Advertisement

Differences of methanogenesis between mesophilic and thermophilic in situ biogas-upgrading systems by hydrogen addition

  • Xianpu Zhu
  • Liumeng Chen
  • Yichao Chen
  • Qin Cao
  • Xiaofeng Liu
  • Dong LiEmail author
Bioenergy/Biofuels/Biochemicals - Original Paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

To investigate the differences in microbial community structure between mesophilic and thermophilic in situ biogas-upgrading systems by H2 addition, two reactors (35 °C and 55 °C) were run for four stages according to different H2 addition rates (H2/CO2 of 0:1, 1:1, and 4:1) and mixing mode (intermittent and continuous). 16S rRNA gene-sequencing technology was applied to analyze microbial community structure. The results showed that the temperature is a crucial factor in impacting succession of microbial community structure and the H2 utilization pathway. For mesophilic digestion, most of added H2 was consumed indirectly by the combination of homoacetogens and strict aceticlastic methanogens. In the thermophilic system, most of added H2 may be used for microbial cell growth, and part of H2 was utilized directly by strict hydrogenotrophic methanogens and facultative aceticlastic methanogens. Continuous stirring was harmful to the stabilization of mesophilic system, but not to the thermophilic one.

Keywords

In situ biogas upgrading Homoacetogens Strict aceticlastic methanogens Hydrogenotrophic methanogens Syntrophic acetate-oxidizing bacteria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The data were analyzed on the free online platform of Majorbio I-Sanger Cloud Platform (www.i-sanger.com).

