
obtain methane from them (Palatsi et al., 2009; Cirne result in improved digestion and biogas production.
et al., 2007). Fats and proteins present in these effluents Lipases have shown to be a very promising alternative
have a low biodegradability coefficient (Cammarota et al., for degrading rich-lipids wastewaters generated by dairy
2001; Valladao et al., 2007). The fats may solidify at lower and slaughterhouses industries (Leal et al., 2006; Mendes
temperatures and cause operational problems such as et al., 2006).
clogging and developing unpleasant odors, represent- However, a chief obstacle preventing more studies and
ing a serious problem of anaerobic digestion processes. widespread use of enzymes in environmental technology
Liquefaction of lipids was found to be rate-limiting in is the high cost of commercial enzymes. Consequently, the
slaughterhouse wastewater when high amounts of sus- employment of hybrid technology (enzymatic treatment
pended solids were present due to their low bioavailabil- combined with biological treatment) using enzymatic
ity (Sayed et al., 1988). Petruy and Lettinga (1997) found pools produced through solid-state fermentation from
similar results when treating a milk-fat emulsion in an low-cost industrial wastes may represent an important
expanded granular sludge bed reactor equipped with advancement in the treatment of wastewaters with
a sieve-drum at the top of the reactor to prevent floated high oil and grease contents (Cammarota and Fereire,
ity was produced through solid-state fermentation of the lowest concentration of protease applied (0.5 ml/kg VS)
fungus Penicillium restrictum in waste from the Orbignya resulted in significantly higher (11%) specific methane
oleifera (babassu) oil processing industry. Enzymatic activity. However, the authors reported no significant
hydrolysis and anaerobic biodegradability tests were differences in biogas yield or VFA concentration in the
conducted on poultry slaughterhouse effluents with reactor effluent between enzyme-treated and non-
increased oil and grease contents (150–1200 mg l–1) and enzyme treated continuous digester systems. Studies on
solid enzymatic pool concentration (0.1–1.0%) w/v). enzymatic pretreatment of slaughterhouse wastewater
Enhanced anaerobic treatment efficiency relative to raw using commercial lipase from animal, microbial, and
effluent (COD removal efficiency of 85% versus 53% and vegetable sources did not also significantly enhance the
biogas production of 175ml versus 37 ml after 4 days) was anaerobic digestion process (Masse et al., 2001a; Masse
achieved when a 0.1% concentration of enzymatic pool et al., 2003). In addition, Masse et al. (2003) concluded
For personal use only.
was used in the pretreatment stage with 1200 mg oil and that the use of commercial enzymes for direct enzymatic
grease l–1. Cammarota et al. (2001) reported that enzy- bioaugmentation makes the anaerobic digestion pro-
matic pretreatment using an enzymatic cocktail of lipases cess quite expensive and thus not economically feasible.
resulted in improvement of anaerobic degradation in an The possibility of pretreatment with enzyme-producing
UASB reactor of dairy wastewater containing elevated fat aerobic microorganisms was demonstrated with a
levels compared with untreated wastewater. The dairy lipolytic fungus by Cammarota et al. (2001) and with
wastewater was pre-treated with 0.1% (w/v) of fermented mixed bacterial cultures comprising lipase, protease and
babassu cake containing Penicillium restrictum lipases amylase producers (Mongkolthanaruk and Dharmsthiti,
obtained from solid state fermentation. The application 2002). However, when using aerobic microorganisms for
of low cost lipases as a pretreatment to hydrolyze and pretreatment, oxygen supply may be required thereby
dissolve lipids may improve the anaerobic degradation increasing the cost of the process. As an alternative,
of wastewaters rich in lipids, enhancing the production addition of anaerobic microorganisms as a means of
of biogas. With slaughterhouse wastewater, pancreatic improving xylanolytic, cellulolytic, hemicellulolytic, and
lipase PL 250 (4–24h) reduced the average particle size lipolytic activities has been investigated (Angelidaki and
by 60% and increased lipid hydrolysis by 40% during 24h Ahring, 2000, Mladenovska et al., 2001). In a study by
(Mendes et al., 2006). Luste et al. (2009) investigated the Cirne (2006), it was reported that direct lipase enzyme
use of a biological product containing hydrolytic enzymes addition and bioaugmentation of anaerobic digester
during solubilization of organic material, i.e., hydrolysis with a lipolytic microbial strain (Clostridium lundense
and methane production potentials on different by- (DSM 17049T) enhanced lipid hydrolysis resulting in
products from meat-processing plants. The biological improved biogas production rate and accordingly, a
product Liquid Certizyme 5TM increased soluble COD reduction in the digestion period required in obtain-
of digestive tract and drumsieve waste the most as com- ing the same methane yield as the control. Gumisiriza
pared to untreated material, (62% and 96%, respectively). et al. (2009) reported enhanced biogas production
However, methane production potential was decreased (68%) after pretreatment of fish processing wastewater
