Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 100, Issue 6, pp 2843–2853 | Cite as

Applying trait-function relationships for microbial plant decomposition to predict medium longevity in pollution control biofilters

Environmental biotechnology

Abstract

Biofilters, bioreactors used for pollution control, can effectively treat a variety of odorous and hazardous emissions, but uncertain medium longevities and associated costs limit biofilter adoption. To improve medium-life estimations for biofilter end-users, litter bags were used to compare decay rates of common biofilter medium types and test the effects of nitrogen (N) enrichment and livestock production emissions on medium decay in a full-scale biofilter over a 27-month period. Generally, “by-product” media (mulch, corn cobs) decayed faster than hardwood media, with decay of softwood media the slowest. Analysis showed nutrient content was the best predictor of early-stage decay, while carbon fractions and nutrient content best predicted medium longevity. N amendments and N-rich barn emissions were found to hasten medium decay. By identifying decay rates and rate predictors specific for biofilter media, we provide biofilter engineers and farmers with a quantitative way to improve medium selection based on the trade-offs between medium cost and replacement frequency.

Keywords

Bioreactor Media Decay rate Litter bag Nitrogen 

Supplementary material

253_2015_7134_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.6 mb)
ESM 1(PDF 1618 kb)

References

  1. Akdeniz N, Janni KA, Salnikov IA (2011) Biofilter performance of pine nuggets and lava rock as media. Bioresource Technol 102(8):4974–4980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akdeniz N, Janni KA, Hetchler BP (2014) Mitigation of multiple air emissions from swine buildings using corn cob biofilters. In: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014, Montreal, Canada. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp 902–909. doi:10.13031/aim.20141894244 Google Scholar
  3. Berbeco M, Melillo J, Orians C (2012) Soil warming accelerates decomposition of fine woody debris. Plant Soil 356(1–2):405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boddy L, Heilmann-Clausen J (2008) Basidiomycete community development in temperate angiosperm wood. In: Boddy L, Frankland JC, van West P (eds) British Mycological Society Symposia Series, vol 28, Ecology of saprotrophic basidiomycetes. Academic, London, UK, pp 211–237Google Scholar
  5. Cabrol L, Malhautier L (2011) Integrating microbial ecology in bioprocess understanding: the case of gas biofiltration. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 90(3):837–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen L, Hoff S (2009) Mitigating odors from agricultural facilities: a review of literature concerning biofilters. Appl Eng Agric 25(5):751–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen L, Hoff S, Lingshuang C, Koziel J, Zelle B (2009) Evaluation of wood chip-based biofilters to reduce odor, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia from swine barn ventilation air. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 59(5):520–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornwell WK, Weedon JT (2014) Decomposition trajectories of diverse litter types: a model selection analysis. Methods Ecol Evol 5(2):173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delhomenie MC, Heitz M (2005) Biofiltration of air: a review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 25(1–2):53–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorado AD, Lafuente FJ, Gabriel D, Gamisans X (2010a) A comparative study based on physical characteristics of suitable packing materials in biofiltration. Environ Technol 31(2):193–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorado AD, Lafuente J, Gabriel D, Gamisans X (2010b) The role of water in the performance of biofilters: parameterization of pressure drop and sorption capacities for common packing materials. J Hazard Mater 180:693–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fasth BG, Harmon ME, Sexton J, White P (2011) Decomposition of fine woody debris in a deciduous forest in North Carolina. J Torrey Bot Soc 138(2):192–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forest Products Laboratory (2010) Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  14. Freschet GT, Weedon JT, Aerts R, van Hal JR, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Interspecific differences in wood decay rates: insights from a new short-term method to study long-term wood decomposition. J Ecol 100(1):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harmon ME, Krankina ON, Sexton J (2000) Decomposition vectors: a new approach to estimating woody detritus decomposition dynamics. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For 30(1):76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiscox J, Savoury M, Vaughan IP, Muller CT, Boddy L (2015) Antagonistic fungal interactions influence carbon dioxide evolution from decomposing wood. Fungal Ecol 14:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbie S, Baker L, Buyarski C, Nidzgorski D, Finlay J (2014) Decomposition of tree leaf litter on pavement: implications for urban water quality. Urban Ecosyst 17(2):369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janni KA, Jacobson LD, Hetchler BP, Oliver JP, Johnston LJ (2014) Semi-continuous air sampling versus 24-hour bag samples to evaluate biofilters on a swine nursery in warm weather. Trans ASABE 57(5):1501–1515Google Scholar
  19. Kennes C, Veiga MC (2004) Fungal biocatalysts in the biofiltration of VOC-polluted air. J Biotechnol 113(1–3):305–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Knorr M, Frey SD, Curtis PS (2005) Nitrogen additions and litter decomposition: a meta-analysis. Ecology 86(12):3252–3257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lazarus W (2013) Feedlot Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator. http://www.extension.org/pages/67055/feedlot-air-emissions-treatment-cost-calculator#.VZrZ7fm6e70
  22. Lebrero R, Estrada JM, Muñoz R, Quijano G (2014) Deterioration of organic packing materials commonly used in air biofiltration: effect of VOC-packing interactions. J Environ Manage 137:93–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Motulsky HJ, Ransnas LA (1987) Fitting curves to data using nonlinear-regression—a practical and nonmathematical review. Faseb J 1(5):365–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mudliar S, Giri B, Padoley K, Satpute D, Dixit R, Bhatt P, Pandey R, Juwarkar A, Vaidya A (2010) Bioreactors for treatment of VOCs and odour—a review. J Environ Manage 91:1039–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nordin A, Uggla C, Nasholm T (2001) Nitrogen forms in bark, wood and foliage of nitrogen-fertilized Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 21(1):59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pietsch KA, Ogle K, Cornelissen JHC, Cornwell WK, Bönisch G, Craine JM, Jackson BG, Kattge J, Peltzer DA, Penuelas J, Reich PB, Wardle DA, Weedon JT, Wright IJ, Zanne AE, Wirth C (2014) Global relationship of wood and leaf litter decomposability: the role of functional traits within and across plant organs. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23(9):1046–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prenafeta-Boldú FX, Illa J, van Groenestijn JW, Flotats X (2008) Influence of synthetic packing materials on the gas dispersion and biodegradation kinetics in fungal air biofilters. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 79(2):319–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Prenafeta-Boldú FX, Guivernau M, Gallastegui G, Viñas M, de Hoog GS, Elías A (2012) Fungal/bacterial interactions during the biodegradation of TEX hydrocarbons (toluene, ethylbenzene and p-xylene) in gas biofilters operated under xerophilic conditions. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 80(3):722–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101(1–3):133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prescott CE, Vesterdal L, Preston CM, Simard SW (2004) Influence of initial chemistry on decomposition of foliar litter in contrasting forest types in British Columbia. Can J Forest Res 34(8):1714–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  32. Ramirez-Lopez E, Hernandez JC, Dendooven L, Rangel P, Thalasso F (2003) Characterization of five agricultural by-products as potential biofilter carriers. Bioresource Technol 88(3):259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson WD (2010) Nitrate removal rates in woodchip media of varying age. Ecol Eng 36(11):1581–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Russell M, Woodall C, Fraver S, D’Amato A, Domke G, Skog K (2014) Residence times and decay rates of downed woody debris biomass/carbon in Eastern US Forests. Ecosystems 17(5):765–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schilling JS, Ayres A, Kaffenberger JT, Powers JS (2015a) Initial white rot type dominance of wood decomposition and its functional consequences in a regenerating tropical dry forest. Soil Biol Bioch 88:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schilling JS, Kaffenberger JT, Liew FJ, Song Z (2015b) Signature wood modifications reveal decomposer community history. PLoS ONE 10(3), e0120679PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schipper LA, Robertson WD, Gold AJ, Jaynes DB, Cameron SC (2010) Denitrifying bioreactors: an approach for reducing nitrate loads to receiving waters. Ecol Eng 36(11):1532–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt D, Jacobson LD, Nicolai RE (2004) Biofilter design information. University of Minnesota Extension Service, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Update (BAEU) 18 http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/manure-management-and-air-quality/air-quality/biofilter-design-information/
  39. Vaiškūnaitė R, Navickaitė R (2011) Evaluation of the performance with biofilter effectiveness treating volatile organic compounds under different pH value. In: The 8th International Conference “Environmental Engineering”: Selected papers. Ed. by Čygas D, Froehner KD, May 19–20, 2011 Vilnius, Lithuania. Vilnius: Technika, pp 416–424, ISBN: 978-9955-28-831-2Google Scholar
  40. Valenzuela-Solano C, Crohn DM (2006) Are decomposition and N release from organic mulches determined mainly by their chemical composition? Soil Biol Biochem 38(2):377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Lith C, Leson G, Michelsen R (1997) Evaluating design options for biofilters. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 47(1):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Veen GF, Freschet GT, Ordonez A, Wardle DA (2015) Litter quality and environmental controls of home-field advantage effects on litter decomposition. Oikos 124(2):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Veillette M, Girard M, Viens P, Brzezinski R, Heitz M (2012) Function and limits of biofilters for the removal of methane in exhaust gases from the pig industry. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 94(3):601–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Weedon JT, Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Zanne AE, Wirth C, Coomes DA (2009) Global meta-analysis of wood decomposition rates: a role for trait variation among tree species? Ecol Lett 12(1):45–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wienhold BJ, Varvel GE, Jin VL (2011) Corn cob residue carbon and nutrient dynamics during decomposition. Agron J 103(4):1192–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang DQ, Hui DF, Luo YQ, Zhou GY (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1(2):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota, Kaufert LaboratorySt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Institute on the EnvironmentUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations