Anaerobic digestibility of marine microalgae Phaeodactylum tricornutum in a lab-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor
The biomass of industrially grown Phaeodactylum tricornutum was subjected in a novel way to bio-methanation at 33°C, i.e., in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) at a hydraulic retention time of 2.5 days, at solid retention times of 20 to 10 days and at loading rates in the range of 2.6–5.9 g biomass-COD L−1 day−1 with membrane fluxes ranging from 1 to 0.8 L m−2 h−1. The total COD recovered as biogas was in the order of 52%. The input suspension was converted to a clear effluent rich in total ammonium nitrogen (546 mg TAN L−1) and phosphate (141 mg PO4-P L−1) usable as liquid fertilizer. The microbial community richness, dynamics, and organization in the reactor were interpreted using the microbial resource management approach. The AnMBR communities were found to be moderate in species richness and low in dynamics and community organization relative to UASB and conventional CSTR sludges. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed that Methanosaeta sp. was the dominant acetoclastic methanogen species followed by Methanosarcina sp. This work demonstrated that the use of AnMBR for the digestion of algal biomass is possible. The fact that some 50% of the organic matter is not liquefied means that the algal particulates in the digestate constitute a considerable fraction which should be valorized properly, for instance as slow release organic fertilizer. Overall, 1 kg of algae dry matter (DM) could be valorized in the form of biogas (€2.07), N and P in the effluent (€0.02) and N and P in the digestate (€0.04), thus totaling about €2.13 per kilogram algae DM.
KeywordsAlgae biomass Mesophilic Green energy Biogas Methane Microbial resource management
This work was supported by the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology-Strategic Basic Research (IWT-SBO) Sunlight Project-Lipid-based, high value products and renewable energy from microalgae grant 80031 and Ghent University grant 179I16D9W. We thank Jessica Benner and Tom Hennebel for critically reading the manuscript and Tim Lacoere for his valuable help in the molecular analysis.
- APHA-AWWA-WPCF (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th edn. American Public Health Association (APHA) American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF), Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Boon N, Windt W, Verstraete W (2002) Evaluation of nested PCR-DGGE (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) with group-specific 16S rRNA primers for the analysis of bacterial communities from different wastewater treatment plants. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 39:101–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00911.x Google Scholar
- Fernández A, Huang S, Seston S, Xing J, Hickey R, Criddle C, Tiedje J (1999) How stable is stable? Function versus community composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 65(8):3697–3704Google Scholar
- Gao DW, Zhang T, Tang CYY, Wu WM, Wong CY, Lee YH, Yeh DH, Criddle CS (2010) Membrane fouling in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor: differences in relative abundance of bacterial species in the membrane foulant layer and in suspension. J Membr Sci 364:331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gayh U, Gtooss A, Behrendt J (2010) Desulphurisation of biogas analysis, evaluation and optimisation. Paper presented at the Third international symposium on energy from biomass and waste, Venice, Italy, 8–10 NovemberGoogle Scholar
- Griffin ME, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L (1998) Methanogenic population dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and biosolids. Biotechnol Bioeng 57(3):342–355. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19980205)57:3<342::AID-BIT11>3.0.CO;2-I CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kautto N, Arasto A, Sijm J (2011) Interaction of the EU ETS and national climate policy instruments: impact on biomass use. Biomass Bioenergy. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.002
- Lundquist T, Woertz I, Quinn N, Benemann J (2010) A realistic technology and engineering assessment of algae biofuel producition. Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley. Technical Report. http://www.energybiosciencesinstitute.org/media/AlgaeReportFINAL.pdf
- Nozhevnikova AN, Rebac S, Kotsyurbenko OR, Parshina SN, Holliger C, Lettinga G (2000) Anaerobic production and degradation of volatile fatty acids in low temperature environments. Water Sci Technol 41(12):39–46Google Scholar
- Øvreas L, Forney L, Daae FL, Torsvik V (1997) Distribution of bacterioplankton in meromictic lake Saelenvannet, as determined by denaturing gradient electrophoresis of PCR-amplified gene fragments coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:3367–3373Google Scholar
- 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
- Zamalloa C, Boon N, Verstraete W (2011b) Anaerobic digestibility of Scenedesmus obliquus and Phaeodactylum tricornutum under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Appl Energy. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.017