Comparison of different valent iron on anaerobic sludge digestion: Focusing on oxidation reduction potential, dissolved organic nitrogen and microbial community

doi:10.1007/s11783-021-1514-3

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (6) : 80 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-021-1514-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of different valent iron on anaerobic sludge digestion: Focusing on oxidation reduction potential, dissolved organic nitrogen and microbial community

Zecong Yu¹, Keke Xiao¹(

), Yuwei Zhu¹, Mei Sun¹, Sha Liang¹, Jingping Hu¹, Huijie Hou¹, Bingchuan Liu¹, Jiakuan Yang^1,^2,³

¹. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
². Hubei Provincial Engineering Laboratory of Solid Waste Treatment, Disposal and Recycling, Wuhan 430074, China
³. State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

Download: PDF(1578 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

• ORP value from −278.71 to −379.80 mV showed indiscernible effects on methane yield.

• Fe(II) and Fe(III) promoted more degradation of proteins and amino acids than Fe⁰.

• The highest enrichment of Geobacter was noted in samples added with Fe⁰.

• Cysteine was accumulated during iron enhanced anaerobic sludge digestion.

• Both iron content and valence were important for methane production.

This study compared effects of three different valent iron (Fe⁰, Fe(II) and Fe(III)) on enhanced anaerobic sludge digestion, focusing on the changes of oxidation reduction potential (ORP), dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), and microbial community. Under the same iron dose in range of 0−160 mg/L after an incubation period of 30 days (d), the maximum methane production rate of sludge samples dosed with respective Fe⁰, Fe(II) and Fe(III) at the same concentration showed indiscernible differences at each iron dose, regardless of the different iron valence. Moreover, their behavior in changes of ORP, DON and microbial community was different: (1) the addition of Fe⁰ made the ORP of sludge more negative, and the addition of Fe(II) and Fe(III) made the ORP of sludge less negative. However, whether being more or less negative, the changes of ORP may show unobservable effects on methane yield when it ranged from −278.71 to −379.80 mV; (2) the degradation of dissolved organic nitrogen, particularly proteins, was less efficient in sludge samples dosed with Fe⁰ compared with those dosed with Fe(II) and Fe(III) after an incubation period of 30 d. At the same dose of 160 mg/L iron, more cysteine was noted in sludge samples dosed with Fe(II) (30.74 mg/L) and Fe(III) (27.92 mg/L) compared with that dosed with Fe⁰ (21.75 mg/L); (3) Fe⁰ particularly promoted the enrichment of Geobacter, and it was 6 times higher than those in sludge samples dosed with Fe(II) and Fe(III) at the same dose of 160 mg/L iron.

Keywords Enhanced anaerobic sludge digestion Different iron valence Oxidation reduction potential Dissolved organic nitrogen Microbial community

Corresponding Author(s): Keke Xiao

Issue Date: 29 October 2021

Cite this article:

Zecong Yu,Keke Xiao,Yuwei Zhu, et al. Comparison of different valent iron on anaerobic sludge digestion: Focusing on oxidation reduction potential, dissolved organic nitrogen and microbial community[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 80.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-021-1514-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2022/V16/I6/80

Tab.1 Experimental procedures about the effects of ORP mediated by Fe⁰, Fe(II), and Fe(III) on iron enhanced anaerobic sludge digestion

Tab.2 Description of different symbols used in this experiment

Fig.1 Effects of ORP changes on anaerobic sludge digestion with the addition of different doses of iron: (a) Fe(II), (b) Fe(III), and (c) Fe⁰; effects of (d) ORP changes and (e) methane yields by the addition of different doses of Na₂S.

Fig.2 The changes of methane yield with the addition of different doses of iron: (a) Fe⁰, (b) Fe(II), and (c) Fe(III) during an incubation period of 30 days; the changes of protein concentrations with the addition of different doses of iron: (d) Fe⁰, (e) Fe(II), and (f) Fe(III); (g) FRI distribution of DON before and after anaerobic sludge digestion (the dose of iron= 160 mg/L iron).