Funding

This research was supported jointly by the National Key R & D Program of China (2018YFD0501405), West Light Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences (2018XBZG_XBQNXZ_A_004), Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS (2017423), Special fund for talented persons of Sichuan provincial Party Committee Organization Department, Key projects for foreign cooperation of International Cooperation Bureau of Chinese Academy of Sciences (182344KYSB20170009), Science and Technology Service Network Initiative (STS) of CAS (KFJ-STS-QYZD-117).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10295_2019_2219_MOESM1_ESM.docx (557 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 556 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Algina J, Oshima CT, Lin WY (1994) Type I error rates for Welch’s test and James’s second-order test under nonnormality and inequality of variance when there are two groups. J Educ Behav Stat 19(3):275–291.  https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986019003275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson GK, Yang G (1992) Determination of bicarbonate and total volatile acid concentration in anaerobic digesters using a simple titration. Water Environ Res 64:53–59.  https://doi.org/10.2175/WER.64.1.8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bassani I, Kougias PG, Treu L, Angelidaki I (2015) Biogas upgrading via hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis in two-stage continuous stirred tank reactors at mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Environ Sci Technol 49:12585.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burkhardt M, Koschack T, Busch G (2015) Biocatalytic methanation of hydrogen and carbon dioxide in an anaerobic three-phase system. Bioresour Technol 178:330–333.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deng LY, Hagg MB (2010) Techno-economic evaluation of biogas upgrading process using CO2 facilitated transport membrane. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4:638–646.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dollhopf SL, Hashsham SA, Dazzo FB, Hickey RF, Criddle CS, Tiedje JM (2001) The impact of fermentative organisms on carbon flow in methanogenic systems under constant low-substrate conditions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:531–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002530100612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Groher A, Weusterbotz D (2016) Comparative reaction engineering analysis of different acetogenic bacteria for gas fermentation. J Biotechnol 228:82–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guiot SR, Cimpoia R, Carayon G (2011) Potential of wastewater-treating anaerobic granules for biomethanation of synthesis gas. Environ Sci Technol 45:2006–2012.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es102728m CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hattori S (2008) Syntrophic acetate-oxidizing microbes in methanogenic environments. Microbes Environ 23:118.  https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.23.118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hattori S, Luo HW, Shoun H, Kamagata Y (2001) Involvement of formate as an interspecies electron carrier in a syntrophic acetate-oxidizing anaerobic microorganism in coculture with methanogens. J Biosci Bioeng 91:294–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-1723(01)80137-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jetten MSM, Stams AJM, Zehnder AJB (1992) Methanogenesis from acetate: a comparison of the acetate metabolism in Methanothrix soehngenii and Methanosarcina spp. FEMS Microbiol Lett 88:181–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1097(92)90802-U CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jr MCS, Lacey RE, Engler CR, Ricke SC (2001) Effects of ammonia nitrogen on H2 and CH4 production during anaerobic digestion of dairy cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 77:9–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00138-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krakat N, Schmidt S, Scherer P (2011) Potential impact of process parameters upon the bacterial diversity in the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of beet silage. Bioresour Technol 102:5692–5701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lan Y, Wang Q, Cole JR, Rosen GL (2012) Using the RDP classifier to predict taxonomic novelty and reduce the search space for finding novel organisms. PLoS One 7:e32491.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee JC, Kim JH, Chang WS, Pak D (2012) Biological conversion of CO2 to CH4 using hydrogenotrophic methanogen in a fixed bed reactor. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 87:844–847.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.3787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li A, Chu Y, Wang X, Ren L, Yu J, Liu X, Yan J, Zhang L, Wu S, Li S (2013) A pyrosequencing-based metagenomic study of methane-producing microbial community in solid-state biogas reactor. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li J, Rui J, Pei Z, Sun X, Zhang S, Yan Z, Wang Y, Liu X, Tao Z, Li X (2014) Straw- and slurry-associated prokaryotic communities differ during co-fermentation of straw and swine manure. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:4771–4780.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5629-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindeboom RE, Weijma J, van Lier JB (2012) High-calorific biogas production by selective CO2 retention at autogenerated biogas pressures up to 20 bar. Environ Sci Technol 46:1895–1902.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es202633u CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu P, Qiu Q, Lu Y (2011) Syntrophomonadaceae-affiliated species as active butyrate-utilizing syntrophs in paddy field soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:3884–3887.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00190-11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luo G, Angelidaki I (2013) Co-digestion of manure and whey for in situ biogas upgrading by the addition of H2: process performance and microbial insights. Appl Microbiol Biot 97:1373–1381.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.24557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo G, Angelidaki I (2013) Hollow fiber membrane based H2 diffusion for efficient in situ biogas upgrading in an anaerobic reactor. Appl Microbiol Biot 97:3739–3744.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4811-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo G, Angelidaki I (2012) Integrated biogas upgrading and hydrogen utilization in an anaerobic reactor containing enriched hydrogenotrophic methanogenic culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:2729–2736.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.24557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo G, Johansson S, Boe K, Xie L, Zhou Q, Angelidaki I (2012) Simultaneous hydrogen utilization and in situ biogas upgrading in an anaerobic reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:1088–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.24360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maraseni TN, Maroulis J (2008) Piggery: from environmental pollution to a climate change solution. J Environ Sci Health B 43:358.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03601230801941717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pap B, Györkei Á, Boboescu IZ, Nagy IK, Bíró T, Kondorosi É, Maróti G (2015) Temperature-dependent transformation of biogas-producing microbial communities points to the increased importance of hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis under thermophilic operation. Bioresour Technol 177:375–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parawira W, Murto M, Read JS, Mattiasson B (2007) A study of two-stage anaerobic digestion of solid potato waste using reactors under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Environ Technol Lett 28:1205–1216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593332808618881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plugge CM, Balk M, Zoetendal EG, Stams AJ (2002) Gelria glutamica gen. nov., sp. nov., a thermophilic, obligately syntrophic, glutamate-degrading anaerobe. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52:401–407.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-52-2-401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ragsdale SW, Pierce E (2008) Acetogenesis and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway of CO2 fixation. Biochim Biophys Acta 1784:1873–1898.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shigematsu T, Tang Y, Kobayashi T, Kawaguchi H, Morimura S, Kida K (2004) Effect of dilution rate on metabolic pathway shift between aceticlastic and nonaceticlastic methanogenesis in chemostat cultivation. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:4048.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.70.7.4048-4052.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomas F, Hehemann J, Rebuffet E, Czjzek M, Michel G (2011) Environmental and gut bacteroidetes: the food connection. Front Microbiol 2:93.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang LH, Wang QH, Cai WW, Sun XH (2012) Influence of mixing proportion on the solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of distiller’s grains and food waste. Biosyst Eng 112:130–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang W, Xie L, Luo G, Zhou Q, Angelidaki I (2013) Performance and microbial community analysis of the anaerobic reactor with coke oven gas biomethanation and in situ biogas upgrading. Bioresour Technol 146:234–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wofford NQ, Beaty PS, Mcinerney MJ (1986) Preparation of cell-free extracts and the enzymes involved in fatty acid metabolism in Syntrophomonas wolfei. J Bacteriol 167:179.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang Z, Guo R, Shi X, He S, Wang L, Dai M, Qiu Y, Dang X (2016) Bioaugmentation of Hydrogenispora ethanolica LX-B affects hydrogen production through altering indigenous bacterial community structure. Bioresour Technol 211:319–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao C, Gao Z, Qin Q, Ruan L (2012) Mangroviflexus xiamenensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a member of the family Marinilabiliaceae isolated from mangrove sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 62:1819.  https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.036137-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhu X, Kougias PG, Treu L, Campanaro S, Angelidaki I (2017) Microbial community changes in methanogenic granules during the transition from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101:1313–1322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-8028-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Environmental and Applied Microbiology, Environmental Microbiology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of BiologyChinese Academy of SciencesChengduChina
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Agricultural MicroorganismJiangxi Academy of Agricultural SciencesNanchangChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations