| Literature DB >> 31233284 |
Andrew M Zealand1, Ran Mei2, Anthony P Roskilly3, WenTso Liu2, David W Graham1.
Abstract
Waste riceEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31233284 PMCID: PMC6681398 DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.13438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Figure 1Time‐course volumetric mean methane yield data for the reactor operated with one feed per 14 days (1/14) as a representative example. Showing, stabilization phase (day −140 to −50), fully stable (day −50 to 0), loading rate at 1 g VS l−1 day−1 (OLR1) from day 0 to 56 and loading rate at 2 g VS l−1 day−1 (OLR2) from day 56 to 140. Grey points and line show individual data points while black line shows rolling average trends. Star symbols indicate days at which microbial samples were collected (i.e. days 0, 17, 36, 56, 64, 92, 132 and 140).
Overall mean performance data for reactors with different feeding regimes and organic loading rates as reproduced from Zealand et al. (2017).
| Feed frequency | 5/7 | 3/7 | 1/7 | 1/14 | 1/21 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic loading rate (g VS l−1 day−1) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| Biogas (ml g VS−1 day−1) | 301 ± 8.4 | 239 ± 5.1 | 299 ± 6.8 | 215 ± 4.6 |
| 249 ± 5.8 | 295 ± 9.9 | 139 ± 10.0 | 303 ± 11.5 | 42.0 ± 7.8 |
| % CH4 | 40.2 ± 1.3 | 52.1 ± 1.4 | 42.4 ± 1.2 | 52.2 ± 1.7 | 46.7 ± 1.7 |
| 45.4 ± 1.4 | 38.7 ± 2.4 | 49.3 ± 1.4 | 21.7 ± 1.4 |
| Specific CH4 (ml CH4 g VS day −1) | 112 ± 4.6 | 125 ± 4.4 | 127 ± 4.5 | 112 ± 4.4 | 146 ± 6.0 | 138 ± 5.3 | 134 ± 6.0 | 63.4 ± 5.6 |
| 7.7 ± 0.7 |
| Volumetric CH4 (ml CH4 l−1 day−1) | 112 ± 4.6 | 251 ± 8.7 | 127 ± 4.5 | 224 ± 8.7 | 146 ± 6.0 |
| 134 ± 6.0 | 127 ± 11.1 | 148 ± 6.3 | 15.4 ± 1.3 |
| g VS l−1 | 25.9 ± 0.5 | 38.3 ± 1.7 | 25.7 ± 0.6 | 37.0 ± 1.8 | 25.4 ± 0.8 | 41.1 ± 2.0 | 26.9 ± 1.0 | 43.8 ± 2.6 | 27.1 ± 1.2 | 54.1 ± 3.4 |
| % VS Reduction |
| 41.6 ± 2.3 | 42.5 ± 1.9 | 42.8 ± 1.9 | 42.5 ± 1.8 | 40.5 ± 2.2 | 39.4 ± 2.6 | 31.7 ± 1.6 | 38.0 ± 3.2 | 41.3 ± 3.0 |
| Total VFA (ppm) | 147 ± 29.4 | 432 ± 109 | 135 ± 18.2 | 495 ± 163 | 252 ± 43.7 | 383 ± 57.8 | 354 ± 77.2 | 1730 ± 336 | 1250 ± 312 | 3470 ± 355 |
| pH | 6.8 ± 0.02 | 6.7 ± 0.01 | 6.8 ± 0.02 | 6.7 ± 0.01 | 6.8 ± 0.01 | 6.7 ± 0.01 | 6.7 ± 0.01 | 6.3 ± 0.06 | 6.6 ± 0.02 | 5.7 ± 0.04 |
The feeding frequency of each reactor, for example 5/7 = fed 5 days out of seven, 1/21 = fed one day out of twenty one. All feeding frequencies have the same net loading of 1g VS l−1 day−1 then 2g VS l−1 day−1.
Standard error (For OLR 1.0 g VS l−1 day−1 n = 56 for biogas and methane, n = 9 for VS; n = 13 for VFA and, n = 30 for pH; For OLR = 2.0g VS l−1 days−1 n = 84 for biogas and methane, n = 12 for VS; n = 21 for VFA and, n = 44 for pH).
Bold indicates the highest performing condition for biogas, %CH4, specific and volumetric methane yields.
These reactors failed at the higher OLR of 2 gVS l−1 day−1. 1/14 day failed approximately halfway through the experiment and 1/21 days failed immediately.
Figure 2Analyses of β‐diversity showing variation of microbial community structure and the influence of physiochemical data.
A and B. Are same figures based on PCA of Bray–Curtis distance, but coloured differently by FF or OLR. C. MDS of weighted UniFrac distance and has two 1/21 days samples fewer than A/B.
D. boxplot of individual and total VFAs for OLR1, OLR2‐S and OLR2‐F (there was no valeric acid detected in OLR1). Physiochemical data overlaid arrows and dashed elliptical shapes indicate sample groupings).
Test statistics for observed β‐diversities, physiochemical variables and other operational factors.
| Method: Relate | Significance (%) | Rho. |
|---|---|---|
| Variable | ||
| Physiochemical data |
| 0.403 |
Tests – RELATE, giving correlation of comparisons (Rho); ANOSIM, analysis of similarities; BEST, trend correlation; DistLM, distance‐based linear model; PERMANOVA, permutational multivariate analysis of variance.
Bold indicates statistically significant results.
Figure 3Boxplots between, (A) Observed OTUs (lower) and Chao1 (upper boxes) and (B) Simpson’s index scores at OLR1 FFs that showed significant differences (left) and the mean scores of OLR1, OLR2‐S and, OLR2‐F. Dashed lines and P‐value indicate 2‐sample t‐test statistical significance between linked samples.
Figure 4Shared predominant OTU table to genus level (only ≥ 0.5% relative abundance) organized by reactor feeding frequency, loading condition and sampling day.
Figure 5Predominant OTUs (≥ 0.5% abundance) grouped based on ARB phylogenetic tree construction to genus for OLR1, OLR2‐T, OLR2‐S and OLR2‐F. Area of bubbles represents relative abundance. ‘Inoc’ = inoculum. Letters in brackets under ‘Taxonomy’ equate to classification, that is, ‘O’ = Order, ‘F’ = Family and ‘G’ = Genus.
Figure 6Extended error bar plot showing predominant OTUs to genus level that have significantly different abundances between organic loading conditions, (A) OLR1 and OLR2‐T, (B) OLR2‐T and OLR2‐S and (C) OLR2‐S and OLR2‐F. Only OTUs with ≥ 0.5% abundance are shown, and bold type indicates OTUs that appear in more than one panel.