4.7 Article

Pre-treatment and inoculum affect the microbial community structure and enhance the biogas reactor performance in a pilot-scale biodigestion of municipal solid waste

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 69-77

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.005

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Mechanical pretreatment; Microbial diversity; OFMSW

资金

  1. NHP SRL/ESCo (Naples, Italy)
  2. Provincia di Avellino - research project Comparazione di diversi sistemi alternativi per lo smaltimento dei rifiuti solidi urbani (RSU) [1979]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste, organic matter is converted to methane, carbon dioxide, and other organic and inorganic compounds through a complex cooperation among different microbial groups with different metabolic activities. Here, culture-dependent and independent approaches provided evidence for examining the relationship between bacterial and archaeal communities and methane production in a pilot-scale anaerobic digestion. The abundance of aerobic and anaerobic functional groups of C and N cycles, such as cellulolytic, pectinolytic, amylolytic and proteolytic bacteria, was high at the beginning of the experiment and was drastically decreased after anaerobic digestion. In contrast, the ammonifiers increased in the biogas producing reactors in a higher pH environment. The methanogenic archaeal genera recovered were Methanobrevibacter, Methanobacterium, Methanoculleus and Methanocorpusculum, thus indicating that methane was formed primarily by the hydrogenotrophic pathway in the reactors. Moreover, the mechanical pretreatment effects, as well as the effect of pelleted manure as inoculum, were considered. The highest methane production was detected in the biodigesters with minced organic waste, thus indicating that pre-treatment of a heterogeneous starting matrix was essential for improving biogas production and stabilizing the process. (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

4.7
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