compared to untreated materials apparently due to with unidentified bacterial strains isolated from a local
inhibition by hydrolysis products such as VFA from stabilization pond treating high strength fish processing
acidification of solubilized products. Masse et al. (2001a) wastewater. Bioaugmentation offers the possibility of
observed that 35% of the natural fats in slaughterhouse enzyme production over a long period of time provided
effluents hydrolysed to free LCFA when treated with pan- that the microorganism added is able to compete with
creatic lipase 250 (PL-250), increasing the rate of removal the other microbes present in the reactor. However, the
in an anaerobic reactor operating in batch conditions. other major drawback of using bioaugmentation under
little information available on oily wastewater treatment to solve the sludge associated problems is to enhance the
using immobilized lipase. Free lipases are generally hydrolysis of the sludge biomass into fermentable struc-
soluble and unstable, hence can be used once in solutions. tures that can be used for production of biogas or other
In addition, free lipase is not only often inactivated due valuable chemicals. Each ton of sludge biomass that is
to different environmental conditions (ionic strength, converted will of course result in biogas, and it also repre-
pH, inhibitors) but also too expensive to utilize in waste- sents a substantial saving on the handling of the residual
water treatment. To overcome these problems lipase sludge. For example, it is possible to obtain methane yields
can be immobilized on a suitable media. Immobilized of approximately 400 m3 CH4 per ton of volatile solids from
lipase has the advantages of multiple usage, controlled enzymatically treated digested mixed primary and waste
reactions and thermostability (Matsumoto and Ohashi, activated sludge (Davidson et al., 2007).
2003). In addition, for continuous operation in packed Pretreatment processes involving mechanical,
For personal use only.
bed reactors or fluidized bed reactors, immobilized chemical, and physical methods have been developed
lipases yield higher volumetric productivity compared to improve the sludge disintegration rate. Enzymatic
to free lipases (Jeganathan et al., 2007). Jeganathan et al. hydrolysis of sludge biomass is an environmentally
(2007) evaluated the hydrolysis of wastewater with high friendly alternative to mechanical, chemical and/or
oil and grease concentration from the pet food industry heat treatment technologies for converting sludge into
using immobilized lipase as a pretreatment step for fermentable structures. The fermentable structures from
anaerobic treatment through batch and continuous-flow the sludge can then be converted into value added prod-
experiments. ucts such as biogas. Enzymatic hydrolysis of sludge is
mild, quick, simple to implement and more specific in
Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge its action and therefore efficient as a pre-treatment for
The volume of wastewater sludge produced annually from sludge biomass. The efficiency of the enzymatic process
treatment of the various municipal and industrial waste- is quite high and the mild process conditions require
waters is very high in many countries and poses serious neither expensive materials nor high process energy
and complex disposal problems (Cui and Jahng, 2006). compared to mechanical and chemical breakdown. The
Digested sludge is a complex material constituted by arguments in favor of enzymes to pretreat sludge biomass
particles, bacteria, and extracellular polymeric substances are compelling. A number of authors have reported a
that are excreted by bacteria. Sludges produced from significant reduction in sludge volume and improved
primary and secondary settling tanks as a result of efficiency of wastewater treatment processes when com-
aerobic and anaerobic digestion processes typically have mercial enzymes are added. Enzymes act on specific
a solid content of 0.5–5% (Parmar et al., 2001). This solid substances present in municipal sludge converting the
component of sludge consists of organic and inorganic complex material into simple utilisable monomers.
material in an approximate ratio of 60:40; hence sewage Considerable research has been conducted during the
sludge can be used for biogas production. Generally, only past two decades to investigate the possibilities offered
approximately half of the organic matter in waste activated by enzymes in improving sludge biomass treatment.
sludge is susceptible to direct biodegradation by anaero- Some of the reasons for this interest include the growing
bic digestion resulting in the formation of biogas (Gossett recognition that biotechnological advances are allowing
and Belser, 1982). The remaining non-digestible material the production of cheaper and more readily available
is either inorganically bound carbon or slowly digestible enzymes through genetic engineering of microorgan-
organics. Bacterial biomass is a major solid component isms, and better isolation procedures (Karam and Nicell,
of sludge biomass and is developed during the sewage 1997; Gerhardt et al., 2007; Schimpf and Valbuena, 2009;
treatment processes. Most of the organic components Weiland, 2010).