Fig.3 Changes of amino acids in control and experimental groups with the addition of different doses of iron during anaerobic sludge digestion at different incubation time (0, 5, 10, 20 and 30 d): (a) Control; (b) (b) 40 mg/L Fe⁰; (c) 80 mg/L Fe⁰; (d) 120 mg/L Fe⁰; (e) 160 mg/L Fe⁰; (f) 40 mg/L Fe(II); (g) 80 mg/L Fe(II); (h) 120 mg/L Fe(II); (i) 160 mg/L Fe(II); (j) 40 mg/L Fe(III); (k) 80 mg/L Fe(III); (l) 120 mg/L Fe(III) and (m) 160 mg/L Fe(III). Noted: Asp denotes aspartic acid; Ser denotes serine; His denotes histidine; Thr denotes threonine; Arg denotes arginine; Cys denotes cysteine; Val denotes valine; Met denotes methionine; Phe denotes phenylalanine; Lys denotes lysine; Pro denotes proline.

Tab.3 Iron content before and after anaerobic digestion of sludge.

Fig.4 (a) The taxonomic analysis of bacterial community in the mixture of feed sludge and seed sludge (Initial), the raw sludge after an incubation period of 30 days (Control), the mixed sludge with addition of 160 mg/L Fe⁰, Fe(II), Fe(III) after an incubation period of 30 days, respectively (Fe⁰, Fe(II), Fe(III)) (% denotes the percentage of each bacterium to the total bacteria); (b) the taxonomic analysis of archaeal community in Initial, Control, Fe⁰, Fe(II) and Fe(III) (% denotes the percentage of each methanogen to the total archaea); (c) the genes assigned to enzymes directly related to utilization or production of NH₃ in the samples of Control, Fe⁰, Fe(II) and Fe(III) (% denotes the percentage of each gene to the total genes); (d) key genes involved in amino acid metabolism in the samples of Control, Fe⁰, Fe(II) and Fe(III) (% denotes the percentage of each gene to the total genes).

Fig.5 (a) The correlation between methane yield, and different types of proteins and amino acids; (b) the PCA results of methane yield and different types of proteins and amino acids; (c) the structural equation model of methane yield, and different types of proteins and Cys. Arrow denotes relationship: red lines denote negative and significant effects, and black lines denote positive and significant effects. Significance levels are indicated: ∗p<0.05, ∗∗p<0.01, ∗∗∗p<0.001. Noted: methane in (a) and (b) denotes methane yield; PN denotes protein; SMP denoted soluble microbial byproduct; APN I denotes aromatic protein I; APN II denotes aromatic protein II; FA denotes fulvic acid; HA denotes humic acid; Asp denotes aspartic acid; Ser denotes serine; His denotes histidine; Thr denotes threonine; Arg denotes arginine; Cys denotes cysteine; Val denotes valine; Met denotes methionine; Phe denotes phenylalanine; Lys denotes lysine; Pro denotes proline.

1	B Buchfink, C Xie, D H Huson (2015). Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nature Methods, 12(1): 59–60 https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3176 pmid: 25402007
2	W Cai, J Liu, X Zhang, W J Ng, Y Liu (2016). Generation of dissolved organic matter and byproducts from activated sludge during contact with sodium hypochlorite and its implications to on-line chemical cleaning in MBR. Water Research, 104(1): 44–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.065 pmid: 27508973
3	W Chan, J Wang (2018). Formation of synthetic sludge as a representative tool for thermochemical conversion modelling and performance analysis of sewage sludge based on a TG-FT. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 133(1): 97–106 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.04.015
4	S Chen, B Dong, X Dai, H Wang, N Li, D Yang (2019). Effects of thermal hydrolysis on the metabolism of amino acids in sewage sludge in anaerobic digestion. Waste Management, 88(1): 309–318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.060 pmid: 31079644
5	W Chen, P Westerhoff, J A Leenheer, K Booksh (2003). Fluorescence excitation-emission matrix regional integration to quantify spectra for dissolved organic matter. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(24): 5701–5710 https://doi.org/10.1021/es034354c pmid: 14717183
6	X Fei, D Zekkos, L Raskin (2015). Archaeal community structure in leachate and solid waste is correlated to methane generation and volume reduction during biodegradation of municipal solid waste. Waste Management, 36(1): 184–190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.027 pmid: 25481695
7	Y Feng, Y Zhang, X Quan, S Chen (2014). Enhanced anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge digestion by the addition of zero valent iron. Water Research, 52(1): 242–250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.072 pmid: 24275106
8	A Gonzalez, A T W M Hendriks, J B van Lier, M de Kreuk (2018). Pre-treatments to enhance the biodegradability of waste activated sludge: Elucidating the rate limiting step. Biotechnology Advances, 36(5): 1434–1469 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.06.001 pmid: 29885467
9	X Hao, J Wei, M C M van Loosdrecht, D Cao (2017). Analysing the mechanisms of sludge digestion enhanced by iron. Water Research, 117(1): 58–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.048 pmid: 28390236
10	D H Huson, S Mitra, H J Ruscheweyh, N Weber, S C Schuster (2011). Integrative analysis of environmental sequences using MEGAN4. Genome Research, 21(9): 1552–1560 https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.120618.111 pmid: 21690186
11	M Kanehisa, S Goto, Y Sato, M Kawashima, M Furumichi, M Tanabe (2014). Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Research, 42(D1): D199–D205 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1076 pmid: 24214961
12	A Li, Y Chu, X Wang, L Ren, J Yu, X Liu, J Yan, L Zhang, S Wu, S Li (2013). A pyrosequencing-based metagenomic study of methane-producing microbial community in solid-state biogas reactor. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 6(1): 3–17 https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-3 pmid: 23320936
13	Y Li, S Achinas, J Zhao, B Geurkink, J Krooneman, G J W Euverink (2020). Co-digestion of cow and sheep manure: Performance evaluation and relative microbial activity. Renewable Energy, 153(1): 553–563 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.041
14	J Liang, S Zhang, J Huang, M Ye, X Yang, S Huang, S Sun (2020). Mechanism of zero valent iron and anaerobic mesophilic digestion combined with hydrogen peroxide pretreatment to enhance sludge dewaterability: Relationship between soluble EPS and rheological behavior. Chemosphere, 247(1): 125859 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.125859 pmid: 31931319
15	Y Liu, Y Zhang, X Quan, Y Li, Z Zhao, X Meng, S Chen (2012). Optimization of anaerobic acidogenesis by adding Fe0 powder to enhance anaerobic wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 192(1): 179–185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.03.044
16	D Lu, X Liu, O Apul, L Zhang, D Ryan, X Zhang (2019). Optimization of biomethane production from anaerobic co-digestion of microalgae and septic tank sludge. Biomass and Bioenergy, 127(1): 105266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105266
17	D Lu, K Xiao, Y Chen, Y N A Soh, Y Zhou (2018). Transformation of dissolved organic matters produced from alkaline-ultrasonic sludge pretreatment in anaerobic digestion: From macro to micro. Water Research, 142(1): 138–146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.044 pmid: 29864649
18	L Nazari, Z Yuan, D Santoro, S Sarathy, D Ho, D Batstone, C C Xu, M B Ray (2017). Low-temperature thermal pre-treatment of municipal wastewater sludge: Process optimization and effects on solubilization and anaerobic degradation. Water Research, 113(1): 111–123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.055 pmid: 28208104
19	D D Nguyen, S Chang, S Y Jeong, J Jeung, S Kim, W Guo, H H Ngo (2016). Dry thermophilic semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of food waste: performance evaluation, modified Gompertz model analysis, and energy balance. Energy Conversion and Management, 128(1): 203–210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.066
20	N Paepatung, W Songkasiri, H Yasui, C Phalakornkule (2020). Enhancing methanogenesis in fed-batch anaerobic digestion of high-strength sulfate-rich wastewater using zero valent scrap iron. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8(6): 104508 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104508
