Previously unclassified bacteria dominate during thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic pre-treatment of primary sludge

Pervin, Hasina M.; Batstone, Damien J.; Bond, Philip L.

doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2013.03.003

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HRT [38,39]. No full-scale TPAD system has been used in digesting dairy manure, but laboratory-scale TPAD systems were shown to be effective in digesting dairy manure [22][23][24]40].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volume ratios between the thermophilic and the mesophilic digesters of a temperature-phased anaerobic digestion system affect their performance and microbial communities

Zhang

2016

New Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experimental temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) system, with the thermophilic digester operated at neutral pH and with a balanced acidogenesis and methanogenesis (referred to as NT-TPAD), was evaluated with respect to the microbial communities and population dynamics of methanogens when digesting dairy cattle manure at 15-day overall system hydraulic retention time (HRT). When fed a manure slurry of 10% total solid (TS), similar system performance, 36-38% volatile solid (VS) removal and 0.21-0.22 L methane g(-1) VS fed, was achieved between a 5-day and 7.5-day HRT for the thermophilic digester. However, the thermophilic digester achieved a greater volumetric biogas yield when operated at a 5-day RT than at a 7.5-day HRT (6.3 vs. 4.7 L/L/d), while the mesophilic digester had a stable volumetric biogas yield (about 1.0 L/L/d). Each of the digesters harbored distinct yet dynamic microbial populations, and some of the methanogens were significantly correlated with methane productions. Methanosarcina and Methanosaeta were the most important methanogenic genera in the thermophilic and the mesophilic digesters, respectively. The microbiological findings may help understand the metabolism that underpins the anaerobic processes within each of the two digesters of TPAD systems when fed dairy manure.

show abstract

“…HRT [38,39]. No full-scale TPAD system has been used in digesting dairy manure, but laboratory-scale TPAD systems were shown to be effective in digesting dairy manure [22][23][24]40].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volume ratios between the thermophilic and the mesophilic digesters of a temperature-phased anaerobic digestion system affect their performance and microbial communities

Zhang

2016

New Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This T-RF was related to sulphur-reducing bacteria, such as Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and Desulfofrigus sp., and sulphate-reducing agents, such as Desulfatiferula olefinivorans, Desulfotalea phychrophila and Desulfovibrio magneticus, classified under Delta Proteobacteria. The 293-295 bp T-RF size was present in non-inoculated oats and in inoculated rye and is mostly related to Acidaminococcus fermentans, which is an amino acid degrader (Pervin, Batstone, & Bond, 2013). Inoculated oat samples had a size of 323-325 bp T-RF, which was not present in non-inoculated oats and has been recently linked to the deep-sea genus Moritella sp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of management of cover crop–soybean agroecosystems on rhizosphere microbial communities

Ortega

Vásquez²,

Alba³

et al. 2020

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of the rhizosphere and use of quality microbial bioinputs are tools to achieve agricultural sustainability. The impact of management of cover crop–soybean agroecosystems on rhizosphere microbial communities was evaluated. A field experiment in a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement in sub‐divided plots was performed. Effects of fertilization (0 and 45 kg·ha−1), oats, rye and control without cover crops, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) co‐inoculation of Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens, and three sampling times on microbial counts, community‐level physiological profiles (CLPP) and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T‐RLFP) were studied. CLPP were drastically changed at three sampling times: before glyphosate, after glyphosate and at soybean harvest. Before glyphosate application, the interaction between PGPR inoculation and coverage treatments modified the functional and structural profiles of the rhizosphere microbial communities. Furthermore, the highest microbial counts and the greatest functional diversity indices were observed before glyphosate application but significantly decayed after glyphosate application and at soybean harvest, showing a permanent impact of glyphosate application on the rhizosphere microbial community functionality, which was confirmed with several statistical analyses. For the cover crop–soybean agroecosystems, we can conclude that the rhizosphere microbial communities showed high sensitivity to glyphosate. PGPR inoculation only increased the aerial biomass of rye at the jointing and grain‐filling stages. Inoculated plants without fertilization and non‐inoculated plants with fertilization showed similar aerial biomass production of this crop. This work demonstrates that different management decisions can change plant–microorganism relationships in the rhizospheres of cover crops and impact aboveground biomass production. A better understanding of microbial ecology will allow the sustainable use of available resources.Highlights A field experiment was conducted using oats and rye as cover crops in succession with soybean. Management decisions changed plant–microorganism relationships and impact on microbial ecology. Management of cover crops with glyphosate had negative impacts on rhizosphere microbial communities. Co‐inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens increased the aerial biomass production of rye.

show abstract

“…T-RFLP has been extensively used to monitor structural changes and dynamics of Archaea and Bacteria in anaerobic reactors (Collins et al 2003;Carballa et al 2011;Pycke et al 2011;Feng et al 2010;Pervin et al 2013;Zhang et al 2014a, b;Whang et al 2015). In general, the community is monitored in order to relate changes in the microbial community by modifying one or several operational parameters.…”

Section: T-rflp a Molecular Tool To Monitor Bacterial And Archaeal Comentioning

confidence: 99%

How to use molecular biology tools for the study of the anaerobic digestion process?

Cabezas

Araújo

Callejas

et al. 2015

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anaerobic digestion is used with success for the treatment of solid waste, urban and industrial effluents with a concomitant energy production. The process is robust and stable, but the complexity of the microbial community involved in the process is not yet fully comprehensive. Nowadays, the study of this complex ecosystem is facilitated by the availability of different molecular tools, but it is very important to choose the adequate tool to answer specific questions. The aim of this review is to describe different molecular techniques, indicate the questions that can be addressed by each technique, enumerate their limitations and give practical advices for their use. Examples of how the molecular tools have been used to address various questions in anaerobic digestion are presented. The key point now is to apply all this information to improve anaerobic digestion. The integration of concepts of microbial-ecology, environmental-engineering, modeling and bioinformatics is currently necessary.

show abstract

Previously unclassified bacteria dominate during thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic pre-treatment of primary sludge

Cited by 21 publications

References 57 publications

Volume ratios between the thermophilic and the mesophilic digesters of a temperature-phased anaerobic digestion system affect their performance and microbial communities

Volume ratios between the thermophilic and the mesophilic digesters of a temperature-phased anaerobic digestion system affect their performance and microbial communities

Impact of management of cover crop–soybean agroecosystems on rhizosphere microbial communities

How to use molecular biology tools for the study of the anaerobic digestion process?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About