Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 89, Issue 2, pp 303–314 | Cite as

Correlations between molecular and operational parameters in continuous lab-scale anaerobic reactors

  • Marta Carballa
  • Marianne Smits
  • Claudia Etchebehere
  • Nico Boon
  • Willy Verstraete
Biotechnological Products and Process Engineering

Abstract

In this study, the microbial community characteristics in continuous lab-scale anaerobic reactors were correlated to reactor functionality using the microbial resource management (MRM) approach. Two molecular techniques, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP), were applied to analyze the bacterial and archaeal communities, and the results obtained have been compared. Clustering analyses showed a similar discrimination of samples with DGGE and T-RFLP data, with a clear separation between the meso- and thermophilic communities. Both techniques indicate that bacterial and mesophilic communities were richer and more even than archaeal and thermophilic communities, respectively. Remarkably, the community composition was highly dynamic for both Bacteria and Archaea, with a rate of change between 30% and 75% per 18 days, also in stable performing periods. A hypothesis to explain the latter in the context of the converging metabolism in anaerobic processes is proposed. Finally, a more even and diverse bacterial community was found to be statistically representative for a well-functioning reactor as evidenced by a low Ripley index and high biogas production.

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion Community organization Diversity Dynamics Microbial community structure Richness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the project Sewage Plus 180B12A7 (MIP project, Milieu- & Energietechnologie–Innovatieplatform, Berchem, Belgium), the Geconcerteerde Onderzoeksactie (GOA) of Ghent University contract grant (BOF09/GOA/005), the fellowship of CSIC-UdelaR (Uruguay) for Dr. Claudia Etchebehere, and by a postdoctoral contract for Dr. Marta Carballa from the Xunta de Galicia (Isidro Parga Pondal program, IPP-08-37). The authors acknowledge Dr. Jingxing Ma and Varvara Tsilia for their support and cooperation with the lab work.

References

  1. Barredo MS, Evison LM (1991) Effect of propionate toxicity on methanogen-enriched sludge, Methanobrevibacter smithii and Methanospirillum hungatii at different pH values. App Environ Microbiol 57:1764–1769Google Scholar
  2. Boe K, Steyer JP, Angelidaki I (2008) Monitoring and control of the biogas process based on propionate concentration using online VFA measurement. Water Sci Technol 57:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boon N, Top EM, Verstraete W, Siciliano SD (2003) Bioaugmentation as a tool to protect the structure and function of an activated-sludge microbial community against a 3-chloroaniline shock load. App Environ Microbiol 69:1511–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, Hamdi M (2005) Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Process Biochem 40:989–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briones A, Raskin L (2003) Diversity and dynamics of microbial communities in engineered environments and their implications for process stability. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dearman B, Marschner P, Bentham RH (2006) Methane production and microbial community structure in single-stage batch and sequential batch systems anaerobically co-digesting food waste and biosolids. App Microbiol Biotechnol 69:589–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernández A, Huang S, Seston S, Xing J, Hickey R, Criddle C, Tiedje J (1999) How stable is stable? Function versus community composition. App Environ Microbiol 65:3697–3704Google Scholar
  8. Fernández AS, Hashsham SA, Dollhopf SL, Raskin L, Glagoleva O, Dazzo FB, Hickey RF, Criddle CS, Tiedje JM (2000) Flexible community structure correlates with stable community function in methanogenic bioreactor communities perturbed by glucose. App Environ Microbiol 66:4058–4067Google Scholar
  9. Greenberg A, Clesceri L, Eaton A (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th edn. American Public Health Association Publications, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
  11. Hecht C, Griehl C (2009) Investigation of the accumulation of aromatic compounds during biogas production from kitchen waste. Biores Technol 100:654–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holdeman L, Cato E, Moore W (1977) Anaerobic laboratory manual. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, BlacksbergGoogle Scholar
  13. Hori T, Haruta S, Ueno Y, Ishii M, Igarashi Y (2006) Dynamic transition of a methanogenic population in response to the concentration of volatile fatty acids in a thermophilic anaerobic digester. App Environ Microbiol 72:1623–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karakashev D, Batstone DJ, Angelidaki I (2005) Influence of environmental conditions on methanogenic compositions in anaerobic biogas reactors. App Environ Microbiol 71:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. LaPara TM, Nakatsu CH, Pantea LM, Alleman JE (2002) Stability of the bacterial communities supported by a seven-stage biological process treating pharmaceutical wastewater as revealed by PCR-DGGE. Water Res 36:638–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leclerc M, Delgenes JP, Godon JJ (2004) Diversity of archaeal community in 44 anaerobic digesters as determined by single strand conformation polymorphism analysis and 16S rDNA sequencing. Environ Microbiol 6:809–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee C, Kim J, Shin SG, Hwang S (2008) Monitoring bacterial and archaeal community shifts in a mesophilic anaerobic batch reactor treating a high-strength organic wastewater. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 65:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee C, Kim J, Hwang K, O’Flaherty V, Hwang S (2009) Quantitative analysis of methanogenic community dynamics in three anaerobic batch digesters treating different wastewaters. Water Res 43:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leven L, Eriksson ARB, Schnürer A (2007) Effect of process temperature on bacterial and archaeal communities in two methanogenic bioreactors treating organic household waste. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 59:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Zhang Y, Li DS, Xu H, Chen GX, Zhang CG (2009) Comparisons of different hypervariable regions of rrs genes for fingerprinting of microbial communities in paddy soils. Soil Biol Biochem 41(5):954–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu G, Zhang R, Sun Z, Li X, Dong R (2007) Research progress in anaerobic digestion of high moisture organic solid waste. Agric Eng Int 9 (e-journal)Google Scholar
  22. Lueders T, Manefield M, Friedrich MW (2004) Enhanced sensitivity of DNA- and rRNA-based stable isotope probing by fractionation and quantitative analysis of isopycnic centrifugation gradients. Environ Microbiol 6:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malin C, Illmer P (2008) Ability of DNA content and DGGE analysis to reflect the performance condition of an anaerobic biowaste fermenter. Microbiol Res 163:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marzorati M, Wittebolle L, Boon N, Daffonchio D, Verstraete W (2008) How to get more out of molecular fingerprints: practical tools for microbial ecology. Environ Microbiol 10:1571–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McHugh S, Collins G, Mahony T, O’Flaherty V (2004) Biofilm reactor technology for low temperature anaerobic waste treatment: microbiology and process characteristics. IWA International Conference on Biofilm Structure and Activity. IWA, Las Vegas, pp 107–113Google Scholar
  26. Miura Y, Hiraiwa MN, Ito T, Itonaga T, Watanabe Y, Okabe S (2007) Bacterial community structures in MBRs treating municipal wastewater: relationship between community stability and reactor performance. Water Res 41:627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosche M, Jordening HJ (1998) Detection of very low saturation constants in anaerobic digestion: influences of calcium carbonate precipitation and pH. App Microbiol Biotechnol 49:793–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden A (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. App Environ Microbiol 59:695–700Google Scholar
  29. Rincón B, Borja R, González JM, Portillo MC, Sáiz-Jiménez C (2008) Influence of organic loading rate and hydraulic retention time on the performance, stability and microbial communities of one-stage anaerobic digestion of two-phase olive mill solid residue. Biochem Eng J 40:253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ripley LE, Boyle WC, Converse JC (1986) Improved alkalimetric monitoring for anaerobic digestion of high-strength wastes. J WPCF 58:406–411Google Scholar
  31. Riviere D, Desvignes V, Pelletier E, Chaussonnerie S, Guermazi S, Weissenbach J, Li T, Camacho P, Sghir A (2009) Towards the definition of a core of microorganisms involved in anaerobic digestion of sludge. ISME J 3:700–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rooney-Varga JN, Giewat MW, Duddleston KN, Chanton JP, Hines ME (2007) Links between archaeal community structure, vegetation type and methanogenic pathway in Alaskan peatlands. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 60:240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smalla K, Oros-Sichler M, Milling A, Heuer H, Baumgarte S, Becker R, Neuber G, Kropf S, Ulrich A, Tebbe CC (2007) Bacterial diversity of soils assessed by DGGE, T-RFLP and SSCP fingerprints of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene fragments: do the different methods provide similar results? J Microbiol Methods 69:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Talbot G, Topp E, Palin MF, Massé DI (2008) Evaluation of molecular methods used for establishing the interactions and functions of microorganisms in anaerobic bioreactors. Water Res 42:513–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tang Y, Shigematsu T, Ikbal MS, Kida K (2004) The effects of micro-aeration on the phylogenetic diversity of microorganisms in a thermophilic anaerobic municipal solid-waste digester. Water Res 38:2537–2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verstraete W, Morgan-Sagastume F, Aiyuk S, Waweru M, Rabaey K, Lissens G (2005) Anaerobic digestion as a core technology in sustainable management of organic matter. Water Sci Technol 52(1–2):59–66Google Scholar
  37. Verstraete W, Wittelbolle L, Heylen K, Vanparys B, de Vos P, van de Wiele T, Boon N (2007) Microbial resource management: the road to go for environmental biotechnology. Eng Life Sci 7:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wittebolle L, Marzorati M, Clement L, Balloi A, Daffonchio D, Heylen K, De Vos P, Verstraete W, Boon N (2009) Initial community evenness favours functionality under selective stress. Nature 458:623–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu Z, García-González R, Schanbacher FL, Morrison M (2008) Evaluations of different hypervariable regions of archaeal 16S r RNA genes in profiling of methanogens by archaea-specific PCR and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. App Environ Microbiol 74(3):889–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zumstein E, Moletta R, Godon JJ (2000) Examination of two years of community dynamics in an anaerobic bioreactor using fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (PCR) single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis. Environ Microbiol 2:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Carballa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marianne Smits
    • 2
  • Claudia Etchebehere
    • 3
  • Nico Boon
    • 2
  • Willy Verstraete
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.Laboratory of Microbial Ecology and Technology (LabMET), Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringUniversity GhentGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Microbiology Department, School of Science and School of ChemistryUniversity of the RepublicMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations