Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Biomethane Production from Sugarcane Vinasse in a Circular Economy: Developments and Innovations
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Direct-Fed Microbials on In-Vitro Rumen Fermentation of Grass or Maize Silage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lignocellulosic Biorefinery Technologies: A Perception into Recent Advances in Biomass Fractionation, Biorefineries, Economic Hurdles and Market Outlook
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 9
Issue 4
10.3390/fermentation9040348
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Lipid Type on the Acidogenic Performance of Food Waste

by
Chao Liu
1,†,
Sheng Li
1,†,
Hongyu Niu
1,
Haijun Yang
1,
Ju Tan
2,
Jiachao Zhang
1,
Liheng Ren
1,* and
Binghua Yan
1,*
1
College of Environment & Ecology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
2
Changsha Environmental Monitoring Center Station, Changsha 410001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Fermentation 2023, 9(4), 348; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040348
Submission received: 27 February 2023 / Revised: 24 March 2023 / Accepted: 28 March 2023 / Published: 1 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anaerobic Fermentation and High-Value Bioproducts)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to its high lipid content and intricate constitution, food waste poses a considerable challenge for biotreatment. This research aims to investigate the potential influence of diverse lipid species on anaerobic fermentation, induced by the varying dietary patterns observed in distinct regions. The investigation involved incorporating 5% (w/w) of beef tallow, mutton fat, soybean oil, peanut oil, and rapeseed oil, separately, into simulated food waste, and subjected it to batch mode acidogenic fermentation. The inclusion of unsaturated fatty acids resulted in a redirection of the metabolic pathway from the lactic acid type to the ethanol, acetic acid, and butyric acid types. The succession of the acidogenic metabolic pathway was highly correlated with the lipid types; beef tallow, mutton fat, soybean oil, and peanut oil delayed the metabolic process by 1, 2, 3, and 8 d, respectively, whereas rapeseed oil accelerated it by 2 d. The lipids contained within the food waste did not facilitate the buildup of soluble substances, resulting in a decrease of 14.0~59.7%. Notwithstanding, valeric acid was exclusively generated during the beef tallow and peanut oil treatments, whereas the production of lactic acid in peanut oil showed a 35.9% increase in comparison to the control.

1. Introduction

Food waste, encompassing restaurant waste, market waste, and household kitchen waste, etc., constitutes the largest component of municipal solid waste, accounting for approximately 30–50% of the total amount [1,2,3]. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s statistics, one third of the world’s food is squandered during the food system’s supply process [2,3,4]. It has been estimated that the volume of food waste in Asian nations will surge from 2.78 billion tons to 4.16 billion tons by the year 2025 [5].
In particular, within China, as urbanization and economic prosperity continue to advance swiftly, the rate of increase in food waste has surpassed 10% [6]. As outlined in the China Statistical Yearbook (2021), in the year 2020, China generated approximately 352.1 million metric tons of municipal solid waste. Food waste contains lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates, which can easily deteriorate and grow pathogens and bacteria. Therefore, finding an effective technology to process food waste is important for waste reduction, emission reduction, and resource utilization.
Composting, biological fermentation, biological drying, incineration, feed, and sanitary landfills are the current prevailing technologies utilized for treating food waste [7,8]. Nonetheless, these methodologies are still encumbered with certain inadequacies. For instance, providing untreated food waste to animals may make them more susceptible to infection. Composting and sanitary landfill processes may require a large portion of valuable land and emit greenhouse gases [9,10]. Owing to the high moisture content of food waste, incineration may face challenges with regards to energy tension and instability [11]. In comparison to other treatment technologies, anaerobic digestion has demonstrated a great deal of promise in terms of integrating organic waste management and bioenergy recovery [12]. Anaerobic digestion has been employed to reduce food waste and harness energy from it. Because of different culinary habits, cooking techniques, and cultural norms, Chinese food waste differs from that of other countries, typically featuring high oil content, high salinity, high moisture content, and high organic matter content [13].
Food waste contains a significant amount of oil, derived from both plant and animal sources, in the form of triglycerides and fatty acids. Animal oils are primarily composed of monounsaturated fatty acids, while vegetable oils consist of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The concentration range of oil in food waste is typically between 20.0 to 30.0 g/L, and the content of waste edible oil may range from 1 to 5% (wet basis) [14]. In comparison to protein and carbohydrates, oil has the highest biochemical methane potential in food waste. However, long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) in food waste can impede biodegradation, resulting in toxicity to microorganisms and biological adsorption [15]. Studies revealed that food waste with lipid content exceeding 35% may lead to an extended lag period and lower first-order degradation constant during the anaerobic process [16].
During anaerobic digestion, large organic molecules are broken down into smaller molecules that can be used by bacteria. These bacteria then convert the organic matter into various compounds, such as LCFAs, sugars, and amino acids. Oils and fats are broken down by hydrolytic bacteria into LCFAs and glycerol. The process ultimately produces short-chain fatty acids and fermentation products like H2, CO2, and CH4 [17,18]. The biodegradability and hydrolysis rate of lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates differ, with lipids having the lowest rate. Consequently, lipid degradation is considered a rate-limiting step in the anaerobic digestion of food waste [19]. A high content of lipids in food waste not only hinders the digestion rate, but also leads to the accumulation of residues in the anaerobic digestion system. Thus, lipid degradation is indispensable for the effective transformation of food waste [20].
Previous research has documented numerous concentrations of lipids that exhibit inhibitory effects, such as chemical oxygen demand and volatile solids. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the inhibitory impact induced by LCFAs varies depending on the specific raw materials utilized [21]. For example, the outcomes revealed that palmitic acid (16:0), a representative saturated acid, constitutes a considerable proportion in rapeseed oil [22]. The typical fatty acid composition of lipids present in food waste is shown in Table 1.
Sobon-Muhlenbrock et al. [23] conducted a study on anaerobic digestion of food waste with varying fat content and found that higher fat content did not strongly affect biogas production under low loading conditions, but significantly impeded it under high loading conditions. Zhu et al. [24] found that mixed long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs), derived from soybean oil, hindered the process of anaerobic digestion of organic waste by adsorbing to the cell wall or cell membrane of methanogenic bacteria, disrupting their transport or defense functions, and impeding digestion of other substances. The accumulation of LCFAs and volatile fatty acids, particularly propionic acid and butyric acid, can disrupt the original metabolic balance and cause anaerobic system disruption, including system paralysis [25]. However, these studies did not compare the effects of different oil types on anaerobic digestion and acid production. The majority of research has concentrated on investigating the impact of particular oils on anaerobic methane generation from food waste.
Therefore, our investigation aims to examine the influence of various oils and fats on anaerobic acid production and the conversion characteristics of food waste. Through scrutiny of the alterations in the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and VFAs, the effect of different types of lipids present in food waste on its acidogenic fermentation procedure was assessed. Moreover, through meticulous examination of the fluctuations in the VFAs, the generation of acid during the anaerobic digestion process of food waste was explored. This work is anticipated to present fresh insights into the anaerobic digestion of greasy food waste, with the eventual aim of facilitating resource recovery from food waste.
Table
Table 1. Typical fatty acid composition of lipids in food waste.
Table 1. Typical fatty acid composition of lipids in food waste.
OriginSaturated Fatty Acid (%)Unsaturated Fatty Acid (%)Refs.
14:016:017:018:020:022:024:0Total16:118:118:218:320:1Total
Animal originBeef tallow2–620–370–116–40 40–552–835–500.5–6 45–60[22,26,27,28]
Muttonfat3–625–281–230–34 60–701–230–351–2 30–40[27,28]
Plant originSoybean oil 10–14 2–5 13–19 22–2647–577–8 80–85[22,29,30,31]
Peanutoil 9–14 2–51–22–31–217–20 45–5523–330–20–1>80[22,26,29,32]
Rapeseed oil 0–5 0–2 7–8 60–6515–205–101–2>90[22,29,32]

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Substrate and Inoculum

Simulated food waste was utilized as the substrate. The food waste was created by combining bread, cabbage, meat, and rice in mass fractions of 35%, 25%, 15%, and 25%, respectively, as reported by Yan et al. [10]. The seed sludge employed in the experiment was obtained from the digester inoculated with rumen liquid cultures. The inoculum was acclimatized through a stepwise increase in the nutrient solution in the laboratory and enriched at a constant temperature of 35 ± 2 °C. The nutrient solution was composed of C6H12O6·H2O 4.00 g/L, CH3COONa 2.80 g/L, NH4Cl 0.22 g/L, and KH2PO4 0.05 g/L (~5600 mg COD/L, C:N:P = 200:5:1). The inoculum was cultivated to reach a methane content of over 60% while maintaining a stable pH range of 6.8–7.2 and COD of 500–1000 mg/L in the effluent. Prior to use, the inoculum was acclimated with a two-week feeding of nutrient solution, without oligo elements, and a starvation phase, resulting in VFA < 500 mg/L and total alkalinity < 600 mg/L. The inoculum was collected through natural settling, without centrifugation or filtration, and was a mixture of sediment and water. Table 2 presents the fundamental characteristics of the seed sludge and food waste.

2.2. General Procedure and Experimental Design

This study utilized a batch experiment design, with 500 mL serum bottles serving as the acidogenic reactors. Six treatments were established, namely, blank (CK), beef tallow (T1), mutton fat (T2), soybean oil (T3), peanut oil (T4), and rapeseed oil (T5). The digestion reactor was packed with 80 g of food waste, 100 g of inoculum, 400 mL of working volume, and 4 g of a specific oil or fat. The solid content of the anaerobic digestion feed was approximately 9%, while the organic load was approximately 83 g/L. Prior to the commencement of the experiment, nitrogen was introduced into the reaction device for 30 min to eliminate the air above the liquid level and establish an anaerobic environment, as reported by He et al. [33]. The experiment was conducted at a consistent temperature of 35 ± 2 °C for 20 d in an incubator device. A volume of 20 mL of the digestion solution in the anaerobic bottle was extracted daily, and an equal volume of deoxygenated deionized water, with a 0.5M NaHCO3 solution (used to balance the pH of the fermentation system to approximately 6 in the initial stage), was supplied to maintain the volume of the entire system at 400 mL. After each sampling event, the reactor underwent a 10 min purging process with nitrogen to maintain optimal anaerobic conditions.

2.3. Analytical Methods

The procedures for determining total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), total organic carbon (TOC), and total nitrogen (TN) were adopted from Yan et al. [10] and Liu et al. [34]. The pH value of the liquid solution was measured using a pH meter (FIveGo F2, Shanghai Mettler Toledo, Shanghai, China). The COD was determined by the potassium dichromate concentrated sulfuric acid oxidation method, in accordance with the Standard Method. The biogas composition was analyzed utilizing gas chromatography (7890PLUS, Shandong LunanRuihong, Tengzhou, China) with a packed column (Carbon molecular sieve TDX-01, Shandong LunanRuihong, Tengzhou, China). The gas chromatography was equipped with a thermal conductivity detector and operated under the following conditions: a bridge current of 60 mA, a detector temperature of 120 °C, and a column temperature of 80 °C. The volume of gas was measured using a wet gas flow meter. The soluble products, including total VFAs (acetate, propionate, iso-and n-butyrate, iso-and n-valerate, and caproate), alcohol (ethanol, propanol, and butanol), solvents (acetone), and lactic acid, were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (LC-20A, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with an Aminex HPX-87H column (300 × 7.8 mm, Bio-Rad, CA, USA). Both ultraviolet and differential detectors were used for soluble product analysis. The operational parameters of the high-performance liquid chromatography were as follows: a column temperature of 55 °C, a mobile phase of 5 mM H2SO4, and a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. The standard deviation of the data presented in the graphs is not visible, with the vast majority of relative deviations not exceeding 5%; thus, error bars were uniformly omitted to optimize the figures.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Effect of Different Lipid Types on the Variations of pH and Chemical Oxygen Demand

Figure 1 reveals that the pH variations of the six treatments manifest a comparable pattern during the acidogenic phase. The dynamic trend exhibits an initial rise, followed by a decline, and then an upswing once again. The swift acidification of food waste accounts for the high acidity (with pH ≈ 4.00 in day 1) during the early stage of fermentation. The primary reason for pH fluctuations is the adjustment measures and the metabolism of soluble products. The pH predominantly oscillates below 5.50 from day 0 to 8, whereas during day 8 to 20, it mostly fluctuates between 6.00 and 7.00. T5 treatment experiences a more rapid pH increase compared to the other treatments, and the pH value of T5 reaches a pinnacle of 6.55 ± 0.17 on day 7. Moreover, T5 treatment’s pH tends to stabilize after 10 d, while CK treatment’s pH tends to stabilize after 13 d. From T1 to T4, the pH stabilization time takes approximately 17, 16, 18, and 19 d, respectively. From CK to T4, the time for the initial peak of pH is 8, 13, 11, and 10 d, respectively. This turning point in pH changes plays a crucial role and has a certain correlation with product metabolism.
According to Figure 2a, a downward trend in COD was observed among the six treatments, indicating the utilization, transformation, and degradation of organic matter during the process. On day 20, the COD of each treatment from CK to T5 was 30.15 ± 0.66bc, 31.58 ± 0.85a, 29.87 ± 0.39bc, 29.19 ± 0.66c, 31.03 ± 0.62ab, and 26.35 ± 0.75d g/L, respectively. The COD of the six treatments exhibited a slow downward trend during 0–8d, ranging from about 50.00 g/L to about 45.00 g/L. Subsequently, daily COD changes were divided into three categories. The first type, represented by T5, exhibited a rapid decline, while the second type, represented by CK, T2, and T3, declined at a moderate speed. Finally, the third type, represented by T1 and T4, exhibited a slow decline. These COD decline trends may be closely linked to the metabolic transformation and consumption of organic matter. The rate of COD loss from CK to T5 was 38.63%, 36.70%, 38.58%, 40.59%, 35.27%, and 45.25%, respectively.
As depicted in Figure 2b, the cumulative COD in 20 d from CK to T5 was 1049 ± 30.78ab, 1085 ± 43.75a, 1045 ± 47.91ab, 1049 ± 34.05ab, 1054 ± 38.67ab, and 1001 ± 42.68b g/kg VSadded, respectively. Due to the addition of oil and fat, the added substrate contained a large amount of LCFAs that were difficult to utilize, and COD in the treatments with the addition of lipids was generally lower than that in the control. Among them, T5 had the lowest COD conversion rate, but it was also possible that the metabolic consumption was the highest, resulting in a reduction of COD retention into the liquid phase.

3.2. Effect of Different Lipid Types on the Production of Soluble Products

It is evident from Figure 3 that lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, and ethanol are the predominant soluble products. The conversion of metabolic pathways from lactic acid to ethanol, acetic acid, or butyric acid types was comparable among all treatments. Initially, all treatments mainly generated lactic acid, and the primary reason for lactic acid’s dominance was the low pH value during the reaction’s initial stages. This discovery is consistent with the conclusions presented in previous literature, where low pH values were commonly correlated with increased yields and held significant importance in establishing the dissemination of soluble intermediates and metabolic pathways [16]. The time required for lactate-type fermentation to decline from CK to T5 was 10, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 7 d, respectively. This means that the proportion of lactic acid gradually decreases and falls below 50%, and it is gradually replaced by acetic acid, butyric acid, and ethanol. The transformation of metabolic pathways leads to changes in product composition and is also the key factor influencing the environment of acidogenic fermentation systems. Furthermore, valeric acid was only present in T2 on 13–19 d and T5 on 13–18 d. Valeric acid is typically metabolized from six-carbon sugars and can be further metabolized into propionic acid and acetate. T5 has a shorter lactic acid production time than CK and T1–T4, with T5 ceasing lactic acid production on day 8, after which the pH value peaks. The addition of 5% soybean oil to T4 resulted in the longest lactic acid production time of 18 d. Notably, the addition of soybean oil significantly inhibited changes in the metabolic pathway of acidogenic fermentation of food waste.
Based on previous research [35] and the results of this experiment, the metabolic pathway of soluble products can be proposed, as shown in Figure 4. Initially, the proteins, sugars, and lipids present in food waste are hydrolyzed into monosaccharides, while unsaturated fatty acids in oil undergo oxidation to form saturated fatty acids. In the subsequent step, monosaccharides, such as glucose, are swiftly utilized, leading to their conversion into lactic acid and the production of H2 and CO2. In the third step, a considerable amount of lactic acid is metabolized into various end products, such as ethanol, acetic acid, butyric acid, and propionic acid. Additionally, the monosaccharides provided by the continuous hydrolysis of the substrate are metabolized to valeric acid, which is subsequently transformed into acetate and propionate. This represents the primary metabolic pathway observed in this study.
According to the analysis of acid production accumulation, as illustrated in Figure 5, the highest accumulation of lactic acid was observed in T4 (359.7 ± 14.26a), followed by T1 (318.3 ± 13.76b), T2 (305.3 ± 14.80b), CK (282.1 ± 7.66c), T3 (268.6 ± 9.11c), and T5 (240.1 ± 11.69d, g COD/kg VSadded). These findings imply that none of the treatments were conducive to the accrual of soluble substances. Compared to CK, the percentage change from T1 to T5 was 12.82%, 8.22%, −4.77%, 27.50%, and −14.88%, respectively. Valeric acid accumulation was only observed in T2 and T4, at 23.39 ± 0.67a and 18.52 ± 0.48b g COD/kg VSadded, respectively. An addition of fat or oil was found to reduce the production of propionic acid, with a decrease of 56.56%, 43.81%, 46.74%, 80.71%, and 71.42% observed from T1 to T5, respectively. The order of acetic acid production in all treatments was T5 > T1 > T2 = T3 > CK > T4 (see Figure 3), and T1 exhibited the highest accumulation of acetic acid (29.05 ± 0.87a > CK = 24.40 ± 0.85b g COD/kg VSadded). Moreover, T1 showed the second-highest accumulation of ethanol (121.0 ± 3.78b g COD/kg VSadded) after the control (135.1 ± 5.15a g COD/kg VSadded).
The principal aim of anaerobic digestion is to transmute organic matter into biomass energy. Gas production serves as a crucial parameter for evaluating the efficacy of this process. In Figure 6a, we observe the cumulative H2 production during the acidogenic fermentation of food waste, featuring diverse types of oils and fats. The total H2 production for CK to T5 was 17.27 ± 0.57b, 13.36 ± 0.57c, 8.16 ± 0.57d, 14.16 ± 0.57c, 20.14 ± 0.57a, and 19.35 ± 0.57a L/kg VSadded, sequentially. Notably, distinct treatments exhibited distinctive H2 production peak times, revealing that metabolic discrepancies within the acidogenic fermentation system were noticeable. CK and T5 displayed analogous rules for H2 production and cumulative H2 production. Moreover, it is meaningful to note that the time for the rise in hydrogen production was proximate to the point in time when lactate consumption occurred. T3–T5’s cumulative H2 production with vegetable oil surpassed that of T1–T2, which utilized animal oil. Concerning the cumulative CO2 production from CK to T5 (Figure 6b), the values were 17.12 ± 0.48a, 13.13 ± 0.62c, 12.06 ± 0.26d, 11.96 ± 0.27d, 7.92 ± 0.15e, and 15.63 ± 0.15b L/kg VSadded, sequentially.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Lipid Type on the Acidogenic Fermentation Process of Food Waste

The primary factors that influence the acidogenic process are temperature, substrate, and pH. In this study, the experimental conditions are mesophilic, which is the most commonly utilized and optimal choice for transforming LCFAs into metabolites [36]. The fat content in food waste ranges from 2% to 10%, which is mainly determined by local dietary habits. Although the oil content in food waste is relatively low, it nevertheless plays a notable role in anaerobic biological treatment processes [37,38,39]. This is mainly due to three factors: (1) LCFAs in oils require longer metabolic processes, particularly unsaturated LCFAs, which primarily depend on the rate-limiting step of β-oxidation; (2) LCFAs can be utilized as substrates for microbial growth and development, but a certain amount of LCFAs can hinder the transfer of nutrients and substrates by adsorbing onto the surface of microorganisms; and (3) LCFAs require specific microbial populations for metabolism, which can, in turn, impact the microbial community structure in the reaction system. pH is the key factor in anaerobic processes, as it influences the primary metabolic pathways by affecting microbial activity [40]. However, VFA accumulation can lead to a decrease in pH within the reactor (pH < 4.0), which can inhibit hydrolysis and disrupt the anaerobic system’s equilibrium. To prevent process failure due to an acid crisis, 0.5M NaHCO3 was used for pH adjustment, similar to the control group. The anaerobic process is more stable with a pH value around 6, and optimal acid production performance is achieved [4]. Changes in pH during the acidogenic process have a significant relationship with the composition of dissolved organic matter (Figure 3). When the pH rises to the first peak, the proportion of lactate declines rapidly due to the high levels of lactic acid. Additionally, the pH drop of T1 and T4 coincides with the production of valeric acid, which may indicate a new stage of substrate metabolism. Excessive monosaccharides can promote valeric acid production, which can lead to a decrease in acidity. The pH is stable when the composition of ethanol, acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid is stable.

4.2. Effect of Lipid Type on the Generation of Acidogenic Product

Amani et al. [41] identified propionate as an unfavorable intermediate, due to its toxicity to common anaerobic bacteria. Propionic acid is present throughout the entire reaction process in each treatment, and the control group produced the most propionic acid, posing the greatest potential threat to the anaerobic reaction. In contrast, T5 and T4 produced the lowest amount of propionic acid, likely due to the excess of unsaturated LCFAs that force microorganisms to slow down the metabolism of substrates, thereby reducing propionic acid production. Rapeseed oil contains the highest proportion of unsaturated LCFAs among all types of oils in this experiment, which may explain the fastest rise in pH, the lowest cumulative conversion of COD, and the lowest cumulative production of soluble products observed in T5. However, T5 and T4 had the highest cumulative H2 production (Figure 6), possibly because unsaturated LCFAs inhibited the hydrolysis and acidification of the substrate, accelerating the conversion of soluble products. As the pH rises, ethanol, acetic acid, and butyric acid begin to be produced in large quantities.
Pervez et al. [4] and Wang et al. [42] suggested that a pH range of 5.0–6.0 is beneficial to the production of butyrate. According to Figure 3, the pH values of the six treatment groups were all stable above 5.0, and most of them maintained stable pH values above 5 from 7d to 18d. Acetate and ethanol are common intermediates in the acidogenic fermentation of organic matter, often combined during fermentation to produce hydrogen [16]. Acetate can be derived not only from pyruvate via the acetyl-CoA pathway, but also from eutrophic oxidation of ethanol or long-chain fatty acids, such as propionate and butyrate. The large amount of acetate in acetate fermentation is closely related to functional enzymes in the acetyl-CoA pathway and co-nutrient oxidation [43]. Ethanol is a prevalent byproduct of the fermentation of glucose or other organic substances. Enterobacteriaceae requires three steps to convert pyruvate to ethanol, with acetyl-CoA and acetaldehyde as intermediates, while some other bacteria convert pyruvate to ethanol with only two key steps [44]. Among the components of food waste, oils and fats have a higher potential for gas production. Hydrogen is a by-product during the hydrolysis/acidification of organic compounds, involved in many major biochemical reactions. During anaerobic acid production, H2 accumulates at the top of the reactor, inhibiting further acid degradation and releasing H2 by directly inhibiting the hydrogenase reaction [45].
Furthermore, due to the lack of unified standards in acidification research, it is difficult to compare the conversion rates of fermentation products, energy recovery rates, and other results. Therefore, similar anaerobic acid production tests should be encouraged and promoted to follow standardization, similar to biochemical methane potential testing [46,47], as well as to conduct exergy-based analyses [48,49].

5. Conclusions and Prospects

In this work, general performance of food waste digestion in terms of pH, COD, H2 production, VFAs distribution and concentration, and acidogenic metabolic pathways were analyzed. Lipids hindered the hydrolysis and acidification of food waste and caused a shift in metabolic pathways. There was a shift in the metabolic pathway from the lactic acid type to the ethanol, acetic acid, and butyric acid types. The level of interference differed among different types of lipids. Beef tallow, mutton fat, soybean oil, and peanut oil delayed the metabolic process by 1, 2, 3, and 8 d, respectively, whereas rapeseed oil accelerated it by 2 d. Although the metabolic pathways were similar among food wastes, the progress of metabolic processes were significantly affected by the types of lipids. Therefore, lipid content and type should be paid attention to when using anaerobic conversion of food waste. Different regions have distinct culinary traditions, which affect the primary dietary oils and fats employed. As a result, the influence of these oils and fats on anaerobic digestion processes for local food waste is frequently disregarded. By prioritizing the effects of disparate oils and fats on anaerobic fermentation processes, we can facilitate the establishment of anaerobic digestion protocols for local food waste to each region. Furthermore, despite the considerable attention afforded to acidification research, the applied methodologies and conditions are variable and inconsistent, which impedes from comparing and analyzing the results of different studies. Therefore, it is imperative to standardize the biochemical acidification testing, akin to the existing standardization for biochemical methane potential test.

Author Contributions

B.Y. and L.R. designed research and revised the manuscript. C.L. and S.L. conducted all the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. J.Z. analyzed the data and completed validation. H.Y. did experiments and validation. H.N. and J.T. did experiments and validation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation (2022JJ20029, 2021JJ30360), Hunan Provincial Key R&D (2022WK2018; 2020WK2015), Project of Hunan Science and Technology Innovation Team (2021RC4060), Hunan Youth Science and Technology Innovation Talent Project (2022RC1145) and Changsha Science & Technology Foundation (kh2201065).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of financial or non-financial interest.

Notations

CODChemical oxygen demandCKBlank
LCFAsLong-chain fatty acidsT1Beef tallow
TNTotal nitrogenT2Mutton fat
TOCTotal organic carbonT3Soybean oil
TSTotal solidsT4Peanut oil
VFAsVolatile fatty acidsT5Rapeseed oil
VSVolatile solids

References

  1. Capson-Tojo, G.; Trably, E.; Rouez, M.; Crest, M.; Steyer, J.-P.; Delgenès, J.-P.; Escudié, R. Dry anaerobic digestion of food waste and cardboard at different substrate loads, solid contents and co-digestion proportions. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 233, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mirmohamadsadeghi, S.; Karimi, K.; Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M. Biogas production from food wastes: A review on recent developments and future perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2019, 7, 100202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Panahi, H.K.S.; Dehhaghi, M.; Guillemin, G.J.; Gupta, V.K.; Lam, S.S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M. Bioethanol production from food wastes rich in carbohydrates. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 43, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pervez, N.; Bilgiç, B.; Mahboubi, A.; Uwineza, C.; Zarra, T.; Belgiorno, V.; Naddeo, V.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Double-stage membrane-assisted anaerobic digestion process intensification for production and recovery of volatile fatty acids from food waste. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 825, 154084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jin, C.; Sun, S.; Yang, D.; Sheng, W.; Ma, Y.; He, W.; Li, G. Anaerobic digestion: An alternative resource treatment option for food waste in China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 779, 146397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhao, N.; Yu, M.; Wang, Q.; Song, N.; Che, S.; Wu, C.; Sun, X. Effect of Ethanol and Lactic Acid Pre-fermentation on Putrefactive Bacteria Suppression, Hydrolysis, and Methanogenesis of Food Waste. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 2982–2989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, H.; Xu, J.; Sheng, L. Study on the comprehensive utilization of city kitchen waste as a resource in China. Energy 2019, 173, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yuan, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, D.; Chadwick, D.; Li, G.; Wang, G.; Chi, M.; Yang, F. Effects of adding bulking agents on the biodrying of kitchen waste and the odor emissions produced. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 67, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, R.; Chen, S.; Li, X. Biogas Production from Anaerobic Co-digestion of Food Waste with Dairy Manure in a Two-Phase Digestion System. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009, 160, 643–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yan, B.H.; Selvam, A.; Wong, J.W. Application of rumen microbes to enhance food waste hydrolysis in acidogenic leach-bed reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 168, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shen, F.; Yuan, H.; Pang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhu, B.; Zou, D.; Liu, Y.; Ma, J.; Yu, L.; Li, X. Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit & vegetable waste (FVW) and food waste (FW): Single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 144, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Salama, E.-S.; Saha, S.; Kurade, M.B.; Dev, S.; Chang, S.W.; Jeon, B.-H. Recent trends in anaerobic co-digestion: Fat, oil, and grease (FOG) for enhanced biomethanation. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2018, 70, 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, H.; Fotidis, I.A.; Angelidaki, I. Ammonia effect on hydrogenotrophic methanogens and syntrophic acetate-oxidizing bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2015, 91, fiv130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Li, Y.; Jin, Y.; Li, J. Influence of thermal hydrolysis on composition characteristics of fatty acids in kitchen waste. Energy 2016, 102, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, J.L.; Ortiz, R.; Steele, T.W.; Stuckey, D.C. Toxicants inhibiting anaerobic digestion: A review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1523–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhang, W.; Lang, Q.; Fang, M.; Li, X.; Bah, H.; Dong, H.; Dong, R. Combined effect of crude fat content and initial substrate concentration on batch anaerobic digestion characteristics of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 232, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cirne, D.; Paloumet, X.; Björnsson, L.; Alves, M.; Mattiasson, B. Anaerobic digestion of lipid-rich waste—Effects of lipid concentration. Renew. Energy 2007, 32, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Palatsi, J.; Affes, R.; Fernandez, B.; Pereira, M.; Alves, M.; Flotats, X. Influence of adsorption and anaerobic granular sludge characteristics on long chain fatty acids inhibition process. Water Res. 2012, 46, 5268–5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Awe, O.W.; Lu, J.; Wu, S.; Zhao, Y.; Nzihou, A.; Lyczko, N.; Minh, D.P. Effect of Oil Content on Biogas Production, Process Performance and Stability of Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018, 9, 2295–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. He, J.; Wang, X.; Yin, X.-B.; Li, Q.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.-F.; Deng, Y. Insights into biomethane production and microbial community succession during semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of waste cooking oil under different organic loading rates. AMB Express 2018, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, Y.; Jin, Y.; Borrion, A.; Li, J. Influence of feed/inoculum ratios and waste cooking oil content on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste Manag. 2018, 73, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, J.; Zhang, R.; Wang, H.; Yang, K. Direct interspecies electron transfer stimulated by granular activated carbon enhances anaerobic methanation efficiency from typical kitchen waste lipid-rapeseed oil. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 704, 135282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sobon-Mühlenbrock, E.; Schlienz, M.; Greger, M. Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Model Kitchen Waste with Variation of Fat Content. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2020, 92, 1840–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhu, K.; Zhang, L.; Mu, L.; Ma, J.; Li, C.; Li, A. Comprehensive investigation of soybean oil-derived LCFAs on anaerobic digestion of organic waste: Inhibitory effect and transformation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 151, 107314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lu, J.; Jia, Z.; Wang, P.; Yang, X.; Lin, P.; Ren, L.; Farghali, M. Restoration of acidified dry anaerobic digestion of food waste: Bioaugmentation of butyric acid-resistant microbes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 106935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. De Schrijver, R.; Vermeulen, D.; Viaene, E. Lipid Metabolism Responses in Rats Fed Beef Tallow, Native or Randomized Fish Oil and Native or Randomized Peanut Oil. J. Nutr. 1991, 121, 948–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Grompone, M.A. Characteristics of Uruguayan mutton tallow. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1990, 67, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Marikkar, N.; Alinovi, M.; Chiavaro, E. Analytical approaches for discriminating native lard from other animal fats. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2021, 33, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cui, Y.; Hao, P.; Liu, B.; Meng, X. Effect of traditional Chinese cooking methods on fatty acid profiles of vegetable oils. Food Chem. 2017, 233, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Minami, I.; Nakamura, Y.; Todoriki, S.; Murata, Y. Effect of γ Irradiation on the Fatty Acid Composition of Soybean and Soybean Oil. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2012, 76, 900–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kabir, Y.; Ide, T. Effect of Dietary Soybean Phospholipid and Fats Differing in the Degree of Unsaturation on Fatty Acid Synthesis and Oxidation in Rat Liver. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 1995, 41, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Konuskan, D.B.; Arslan, M.; Oksuz, A. Physicochemical properties of cold pressed sunflower, peanut, rapeseed, mustard and olive oils grown in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 26, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. He, X.; Guo, Z.; Lu, J.; Zhang, P. Carbon-based conductive materials accelerated methane production in anaerobic digestion of waste fat, oil and grease. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 329, 124871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Liu, P.; Wang, X.; Horita, J.; Fang, X.; Zheng, J.; Li, X.; Meng, Q. Evaluation of total organic carbon contents in carbonate source rocks by modified acid treatment method and the geological significance of acid-soluble organic matters. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2019, 37, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Liu, C.; Ren, L.; Yan, B.; Luo, L.; Zhang, J.; Awasthi, M.K. Electron transfer and mechanism of energy production among syntrophic bacteria during acidogenic fermentation: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 323, 124637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Elsamadony, M.; Mostafa, A.; Fujii, M.; Tawfik, A.; Pant, D. Advances towards understanding long chain fatty acids-induced inhibition and overcoming strategies for efficient anaerobic digestion process. Water Res. 2020, 190, 116732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dasa, K.T.; Westman, S.Y.; Millati, R.; Cahyanto, M.N.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Niklasson, C. Inhibitory Effect of Long-Chain Fatty Acids on Biogas Production and the Protective Effect of Membrane Bioreactor. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Liu, N.; Jiang, J. Valorisation of food waste using salt to alleviate inhibition by animal fats and vegetable oils during anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 143, 105826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wu, L.-J.; Kobayashi, T.; Kuramochi, H.; Li, Y.-Y.; Xu, K.-Q.; Lv, Y. High loading anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and grease trap waste: Determination of the limit and lipid/long chain fatty acid conversion. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 338, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wainaina, S.; Lukitawesa; Awasthi, M.K.; Taherzadeh, M. Bioengineering of anaerobic digestion for volatile fatty acids, hydrogen or methane production: A critical review. Bioengineered 2019, 10, 437–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Amani, T.; Nosrati, M.; Mousavi, S.M.; Kermanshahi, R.K. Study of syntrophic anaerobic digestion of volatile fatty acids using enriched cultures at mesophilic conditions. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 8, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Wang, K.; Yin, J.; Shen, D.; Li, N. Anaerobic digestion of food waste for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production with different types of inoculum: Effect of pH. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 161, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Müller, N.; Worm, P.; Schink, B.; Stams, A.J.M.; Plugge, C.M. Syntrophic butyrate and propionate oxidation processes: From genomes to reaction mechanisms. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2010, 2, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Bensaid, S.; Ruggeri, B.; Saracco, G. Development of a Photosynthetic Microbial Electrochemical Cell (PMEC) Reactor Coupled with Dark Fermentation of Organic Wastes: Medium Term Perspectives. Energies 2015, 8, 399–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Zhou, M.; Zhou, J.; Tan, M.; Du, J.; Yan, B.; Wong, J.W.; Zhang, Y. Enhanced carboxylic acids production by decreasing hydrogen partial pressure during acidogenic fermentation of glucose. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hafner, S.D.; De Laclos, H.F.; Koch, K.; Holliger, C. Improving Inter-Laboratory Reproducibility in Measurement of Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP). Water 2020, 12, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Holliger, C.; Alves, M.; Andrade, D.; Angelidaki, I.; Astals, S.; Baier, U.; Bougrier, C.; Buffiere, P.; Carballa, M.; de Wilde, V.; et al. Towards a standardization of biomethane potential tests. Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 74, 2515–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aghbashlo, M.; Khounani, Z.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Gupta, V.K.; Amiri, H.; Lam, S.S.; Morosuk, T.; Tabatabaei, M. Exergoenvironmental analysis of bioenergy systems: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 149, 111399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aghbashlo, M.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Shahbeik, H.; Tabatabaei, M. The role of sustainability assessment tools in realizing bioenergy and bioproduct systems. Biofuel Res. J. 2022, 9, 1697–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fermentation 09 00348 g001 550
Figure 1. Changes of pH in treatments with different types of lipids.
Figure 1. Changes of pH in treatments with different types of lipids.
Fermentation 09 00348 g001
Fermentation 09 00348 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Daily and (b) cumulative COD production in treatments with different types of lipids.
Figure 2. (a) Daily and (b) cumulative COD production in treatments with different types of lipids.
Fermentation 09 00348 g002
Fermentation 09 00348 g003 550
Figure 3. Changes of pH and the composition of soluble products along fermentation time. (a) Control, (b) beef tallow, (c) mutton fat, (d) soybean oil, (e) peanut oil, and (f) rapeseed oil in different treatments.
Figure 3. Changes of pH and the composition of soluble products along fermentation time. (a) Control, (b) beef tallow, (c) mutton fat, (d) soybean oil, (e) peanut oil, and (f) rapeseed oil in different treatments.
Fermentation 09 00348 g003
Fermentation 09 00348 g004 550
Figure 4. Proposed metabolic pathways for soluble product production in treatments with oil addition.
Figure 4. Proposed metabolic pathways for soluble product production in treatments with oil addition.
Fermentation 09 00348 g004
Fermentation 09 00348 g005 550
Figure 5. Cumulative soluble product production in different treatments. CK—blank, T1—beef tallow, T2—mutton fat, T3—soybean oil, T4—peanut oil, T5—rapeseed oil.
Figure 5. Cumulative soluble product production in different treatments. CK—blank, T1—beef tallow, T2—mutton fat, T3—soybean oil, T4—peanut oil, T5—rapeseed oil.
Fermentation 09 00348 g005
Fermentation 09 00348 g006 550
Figure 6. Cumulative acidogenic biogas production. (a) Hydrogen and (b) carbon dioxide in different treatments.
Figure 6. Cumulative acidogenic biogas production. (a) Hydrogen and (b) carbon dioxide in different treatments.
Fermentation 09 00348 g006
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of inoculum and food waste.
Table 2. Characteristics of inoculum and food waste.
ParametersFood WasteInoculum
pH5.79 ± 0.146.86 ± 0.10
VS (%)43.40 ± 0.952.26 ± 0.11
TS (%)44.70 ± 0.342.96 ± 0.15
TOC (%)40.25 ± 1.438.50 ± 0.31
TN (%)2.13 ± 0.320.21 ± 0.08
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

Liu, C.; Li, S.; Niu, H.; Yang, H.; Tan, J.; Zhang, J.; Ren, L.; Yan, B. Effect of Lipid Type on the Acidogenic Performance of Food Waste. Fermentation 2023, 9, 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040348

AMA Style

Liu C, Li S, Niu H, Yang H, Tan J, Zhang J, Ren L, Yan B. Effect of Lipid Type on the Acidogenic Performance of Food Waste. Fermentation. 2023; 9(4):348. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040348

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Chao, Sheng Li, Hongyu Niu, Haijun Yang, Ju Tan, Jiachao Zhang, Liheng Ren, and Binghua Yan. 2023. "Effect of Lipid Type on the Acidogenic Performance of Food Waste" Fermentation 9, no. 4: 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040348

APA Style

Liu, C., Li, S., Niu, H., Yang, H., Tan, J., Zhang, J., Ren, L., & Yan, B. (2023). Effect of Lipid Type on the Acidogenic Performance of Food Waste. Fermentation, 9(4), 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040348

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