| Literature DB >> 29968359 |
Caihong Song1, Yali Zhang2,3, Xunfeng Xia4, Hui Qi1, Mingxiao Li4, Hongwei Pan5, Beidou Xi4.
Abstract
In order to overcome the excessive acidification problem, a microbial consortium for the degradation ofEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29968359 PMCID: PMC6196389 DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.13294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Figure 1The changes in temperature during the food waste composting process, Inoculation – the inoculation with MCDOA, AC – the alkaline compound treatment, C–the control group. The arrows represent the turning.
Figure 2Comparison of the variation in pH (A), OM (B), EC (C), HEC (D) and GI (E) during different composting treatments. (F) The composition of carbon fractions of compost originated from different composting treatments. Inoculation–the inoculation with MCDOA, AC – the alkaline compound treatment, C – the control group, OM – organic matter; EC – electrical conductivity; HEC – humic‐like extract carbon; GI – Germination index; TOC – total organic carbon; HyIC – hydrophilic (HyI) fraction carbon; HAC – humic‐like acid carbon; FAC – fulvic‐like acid carbon. The data represent the mean of three replicates and the error bars are the standard deviation.
Figure 3Excitation–emission matrix spectra of DOM extracted from the raw material (Initial) and compost products from the different composting treatments. Inoculation – the inoculation with MCDOA, AC – the alkaline compound treatment, C – the control group.
Figure 4The volumetric fluorescence distribution of DOM extracted from the raw material (Initial) and compost products from different composting treatments. Inoculation – the inoculation with MCDOA, AC – the alkaline compound treatment, C – the control group.
Figure 5DGGE profile of 16S rRNA gene fragments amplified with the primers R534 and GC‐F341. Band patterns of three composting treatments are presented. The numbers above each lane indicate the sampling stages. 1–C (the mesophilic stage);2–C (the thermophilic stage);3–C (the mature stage);4–AC (the mesophilic stage);5–AC (the thermophilic stage);6–AC (the mature stage);7–Inoculation (the mesophilic stage);8–Inoculation (the thermophilic stage);9–Inoculation (the mature stage);Marker–microbial consortium degrading organic acids. Inoculation – the inoculation with MCDOA, AC – the alkaline compound treatment, C – the control group.
Nucleotide sequences of the bacteria related to the DGGE bands shown in Fig. 5
| Band name | Accession no. | Closest relatives | Similarity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Uncultured | 99 |
| 2 |
| Uncultured | 100 |
| 3 |
|
| 100 |
| 4 |
|
| 100 |
| 5 |
|
| 100 |
| 6 |
|
| 100 |
| 7 |
| Uncultured | 100 |
| 8 |
|
| 97 |
| 9 |
|
| 100 |
| 10 |
| Uncultured | 99 |
| 11 |
|
| 100 |
| 12 |
| Uncultured compost bacterium | 100 |
| 13 |
|
| 100 |
| 14 |
|
| 100 |
| 15 |
|
| 99 |
| 16 |
|
| 100 |
| 17 |
|
| 100 |
| 18 |
|
| 100 |
| 19 |
|
| 98 |
| 20 |
|
| 100 |
| 21 |
| Uncultured | 100 |
| 22 |
| Uncultured bacterium | 99 |
| 23 |
|
| 100 |
| 24 |
|
| 100 |
| 25 |
|
| 100 |
| 26 |
|
| 98 |
| 27 |
| Uncultured bacterium | 100 |
| 28 |
|
| 100 |
| 29 |
|
| 100 |
| 30 |
| Uncultured bacterium | 99 |
| 31 |
|
| 99 |
| 32 |
|
| 100 |
| 33 |
|
| 100 |
| 34 |
|
| 98 |
| 35 |
|
| 95 |
| 36 |
|
| 96 |
| 37 |
|
| 100 |
| 38 |
| Uncultured | 100 |
| 39 |
| Uncultured | 100 |