Next Article in Journal
An Interpretable Machine Learning-Based Hurdle Model for Zero-Inflated Road Crash Frequency Data Analysis: Real-World Assessment and Validation
Previous Article in Journal
Anxiety Detection System Based on Galvanic Skin Response Signals
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microbes and Parameters Influencing Dark Fermentation for Hydrogen Production

1
FibEnTech-UBI, Department of Chemistry, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
2
Departamento de Farmacología, Fisiología y Medicina Legal y Forense, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
3
Instituto de Investigación en Ingeniería de Aragón (I3A), Escuela de Ingeniería y Arquitectura (EINA), Departamento de Química Analítica, Universidad de Zaragoza, María de Luna 3 (Edificio Torres Quevedo), 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(23), 10789; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142310789
Submission received: 23 October 2024 / Revised: 14 November 2024 / Accepted: 19 November 2024 / Published: 21 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Microbiology)

Abstract

:
Dark fermentation is a promising method for hydrogen (H2) production utilizing the metabolic pathways of diverse microbial communities. This process can be carried out without the need for light, making it easier and more efficient to operate in different environments and at a lower cost. It also utilizes a wide range of substrates, making it highly adaptable to waste-to-energy applications. Clostridium spp. are particularly favored in this method due to their versatile metabolism, ability to utilize a wide range of substrates, and high H2 yields. Anaerobes and facultative anaerobes are mostly used in studies due to their efficient hydrogenase enzyme activity and metabolic pathways. A pH range of 5.5–6.5 and a temperature of 30–37 °C for mesophiles and 55–60 °C for thermophiles are usually preferred in addition to the other parameters such as hydraulic retention time and substrate used. The highest H2 yield of 9.39 mol H2/mol sucrose consumed was obtained by C. beijerinckii using sucrose as a substrate under batch mode conditions at 37 °C and pH 6–7. The review analyzes different bacterial species and examines the influence of optimized parameters required on H2 yield in different bioreactor operating modes.

1. Introduction

The depletion of fossil fuels due to their continuous consumption is attracting attention. These fossil fuels adversely affect the environment due to the release of greenhouse gases. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, 7th and 13th, aim to develop affordable and clean energy to meet energy needs. Thus, various alternatives are being evaluated to switch to environmentally friendly resources [1], as investing in renewable energy reduces the overall generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) [2].
Hydrogen (H2) is a clean and environmentally friendly fuel that can replace current fossil fuel resources in the future. It is estimated that the global H2 market will reach up to USD 1.6 trillion by 2050 [3]. Investment in H2 production has increased significantly. The United States is expected to become the largest producer of clean H2 by 2030, accounting for 37% of the global supply. It is estimated that clean H2 policies in Europe, Japan, and Korea alone can support up to 1.6 Mt of energy production by 2030 [4]. Hydrogen is a high-energy-density gas that does not release greenhouse gases during combustion. Still, conventional methods of H2 production, such as water electrolysis, require temperatures of around 50–100 °C, which increases energy demands and relies on freshwater, a resource that is becoming increasingly scarce. Photoelectrolysis, although being presented as an effective approach for H2 production, has low photolytic efficiency [5], using complex systems with a short lifetime [6]. The production of H2 using renewable resources is considered a sustainable and environmentally friendly approach. Organic wastes, such as sewage sludge, organic wastewater, and lignocellulose, contain a huge amount of energy. It has been observed that each kilogram of chemical oxygen demand (COD) generates about 1.4·107 kJ of metabolic heat [7].
Biological methods of H2 production are environmentally friendly and theoretically require low energy demands, as they occur under ambient conditions. Biological processes are being scaled up around the world. Cemvita, a startup based in Texas, USA, is pioneering H2 production through microbial degradation of residual oil hydrocarbons in depleted wells. The company aims to achieve H2 production at a cost of USD 1 per kg [8]. These methods include photofermentation, biophotolysis, microbial electrohydrogenesis, dark fermentation, and combined system methods. Figure 1 illustrates the various biological methods utilized for H2 generation.
Photofermentation refers to the process through which bacteria, under light exposure, convert organic matter into H2 gas. Purple non-sulfur bacteria can utilize a variety of substrates, including simple sugars, volatile fatty acids, and industrial and agricultural waste products, in the presence of light and anaerobic conditions. These bacteria have been employed in numerous photobioreactors (PBRs) for the enhancement of H2 production [9]. The genera Rhodobacter, Rhodobium, Rhodopseudomonas, and Rhodospirillum are among the microbes involved in photofermentation. They convert organic acids into H2 and CO2 [10].
Biophotolysis is another biological light-dependent method for H2 production. It entails capturing and transforming light energy into H2 via photosynthesis, during which microbes split water molecules. There are two microbial photosynthesis pathways, one comprising microalgae that utilize a hydrogenase enzyme and the other involving cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), which employ a nitrogenase enzyme and sometimes a hydrogenase enzyme. This process creates an anaerobic environment that is necessary to sustain H2 production [11]. In direct biophotolysis, the natural splitting of water molecules during photosynthesis is facilitated by the action of light. The production of H2 is not continuous in this method, as the activity of water splitting is susceptible to oxygen (O2) evolution during photosynthesis, resulting in a brief period of H2 production [12]. Both microalgae and cyanobacteria are capable of performing indirect photolysis, a process in which light is used to produce carbohydrates that are then converted into H2. This method mitigates the issue of O2 sensitivity by partially separating CO2 fixation-based O2 and H2 generation by the nitrogenase enzyme [11].
Microbial electrohydrogenesis cells produce H2 simultaneously with wastewater treatment. They promote the degradation of volatile fatty acids produced and are therefore considered a promising approach to optimize biomass conversion to H2 [13]. In this method, a microbial anode is coupled to a hydrogen-evolving cathode, and the oxidation of water at the anode is replaced by the oxidation of low-cost compounds. Despite considerable efforts to scale up the system, this approach has faced major difficulties [14].
Among the different biological methods for H2 production, dark fermentation is the main focus of this article. Dark fermentation, which is part of the acidogenic step of anaerobic digestion [15], offers several advantages as it does not require light and can use various raw materials as substrates for H2 production by microbes [16]. In this process, microbes use organic compounds as an energy source and convert them into organic acids, alcohols, and gases, such as H2, through fermentative pathways under anaerobic conditions [15]. The H2Boost project, led by the Biorenewables Development Centre at the University of York, has become the first initiative to successfully produce hydrogen on a large scale through dark fermentation. The project aims to develop a commercially viable and sustainable process for producing hydrogen from organic waste. It is believed that these new technologies have the potential to decarbonize the UK’s transport sector and provide up to 35% of the country’s energy needs by 2050 [17].
This biological method is used not only for H2 production but also to convert solid residues into high-quality biofertilizers and to minimize the generation of residues when food waste is used as the substrate [18]. Studies in recent years have suggested that the introduction of synthetic materials or nanoparticles can enhance H2 production during dark fermentation [19].
Doped composites of metal ions are characterized by a high surface area and exceptional electrical conductivity, which allows the enhancement of colony enrichment and the interspecies efficiency of electron transfer [20]. Dark fermentation is a promising technique for bioenergy production, offering a sustainable approach to generating H2 through the anaerobic degradation of organic compounds. Parameters such as pH, temperature, microbes used, hydraulic retention time (HRT), substrate type and its concentration, and bioreactor design and its material play a key role in the efficiency of H2 production using dark fermentation. This article aims to provide data on biological H2 production via dark fermentation using different microbial strains under varying environmental conditions to compare and devise optimal conditions and microbes that can be used for efficient production.

2. Hydrogen Production Pathways Utilized by Dark Fermentation Bacteria

Dark fermentation is considered a promising alternative method for H2 production. The general outline of the pathway followed by dark fermentation bacteria involves the breakdown of organic matter into simpler compounds and the release of H2 as a byproduct under anaerobic conditions. The microbes involved in this process are either strict or facultative anaerobes. This fermentation does not require light energy and is mainly carried out by bacteria from the genus Clostridium and the family Enterobacteriaceae with the ability to produce H2 [15]. The most suitable pathway for H2 production depends on the bacterial species, the substrate type and concentration, pH, temperature, HRT, and other environmental factors used during the process. Figure 2 shows the general outline of the dark fermentation pathway, along with the key parameters related to dark fermentation, which will be discussed in detail in the following sections.
The pathway involves the uptake of organic substrates such as carbohydrates, organic acids, and other biodegradable compounds. These substrates undergo glycolysis in the cytoplasm of the bacterial cell, where glucose is converted to pyruvate, producing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and reduced cofactors such as nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH). Pyruvate also undergoes acidogenesis, where it is converted into organic acids through the activity of enzymes such as pyruvate decarboxylase and formate hydrogenlyase to produce H+ ions. Electrons are generated through the reduction of NADH, which is produced during glycolysis. Hydrogenase enzyme facilitates the release of molecular H2 from the protons and electrons produced [22]. The fermentation pathways include the formate and NADH pathways, which can be further classified based on the bacteria involved. For example, pathways followed by Clostridium and Enterobacter spp. are classified as Clostridial-type and Enterobacterial-type fermentations based on specificity. In both Clostridial-type and Enterobacterial-type fermentations, H2 is produced during the glycolytic pathways mentioned above. In Clostridial-type fermentation, pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase (PFOR) oxidizes pyruvate to acetyl coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA) in the presence of ferredoxin, which is simultaneously reduced. On the other hand, NADH:ferredoxin oxidoreductase (NFOR) catalyzes the reduction of ferredoxin by NADH. Electrons are released from reduced ferredoxin and are used in proton reduction by hydrogenases to produce H2. In Enterobacter-type fermentation, NADH oxidation by NFOR forms H2, similar to the process in Clostridial-type fermentation. In mixed-acid fermentation, however, pyruvate is converted to acetyl-CoA and formic acid by the activity of pyruvate formate lyase (PFL). Formate hydrogenlyase degrades formic acid into H2 and CO2 [23,24]. Hydrogen production by dark fermentative bacteria from biomass mainly occurs via the acetate and butyrate pathways [25]. The maximum H2 yield through the acetate pathway is 4 mol H2/mol glucose consumed, while the butyrate pathway offers a maximum theoretical H2 yield of 2 mol H2/mol glucose [26]. According to these studies, the type of bacteria, the environmental conditions, and the process parameters are critical in determining the optimal conditions for maximizing H2 yield. In fact, the acetate pathway with glucose as a substrate gives better H2 yields than the butyrate pathway, but performance may vary depending on environmental factors, according to other studies. Figure 3 shows the two main pathways utilized by the bacteria during dark fermentation.

3. Factors Influencing Dark Fermentation Reactions

Dark fermentation is influenced by many factors, including concentration, composition, and type of substrate. Different organic matter, such as carbohydrates, organic waste, and biomass, can be used as substrates at different concentrations. Based on these factors, the fermentation rate and H2 yield will vary. Excessively high substrate concentrations can inhibit the activity of microbes due to substrate inhibition or osmotic stress [28]. Microbial consortia are another parameter to consider, as the choice of microbes for dark fermentation strongly influences the amount of H2 produced, followed by the pH.
Different microbes have optimal pH ranges at which they have the highest affinity to produce H2. In most cases, a slightly acidic to neutral pH is preferred by the dark fermentation microbes, as the fluctuations in pH can affect microbial activity and fermentation efficiency [29]. Alongside pH, temperature significantly affects the rate of dark fermentation. Certain microbes require optimal temperatures for their growth and activity. Typically, temperatures ranging from 30 to 40 °C are favorable for dark fermentation, although certain hydrogen-producing microbes can operate at 55 °C and even at 70 °C [30].
HRT, another factor affecting dark fermentation, is the average time that the substrate is in the bioreactor during the fermentation process. It affects the efficiency of substrate utilization and the amount of H2 produced. HRT varies depending on the substrate and the microbial community. In addition, nutrient availability, inhibitors, agitation and mixing, and H2 partial pressure affect H2 production during dark fermentation. Nutrients aid in microbial growth and fermentation activity. A lack of nutrients can limit microbial activity, while inhibitors such as heavy metals or phenolic compounds can inhibit microbial growth and reduce their H2 production efficiency [31]. Figure 4 shows various factors that affect H2 production in dark fermentation.

3.1. Effect of pH

pH is an important parameter that influences the efficiency of H2 production during dark fermentation. It affects the fermentation rate, the production of H2 and organic acid, the metabolic activity and growth of bacteria, and substrate utilization during anaerobic substrate degradation [29]. Hydrogenase activity and the metabolic pathways in hydrogen-producing microbes are strongly influenced by pH but only within a reasonable range. Variations in pH can affect the conformation and activity of hydrogenase, thereby affecting the rate of H2 production.
ATP is used to maintain neutrality in the cell, and pH values that are too high or too low can decrease the number of bacteria due to lower ATP levels in the cells [32,33]. Optimal pH enables higher H2 yield, solving the issues related to solventogenesis and inhibiting methanogens. pH values between 5 and 6 are preferred for H2 production, as the activity of methanogens is limited in the range between 6.5 and 7.0, although it has been observed that the optimal pH value varies depending on the type of inoculum and substrate used [34]. A study was conducted to analyze the effect of pH on the H2 production ability of dark fermentation bacteria using organic wastewater with a high concentration of nitrogen-containing compounds [35]. A pH range from 4 to 11 was analyzed, with the best results achieved at pH 5, where the H2 production rate was 0.053 mmol/h, the COD removal rate was 37.13 ± 1.86%, and the nitrate reduction rate was 1.57 ± 0.27 mg/L/h.
According to another research comparing different types of substrates, Spirulina platensis hydrolysate, which is a protein-based substrate, has an optimal pH range for H2 production between 4.5 and 5.7 [36]. However, a pH range between 5.3 and 5.6 was found to be optimal for glucose-based substrates in dark fermentation [37], proving that variations in optimal pH can be related to substrate diversity, operating conditions, and inoculum sources [38]. Kim et al. [39] found that decreasing the pH to 5 negatively affected the H2 yield compared to pH 8, with a decrease from 1.92 to 0.67 mol H2/mol hexose. Another study defined that the inhibition of H2 production due to a pH shift from 6 to 5 is caused by the acidic environment, which limits the development of reducing metabolites [40]. On the contrary, the H2 yield in continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) was higher at a pH of 4.0–4.5 than at a pH of 6.0–6.5 [41]. Therefore, it can be stated that pH can influence the solubility and availability of organic substrates for microbial utilization. Variations in the solubility of substrates, such as carbohydrates and organic acids, can affect their accessibility to hydrogen-producing bacteria, making pH an important parameter to optimize for high H2 yield.

3.2. Effect of Temperature

Temperature directly affects the metabolic activity of bacteria and their ability to produce H2. The enzymatic reactions necessary to produce H2 occur under optimal temperature conditions. In addition, the dynamic growth of bacterial populations also depends on temperature. At higher temperatures within an optimal range, the growth of these bacterial populations can be accelerated, leading to an increase in biomass and potentially higher overall H2 production [42]. Hydrogen-producing microbes can operate in mesophilic, thermophilic, and even hyperthermophilic ranges. Sillero et al. [30] studied the effect of temperature on biohydrogen production using different mixtures of sewage sludge, vinasse, and poultry manure. In the biochemical H2 production (BHP) experiments, temperatures of 35, 55, and 70 °C were tested in two mixtures. One of them consisted of sewage sludge and vinasse in a ratio of 50:50, while the other consisted of sewage sludge, vinasse, and poultry manure in a ratio of 49.5:49.5:1. The results showed that the addition of poultry manure at a temperature of 55 °C was ideal for biohydrogen production, with a yield of 0.522 mol H2/mol volatile solids, which confirmed that H2 production efficiency through dark fermentation is favorable at thermophilic temperatures. The choice of the optimal temperature for fermentation depends entirely on the microbes used, whether they are from a pure culture or a mixture, and on the substrates [43]. Efficient substrate hydrolysis has been reported under thermophilic conditions, but the presence of chemical compounds in the fermentation substrate may be affected by higher temperatures, reducing the conversion efficiency of substrates [44].
Zaira et al. [45] investigated the effect of temperature on the microbial community and biohydrogen production from lactate wastewater using dark fermentation. Temperatures of 35–45 °C were found to be favorable for H2 production, indicating that hydrogen-producing bacteria in anaerobic sludge can grow within a narrow temperature range and that the enzymes catalyzing lactate conversion are also temperature-specific. The maximum H2 yield of 0.85 mol H2/mol lactate was obtained at 45 °C and pH 8.5. Additionally, the fermentation batch cycle length and the acclimation time for H2 production are affected by temperature. The results showed that at 35 °C, the fermentation batch cycle length was about 65 h, while at 45 °C, it was 180 h. This suggests that different microbes are activated at different times due to variations in fermentation temperatures.
Another study on dark fermentation reported that mesophilic temperatures (37 °C), an HRT of 72 h, and a pH close to 7 are recurrent parameters of biomass fermentation [16]. Lin et al. [46] observed that H2 yield was maximized with thermophilic bacteria due to their slow proliferation and lower cell densities, although efficient biohydrogen volumetric productivity was achieved with intermediate thermophiles, indicating thermophiles as very efficient species for high H2 yield. In contrast, an analysis at temperatures of 50–55 °C showed 5–10 times higher H2 production compared to 30–45 °C. A comparative analysis between mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures for H2 production using cheese whey wastewater showed that 0.25 mol H2/mol cheese whey was produced at 55 °C, while 0.29 mol H2/mol cheese whey was produced at 35 °C [47]. These studies show that temperature alone is not responsible for high H2 production; other parameters, such as substrate, pH, and other environmental factors, determine which bacteria are best suited for a particular fermentation process.

3.3. Substrates Used by the Dark Fermentation Bacteria

Substrates are critical for H2 production in dark fermentation. The choice of substrate depends on its availability, the type of microbial inoculum used, cost, composition, and the desired end product. In addition, pretreatment methods such as acid or alkali treatment, milling, and enzymatic hydrolysis can improve the accessibility and digestibility of complex molecules. In an integrated microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) and dark fermentation system, a twofold increase in H2 yield was achieved, rising from 0.12 to 0.23 mol H2/mol substrate per day, and when 20 g/L corn stalk was used as the substrate in the same system, a simultaneous increase in H2 production was observed [48].
In another H2 production study, an MEC integrated with dark fermentation using cellulose as a feedstock resulted in a 42% increase in H2 yield compared to dark fermentation alone [49].
Xue et al. [50] used food waste from a treatment plant as a substrate in dark fermentation experiments. The concentration of the substrate was slowly increased from 10 to 120 g of volatile solids per liter. Silt from the bottom of a lake was used as the inoculum, and the fermentation was carried out for 10 days. An H2 yield of less than 1.16·10−4 mol H2/g of substrate was observed due to insufficient acidity. However, when a high substrate concentration was used, it facilitated rapid and strong acidification of the substrates, inhibiting only the non-hydrogen-producing bacteria, thus increasing the H2 production capacity to 1.41·10−3 mol H2/g substrate.
In the analysis of the dynamics of bacterial communities and substrate conversion, olive mill waste, lactate, and acetate were used as substrates. Clostridium and Bacillus were the most abundant microbes during H2 generation. The inoculum used was obtained from an anaerobic reactor treating cattle effluent, and the analyses indicated that lactic acid fermentation was the main hydrogen-producing pathway, although the amount of H2 produced was not mentioned in the article [51].
In a study with Clostridium butyricum, 3 g/L of glucose was used as a substrate in an anaerobic vessel flushed with nitrogen (N2). The experiments were performed in batch mode with an initial pH of 6.5 and a temperature of 37 °C. The conditions and substrate used allowed the production of 2.09 mol H2/mol hexose [23]. In H2 production studies with Clostridium beijerinckii, the bacteria produced 3.58 mol H2/mol dextrose when 3 g/L of dextrose was used as a substrate in batch mode at 120 rpm and 37 °C [52].
In an analysis of thermophilic dark fermentation start-up for H2 production, a bioreactor with a working volume of 5 L, 6 h HRT, and 55 °C temperature was set up. The results showed that a maximum of 1.64 mol H2/mol glucose was obtained at a glucose concentration of 6 g/L using Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum strain TG57 [53]. In another study aiming at analyzing the influence of bisphenol A (BPA) and thermophilic bacteria, 20 g/L of food waste was used as a substrate in a 55 mL serum bottle. An experiment was conducted at 55 °C with a pH of 7, an inoculum ratio of 10% (v/v), and a stirring speed of 150 rpm. In the control experiment, without BPA, 1.36 mol H2/mol substrate was produced, while with the addition of 100 mg/L BPA, H2 production was reduced to 1.30 mol H2/mol substrate and continued to decrease as the BPA concentration was further increased [54].
In a study with Clostridium spp. YM1, 1.19 mol H2/mol sugar was produced when 27.73 g/L of rice straw hydrolysate, consisting of xylose and glucose, was used as a substrate, indicating that the butyric acid pathway was the main pathway followed by these bacteria. The analysis was conducted at a temperature of 30 °C with an initial pH of 6.5, and 20 mg of Mg2+ or Fe2+ was added to a 250 mL glass bottle to enhance the production of H2 [55].

3.4. Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

HRT strongly influences microbial growth, substrate utilization, and H2 yield [56]. Longer HRT allows for more substrate utilization by the microbes, influences the growth rate and metabolic activity of the bacteria, and provides sufficient acclimation and adaptation time for the bacteria to optimize their metabolic pathways for efficient substrate degradation and biogas production. In addition, long HRT helps dominant species establish themselves and suppress less competitive species. It contributes to process stability by ensuring adequate substrate utilization rates, high efficiency, and improved microbial performance. However, on the other hand, in a continuous process, extended HRT can cause biomass washout, making longer HRTs not very adequate to achieve high H2 yields [57]. For H2 fermentation, shorter HRTs are preferred to reduce H2 consumption, and in smaller reactors, they help reduce costs as well as wash out competing species [58].
In a study using molasses as a substrate in a vertical continuous stirred tank reactor with dark fermentation, an initial HRT of 8 h was gradually decreased to 2 h. The maximum H2 yield was 0.6 mol H2/mol substrate at 5 h HRT [59]. Pugazhendhi et al. [60] utilized 15 g/L glucose as a substrate in a mesophilic fixed-bed reactor with anaerobic digester sludge as the inoculum, gradually decreasing HRT from 12 to 1.5 h. Butyrate and acetate were the metabolic products during fermentation, with the highest H2 yield of 2.3 mol H2/mol glucose produced by Clostridium butyricum as the dominant species at all the HRTs analyzed. Another analysis using galactose and glucose in a continuously stirred tank reactor with inoculum from heat-treated digester sludge was performed for HRTs ranging from 6 to 24 h. The peak H2 yield of 1.62 mol H2/mol glucose was obtained using glucose as the feedstock at HRTs of 6 and 18 h, whereas with galactose, the H2 yield was 1.00 mol H2/mol galactose at HRTs of 12 and 24 h. In addition, in a mixture of galactose and glucose in a ratio of 8:2, an H2 yield of 0.48 mol H2/mol carbohydrate added was observed at HRTs of 6 and 18 h, respectively [61].
Hydrogen production in a continuously stirred tank reactor is most often studied because it provides more interaction between the substrate and the microbes. In a continuously stirred bioreactor at a temperature of 32 ± 1 °C and stirring at 60 rpm, the HRT was studied from 24 to 3 h under dark fermentation conditions. A mixture of 4 g/L each of cellobiose, xylose, and arabinose was used as the substrate to obtain the highest average H2 yield of 7.84 mol H2/mol substrate mixture at 3 h and pH 6, indicating the influence of HRT and pH on H2 yield [62]. In another study using xylose in a dynamic membrane module bioreactor with a 444 μm pore polyester mesh, the H2 production rate was analyzed from 12 to 3 h HRT at 37 °C. The results showed that the maximum yield of 1.40 mol H2/mol xylose consumed was observed at 3 h HRT, indicating that lower HRTs are better for H2 production because the bacterial population can shift from non-H2 producers like Lactobacillus and Sporolactobacillus spp. to H2 producers such as Clostridium spp. [63].

4. Bacteria Used for Hydrogen Production During Dark Fermentation

The rate of H2 production by bacteria as part of their metabolism depends entirely on the conditions described above, namely pH, temperature, substrate used, HRT, and the type of bioreactor. Several bacterial species are well known for their ability to produce H2 under dark fermentation conditions, including Clostridium and Enterobacter spp., Escherichia coli, and facultative anaerobes such as Klebsiella pneumoniae.

4.1. Clostridium

Clostridium spp. has been widely used in dark fermentation studies for H2 production, especially C. butyricum, C. beijerinkii, C. acetobutylicum, and C. thermocellum. These strict anaerobic bacteria are found in soil, water, and animal intestines and are used in pure and mixed culture systems for dark fermentation H2 production [64]. Clostridium spp. bacteria break down carbohydrates to produce organic acids, alcohols, and gases. H2 production by these bacteria involves the conversion of pyruvate to acetyl-CoA by the enzyme PFOR, releasing CO2 and transferring electrons to ferredoxin, which, combined with protons, forms molecular H2. Hydrogenase is the key enzyme for H2 production, catalyzing the reversible oxidation of molecular H2. pH range of 5–7 and a temperature of 30–37 °C are optimal for H2 production by these bacteria [65].

4.1.1. Clostridium butyricum

C. butyricum was first isolated from pig intestines by Prazmowski in 1880 [66]. The substrates used by this species to produce H2 include glucose, fructose, xylose, starch, and glycerol. In addition, complex organic compounds (biomass and organic waste) can be used. Certain strains of C. butyricum are tolerant to alkaline [67] and phenol [68]. Table 1 presents several hydrogen-producing C. butyricum strains used for H2 production under different conditions.
C. butyricum bacteria are widely used for H2 production in pure culture as well as in mixed culture conditions. The studies indicated in Table 1 show that these bacteria are known to utilize a wide range of substrates, including glucose, sucrose, xylose, and even complex biomasses, and can work very efficiently for H2 production around pH 7 and temperature of 30–37 °C in both batch and continuous mode of operation. C. butyricum TM-9A, when used with sugar molasses as a substrate at 37 °C and pH 7.5 for 24 h, produced a maximum of 3.34 mol H2/mol synthetic analytical-grade glucose. Therefore, these species are widely used in fermentation systems due to their high hydrogen-producing and substrate-degrading abilities.

4.1.2. Clostridium beijerinckii

C. beijerinckii has been extensively studied for the production of H2 and butanol. This species has shown good tolerance to pH changes and various inhibitors and is known to utilize a variety of substrates, such as glucose, xylose, and cellulosic biomass [88]. During the dark fermentation process, the substrates are converted to pyruvate by glycolysis via the Embden–Meyerhof–Parnas (EMP) pathway. The pyruvate is further converted to acetyl-CoA by the enzyme PFOR, which produces reduced ferredoxin that donates electrons to hydrogenase enzymes and catalyzes the production of H2 gas [89]. Table 2 presents a list of C. beijerinckii strains used to produce H2 with different substrates and operational conditions.
It was observed from Table 2 that when C. beijerinckii was inoculated in batch mode of operation, it showed a maximum H2 production of 9.39 mol H2/mol sucrose consumed. These bacteria have mostly been studied with glucose as the substrate, with a pH range from 6 to 7 and a temperature of 37 °C. C. beijerinckii NCIMB-8052 yielded an H2 yield of 2.47 mol H2/mol glucose using a 10% v/v inoculum, pH 6.5, 32 ± 1 °C, 120 rpm, over 120 h under light illumination. However, when the same strain was fed a mixture of glucose and xylose as the substrate at 30 °C, it produced a lower H2 yield of 0.086 mol H2/mol substrate, indicating that using only glucose as the substrate provided a better H2 yield.

4.1.3. Clostridium pasteurianum

C. pasteurianum follows a similar pathway to other Clostridium spp. It is known as an iron-reducing bacterium used for biofuel production via fermentation. Discovered in 1890 by Sergei Winogradsky, this bacterium can survive in mesophilic conditions and can fix atmospheric N2. C. pasteurianum can utilize various substrates [98], release various products, and show rigorous growth in basic media under non-sterile conditions. The C. pasteurianum strains DSM525, CH5, H4 (DSM 525), and MTCC 116 produce H2 with greater efficiency in the presence of iron oxides [99]. This bacterium is highly efficient in anaerobic H2 production. Strict anaerobic bacteria of this species contain Fe–Fe hydrogenases in their cytoplasm, and when they use organic matter as a substrate, electrons are released. These electrons are used by the Fe–Fe hydrogenase to form H2 with the concomitant reoxidation of reduced ferredoxin produced during degradation [100].
In a study, the effect of ZnFe2O4 nanoparticles on H2 production by C. pasteurianum DSM 525 was investigated [101]. Optimal operational conditions were determined using the response surface method, which provided 2.14 mol H2/mol glucose, corresponding to a 116% increase in H2 production compared to the control after 48 h of batch culture. The metabolic pathway for H2 production shifted from the butyric acid type to the ethanol type. These bacteria were also used as a coculture with Geobacter sulfurreducens in glucose fermentation [102]. This study showed that the maximum rate and yield of H2 production in the coculture increased by 122.2% and 28.92%, respectively, compared to monoculture, using 50 mL serum vials at 37 °C, without agitation. Table 3 presents a list of C. pasteurianum strains used to produce H2 with different substrates and operational conditions. Most of these bacteria were used at 35–37 °C since they are mesophilic, with the maximum H2 production rate observed at pH 6.6–6.8.
C. pasteurianum has been studied using glucose, glycerol, and xylose as substrates. Some of the studies have incorporated nanoparticles for bacterial immobilization, increasing the hydrogen-producing ability of this species [106]. Strain DSM525 provided the highest H2 yield of 3.55 mol H2/mol of glucose as a substrate under batch mode at 37 °C.

4.1.4. Clostridium thermocellum

C. thermocellum is a thermophilic anaerobe first isolated in 1926. This bacterium is known to grow at 60–65 °C and pH 6.5–7 and to form cellulosomes on its cytomembrane. C. thermocellum is attracting attention for H2 production as it can convert cellulose and hemicellulose directly into ethanol and H2 [111]. This bacterium is widely used for H2 production from lignocellulosic biomass and paper waste [112]. In a study to determine the cellulose-degrading ability of these bacteria, cellobiose was used at three different substrate concentrations. When the substrate concentration was low at 0.1–4.5 g/L, H2 yields of 1–1.5 mol H2/mol glucose were obtained at 60 °C, pH 7.3 in batch mode with 10 mL working volume [113]. Table 4 shows a list of C. thermocellum strains with their H2 production ability using different substrates and operational conditions.
Studies have shown that these anaerobic bacteria are very capable of degrading cellulose. Most of the studies have used a temperature of either 55 or 60 °C, which is optimal for the activity of C. thermocellum. The most commonly used strains include C. thermocellum ATCC 27405 and DSM1313. The maximum H2 production of 5.87 mol H2/mol hexose was obtained with 3 g/L of cellulose at 55 °C, 168 h, 20 mM CaCO3, and 150 rpm, indicating the influence of CaCO3 in obtaining higher H2 yields. In addition, it was observed that these bacteria have been used at higher HRTs, indicating that their metabolic activity and growth can be maintained for longer periods compared to other species to produce H2.

4.2. Enterobacter

Enterobacter spp. are known to be potential strains for large-scale H2 production due to their high growth rates, adaptability to environmental conditions, utilization of waste biomass such as feedstock, and resistance to variations in pH, dissolved O2, and H2 pressure [120]. Metal nanoparticles have also been used to increase H2 production by enhancing ferredoxin–oxidoreductase activity [121]. The addition of iron or nickel oxides can help the bacteria produce H2 by promoting their cell proliferation and enzyme production [122].

4.2.1. Enterobacter aerogenes

E. aerogenes is a facultative anaerobe that produces ATP through oxidative phosphorylation. In the presence of O2, it grows via aerobic respiration, whereas in the absence of O2, it switches to anaerobic respiration using alternative electron acceptors. These bacteria produce more H2 when nanoparticles are added. In a study performed by Lin et al. [123], ferric oxide nanoparticles facilitated dark fermentation by Enterobacter aerogenes and increased the H2 yield from 1.32 to 1.55 mol H2/mol glucose when the ferric oxide nanoparticle concentration was increased from 0 to 200 mg/L. Table 5 presents a list of E. aerogenes strains with their H2 production abilities using different substrates and operational conditions.
Few studies have been performed with E. aerogenes, as summarized in Table 5. The bacteria require the addition of nanoparticles to increase H2 production, which might be one of the reasons why it has not been widely used for dark fermentation H2 production studies. It has been observed that this microbe grows well on a variety of substrates and can produce H2 around 37 °C. All studies show that continuous agitation in the bioreactor is required to increase bacterial interaction with the substrate, thus yielding more H2. The maximum H2 yield of 2.6 mol H2/mol sugar was observed using fermentable sugar as the substrate, with the addition of ferric oxide nanoparticles, at 37 °C for 72 h.

4.2.2. Klebsiella pneumoniae

K. pneumoniae has been studied for its growth rate, growth conditions, and production of valuable byproducts. This bacterium produces H2 through a mixed-acid fermentation pathway, converting glucose or other substrates into various end products. Formate, produced via the formate H2 lyase (FHL) pathway, is broken down by the FHL complex through the activity of formate dehydrogenase and hydrogenase to produce H2 and CO2. In a study with biodiesel waste using K. pneumoniae DSM2026, an H2 production rate of 0.532 mol H2/mol glycerol was obtained by optimizing the medium components. Using Plackett–Burman and uniform design methods, the optimized medium contained 20.4 g/L glycerol, 5.7 g/L KCl, 13.8 g/L, NH4Cl, 1.5 g/L CaCl2, and 3 g/L yeast extract, resulting in a 5-fold increase in H2 levels [127]. Table 6 presents a list of K. pneumoniae strains used to produce H2 under different substrates and operational conditions.
As shown in Table 6, K. pneumoniae can utilize different substrates, such as glucose and glycerol. Studies were performed in batch mode over a temperature range of 33–40 °C, between 12 and 72 h HRT, with a main pH range of 5.5 to 8. In a study, strain TR17 produced an H2 yield of 0.26 mol H2/mol glycerol using 11.14 g/L crude glycerol as a substrate at 40 °C and pH 8 in batch mode. However, when an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor was used with this same strain TR17 and 10 g/L glycerol as the substrate at 40 °C, pH 8 for 12 h in batch mode, a H2 production of 4.08 mol H2/mol glycerol was observed, indicating that this reactor is an optimal setup for achieving higher H2 yields with this strain of K. pneumoniae.

4.3. Escherichia Coli

E. coli is a facultative anaerobic mesophilic bacterium that grows optimally around 37 °C [138]. During dark fermentation, in the absence of O2, E. coli must find an alternative terminal electron acceptor. Protons serve this role, with H2 being produced when electrons are transferred to protons, while organic acids and ethanol are produced to maintain redox balance [139]. In E. coli, four [Ni–Fe]-hydrogenases are involved in H2 metabolism. The activity and reversibility of these enzymes depend on various conditions, such as pH, substrate type and its concentration, O2 availability, and oxidation–reduction potential [140]. The co-production of H2 with ethanol is more profitable than separate fermentation stages [141], as it improves the energy balance of biorefinery designs [142]. Table 7 presents a list of E. coli strains and their H2 production abilities using different substrates and operational conditions.
The analysis determined the efficiency of E. coli in producing H2 in monoculture and coculture. These bacteria can utilize a wide range of substrates, and the studies showed that they can produce H2 at temperatures ranging from 31 to 37 °C. A minimum pH of 5.5 and a maximum pH of 8 were applied, with all studies performed in batch mode. As can be seen in Table 7, the maximum H2 production of 2.82 mol H2/mol glucose was observed with E. coli strain WDH-LF using glucose as a substrate at 31 °C, pH 8.2, and 400 rpm, proving optimal H2 production under these certain conditions.

5. Discussion

This study aims to analyze the important parameters required for bacteria to produce H2 through dark fermentation. The analysis showed the influence of pH, temperature, HRT, substrate used, and its concentration on the ability of bacteria to produce H2 as a product of their metabolism. Table 8 shows the advantages and disadvantages observed during the analysis of each strain for H2 production.
The treatment of wastewater and simultaneous production of H2 using a biological method is a very realistic approach, especially when operating costs, energy losses, or fees per volume of water treated are critical factors. Clostridium spp. has been preferred for H2 production, as shown in several studies, due to its ability to grow under varied conditions. A pH range of 5–7, a temperature of around 30–37 °C for mesophiles, and around 60 °C for thermophiles are widely used for the dark fermentation process. The highest H2 production obtained from different species is shown in Table 9.
C. beijerinckii attained the highest H2 production yield, 9.39 mol H2/mol sucrose, at 37 °C and pH 6–7 [93], demonstrating that this species is very efficient for H2 production. C. thermocellum strain 27,405 follows C. beijerinckii with an H2 production yield of 5.87 mol H2/mol hexose, using cellulose as a substrate, at 55 °C for 168 h, with the addition of 20 mM CaCO3 [119]. C. pasteurianum DSM525 achieved a maximum H2 production of 3.55 mol H2/mol glucose at 37 °C [106], whereas C. butyricum TM-9A attained 3.34 mol H2/mol synthetic analytical-grade glucose, using sugarcane molasses, also at 37 °C [71]. E. aerogenes, using fermentable sugar, had a maximum H2 production of 2.6 mol H2/mol sugar at 37 °C with an HRT of 172 h [122]. The only drawback observed with this species was the need for the addition of nanoparticles in all studies. Klebsiella spp. TR17 provided a maximum H2 production of 4.08 mol H2/mol using glycerol at 40 °C and 12 h HRT [122], whereas the E. coli WDH-LF strain produced up to 2.82 mol H2/mol glucose [148]. These results allowed the identification of the most suitable strain from each species.
In addition, the analysis of each bacterial species identified several conditions and factors essential to obtain maximum H2 production. In a study with C. butyricum TM-9A, using sugarcane molasses as the substrate at 37 °C, pH 7.5, and an HRT of 24, 3.335 mol H2/mol synthetic analytical-grade glucose was produced [71]. However, when the same strain with 10 g/L of glucose as the substrate at 37 °C at a pH 8, it produced 3.1 mol H2/mol glucose [67], indicating no significant differences between the results. Another strain of C. butyricum, TISTR 1032, using sucrose at a pH of 6.5 in a batch mode, produced 1.34 mol H2/mol hexose [81]. However, when sugarcane juice was used as the substrate at 37 °C, pH 6, in continuous mode, only 1.0 mol H2/mol hexose was produced [85], confirming that pure sucrose is a better substrate for this strain to produce H2. C. butyricum CWBI1009 was studied using glucose monohydrate as the substrate under different operational conditions. When this strain was used in batch mode at 400 rpm and pH 7, 3.1 mol H2/mol glucose was obtained [78], while at 30 °C and pH 7.3, the production was 1.43 mol H2/mol glucose [76], proving that the latter conditions are better for higher H2 production. The analysis with C. beijerinckii in batch mode showed a maximum H2 yield of 9.39 mol H2/mol sucrose when 7.5 g/L of sucrose was used at 37 °C and pH 6–7 [93], followed by dextrose. When using 3 g/L of dextrose with the same strain, it produced 3.58 mol H2/mol dextrose in batch mode at 37 °C and 120 rpm [52]. Glucose resulted in an H2 productivity of 2.7 ± 0.2 mol/mol glucose at 37 °C and 100 rpm with the C. beijerinckii strain DSM 1820. The C. beijerinckii NCIMB-8052 strain produced an H2 yield of 2.47 mol H2/mol glucose using 10% v/v inoculum, at pH 6.5, 32 ± 1 °C, 120 rpm, 120 h, and light illumination [24]. When using a mixture of glucose and xylose as the substrate at 30 °C, the same strain produced a lower H2 yield of 0.086 mol H2/mol substrate [95], indicating that the use of glucose alone as the substrate provides higher H2 yields.
C. pasteurianum was analyzed using glucose, glycerol, and xylose as substrates. The DSM525 strain produced the highest H2 yield of 3.55 mol H2/mol using glucose as substrate at 37 °C in batch mode [106]. When C. pasteurianum MTCC 116 was used with glycerol as the substrate at 37 °C, pH 6.7, and 150 rpm, following the acetate pathway for metabolism, a maximum H2 yield of 3 mol H2/mol glycerol [108]. In contrast, when the same strain was used with glucose as the substrate at 37 °C, pH 6.6, and 192 rpm, the H2 yield decreased to 0.0036 mol H2/mol glucose, indicating that glycerol is a better substrate for H2 production by this strain. C. pasteurianum CH5 was studied with xylose and glucose. When xylose was used as the substrate, a maximum H2 yield of 1.46 mol H2/mol xylose was obtained at 35 °C and 120 rpm [110], whereas a higher H2 yield (1.61 mol H2/mol glucose) was achieved using glucose at 35 °C, pH 7, and 120 rpm [104], indicating glucose as a better substrate for H2 production by this strain.
Finally, C. thermocellum was also considered for the production of H2. The DSM 1313 strain of C. thermocellum used cellulose (Avicel) as a substrate. In continuous mode at 60 °C, pH 7, with argon flushing and 60 rpm, it produced 0.76–1.21 mol H2/mol hexose [115], whereas when the studies were performed in a batch mode at 55 °C, with 8 days of incubation and 150 rpm agitation, 1.15 mol H2/mol hexose was produced [118]. The highest H2 production rate of 1.92 mol H2/mol hexose was observed with C. thermocellum strain 27405, using 5 g/L of cellulose in batch mode at 55 °C, pH 7, flushed with N2, 150 rpm for 168 h [116]. Various conditions, such as an optimum temperature of 55 °C and 150 rpm agitation, were used in all studies, proving this strain to be efficient for the production of H2. When 5 g/L of sucrose was used as a substrate with an HRT of 168 h, the H2 production rate was 1.92 mol H2/mol hexose [116], whereas when the substrate concentration was increased to 18 g/L with an HRT of 10 days, 11.19 mol H2/mol cellulose was produced [160], indicating the effect of substrate and its concentration, as well as HRT, on H2 yields. Clostridium spp. has shown great potential, as most of the dark fermentation studies have used strains from these species to produce H2.
In addition to these bacteria, some other facultative anaerobic bacteria have shown the potential to produce H2 through dark fermentation. E. aerogenes, K. pneumoniae, and E. coli are facultative anaerobes used to produce H2 via dark fermentation. E. aerogenes requires the addition of nanoparticles to increase H2 production. The maximum H2 yield of 2.6 mol H2/mol sugar was observed with fermentable sugar as the substrate at 37 °C for 72 h, along with the addition of ferric oxide nanoparticles [120]. This was followed by E. aerogenes strain ATCC13408 using glucose as a substrate at 37 °C, pH 6, 220 rpm, and ferric oxide nanoparticles, which yielded H2 in the range of 1.32–1.55 mol H2/mol glucose [123].
In the case of K. pneumoniae, the ECU-15 and TR17 strains were mainly used to produce H2. The ECU-15 strain, when used with a mixture of glucose, xylose, and cellobiose at 150 rpm in batch mode, produced up to 2.07 mol H2/mol substrate [128], which was the maximum H2 produced by this strain. When the same strain was used with only glucose as the substrate at 37 °C, pH 6, and 150 rpm, it produced 1.22 mol H2/mol glucose [130], indicating that the mixture of glucose, xylose, and cellobiose is a better substrate for high yields of H2. In another analysis with K. pneumoniae strain TR17, lower H2 yields were observed with crude glycerol. At 40 °C, pH 8.0 for 24 h in batch mode, 0.25 mol H2/mol glycerol was produced [132]. In a similar study with crude glycerol at 40 °C and pH 8 in batch mode, an H2 yield of 0.26 mol H2/mol glycerol was observed [134], but when an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor was used with strain TR17 and glycerol as the substrate at 40 °C, pH 8 for 12 h in batch mode, an H2 yield of 4.08 mol H2/mol glycerol was observed [135], indicating that this reactor is optimal for higher H2 yield with this strain of K. pneumoniae.
Finally, in the analysis of E. coli, a maximum H2 production of 2.82 mol H2/mol glucose was observed with strain WDH-LF, using glucose as a substrate at 31 °C, pH 8.2, and 400 rpm [148]. For the E. coli strain W3110, hemicellulosic hydrolysates were found to be a better substrate than acetate. When hemicellulosic hydrolysates were used at 31 °C, pH 8.2, and 200 rpm, H2 production of 1.15–1.73 mol H2/mol substrate was obtained [142], but when acetate was used as the substrate at 33 °C and pH 6.3, H2 production of 0.21 mol H2/mol acetate was achieved [144]. When E. coli strain WDHL was analyzed with different substrates, the highest H2 production of 1.12 mol H2/mol was observed with galactose at 37 °C, pH 6, and 175 rpm, followed by glucose, which produced 0.30 mol H2/mol glucose produced under the same conditions, proving that galactose is a better substrate for this strain [146]. This comparative analysis allowed for the determination of the most suitable bacterial strain and the advantages and disadvantages of using each strain for dark fermentation studies to produce H2 under specific conditions available in the particular laboratory or industry at that particular time of the year since temperature plays a major role in H2 production efficiency, along with other conditions, such as bioreactor design and material, type of bioprocess, and the substrate used.