Enzyme treatment of wastewater sludge biomass (Novozyme 188) to anaerobic digesters treating sewage
A large number of different enzymes have been reported sludge was reported by Higgins and Swartzbaugh (1986)
to play an important role in a range of sludge treatment to result in increased biogas production. The system they
applications. Enzyme treatment can potentially acceler- used consisted of an enzyme pretreatment stage followed
ate the solubilization of the sludge and thus minimise by anaerobic digestion and resulted in increased biogas
the rate-limiting step in the digestion processes involved and methane yields of 12% and 15%, respectively.
(Tiehm et al., 2001; Watson et al., 2004; Whiteley et al., The effect of microbial enzymes in enhancement of
2002). The solubilization of solids is achieved by two anaerobic digestion (60%) by enzyme addition in batch
groups of enzymes: the lytic enzymes resulting in cell digestion tests of sewage sludge was demonstrated by
wall disruption and the hydrolytic enzymes causing the Davidsson et al. (2007). A pre-hydrolysis step with addi-
breakdown of macromolecules (Mayhew et al., 2002). tion of enzymes at controlled temperature over 4 hours
Sludge biomass can be converted into biogas through was shown to increase the methane yield significantly.
enzymatic hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion done Further tests with direct feeding of enzymes together
simultaneously or sequentially (Figure 2). Efficient with fresh sludge to the digester gave the same effect
hydrolysis of sludge biomass requires a number of of increase in methane yield. For implementation in
full-scale, different strategies for adding the enzymes
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 41.197.25.6 on 08/19/11
mixed wastewater sludge. The addition of the enzymes by Lagerkvist and Chen (1993) in their study of a two-
resulted in improved biogas production and dewatering step anaerobic degradation of municipal solid waste by
properties of the digested sludge. enzyme addition.
Roman et al. (2006) investigated the impact of addition In continuous pilot-scale experiments, Davidsson
For personal use only.
of cellulase and pronase E separately and in combination et al. (2007) reported a higher methane yield (0.398 Nm3
on primary sludge and it was found that the mixture of CH4/kg VSin) achieved when enzymes were added directly
the two enzymes resulted in 80% reduction in solids into the digester together with fresh sludge compared
compared to 20% in the control and 97% total COD with 0.366 Nm3 CH4/kg VSin when the enzyme was added
removal compared to 63% in the control. They concluded with digested sludge via a return pipe. A comparison
that the enzyme addition at full scale could be expected to between methane potentials and methane yields showed
lead to greater methane yields. However, primary sludge that 97–99% of the methane potential could be realised
is highly degradable and the results could be different in methane yield when enzymes were used. For the
if more difficult to degrade waste activated sludge and untreated sludge 75% of the potential was realised in
digested sludge which requires more enzyme treatment continuous digestion.
were used. Wawrzynczyk (2007) reported improved biogas pro-
duction and dewatering properties in a continuously
Strategies for enzyme dosing to enhance anaerobic operating mesophilic full-scale wastewater treatment
digestion of sewage sludge plant during a six month period after addition of
There also has been some research on the strategies for two technical grade glycosidic enzymes supplied by
enzyme dosing to enhance anaerobic digestion of sludge Novozymes A/S, Denmark. The dosage was 2.5 kg of each
biomass. In batch laboratory experiments by Davidsson enzyme solution per tonne feed dry solids to the diges-
et al. (2007) there was an increase in methane yield tion chamber. The dosage point was the heat exchanger
for both sludge pretreated by enzymes (0.437 Nm3/kg system which ran every fourth hour for 30 to 40 minutes.
