Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 68, Issue 4, pp 297–308 | Cite as

Characterization of microbial communities in anaerobic bioreactors using molecular probes

  • Lutgarde Raskin
  • Dandan Zheng
  • Matt E. Griffin
  • Peter G. Stroot
  • Pavitra Misra
Article

Abstract

The microbial community structure of twenty-one single-phase and one two-phase full-scale anaerobic sewage sludge digesters was evaluated using oligonucleotide probes complementary to conserved tracts of the 16S rRNAs of phylogenetically defined groups of methanogens and sulfate-reducing bacteria. These probe results were interpreted in combination with results from traditional chemical analyses and metabolic activity assays. It was determined that methanogens in “healthy” mesophilic, single-phase sewage sludge digesters accounted for approximately 8–12% of the total community and thatMethanosarcinales andMethanomicrobiales constituted the majority of the total methanogen population.Methanobacteriales andMethanococcales played a relatively minor role in the digesters. Phylogenetic groups of mesophilic, Gram-negative sulfate-reducing bacteria were consistently present at significant levels:Desulfovibrio andDesulfobulbus spp. were the dominant sulfate-reducing populations,Desulfobacter andDesulfobacterium spp. were present at lower levels, andDesulfosarcina, Desulfococcus, andDesulfobotulus spp. were absent. Sulfate reduction by one or more of these populations played a significant role in all digesters evaluated in this study. In addition, sulfate-reducing bacteria played a role in favoring methanogenesis by providing their substrates. The analysis of the two-phase digester indicated that true phase separation was not accomplished: significant levels of active methanogens were present in the first phase. It was determined that the dominant populations in the second phase were different from those in the single-phase digesters.

Key words

Anaerobic digesters methanogens oligonucleotide probes 16s rRNA sulfate-reducing bacteria two-phase digestion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amann RI, Binder BJ, Olson RJ, Chisholm SW, Devereux R & Stahl DA (1990) Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 56: 1919–1925Google Scholar
  2. Archer DB & Powell GE (1985) Dependence of the specific growth rate of methanogenic mutualistic cocultures on the methanogen. Arch. Microbiol. 141: 133–137Google Scholar
  3. Balch WE, Fox GE, Magnum LJ, Woese CR & Wolfe RS (1979) Methanogens: Reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol. Reviews 43: 260–296Google Scholar
  4. Boone DR, Whitman WB & Rouviere P (1993) Diversity and taxonomy of methanogens. In: Ferry JG (Ed) Methanogenesis: Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry & Genetics, pp 35–80. Chapman & Hall, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Devereux R, Delancy M, Widdel F & Stahl DA (1989) Natural relationships among sulfate-reducing Eubacteria. J. Bacteriol. 171: 6689–6695PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Devereux R, He S-H, Doyle CL, Orkland S, Stahl DA, LeGall J, & Whitman WB (1990) Diversity and origin ofDesulfovibrio sp.: Phylogenetic definition of a family. J. Bacteriol. 172: 3609–3619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Devereux R, Kane MD, Winfrey J & Stahl DA (1992) Genus-and group-specific hybridization probes for determinative and environmental studies of sulfate-reducing bacteria. System. and Appl. Microbiol. 15: 601–609Google Scholar
  8. Devereux R & Stahl DA (1993) Phylogeny of sulfate-reducing bacteria and a perspective for analyzing their natural communities. In: Odom JM & Singleton F (Ed) The Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria: Contemporary Perspectives, pp 131–160. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Fongastitkul P, Mavinic DS & Lo KV (1994) A two-phased anaerobic digestion process: Concept, process failure and maximum system loading rate. Water Environ. Res. 66: 243–254Google Scholar
  10. Fox P & Pohland FG (1991). Anaerobic treatment applications and fundamentals: substrate specificity during phase separation. In: 65th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation in Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenberg AE, Clesceri LS & Eaton AD (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18 ed., Washington, D.C.: American Public Health AssociationGoogle Scholar
  12. Heppner B, Zellner G & Diekman H (1992) Start-up and operation of a propionate-degrading fluidized-bed reactor. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36: 810–816Google Scholar
  13. Jones WJ, Guyot J-P & Wolfe RS (1984) Methanogenesis from sucrose by defined immobilized consortia. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 47: 1–6Google Scholar
  14. Metcalf & Eddy (1991) Wastewater engineering, treatment, disposal, and reuse, 3rd Ed, McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JG, Young LY & McCarty PL (1979) Bioassay for monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Res. 13: 485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pohland G & Ghosh S (1971) Developments in anaerobic stabilization of organic wastes — the two-phase concept. Environ. Lett. 1: 255–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Raskin L (1993) Structural and functional analysis of anaerobic biofilm communities: An integrated molecular and moeling approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  18. Raskin L, Poulsen LK, Noguera DR, Rittmann BE & Stahl DA (1994a) Quantification of methanogenic groups in anaerobic biological reactors using oligonucleotide hybridization probes. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 60: 1241–1248Google Scholar
  19. Raskin L, Stromley JM, Rittmann BE & Stahl DA (1994b) Group-specific 16S rRNA hybridization probes to describe natural communities of methanogens. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 60: 1232–1240Google Scholar
  20. Raskin L, Amann RI, Poulsen LK, Rittmann BE & Stahl DA (1995) Use of ribosomal RNA based molecular probes for characterization of complex microbial communities in anaerobic biofilms. Water Science Technol. 31: 261–272Google Scholar
  21. Risatti JB, Capman WC & Stahl DA (1994) Community structure of a microbial mat: The phylogenetic dimension. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 91: 10173–10177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Speece RE (1988) A survey of municipal anaerobic sludge diesters and diagnostic activity assays. Water Res. 22: 365–372Google Scholar
  23. Stahl DA & Amann R (1991) Development and application of nucleic acid probes. In: Stackebrandt E & Goodfellow M (Ed) Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics, pp 205–248. John Wiley & Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  24. Stahl DA, Flesher B, Mansfield HR & Montgomery L (1988) Use of phylogenetically based hybridization probes for studies of ruminal microbial ecology. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 54: 1079–1084Google Scholar
  25. Tabatabai MA (1974) Determination of sulphate in water samples. Sulphur Institute Journal, 11–13Google Scholar
  26. Tasaki M, Kamagato Y, Nakamura K, Okamura K & Minami K (1993) Acetogenesis from pyruvate and differences in pyruvate metabolism among three sulfate-reducing bacteria in the absence of sulfate. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 106: 259–264Google Scholar
  27. Traore AS, Fardeau M-L, Hatchikian CE, Gall JL & Belaich J-P (1983) Energetics of growth of a defined mixed culture ofDesulfovibrio vulgaris andMethanosarcina barkeri: interspecies hydrogen transfer in batch and continuous cultures. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 46: 1152–1156Google Scholar
  28. Widdel F (1988) Microbiology and ecology of sulfate- and sulfur-reducing bacteria. In: Zehnder AJB (Ed) Biology of anaerobic microorganisms, pp 469–585. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Woese CR (1987) Bacterial evolution. Microbiolog. Reviews 51: 221–271Google Scholar
  30. Woese CR, Kandler O & Wheels ML (1990) Towards a natural system of organisms: Proposal for the Domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 87: 4576–4579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu W-M, Hickey RF & Zeikus JG (1991) Characterization of metabolic performance of methanogenic granules treating brewery wastewater: role of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 57: 3438–3449Google Scholar
  32. Yao R, Macario AJL & de Macario EC (1992) Immunochemical differences amongMethanosarcina mazei S-6 morphologic forms. J. Bacteriol. 174: 4683–4688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang TC & Noike T (1991) Comparison of one-phase and two-phase anaerobic digestion processes in characterisctis of substrate degradation and bacterial population levels. Water Science Technol. 23: 1157–1166Google Scholar
  34. Zinder SH (1993) Physiological ecology of methanogens. In: Ferry JG Methanogenesis: Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry & Genetics, pp 128–206. Chapman & Hall, Inc. New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lutgarde Raskin
    • 1
  • Dandan Zheng
    • 1
  • Matt E. Griffin
    • 1
  • Peter G. Stroot
    • 1
  • Pavitra Misra
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Engineering and Science, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations