| Literature DB >> 26555136 |
Jamie A FitzGerald1,2,3, Eoin Allen1,4,3, David M Wall1,4,3, Stephen A Jackson1,2, Jerry D Murphy1,4,3, Alan D W Dobson1,2.
Abstract
Macro-algae represent an ideal resource of third generation biofuels, but their use necessitates a refinement of commonly used anaerobic digestion processes. In a previous study, contrasting mixes of dairy slurry and the macro-alga Ulva lactuca were anaerobically digested in mesophilic continuously stirred tank reactors for 40 weeks. Higher proportions of U. lactuca in the feedstock led to inhibited digestion and rapid accumulation of volatile fatty acids, requiring a reduced organic loading rate. In this study, 16S pyrosequencing was employed to characterise the microbial communities of both the weakest (R1) and strongest (R6) performing reactors from the previous work as they developed over a 39 and 27-week period respectively. Comparing the reactor communities revealed clear differences in taxonomy, predicted metabolic orientation and mechanisms of inhibition, while constrained canonical analysis (CCA) showed ammonia and biogas yield to be the strongest factors differentiating the two reactor communities. Significant biomarker taxa and predicted metabolic activities were identified for viable and failing anaerobic digestion of U. lactuca. Acetoclastic methanogens were inhibited early in R1 operation, followed by a gradual decline of hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Near-total loss of methanogens led to an accumulation of acetic acid that reduced performance of R1, while a slow decline in biogas yield in R6 could be attributed to inhibition of acetogenic rather than methanogenic activity. The improved performance of R6 is likely to have been as a result of the large Methanosarcina population, which enabled rapid removal of acetic acid, providing favourable conditions for substrate degradation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26555136 PMCID: PMC4640829 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic of Reactor set-up for R1 and R6.
Highlights of results of semi continuous digestion trials.
|
|
|
| |||
| % | 75 (dried) | 25 (dried) | |||
| TS (%) | 29.61 | 10.55 | |||
| VS (%) | 18.42 | 7.22 | |||
| BMP (CH4 kg VS-1) | 210 ± 6.3 | 183 ± 7.8 | |||
| Temperature (°C) | 37 | 37 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OLR (kg VS m3 d-1) | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
| Methane content (%) | 33 | 47 | 47 | 51 | 52 |
| SMY (CH4 kg VS-1) | 83.31 | 176.77 | 145.21 | 178.11 | 170.46 |
| Beff | 0.4 | 0.84 | 0.69 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
| VFA (mg l-1) | 4954 | 4135 | 4355 | 1955 | 1720 |
| FOS:TAC | 0.56 | 0.34 | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.3 |
| TAN (mg l-1) | 3443 | 5250 | 5300 | 2168 | 3000 |
Abbreviations: Beff: Biomethane conversion efficiency; BMP: Biomethane Potential; CSTR: Continuously-Stirred Tank Reactor; FOS:TAC: Buffering capability of solution; HRT: Hydraulic Retention Time; OLR: Organic Loading Rate; SMY: Specific Methane Yield; TS: Total Solids; VFA: Volatile Fatty Acids; VS: Volatile Solids
Fig 2Interaction between community strudcture (at Order-level taxonomy) and major process variables.
(A) Differences in reactor operation induce different community structures: R1, which struggled under heavy U. lactuca loading, developed larger fermenting populations and a lack of methanogens; R6, digesting less U. lactuca, retained large Methanosarcina populations even at higher OLRs. Referencing taxa abundances against levels of principal process inhibitors TAN and VFA (B), and indicators FOS:TAC and Beff (C) illustrates the connection between community composition and biogas performance. Taxa which comprised less than 2% of sequence reads for all time-points are coalesced to 'Other' for convenience of viewing. Abbreviations: Total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN), volatile organic acids (VOA), buffering ratio (FOS:TAC) and biomethane conversion efficiency (Beff). Taxa in red/orange represent biomarkers for R1; taxa in green represent biomarkers for R6; taxa in in blue contain biomarkers for both reactor setups (diverse Clostridiales and Bacetroidales).
Fig 3Levels of ammonia (TAN) and biogas best differentiate microbial communities between the two reactors.
Microbial community structures diverged over time despite initial similarities (lower left quadrant), with R1 communities showing a stronger correlation with levels of ammonia across the X axis and R6 communities showing a stronger correlation with increasing biogas along the Y axis. The perpendicular relationship between biogas and ammonia (total ammoniacal nitrogen, ‘TAN’) suggests the two parameters act on community structure independently. Chloride (‘Cl’) levels show a weaker interaction with community structure, likely reflecting the accumulation of material and maturation of the reactor as the trial progresses.
Fig 4Ammonia levels (TAN) and biomethane conversion efficiency (Beff) best differentiate predicted metabolisms between R1 and R6.
Carbon metabolisms segregate along the X axis, reflecting divergent environments under the contrasting reactor setups. R1 samples ordinate more closely with diverse carbon metabolism (Entner-Doudoroff: EntDu p/w; Pentose-Phosphate: PentP p/w; ethymalonyl: Emal p/w), while R6 samples ordinate strongly with methanogenic activities (Methanogenesis: AcO, MeOH → CH4; Co-Enzyme M biosynthesis: Co-M b/s)) and the uptake of trace elements (Cobalt: Co t/s; Nickel: Pep-Ni t/s). More diverse activities (Citric Acid Cycle: CitAc Cyc; sulphate reduction: SO4->H; methane oxidation: CH4 Ox) ordinate closer to earlier samples, suggesting metabolic activities detrimental to biogas production were excluded as reactor communities developed. Activities in green represent strongest predicted biomarkers for R6, activities in red represent strongest predicted biomarkers for R1.