4.7 Article

Earthworm cast as a promising filter bed material and its methanotrophic contribution to methane removal

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 176, 期 1-3, 页码 131-138

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.007

关键词

Methane; Earthworm cast; Methanotroph; Biocover; Landfill

资金

  1. Korean Government [KRF-2007-D00424, R0A-2008-000-20044-0]
  2. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) [R11-2003-006-06001-0]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [R11-2003-006-06001-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of biocovers is a promising strategy toward mitigating CH4 emission from smaller and/or older landfills. In this study, a filter bed material consisting of a mixture of earthworm cast and rice paddy soil in a biocover was evaluated. Although the CH4 Oxidation rate of the enriched paddy soil was 4.9 mu g g-dry soil(-1) h(-1), it was enhanced to 25.1 mu g g-dry soil(-1) h(-1) by adding an earthworm cast with a 3:7 ratio of earthworm cast:soil (wet weight). CO2 was found as the final oxidation product of CH4, and the mole ratio of CO2 production to CH4 consumption was 0.27. At a moisture content range of 15-40% and a temperature range of 20-40 degrees C, the CH4 oxidation rates of the enriched mixture were more than 57% of the maximum rate obtained at 25% moisture content and 25 degrees C. By denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis employing primers for the universal bacterial 16S rRNA gene, and terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis using primers for the pmoA gene, the bacterial and methanotrophic communities in the enriched mixture were mainly originate from paddy soil and earthworm cast, respectively. Both type I (mainly Methylocaldum) and type II methanotrophs (mainly Methylocystis) played important roles in CH4 oxidation in the enriched mixture. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据