| Literature DB >> 26404240 |
Athaydes Francisco Leite1, Leandro Janke2, Zuopeng Lv3, Hauke Harms4, Hans-Hermann Richnow5, Marcell Nikolausz6.
Abstract
The anaerobic digestion of filter cake and its co-digestion with bagasse, and the effect of gradual increase of the organic loading rate (OLR) from start-up to overload were investigated. Understanding the influence of environmental and technical parameters on the development of particular methanogenic pathway in the biogas process was an important aim for the prediction and prevention of process failure. The rapid accumulation of volatile organic acids at high OLR of 3.0 to 4.0 gvs·L⁻¹·day⁻¹ indicated strong process inhibition. Methanogenic community dynamics of the reactors was monitored by stable isotope composition of biogas and molecular biological analysis. A potential shift toward the aceticlastic methanogenesis was observed along with the OLR increase under stable reactor operating conditions. Reactor overloading and process failure were indicated by the tendency to return to a predominance of hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis with rising abundances of the orders Methanobacteriales and Methanomicrobiales and drop of the genus Methanosarcina abundance.Entities:
Keywords: biogas reactor overloading; methanogenic pathways; monitoring tool; stable isotope fingerprinting; sugarcane waste
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26404240 PMCID: PMC4632694 DOI: 10.3390/ijms161023210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Major reactor parameters along the eight phases of the experiment set-up.
| Reactor’ Parameters | Phase 1 (sampling Day: 19) | Phase 2 (sampling day: 26) | Phase 3 (sampling day: 33) | Phase 4 (sampling day: 40) | Phase 5 (sampling day: 55) | Phase 6 (sampling day: 61) | Phase 7 (sampling day: 68) | Phase 8 (sampling day: 75) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | |
| Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | |||||||||
| Biogas yield * (mL·gVS−1) | 1086.3 | 1198.2 | 506.9 | 541.0 | 283.9 | 409.6 | 292.8 | 329.2 | 368.3 | 410.9 | 397.6 | 251.2 | 127.9 | 58.3 | 69.7 | 33.7 |
| CH4§ (%) | 57.7 | 55.6 | 57.4 | 56.6 | 60.3 | 53.9 | 57.8 | 54.9 | 61.3 | 54.9 | 61.1 | na | na | na | na | na |
| CO2§ (%) | 42.3 | 44.4 | 42.6 | 43.4 | 39.7 | 46.1 | 42.2 | 45.1 | 38.7 | 45.1 | 38.9 | na | na | na | na | na |
| Acetic acid (mg·L−1) | 55.7 | 37.3 | 26.7 | 25.4 | 46.1 | 69.6 | 160.3 | 120.5 | 240.6 | 155.6 | 145.1 | 141.9 | 1003.0 | 914.2 | 1370.0 | 1334.1 |
| Propionic acid (mg·L−1) | 10.7 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 4.6 | 13.1 | 8.8 | 10.4 | 5.8 | 208.0 | 283.7 | 537.6 | 550.7 | 433.9 | 391.8 |
| 4.7 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 19.5 | 12.1 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 26.0 | 6.7 | 428.9 | 403.3 | 1144.8 | 1193.0 | |
| VOA (g·L−1) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.2 | 2.1 | na | na |
| VOA/TIC (gVOA·gCaCO3−1) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 3.1 | 3.1 | na | na |
| pH * | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 5.4 | 5.2 |
| NH4-N (g·L−1) | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| TS (%) | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 5.6 | na | 6.9 | 7.6 |
| VS (%) | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 3.8 | na | 4.5 | 5.0 |
* Only for these parameters an average of all measurements during each specific Phase was done, since these parameters were analyzed almost every day; § Trace gases were not detected in our measurements with the applied technique, therefore we rounded our CH4 and CO2 values to 100%; “sampling day” corresponds to the last Phase day, when the samples were analyzed; “na” refers to not analysed due to technical operation problems: the very low biogas production on the last two phases hindered the GC measurement for gas composition; the low pH values detected on the last phase hindered the titration of sample for measuring VOA and VOA/TIC; and the TS and VS measurement was hindered by technical mistake while handling the samples.
Figure 1Methanogenic community dynamics in the mono- (a) and co-digestion (b) reactor. The relative T-RF abundance of methanogens in the digestate samples are given as function of experiment time. For each of the parallel reactors in the specific digestion set-up, two samples were analyzed, that in total four samples were analyzed for each, mono- and co-digestion. All samples belonging to the same digestion set-up had similar methanogenic community based on the relative T-RF abundances. Therefore, each bar on the graphic represents the T-RFLP profile calculated by the average of the four analyzed samples in each digestion set-up. The supporting clone libraries and sequence analysis of the selected clones allowed the taxonomic affiliation of the T-RFs from the community T-RFLP profiles of the complex reactor samples.
Figure 2Isotopic dynamics of δ13CCH4 (a); δ13CCO2 (b); and δ2HCH4 (c) along gradual OLR increase in biogas reactors fed with sugarcane waste products. Isotope data of CO2 during the last overload phase contains data uncorrected regarding the pH shift induced degassing.
Figure 3Characterization of the potential predominant methanogenic pathway along gradual OLR increase in biogas reactors fed with sugarcane waste products in mono- and co-digestion. In diagram (a) the dynamic shift of αC values are shown, while diagram (b) presents the correlation of δ2HCH4 and δ13CCH4; In (b) the dotted, dashed and lined hulls represent the beginning, middle, and end of the experiment, respectively. The numbers in the graphic indicate the experiment day.
Figure 4NMDS analysis plot for correlating the T-RFLP profile of methanogens with the isotope composition of produced biogas. The smaller and bigger hull in the diagram represents the mono- and co-digestion in several sampling time, respectively. The letter M stands for mono-digestion and C for co-digestion set-up and the following numbers correspond to the sampling day. The dim grey and black arrows indicate the highly significant (p < 0.001) and significant (p < 0.05) correlations, respectively. Grey arrows indicate the correlation vectors of community differences and the isotope composition at lower significance (p < 0.5). Monte-Carlo permutation was used to test the significance against 999 random data sets. The direction of the arrows show the correspondence to the community structures and the length of the arrow indicate the strength of the correlation with the ordination axis.
Technical parameters during the experiment set-up of the mono- and co-digestion of filter cake and bagasse.
| Set-up-Technical Parameters | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | Phase 4 | Phase 5 | Phase 6 | Phase 7 | Phase 8 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | Mono- | Co- | |
| Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | Digestion | |||||||||
| Experiment phase (day) | 11–19 | 20–26 | 27–33 | 34–40 | 41–55 | 56–61 | 62–68 | 69–75 | ||||||||
| Substrate (g fresh mass) | 2.4 | 1.5 | 4.9 | 3.0 | 7.3 | 4.5 | 9.7 | 6.0 | 12.2 | 7.5 | 14.6 | 9.0 | 10.7 | 10.5 | 12.2 | 12.0 |
| Water mixed with substrate (mL) | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 55 | ||||||||
| Working volume (L) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | ||||||
| VS (g·day−1) | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 3.2 | ||||||
| OLR (gVS·L−1·day−1) | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | ||||||||
| HRT (day) | 35.7 | 37.2 | 26.8 | 28.6 | 21.4 | 23.2 | 17.9 | 19.5 | 15.3 | 15.2 | 13.4 | 14.8 | 8.2 | 13.2 | 7.4 | 11.9 |