1887

Abstract

The production of biogas by anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic/biological wastes has a firm place in sustainable energy production. A simple and cost-effective anaerobic jar at a laboratory scale is a prerequisite to study the microbial community involved in biomass conversion and releasing of methane gas. In this study, a simulation was carried out using a laboratory-modified anaerobic-jar-converted digester (AD1) with that of a commercial/pilot-scale anaerobic digester (AD2). Taxonomic profiling of biogas-producing communities by means of high-throughput methyl coenzyme-M reductase α-subunit (mcrA) gene amplicon sequencing provided high-resolution insights into bacterial and archaeal structures of AD assemblages and their linkages to fed substrates and process parameters. Commonly, the bacterial phyla , , and appeared to dominate biogas communities in varying abundances depending on the apparent process conditions. Key micro-organisms identified from AD were and . Specific biogas production was found to be significantly correlating to . It can be implied from this study that the metagenomic sequencing data was able to dissect the microbial community structure in the digesters. The data gathered indicates that the anaerobic-jar system could throw light on the population dynamics of the methanogens at laboratory scale and its effectiveness at large-scale production of bio-methane. The genome sequence information of non-cultivable biogas community members, metagenome sequencing including assembly and binning strategies will be highly valuable in determining the efficacy of an anaerobic digester.

  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000044
2019-07-01
2021-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/1/5/acmi000044.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000044&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza MS, Fonoll X, Peces M et al. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014; 36:412–427 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abendroth C, Vilanova C, Günther T, Luschnig O, Porcar M. Eubacteria and archaea communities in seven mesophile anaerobic digester plants in Germany. Biotechnol Biofuels 2015; 8:87 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bialek K, Cysneiros D, O'Flaherty V. Hydrolysis, acidification and methanogenesis during low-temperature anaerobic digestion of dilute dairy wastewater in an inverted fluidised bioreactor. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2014; 98:87378750 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kern T, Theiss J, Röske K, Rother M. Assessment of hydrogen metabolism in commercial anaerobic digesters. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2016; 100:46994710 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Guo J, Peng Y, Ni BJ, Han X, Fan L et al. Dissecting microbial community structure and methane-producing pathways of a full-scale anaerobic reactor digesting activated sludge from wastewater treatment by metagenomic sequencing. Microb Cell Fact 2015; 14:1–11 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clauss M, Hummel J. Physiological adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for production systems. Rev Bras Zootec 2017
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clauss M, Hume ID, Hummel J. Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems. Animal 2010; 4:979–992 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Wedlock DN, Janssen PH, Leahy SC, Shu D, Buddle BM. Progress in the development of vaccines against rumen methanogens. Animal 2013; 7:244–252 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Thorpe A. Enteric fermentation and ruminant eructation: the role (and control?) of methane in the climate change debate. Clim Change 2009; 93:407–431 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Leahy SC, Kelly WJ, Ronimus RS, Wedlock N, Altermann E et al. Genome sequencing of rumen bacteria and archaea and its application to methane mitigation strategies. Animal 2013; 7:235–243 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Luton PE, Wayne JM, Sharp RJ, Riley PW. The mcrA gene as an alternative to 16S rRNA in the phylogenetic analysis of methanogen populations in landfill. Microbiology 2002; 148:3521–3530 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bishir M. Raji HM: quantitative and qualitative analysis of biogas produced from three organic wastes. Int J Renew Energy Res 2016; 6:299–305
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Akintokun AK, Abibu WA, Oyatogun MO. Applied Environmental Research Microbial Dynamics and Biogas Production during Single and Co-digestion of Cow Dung and Rice Husk [Internet]. Appl Environ Res 2017b; 39:67–76
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ezekoye VA, Offor PO. Effect of retention time on biogas production from poultry droppings and cassava peels. Nig J Biotech 2011; 22:53–59
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Anderson I, Ulrich LE, Lupa B, Susanti D, Porat I et al. Genomic characterization of methanomicrobiales reveals three classes of methanogens. PLoS One 2009; 4:e5797 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Tejerizo GT, Kim YS, Maus I, Wibberg D, Winkler A et al. Genome sequence of Methanobacterium congolense strain Buetzberg, a hydrogenotrophic, methanogenic archaeon, isolated from a mesophilic industrial-scale biogas plant utilizing bio-waste. J Biotechnol 2017; 247:15 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Maus I, Stantscheff R, Wibberg D, Stolze Y, Winkler A et al. Complete genome sequence of the methanogenic neotype strain Methanobacterium formicicum MFT. J Biotechnol 2014
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Manzoor S, Schnürer A, Bongcam-Rudloff E, Müller B. Complete genome sequence of Methanoculleus bourgensis strain MAB1, the syntrophic partner of mesophilic acetate-oxidising bacteria (SAOB). Stand Genomic Sci 2016; 11:1–9 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferry JG, Smith PH, Wolfe RS. Methanospirillum, a new genus of methanogenic bacteria, and characterization of Methanospirillum hungatii sp.nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1974; 24:465–469 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin AD. Understanding anaerobic digestion [Internet]. http://www.esauk.org/events/Alastair_D_Martin.pdf
  21. Akintokun A, Abibu W, Oyatoogun M. Isolation and characterization of microorganisms with hydrolytic profile during anaerobic digestion and biogas production of cow dung and rice husk. J Nat Sci Res 2017a; 7:2225–2921
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamawand I, Baillie C. Anaerobic digestion and biogas potential: simulation of lab and industrial-scale processes. Energies 2015; 8:454–474 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zinder SH. Physiological ecology of methanogens BT - methanogenesis: ecology, physiology, biochemistry and genetics; in : methanogenesis: Ecology, physiology, biochemistry and genetics; 1993
  24. Krakat N, Westphal A, Schmidt S, Scherer P. Anaerobic digestion of renewable biomass: thermophilic temperature governs methanogen population dynamics. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010; 76:1842–1850 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gowdaman V, Srikanth M. Carbon – science and technology. Carbon-Sci Tech 2015; 2:8–16
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee B, Park JG, Shin WB, Tian DJ, Jun HB. Microbial communities change in an anaerobic digestion after application of microbial electrolysis cells. Bioresour Technol 2017; 234:273–280 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL et al. Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci Technol 2009; 59:927–934 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ziganshin AM, Ziganshina EE, Kleinsteuber S, Nikolausz M. Comparative analysis of methanogenic communities in different laboratory-scale anaerobic Digesters. Archaea 2016; 2016:1–12 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Caetano-Anollés D. Caetano-Anollés G: ribosomal accretion, apriorism and the phylogenetic method: a response to Petrov and Williams. Front Genet 2015; 6:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Westerholm M, Müller B, Isaksson S, Schnürer A. Trace element and temperature effects on microbial communities and links to biogas digester performance at high ammonia levels. Biotechnol Biofuels 2015; 8:1–19 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000044
Loading
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000044
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error