4.8 Article

Identifying methanogen community structures and their correlations with performance parameters in four full-scale anaerobic sludge digesters

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 368-373

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.118

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; 454 pyrosequencing; Real-time quantitative PCR; Archaea-to-bacteria ratio; Methanoculleus; Methanoregula; Biomarker

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20163030091540]
  3. 'Human Resources Program in Energy Technology' of the KETEP - MOTIE, Republic of Korea [20144030200460]
  4. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20163030091540] 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

Four full-scale mesophilic anaerobic digesters treating waste sludge were monitored to characterize methanogen communities and their relationship with process parameters. The performance of the four digesters were dissimilar with the average chemical oxygen demand removal efficiencies between 24 and 45% and differing pH. Real-time quantitative PCR showed that archaeal 16S rRNA gene concentration ([ARC]) and, more pronouncedly, its ratio to bacterial counterpart ([ARC]/[BAC]) correlated positively with the performance parameters, including the lipid removal efficiency. Pyrosequencing identified 12 methanogen genera, of which Methanolinea, Methansaeta, and Methanospirillum collectively accounted for 79.2% of total archaeal reads. However, Methanoculleus, a numerically minor ( 1.9 +/- 2.6%) taxa, was the most promising biomarker for positive performance, while Methanoregula was abundant in samples with poor performance. These results could be useful for the control and management of anaerobic sludge digestion. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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