Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp 19411–19424 | Cite as

Revealing the correlation of biomethane generation, DOM fluorescence, and microbial community in the mesophilic co-digestion of chicken manure and sheep manure at different mixture ratio

  • Liuying Song
  • Dunjie Li
  • Hongli Fang
  • Xiangyunong Cao
  • Rutao Liu
  • Qigui NiuEmail author
  • Yu-You Li
Research Article

Abstract

Batch co-digestion tests of chicken manure (CM) and sheep manure (SM) at different ratio (Rs/c) were conducted under mesophilic condition (35 °C). Batch kinetic analysis of bioCH4 production, excitation-emission matrix (EEM) fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (DOM), and microbial community were investigated. The well-fitted modified Gompertz model (R2, 0.98–0.99) resulted that the co-digestion markedly improved the methane production rate and shortened the lag phase time. The highest bioCH4 yield of 219.67 mL/gVSadd and maximum production rate of 0.378 mL/gVSadd/h were obtained at an optimum Rs/c of 0.4. Additionally, a significant variation of DOM was detected at the Rs/c of 0.4 with a consistent degradation of soluble microbial byproduct-like and protein-like organics. The positive synergy effects of co-digestion conspicuously enhanced the bioCH4 production efficiency. FI370 and NADH were significantly correlated to Rs/c (p < 0.05). Moreover, the correlations among process indicator, EEM-peaks and different environmental parameters were evaluated by Pearson correlation analysis. The high diversity of acetoclastic methanogens and hydrogenotrophic methanogens in the co-digestion improved the stability of process.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Chicken manure Sheep manure Co-digestion Rs/c EEM Microbial community 

Nomenclature

CM

Chicken manure

SM

Sheep manure

Rs/c

Volatile solid ratio of sheep manure to chicken manure

SCOD

Dissolved chemical oxygen demand

TCOD

Total chemical oxygen demand

DOM

Dissolved organic matter

EEM

Three-dimensional excitation-emission matrix

Em

Emission

Ex

Excitation

TS

Total solid

VS

Volatile solid

SMP

Soluble microbial byproduct-like materials

BIX

The biological index

HIX

The humification index

NADH

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (the reduced form)

NAD+

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (the oxidation form)

TAN

Total ammonia nitrogen

FA

Free ammonia

FRI

Fluorescence regional integration

TP

Total phosphorus

Ss

The seed sludge

Cs

The co-digestion sludge

Svs

The sludge setting in starvation

AS

Anaerobic sludge

Notes

Funding information

The authors’ research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51608304 and Grant No. U1806216) and Young Scholars Program of Shandong University (2018WLJH53). Research Fund of Tianjin Key Laboratory of Aquatic Science and Technology (TJKLAST-ZD-2017-04) and Research Fund of Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Anaerobic Biotechnology (JKLAB201702) were also partly supported this work. “The Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University” and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2017M622209). also supported this study.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_5175_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. Abouelenien F, Namba Y, Kosseva MR, Nishio N, Nakashimada Y (2014) Enhancement of methane production from co-digestion of chicken manure with agricultural wastes. Bioresour Technol 159:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Administration TSEP (2002) The Water and Wastewater Monitoring Analysis Method Editorial Board. In: Water and Wastewater monitoring analysis method, 4th edn(in Chinese. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing, pp 38–47Google Scholar
  3. Aguilar FAA, Nelson DL, Pantoja LD, dos Santos AS (2017) Study of anaerobic co-digestion of crude glycerol and swine manure for the production of biogas. Rev Virtual Quim 9:2383–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ariesyady HD, Ito T, Okabe S (2007) Functional bacterial and archaeal community structures of major trophic groups in a full-scale anaerobic sludge digester. Water Res 41:1554–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awais M, Alvarado-Morales M, Tsapekos P, Gulfraz M, Angelidaki I (2016) Methane production and kinetic modeling for co-digestion of manure with lignocellulosic residues. Energy Fuel 30:10516–10523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azman S, Khadem AF, Van Lier JB, Zeeman G, Plugge CM (2015) Presence and role of anaerobic hydrolytic microbes in conversion of lignocellulosic biomass for biogas production. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45:2523–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker A (2002) Fluorescence properties of some farm wastes: implications for water quality monitoring. Water Res 36:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayrakdar A, Molaey R, Surmeli RO, Sahinkaya E, Calli B (2017) Biogas production from chicken manure: co-digestion with spent poppy straw. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 119:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bohutskyi P, Phan D, Kopachevsky AM, Chow S, Bouwer EJ, Betenbaugh MJ (2018) Synergistic co-digestion of wastewater grown algae-bacteria polyculture biomass and cellulose to optimize carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and application of kinetic models to predict anaerobic digestion energy balance. Bioresour Technol 269:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bujoczek G, Oleszkiewicz J, Sparling R, Cenkowski S (2000) High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure. J Agric Eng Res 76:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgmann H, Jenni S, Vazquez F, Udert KM (2011) Regime shift and microbial dynamics in a sequencing batch reactor for nitrification and anammox treatment of urine. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:5897–5907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cai YF, Zheng ZH, Zhao YB, Zhang Y, Guo SY, Cui ZJ, Wang XF (2018) Effects of molybdenum, selenium and manganese supplementation on the performance of anaerobic digestion and the characteristics of bacterial community in acidogenic stage. Bioresour Technol 266:166–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cestonaro T, Costa MSSD, Costa LAD, Rozatti MAT, Pereira DC, Lorin HEF, Carneiro LJ (2015) The anaerobic co-digestion of sheep bedding and ≥ 50% cattle manure increases biogas production and improves biofertilizer quality. Waste Manag 46:612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen W, Westerhoff P, Leenheer JA, Booksh K (2003) Fluorescence excitation - emission matrix regional integration to quantify spectra for dissolved organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 37:5701–5710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. China NBoSo (2017) China Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing ,ChinaGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiu SLH, Lo IMC (2016) Reviewing the anaerobic digestion and co-digestion process of food waste from the perspectives on biogas production performance and environmental impacts. Environ Sci Pollut R 23:24435–24450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. El Hadj TB, Astals S, Gali A, Mace S, Mata-Alvarez J (2009) Ammonia influence in anaerobic digestion of OFMSW. Water Sci Technol 59:1153–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO Statistical Yearbook (2013) World Food and Agriculture [R]. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organziation of the United Nations), 2013, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. Farhat A, Miladi B, Hamdi M, Bouallagui H (2018) Fermentative hydrogen and methane co-production from anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes at high loading rate coupling continuously and sequencing batch digesters. Environ Sci Pollut R 25:27945–27958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferreira JD, Volschan I, Cammarota MC (2018) Co-digestion of sewage sludge with crude or pretreated glycerol to increase biogas production. Environ Sci Pollut R 25:21811–21821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferry JG (1999) Enzymology of one-carbon metabolism in methanogenic pathways. FEMS Microbiol Rev 23:13–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gu CC, Gao P, Yang F, An DX, Munir M, Jia HZ, Xue G, Ma CY (2017) Characterization of extracellular polymeric substances in biofilms under long-term exposure to ciprofloxacin antibiotic using fluorescence excitation-emission matrix and parallel factor analysis. Environ Sci Pollut R 24:13536–13545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen KH, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK (1998) Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water Res 32:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hassan M, Ding W, Shi Z, Zhao S (2016) Methane enhancement through co-digestion of chicken manure and thermo-oxidative cleaved wheat straw with waste activated sludge: a C/N optimization case. Bioresour Technol 211:534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huguet A, Vacher L, Relexans S, Saubusse S, Froidefond JM, Parlanti E (2009) Properties of fluorescent dissolved organic matter in the Gironde Estuary. Org Geochem 40:706–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jia W, Qin W, Zhang Q, Wang X, Ma Y, Chen Q (2018) Evaluation of crop residues and manure production and their geographical distribution in China. J Clean Prod 188:954–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang K, Schuldes J, Klingl A, Poehlein A, Daniel R, Brune A (2015) New mode of energy metabolism in the seventh order of methanogens as revealed by comparative genome analysis of "Candidatus Methanoplasma termitum". Appl Environ Microbiol 81:1338–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lay JJ, Li YY, Noike T (1998) Interaction between homoacetogens and methanogens in lake sediments. J Ferment Bioeng 86:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li W-H, Sheng G-P, Liu X-W, Yu H-Q (2008) Characterizing the extracellular and intracellular fluorescent products of activated sludge in a sequencing batch reactor. Water Res 42:3173–3181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li YQ, Zhang RH, Liu XY, Chen C, Xiao X, Feng L, He YF, Liu GQ (2013) Evaluating methane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of kitchen waste, corn stover, and chicken manure. Energy Fuel 27:2085–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li Y, Zhang R, He Y, Zhang C, Liu X, Chen C, Liu G (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover in batch and continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). Bioresour Technol 156:342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li RR, Duan N, Zhang YH, Liu ZD, Li BM, Zhang DM, Dong TL (2017) Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and microalgae Chlorella sp.: methane potential, microbial diversity and synergistic impact evaluation. Waste Manag 68:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li K, Liu RH, Cui SF, Yu Q, Ma RJ (2018) Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures with corn stover or apple pulp for enhanced biogas production. Renew Energy 118:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lo YC, Lu WC, Chen CY, Chang JS (2010) Dark fermentative hydrogen production from enzymatic hydrolysate of xylan and pretreated rice straw by Clostridium butyricum CGS5. Bioresour Technol 101:5885–5891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lv B, Xing M, Zhao C, Yang J, Xiang L (2014) Towards understanding the stabilization process in vermicomposting using PARAFAC analysis of fluorescence spectra. Chemosphere 117:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKnight DM, Boyer EW, Westerhoff PK, Doran PT, Kulbe T, Andersen DT (2001) Spectrofluorometric characterization of dissolved organic matter for indication of precursor organic material and aromaticity. Limnol Oceanogr 46:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naomi H, Andy B, Darren R (2007) Fluorescence analysis of dissolved organic matter in natural, waste and polluted waters—a review. River Res Appl 23:631–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naran E, Toor UA, Kim DJ (2016) Effect of pretreatment and anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge on stabilization and methane production. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 113:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nie H, Jacobi HF, Strach K, Xu C, Zhou H, Liebetrau J (2015) Mono-fermentation of chicken manure: ammonia inhibition and recirculation of the digestate. Bioresour Technol 178:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nielfa A, Cano R, Vinot M, Fernandez E, Fdz-Polanco M (2015) Anaerobic digestion modeling of the main components of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Process Saf Environ 94:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niu QG, Qiao W, Qiang H, Hojo T, Li YY (2013a) Mesophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure at a wide range of ammonia concentration: stability, inhibition and recovery. Bioresour Technol 137:358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niu QG, Qiao W, Qiang H, Li YY (2013b) Microbial community shifts and biogas conversion computation during steady, inhibited and recovered stages of thermophilic methane fermentation on chicken manure with a wide variation of ammonia. Bioresour Technol 146:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Niu QG, Hojo T, Qiao W, Qiang H, Li YY (2014) Characterization of methanogenesis, acidogenesis and hydrolysis in thermophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure. Chem Eng J 244:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Niu Q, Kobayashi T, Takemura Y, Kubota K, Li YY (2015a) Evaluation of functional microbial community's difference in full-scale and lab-scale anaerobic digesters feeding with different organic solid waste: Effects of substrate and operation factors. Bioresour Technol 193:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Niu QG, Takemura Y, Kubota K, Li YY (2015b) Comparing mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: microbial community dynamics and process resilience. Waste Manag 43:114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Provenzano MR, Malerba AD, Pezzolla D, Gigliotti G (2014) Chemical and spectroscopic characterization of organic matter during the anaerobic digestion and successive composting of pig slurry. Waste Manag 34:653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rajagopal R, Masse DI, Singh G (2013) A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour Technol 143:632–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shakeri Yekta S, Gonsior M, Schmitt-Kopplin P, Svensson BH (2012) Characterization of dissolved organic matter in full scale continuous stirred tank biogas reactors using ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry: a qualitative overview. Environ Sci Technol 46:12711–12719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shan LL, Zhang ZH, Yu YL, Ambuchi JJ, Feng YJ (2017) Performance of CSTR-EGSB-SBR system for treating sulfate-rich cellulosic ethanol wastewater and microbial community analysis. Environ Sci Pollut R 24:14387–14395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Song LY, Song Y, Li DJ, Liu RT, Niu QG (2019) The auto fluorescence characteristics, specific activity, and microbial community structure in batch tests of mono-chicken manure digestion. Waste Manag 83:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang X, Li X, Wu Z, Liu H (2011) Novel insights into destruction mechanisms in a hybrid membrane process for simultaneous sludge thickening and digestion by characterization of dissolved organic matter. Chem Eng J 171:897–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, Ren G, Han X (2012) Optimizing feeding composition and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 120:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang K, Li WG, Gong XJ, Li YB, Wu CD, Ren NQ (2013) Spectral study of dissolved organic matter in biosolid during the composting process using inorganic bulking agent: UV-vis, GPC, FTIR and EEM. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 85:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeng Z, Zheng P, Ding AQ, Zhang M, Abbas G, Li W (2017) Source analysis of organic matter in swine wastewater after anaerobic digestion with EEM-PARAFAC. Environ Sci Pollut R 24:6770–6778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeppilli M, Villano M, Aulenta F, Lampis S, Vallini G, Majone M (2015) Effect of the anode feeding composition on the performance of a continuous-flow methane-producing microbial electrolysis cell. Environ Sci Pollut R 22:7349–7360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang YL, Zhang EL, Yin Y, van Dijk MA, Feng LQ, Shi ZQ, Liu ML, Qin BQ (2010) Characteristics and sources of chromophoric dissolved organic matter in lakes of the Yungui Plateau, China, differing in trophic state and altitude. Limnol Oceanogr 55:2645–2659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang WQ, Lang QQ, Pan ZD, Jiang YQ, Liebetrau J, Nelles M, Dong HM, Dong RJ (2017) Performance evaluation of a novel anaerobic digestion operation process for treating high-solids content chicken manure: effect of reduction of the hydraulic retention time at a constant organic loading rate. Waste Manag 64:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhao CH, Mu H, Zhao YX, Wang LG, Zuo B (2018) Microbial characteristics analysis and kinetic studies on substrate composition to methane after microbial and nutritional regulation of fruit and vegetable wastes anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 249:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao C, Gao S-J, Zhou L, Li X, Chen X, Wang C-C (2019) Dissolved organic matter in urban forestland soil and its interactions with typical heavy metals: a case of Daxing District, Beijing. Environ Sci Pollut R 26:2960–2973CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental Science and Engineering, China–America CRC for Environment & Health of Shandong ProvinceShandong UniversityQingdaoPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Anaerobic BiotechnologyJiangnan UniversityWuxiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of EngineeringTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations