| Literature DB >> 25586328 |
Yan Huang1, Li Sun2, Jianshu Zhao3, Rong Huang3, Rong Li4, Qirong Shen5.
Abstract
High-quality bio-organic fertilizers (BIOs) cannot be produced without the addition of some proteins, while many waste proteins are haphazardly disposed, causing serious environmental pollution. In this study, several waste proteins were used as additives to assist with the reproduction of the functional microbe (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9) inoculated into matured composts to produce BIOs. An optimized composition of solid-state fermentation (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25586328 PMCID: PMC4293618 DOI: 10.1038/srep07766
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Selection of composting ingredients of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal (A), expanded feather meal (B), soybean cake (C), corn flour (D), gourmet meal (E), Chinese herbs residues (F), castor cake (G), vinegar residue (H) and dewatered blue algal sludge (I).
Plackket-Burnman experimental design and its response of strain SQR-9 biomass
| Coded levels (Real values) | SQR-9 biomass (×108/g DW) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Runs | BX1 (% DW) | BX2 (% DW) | BX3 (% DW) | BX4 (% DW) | BX5 (% DW) | BX6 (% DW) | BX7 (% DW) | Actual | Predicted |
| 1 | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.11 |
| 2 | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.17 |
| 3 | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | 0.83 ± 0.05 | 0.91 |
| 4 | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.24 |
| 5 | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | 0.79 ± 0.01 | 0.72 |
| 6 | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | 2.86 ± 0.03 | 3.46 |
| 7 | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | 1.14 ± 0.01 | 1.08 |
| 8 | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | 0.83 ± 0.02 | 0.69 |
| 9 | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | 0.93 ± 0.04 | 0.98 |
| 10 | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.21 |
| 11 | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.12 |
| 12 | +1 (12) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | +1 (12) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | −1 (3) | 1.34 ± 0.02 | 1.11 |
BX1: soybean cake; BX2: rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal; BX3: corn flour; BX4: expanded feather meal; BX5: dewatered blue algal sludge; BX6: castor cake; BX7: monosodium glutamate meal.
Statistical analysis of Plackket- Burman design
| Variables | Effect | Coefficient | SE-Coef | T-Value | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 7.6922 | 0.05091 | 151.10 | 0.000 | |
| BX1 | 0.2635 | 0.1318 | 0.05091 | 2.59 | 0.061 |
| BX2 | 0.4325 | 0.2163 | 0.05091 | 4.25 | 0.013 |
| BX3 | 0.2678 | 0.1339 | 0.05091 | 2.63 | 0.058 |
| BX4 | 0.5538 | 0.2769 | 0.05091 | 5.44 | 0.006 |
| BX5 | 0.3008 | 0.1504 | 0.05091 | 2.95 | 0.042 |
| BX6 | −0.2165 | −0.1082 | 0.05091 | −2.13 | 0.101 |
| BX7 | −0.0542 | −0.0271 | 0.05091 | −0.53 | 0.623 |
| R2 | 94.92% | ||||
| Adj R2 | 86.04% |
BX1: soybean cake; BX2: rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal; BX3: corn flour; BX4: expanded feather meal; BX5: dewatered blue algal sludge; BX6: castor cake; BX7: monosodium glutamate meal.
*indicate a significant difference at the 0.05 probability level according to Duncan test.
Central composite experiment (CCD) experiment design and its response
| Coded levels (Real values) | SQR-9 biomass (×108/g DW) | Lipopeptides (mg/g DW) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Runs | X1 (% DW) | X2 (% DW) | X3 (% DW) | Actual | Predicted | Actual | Predicted |
| 1 | 0(8) | 0(8) | −1.68(0.95) | 2.29 ± 0.27 | 2.42 | 14.29 ± 0.90 | 14.30 |
| 2 | 0(8) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 3.62 ± 0.14 | 5.01 | 15.73 ± 1.30 | 16.26 |
| 3 | +1(12) | +1(12) | +1(9) | 2.24 ± 0.28 | 2.45 | 13.96 ± 1.31 | 14.22 |
| 4 | −1(4) | +1(12) | +1(9) | 2.86 ± 0.14 | 2.73 | 15.40 ± 1.80 | 15.26 |
| 5 | 0(8) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 5.01 ± 0.07 | 5.01 | 15.87 ± 1.66 | 16.26 |
| 6 | −1(4) | −1(4) | −1(3) | 0.90 ± 0.15 | 0.74 | 14.43 ± 1.59 | 14.21 |
| 7 | +1(12) | −1(4) | −1(3) | 1.22 ± 0.15 | 1.39 | 14.49 ± 1.51 | 14.67 |
| 8 | 0(8) | 0(8) | +1.68(11.05) | 2.95 ± 0.28 | 2.75 | 14.99 ± 0.86 | 14.92 |
| 9 | 0(8) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 7.16 ± 0.21 | 5.01 | 16.73 ± 1.64 | 16.26 |
| 10 | 0(8) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 3.02 ± 0.16 | 5.01 | 16.58 ± 1.22 | 16.26 |
| 11 | 0(8) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 6.84 ± 0.19 | 5.01 | 16.40 ± 1.97 | 16.26 |
| 12 | −1(4) | −1(4) | +1(9) | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 1.07 | 14.90 ± 1.86 | 14.85 |
| 13 | 0(8) | +1.68(14.73) | 0(6) | 2.43 ± 0.14 | 2.52 | 14.91 ± 1.73 | 14.82 |
| 14 | 0(8) | −1.68(1.27) | 0(6) | 0.44 ± 0.11 | 0.28 | 14.90 ± 1.46 | 14.93 |
| 15 | +1.68(14.73) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 2.69 ± 0.29 | 2.39 | 14.52 ± 0.97 | 14.18 |
| 16 | +1(12) | −1(4) | +1(9) | 1.51 ± 0.13 | 1.72 | 14.49 ± 1.99 | 14.56 |
| 17 | −1(4) | +1(12) | −1(3) | 2.82 ± 0.14 | 2.66 | 14.45 ± 1.70 | 14.42 |
| 18 | −1.68(1.27) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 1.85 ± 0.21 | 2.08 | 14.40 ± 1.53 | 14.68 |
| 19 | 0(8) | 0(8) | 0(6) | 4.38 ± 0.17 | 5.01 | 16.26 ± 1.33 | 16.26 |
| 20 | +1(12) | +1(12) | −1(3) | 2.42 ± 0.31 | 2.38 | 14.04 ± 1.45 | 14.13 |
X1: rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal; X2: expanded feather meal; X3: dewatered blue algal sludge.
ANOVA analysis of CCD experiment of strain SQR-9 biomass
| Term | Coefficient | Degree of Freedom | Sum of Squares | F-Value | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 9 | 1.56 | 14.13 | 0.0001 | |
| Intercept | 8.68 | 1 | |||
| X1 | 0.031 | 1 | 0.013 | 1.07 | 0.3263 |
| X2 | 0.20 | 1 | 0.52 | 42.77 | <0.0001 |
| X3 | 0.008847 | 1 | 0.006116 | 0.5 | 0.4956 |
| X1X2 | −0.061 | 1 | 0.030 | 2.43 | 0.1498 |
| X1X3 | 0.002250 | 1 | 0.00004050 | 0.003312 | 0.9552 |
| X2X3 | −0.020 | 1 | 0.003120 | 0.26 | 0.6244 |
| X12 | −0.12 | 1 | 0.20 | 16.22 | 0.0024 |
| X22 | −0.24 | 1 | 0.80 | 65.02 | <0.0001 |
| X32 | −0.080 | 1 | 0.13 | 10.33 | 0.0093 |
| Residual | 10 | 0.12 | |||
| Lack of fit | 5 | 0.011 | 0.10 | 0.9878 | |
| Pure error | 5 | 0.11 | |||
| Total | 19 | 1.68 | |||
| Std. Dev. | 0.11 | R2 | 0.9271 | ||
| Mean | 8.37 | Adj R2 | 0.8615 | ||
| C.V.% | 1.32 | Pred R2 | 0.8533 |
X1: rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal; X2: expanded feather meal; X3: dewatered blue algal sludge.
**indicate a significant difference at the 0.01 probability level according to Duncan test. * indicate a significant difference at the 0.05 probability level according to Duncan test.
ANOVA analysis of CCD experiment of the amount of total lipopeptides
| Term | Coefficient | Degree of Freedom | Sum of Squares | F-Value | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 9 | 1.56 | 12.87 | 0.0002 | |
| Intercept | 16.26 | 1 | |||
| X1 | −0.15 | 1 | 0.29 | 2.52 | 0.1434 |
| X2 | −0.033 | 1 | 0.015 | 0.13 | 0.7298 |
| X3 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.46 | 3.96 | 0.0745 |
| X1X2 | −0.19 | 1 | 0.28 | 2.41 | 0.1518 |
| X1X3 | −0.19 | 1 | 0.28 | 2.41 | 0.1518 |
| X2X3 | 0.052 | 1 | 0.021 | 0.18 | 0.6782 |
| X12 | −0.65 | 1 | 6.05 | 52.11 | <0.0001 |
| X22 | −0.49 | 1 | 3.46 | 29.77 | 0.0003 |
| X32 | −0.59 | 1 | 4.94 | 42.48 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 10 | 1.16 | |||
| Lack of fit | 5 | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.7707 | |
| Pure error | 5 | 0.78 | |||
| Total | 19 | 14.61 | |||
| Std. Dev. | 0.34 | R2 | 0.9205 | ||
| Mean | 15.09 | Adj R2 | 0.8490 | ||
| C.V.% | 2.26 | Pred R2 | 0.7196 |
X1: rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal; X2: expanded feather meal; X3: dewatered blue algal sludge.
**indicate a significant difference at the 0.01 probability level according to Duncan test.
Figure 2Three-dimensional response surface plot for SQR-9 biomass and the amount of lipopeptides production by utilizing rapeseed meal, expanded feather meal and dewatered blue algal sludge.
Cell density of SQR-9 and lipopeptides production at the end of SSF
| Treatment | SQR-9 biomass (×108/g DW) | Lipopeptides production (mg/g DW) |
|---|---|---|
| CK | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 5.30 ± 0.88 |
| BIO | 6.31 ± 0.26 | 17.81 ± 0.72 |
Figure 3Dynamic changes in temperature (A), pH (B), EC (C), C/N (D), NPOC (E), TNb (F), MC-LR (G) and MC-RR (H) during the enlarging composting procedure of CK (Chicken manure with SQR-9) control and BIO (optimum ratio of additives with SQR-9) treatment.
Figure 4Profile of EEM contours during the composting process of CK and BIO.
(A) CK 0 d; (B) CK 1 d; (C) CK 2 d; (D) CK 3 d; (E) CK 4 d; (F) CK 5 d; (G) CK 6 d; (H) CK 7 d; (I) BIO 0 d; (J) BIO 1 d; (K) BIO 2 d; (L) BIO 3 d; (M) BIO 4 d; (N) BIO 5 d; (O) BIO 6d and (P) BIO 7d.
Figure 5Profile of 2D FTIR correlation maps obtained from the 900–1,800 cm−1 and 3,100–3,700 cm−1 regions (n = 8) of CK and BIO along with composting time.
(A1) Synchronous map in 900–1,800 cm−1 region of CK; (A2) synchronous map in 900–1,800 cm−1 region of BIO; (A3) asynchronous map in 900–1,800 cm−1 region of CK; (A4) asynchronous map in 900–1,800 cm−1 region of BIO; (B1) synchronous map in 3,100–3,700 cm−1 region of CK; (B2) synchronous map in 3,100–3,700 cm−1 region of BIO; (B3) asynchronous map in 3,100–3,700 cm−1 region of CK; (B4) asynchronous map in 3,100–3,700 cm−1 region of BIO.