6. Conclusions

H2 production is a promising way to generate clean and green energy. Biological methods such as dark fermentation have enabled the production of renewable and carbon-neutral H2. Dark fermentation studies using anaerobic and facultative anaerobic bacteria have been widely identified, as these bacteria can utilize simple sugars and even food and agricultural wastes. Optimization of parameters such as pH, temperature, type of substrate used and its concentration, type of bioreactor, HRT, type of inoculum, and its metabolic pathway regulation can significantly improve H2 production. In addition, pretreatment, purification, and storage methods can be employed to make H2 more efficient for potential applications in industry and transportation. However, the method still requires certain technological advances to be adequately scaled up for industrial applications.
Bacteria play a critical role in the efficiency and feasibility of H2 production. Clostridium spp. has been widely preferred in studies. These bacteria possess highly active hydrogenase enzymes, which are crucial for the efficient conversion of reduced ferredoxin to H2. This review provides a detailed analysis of the parameters and bacteria strains used in dark fermentation studies. Each strain is compared to identify the most suitable bacteria for specific environmental and process conditions, as preferred in several studies over the years and those available during individual research. This will allow researchers to obtain more reliable and easier data in the future by monitoring available results that still need to be optimized. In addition, it will provide a cost-effective waste treatment process that addresses energy and waste disposal issues and serves as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.G., A.F., A.L., L.G. and J.S.; methodology, S.G. and L.G.; software, S.G. and L.G.; validation, A.F., A.L. and L.G.; formal analysis, L.G. and J.S.; investigation, S.G. and L.G.; resources, L.G. and J.S.; data curation, A.F., A.L. and L.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.G., A.F., L.G. and J.S.; writing—review and editing, S.G., A.F., A.L., L.G. and J.S.; visualization, L.G. and J.S.; project administration, L.G. and J.S.; funding acquisition, A.F., L.G. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, FCT, project UIDB/00195/2020, PhD grant PRT/BD/154415/2023 awarded to Soumya Gupta, and research contract CEECINST/00016/2021/CP2828/CT0006 awarded to Annabel Fernandes under the scope of the CEEC Institutional 2021. This work was carried out as part of the project PR-H2CVAL4-C1-2022-0049 “Valorización de aguas residuales industriales para la generación de hidrógeno biológico (Hi2biO)” from IDAE, financed by the EU Next Generation Funds.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, A.; Rambabu, K.; Hasan, S.W.; Show, P.L.; Banat, F. Biohydrogen production through dark fermentation: Recent trends and advances in transition to a circular bioeconomy. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 52, 335–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sharmila, V.G.; Tamilarasan, K.; Kumar, M.D.; Kumar, G.; Varjani, S.; Kumar, S.A.; Banu, J.R. Trends in dark biohydrogen production strategy and linkages with transition towards low carbon economy: An outlook, cost-effectiveness, bottlenecks and future scope. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 15309–15332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liguori, S.; Kian, K.; Buggy, N.; Anzelmo, B.H.; Wilcox, J. Opportunities and challenges of low-carbon hydrogen via metallic membranes. PECS 2020, 80, 100851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hydrogen Supply Outlook 2024: A Reality Check. Available online: https://about.bnef.com/blog/hydrogen-supply-outlook-2024-a-reality-check/ (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  5. Ji, M.; Wang, J. Review and comparison of various hydrogen production methods based on costs and life cycle impact assessment indicators. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 38612–38635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rossi, F.; Nicolini, A. An experimental investigation to improve the hydrogen production by water photoelectrolysis when cyanin-chloride is used as sensibilizer. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Qu, X.; Zeng, H.; Gao, Y.; Mo, T.; Li, Y. Bio-hydrogen production by dark anaerobic fermentation of organic wastewater. Front. Chem. 2022, 10, 978907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. 4 Startups Providing Clean Hydrogen Production with Microbes. Available online: https://www.greyb.com/blog/microbes-hydrogen-production-startups/# (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  9. Gupta, S.; Fernandes, A.; Lopes, A.; Grasa, L.; Salafranca, J. Photo-Fermentative Bacteria Used for Hydrogen Production. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tiang, M.F.; Hanipa, M.A.F.; Abdul, P.M.; Jahim, J.M.; Mahmod, S.S.; Takriff, M.S.; Lay, C.H.; Reungsang, A.; Wu, S.Y. Recent advanced biotechnological strategies to enhance photo-fermentative biohydrogen production by purple non-sulphur bacteria: An overview. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 13211–13230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Javed, M.A.; Zafar, A.M.; Hassan, A.A.; Zaidi, A.A.; Farooq, M.; El Badawy, A.; Lundquist, T.; Mohamed, M.M.A.; Al-Zuhair, S. The role of oxygen regulation and algal growth parameters in hydrogen production via biophotolysis. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rochaix, J.D. Regulation of photosynthetic electron transport. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Bioenerg. 2011, 1807, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ndayisenga, F.; Yu, Z.; Zheng, J.; Wang, B.; Liang, H.; Phulpoto, I.A.; Habiyakare, T.; Zhou, D. Microbial electrohydrogenesis cell and dark fermentation integrated system enhances biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic agricultural wastes: Substrate pretreatment towards optimization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rousseau, R.; Ketep, S.F.; Etcheverry, L.; Délia, M.L.; Bergel, A. Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC): A step ahead towards hydrogen-evolving cathode operated at high current density. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 9, 100399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Detman, A.; Laubitz, D.; Chojnacka, A.; Wiktorowska-Sowa, E.; Piotrowski, J.; Salamon, A.; Kaźmierczak, W.; Błaszczyk, M.K.; Barberan, A.; Chen, Y.; et al. Dynamics and complexity of dark fermentation microbial communities producing hydrogen from sugar beet molasses in continuously operating packed bed reactors. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 612344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhao, Z.T.; Ding, J.; Wang, B.Y.; Bao, M.Y.; Liu, B.F.; Pang, J.W.; Ren, N.Q.; Yang, S.S. Advances in the biomass valorization in dark fermentation systems: A sustainable approach for biohydrogen production. J. Chem. Eng. 2024, 2024, 148444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. UK First in ‘Clean Hydrogen’ Production and Carbon Capture. Available online: https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2024/research/clean-hydrogen-production-carbon-capture/ (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  18. Yang, Y.; Bu, J.; Tiong, Y.W.; Xu, S.; Zhang, J.; He, Y.; Zhu, M.; Tong, Y.W. Enhanced thermophilic dark fermentation of hydrogen production from food waste by Fe-modified biochar. Environ. Res. 2024, 244, 117946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, J.; Sun, H.; Zhu, L.; Du, L.; Ma, Y.; Ma, Y.; Yu, J.; Meng, A. Micro ribonucleic acid 27a aggravates ferroptosis during early ischemic stroke of rats through nuclear factor erythroid-2-related factor 2. Neuroscience 2022, 504, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhao, B.; Dong, Z.; Sha, H.; Cao, S.; Duan, J.; Yuan, A.; Song, Z. Thermally modified tourmaline enhances hydrogen production by influencing hydrolysis acidification in two stages during dark fermentation of corn stover. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 386, 129568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kamran, M. Bioenergy. In Renewable Energy Conversion Systems; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cao, Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, W.; Guo, J.; Xian, M. Debottlenecking the biological hydrogen production pathway of dark fermentation: Insight into the impact of strain improvement. Microb. Cell Fact. 2022, 21, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seppälä, J.J.; Puhakka, J.A.; Yli-Harja, O.; Karp, M.T.; Santala, V. Fermentative hydrogen production by Clostridium butyricum and Escherichia coli in pure and cocultures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 10701–10708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nasr, N.; Gupta, M.; Hafez, H.; El Naggar, M.H.; Nakhla, G. Mono-and co-substrate utilization kinetics using mono-and coculture of Clostridium beijerinckii and Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 241, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rafieenia, R.; Pivato, A.; Schievano, A.; Lavagnolo, M.C. Dark fermentation metabolic models to study strategies for hydrogen consumers inhibition. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 267, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lopez-Hidalgo, A.M.; Smoliński, A.; Sanchez, A. A meta-analysis of research trends on hydrogen production via dark fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 13300–13339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, D.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Lu, Y. Perturbation of formate pathway and NADH pathway acting on the biohydrogen production. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ayodele, D.T.; Ogunbiyi, O.D.; Akamo, D.O.; Otun, K.O.; Akinpelu, D.A.; Adegoke, J.A.; Fapojuwo, D.P.; Oladoye, P.O. Factors affecting biohydrogen production: Overview and perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 27513–27539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sanchez-Ledesma, L.M.; Rodríguez-Victoria, J.A.; Ramírez-Malule, H. Effect of fermentation time, pH, and their interaction on the production of volatile fatty acids from Cassava Wastewater. Water 2024, 16, 1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sillero, L.; Solera, R.; Perez, M. Effect of temperature on biohydrogen and biomethane production using a biochemical potential test with different mixtures of sewage sludge, vinasse and poultry manure. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 382, 135237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yin, Y.; Song, W.; Wang, J. Inhibitory effect of acetic acid on dark-fermentative hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 364, 128074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kong, Z.; Wang, Z.; Lu, X.; Song, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Hu, S. Significant in situ sludge yield reduction in an acidic activated sludge system. Water Res. 2024, 261, 122042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Krulwich, T.A.; Sachs, G.; Padan, E. Molecular aspects of bacterial pH sensing and homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yasin, N.H.M.; Man, H.C.; Yusoff, M.Z.M.; Hassan, M.A. Microbial characterization of hydrogen-producing bacteria in fermented food waste at different pH values. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 9571–9580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tang, T.; Chen, Y.; Liu, M.; Du, Y.; Tan, Y. Effect of pH on the performance of hydrogen production by dark fermentation coupled denitrification. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pandey, A.; Sinha, P.; Pandey, A. Hydrogen production by sequential dark and photofermentation using wet biomass hydrolysate of Spirulina platensis: Response surface methodological approach. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 7137–7146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mangayil, R.; Santala, V.; Karp, M. Fermentative hydrogen production from different sugars by Citrobacter sp. CMC-1 in batch culture. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 15187–15194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alvarez, A.J.; Fuentes, K.L.; Arias, C.A.; Chaparro, T.R. Production of hydrogen from beverage wastewater by dark fermentation in an internal circulation reactor: Effect on pH and hydraulic retention time. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2022, 15, 100232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, D.H.; Kim, S.H.; Jung, K.W.; Kim, M.S.; Shin, H.S. Effect of initial pH independent of operational pH on hydrogen fermentation of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8646–8652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Li, G.; Xia, C. Comparison of bio-hydrogen and bio-methane production performance in continuous two-phase anaerobic fermentation system between co-digestion and digestate recirculation. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 318, 124269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Song, J.; An, D.; Ren, N.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y. Effects of pH and ORP on microbial ecology and kinetics for hydrogen production in continuously dark fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 10875–10880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Price, P.B.; Sowers, T. Temperature dependence of metabolic rates for microbial growth, maintenance, and survival. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 4631–4636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Okolie, J.A.; Epelle, E.I.; Tabat, M.E.; Orivri, U.; Amenaghawon, A.N.; Okoye, P.U.; Gunes, B. Waste biomass valorization for the production of biofuels and value-added products: A comprehensive review of thermochemical, biological and integrated processes. PSEP 2022, 159, 323–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Avargani, V.M.; Zendehboudi, S.; Saady, N.M.C.; Dusseault, M.B. A comprehensive review on hydrogen production and utilization in North America: Prospects and challenges. Energy Conv. Manag. 2022, 269, 115927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ziara, R.M.; Miller, D.N.; Subbiah, J.; Dvorak, B.I. Lactate wastewater dark fermentation: The effect of temperature and initial pH on biohydrogen production and microbial community. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lin, C.Y.; Tseng, Y.T.; Leu, H.J. Thermophilic biohydrogen fermentation of kitchen waste. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 11, 1041–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Azbar, N.; Dokgöz, F.T.; Keskin, T.; Eltem, R.; Korkmaz, K.S.; Gezgin, Y.; Akbal, Z.; Oncel, S.; Dalay, M.C.; Gonen, C.; et al. Comparative evaluation of bio-hydrogen production from cheese whey wastewater under thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic conditions. Int. J. Green Energy 2009, 6, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, X.H.; Liang, D.W.; Bai, Y.X.; Fan, Y.T.; Hou, H.W. Enhanced H2 production from corn stalk by integrating dark fermentation and single chamber microbial electrolysis cells with double anode arrangement. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 8977–8982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, A.; Sun, D.; Cao, G.; Wang, H.; Ren, N.; Wu, W.M.; Logan, B.E. Integrated hydrogen production process from cellulose by combining dark fermentation, microbial fuel cells, and a microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 4137–4143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xue, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, F.; Lv, G.; Tan, L.; Liu, G. The effect of substrate acidification on the biohydrogen production by dark fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 49, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mugnai, G.; Borruso, L.; Mimmo, T.; Cesco, S.; Luongo, V.; Frunzo, L.; Fabbricino, M.; Pirozzi, F.; Cappitelli, F.; Villa, F. Dynamics of bacterial communities and substrate conversion during olive-mill waste dark fermentation: Prediction of the metabolic routes for hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 319, 124157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Valentín-Reyes, J.; García-Reyes, R.B.; García-González, A.; Álvarez-Valencia, L.H.; Rivas-García, P.; de Jesús Cerino-Córdova, F. Mathematical modelling for biohydrogen production by Clostridium beijerinckii. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 17602–17610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yin, T.; Wang, W.; Zhuo, S.; Cao, G.; Ren, H.; Li, J.; Xing, D.; Xie, G.; Liu, B. Thermophilic dark fermentation fast start-up of hydrogen production with substrate concentration regulation and moderate pretreatment inoculum. Fuel 2023, 334, 126748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yang, Y.J.; Zhu, M.J. Influences of bisphenol A on hydrogen production from food waste by thermophilic dark fermentation, Environ. Res. 2024, 260, 119625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mahmod, S.S.; Krisna, R.; Shukor, H.; Abdul, P.M.; AL-Rajabi, M.M.; Atabani, A.E.; Luthfi, A.A.I.; Gunny, A.A.N. Evaluation of biohydrogen production from rice straw hydrolysate via Clostridium sp. YM1: In-lab fermentation and techno-economic study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2024; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Akhlaghi, N.; Najafpour-Darzi, G. A comprehensive review on biological hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 22492–22512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Santiago, S.G.; Trably, E.; Latrille, E.; Buitrón, G.; Moreno-Andrade, I. The hydraulic retention time influences the abundance of Enterobacter, Clostridium and Lactobacillus during the hydrogen production from food waste. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Wang, Z.; Wang, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, G. Digestion of thermally hydrolyzed sewage sludge by anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. J. Hazard Mater. 2009, 162, 799–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ri, P.C.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, T.R.; Pang, C.H.; Mun, H.G.; Pak, G.C.; Ren, N.Q. Effect of hydraulic retention time on the hydrogen production in a horizontal and vertical continuous stirred-tank reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 17742–17749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pugazhendhi, A.; Anburajan, P.; Park, J.H.; Kumar, G.; Sivagurunathan, P.; Kim, S.H. Process performance of biohydrogen production using glucose at various HRTs and assessment of microbial dynamics variation via q-PCR. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 27550–27557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumar, G.; Park, J.H.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, S.H. Hydrogen fermentation of different galactose–glucose compositions during various hydraulic retention times (HRTs). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 20625–20631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zagrodnik, R.; Duber, A.; Seifert, K. Dark-fermentative hydrogen production from synthetic lignocellulose hydrolysate by a mixed bacterial culture: The relationship between hydraulic retention time and pH conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 358, 127309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baik, J.H.; Jung, J.H.; Sim, Y.B.; Park, J.H.; Yang, J.; Kim, S.H. High-rate biohydrogen production from xylose using a dynamic membrane bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, J.; Yin, Y. Principle and application of different pretreatment methods for enriching hydrogen-producing bacteria from mixed cultures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 4804–4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Debabov, V.G. Acetogens: Biochemistry, bioenergetics, genetics, and biotechnological potential. Microbiology 2021, 90, 273–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vos, P.; Garrity, G.; Jones, D.; Krieg, N.R.; Ludwig, W.; Rainey, F.A. Genus, I. Clostridium Prazmowski, 1880. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriol. In The Firmicutes, 9th ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 3, pp. 739–740. [Google Scholar]
  67. Junghare, M.; Subudhi, S.; Lal, B. Improvement of hydrogen production under decreased partial pressure by newly isolated alkaline tolerant anaerobe, Clostridium butyricum TM-9A: Optimization of process parameters. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 3160–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tai, J.; Adav, S.S.; Su, A.; Lee, D.J. Biological hydrogen production from phenol-containing wastewater using Clostridium butyricum. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 13345–13349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Aly, S.S.; Imai, T.; Hassouna, M.S.; Nguyen, D.M.K.; Higuchi, T.; Kanno, A.; Yamamoto, K.; Akada, R.; Sekine, M. Identification of factors that accelerate hydrogen production by Clostridium butyricum RAK25832 using casamino acids as a nitrogen source. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 5300–5313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Litti, Y.V.; Khuraseva, N.D.; Vishnyakova, A.V.; Zhuravleva, E.A.; Kovalev, A.A.; Kovalev, D.A.; Panchenko, V.A.; Parshina, S.N. Comparative study on biohydrogen production by newly isolated Clostridium butyricum SP4 and Clostridium beijerinckii SP6. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 27540–27556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. RamKumar, N.; Anupama, P.D.; Nayak, T.; Subudhi, S. Scale up of biohydrogen production by a pure strain; Clostridium butyricum TM-9A at regulated pH under decreased partial pressure. Renew. Energy 2021, 170, 1178–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kanchanasuta, S.; Prommeenate, P.; Boonapatcharone, N.; Pisutpaisal, N. Stability of Clostridium butyricum in biohydrogen production from non-sterile food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 42, 3454–3465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mahato, R.K.; Kumar, D.; Rajagopalan, G. Biohydrogen production from fruit waste by Clostridium strain BOH3. Renew. Energy 2020, 153, 1368–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Moura, A.G.L.D.; Rabelo, C.A.B.D.S.; Okino, C.H.; Maintinguer, S.I.; Silva, E.L.; Varesche, M.B.A. Enhancement of Clostridium butyricum hydrogen production by iron and nickel nanoparticles: Effects on hydA expression. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 28447–28461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Braga, J.K.; Stancari, R.A.; Motteran, F.; Malavazi, I.; Varesche, M.B.A. Metals addition for enhanced hydrogen, acetic and butyric acids production from cellulosic substrates by Clostridium butyricum. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 150, 105679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yin, Y.; Wang, J. Isolation and characterization of a novel strain Clostridium butyricum INET1 for fermentative hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 12173–12180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, Y.; He, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, X.; Qi, N.; Han, T. Efficiency enhancement of H2 production by a newly isolated maltose-preferring fermentative bio-hydrogen producer of Clostridium butyricum NH-02. J. Energy Storage 2020, 30, 101426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Beckers, L.; Masset, J.; Hamilton, C.; Delvigne, F.; Toye, D.; Crine, M.; Thonart, F.; Hiligsmann, S. Investigation of the links between mass transfer conditions, dissolved hydrogen concentration and biohydrogen production by the pure strain Clostridium butyricum CWBI1009. Biochem. Eng. J. 2015, 98, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hamilton, C.; Calusinska, M.; Baptiste, S.; Masset, J.; Beckers, L.; Thonart, P.; Hiligsmann, S. Effect of the nitrogen source on the hydrogen production metabolism and hydrogenases of Clostridium butyricum CWBI1009. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 5451–5462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Subudhi, S.; Lal, B. Fermentative hydrogen production in recombinant Escherichia coli harboring a [FeFe]-hydrogenase gene isolated from Clostridium butyricum. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 14024–14030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Plangklang, P.; Reungsang, A.; Pattra, S. Enhanced bio-hydrogen production from sugarcane juice by immobilized Clostridium butyricum on sugarcane bagasse. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 15525–15532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liu, C.H.; Chang, C.Y.; Cheng, C.L.; Lee, D.J.; Chang, J.S. Fermentative hydrogen production by Clostridium butyricum CGS5 using carbohydrate-rich microalgal biomass as feedstock. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 15458–15464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pachapur, V.L.; Sarma, S.J.; Brar, S.K.; Le Bihan, Y.; Buelna, G.; Soccol, C.R. Evidence of metabolic shift on hydrogen, ethanol and 1,3-propanediol production from crude glycerol by nitrogen sparging under micro-aerobic conditions using coculture of Enterobacter aerogenes and Clostridium butyricum. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 8669–8676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pachapur, V.L.; Sarma, S.J.; Brar, S.K.; Le Bihan, Y.; Buelna, G.; Verma, M. Surfactant mediated enhanced glycerol uptake and hydrogen production from biodiesel waste using coculture of Enterobacter aerogenes and Clostridium butyricum. Renew. Energy 2016, 95, 542–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fangkum, A.; Reungsang, A. Biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate by elephant dung: Effects of initial pH and substrate concentration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 8687–8696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sim, Y.B.; Yang, J.; Joo, H.H.; Jung, J.H.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, S.H. Effect of bioaugmentation using Clostridium butyricum on the start-up and the performance of continuous biohydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 366, 128181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Park, J.H.; Kim, D.H.; Baik, J.H.; Park, J.H.; Yoon, J.J.; Lee, C.Y.; Kim, S.H. Improvement in H2 production from Clostridium butyricum by coculture with Sporolactobacillus vineae. Fuel 2021, 285, 119051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yang, Y.; Nie, X.; Jiang, Y.; Yang, C.; Gu, Y.; Jiang, W. Metabolic regulation in solventogenic clostridia: Regulators, mechanisms and engineering. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Diallo, M.; Simons, A.D.; van der Wal, H.; Collas, F.; Houweling-Tan, B.; Kengen, S.W.; López-Contreras, A.M. L-Rhamnose metabolism in Clostridium beijerinckii strain DSM 6423. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e02656-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Trchounian, K.; Müller, N.; Schink, B.; Trchounian, A. Glycerol and mixture of carbon sources conversion to hydrogen by Clostridium beijerinckii DSM791 and effects of various heavy metals on hydrogenase activity. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 7875–7882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Khalil, M.E.; Jain, A.; Yang, K.L.; Rajagopalan, G. A remarkable enhancement in hydrogen production from Clostridium beijerinckii G117 by the co-fermentation of crude glycerol and rice bran hydrolysates. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 33810–33826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Meng, J.; Sun, K.; Yan, H. A neutral red mediated electro-fermentation system of Clostridium beijerinckii for effective co-production of butanol and hydrogen. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 332, 125097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rosa, D.; Medeiros, A.B.P.; Martinez-Burgos, W.J.; do Nascimento Junior, J.R.; de Carvalho, J.C.; Sydney, E.B.; Soccol, C.R. Biological hydrogen production from palm oil mill effluent (POME) by anaerobic consortia and Clostridium beijerinckii. J. Biotech. 2020, 323, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zagrodnik, R.; Laniecki, M. An unexpected negative influence of light intensity on hydrogen production by dark fermentative bacteria Clostridium beijerinckii. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 1039–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhang, X.; Ye, X.; Guo, B.; Finneran, K.T.; Zilles, J.L.; Morgenroth, E. Lignocellulosic hydrolysates and extracellular electron shuttles for H2 production using coculture fermentation with Clostridium beijerinckii and Geobacter metallireducens. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 147, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhao, X.; Xing, D.; Fu, N.; Liu, B.; Ren, N. Hydrogen production by the newly isolated Clostridium beijerinckii RZF-1108. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8432–8436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Skonieczny, M.T.; Yargeau, V. Biohydrogen production from wastewater by Clostridium beijerinckii: Effect of pH and substrate concentration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 3288–3294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schwarz, K.M.; Grosse-Honebrink, A.; Derecka, K.; Rotta, C.; Zhang, Y.; Minton, N.P. Towards improved butanol production through targeted genetic modification of Clostridium pasteurianum. Metab. Eng. 2017, 40, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Mishra, P.; Pradhan, N. A synergistic association between iron reduction and enhanced hydrogen production in Clostridium pasteurianum. Biochem. Eng. J. 2024, 2024, 109216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, J.; Yin, Y. Progress in microbiology for fermentative hydrogen production from organic wastes. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 825–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Yang, F.; Shi, H.; Mao, X.; Qi, L.; Zhu, M.; Tan, W.; Zhang, X. Mechanism of ZnFe2O4 NPs on biohydrogen production by Clostridium pasteurianum. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 70, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, Y.; Zheng, S.; Hao, Q.; Wang, O.; Liu, F. Respiratory electrogen Geobacter boosts hydrogen production efficiency of fermentative electrotroph Clostridium pasteurianum. J. Chem. Eng. 2023, 456, 141069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chen, L.; Zhang, K.