ap-4-12.dvi Acta Polytechnica Vol. 52 No. 4/2012 Replacing Natural Gas by Biogas — Determining the Bacterial Contamination of Biogas by PCR Jǐrina Čermáková1, Jakub Mrázek2, Kateřina Fliegerová2, Daniel Tenkrát1 1 Institute of Chemical Technology, Department of Gas, Coke and Air Protection, Technická 5, 168 48 Praha, Czech Republic 2 Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics, AS CR, v.v.i., Vı́deňská 1083, 142 20 Prague, Czech Republic Correspondence to: cermakoi@vscht.cz Abstract A promising way of using biogas is to upgrade it to natural gas, which is referred to as Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) or biomethane. Biomethane, or biogas, is produced by biological processes of harnessing the ability of microorganisms to degrade organic material to methane. Some of the microorganisms are aerosolized from the digester into the biogas; afterwards a bio-film is formed that attaches to the surfaces of the distribution pipes, and can find it was to the place where the end use of biogas takes place. This paper deals with the detection of microbial species in biogas, their influence on corrosion and the potential risk that diseases can be spread via biogas using molecular techniques. Using molecular methods, we found that raw biogas contains about 8 million microorganisms per m 3 , which is most likely the result of microbial transmission from the anaerobic digestion process. Some bacterial species may contribute to the corrosion of pipelines and equipment; others are opportunistic pathogens that can cause toxic reactions. However, most bacterial species, more than 40 % in biogas, are still unknown, as is their influence on the digestion process and on human health. Further studies are needed to better understand the behavior of microorganisms in anaerobic digestion and to prevent microbial-influenced corrosion and microbial dissemination. Keywords: biomethane, PCR, microorganisms. 1 Introduction Biogas is produced by anaerobic digestion of organic substrates, such as manure, sewage sludge, energy crops and the organic fractions of household and in- dustrial wastes. These raw materials are not techno- logically and economically suitable for combustion. The substrate composition affects the yield and the composition of the biogas. Biogas consists mainly of methane (50—65 %) and carbon dioxide (35—50 %), but it also contains a number of other minor ele- ments, e.g. solid particles, nitrogen, water vapour, oxygen, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia [1]. The most common use of biogas is as a fuel for co-generation units, which generate Combined Heat and Power (CHP), because the production of electric- ity is supported by many mechanisms in the Czech Republic. The electricity that is produced is con- sumed by the plant itself (typically 5 to 10 % of the total electricity that is produced). However, most of the electricity is sold to the local electrical grid. As far as heat is concerned, the situation is quite differ- ent. More than 60 % of the heat that is produced is difficult to utilize effectively over the whole year, especially during summer. The heat is needed for operating the plant (usually between 10–15 %). It can also be used for other purposes, e.g. for heating service buildings. Low utilization of the heat is due to the location of the biogas plant, usually far from a city or from industrial buildings. Excessive heat of- ten worsens the overall energy balance of biogas use and, as a result, the overall efficiency is in reality less than 65 % of the input energy, and indeed, often even well below 35 %. A more effective way of using biogas is to upgrade it to natural gas, which is referred to a Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) or biomethane. Biomethane has similar properties and uses to those of natural gas, and can be injected directly into the local natural gas distribution grid. Biogas can be transferred to a different place from the place where it was produced, and thus all the heat that is produced can be utilized. To do this, carbon dioxide and all remaining trace ele- ments (hydrogen sulphide, water vapour, etc.) must first be removed. This increases the concentration of methane, resulting in improved energy density. Various commercial technologies are used for remov- ing undesirable components from biogas; the most common are pressure swing adsorption (PSA), water scrubbing and chemical absorption. Other technolo- 33 Acta Polytechnica Vol. 52 No. 4/2012 gies are at the pilot or demonstration plant level, e.g. membrane separation or cryogenic separation [2, 3]. The best technology is selected on the basis of the composition of the raw biogas, the size of the plant, and the investment cost. The energy required for upgrading process depends on the technology that is used, but generally the requirement is 5—10 % of the energy content of the biogas that is produced. This means that more than 70 % of the energy is available for other uses. If biomethane is injected into the local natural gas distribution grid and is transported to its desti- nation with higher efficiency, it has to be compressed to the pressure of the local distribution grid, and an odor has to be added so that any leaks are detected. In order to ensure the safety, integrity and operabil- ity of gas networks, biomethane has to meet certain minimum gas quality requirements. The choice of gas quality parameters and their limiting values are generally specified nationally. In the Czech Republic, TPG 902 02 refers to the quality of the biomethane supplied in networks [4]. Unfortunately, there are technological and administration barriers and obsta- cles in the promotion of biogas as biomethane. For example, there are no specific requirements for fre- quency and monitoring of the gas quality, and there are no regulations on organizational and investment problems, etc. Biomethane can also be used as a fuel for vehicles that run on natural gas. These vehicles have sev- eral advantages over vehicles equipped with petrol or diesel engines, especially ecological advantages. The emissions of NOx and dust particles are drastically reduced, and the emission of CO2 decreases by more than 35 %. In the Czech Republic, the major ob- stacle to wider use of CNG is the limited number of CNG filling stations. 2 Microorganisms in biogas Biomethane, or biogas, is produced by biological pro- cesses of harnessing the ability of microorganisms to degrade organic material to methane. Some of the microorganisms are aerosolized from the digester into the biogas; afterwards form a biofilm that is fixed to the surfaces of distribution pipes. This biofilm can be dislodged and so get to the place of end usages biogas. Most of the biogas that is produced comes from treated sewage sludge and biogas plants, and these systems do not contain a pasteurization step. Pathogens can therefore be found in biogas. Intro- ducing the biogas that is produced into systems con- structed for natural gas is currently a matter for de- bate about the risks of introducing pathogens into gas systems. The microbial communities in the biogas are not just a rough copy of anaerobic digester microbial communities, and not all microorganisms are equally conveyed by biogas. Given this dispersal process, three types of behaviors appear to be possible: the first type is passive behavior. It means that the mi- croorganisms are randomly floated out by the biogas. The other two types of behavior are active: they ei- ther seek to avoid transport into a hostile environ- ment, or to use transport for dissemination [6]. Investigations of microbial species present in bio- gas or in natural gas have traditionally relied on the use of laboratory culture methods. Laboratory growth media cannot accurately reflect the true con- dition within a pipeline. In addition, it is known that at present only a small part (generally less than 1 %) of the total microbial diversity can be cultivated. The remaining part is composed of microorganisms for which no culture methods have yet been found, or which are in a viable but non-cultivable state. Molec- ular techniques enable a better appreciation of the compositions and the variability of microbial com- munities than traditional bacterial cultures [7]. 