VSin) and for sludge in which there was direct feeding Preceding laboratory tests to determine the types of
of enzymes to the anaerobic digestion reactor (0.421 enzymes and the dosage optimum had showed that the
Nm3/kg VSin), compared with untreated sludge (0.348 two selected enzymes resulted in a better solubilisa-
Nm3/kg VSin). The enzymes added were divided into two tion of the sludge than proteases and lipases. The gas
mixtures, mixture A and mixture B. Mixture A consisted production from enzyme treated sludge increased by 10
of four polysaccharide degrading enzymes and a lipase to 20% in comparison to that from the reference digester
and were immersed in an emulsifier combined with a without enzyme. These results with studies done using
surface active substance. Mixture B contained protease laboratory-, pilot- and full-scale reactors demonstrate
for complete hydrolysis of protein and glycoproteins the potential to enhance biogas production from sewage
and was separately added 2 hours after mixture A had sludge using enzymes. Possible strategies for enzyme
been added to avoid hydrolysis of enzymes in mixture dosing to enhance anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge
A. They continuously adjusted the pH to 7 by addition for biogas production have been attempted and the
of sodium hydroxide. Similar results were also reported results are encouraging.
Research on endogenous enzymes during refuse samples. The authors confirmed that that enzyme
anaerobic digestion activity may be a measure of the potential of landfill sites
to produce biogas as suggested by Jones et al. (1983).
Microbial consortia within anaerobic reactors mediate During two-stage anaerobic digestion of aerobic pre-
the processes of polymer hydrolysis, fermentation to treated sisal leaf decortications residues, Mshandete et al.
organic acids and mineralization by methanogenesis. (2008) reported that some of the enzymes produced by
There has been research into the endogenous enzymatic microorganisms to hydrolyse the sisal leaf decortications
activities during the hydrolysis stage to try to elucidate residues were pectinase, filter paper cellulase, amylase,
the hydrolysis of complex polymers to monomers by ß-galactosidase, caboxymethyl cellulase, xylanase, and
fermentative bacteria. An understanding of the endog- protease. Sisal leaf decortications residue is one of the
enous enzyme activities in terms of their distribution most abundant agro-industrial residues in Tanzania and
and relative activity in anaerobic digestion may result in could be a potential source of feedstock to produce biogas.
improvement biogas production from high-solid organic Singh et al. (1995) investigated the microbial load and
matter. It is necessary to provide the right physical- enzyme activities during production of biogas from night
chemical environment to enhance the enzyme activities soil at psychrophilic temperature. Among the hydrolytic
in anaerobic reactors which may result in improved microbial population, proteolytic bacteria were the most
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 41.197.25.6 on 08/19/11
biogas production without adding extracellular enzymes. dominant (1 × 107/ml) followed by lipolytic (1.2 × 106/
Depending on the structure of the cell wall, the extracel- ml), amylolytic (1.1 × 105/ml), and cellulolytic bacteria
lular enzymes have different locations. Some enzymes (9 × 103/ml). The dominance of proteolytic bacteria was
are associated with the cell surface or released into the expected due to the high protein content of night soil.
bulk liquid, the enzymes may said to be cell-associated Amylase, CMCase, and lipase activities were some of the
or cell-free (Priest, 1984). The location of enzymes has hydrolytic enzymes analysed and at 10°C were about one
an impact on the degradation of the substrate (Parawira third of the activities of the same sample at 30°C. Night
et al., 2005). Two two-stage systems, one consisting of a soil is one of the most abundant particularly in highly
solid-bed reactor for hydrolysis/acidification connected populated countries and is a potential source of biogas.
to an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket methanogenic An understanding of the endogenous enzyme activities
reactor, and the other consisting of a solid-bed reactor in terms of their distribution and relative activity in
For personal use only.
connected to a methanogenic reactor packed with wheat anaerobic digestion may result in improvement biogas
straw biofilm carriers, were investigated with regard to production from high-solid organic matter.
hydrolytic enzymes and methane production during Several different types of enzymes have been reported
mesophilic anaerobic digestion of solid potato waste in sludge, such as aminopeptidases, galactosidases,
(Parawira et al., 2005). Some of the enzymes used by lipases, and phosphatases (Cadoret et al., 2002; Frolund
microorganisms to degrade the potato were found to be et al., 1996; Goel et al., 1998). The hydrolytic rates of these
amylase, carboxymethyl cellulase, filter paper cellulase, extracellular enzymes have been reported as the overall
xylanase, pectinase, and protease. Both free and cell- rate-limiting step for the mineralisation of organic matter
bound enzyme activities were measured. The activity of in the sludge treatment process (Whiteley et al., 2002;
the free enzyme was higher than that of the cell-bound Vavilin et al., 1996). The presence of enzymes such as
for all the enzymes. The amylase activity was highest, glucosidase, cellulose, and protease break the bonds of
followed by carboxymethyl cellulose, and filter paper the extracellular polymeric substances in sludge result-
cellulase, while the other hydrolytic enzymes had low ing in deflocculation and improved anaerobic digestion.
activities. Confer and Logan (1998) concluded that the
complex insoluble substrate macromolecules such as
protein and polysaccharides are degraded by cell-bound Prospects, bottlenecks and perspectives
hydrolysis and followed by the release of hydrolytic Enzyme hydrolysis is a mild, quick, and potentially
fragments into the bulk solution. This cell-associated applicable method for complex biomass hydrolysis.
hydrolysis and release is repeated until hydrolytic frag- This method is specific and quite effective if the right
ments are small enough to be assimilated by cells. enzyme types, operating conditions, dosage, and
Palmisano et al. (1993) studied the distribution enzyme-waste ratios are optimal. Cell-free enzymes
and relative abundance of hydrolytic enzymes in offer several advantages over the use of microorgan-
several landfilled refuse sites. Esterases, proteases and isms in the treatment of waste biomass sludge. Enzymes
amylases were present in all of the samples. Enzyme are capable of acting in the presence of various toxic
screening assays utilizing the API-ZYM test system and recalcitrant substances and under a wide range
showed the incidence of enzymes in the order: specific of environmental conditions, such pH, temperature,
phosphatases > esterases > gycosyl hydrolases. Analyses and salinity (Gianfreda and Rao, 2004; Ruggaber and
of cellulose by the cellulose-azure test showed limited Talley, 2006). Enzymes are able to act in a large range
distribution of cellulases. Landfills are very heteroge- of environmental conditions and remain active even
neous environments; therefore it was not surprising to if these conditions quickly change (Ahuja et al., 2004;
find that enzymatic activities varied considerably among Gianfreda and Rao, 2004). Enzymes can work in the
meaning that enzymes that are not recovered after use make them easily converted to biogas. However,
will degrade in the environment. The use of enzymes sludge, lignocellulosic, and food waste biomass are
is also desirable because they can perform the same a complex matrix of polymers and other substances
function as many harsher chemicals, but at neutral and efficient hydrolysis requires not only enzymes
pH, moderate temperature, and without production but also optimization of the conditions and the opti-
of hazardous waste. However, enzymes tend to bind to mal enzyme mixture mostly tailor made and adjusted
the solid waste matrix so that added enzymes might be to fit the kind of biomass being digested. Janin et al
unevenly distributed in the solid waste environment. (1992) have shown that the contact between hydrolytic
Enzyme activity can also be lost through entrapment enzymes and their substrates are crucial to anaerobic
by binding to the solid matrix, thermal denaturation, digestion of complex particulate matter. The enzymes
and active site inactivation, loss of cofactors or pros- would include cellulolytic enzymes, glycosidases,
For personal use only.
thetic group, and reversible and irreversible inhibition proteases, and lipases, etc. A lot of research still needs
(Ahuja et al., 2004; Aitken, 1993; Gianfreda and Rao, to be carried out on the development and optimiza-
2004). Although enzymes can survive in a wide range tion of enzymatic hydrolysis of complex biomass into
of environments, they are not able to adapt themselves fermentable sugars. Much of the research has been
to survive in environments that are outside their range done at the laboratory-scale and there is little work
like microorganisms can. Free enzymes are generally in pilot-scale and full-scale investigations on the use
soluble and unstable, hence can be used once only in of enzymes to hydrolyze biomass into fermentable
Table 2. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of using enzymes to hydrolyse organic rich waste.
Advantages
Organic rich wastes hydrolysis using enzymes is done under mild, and non-corrosive and quick physical-chemical operating conditions
Enzymes are specific and effective unlike physical, mechanical and chemical methods
Process is compatible with other pretreatment options
Low energy requirement and low pollution, enzymes are biodegradable and non-toxic agents
Gives potentially high yields of simple sugar (75–85% of the theoretical maximum) and improvements are still projected (85–95%)
Cell-free enzymes can act in the presence of toxic and recalcitrant substances and under a wide range of conditions (pH, temperature)
Enzymes can work in the presence of inhibitors of microbial metabolism
Absence of acclimatisation period as for the microbial biomass
Easy to control the process
Sludge hydrolysis using enzymes leads to larger volume reduction since when microorganisms are used there is also biomass formation.
Enzymatic hydrolysis is not only energy sparing because of the relatively mild reaction conditions but also avoids the use of toxic and
corrosive chemicals
Low equipment maintenance costs
Disadvantages
The production of commercial enzymes is still costly, although the potential costs are being decreased.
Enzymatic pretreatment demands strict control of reaction conditions.
Enzyme activity is lost through binding to solid matrix, thermal denaturation, active site inactivation, loss of cofactors and reversible and
irreversible inhibition.
Some hydrolytic enzymes such as cellobiase are sensitive to inhibition by their own substrate and end product, cellubiose and glucose.
Biomass degradation is a highly complex multi-enzymatic process, there is still much to learn before enzyme cocktails with increased
activity can efficiently be developed
Confer DR, Logan BE. (1998). Location of protein and polysaccharide microbial activity in a domestic refuse landfill site. Eur J Appl
hydrolytic activity in suspended and biofilm wastewater cultures. Microbiol Biotechnol, 18, 242–245.
Wat Res, 32, 31–38. Karam J, Nicell JA. (1997). Potential applications of enzymes in waste
Cui R, Jahng D. (2006). Enhanced methane production from anaerobic treatment− a review. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol, 60, 141–153.
digestion of disintegrated and deproteinized excess sludge. Kim SH, Han SK, Shin HS. (2004). Two-phase anaerobic treatment
Biotechnol Lett, 28, 531–538. system for fat-containing wastewater. J Chem Technol Biotechnol,
Davidsson Å,, Wawrzynczyk J, Norrlöw O, La Cour Jansen J. (2007). 79, 63–71.
Strategies for enzyme dosing to enhance anaerobic digestion of Lagerkvist A, Chen H. (1993). Control of two-step anaerobic digestion
sewage sludge. J Residuals Sci Technol, 4, 1–7. of municipal solid waste by enzyme addition. Water Sci. Technol,
Demirbas A. (2008). Products from lignocellulosic materials via 27, 47–56.
degradation processes. Energy Sources Part A, 30, 27–37. Leal MCMR, Freire DMG, Cammarota MC, SantAnna Jr GL. (2006).
Eastman JA, Fergusen JF. (1981). Solubilisation of particulate organic Effects of enzymatic hydrolysis on anaerobic treatment of dairy
carbon during the acid phase of anaerobic digestion. J SPCF, 53, wastewater. Process Biochem, 41, 1173–1178.
For personal use only.
352–366. Lettinga G. (2001). Digestion and degradation, air for life. Water Sci
Fernandes TV, Klaasse Bos GJ, Zeeman G, Sanders JP, van Lier JB. Technol, 44, 157–176.
(2009). Effects of thermo-chemical pre-treatment on anaerobic Lema JM, Omil F. (2001). Anaerobic treatment: a key technology for
biodegradability and hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. sustainable management of wastes in Europe. Water Sci Technol
Bioresour Technol, 100, 2575–2579. 44, 133–140.
Fernandez A, Sanchez A, Font X. (2005). Anaerobic co-digestion of Lissens G, Verstraete W, Albrecht T, Brunner G, Creuly C, Seon J, Dussap
simulated organic fraction of municipal solid wastes and fats of G, and Lasseur C. (2004). Advanced anaerobic bioconversion of
animal and vegetable origin. Biochem Bioeng J, 26, 22–28. lignocellulosic waste for bioregenerative life support following
Frolund B, Palmgren R, Keiding K, Nielsen P. (1996). Extraction of thermal water treatment and biodegradation by Fibrobacter
extracellular polymers from activated sludge using a cation ion succinogenes. Biodegrad, 15, 173–183.
exchange resin. Water Res, 30, 1749–1758. Luste S, Luostarinen S, Sillanpaa M. (2009). Effect of pre-treatments
Gannoun H, Boullagui H, Okbi A, Sayadi S, Hamdi M. (2009). on hydrolysis and methane production potentials of by-products
Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of biologically from meat-processing industry. J Hazardous Mater, 164, 247–255.
pretreated abattoir wastewaters in upflow anaerobic filter. J Hazard Masse L, Masse DI, Kennedy KJ. (2003). Effect of hydrolysis
Mat, 170, 263–271. pretreatment on fat degradation during anaerobic digestion of
Geeta GS, Suvarna CV, Jagdeesh KS. (1994). Enhanced methane slaughterhouse wastewater. Process Biochem, 38, 1365–1372.
production by sugarcane trash pretreated with Phanerochaete Masse L, Kennedy KJ, Chou SP. (2001). Testing of alkaline and enzymatic
chrysosporium. J Microbiol Biotechnol, 9, 113–117. hydrolysis pretreatments for fat particles in slaughterhouse
Gerhardt M, Pelenc V, Bauml M. (2007). Application of hydrolytic wastewater. Bioresor Technol, 77, 145–155.
enzymes in the agricultural biogas production: Results from Masse L, Masse DI, Kennedy KJ, Chou SP. (2001a). Effect of hydrolysis
practical applications in Germany. Biotech J, 2, 1481–1484. pretreatment on fat degradation during anaerobic digestion.
Gianfreda L, Rao MA. (2004). Potential of extra cellular enzymes in Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Anaerobic Digestion,
remediation of polluted soils: a review. Enzyme Microb Technol, Antwerpen, Belgium 1, 55–60.
35, 339–354. Matsumoto M, Ohashi K. (2003). Effect of immobilization on
Goel R, Mino T, Satoh H, Matsuo T. (1998). Comparison of hydrolytic thermostability of lipase from Candida rugosa. 14, 75–77.
enzyme systems in pure culture and activated sludge under different Mayhew ME, Le MS, Ratcliff R. (2002). A novel approach to pathogen
electron acceptor conditions. Water Sci Technol, 37, 335–343. reduction in biosolids: the enzymatic hydrolyser. Water Sci.
Gossett JM, Belser RL. (1982). Anaerobic digestion of waste activated Technol, 46, 427–434.
sludge. J Environ Eng ASCE, 108, 1101–1120. Mendes AA, Castro HF, Pereira EB, Furigo A Jr. (2005). Application of
Guedon E, Desvaux M, Petitdemange H. (2002). Improvement of lipases for wastewater treatment containing high levels of lipids.
cellulolytic properties of Clostridium cellulolyticum by metabolic Quim Nova, 28, 296–305.
engineering. Appl Environ Microbiol, 68, 53–58. Mendes AA, Pereira EB, Castro HF. (2006). Effect of the enzymatic
Gumisiriza R, Mshandete AM, Rubindamayugi MST, Kansiime F, hydrolysis pretreatment of lipids-rich wastewater on the anaerobic
Kivaisi AK. (2009). Enhancement of anaerobic digestion of Nile biodigestion. Biochem Engin J, 32, 185–190.
perch fish processing wastewater. Afri J Biotechnol, 8, 328–333. Merino S, Cherry J. (2007). Progress and challenges in enzyme
Gujer W, Zehnder AJB. (1983). Conversion processes in anaerobic development for biomass utilisation. Adv Biochem Engin.
digestion. Water Sci Technol, 15, 127–167. Biotechnol, 108, 95–120.
biological pretreatment of wheat straw for biogas production. Appl degradation of the various fractions of slaughterhouse wastewater.
Microbiol Biotechnol, 24, 180–185. Biol Waste, 23, 117–142.
Noykova N, Muller TG, Gyllenberg M, Timmer J. (2002). Quantitative Schimpf U, Valbuena R. (2009). Increase in efficiency of biomethanation
analysis of anaerobic wastewater treatment processes: by enzyme application. Bor Agrar Ber, 68, 44–56.
Identifiability and Parameter Estimation. Biotechnol Bioengin, 78, Singh L, Maurya MS, Rammana KV, Alam SI. (1995). Production of
89–103. biogas from night soil at psychrophilic temperature. Bioresour
Palatsi J, Laureni M, Andres MV, Flotats X, Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I. Technol, 53, 147–149.
(2009). Strategies for recovering inhibition caused by long chain Sonakya V, Raizada N, Kalia V. (2001). Microbial and enzymatic
fatty acids an anaerobic thermophilic biogas reactors. Bioresour improvement of anaerobic digestion of waste biomass. Biotechnol
Technol, 100, 4588–4596. Lett, 23, 1463–1466.
Palmisano AC, Schwab BS, Maruseik DA. (1993). Hydrolytic enzyme Srilatha HR, Nand K, Babu KS, Madhukara K. (1995). Fungal
activity in landfilled refuse. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 38, pretreatment of orange processing waste by solid-state
828–832. fermentation for improved production of methane. Process
For personal use only.
Parawira W. (2004). Anaerobic treatment of agricultural residues and Biochem, 30, 327–331.
wastewater: Application of high-rate reactors’. PhD thesis, Lund Taherzadeh M J, Karimi K. (2008). Pretreatment of lignocellulosic
University, Sweden. ISBN: 91–89627-28-8. http://www.lub.lu.se/ waste to improve ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int J
luft/diss/tec_848/tec_848_kappa.pdf. Molecular Sci, 9, 1621–1651.
Parawira W, Murto M, Read JS, Mattiasson B. (2005). Profile of Tanaka S, Kobayashi T, Kamiyama K, Bildan ML. (1997). Effects of
hydrolases and biogas production during two-stage mesophilic thermochemical pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of waste
anaerobic digestion of solid potato waste. Process Biochem, 40, activated sludge. Water Sci Technol, 8, 209–215.
2945–2952. Tiehm A, Nickel K, Zellhorn M, Neis U. (2001). Ultrasonic waste
Parawira W., and Tekere M. (2011). Biotechnological strategies to activated sludge disintegration for improving anaerobic
overcome inhibitors in lignocellulose hydrolysates for ethanol stabilisation. Water Res, 35, 2003–2009.
production: review. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 3, 20–31. Tirumale S, Nand K. (1994). Influence of anaerobic cellulolytic bacterial
Parmar N, Singh A, Ward OP. (2001). Enzyme treatment to reduce consortia in the anaerobic digesters on biogas production. Biogas
solids and improve settling of sewage sludge. J Industrial Microbiol. Forum III, 58, 12–15.
Biotechnol, 26, 383–386. Valladao ABG, Freire DMG, Cammarota MC. (2007). Enzymatic pre-
Pavlostathis SG, Giraldo-Gomez E. 1991. Kinetics of anaerobic hydrolysis applied to the anaerobic treatment of effluents from
treatment. Water Sci Technol 24, 35–59. poultry slaughterhouses. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 60, 219–225.
Pereira MA, Cavaleiro AJ, Mota M, Alves MM. (2003). Accumulation of Vavilin VA, Rytov SV, Lokshina L Ya. (1996). A description of hydrolysis
long-chain fatty acids onto anaerobic sludge under steady state and kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter.
shock loading conditions: effect on acetogenic and methanogenic Bioresour Technol, 56, 229–237
activity. Water Sci Technol, 48, 33–40. Vervaeren H, Hostyn K, Ghekiere G, Willems B. (2010). Biological
Pereira MA, Souza DZ, Mota M, Alves MM. (2004). Mineralization ensilage additives as pretreatment for maize to increase the biogas
of LCFA associated to anaerobic sludge: kinetics, transport production. Renew Energ, 35, 2089–2093.
limitations, enhancement of methanogenic activity and effect of Watson SD, Akhurst T, Whiteley CG, Rose PD, Pletschke BI.
VFA. Biotechnol Bioeng, 88, 502–510. (2004). Primary sludge floc degradation is accelerated under
Pereira MA, Pires OC, Mota M, Alves MM. (2005). Anaerobic biosulphidogenic conditions: Enzymological aspects. Enzym.
biodegradation of oleic and palmitic acids: Evidence of mass Microb. Technol, 34, 595–602.
transfer limitations caused by long chain fatty acid accumulation Wawrzynczyk J. (2007). Enzymatic treatment of wastewater sludge:
onto the anaerobic sludge. Biotech Bioeng, 92, 15–23. Solubilisation, improvement of anaerobic digestion and extraction
Perle M, Kimshie S, Shelef G. (1995). Some biochemical aspects of of extracellular polymeric substances. PhD thesis. Division of Pure
the anaerobic degradation of dairy wastewater. Water Res, 29, and Applied Biochemistry, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
1549–1554. Wawrzynczyk J, Dey ES, Norrlow O, Jansen JIC. (2003). Alternative
Petruy R, Lettinga G. (1997). Digestion of milk-fat emulsion. Bioresour method for sludge reduction using commercial enzymes. In: Aqua
Technol, 61, 141–149. enviro technology transfer: eighth CLWEM/aqua enviro European
Preeti Rao P, Seenayya G. (1994). Improvement of methanogenesis biosolids and organic residuals Conference, Wakefield, pp 1–5.
from cow dung and poultry litter waste digesters by addition of Weemaes MPJ, Verstraete WH. (1998). Evaluation of Current Wet
iron. World J Microbiol Biotechnol, 10, 211–214. Sludge Disintegration Techniques- Review. J Chem Technol
Priest FG. (1984). Extracellular enzymes. - Aspects Microbiol, 9, 1–10. Biotechnol, 73, 83–92.