Microwave and ultrasound pre-treatments influence microbial community structure and digester performance in anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge
- 638 Downloads
Comparative analyses of bacterial and archaeal community structures and dynamics in three biogas digesters during start-up and subsequent operation using microwaved, ultrasonicated or untreated waste activated sludge were performed based on 454 pyrosequencing datasets of part of 16S ribosomal RNA sequences and quantitative PCR. The pre-treatment increased the solubility, and thus the availability of the substrate for microbial degradation and significantly affected the succession of the anaerobic community structure over the course of the digestion. Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria and Firmicutes were the dominant phyla in all digesters throughout operation. Proteobacteria decreased in relative abundance from 23–26 % to 11–13 % in association with enhanced substrate availability. Negative correlations between relative abundance of Alpha-, Beta- and Gammaproteobacteria and the substrate availability and/or biogas production were disclosed in statistical analyses. Clostridiales was the dominant order in Firmicutes, and Clostridiales, Clostridia and Firmicutes relative abundance and richness were shown to positively correlate with substrate availability and biogas generation. Methanogenic communities had a fairly restricted structure, highly dominated by Methanosaeta and Methanobrevibacter phylotypes. A gradual decline in Methanobrevibacter and increased representation of Methanosaeta concilii over time were particularly apparent in the digester receiving untreated waste activated sludge, whereas more diversified archaeal communities were maintained in the pre-treatment digesters. The quantitative PCR analyses revealed a methanogenic community distribution that coincided with the 454 pyrosequencing data.
KeywordsBiogas Wastewater sludge Microbial dynamics and diversity Methanogenesis Next generation sequencing qPCR
The authors would like to thank the Research Council of KU Leuven (projects OT/13/063 and F+/14/037) and the Industrial Research Council of KU Leuven (KP/10/006) for the financial support. We especially thank Sofie Houtmeyers for providing the digester samples, Stefan Ruyters for helping with the preparation of the 454 pyrosequencing run and Ken Meerbergen for assisting in some of the qPCR analyses.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- APHA (2006) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, eigtheenthth edn. American Public Health Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Appels L, Lauwers J, Degréve J, Helsen L, Lievens B, Willems K, Van Impe J, Dewil R (2011a) Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and research challenges. Renew Sust Energy Rev 15:4295–4301. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.121
- Appels L, Van Assche A, Willems K, Degréve J, Van Impe J, Dewil R (2011b) Peracetic acid oxidation as an alternative pre-treatment for the anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Bioresour Technol 102:4124–4130. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.070
- De Vrieze J, Gildemyn S, Vilchez-Vargas R, Jáuregui R, Pieper DH, Verstraete W, Boon N (2015a) Inoculum selection is crucial to ensure operational stability in anaerobic digestion. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:189–199. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-6046-3
- De Vrieze J, Saunders AM, He Y, Fang J, Nielsen PH, Verstraete W, Boon N (2015b) Ammonia and temperature determine potential clustering in the anaerobic digestion microbiome. Water Res 75:312–323. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.025
- Egli H (2008) Kjeldahl guide. Büchi Labortechnik AG, Flawil, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- EurObserv’ER (2014) Biogas barometer 2014. In: Observ’ER, Institute JS, Netherlands Ercot, Analyses IfreEE, Renac (eds). p 1-11Google Scholar
- Gagliano MC, Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Gianico A, Rossetti S (2015a) Microbial diversity in innovative mesophilic/thermophilic temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of sludge. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:7339–7348. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3061-y
- Gagliano MC, Braguglia CM, Gianico A, Mininni G, Nakamura K, Rossetti S (2015b) Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of thermal pretreated sludge: role of microbial community structure and correlation with process performances. Water Res 68:498–509. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.10.031
- Houtmeyers S, Degréve J, Willems K, Dewil R, Appels L (2014) Comparing the influence of low power ultrasonic and microwave pre-treatments on the solubilisation and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Bioresour Technol 171:44–49. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jang HM, Cho HU, Park SK, Ha JH, Park JM (2014) Influence of thermophilic aerobic digestion as sludge pre-treatment and solids retention time of mesophilic anaerobic digestion on the methane production, sludge digestion and microbial communities in a sequential digestion process. Water Res 48:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17:10-12 doi: 10.14806/ej.17.1.200Google Scholar
- Monlau F, Sambusiti C, Barakat A, Quéméneur M, Trably E, Steyer JP, Carrère H (2014) Do furanic and phenolic compounds of lignocellulosic and algae biomass hydrolyzate inhibit anaerobic mixed cultures? A comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv 32:934–951. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.04.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oksanen J, Blanchet G, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2015) Community ecology package. vol R package version 2.3-0,Google Scholar
- Qiu YL, Hanada S, Ohashi A, Harada H, Kamagata Y, Sekiguchi Y (2008) Syntrophorhabdus aromaticivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., the first cultured anaerobe capable of degrading phenol to acetate in obligate syntrophic associations with a hydrogenotrophic methanogen. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:2051–2058. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02378-07 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryanbin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF (2012) Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:7537–7541. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schlüter A, Bekel T, Diaz NN, Dondrup M, Eichenlaub R, Gartemann K, Krahn I, Krause L, Krömeke H, Kruse O, Mussgnug JH, Neuweger H, Niehaus K, Pühler A, Runte KJ, Szczepanowski R, Tauch A, Tilker A, Viehöver P, Goesmann A (2008) The metagenome of a biogas-producing microbial community of a production-scale biogas plant fermenter analysed by the 454-pyrosequencing technology. J Biotechnol 136:77–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shiratori H, Sasaya K, Ohiwa H, Ikeno H, Ayame S, Kataoka N, Miya A, Beppu T, Ueda K (2009) Clostridium clariflavum sp. nov. and Clostridium caenicola sp nov., moderately thermophilic, cellulose-/cellobiose-digesting bacteria isolated from methanogenic sludge. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:1764–1770. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.003483-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vos P, Garrity GM, Jones D, Krieg NR, Ludwig W, Rainey FA, Schleifer KH, Whitman W (2009) The Firmicutes Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. vol 3. Springer, New York, pp 1-7Google Scholar