4.6 Article

Process stability and microbial community composition in pig manure and food waste anaerobic co-digesters operated at low HRTs

出版社

HIGHER EDUCATION PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11783-017-0923-9

关键词

Biogas; Sequencing; Clocamonaceae; Spiorchatetes; Isobutyrate; Biosafety

资金

  1. Green Farm project - Science Foundation Ireland Investigator Project Award [12/IP/1519]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [12/IP/1519] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the effects of reducing hydraulic retention times (HRTs) from 21 days to 10.5 days when anaerobically co-digesting pig manure and food waste. Continuously stirred tank reactors of 3.75 L working volume were operated in triplicate at 42 degrees C. Digester HRT was progressively decreased from 21 to 15 days to 10.5 days, with an associated increase in organic loading rate (OLR) from 3.1 kg volatile solids (VS).m(-3).day(-1) to 5.1 kg VS.m(-3).day(-1) to 7.25 kg VS.m(-3).day(-1). Reducing HRT from 21 days to 15 days caused a decrease in specific methane yields and VS removal rates. Operation at a HRT of 10.5 days initially resulted in the accumulation of isobutyric acid in each reactor. High throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing revealed that this increase coincided with a shift in acidogenic bacterial populations, which most likely resulted in the increased isobutyric acid concentrations. This may in turn have caused the increase in relative abundance of Clocamonaceae bacteria, which syntrophically degrade non-acetate volatile fatty acids (VFAs) into H-2 and CO2. This, along with the increase in abundance of other syntrophic VFA oxidizers, such as Spiorchatetes, suggests that VFA oxidation plays a role in digester operation at low HRTs. Reducing the HRT to below 21 days compromised the ability of the anaerobic digestion system to reduce enteric indicator organism counts below regulatory limits. (C) Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

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

4.6
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