3 Material and methods Two different biogases were investigated: biogas from a biogas plant processed energy crop, grass silage and manure, and biogas from a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) equipped with an adsorption unit that is designed for sulphur and siloxane removal. Biogas samples for DNA extraction were collected by filtration through a 0.22 μm nylon membrane fil- ter (Millipore) directly behind the digester and the adsorption unit. Anaerobic digester substrate and sludge were also analyzed. Natural gas from the dis- tribution grid was also collected in order to draw a comparison between microbial diversity of natural gas and biogas. All samples were frozen for transport with dry ice, and DNA extractions were performed according to the methods described by Bartosh et al. (2004). [8] The total DNA was purified using a PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Two analyses were made: real time PCR (qPCR) and PCR + DGGE (Polymerase Chain Reaction + Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis). qPCR was used for quantifying bacterial DNA. The target organisms were quantified using specific primers of chosen bacterial groups, and the qPCR results that were obtained were expressed as numbers of bacteria cells per gram of substrate or sludge or per cubic meter of gas. The second analy- sis determined the bacterial species [8–12]. PCR was realized by targeting 16S rRNA gene sequences with universal bacterial primers 338GC (5’ – CGC CCG CCG CGC CCC GCG CCC GGC CCG CCGCCGC- CGCCG CAC TCC TAC GGG AGG CAG CAG – 3’) and RP534 (5’ – ATT ACC GCG GCT GCT GG – 3’) [13]. The PCR products were processed 34 Acta Polytechnica Vol. 52 No. 4/2012 Table 1: Identification of bacterial from DGGE [15,16] Location Organisms SA [%] Classification Main characteristics and indication of pathogenicity B1W, B2W, NG Pseudomonas sp. 95 Proteobacteria; Gammaproteobacteria Reduce nitrate to nitrite, opportunistic pathogen B1W, B2W, BB, NG Butyvibrio sp. Pseudobutyvibrioruminis 99 Firmicutes; Clostridia Decompose cellulose and amylum, can cause microbial corrosion SW Uncultured beta proteobacterium 99 Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria Typical for waste water treatment plants B1W, B2W, SW Sphingomonas sp. 99 Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria Decompose polysaccharide, can cause infection SB Lactobacillus fermentum 98 Firmicutes; Lactobacillales Produce lactic acid, can cause infection SB Uncultured Lachnospiraceae bacterium 98 Firmicutes; Clostridia – SB, SW Uncultured Bacteroidetes clone 100 Bacteroidetes Produce propionic, lactic and acetic acid, can cause infection B1W, NG Uncultured clostridium clone 36 Firmicutes, Clostridia – B2W Leucobacter 100 Actinobacteria; Actinobacteridae – SB Uncultured Bacteroidetes bacterium 95 Bacteroidetes Produce propionic, lactic and acetic acid, can cause infection NG Uncultured clostridiales bacterium 100 Firmicutes, Clostridia – B1W, B2W, BB, SW, SB, NG E. coli 100 Proteobacteria; Gammaproteobacteria From intestinal micro-flora, can cause toxins NG Staphylococcus sp. 100 Firmicutes; Bacili Very adaptable pathogen B1W, B2W, NG Pseudomonas fluorescens 99 Proteobacteria; Gammaproteobacteria Reduce nitrate, opportunistic pathogen SW Candidatus Nitrospiradefluvii 99 Nitrospirae; Nitrospira Reduce nitrate SA Column S for percentage similarity of closest sequence in GenBank B1W biogas behind the digester from waste water treatment B2W biogas behind the adsorption unit from waste water treatment BB biogas from biogas plant SW sludge from waste water treatment SB substrate from biogas plant NG natural gas 35 Acta Polytechnica Vol. 52 No. 4/2012 Table 2: Number and type of microorganisms found in the digester and biogas Microorganisms/ Substrate Biogas sample Biogas WWTP Biogas WWTP behind WWTP behind plant plant digester adsorption unit [10 6 bacteria·g−1] [106 bacteria·g−1] [106 bacteria·m−3] [106 bacteria·m−3] [106 bacteria·m−3] Total number 80.7 1 360 11.2 70.5 34.3 C. leptum 6.38 940 0.46 5.09 0.62 Desulfovibrio 25.8 124 0.64 3.46 ND Faecallibacter 3.11 7.16 ND ND 0.5 Lactobacillus 17.9 49.9 ND ND ND Enterobacteriaceae 0.003 0.04 0.025 0.047 0.04 Other 27.5 244 10 64.9 33.7 Table 3: Number and type of microorganisms found in the natural gas Microorganisms/ Natural gas sample NG1 NG2 NG3 NG4 NG6 [10 6 bacteria·m−3] [106 bacteria·m−3] [106 bacteria·m−3] [106 bacteria·m−3] [106 bacteria·m−3] Total number 3.08 2.11 8.37 18.8 4.29 C. leptum 0.50 0.41 2.6 5.06 1.55 Desulfovibrio 0.20 0.05 0.31 – 0.24 Faecallibacter – – – – – Lactobacillus – – – – – Enterobacteriaceae 0.009 – 0.014 – 0.007 Other 2.36 1.65 5.45 13.7 2.49 by DGGE on the DCodeTM Universal Mutation De- tection System (Biorad, USA). Finally, we compared the obtained sequences with the GenBank database, using the BLASTn algorithm. [14] 4 Results and discussion The microbial diversity of all samples was assessed and compared by PCR-DGGE fingerprinting analy- sis of bacterial 16S rRNA. The presence of bacteria in particular samples and their main characterization are shown in Table 1. Similarities based on sequence comparison varied between 36–100 %, whereby 94 % of the total sequence presented more than 95 % sim- ilarity with the known sequences found in the Gen- Bank database. Only one sequence showed 36 % sim- ilarity. Butyvibrio sp., Pseudobutyvibrioruminis and E. coli were present in all gaseous samples, while the others were present only in sludge or substrate. The results obtained from real time PCR are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. The comparison of biogas and digester microbial diversity shows that Clostridium leptum, Desulfovibrio group, Feacallibac- terium group, Enterobacteriaceae family and Lacto- bacillus group appeared to be present in significantly greater numbers in the anaerobic digester than in the biogas (Table 2). This is in accordance with the idea that only some microorganisms from the digester were taken up in the biogas. The data revealed that the total number of microorganisms in the biogas be- hind the digester were two times higher than the total number behind the adsorption unit. This decrease could be explained by the capture of microorganisms on activated carbon. We detected only four bacterial genera in biogas (Table 2), but more than 40 % of the detected mi- croorganisms are unknown bacterial species. Desul- fovibrio and Clostridium were the most frequently detected genera that produce acidic conditions and hence accelerate the corrosion process. Enterobacte- riaceae was the least present genus. It decomposes sugars to lactic acid and reduces nitrate to nitrite. This family also includes many pathogens, such as Salmonella and E. coli. Upgraded biogas can be injected into the natu- ral gas distribution grid. For safety reasons against microbial contamination, the microbial diversity of 36 Acta Polytechnica Vol. 52 No. 4/2012 natural gas was therefore also analyzed. We detected 3–19·106 bacteria·m−3, depending on the pressure in the distribution grid and the material of the pipeline (Table 3). This value is quite similar to that found in biogas. We found three bacterial genera in nat- ural gas: C. leptum, Desulfovibrio and Entrerobac- teriaceae. Lacobacillus and Feacalibacter were not present, because they come from intestinal micro- flora and participate in a fermentation process. 5 Conclusion Biogas as a renewable energy source has been receiv- ing growing attention in the Czech Republic and in the EU countries. Nowadays, there are two main ways of using biogas: as a fuel for a co-generation unit or by upgrading it to natural gas. When it is upgraded to natural gas, there is a potential risk of spreading disease via biogas. Using molecular meth- ods, we found that raw biogas contains microorgan- isms, most likely as a result of microbial transmission from the anaerobic digestion process. However, nat- ural gas contains a quite similar quantity of microor- ganisms as biogas. Our results show that Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were the most frequently encoun- tered bacterial phyla. Some bacterial species may contribute to corrosion of pipelines and equipment; others are opportunistic pathogens that can cause toxic reactions. However, most of bacterial species, more than 40 % in biogas, are still unknown, as is their influence on the digestion process and on human health. Further studies are needed for a better under- standing of the behavior of microorganisms in anaer- obic digestion, and to prevent microbial-influenced corrosion and microbial dissemination. Acknowledgement This work received financial support from Spe- cific University Research (MSMT No. 21/2011), the National Agency for Agriculture Research (project No. QI92A286/2008), and the Czech Science Foun- dation (project No. P503/10/P394). References [1] Straka, F., a kol.: Bioplyn. 2. roz. vyd. Praha : Gas, s. r. o., 2006. [2] Weidner, E.: Technologien und Kosten der Bio- gasaufbereitung und Einspeisung in das Erdgas- netz. Ergebnisse der Markterhebung 2007–2008. Institut Umwelt-, Sicherheits-, Energietechnik, 2008. [3] Tentscher, W.: Anforderung und Aufbereitung von Biomas zur Einspeisung Erdgasnetze. Gas – Erdgas, 2007. [4] TPG 902 02. Jakost a zkoušeńı plynných paliv s vysokým obsahem methanu. GAS, s. r. o., 2009. [5] Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A.: Biogas from Waste and Renewable Sources. An Introduction. Weinheim : 2008. ISBN 978-3-527-31841-4. [6] Molleta, M., Delgenes, J. P., Godon, J. J.: Dif- ferences in the aerosolization behaviour of mi- croorganisms as revealed through their trans- port by biogas, Science of the Total Environ- ment, 2007, p. 75–88. [7] Malik, S., Beer, M., Megharaj, M., Naidu, R.: The use of molecular techniques to character- ize the microbial communities in contaminated soil and water. Env. International, 2007, Vol. 34, p. 265–276. [8] Bartosch, S., Fite, A., Macfarlane, G. T., Mc- murdo, M. E. T.: Characterization of Bacte- rial Communities in Feces from Healthy Elderly Volunteers and Hospitalized Elderly Patients by Using Real-time PCR and Effects of Antibiotic Treatment on the Fecal Microbiota, Appl. Env- iron. Microbiol. 2004, Vol. 70, 6, p. 3 575–3 581. [9] Nadkarmi, M. A., Martin, E. F., Jacques, N. A., Hunter, N.: Determination of Bacterial Load by Real-time PCR Using a Broad-range (Uni- versal) Probe and Primers Set. Microbiol. 2002, Vol. 148, 1, p. 257–266. [10] Shen, J., Zhang, B., Wei, G., Pang, X., Wei, H., Li, M., Zhang, Y., Jia, W., Zhao, L.: Molec- ular Profiling of the Clostridium Leptum Sub- group in Human Fecal Microflora by PCR- Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis and Clone Library Analysis, Appl. Environ. Micro- biol. 2006, p. 5 232–5238. [11] Salzman, N. H., Hung, K., Haribhai, D., Chu, H., Karlsson-Sjberg, J., Amir, E., Teg- gatz, P., Barman, M., Hayward, M., East- wood, D., Stoel, M., Zhou, Y., Sodergen, E., We- instock, G. M., Bewins, C. L., Williams, C. B., Bos, N. A.: Enteric Defences Are Essential Reg- ulators of Intestinal Microbial Ecology, Nat. Im- munol. 2009, Vol. 11, p. 76–82. [12] Rinttila, T., Kassinen, A., Malinen, E., Kro- gius, L., Palva, A.: Development of an extensive set of 16S rDNA-targeted primers for quantifi- cation of pathogenic and indigenous bacteria in faecal samples by real-time PCR, J. Appl. Mi- crobiol. 2004, Vol. 97, p. 1 166–1177. [13] Muyzer, G., De Waal, E., Uitterlinden, A. G.: Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analy- sis of polymerase chain reaction amplified genes 37 Acta Polytechnica Vol. 52 No. 4/2012 coding for 16S rRNA. Applied and Environmen- tal Microbiology, 1993, p. 695–700. [14] Maidak, B. L., Larsen, N., Mccaughey, M. J., Overbeek, R., Olsen, G. J., Foge, K., Blandy, J., Woese, C. R.: The ribosomal database project. Nucleic Acid. Res. 1994, Vol. 22, p. 3 485–3487. [15] http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/ Bovine Rumen, downloaded on 14. 11. 2010. [16] Atlas, R. M.: Principles of microbiology. Dubuque : McGraw-Hill, 1997. ISBN 0-8151-0889-3. 38