To enhance the activity of the thermophilic consortium, different inoculum sources were selected to study their effect on the thermophilic consortium for enhanced biogas production using water hyacinth (WH) as a feedstock. WH was inoculated with a novel thermophilic consortium enriched with a pinch of poultry droppings, horse dung, yak dung, sewage sludge, sewage effluent, and a blend of all waste samples individually, along with a control, in a batch digester. Six sets of experiments, including a control, were performed with a total solid content of 5% (w/v) inoculated with a 10% (w/v) thermophilic consortium enriched with a pinch of each inoculum source. In all the experiments, the 52°C temperature was maintained with a batch time of 26 days. The biogas yield was found to be 356.8 L/kg volatile solid (VS) (control), 469.2 L/kg VS (sewage sludge), 513.1 L/kg VS (poultry droppings), 472.4 L/kg VS (yak dung), 428.5 L/kg VS (sewage effluent), and 461.1 L/kg VS (mixture of all the samples), respectively. All the digesters containing enriched consortium showed improved biogas production with 16–30% higher yield than the control. The first-order and modified Gompertz models were fitted for the kinetic analysis. Different kinetic parameters, including the maximum biogas production rate (Rm), lag phase (λ) duration, biogas yield potential (P), and specific microbial growth rate, were estimated in each case. It was found that the biogas yield was highest in the digester containing the consortium enriched with poultry droppings.
SawatdeenarunatC, SurendraKC, TakaraD, OechsnerH, KhanalSK. Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: Challenges and opportunities. Bioresour Technol, 2015; 178:178–186; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.103
3.
OsbornD, CutterA, UllahF. Universal sustainable development goals. Understanding the Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries, 2015; 2(1):1–25.
KaurG, BasakN, KumarS. State-of-the-art techniques to enhance biomethane/biogas production in thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2024; 186:104–117; doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2024.03.123
6.
BaruaVB, KalamdhadAS. Biogas production from water hyacinth in a novel anaerobic digester: A continuous study. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019; 127:82–89; doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.05.007
7.
KecheDD, FetanuZM, BabisoWZ, WachemoAC. Anaerobic digestion of urea pretreated water hyacinth removed from Lake Abaya; bio-methane potential, system stability, and substance conversion. RSC Adv, 2022; 12(14):8548–8558; doi: 10.1039/D2RA00303A
8.
OzbayramEG, KleinsteuberS, NikolauszM, InceB, InceO. Bioaugmentation of Anaerobic Digesters Treating Lignocellulosic Feedstock by Enriched Microbial Consortia. Eng Life Sci, 2018; 18(7):440–446; doi: 10.1002/elsc.201700199
9.
StamsAJ, PluggeCM. Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and archaea. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2009; 7(8):568–577.
10.
DargodeP, MoreP, GoreS, SharmaMAL, LaliA. Design of substrate specific consortium for improved biogas production. Acta Scientific MIcrobiology, 2020; 3:118–128. https://actascientific.com/ASMI/pdf/ASMI-03-0501.pdf
11.
NieE, HeP, ZhangH, et al.How does temperature regulate anaerobic digestion? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021; 150:111453; doi: 10.1016/jrser.2021.111453
12.
TomeiMC, BragugliaCM, CentoG, MininniG. Modeling of anaerobic digestion of sludge. Critical Reviews in Env Sci Technol, 2009; 39(12):1003–1051; doi: 10.1080/10643380801977818
13.
LimJW, WongSW, DaiY, TongYW. Effect of seed sludge source and start-up strategy on the performance and microbial communities of thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Energy, 2020; 203:117922; doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117922
14.
De VriezeJ, VerstraeteW. Perspectives for microbial community composition in anaerobic digestion: From abundance and activity to connectivity. Environ Microbiol, 2016; 18(9):2797–2809; doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13437
15.
PasalariH, GholamiM, RezaeeA, EsrafiliA, FarzadkiaM. Perspectives on microbial community in anaerobic digestion with emphasis on environmental parameters: A systematic review. Chemosphere, 2021; 270:128618; doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128618
16.
SinghR, HansM, SaniRK, et al.Development of a process for enhanced biogas production from lignocellulosic feedstocks using an efficient thermophilic inoculum and its metagenomic study. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnol, 2025; 64:103519; doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2025.103519
17.
MozhiarasiV, WeichgrebeD, SrinivasanSV. Enhancement of methane production from vegetable, fruit and flower market wastes using extrusion as pretreatment and kinetic modeling. Water Air Soil Pollut, 2020; 231(3):1–21; doi: 10.1007/s11270-020-04469-2
18.
ShenJ, YanH, ZhangR, LiuG, ChenC. Characterization and methane production of different nut residue wastes in anaerobic digestion. Renewable Energy, 2018; 116:835–841; doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.018
19.
AbebeMA. Characterisation peal of fruit and leaf of vegetable waste with cow dung for maximizing the biogas yield. Int J Energy Power Eng, 2017; 6(2):13–21; doi: 10.1164/8/j.ijepe.20170602.12
20.
BrownAE, AdamsJM, GrashamOR, Camargo-ValeroMA, RossAB. An assessment of different integration strategies of hydrothermal carbonisation and anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth. Energies, 2020; 13(22):5983; doi: 10.3390/en13225983
21.
TanpichaiS, BiswasSK, WitayakranS, YanoH. Water hyacinth: A sustainable lignin-poor cellulose source for the production of cellulose nanofibers. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng, 2019; 7(23):18884–18893; doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04095
22.
SatyamS, HimanshuS, TusharS, ShubhamB, PrasadK. Anaerobic Digestion of Water Hyacinth. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science and Engineering: Balewadi Pune, India. 2017.
23.
ThongbunrodN, ChaiprasertP. Efficacy and metagenomic analysis of the stabilized anaerobic lignocellulolytic microbial consortium from Bubalus bubalis rumen with rice straw enrichment for methane production. Bioenerg Res, 2021; 14(3):870–890; doi: 10.1007/s12155-020-10167-y
24.
BindariYR, MooreRJ, VanTT, et al.Microbial communities of poultry house dust, excreta and litter are partially representative of microbiota of chicken caecum and ileum. PLoS One, 2021; 16(8):e0255633; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255633
25.
KumarR, VatsaDK. Isolation and screening of cellulolytic bacteria from yak (Bos grunniens) excreta from lahaul valley region for pre-treatment of paddy straw in Himachal Pradesh. IJBSM, 2024; 15(Jan, 1):1–7; doi: 10.2391/0/1.2024.5030
26.
WalterA, ProbstM, Franke‐WhittleIH, et al.Microbiota in anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge with and without co‐substrates. Water & Environment J, 2019; 33(2):214–222; doi: 10.1111/wej.12392
27.
MellyanawatyM, NakakojiS, TataraM, et al.Enrichment of thermophilic methanogenic microflora from mesophilic waste activated sludge for anaerobic digestion of garbage slurry. J Biosci Bioeng, 2021; 132(6):630–639; doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2021.09.005
28.
NuchdangS, KhemkhaoM, DomrongpokkaphanV, PhalakornkuleC. Effectiveness of enriched microbial culture under mesophilic and thermophilic condition in palm oil mill effluent for anaerobic digestion of Brachiaria mutica. Biofuels, 2022; 13(3):309–319; doi: 10.1080/17597269.2019.1685784
29.
LendormiT, JaziriK, BélineF, et al.Methane production and microbial community acclimation of five manure inocula during psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022; 340:130772; doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130772
30.
RamNR, NikhilGN. Assessment of microbial consortiums and their metabolic patterns during the bioconversion of food waste. Biomass Conv Bioref, 2023:1–14; doi: 10.1007/s13399-023-04565-3
31.
HossainMS, KarimTU, OnikMH, et al.Impact of temperature, inoculum flow pattern, inoculum type, and their ratio on dry anaerobic digestion for biogas production. Sci Rep, 2022; 12(1):6162; doi: 10.1080/17597269.2019.1685784
32.
PramanikSK, SujaFB, ZainSM, PramanikBK. The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production from food waste: Prospects and constraints. Bioresource Technology Reports, 2019; 8:100310; doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100310
33.
KafleGK, KimSH, SungKI. Ensiling of fish industry waste for biogas production: A lab scale evaluation of biochemical methane potential (BMP) and kinetics. Bioresour Technol, 2013; 127:326–336; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.032
34.
MahendiranR, SubramanianP, KarthikeyanS, et al.Optimization of biogas potential using kinetic models, response surface methodology, and instrumental evidence for biodegradation of tannery fleshings during anaerobic digestion. Open Life Sci, 2023; 18(1):20220721; doi: 10.1515/biol-2022-0721
35.
AwasthiMK, ChenH, WangQ, et al.Succession of bacteria diversity in the poultry manure composted mixed with clay: Studies upon its dynamics and associations with physicochemical and gaseous parameters. Bioresour Technol, 2018; 267:618–625; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.094
36.
AdigaS, RamyaR, ShankarBB, PatilJH, GeethaCR. Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth, poultry litter, cow manure and primary sludge: A comparative study. In International Conference on Biotechnology and Environment Management 2nd, 2012; 14:73–78; doi: 10.7763/IPCBEE2012. V42. 15
37.
PatilJH, RajMA, MuralidharaPL, DesaiSM, RajuGM. Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth using poultry litter as inoculum. IJESD, 2012; 3(2):94–98. http://www.ijesd.org/abstract/195-CD0010.htm
38.
TengZ, HuaJ, WangC, LuX. Design and optimization principles of biogas reactors in large scale applications. In Reactor and Process Design in Sustainable Energy Technology. Elsevier; 2014, pp. 99–134; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-59566-9.00004-1
39.
BudiyonoIS, SumardionoS. Kinetic model of biogas yield production from vinasse at various initial pH: Comparison between modified Gompertz model and first order kinetic model. RJASET, 2014; 7(13):2798–2805. http://maxwellsci.com/print/rjaset/v7-2798-2805.pdf
40.
ShamuradB, GrayN, PetropoulosE, et al.Predicting the effects of integrating mineral wastes in anaerobic digestion of OFMSW using first-order and Gompertz models from biomethane potential assays. Renewable Energy, 2020; 152:308–319; doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.067
