Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (4) : 13    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0856-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A syntrophic propionate-oxidizing microflora and its bioaugmentation on anaerobic wastewater treatment for enhancing methane production and COD removal
Chong Liu1,Jianzheng Li1,*(),Shuo Wang2,Loring Nies3
1. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
2. School of Environment and Civil Engineering, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
3. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
 Download: PDF(422 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Syntrophic propionate-oxidizing microflora B83 was enriched from anaerobic sludge.

The bioaugmentation of microflora B83 were evaluated from wastewater treatment.

Methane yield and COD removal were enhanced by bioaugmentation of microflora B83.

Hydrogen-producing acetogensis was a rate-limiting step in methane fermentation.

Methane fermentation process can be restricted and even destroyed by the accumulation of propionate because it is the most difficult to be anaerobically oxidized among the volatile fatty acids produced by acetogenesis. To enhance anaerobic wastewater treatment process for methane production and COD removal, a syntrophic propionate-oxidizing microflora B83 was obtained from an anaerobic activated sludge by enrichment with propionate. The inoculation of microflora B83, with a 1:9 ratio of bacteria number to that of the activated sludge, could enhance the methane production from glucose by 2.5 times. With the same inoculation dosage of the microflora B83, COD removal in organic wastewater treatment process was improved from 75.6% to 86.6%, while the specific methane production by COD removal was increased by 2.7 times. Hydrogen-producing acetogenesis appeared to be a rate-limiting step in methane fermentation, and the enhancement of hydrogen-producing acetogens in the anaerobic wastewater treatment process had improved not only the hydrogen-producing acetogenesis but also the acidogenesis and methanogenesis.
Keywords Anaerobic wastewater treatment      Methane production      Hydrogen-producing acetogenesis      Methanogenesis      Rate-limiting step      Bioaugmentation     
PACS:     
Fund: 
Corresponding Author(s): Jianzheng Li   
Issue Date: 08 July 2016
 Cite this article:   
Chong Liu,Jianzheng Li,Shuo Wang, et al. A syntrophic propionate-oxidizing microflora and its bioaugmentation on anaerobic wastewater treatment for enhancing methane production and COD removal[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 13.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-016-0856-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2016/V10/I4/13
metabolic characteristics generations
1st 4th 7th 10th
incubation period (days) 51±5 41±2 37±3 30±3
removal of propionic acid (%) 78.0±1.4 89.3±2.5 92.5±3.1 95.8±4.4
degradation rate of propionic acid (mg·L−1?d−1) 140±3.5 204±5.2 240±2.6 270±9.3
acetic acid production (mg·L−1) 533±13.5 1079±22.1 1376±24.6 1204±18.4
H2 production (mL) 32.7±1.5 40.9±4.2 47.0±5.1 50.9±2.7
CH4 production (mL) 33.4±2.4 43.5±5.1 50.8±7.2 60.8±6.9
specific propionic acid degradation rate of biomass (mmol·g−1 MLVSS·d−1) 3.7±1.4 6.6±2.3 17.7±2.1 22.1±4.7
methane yield by propionic acid removal (mol·mol−1) 0.36±0.05 0.37±0.13 0.39±0.22 0.41±0.17
Tab.1  Subcultures of the anaerobic activated sludge enriched by propionate and their performances in oxidizing propionate
control process bioaugmentation process
glucose initial (mg·L−1) 4251±349 4156±100
at the 24th hour (mg·L−1) 607±73 60±30
at the 72th hour (mg·L−1) 33±16 0
at the 96th hour (mg·L−1) 0 0
maximum degrading rate (mmol·h−1) a) 0.056±0.004 0.063±0.001
pH initial 8.3±0.1 8.1±0.1
end (at the 600th hour) 6.7±0.0 6.6±0.1
residual liquid products total (mg·L−1) 1783±23 591±23
propionate (mg·L−1) 309±22 149±13
biogas biogas production (mL) 83.3±3.5 194.4±6.8
methane production (mL) 36.4±2.2 90.3±11.4
maximum H2% in biogas (%) b) 8.0±2.1 2.7±0.3
specific methane yield (mol CH4·mol−1 glucose) 1.0±0.0 2.6±0.0
Tab.2  Performance of glucose fermentation in the control and bioaugmentation processes
Fig.1  COD removal in the control and bioaugmentation processes for organic wastewater treatment
Fig.2  Biogas production and components in the control (a) and the bioaugmentation processes (b) for organic wastewater treatment
Fig.3  Liquid products in the control (a) and the bioaugmentation (b) processes for organic wastewater treatment
controlprocess bioaugmentation process
COD initial (mg·L−1) 12710±476 12727±552
end (mg·L−1) 3100±214 1700±206
removal (%) 75.6±3.5 86.6±5.6
specific COD removal rate (mg·L−1·h−1) 13.7±0.3 15.7±0.5
