| Literature DB >> 35258411 |
Min Lin1, Aijie Wang2, Lijuan Ren1, Wei Qiao1,2, Simon Mdondo Wandera3, Renjie Dong1.
Abstract
Animal manure is the main source of bioenergy production by anaerobic digestion (AD). However, the pathogenic bacteria in manure may pose a high risk to human health by contaminating the environment if not effectively inactivated during AD. Worldwide, more than 20,000 biogas plants are running for the treatment of animal manure. AD has been playing the important role in establishing a circular economy in the agricultural sector and may contribute to the United Nations sustainable development goal (UN SDG). Nevertheless, whether AD is a reliable approach for pathogens inactivation has been challenged. A comprehensive understanding of the coping mechanisms of pathogens with adverse conditions and the challenges of establishing the AD process to inactivate effectively pathogens are yet to be analyzed. In this review, the diversity and resistance of pathogens in animal manure are summarized. The efficiencies and the difficulties of their inactivations in AD are also analyzed. In particular, three forms of pathogens i.e. sporing-forming pathogens, viable but non-culturable (VBNC) pathogens, and persistent pathogens are discussed. The factors influencing the pathogens' inactivation and AD efficiencies are analyzed. The trade-off between energy production and pathogens inactivation in an AD system was consequently pointed out. This review concluded that the development of anaerobic processes should meet the goals of high efficient bioenergy production and deep hygienization.Entities:
Keywords: Animal manure; anaerobic digestion; bioenergy production; inactivation; influencing factors; pathogens
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35258411 PMCID: PMC8805936 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.2017717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
The main disease-causing bacteria
| Bacteria (Genus) | Disease-causing bacteria (Species) |
|---|---|
| Enterotoxigenic | |
Figure 1.Examples of pathogenic microorganisms in different animal manures.
Literature data about the efficiency of AD process on pathogens inactivation in animal manure
| Pathogen | Substrate | T (°C) | Operation mode | Initial count (CFU/g or mL) | Finial count (CFU/g or mL) | Log10 reduction | Tra/HRT (d) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dairy manure | 25 | Batch | 6.5 × 107 | <102 | >6 | 60 | [ | |
| Dairy manure | 35 | Batch | 3.6 × 105 | Below LODb | 3.6 | 62 | [ | |
| Cow manure | 37 | Batch | 1.85 × 107 | <103 | 4 | 41 | [ | |
| Cow manure | 37 | Batch | 6 × 104 | Below LOD | 4.94 | 6 | [ | |
| Chicken manure | 37 | Batch | 2.3 × 107 | 35 | 5.8 | 35 | [ | |
| Chicken manure | 42 | Batch | 1.7 × 107 | 27–34 | 5.7 | 9 | [ | |
| Dairy manure | 52.5 | Batch | 2.5 × 107 | Below LOD | >7 | 3.5 | [ | |
| Chicken manure | 55 | Batch | 106 | 2–4 | 5.5 | 2 h | [ | |
| Cow manure | 55 | Batch | 6 × 104 | Below LOD | 4.37 | 40 min | [ | |
| Cow manure | 70 | Batch | 6 × 104 | Below LOD | 2.6 | 2 min | [ | |
| Swine manure | 24 | Continuous | 4.0 × 102–5.8 × 105 | 0.9–2.9 | 7,14 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 33 | Continuous | 1 × 103 | 3 × 102 | ~0.5 | 55 | [ | |
| Cattle manure | 45 | Continuous | Below LOD | 3 | 55 | [ | ||
| Coliforms | Swine manure | 22 | Batch | 105–106 | ~103 | 2–3 | 25 | [ |
| Coliforms | Cattle slurry | 22 | Batch | 104–105 | ~102 | 2–3 | 28 | [ |
| Coliforms | Swine manure | 38 | Batch | 105–106 | Below LOD | 3–4 | 3 | [ |
| Coliforms | Cattle slurry | 38 | Batch | 104–105 | Below LOD | 2–3 | 14 | [ |
| Coliforms | Swine manure | 55 | Batch | 105–106 | Below LOD | 3–4 | 1 | [ |
| Coliforms | Cattle slurry | 55 | Batch | 104–105 | Below LOD | 2–3 | 1 | [ |
| Coliforms | Cattle manure | 33 | Continuous | 103 | 102 | 1 | 55 | [ |
| Coliforms | Cattle manure | 45 | Continuous | 103 | 102 | 1 | 55 | [ |
| Total coliforms | Swine manure | 24 | Continuous | 6.0 × 102–1.5 × 106 | 1.0–2.9 | 7,14 | [ | |
| Fecal coliforms | Swine manure | 24 | Continuous | 5.0 × 102–1.6 × 106 | 0.9–3 | 7,14 | [ | |
| Fecal coliforms | Pig slurry/manure | 39 | Continuous | 1.8 × 104 | 2.0 × 103 | 1.1–4.1 | 28 | [ |
| Swine manure | 16 | Batch | 106–107 | 10–102 | 5 | 60 | [ | |
| Swine manure | 22 | Batch | 106–107 | 10–102 | 5 | 60 | [ | |
| Dairy manure | 35 | Batch | 7.4 × 103 | Below LOD | 1.9 | 133 | [ | |
| Swine manure | 37 | Batch | 106–107 | 10–102 | 5 | 3 | [ | |
| Swine manure | 24 | Continuous | <102-5.0 × 103 | 0.9–1.4 | 7,14 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 37 | Batch | 6.6 × 105 | 3.13 | 15 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 55 | Batch | 6.6 × 105 | 1.7 | 2 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 70 | Batch | 6.6 × 105 | 1.77 | 1 | [ | ||
| Pig manure | 24 | Continuous | 1.8 × 104–1.7 × 106 | 0.6–1 | 7,14 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 33 | Continuous | 106–107 | 104 | 2–3 | 55 | [ | |
| Cow manure | 37 | Batch | 103–104 | 1.35 | 15 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 55 | Batch | 103–104 | <1 | 2 | [ | ||
| Cow manure | 70 | Batch | 103–104 | <1 | 1 | [ | ||
| Swine manure | 24 | Continuous | <1 × 103–3.7 × 106 | 0–0.2 | 7,14 | [ | ||
| Pig slurry/manure | 39 | Continuous | 5 × 104 | 4.2 × 103 | 1.08 | 28 | [ | |
| Pig slurry | 37–43 | Continuous | 8.9 × 104 | 5 × 104 | 0.25 | 40–56 | [ | |
| Cattle manure | 48 | Continuous | 1.9 × 105 | 1 × 106 | −0.74 | 90 | [ |
A, Tr, residence time of batch experiment; b, LOD, limit of detection.
Figure 2.Common indicator bacteria.
Figure 3.Threshold levels of pathogens in anaerobic residues.
The characteristics of Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, and Clostridium difficile.
| Types | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Toxin types: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Human botulism (A, B, E, F); Botulism in animals (C, D). | |
| Toxin types: A. | |
| High prevalence of |
D of spores, decimal reduction time of spores; D100, D at 100°C; D95, D at 95°C.
Figure 4.The relationship between normal pathogens and VBNC pathogens.