21	Q Ping, M Zheng, X Dai, Y Li (2020). Metagenomic characterization of the enhanced performance of anaerobic fermentation of waste activated sludge with CaO2 addition at ambient temperature: Fatty acid biosynthesis metabolic pathway and CAZymes. Water Research, 170(1): 115309 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115309 pmid: 31812814
22	Y Qin, L Chen, T Wang, J Ren, Y Cao, S Zhou (2019). Impacts of ferric chloride, ferrous chloride and solid retention time on the methane-producing and physicochemical characterization in high-solids sludge anaerobic digestion. Renewable Energy, 139(1): 1290–1298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.139
23	A E Rotaru, P M Shrestha, F Liu, B Markovaite, S Chen, K P Nevin, D R Lovley (2014). Direct interspecies electron transfer between Geobacter metallireducens and Methanosarcina barkeri. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 80(15): 4599–4605 https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00895-14 pmid: 24837373
24	J Shan, X Zhao, R Sheng, Y Xia, C Ti, X Quan, S Wang, W Wei, X Yan (2016). Dissimilatory nitrate reduction processes in typical chinese paddy soils: rates, relative contributions, and influencing factors. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(18): 9972–9980 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01765 pmid: 27499451
25	A M Walsh, F Crispie, M J Claesson, P D Cotter (2017). Translating omics to food microbiology. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 8(1): 113–134 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-030216-025729 pmid: 28125344
26	R Wang, N Lv, C Li, G Cai, X Pan, Y Li, G Zhu (2021). Novel strategy for enhancing acetic and formic acids generation in acidogenesis of anaerobic digestion via targeted adjusting environmental niches. Water Research, 193(1): 116896 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.116896 pmid: 33571902
27	J Wei, X Hao, M C M Van Loosdrecht, J Li (2018). Feasibility analysis of anaerobic digestion of excess sludge enhanced by iron: A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 89(1): 16–26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.042
28	K Xiao, G Abbt-Braun, H Horn (2020). Changes in the characteristics of dissolved organic matter during sludge treatment: A critical review. Water Research, 187(1): 116441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116441 pmid: 33022515
29	K Xiao, Y Chen, X Jiang, Q Yang, W Y Seow, W Zhu, Y Zhou (2017). Variations in physical, chemical and biological properties in relation to sludge dewaterability under Fe (II) - Oxone conditioning. Water Research, 109(1): 13–23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.034 pmid: 27866102
30	K Xiao, Z Yu, K Pei, M Sun, Y Zhu, S Liang, H Hou, B Liu, J Hu, J Yang (2022). Anaerobic digestion of sludge by different pretreatments: Changes of amino acids and microbial community. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 16(2): 23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-021-1458-7
31	Y Yang, F Yang, W Huang, W Huang, F Li, Z Lei, Z Zhang (2018). Enhanced anaerobic digestion of ammonia-rich swine manure by zero-valent iron: With special focus on the enhancement effect on hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis activity. Bioresource Technology, 270(1): 172–179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.008 pmid: 30218933
32	B Yu, D Zhang, A Shan, Z Lou, H Yuan, X Huang, W Yuan, X Dai, N Zhu (2015). Methane-rich biogas production from waste-activated sludge with the addition of ferric chloride under a thermophilic anaerobic digestion system. Royal Society of Chemistry Advances, 5(48): 38538–38546 https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA02362A
33	W Zeng, B Li, X Wang, X Bai, Y Peng (2016). Influence of nitrite accumulation on “Candidatus Accumulibacter” population structure and enhanced biological phosphorus removal from municipal wastewater. Chemosphere, 144(1): 1018–1025 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.064 pmid: 26439519
34	J Zhang, Y Qu, Q Qi, P Zhang, Y Zhang, Y W Tong, Y He (2020a). The bio-chemical cycle of iron and the function induced by ZVI addition in anaerobic digestion: A review. Water Research, 186(1): 116405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116405 pmid: 32932096
35	Y Zhang, W T Frankenberger Jr (2007). Supplementing Bacillus sp. RS1 with Dechloromonas sp. HZ for enhancing selenate reduction in agricultural drainage water. Science of the Total Environment, 372(2-3): 397–405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.10.027 pmid: 17140639
36	Z Zhang, L Guo, Y Wang, Y Zhao, Z She, M Gao, Y Guo (2020b). Application of iron oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles during the two-stage anaerobic digestion with waste sludge: impact on the biogas production and the substrate metabolism. Renewable Energy, 146(1): 2724–2735 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.078
37	L Zhou, Y Gao, K Yu, H Zhou, Y G De Costa, S Yi, W Q Zhuang (2020). Microbial community in in-situ waste sludge anaerobic digestion with alkalization for enhancement of nutrient recovery and energy generation. Bioresource Technology, 295(1): 122277 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122277 pmid: 31662227
38	L Zhu, K Gao, J Jin, H Lin, X Xu (2014). Analysis of ZVI corrosion products and their functions in the combined ZVI and anaerobic sludge system. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 21(22): 12747–12756 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3215-y pmid: 24965008

[1]	Cheng Hou, Xinbai Jiang, Na Li, Zhenhua Zhang, Qian Zhang, Jinyou Shen, Xiaodong Liu. Enhanced 4-chlorophenol biodegradation by integrating Fe₂O₃ nanoparticles into an anaerobic reactor: Long-term performance and underlying mechanism[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(8): 98-.
[2]	Qiong Guo, Zhichao Yang, Bingliang Zhang, Ming Hua, Changhong Liu, Bingcai Pan. Enhanced methane production during long-term UASB operation at high organic loads as enabled by the immobilized Fungi[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 71-.
[3]	Yanan Bai, Xiuning Wang, Fang Zhang, Raymond Jianxiong Zeng. Acid Orange 7 degradation using methane as the sole carbon source and electron donor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(3): 34-.
[4]	Keke Xiao, Zecong Yu, Kangyue Pei, Mei Sun, Yuwei Zhu, Sha Liang, Huijie Hou, Bingchuan Liu, Jingping Hu, Jiakuan Yang. Anaerobic digestion of sludge by different pretreatments: Changes of amino acids and microbial community[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(2): 23-.
[5]	Zaishan Wei, Meiru Tang, Zhenshan Huang, Huaiyong Jiao. Mercury removal from flue gas using nitrate as an electron acceptor in a membrane biofilm reactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(2): 20-.
[6]	Yifan Liu, Qiongfang Zhang, Ainiwaer Sidike, Nuerla Ailijiang, Anwar Mamat, Guangxiao Zhang, Miao Pu, Wenhu Cheng, Zhengtao Pang. The impact of different voltage application modes on biodegradation of chloramphenicol and shift of microbial community structure[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(11): 141-.
[7]	Shuhan Li, Xin Zhou, Xiwei Cao, Jiabo Chen. Insights into simultaneous anammox and denitrification system with short-term pyridine exposure: Process capability, inhibition kinetics and metabolic pathways[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(6): 139-.
[8]	Qinxue Wen, Shuo Yang, Zhiqiang Chen. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure with sulfamethoxazole and norfloxacin: Dynamics of microbial communities and evolution of resistance genes[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 94-.
[9]	Ruijie Li, Mengmeng Zhou, Shilong He, Tingting Pan, Jing Liu, Jiabao Zhu. Deciphering the effect of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate on up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket treatment of synthetic sulfate-containing wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 91-.
[10]	Weichuan Qiao, Rong Li, Tianhao Tang, Achuo Anitta Zuh. Removal, distribution and plant uptake of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in a simulated constructed wetland system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 20-.
[11]	Yanqing Duan, Aijuan Zhou, Xiuping Yue, Zhichun Zhang, Yanjuan Gao, Yanhong Luo, Xiao Zhang. Acceleration of the particulate organic matter hydrolysis by start-up stage recovery and its original microbial mechanism[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 12-.
[12]	Jing Peng, Ke Wang, Xiangbo Yin, Xiaoqing Yin, Mengfei Du, Yingzhi Gao, Philip Antwi, Nanqi Ren, Aijie Wang. Trophic mode and organics metabolic characteristic of fungal community in swine manure composting[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 93-.
[13]	Yuhan Zheng, Zhiguo Su, Tianjiao Dai, Feifei Li, Bei Huang, Qinglin Mu, Chuanping Feng, Donghui Wen. Identifying human-induced influence on microbial community: A comparative study in the effluent-receiving areas in Hangzhou Bay[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 90-.
[14]	Aoshuang Jing, Tao Liu, Xie Quan, Shuo Chen, Yaobin Zhang. Enhanced nitrification in integrated floating fixed-film activated sludge (IFFAS) system using novel clinoptilolite composite carrier[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 69-.
[15]	Qinqin Liu, Miao Li, Rui Liu, Quan Zhang, Di Wu, Danni Zhu, Xuhui Shen, Chuanping Feng, Fawang Zhang, Xiang Liu. Removal of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole in artificial composite soil treatment systems and diversity of microbial communities[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 28-.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed