| Literature DB >> 32231157 |
Huaidan Zhang1, Jeremy N Marchant-Forde2, Xinyi Zhang1, Yan Wang1,2,3.
Abstract
NH3 emission has become one of the key factors for aerobic composting of animal manure. It has been reported that adding microbial agents during aerobic composting can reduceEntities:
Keywords: ammonia; composting; cornstalk biochar; cornstalk biochar immobilized mixed bacteria; laying hen manure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32231157 PMCID: PMC7181132 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25071560
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Changes of NH3 emissions in different load methods during composting; Note: (a) NH3 emission during the composting, (b) total NH3 emission (CK: as the control). Error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3); TS: total solid; a–b Columns reporting different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Evaluation of the temperature (a), pH (b) and moisture content (c) profile of different load methods during composting (CK: as the control); Note: Values are based on wet weight, and error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 3Evaluation of the total nitrogen (a), NH4+-N (b), NO3-N (c), temperature (d), moisture content (e), organic matter (f), electrical conductivity (g), pH (h), water-soluble carbon (i), seed germination rate (j), and C/N (k) profile of different treatments during composting (CK: as the control); Note: Values are based on wet weight and error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 4Changes in the NH3 emissions in different composting treatments; Note: (a) NH3 emission during the composting (b) total NH3 emission (CK: as the control). Error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3); TS: total solid; a–c Columns reporting different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Total number of bacterial (a) and fungal (b) profiles for different composting treatments (CK: as the control); Note: Error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 6Changes in the number of Bacillus stearothermophilus (a), Candida utilis (b), and Bacillus subtilis (c) for different composting treatments (CK: as the control); Note: Error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3); An analysis of variance in the figure is the same day, data comparison between the different composting treatments; a–b Columns reporting different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 7Variation of the basic information of the bacterial communities with different treatments; Note: (a) The relative abundance of the dominant bacterial taxonomic groups at the phyla level (related abundances exceed 1%) separated by 16S rDNA gene sequences; (b) The relative abundance of the dominant bacterial taxonomic groups at the class level (related abundances exceed 1%) separated by 16S rDNA gene sequences; (c) The relative abundance of the dominant bacterial taxonomic groups at the order level (related abundances exceed 1%) separated by 16S rDNA gene sequences; (d) The relative abundance of the dominant bacterial taxonomic groups at the genera level (related abundances exceed 1%). CK, A, B, and C were the control treatment, Tmixed bacteria, Tbiochar, and Tbiochar immobilized bacteria, respectively. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 15 represent compost samples on days 1, 2, 3, 7, and 15, respectively.