liquid products total a) (mg·L−1) 2517±221 1312±126
acetate b) (mg·L−1) 739±89 647±63
propionate b) (mg·L−1) 1081±76 238±41
butyrate b) (mg·L−1) 819±53 713±31
ratio of propionate to acetate b) 1.5±0.1 0.3±0.1
biogas yield biogas (mL) 186±5 303±14
CH4 (mL) 27±1 83±12
H2% b) (%) 1.44±0.06 0.51±0.03
CH4 yield by COD removal (mmol·g−1) 1.9±0.2 5.1±0.4
speicfic CH4 production rate (mL·L−1·h−1) 0.6±0.0 1.8±0.3
pH initial 8.1±0.0 8.1±0.0
final a) 6.6±0.1 7.0±0.1
Tab.3  Performances of the control and bioaugmentation processes in organic wastewater treatment
1 Gunaseelan V N. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a review. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1997, 13(1): 83–114
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00020-2
2 Gou M, Zeng J, Wang H Z, Tang Y Q, Shigematsu T, Morimura S, Kida K. Microbial community structure and dynamics of starch-fed and glucose-fed chemostats during two years of continuous operation. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2016, 10(2): 368–380
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-015-0815-9
3 Nielsen H B, Uellendahl H, Ahring B K. Regulation and optimization of the biogas process: propionate as a key parameter. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2007, 31(11): 820–830
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.04.004
4 Bhunia P, Ghangrekar M M. Statistical modeling and optimization of biomass granulation and COD removal in UASB reactors treating low strength wastewaters. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(10): 4229–4238
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.075 pmid: 17936620
5 Feng J, Wang Y L, Ji X Y, Yuan D Q, Li H. Performance and bioparticle growth of anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) fed with low-strength domestic sewage. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2015, 9(2): 352–364
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0638-0
6 Öztürk M. Conversion of acetate, propionate and butyrate to methane under thermophilic conditions in batch reactors. Water Research, 1991, 25(12): 1509–1513
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(91)90181-O
7 Lange M, Ahring B K. A comprehensive study into the molecular methodology and molecular biology of methanogenic Archaea. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 2001, 25(5): 553–571
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00591.x pmid: 11742691
8 Rajhi H, Puyol D, Martínez M C, Díaz E E, Sanz J L. Vacuum promotes metabolic shifts and increases biogenic hydrogen production in dark fermentation systems. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2016, 10(3): 513–521
9 Stams A J, Plugge C M, Mirna M C. Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and archaea. Nature Reviews. Microbiology, 2009, 7(8): 568–577
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2166 pmid: 19609258
10 Worm P, Stams A J M, Cheng X, Plugge C M. Growth- and substrate-dependent transcription of formate dehydrogenase and hydrogenase coding genes in Syntrophobacter fumaroxidans and Methanospirillum hungatei. Microbiology, 2011, 157(1): 280–289
https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.043927-0 pmid: 20884694
11 Zheng G, Li J, Zhao F, Zhang L, Wei L, Ban Q, Zhao Y. Effect of illumination on the hydrogen-production capability of anaerobic activated sludge. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2012, 6(1): 125–130
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-011-0384-5
12 Daniel S L, Keith E S, Yang H, Lin Y S, Drake H L. Utilization of methoxylated aromatic compounds by the acetogen Clostridium thermoaceticum: expression and specificity of the co-dependent O-demethylating activity. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 1991, 180(1): 416–422
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-291X(05)81309-9 pmid: 1930235
13 Wang L, Zhou Q, Li F T. Avoiding propionic acid accumulation in the anaerobic process for biohydrogen production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2006, 30(2): 177–182
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.010
14 Gallert C, Winter J. Propionic acid accumulation and degradation during restart of a full-scale anaerobic biowaste digester. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(1): 170–178
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.014 pmid: 17197176
15 Mohan S V, Rao N C, Prasad K K, Sarma P N. Bioaugmentation of an anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor (AnSBBR) with immobilized sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) for the treatment of sulphate bearing chemical wastewater. Process Biochemistry, 2005, 40(8): 2849–2857
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.12.027
16 Marone A, Massini G, Patriarca C, Signorini A, Varrone C, Izzo G. Hydrogen production from vegetable waste by bioaugmentation of indigenous fermentative communities. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37(7): 5612–5622
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.12.159
17 McInerney M J, Bryant M P. Anaerobic degradation of lactate by syntrophic associations of Methanosarcina barkeri and Desulfovibrio species and effect of H2 on acetate degradation. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1981, 41(2): 346–354
pmid: 16345708
18 De Bok F A M, Plugge C M, Stams A J M. Interspecies electron transfer in methanogenic propionate degrading consortia. Water Research, 2004, 38(6): 1368–1375
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2003.11.028 pmid: 15016514
19 Friedrich M, Springer N, Ludwig W, Schink B. Phylogenetic positions of Desulfofustis glycolicus gen. nov., sp. nov., and Syntrophobotulus glycolicus gen. nov., sp. nov., two new strict anaerobes growing with glycolic acid. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 1996, 46(4): 1065–1069
https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-46-4-1065 pmid: 8863436
20 Sekiguchi Y, Kamagata Y, Nakamura K, Ohashi A, Harada H. Syntrophothermus lipocalidus gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel thermophilic, syntrophic, fatty-acid-oxidizing anaerobe which utilizes isobutyrate. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2000, 50(Pt 2): 771–779
https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-50-2-771 pmid: 10758888
21 Bruns A, Cypionka H, Overmann J. Cyclic AMP and acyl homoserine lactones increase the cultivation efficiency of heterotrophic bacteria from the central Baltic Sea. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2002, 68(8): 3978–3987
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.8.3978-3987.2002 pmid: 12147499
22 Schoenborn L, Yates P S, Grinton B E, Hugenholtz P, Janssen P H. Liquid serial dilution is inferior to solid media for isolation of cultures representative of the phylum-level diversity of soil bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004, 70(7): 4363–4366
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.7.4363-4366.2004 pmid: 15240320
23 Martins M, Faleiro M L, Barros R J, Veríssimo A R, Barreiros M A, Costa M C. Characterization and activity studies of highly heavy metal resistant sulphate-reducing bacteria to be used in acid mine drainage decontamination. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 166(2–3): 706–713
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.088 pmid: 19135795
24 Marchaim U, Krause C. Propionic to Acetic-acid ratios in overloaded anaerobic-digestion. Bioresource Technology, 1993, 43(3): 195–203
https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(93)90031-6
25 Ahring B K, Sandberg M, Angelidaki I. Volatile fatty acids as indicators of process imbalance in anaerobic digestors. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 1995, 43(3): 559–565
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00218466
26 Van Lier J B, Martin J L S, Lettinga G. Effect of temperature on the anaerobic thermophilic conversion of volatile fatty acids by dispersed and granular sludge. Water Research, 1996, 30(1): 199–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(95)00107-V
27 Liu R R, Tian Q, Yang B, Chen J H. Hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor for treatment of desizing wastewater. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2010, 7(1): 111–118
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326122
28 Zhu G F, Li J Z, Wu P, Jin H Z, Wang Z. The performance and phase separated characteristics of an anaerobic baffled reactor treating soybean protein processing wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(17): 8027–8033
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.046 pmid: 18450441
29 Altaf M, Naveena B, Venkateshwar M, Kumar E V, Reddy G. Single step fermentation of starch to L(+) lactic acid by Lactobacillus amylophilus GV6 in SSF using inexpensive nitrogen sources to replace peptone and yeast extract–optimization by RSM. Process Biochemistry, 2006, 41(2): 465–472
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2005.07.011
30 Turki S, Kraeim I B, Weeckers F, Thonart P, Kallel H. Isolation of bioactive peptides from tryptone that modulate lipase production in Yarrowia lipolytica. Process Biochemistry, 2006, 41(2): 465–472
31 Federation W E. American Public Health Association. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA): Washington, D C, USA, 2005
32 Dubois M, Gilles K A, Hamilton J K, Rebers P, Smith F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry, 1956, 28(3): 350–356
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60111a017
33 Li J, Zheng G, He J, Chang S, Qin Z. Hydrogen-producing capability of anaerobic activated sludge in three types of fermentations in a continuous stirred-tank reactor. Biotechnology Advances, 2009, 27(5): 573–577
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.04.007 pmid: 19393312
34 Kalia A, Rattan A, Chopra P. A method for extraction of high-quality and high-quantity genomic DNA generally applicable to pathogenic bacteria. Analytical Biochemistry, 1999, 275(1): 1–5
https://doi.org/10.1006/abio.1999.4259 pmid: 10542102
35 Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos J L, Guwy A J, Kalyuzhnyi S, Jenicek P, van Lier J B. Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Science and Technology, 2009, 59(5): 927–934
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.040 pmid: 19273891
36 Pullammanappallil P C, Chynoweth D P, Lyberatos G, Svoronos S A. Stable performance of anaerobic digestion in the presence of a high concentration of propionic acid. Bioresource Technology, 2001, 78(2): 165–169
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00187-5 pmid: 11333036
37 Liu Y, Whitman W B. Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008, 1125(1): 171–189
38 Hill D T, Cobb S A, Bolte J P. Using volatile fatty-acid relationships to predict anaerobic digester failure. Transactions of the ASAE (United States), 1987, 30(2): 496–501
39 Hill D T, Holmberg R D. Long chain volatile fatty acid relationships in anaerobic digestion of swine waste. Biological Wastes, 1988, 23(3): 195–214
https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(88)90034-1
[1] Ying Xu, Hui Gong, Xiaohu Dai. High-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge: achievements and perspectives[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 71-.
[2] Mona Akbar, Muhammad Farooq Saleem Khan, Ling Qian, Hui Wang. Degradation of polyacrylamide (PAM) and methane production by mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion: Effect of temperature and concentration[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 98-.
[3] Yi Chen, Shilong He, Mengmeng Zhou, Tingting Pan, Yujia Xu, Yingxin Gao, Hengkang Wang. Feasibility assessment of up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket treatment of sulfamethoxazole pharmaceutical wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 13-.
[4] Zechong Guo, Lei Gao, Ling Wang, Wenzong Liu, Aijie Wang. Enhanced methane recovery and exoelectrogen-methanogen evolution from low-strength wastewater in an up-flow biofilm reactor with conductive granular graphite fillers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 13-.
[5] Yujiao Sun, Juanjuan Zhao, Lili Chen, Yueqiao Liu, Jiane Zuo. Methanogenic community structure in simultaneous methanogenesis and denitrification granular sludge[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 10-.
[6] Ping He, Guangxue Wu, Rui Tang, Peilun Ji, Shoujun Yuan, Wei Wang, Zhenhu Hu. Influence of arsanilic acid, Cu2+, PO43− and their interaction on anaerobic digestion of pig manure[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 9-.
[7] Bai-Hang Zhao, Jie Chen, Han-Qing Yu, Zhen-Hu Hu, Zheng-Bo Yue, Jun Li. Optimization of microwave pretreatment of lignocellulosic waste for enhancing methane production: Hyacinth as an example[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 17-.
[8] Yulun Nie, Xike Tian, Zhaoxin Zhou, Yu-You Li. Impact of food to microorganism ratio and alcohol ethoxylate dosage on methane production in treatment of low-strength wastewater by a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 6-.
[9] Ying Xu, Ning-Yi Zhou. Microbial remediation of aromatics-contaminated soil[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 1-.
[10] Di CUI,Ang LI,Tian QIU,Rui CAI,Changlong PANG,Jihua WANG,Jixian YANG,Fang MA,Nanqi REN. Improvement of nitrification efficiency by bioaugmentation in sequencing batch reactors at low temperature[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8(6): 937-944.
[11] Jun QIAO, Chengdong ZHANG, Shuiming LUO, Wei CHEN. Bioremediation of highly contaminated oilfield soil: Bioaugmentation for enhancing aromatic compounds removal[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2014, 8(2): 293-304.
[12] Guangxue WU , Zhenhu HU , Mark G. HEALY , Xinmin ZHAN , . Thermochemical pretreatment of meat and bone meal and its effect on methane production[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2009, 3(3): 300-306.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed