Robustness of archaeal populations in anaerobic co-digestion of dairy and poultry wastes

被引:54
|
作者
Zhang, Yan [1 ]
Zamudio Canas, Esteban M. [1 ]
Zhu, Zhenwei [1 ]
Linville, Jessica L. [1 ]
Chen, Si [1 ]
He, Qiang [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tennessee, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
[2] Univ Tennessee, Ctr Environm Biotechnol, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Crenarchaeota; Archaea; Animal waste; Anaerobic digestion; Methane; AMMONIA; CRENARCHAEOTA; METHANE; MANURE; TECHNOLOGY; INHIBITION; STRATEGIES; DIVERSITY; REMOVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.104
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
The objective of this study is to investigate the responses of methanogen populations to poultry waste addition by comparing the archaeal microbial populations in continuous anaerobic digesters with or without the addition of poultry waste as a co-substrate. Poultry waste was characterized as an organic/nitrogen-rich substrate for anaerobic digestion. Supplementing dilute dairy waste with poultry waste for anaerobic co-digestion to increase organic loading rate by 50% resulted in improved biogas production. Elevated ammonia derived from poultry waste did not lead to process inhibition at the organic loadings tested, demonstrating the feasibility of the anaerobic co-digestion of dairy and poultry wastes for improved treatment efficiency. The stability of the anaerobic co-digestion process was linked to the robust archaeal microbial community, which remained mostly unchanged in community structure following increases in organic loading and ammonia levels. Surprisingly, Crenarchaeota archaeal populations, instead of the Euryarchaeota methanogens, dominated the archaeal communities in the anaerobic digesters. The ecological functions of these abundant non-methanogen archaeal populations in anaerobic digestion remain to be identified. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:779 / 785
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Anaerobic digestion of poultry slaughtering wastes
    Salminen, EA
    Rintala, JA
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, 1999, 20 (01) : 21 - 28
  • [22] ANAEROBIC CO-DIGESTION OF DAIRY CATTLE MANURE AND WASTE OIL
    Orrico, Ana C. A.
    Lopes, Walter R. T.
    Manarelli, Debora M.
    Orrico Junior, Marco A. P.
    Sunada, Natalia da S.
    [J]. ENGENHARIA AGRICOLA, 2016, 36 (03): : 537 - 545
  • [23] Anaerobic Co-digestion of Tannery Solid Wastes: A Comparison of Single and Two-Phase Anaerobic Digestion
    Alper Bayrakdar
    [J]. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2020, 11 : 1727 - 1735
  • [24] Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cattle manure and pear waste
    Dias, T.
    Fragoso, R.
    Duarte, E.
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 164 : 420 - 423
  • [25] Suitability of canola meal for anaerobic co-digestion with dairy manure
    Atandi, E.
    Rahman, S.
    [J]. Biological Engineering Transactions, 2012, 5 (02): : 71 - 86
  • [26] Anaerobic Co-digestion of Tannery Solid Wastes: A Comparison of Single and Two-Phase Anaerobic Digestion
    Bayrakdar, Alper
    [J]. WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION, 2020, 11 (05) : 1727 - 1735
  • [27] Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge
    Borowski, Sebastian
    Domanski, Jaroslaw
    Weatherley, Laurence
    [J]. WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2014, 34 (02) : 513 - 521
  • [28] Evaluation of poultry manure and goat cheese whey anaerobic co-digestion
    Ramos-Suarez, Juan L.
    Vargas-Avendano, Claudia L.
    Mata-Gonzalez, Javier
    Camacho-Perez, Angeles
    [J]. SPANISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 2019, 17 (02)
  • [29] Feasibility of anaerobic co-digestion as a treatment option of meat industry wastes
    Buendia, Inmaculada M.
    Fernandez, Francisco J.
    Villasenor, Jose
    Rodriguez, Lourdes
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2009, 100 (06) : 1903 - 1909
  • [30] ANAEROBIC MODELING FOR IMPROVING SYNERGY AND ROBUSTNESS OF A MANURE CO-DIGESTION PROCESS
    Lima, D. M. F.
    Rodrigues, J. A. D.
    Boe, K.
    Alvarado-Morales, M.
    Ellegaard, L.
    Angelidaki, I.
    [J]. BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2016, 33 (04) : 871 - 883