4.5 Article

Performance and microbial communities of a continuous stirred tank anaerobic reactor treating two-phases olive mill solid wastes at low organic loading rates

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 534-543

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2005.08.013

关键词

two-phases olive mill solid waste; anaerobic digestion; performance; microbial community

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study of the performance and microbial communities of a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) treating two-phases olive mill solid wastes (OMSW) was carried out at laboratory- scale. The reactor operated at a mesophilic temperature (35 degrees C) and an influent substrate concentration of 162 g total chemical oxygen demand (COD) L-1 and 126 g volatile solids (VS) L-1. The data analyzed in this work corresponded to a range of organic loading rates (OLR) of between 0.75 and 3.00 g COD L-1 d(-1), getting removal efficiencies in the range of 97.0-95.6%. Methane production rate increased from 0.164 to 0.659 L CH4 Lr-eactor(-1) d(-1) when the OLR increased within the tested range. Methane yield coefficients were 0.225 L CH4 g(-1) COD removed and 0.290 L CH4 g(-1) VS removed and were virtually independent of the OLR applied. A molecular characterization of the microbial communities involved in the process was also accomplished. Molecular identification of microbial species was performed by PCR amplification of 16S ribosomal RNA genes, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), cloning and sequencing. Among the predominant microorganisms in the bioreactor, the Firmicutes (mainly represented by Clostridiales) were the most abundant group, followed by the Chloroflexi and the Gamma-Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas species as the major representative). Other bacterial groups detected in the bioreactor were the Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Deferribacteres. Among the Archaea, the methanogen Methanosaeta concilii was the most representative species. (c) 2005 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

4.5
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