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Feng, Y. Enhancement of magnetic field on fermentative hydrogen production by Clostridium pasteurianum. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 341, 125764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wannapokin, A.; Huang, H.T.; Chang, P.H.; Chien, Y.W.; Hung, C.H. Improving production of biohydrogen from COOH-functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes through Co-immobilization with Clostridium pasteurianum. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 40704–40713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Srivastava, N.; Srivastava, M.; Kushwaha, D.; Gupta, V.K.; Manikanta, A.; Ramteke, P.W.; Mishra, P.K. Efficient dark fermentative hydrogen production from enzyme hydrolyzed rice straw by Clostridium pasteurianum (MTCC116). Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 238, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, L.; Wang, S.; Liu, F. Stimulation of ferrihydrite nanorods on fermentative hydrogen production by Clostridium pasteurianum. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 283, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sarma, S.; Dubey, V.K.; Moholkar, V.S. Kinetic and thermodynamic analysis (with statistical optimization) of hydrogen production from crude glycerol using Clostridium pasteurianum. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 19972–19989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sarma, S.; Anand, A.; Dubey, V.K.; Moholkar, V.S. Metabolic flux network analysis of hydrogen production from crude glycerol by Clostridium pasteurianum. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 242, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Wannapokin, A.; Cheng, Y.T.; Wu, S.Z.; Hsieh, P.H.; Hung, C.H. Potential of bio-hydrogen production by C. pasteurianum co-immobilized with selected nano-metal particles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 11337–11344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hsieh, P.H.; Lai, Y.C.; Chen, K.Y.; Hung, C.H. Explore the possible effect of TiO2 and magnetic hematite nanoparticle addition on biohydrogen production by Clostridium pasteurianum based on gene expression measurements. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 21685–21691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. An, Q.; Cheng, J.R.; Wang, Y.T.; Zhu, M.J. Performance and energy recovery of single and two stage biogas production from paper sludge: Clostridium thermocellum augmentation and microbial community analysis. Renew. Energy 2020, 148, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, J.; Yin, Y. Clostridium species for fermentative hydrogen production: An overview. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 34599–34625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Islam, R.; Cicek, N.; Sparling, R.; Levin, D. Effect of substrate loading on hydrogen production during anaerobic fermentation by Clostridium thermocellum 27405. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 72, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Islam, R.; Sparling, R.; Cicek, N.; Levin, D.B. Optimization of influential nutrients during direct cellulose fermentation into hydrogen by Clostridium thermocellum. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 3116–3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Singer, S.; Magnusson, L.; Hou, D.; Lo, J.; Maness, P.C.; Ren, Z.J. Anaerobic membrane gas extraction facilitates thermophilic hydrogen production from Clostridium thermocellum. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 1771–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Cheng, J.R.; Zhu, M.J. Biohydrogen production from pretreated lignocellulose by Clostridium thermocellum. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2016, 21, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kim, C.; Wolf, I.; Dou, C.; Magnusson, L.; Maness, P.C.; Chou, K.J.; Singer, S.; Sundstrom, E. Coupling gas purging with inorganic carbon supply to enhance biohydrogen production with Clostridium thermocellum. J. Chem. Eng. 2023, 456, 141028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. An, Q.; Wang, J.L.; Wang, Y.T.; Lin, Z.L.; Zhu, M.J. Investigation on hydrogen production from paper sludge without inoculation and its enhancement by Clostridium thermocellum. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 263, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Tian, Q.Q.; Liang, L.; Zhu, M.J. Enhanced biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse by Clostridium thermocellum supplemented with CaCO3. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 197, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Zhang, C.; Lv, F.X.; Xing, X.H. Bioengineering of the Enterobacter aerogenes strain for biohydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8344–8349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Elsamadony, M.; Elreedy, A.; Mostafa, A.; Fujii, M.; Gescher, J.; Shakeri Yekta, S.; Schnürer, A.; Gaillard, J.F.; Pant, D. Perspectives on potential applications of nanometal derivatives in gaseous bioenergy pathways: Mechanisms, life cycle, and toxicity. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng 2021, 9, 9563–9589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ramprakash, B.; Sivaramakrishnan, R.; Subramani, K.; Incharoensakdi, A. Iron oxide treated Chlorella sp. for enhanced biomass and lipid content coupled to fermentative hydrogen production by Enterobacter aerogenes using hydrolyzate from pretreated biomass. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 73, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lin, R.; Cheng, J.; Ding, L.; Song, W.; Liu, M.; Zhou, J.; Cen, K. Enhanced dark hydrogen fermentation by addition of ferric oxide nanoparticles using Enterobacter aerogenes. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 207, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Praptyana, I.R. Biohydrogen production from wood dust mahogany (Swietenia mahagony) by dark fermentation using Enterobacter aerogenes: Effect of ozone pretreatment time and pH. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 63, S203–S209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Jiang, K.; Bai, R.; Gao, T.; Lu, P.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, S.; Xu, F.; Wang, S.; Zhao, H. Optimization of hydrogen production in Enterobacter aerogenes by Complex I peripheral fragments destruction and maeA overexpression. Microb. Cell Fact. 2023, 22, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rao, R.; Basak, N. Optimization and modelling of dark fermentative hydrogen production from cheese whey by Enterobacter aerogenes 2822. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 1777–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Liu, F.; Fang, B. Optimization of bio-hydrogen production from biodiesel wastes by Klebsiella pneumoniae. Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Niu, K.; Zhang, X.; Tan, W.S.; Zhu, M.L. Characteristics of fermentative hydrogen production with Klebsiella pneumoniae ECU-15 isolated from anaerobic sewage sludge. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Estevam, A.; Arantes, M.K.; Andrigheto, C.; Fiorini, A.; da Silva, E.A.; Alves, H.J. Production of biohydrogen from brewery wastewater using Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from the environment. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 4276–4283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Xiao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, M.; Tan, W. Effect of the culture media optimization, pH and temperature on the biohydrogen production and the hydrogenase activities by Klebsiella pneumoniae ECU-15. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 137, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wu, K.J.; Lin, Y.H.; Lo, Y.C.; Chen, C.Y.; Chen, W.M.; Chang, J.S. Converting glycerol into hydrogen, ethanol, and diols with a Klebsiella sp. HE1 strain via anaerobic fermentation. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2011, 42, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Chookaew, T.; Sompong, O.; Prasertsan, P. Fermentative production of hydrogen and soluble metabolites from crude glycerol of biodiesel plant by the newly isolated thermotolerant Klebsiella pneumoniae TR17. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 13314–13322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Maintinguer, S.I.; Fernandes, B.S.; Duarte, I.C.; Saavedra, N.K.; Adorno, M.A.T.; Varesche, M.B.A. Fermentative hydrogen production with xylose by Clostridium and Klebsiella species in anaerobic batch reactors. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 13508–13517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Chookaew, T.; Sompong, O.; Prasertsan, P. Statistical optimization of medium components affecting simultaneous fermentative hydrogen and ethanol production from crude glycerol by thermotolerant Klebsiella sp. TR17. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Chookaew, T.; Sompong, O.; Prasertsan, P. Biohydrogen production from crude glycerol by immobilized Klebsiella sp. TR17 in a UASB reactor and bacterial quantification under non-sterile conditions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 9580–9587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Liu, W.; Pang, J.; Wu, D.; Zhang, L.; Xing, D.; Hu, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z. Hydrogen production by a novel Klebsiella pneumoniae strain from sheep rumen uses corn straw as substrate. Energy 2023, 282, 128210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mohammed, A.; Firdaus, A.M.; Zaharah, I.; Mohammed, I.L.; Mohammed, J.N.; Balogun, T.V. Investigation and Scaling of Hydrogen Production by Klebsiella sp. ABZ11 for Optimal Yield and the Kinetics of Batch Fermentation Process. JASEM 2022, 26, 2113–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Tuttle, A.R.; Trahan, N.D.; Son, M.S. Growth and maintenance of Escherichia coli laboratory strains. Curr. Protoc. 2021, 1, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Gopalakrishnan, B.; Khanna, N.; Das, D. Dark-fermentative biohydrogen production. In Biomass, Biofuels and Biochemical: Biohydrogen, 2nd ed.; Pandey, A., Venkata Mohan, S., Chang, J.S., Hallenbeck, P.C., Larroche, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 79–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Trchounian, K.; Sawers, R.G.; Trchounian, A. Improving biohydrogen productivity by microbial dark-and photo-fermentations: Novel data and future approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 1201–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Soo, C.S.; Yap, W.S.; Hon, W.M.; Phang, L.Y. Mini review: Hydrogen and ethanol co-production from waste materials via microbial fermentation. WJMB 2015, 31, 1475–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Sundara Sekar, B.; Seol, E.; Park, S. Co-production of hydrogen and ethanol from glucose in Escherichia coli by activation of pentose-phosphate pathway through deletion of phosphoglucose isomerase (PGI) and overexpression of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (ZWF) and 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase (GND). Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ramprakash, B.; Incharoensakdi, A. Dark fermentative hydrogen production from pretreated garden wastes by Escherichia coli. Fuel 2022, 310, 122217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Teramoto, H.; Suda, M.; Inui, M. Effects of potential inhibitors present in dilute acid-pretreated corn stover on fermentative hydrogen production by Escherichia coli. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 29219–29229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Lopez-Hidalgo, A.M.; Magaña, G.; Rodriguez, F.; De Leon-Rodriguez, A.; Sanchez, A. Co-production of ethanol-hydrogen by genetically engineered Escherichia coli in sustainable biorefineries for lignocellulosic ethanol production. J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 406, 126829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Rosales-Colunga, L.M.; Razo-Flores, E.; Rodríguez, A.D.L. Fermentation of lactose and its constituent sugars by Escherichia coli WDHL: Impact on hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Poladyan, A.; Margaryan, L.; Trchounian, K.; Trchounian, A. Biomass and biohydrogen production during dark fermentation of Escherichia coli using office paper waste and cardboard. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Lopez-Hidalgo, A.M.; Hernandez, V.E.B.; De Leon-Rodriguez, A. Scale-up of hydrogen and ethanol co-production by an engineered Escherichia coli. Fuel 2021, 300, 121002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Sivagurunathan, P.; Kumar, G.; Lin, C.Y. Hydrogen and ethanol fermentation of various carbon sources by immobilized Escherichia coli (XL1-Blue). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 6881–6888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Maru, B.T.; López, F.; Kengen, S.W.M.; Constantí, M.; Medina, F. Dark fermentative hydrogen and ethanol production from biodiesel waste glycerol using a coculture of Escherichia coli and Enterobacter sp. Fuel 2016, 186, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zhou, P.; Wang, Y.; Gao, R.; Tong, J.; Yang, Z. Transferring [NiFe] hydrogenase gene from Rhodopeseudomonas palustris into E. coli BL21 (DE3) for improving hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 4329–4336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Sharma, P.; Melkania, U. Biochar-enhanced hydrogen production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste using coculture of Enterobacter aerogenes and E. coli. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 18865–18874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Sharma, P.; Melkania, U. Impact of heavy metals on hydrogen production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste using coculture of Enterobacter aerogenes and E. coli. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Rosales-Colunga, L.M.; García, R.G.; Rodríguez, A.D.L. Estimation of hydrogen production in genetically modified E. coli fermentations using an artificial neural network. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 13186–13192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hassan, S.H.; Morsy, F.M. Feasibility of installing and maintaining anaerobiosis using Escherichia coli HD701 as a facultative anaerobe for hydrogen production by Clostridium acetobutylicum ATCC 824 from various carbohydrates. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2015, 81, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Li, S.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Tao, L.; Li, T. Optimization of pH conditions to improve the spore production of Clostridium butyricum NN-2 during fermentation process. Arch. Microbiol. 2020, 202, 1251–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Seelert, T.; Ghosh, D.; Yargeau, V. Improving biohydrogen production using Clostridium beijerinckii immobilized with magnetite nanoparticles. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 4107–4116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Zhai, W.; Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Fu, B.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, C.; Shen, J.; Liu, D.; Wang, Y. Epidemiology and genetic characterization of tet (X4)-positive Klebsiella pneumoniae and Klebsiella quasipneumoniae isolated from raw meat in Chengdu City, China. Biosaf. Health 2024, 6, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wang, R.Y.; Shi, Z.Y.; Chen, J.C.; Wu, Q.; Chen, G.Q. Enhanced co-production of hydrogen and poly-(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate by recombinant PHB producing E. coli over-expressing hydrogenase 3 and acetyl-CoA synthetase. Metab. Eng. 2012, 14, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Lin, H.N.; Hu, B.B.; Zhu, M.J. Enhanced hydrogen production and sugar accumulation from spent mushroom compost by Clostridium thermocellum supplemented with PEG8000 and JFC-E. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 2383–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Biological methods of hydrogen production.
Figure 1. Biological methods of hydrogen production.
Applsci 14 10789 g001
Figure 2. General outline of dark fermentation pathways and the parameters concerning dark fermentation. Adapted and reprinted with permission from [21] Renewable Energy Conversion Systems, Academic Press, M. Kamran, Chapter 8—Bioenergy, Copyright (2021), Elsevier, and [16] Chemical Engineering Journal, 481, Z.T Zhao J. Ding B.Y. Wang, M.Y. Bao, B.F. Liu J.W. Pang, J.Q. Ren, S.S. Yang, Advances in the biomass valorization in dark fermentation systems: A sustainable approach for biohydrogen production, 148444, Copyright (2024), Elsevier.
Figure 2. General outline of dark fermentation pathways and the parameters concerning dark fermentation. Adapted and reprinted with permission from [21] Renewable Energy Conversion Systems, Academic Press, M. Kamran, Chapter 8—Bioenergy, Copyright (2021), Elsevier, and [16] Chemical Engineering Journal, 481, Z.T Zhao J. Ding B.Y. Wang, M.Y. Bao, B.F. Liu J.W. Pang, J.Q. Ren, S.S. Yang, Advances in the biomass valorization in dark fermentation systems: A sustainable approach for biohydrogen production, 148444, Copyright (2024), Elsevier.
Applsci 14 10789 g002
Figure 3. Two main hydrogen-producing pathways in dark fermentation [27].
Figure 3. Two main hydrogen-producing pathways in dark fermentation [27].
Applsci 14 10789 g003
Figure 4. Factors influencing hydrogen production via dark fermentation.
Figure 4. Factors influencing hydrogen production via dark fermentation.
Applsci 14 10789 g004
Table 1. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium butyricum strains.
Table 1. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium butyricum strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol Substrate *Ref.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
DSM2478, NCIMB8082Glucose (3)376.5 Anaerobic jars purged with N2Batch (250)2.09[23]
TM-9AGlucose (10)378.02410.1 kPaBatch (67)3.10[67]
RAK25832Glucose (10)308.0 Serum bottles flushed with N2Batch (75)1.81[69]
SP4Hexose and pentose (5)30 110 rpm, glass vials in N2 flowBatch (60)0.93–1.52[70]
TM-9ASugarcane molasses377.524Serum bottlesBatch (120)3.34 (synthetic analytical grade glucose)[71]
TISTR 1032Synthetic food waste with volatile solids (28)376.0 100 rpmSemi-batch (5000)0.02 (volatile solids)[72]
BOH3Fruit waste with sugar (10) 6.824Purged with N2Batch (250)2.30[73]
CGS2Glucose (5)376.8 130 rpmBatch (250)0.95[74]
CCT 7470Cellulose and glucose (5)37 Cellulose mediumBatch (250)0.19 (cellulose), 0.58 (glucose)[75]
INET1Glucose (10)357.0 10% v/v inoculum, purged with N2, 100 rpmBatch (150)2.07[76]
NH-02 (MT229351)Maltose (10)307.023Purged with argon, 4% v/v inoculumBatch (100)1.90[77]
CWBI1009Glucose (5) 7.3 400 rpm, N2 spargingBatch (2500)3.10[78]
CWBI1009Glucose (5)307.3 N2 flushingBatch (270)1.43[79]
TERI BH05-2 in recombinant E. coliGlucose (10)377.048N2 flushing, 100 rpmBatch (67)3.20[80]
TISTR 1032Sucrose (25) 6.5 Sugarcane bagasse for immobilizationBatch1.34[81]
CGS5Microalgal biomass hydrolysate (9)375.530 Batch (20)1.15[82]
NRRL B-4112Glycerol (10) 168N2 sparging 1.02[83]
NRRL B-41122 with Enterobacter aerogenes NRRL B-407Glycerol (10)366.5 150 rpmBatch (47)1.25[84]
TISTR 1032Sugarcane juice3763610% v/v inoculum, 150 rpmContinuous (1000)1.0[85]
DSM 10702Glucose (5) 5.512N2 purgingBatch + continuous (4500)2.61[86]
KCCM 35433 with Sporolactobacillus vineae KCCM 11493BPGlucose (5)35 32200 rpmBatch (160)1.84[87]
* In parentheses, the reference substrate for calculation when it differs from the cited one.
Table 2. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium beijerinckii strains.
Table 2. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium beijerinckii strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 yield as Mol H2/mol SubstrateRef.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
DSM 1820Glucose (2)37 10% v/v, flushed with N2, 100 rpmBatch (180)2.70 ± 0.20[24]
Not specifiedDextrose (3)377.596Flushed with N2, 120 rpmBatch3.58[52]
DSM 791Glycerol (11)377.596 Batch (120)1.21[90]
G117Glycerol (20–80)396.812–72Purged with N2, 150 rpmBatch (120)1.18–1.45[91]
NCIMB 8052Glucose (20)376.5 Cathodic electrofermentation, graphite felt electrode, 130 rpm, sparged with N2Batch (150)1.51[92]
ATCC 8260Sucrose (7.5)376.0–7.0 1 mL inoculumBatch (15)9.39[93]
NCIMB-8052Glucose (3)326.5120Sparged with N2, 10% v/v inoculum, 120 rpm, light illuminationBatch (60)2.47[94]
NCIMB 8052Glucose:xylose 1:5 w/w (3)30 Flushed with N2, 3% v/v inoculumBatch (26)0.09[95]
RZF-118Glucose (9)357.020Flushed with N2, 8% v/v inoculum, 140 rpmBatch (100)1.97[96]
ATCC 8260Glucose (3)306.3 Flushed with argon, 3% v/v inoculum, 180 rpmBatch (100)0.191[97]
Table 3. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium pasteurianum strains.
Table 3. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium pasteurianum strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol SubstrateRef.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
Glucose (0.12)307.060 Batch (100)2.34 ± 0.02[103]
CH5Glucose357.0 120 rpmBatch (120)1.61[104]
MTCC116Glucose (54.18)376.69610% v/v inoculum, 192 rpmBatch (150)3.60·10−3[105]
DSM525Glucose37 Flushing with N2, 5% v/v inoculum, ferrihydrite nanorodsBatch (25)3.55[106]
Glycerol (7.4)366.7 10% v/v inoculum, 150 rpmBatch0.63[107]
MTCC 116Glycerol (7.4)366.7 10% v/v inoculum, flushing with N2, 150 rpmBatch
(100)
2.00–3.00[108]
CH5Xylose (40)356.8 Flushed with argon, 120 rpm, 400 mg/L nanometal particles for bacteria immobilizationBatch
(120)
0.16[109]
CH5Xylose (40)35 10 mL inoculum, nanometal and soluble iron, 120 rpm, flushed with argonBatch
(120)
1.46[110]
Table 4. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium thermocellum strains.
Table 4. Hydrogen production by different Clostridium thermocellum strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol Substrate *Ref.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
DSM 1237Cellulose (25)607.3–7.4 Batch (20)1.30 (hexose)[114]
DSM 1313Cellulose (5)607.0 Argon flushing, 60 rpmContinuous (2000)0.76–1.21 (hexose)[115]
27405Cellulose (5)557.0168Purged with N2, 150 rpmBatch (120)1.92 (hexose)[116]
KJC315Cellobiose (5)607.024Purged with N2, 100 rpm, 33% CO2Batch (130)3.26 (hexose)[117]
DSM1313Cellulose (10)55 192Purged with N2, 10% v/v inoculum, 150 rpmBatch (130)1.15 (hexose)[118]
ATCC 27405Cellulose (3)55 16820 mM CaCO3, 10% (v/v) inoculum, 150 rpmBatch (120)5.87 (hexose)[119]
* In parentheses, the reference substrate for calculation when it differs from the cited one.
Table 5. Hydrogen production by different Enterobacter aerogenes strains.
Table 5. Hydrogen production by different Enterobacter aerogenes strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol Substrate *Ref.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
Fermentable sugar37 72Anaerobic, Fe2O3 nanoparticlesBatch (100)2.60[122]
ATCC13408Glucose (3)376 Aerobic, 220 rpm, purging with N2, Fe2O3 nanoparticles 200 mg/LBatch (200)1.32–1.55[123]
ATCC 13048Mahogany wood hydrolysate and
preculture medium (45)
37 48120 rpm, 15% v/v inoculumBatch (250)0.03 (glucose)[124]
IAM1183Glucose (15)37 20200 rpm, purging with N2Batch (100)1.34  ±  0.21[125]
2822Cheese whey (32.5)316.5104250 rpm, 10% v/v inoculum, flushing with argonBatch (2000)0.26 (lactose)[126]
* In parentheses, the reference substrate for calculation when it differs from the cited one.
Table 6. Hydrogen production by different Klebsiella pneumoniae strains.
Table 6. Hydrogen production by different Klebsiella pneumoniae strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol Substrate *Ref.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
DSM 2026Glycerol (20.4)376.52410% v/v inoculumBatch (5000)0.80[127]
ECU-15Glucose (10),
Xylose (2), and
Cellobiose (1.5)
150 rpm, N2 flushingBatch (1000)2.07 (glucose)[128]
MGH 78578Brewery wastewater (3–4)355.57210% v/v inoculum, 90 rpmBatch (250)0.80–1.67 (glucose)[129]
ECU-15Glucose (35.62)376.0 150 rpm, flushed with N2Batch (1000)1.22[130]
HE1Glycerol (50)356.0 200 rpmBatch (2500)0.34[131]
TR17Glycerol (20)408.024 Batch (60)0.25[132]
Sucrose (3.588)375.54820% v/v inoculum, 8500 rpmBatch (100)0.80 (xylose)[133]
TR17Glycerol (11.4)408.0 10% v/v inoculum, flushed with N2Batch (60)0.26[134]
TR17Glycerol (10)408.012Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactorBatch (1000)4.08[135]
Y7-3Corn straw (50)37 245% v/v inoculum, 220 rpmBatch (100)0.18[136]
ABZ11Glucose (9.15)346.848150 rpmBatch (2000)
2.71[137]
* In parentheses, the reference substrate for calculation when it differs from the cited one.
Table 7. Hydrogen production by different Escherichia coli strains.
Table 7. Hydrogen production by different Escherichia coli strains.
StrainSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol Substrate *Ref.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
K-12Garden waste
(cellulose, 13)
33 Purged with argonBatch (100)2.73 (cellulose)[143]
W3110Acetate (10)336.3 Purged with 95% N2Batch (69)0.21[144]
W3110Hemi cellulosic hydrolysates (10–15)318.2 200 rpmBatch (10)1.15–1.73 mol H2/mol substrate[145]
WDHLGlucose (15)
Lactose (15)
Galactose (15)
376.0 175 rpmBatch (1000)0.30
1.02 (hexose)
1.12
[146]
BW25113Glucose377.5 Batch (100)0.05[147]
WDH-LFGlucose318.2 400 rpmBatch (10,000)2.82[148]
XL1-BlueFructose (5)
Glucose (5)
Xylose (5)
356.5 Purged with argon, 150 rpmBatch (130)1.17 (fructose)
0.96 (glucose)
0.69 (xylose)
[149]
CECT432,
CECT434 and E. cloacae
MCM2/1
Glycerol (20)376.37210% v/v inoculum, purged with argonBatch (1200)4.40·10−3[150]
BH20Glucose (4)37 16120 rpmBatch (200)0.32 ± 0.01[151]
E. coli
and Enterobacter aerogenes
Acetate (0.563), butyrate (0.537), propionate (0.059), and lactate (0.214)375.5 12.5 g/L biochar, purged with N2Batch (500)0.33[152]
E. coli
and Enterobacter aerogenes
Acetate (0.608), butyrate (0.516), propionate (0.051), and lactate (0.191)375.5 Purged with N2, 50 mL inoculum, gas sampling every 24 h, 10 mg/L copperBatch (500)0.15[153]
WDHLCheese whey powder37 175 rpmBatch (1000)1.50·10−3[154]
HD701Mixture of
glucose, sucrose, starch, acid-hydrolyzed sucrose, and starch
357.0 10% v/v inoculum, sparged with N2Batch (1000)2.00 (glucose)[155]
* In parentheses, the reference substrate for calculation when it differs from the cited one.
Table 8. Advantages and disadvantages of dark fermentation species.
Table 8. Advantages and disadvantages of dark fermentation species.
BacteriaAdvantagesDisadvantages
C. butyricum
Ability to metabolize a wide range of substrates
Ability to grow in a wide range of environmental conditions, such as slightly acidic to neutral pH [67]
Low total substrate conversion efficiency
Sensitive to pH fluctuations [156]
C. beijerinckii
Ability to utilize a wide range of substrates
Resistant to inhibitory compounds [88]
Sensitive to very acidic pH [157]
C. pasteurianum
Ability to utilize a wide variety of substrates [98]
Produce H2 with greater efficiency in the presence of iron oxides [99]
Nanoparticles can be used to immobilize bacteria and increase H2 productivity [106]
Can convert cellulose and hemicellulose directly to ethanol and H2 [111]
Complex feedstocks require pretreatment to make the sugars available for fermentation, increasing operating costs
Production of organic acids during fermentation can lower pH, inhibiting bacterial growth and H2 production [101]
C. thermocellum
Have high hydraulic retention time [116]
Require higher temperatures of 60–65 °C for their growth and activity [111]
E. aerogenes
Can grow through aerobic respiration or, in the absence of O2, switch to anaerobic respiration using alternative electron acceptors [123]
pH around 6–6.5 has been used for H2 production [120,123]
Require the addition of nanoparticles to increase H2 production [123]
K. pneumoniae
Produces H2 via a mixed-acid fermentation pathway [127]
Temperature range of 33–40 °C, 12 to 72 h HRT, and a distinctive pH range of 5.5 to 8 are observed to optimize H2 production [129,135,137]
It is a pathogen responsible for several human infections, thus raising biosafety concerns [158]
E. coli
Flexibility in genetic engineering
Have faster growth rate compared to other species [159]
Can utilize wide range of carbon sources [155]
Relatively lower H2 yields compared to Clostridium species [90,145]
Table 9. Maximum hydrogen production by different species.
Table 9. Maximum hydrogen production by different species.
BacteriaSubstrate
(Concentration, g/L)
ConditionsOperation Mode
(Reactor Volume, mL)
H2 Yield as Mol H2/mol SubstrateRef.
T (°C)pHTime (h)More Details
C. butyricum TM-9ASugarcane molasses377.524Serum bottlesBatch (120)3.34 (synthetic analytical grade glucose)[71]
C. beijerinckiiSucrose (7)376.0−7.0 1 mL inoculumBatch (15)9.39[93]
C. pasteurianum DSM525Glucose37 Flushing with N2, 5% inoculum, ferrihydrite nanorodsBatch (25)3.55[106]
C. thermocellum ATCC 27405Cellulose (3)55 16810% (v/v) inoculum, 150 rpm, 20 mM CaCO3Batch (120)5.87 (hexose)[119]
E. aerogenesFermentable sugar37 72Anaerobic, Fe2O3 nanoparticlesBatch (100)2.60[122]
Klebsiella species TR17Glycerol (10)408.012Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactorBatch (1000)4.08[135]
E. coli WDH-LFGlucose (16)318.2 400 rpmBatch (10,000)2.82[148]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gupta, S.; Fernandes, A.; Lopes, A.; Grasa, L.; Salafranca, J. Microbes and Parameters Influencing Dark Fermentation for Hydrogen Production. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 10789. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142310789

AMA Style

Gupta S, Fernandes A, Lopes A, Grasa L, Salafranca J. Microbes and Parameters Influencing Dark Fermentation for Hydrogen Production. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(23):10789. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142310789

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gupta, Soumya, Annabel Fernandes, Ana Lopes, Laura Grasa, and Jesús Salafranca. 2024. "Microbes and Parameters Influencing Dark Fermentation for Hydrogen Production" Applied Sciences 14, no. 23: 10789. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142310789

APA Style

Gupta, S., Fernandes, A., Lopes, A., Grasa, L., & Salafranca, J. (2024). Microbes and Parameters Influencing Dark Fermentation for Hydrogen Production. Applied Sciences, 14(23), 10789. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142310789

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop