| Literature DB >> 28559928 |
Huijun Ma1, He Liu1,2, Lihui Zhang1, Meng Yang1, Bo Fu1,2, Hongbo Liu1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Co-fermentation is an attractive technology for improving volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production by treatment of solid organic wastes. However, it remains unclear how the composition of different organic matters in solid waste influences the VFAs distribution, microbial community structure, and metabolic pathway during acidogenic co-fermentation. In this study, different organic wastes were added into waste activated sludge (WAS) as co-fermentation substrates to explore the impact of organic matter composition on VFAs pattern and the microbiological mechanism .Entities:
Keywords: Acidogenic co-fermentation; Alkaline pH; Microbial community; Substrate composition; VFA distribution; Waste activated sludge
Year: 2017 PMID: 28559928 PMCID: PMC5446719 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0821-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Characteristics of WAS, potato peel waste, and food waste
| Parameters | WAS | Potato peel waste | Food waste |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solid content (%) | 14.54 ± 0.10 | 20.59 ± 1.42 | 35.12 ± 1.03 |
| VS/TS (%) | 45.85 ± 0.29 | 94.62 ± 0.61 | 93.68 ± 0.47 |
| pH | 6.60 ± 0.08 | 6.01 ± 0.12 | 5.08 ± 0.16 |
| TCOD (mg/g TS) | 849.29 ± 19.45 | 1292.45 ± 28.94 | 1497.32 ± 39.23 |
| SCOD (mg/g TS) | 262.78 ± 6.41 | 543.20 ± 2.02 | 618.28 ± 7.13 |
| TN (mg/g TS) | 25.90 ± 1.24 | 4.53 ± 0.07 | 10.53 ± 1.06 |
| Protein (mg/g VS) | 323.96 ± 5.86 | 69.81 ± 5.60 | 123.03 ± 2.56 |
| Carbohydrate (mg/g VS) | 305.34 ± 12.32 | 792.23 ± 10.34 | 284.65 ± 5.54 |
| Starch (mg/g VS) | 183.74 ± 3.12 | 673.44 ± 4.36 | 214.50 ± 1.34 |
| Lipid (mg/g VS) | 93.73 ± 0.45 | * | 564.23 ± 1.54 |
| VFAs (mg/g VS) | 18.27 ± 1.20 | 20.82 ± 1.35 | 27.94 ± 1.84 |
* Not detected
Sample set-up and concentrations of organic materials before fermentation
| Fermentation groups | OS | OP | OF | SP1 | SP2 | SP3 | SF1 | SF2 | SF3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total VS (g/L) | 30.25 ± 0.54 | 32.03 ± 1.02 | 30.33 ± 0.72 | 28.01 ± 0.20 | 29.63 ± 0.57 | 30.43 ± 0.89 | 31.46 ± 1.06 | 29.45 ± 0.93 | 30.48 ± 0.23 |
| C/N | 10.23 ± 0.53 | 44.43 ± 0.92 | 80.44 ± 1.23 | 17.37 ± 0.45 | 24.75 ± 0.67 | 45.02 ± 0.66 | 14.34 ± 0.26 | 21.21 ± 0.43 | 30.43 ± 1.02 |
| Total protein concentration (mg/L) | 9799.79 ± 80.34 | 22,36.01 ± 31.57 | 3731.50 ± 33.24 | 7494.43 ± 60.83 | 5833.70 ± 60.23 | 3857.76 ± 49.22 | 8011.47 ± 75.56 | 6081.93 ± 54.88 | 4581.04 ± 39.27 |
| Total starch concentration (mg/L) | 8666.32 ± 129.34 | 21,570.28 ± 306.44 | 6505.78 ± 89.35 | 9734.20 ± 150.73 | 13,221.36 ± 219.33 | 17,549.05 ± 283.76 | 7314.37 ± 113.55 | 7389.61 ± 102.34 | 7006.52 ± 104.31 |
| Total lipid concentration (mg/L) | 2835.33 ± 30.43 | 0.00 | 17,113.10 ± 291.34 | 1470.62 ± 20.34 | 1288.61 ± 18.20 | 703.05 ± 7.46 | 6249.22 ± 149.39 | 9688.46 ± 172.34 | 13,912.52 ± 281.44 |
Fig. 1The daily changes of ethanol and four single VFA concentrations during co-fermentation of WAS and potato peel waste (a), and WAS and food waste (b)
Extent of hydrolysis, acidification, and VFAs yields at the end of fermentation
| Parameters | OS | SP1 | SP2 | SP3 | OP | SF1 | SF2 | SF3 | OF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrolysis efficiency (%) | 49.67 ± 1.67 | 45.44 ± 1.02 | 51.17 ± 1.62 | 56.39 ± 1.53 | 69.49 ± 1.91 | 50.35 ± 1.38 | 48.45 ± 1.82 | 53.13 ± 1.69 | 54.01 ± 1.34 |
| Acidification efficiency (%) | 14.51 ± 0.53 | 17.75 ± 0.68 | 21.25 ± 0.43 | 26.92 ± 0.46 | 16.74 ± 0.28 | 18.23 ± 0.27 | 20.62 ± 035 | 23.00 ± 0.64 | 17.56 ± 0.43 |
| VFAs yield | 132.30 ± 5.43 | 151.60 ± 6.83 | 268.40 ± 10.45 | 343.54 ± 14.63 | 185.10 ± 7.49 | 139.67 ± 5.32 | 217.85 ± 8.47 | 282.02 ± 6.35 | 182.52 ± 5.24 |
Comparison of substrates, products, and microbial communities between previous literature studies and this study
| Authors | Type of substrates | Target product | Operation mode | Fermentation condition | Highest product yield | Major microorganism | Relative studies (Y to yes, N to no) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrates composition and microbial community | Microbial community and metabolic pathway | |||||||
| Jia et al. [ | WAS, perennial ryegrass | VFAs | Batch | 35 ± 1 °C, without pH control | 368.71 ± 17.53 gCOD/kg TS |
| Y | N |
| Rughoonundun et al. [ | WAS, bagasse | VFAs | Batch | 55 °C, pH 7.0 | 360 mg/g VS | – | N | N |
| Huang et al. [ | WAS, henna plant biomass | VFAs | Batch | 35 ± 1 °C, initial pH 8.0, without pH control | 7891 ± 411 mg COD/L | – | N | N |
| Guo et al. [ | WAS, agricultural residues | VFAs | Semi-continuous | pH 10.0 ± 0.5 | 486.6 mgCOD/g VSS |
| Y | N |
| Huang et al. [ | WAS, bio-surfactants | VFAs | Batch | pH 9.0, 10.0, and 11.0 | 425.2 mg COD/g VSS |
| Y | N |
| Maspolim et al. [ | WAS | VFAs | Semi-continuous | 35 °C, pH 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 | – |
| Y | N |
| Sivagurunathan et al. [ | Galactose | H2 | Batch and continuous | 35 ± 1 °C, pH over 5.5 | 1.05 mol H2/mol galactose |
| Y | Y |
| Kumar et al. [ | Microalgae | H2 | Batch | The seed inoculum included BESA addition (1 g/L), pH 5.5 | 29.5 mL/g VSadded | – | N | N |
| Ho et al. [ | Microalgal | Ethanol | Batch | 30 °C, pH 5.0-6.0 | 11.66 g/L | Pure culture of | N | N |
| This study | WAS, potato waste, food waste | VFAs | Batch | 35 ± 1 °C, pH 10.0 | 343.54 ± 14.63 mg COD/g VS |
| Y | Y |
– Not mentioned in literature
Fig. 2Consumption of different organic materials in the nine fermentation groups
Fig. 3Plots and mathematic relationships between VFAs accumulation and consumption of lipids, starch, and protein during fermentation. a–c Propionate accumulation; d–f butyrate accumulation; g–i valerate accumulation
Fig. 4OTUs and the bacteria phylum distribution at the end of fermentation. a Venn diagram analysis of the OS, OP, OF, SP3, and SF3 experiment groups; b PCA of the OS, OP, OF, SP3, and SF3 experiment groups
Fig. 5Taxonomic classification of sequences. a Bacterial communities of the OS, OP, OF, SP3, and SF3 experiment groups at class level and phylum level. b Hierarchical clustering analysis at genus level of bacterial communities of the OS, OP, OF, SP3, and SF3 fermentation groups
Fig. 6CCA analysis of the microbial communities and the organic composition between the OS, OP, OF, SP3, and SF3 fermentation groups
Fig. 7The synthetic pathways of propionate (a), valerate (b), butyrate (c), and acetate (d). Dotted arrows represent the transport pathway of substrate from extracellular environment to intracellular cytoplasm; solid arrows represent the synthetic pathway of single VFA. Arrows in different colors represent different synthetic pathways