Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 147–154 | Cite as

Effect of substrate feeding frequencies on the methane production and microbial communities of laboratory-scale anaerobic digestion reactors

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 155 Downloads

Abstract

Even though full-scale digesters have been designed based on laboratory-scale tests, the substrate feeding modes of laboratory-scale tests might be different from those of full-scale digesters. The effect of substrate feeding frequencies on the performance and microbial community of laboratory-scale anaerobic digestion reactors was investigated. Feeding frequencies of twice a day, once a day, and every two days were tested in three 2-L reactors with an organic loading rate of 0.5 g-glucose/L/day under mesophilic condition. According to the results of this study, all the reactors showed similar methane production rates and SCOD removal efficiencies after sufficient time of acclimation, but frequently feeding promoted more stable digestion. Although there was no significant difference in microbial diversities from pyrosequencing analyses, the changes of archaeal community composition were observed. The decrease in feeding frequency appeared to cause shifts from acetoclastic methanogens affiliated with Methanosaeta to H2-utilizing methanogens. The increase of Methanosaeta at a frequently feeding might contribute to the stability of reactor operation. Since this study uses glucose as the substrate, there is still possibility of different results for more complex substrates, such as sludge, food waste, etc.

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion Substrate feeding frequency Stability Methane production Microbial community 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment as “Knowledge-based environmental service (Waste to energy) Human Resource Development Project”, the Korea Ministry of Education through the Brain Korea 21 Plus research program, and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant (No. 2015R1A5A7037372) funded by the Korean Government (MSIP). Authors also appreciate the technical support of the Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Research Institute, Seoul National University.

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin GF, Owen WF (1986) Fundamentals of anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludges. J Environ Eng Landsc 112:867–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pohland F, Ghosh S (1971) Developments in anaerobic stabilization of organic wastes-the two-phase concept. Environ Lett 1:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chae K, Jang A, Yim S, Kim IS (2008) The effects of digestion temperature and temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Bioresour Technol 99:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim JK, Oh BR, Chun YN, Kim SW (2006) Effects of temperature and hydraulic retention time on anaerobic digestion of food waste. J Biosci Bioeng 102:328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresour Technol 99:4044–4064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J (2011) Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bombardiere J, Espinosa-Solares T, Domaschko M, Chatfield M (2007) Thermophilic anaerobic digester performance under different feed-loading frequency. In: Applied biochemistry and biotecnology, Springer, Berlin, p 765–775Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golkowska K, Sibisi-Beierlein N, Greger M (2012) Kinetic considerations on thermophilic digestion of maize silage at different feeding modes. Chem Ing Tech 84:1551–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inglis SF, Gooch CA (2007) Biogas production fluctuations associated with feeding frequency for a mixed digester. In: Sixth International Dairy Housing Conference, American Society of Agricultural and Biological EngineersGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piao ZH, Kim CH, Kim JY (2013) Effect of feeding frequency on performance of laboratory-scale anaerobic digestion reactor. In: The 1st IWWG-ARB Symposium, Hokkaido University, JapanGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Escudero A, Lacalle A, Blanco F, Pinto M, Díaz I, Domínguez A (2014) Semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste. J Environ Chem Eng 2:819–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang M, Sun X, Li P, Yin L, Liu D, Zhang Y, Li W, Zheng G (2014) A novel alternate feeding mode for semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with chicken manure. Bioresour Technol 164:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conklin A, Stensel HD, Ferguson J (2006) Growth kinetics and competition between Methanosarcina and Methanosaeta in mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Water Environ Res 78:486–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Vrieze J, Verstraete W, Boon N (2013) Repeated pulse feeding induces functional stability in anaerobic digestion. Microb Biotechnol 6:414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee S-H, Kang H-J, Lee YH, Lee TJ, Han K, Choi Y, Park H-D (2012) Monitoring bacterial community structure and variability in time scale in full-scale anaerobic digesters. J Environ Monitor 14:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shelton DR, Tiedje JM (1984) General method for determining anaerobic biodegradation potential. Appl Environ Microbiol 47:850–857Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chun J, Kim KY, Lee J-H, Choi Y (2010) The analysis of oral microbial communities of wild-type and toll-like receptor 2-deficient mice using a 454 gs flx titanium pyrosequencer. BMC Microbiol 10:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hur M, Kim Y, Song H-R, Kim JM, Im Choi Y, Yi H (2011) Effect of genetically modified poplars on soil microbial communities during the phytoremediation of waste mine tailings. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:7611–7619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim B-S, Kim JN, Yoon S-H, Chun J, Cerniglia CE (2012) Impact of enrofloxacin on the human intestinal microbiota revealed by comparative molecular analysis. Anaerobe 18:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huber T, Faulkner G, Hugenholtz P (2004) Bellerophon: a program to detect chimeric sequences in multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 20:2317–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim O-S, Cho Y-J, Lee K, Yoon S-H, Kim M, Na H, Park S-C, Jeon YS, Lee J-H, Yi H (2012) Introducing eztaxon-e: a prokaryotic 16 s rrna gene sequence database with phylotypes that represent uncultured species. Int J Syst Evol Micr 62:716–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. APHA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill D (1982) A comprehensive dynamic model for animal waste methanogenesis. T ASAE 25:1374–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL (2008) Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol 99:7928–7940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen W-H, Han S-K, Sung S (2003) Sodium inhibition of thermophilic methanogens. J Environ Eng Landsc 129:506–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’connor OA, Young L (1989) Toxicity and anaerobic biodegradability of substituted phenols under methanogenic conditions. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boon N, De Windt W, Verstraete W, Top EM (2002) Evaluation of nested pcr–dgge (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) with group-specific 16 s rrna primers for the analysis of bacterial communities from different wastewater treatment plants. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 39:101–112Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW, Webb RI, Wagner AM, Blackall LL (2001) Investigation of candidate division tm7, a recently recognized major lineage of the domain bacteria with no known pure-culture representatives. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    Narihiro T, Terada T, Kikuchi K, Iguchi A, Ikeda M, Yamauchi T, Shiraishi K, Kamagata Y, Nakamura K, Sekiguchi Y (2009) Comparative analysis of bacterial and archaeal communities in methanogenic sludge granules from upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors treating various food-processing, high-strength organic wastewaters. Microbes Environ 24:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Romano RT, Zhang R, Teter S, Mcgarvey JA (2009) The effect of enzyme addition on anaerobic digestion of josetall wheat grass. Bioresour Technol 100:4564–4571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ouverney CC, Armitage GC, Relman DA (2003) Single-cell enumeration of an uncultivated tm7 subgroup in the human subgingival crevice. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:6294–6298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chouari R, Le Paslier D, Daegelen P, Ginestet P, Weissenbach J, Sghir A (2005) Novel predominant archaeal and bacterial groups revealed by molecular analysis of an anaerobic sludge digester. Environ Microbiol 7:1104–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Qiao J-T, Qiu Y-L, Yuan X-Z, Shi X-S, Xu X-H, Guo R-B (2013) Molecular characterization of bacterial and archaeal communities in a full-scale anaerobic reactor treating corn straw. Bioresour Technol 143:512–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang H, Banaszak JE, Parameswaran P, Alder J, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Rittmann BE (2009) Focused-pulsed sludge pre-treatment increases the bacterial diversity and relative abundance of acetoclastic methanogens in a full-scale anaerobic digester. Water Res 43:4517–4526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gorlas A, Robert C, Gimenez G, Drancourt M, Raoult D (2012) Complete genome sequence of methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis, the largest genome of a human-associated archaea species. J Bacteriol 194:4745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu Y, Whitman WB (2008) Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Ann NY Acad Sci 1125:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations