Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 89, Issue 3, pp 835–842 | Cite as

Bacterial community analysis of swine manure treated with autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion

  • Il Han
  • Shankar Congeevaram
  • Dong-Won Ki
  • Byoung-Taek Oh
  • Joonhong Park
Environmental Biotechnology

Abstract

Due to the enviornmental problems associated with disposal of livestock sludge, many stabilization studies emphasizing on the sludge volume reduction were performed. However, little is known about the microbial risk present in sludge and its stabilized products. This study microbiologically explored the effects of anaerobic lagoon fermentation (ALF) and autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) on pathogen-related risk of raw swine manure by using culture-independent 16S rDNA cloning and sequencing methods. In raw swine manure, clones closely related to pathogens such as Dialister pneumosintes, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Succinivibrioan dextrinosolvens, and Schineria sp. were detected. Meanwhile, in the mesophilic ALF-treated swine manure, bacterial community clones closely related to pathogens such as Schineria sp. and Succinivibrio dextrinosolvens were still detected. Interestingly, the ATAD treatment resulted in no detection of clones closely related to pathogens in the stabilized thermophilic bacterial community, with the predominance of novel Clostridia class populations. These findings support the superiority of ATAD in selectively reducing potential human and animal pathogens compared to ALF, which is a typical manure stabilization method used in livestock farms.

Keywords

Livestock sludge Human and animal pathogens Livestock sludge stabilization Autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion Microbial community analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by WCU (World Class University) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (R33-10076).

Supplementary material

253_2010_2893_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Average removals of organics, volatile suspended solids (VSS), and nutrients from swine manure after 4 days of the pilot-scale ATAD operation (unit = mg/L) (DOC 32 kb)
253_2010_2893_MOESM2_ESM.doc (151 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 Clone sequence IDs and their GenBank accession numbers (DOC 151 kb)

References

  1. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH (1995) Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 59:143–169Google Scholar
  2. Chao A (1984) Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Statist 11:265–270Google Scholar
  3. Chen S, Dong X (2005) Proteiniphilum acetatigenes gen. nov., sp. nov., from a UASB reactor treating brewer wastewater. Int J Sys Evol Microbiol 55:2257–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chénier MR, Juteau P (2009a) Impact of an aerobic thermophilic sequencing batch reactor on antibiotic-resistant anaerobic bacteria in swine waste. Microb Ecol 58:773–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chénier MR, Juteau P (2009b) Fate of chlortetracycline- and tylosin-resistant bacteria in an aerobic thermophilic sequencing batch reactor treating swine waste. Microb Ecol 58:86–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dzidic S, Bedekovic V (2003) Horizontal gene transfer-emerging multi-drug resistance in hospital bacteria. Acta Pharmacol Sin 24:519–526Google Scholar
  7. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acid Res 32:1792–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franz E, van Bruggen AHC (2008) Ecology of E. coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enterica in the primary vegetable production chain. Crit Rev Microbiol 34:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guan TY, Holley RA (2003) Pathogen survival in swine manure environments and transmission of human enteric illness—a review. J Environ Qual 32:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Han I, Lee YS, Park J (2007) Evaluation of microbial risk in soil amended with organic fertilizers from stabilized swine manure waste. Environ Eng Res 12:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han I, Congeevaram S, Park J (2009) Improved control of multiple-antibiotic-resistance-related microbial risk in swine manure wastes by autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 59:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Izquierdo JA, Sizova MV, Lynd LR (2010) Diversity of bacteria and glycosyl hydrolase family 48 genes in cellulolytic consortia enriched from thermophilic biocompost. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:3545–3553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jewell WJ, Kabrick RM (1980) Autoheated aerobic thermophilic digestion with aeration. Water Environ Fed 52:512–523Google Scholar
  14. Juteau P, Tremblay D, Villemur R, Bisaillon JG, Beaudet R (2005) Analysis of the bacterial community inhabiting an aerobic thermophilic sequencing batch reactor (AT-SBR) treating swine waste. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 66:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly HG, Melcer H, Mavinic DS (1993) Autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion of municipal sludges: a one-year, full-scale demonstration project. Water Environ Fed 65:849–861Google Scholar
  16. Kiuchi A, Hara M, Pham HS, Takikawa K, Tabuchi K (2000) Phylogenetic analysis of the Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae and Erysipelothrix tonsillarum based upon 16S rRNA. DNA Seq 11:257–260Google Scholar
  17. Klare I, Konstabel C, Badstubner D, Werner G, Witte W (2003) Occurrence and spread of antibiotic resistance in Enterococcus faecium. Int J Food Microbiol 88:269–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee JW, Lee HW, Kim SW, Lee SY, Park YK, Han JH, Choi SI, Yi YS, Yun Z (2004) Nitrogen removal characteristics analyzed with gas and microbial community in thermophilic aerobic digestion for piggery waste treatment. Water Sci Technol 49:349–357Google Scholar
  19. Levy SB, Marshall B (2004) Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nat Med 10:S122–S129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matsch LC, Drnevich RF (1977) Autothermal aerobic digestion. J Water Pollut Control Fed 49:296–310Google Scholar
  21. Mavinic DS, Mahendraker V, Sharma A, Kelly HG (2001) Effect of microaerophilic conditions on autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion process. J Environ Eng 127:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orsbur BC, Melville SB, Popham DL (2010) EtfA catalyses the formation of dipicolinic acid in Clostridium perfringens. Mol Microbiol 75:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peck MW (2009) Biology and genomic analysis of Clostridium botulinum. Adv Microb Physiol 55:183–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pell AN (1997) Manure and microbes: public and animal health problem? J Dairy Sci 80:2673–2681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peu P, Brugère H, Pourcher A, Kèrourèdan M, Goden J, Delgenès J, Dabert P (2006) Dynamics of a pig slurry microbial community during anaerobic storage and management. Appl Environ Microb 72:3578–3585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rainey FA, Fritze D, Stackebrandt E (1994) The phylogenetic diversity of thermophilic members of the genus Bacillus as revealed by 16S rDNA analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 115:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rainey FA, Zhilina TN, Boulygina ES, Stackebrandt E, Tourova TP, Zavarzin GA (1995) The taxonomic status of the fermentative halophilic anaerobic bacteria: description of Haloanaerobiales ord. nov., Halobacteroidaceae fam. nov., Orenia gen. nov. and further taxonomic rearrangements at the genus and species level. Anaerobe 1:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramirez N, Abel-Santos E (2010) Requirements for germination of Clostridium sordellii spores in vitro. J Bacteriol 192:418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roudiere L, Jean-Pierre H, Comte C, Zorgniotti I, Marchandin H, Jumas-Bilak E (2007) Isolation of Schineria sp. from a man. Emerg Infect Dis 13:659–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois, Urbana, p 117Google Scholar
  31. Simankova MV, Chernych NA, Osipov GA, Zavarzin GA (1993) Halocella cellulolytica gen. nov., sp. nov., a new obligately anaerobic, halophilic, cellulolytic bacterium. Syst Appl Microbiol 16:385–389Google Scholar
  32. Snell-Castro R, Goden J, Delgenès J, Dabert P (2005) Characteristics of the microbial diversity in a pig manure storage pit using small subunit rDNA sequence analysis. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 52:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1983) Bacterial diversity in thermophilic aerobic sewage sludge (II) types of organisms and their capacities. Appl Microb Biotechnol 18:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Southern PM Jr (1975) Bacteremia due to Succinivibrio dextrinosolvens: report of a case. Am J Clin Pathol 64:540–543Google Scholar
  35. Staton KL, Alleman JE, Pressley RL, Eloff J (2001) Second generation autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion: conceptual issues and process advancements. San Diego, WEF/AWWA/CWEA Joint Residuals and Biosolids Management ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  36. Talbot G, Roy CS, Topp E, Beaulieu C, Palin M, Messè DI (2009) Multivariate statistical analysis of rDNA and rRNA fingerprint data to differentiate microbial communities in swine manure. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 70:540–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S (2007) MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol 24:1596–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor LH, Latham SM, Woolhouse ME (2001) Risk factor for human disease emergence. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 356:983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsai CR, Garcia JL, Patel BKC, Cayol JL, Baresi L, Math RA (1995) Haloanaerobium alcaliphilum sp. nov., an anaerobic moderate halophile from the sediments of Great Salt Lake, Utah. Int J Syst Bacteriol 45:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ugwuanyi JO, Harvery LM, McNeil B (2008) Diversity of thermophilic populations during thermophilic aerobic digestion of potato peel slurry. J Appl Microbiol 104:79–90Google Scholar
  41. UN Division of Sustainable Development (2000) Changing consumption and product patterns: organic agriculture, background paper 4. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. US EPA (1990) Environmental regulations and technology: autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion of municipal wastewater sludge. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Washington DC, EPA/625/10-90/007Google Scholar
  43. US EPA (2003) NPDES permit writers’ guidance manual and example NPDES permit for concentrated animal feeding operations. EPA-833-B-04-001. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Venglovsky J, Jose Martinez J, Placha I (2006) Hygienic and ecological risks connected with utilization of animal manures and biosolids in agriculture. Livest Sci 102:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watanabe H, Kitamura T, Ochi S, Ozaki M (1997) Inactivation of pathogenic bacteria under mesophilic and thermophilic condition. Wat Sci Tech 36:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisburg WG, Barns SM, Pelletier DA, Lane DJ (1991) 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J Bacteriol 173:697–703Google Scholar
  47. Willems A, Collins MD (1995) Phylogenetic placement of Dialister pneumosintes (formerly Bacterioides pneumosintes) within the Sporomusa subbranch of the Clostridium subphylum of the gram-positive bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol 45:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zabranska J, Dohanyos M, Jenicek P, Ruzicikova H, Vranova A (2003) Efficiency of autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal wastewater sludge in removing Salmonella spp. and indicator bacteria. Water Sci Technol 47:151–156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Il Han
    • 1
  • Shankar Congeevaram
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dong-Won Ki
    • 1
  • Byoung-Taek Oh
    • 2
  • Joonhong Park
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Biotechnology, College of Environmental and Bioresource SciencesChonbuk National UniversityIksanSouth Korea
  3. 3.WCU Center for Green Metagenomics, Yonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations