IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i2p243-d89866.html

Characterization of the Microbial Communities in Rumen Fluid Inoculated Reactors for the Biogas Digestion of Wheat Straw

Author

Listed:
  • Ke Li

    (College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
    Water Affairs Research Institute, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China)

  • Haoran Zhu

    (College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China)

  • Yajie Zhang

    (College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China)

  • Hongxun Zhang

    (College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China)

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of rumen fluid (RF) concentration on the methane production through anaerobic digestion of wheat straw in batch mode, and compared the microbial communities in RF and RF inoculated reactors by 16S rRNA genes sequencing. Six levels of RF concentration including 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% ( v / v ) were used in reactors R1, R5, R10, R15, R20 and R25 respectively. The results revealed that lower than or equal to 5% RF concentrations resulted in reactor acidification and low methane production. The highest methane yield of 106 mL CH 4 g VS −1 was achieved in R10, whereas higher RF concentrations than 10% could not improve the methane production significantly. Methanosarcina barkeri was abundant in the well-working reactors, and Methanobacterium was dominant in the poor-working reactors, implying the archaeal communities in reactors had changed greatly from the Methanobrevibacter -dominated RF. Although the relative abundance of Clostridium and Ruminococcus were greatly different between RF and reactors, the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes communities were dominant in all the tested samples. The results indicated that the in vitro anaerobic conditions had altered the rumen methanogenic communities significantly and the facultative acetoclastic Methanosarcina was important for the methane production in the RF seeded reactors.

Suggested Citation

  • Ke Li & Haoran Zhu & Yajie Zhang & Hongxun Zhang, 2017. "Characterization of the Microbial Communities in Rumen Fluid Inoculated Reactors for the Biogas Digestion of Wheat Straw," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:243-:d:89866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/2/243/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/2/243/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Merlin Christy, P. & Gopinath, L.R. & Divya, D., 2014. "A review on anaerobic decomposition and enhancement of biogas production through enzymes and microorganisms," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 167-173.
    2. Chen, Xiaohua & Zhang, YaLei & Gu, Yu & Liu, Zhanguang & Shen, Zheng & Chu, Huaqiang & Zhou, Xuefei, 2014. "Enhancing methane production from rice straw by extrusion pretreatment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 34-41.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elvira E. Ziganshina & Svetlana S. Bulynina & Ayrat M. Ziganshin, 2022. "Impact of Granular Activated Carbon on Anaerobic Process and Microbial Community Structure during Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Meng, Xingyao & Wang, Qingping & Zhao, Xixi & Cai, Yafan & Ma, Xuguang & Fu, Jingyi & Wang, Pan & Wang, Yongjing & Liu, Wei & Ren, Lianhai, 2023. "A review of the technologies used for preserving anaerobic digestion inoculum," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Ping & Liu, Chaoqi & Chang, Juan & Yin, Qingqiang & Huang, Weiwei & Liu, Yang & Dang, Xiaowei & Gao, Tianzeng & Lu, Fushan, 2019. "Effect of physicochemical pretreatments plus enzymatic hydrolysis on the composition and morphologic structure of corn straw," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 502-508.
    2. Coimbra, Michelle Cardoso & Duque, Aleta & Saéz, Felicia & Manzanares, Paloma & Garcia-Cruz, Crispin Humberto & Ballesteros, Mercedes, 2016. "Sugar production from wheat straw biomass by alkaline extrusion and enzymatic hydrolysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1060-1068.
    3. Tonanzi, B. & Gallipoli, A. & Gianico, A. & Montecchio, D. & Pagliaccia, P. & Rossetti, S. & Braguglia, C.M., 2021. "Elucidating the key factors in semicontinuous anaerobic digestion of urban biowaste: The crucial role of sludge addition in process stability, microbial community enrichment and methane production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 272-284.
    4. Di Maria, Francesco & Sisani, Federico & Lasagni, Marzio & Borges, Marisa Soares & Gonzales, Thiago H., 2018. "Replacement of energy crops with bio-waste in existing anaerobic digestion plants: An energetic and environmental analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 202-213.
    5. Dell’Omo, Pier Paolo & Spena, Vincenzo Andrea, 2020. "Mechanical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass to improve biogas production: Comparison of results for giant reed and wheat straw," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Velusamy Mozhiarasi & Pious Michealammal Benish Rose & Dirk Weichgrebe & Shanmugham Venkatachalam Srinivasan, 2025. "Comparative study on effect of shredding and extrusion on biogas production from cauliflower and banana peduncle wastes," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(9), pages 22795-22821, September.
    7. Ao, Tianjie & Chen, Lin & Zhou, Pan & Liu, Xiaofeng & Li, Dong, 2021. "The role of oxidation-reduction potential as an early warning indicator, and a microbial instability mechanism in a pilot-scale anaerobic mesophilic digestion of chicken manure," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 223-232.
    8. Arthur Chevalier & Philippe Evon & Florian Monlau & Virginie Vandenbossche & Cecilia Sambusiti, 2023. "Twin-Screw Extrusion Mechanical Pretreatment for Enhancing Biomethane Production from Agro-Industrial, Agricultural and Catch Crop Biomasses," Waste, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Hassan, Muhammad & Zhao, Chao & Ding, Weimin, 2020. "Enhanced methane generation and biodegradation efficiencies of goose manure by thermal-sonication pretreatment and organic loading management in CSTR," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Cristiane Romio & Michael Vedel Wegener Kofoed & Henrik Bjarne Møller, 2021. "Digestate Post-Treatment Strategies for Additional Biogas Recovery: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Latifi, Pooria & Karrabi, Mohsen & Danesh, Shahnaz, 2019. "Anaerobic co-digestion of poultry slaughterhouse wastes with sewage sludge in batch-mode bioreactors (effect of inoculum-substrate ratio and total solids)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 288-296.
    12. Andrea Zanellati & Federica Spina & Luca Rollé & Giovanna Cristina Varese & Elio Dinuccio, 2020. "Fungal Pretreatments on Non-Sterile Solid Digestate to Enhance Methane Yield and the Sustainability of Anaerobic Digestion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Zou, Shuzhen & Wang, Hui & Wang, Xiaojiao & Zhou, Sha & Li, Xue & Feng, Yongzhong, 2016. "Application of experimental design techniques in the optimization of the ultrasonic pretreatment time and enhancement of methane production in anaerobic co-digestion," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 191-202.
    14. Mustafa, Ahmed M. & Poulsen, Tjalfe G. & Sheng, Kuichuan, 2016. "Fungal pretreatment of rice straw with Pleurotus ostreatus and Trichoderma reesei to enhance methane production under solid-state anaerobic digestion," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 661-671.
    15. Akobi, Chinaza & Yeo, Hyeongu & Hafez, Hisham & Nakhla, George, 2016. "Single-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of extruded lignocellulosic biomass," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 548-559.
    16. Moioli, Emanuele & Schildhauer, Tilman, 2022. "Negative CO2 emissions from flexible biofuel synthesis: Concepts, potentials, technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Ishtiaq Ahmed & Muhammad Anjum Zia & Huma Afzal & Shaheez Ahmed & Muhammad Ahmad & Zain Akram & Farooq Sher & Hafiz M. N. Iqbal, 2021. "Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Biomass Valorisation: A Strategic Drive for Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-32, April.
    18. Ma, Shuaishuai & Li, Yuling & Li, Jingxue & Yu, Xiaona & Cui, Zongjun & Yuan, Xufeng & Zhu, Wanbin & Wang, Hongliang, 2022. "Features of single and combined technologies for lignocellulose pretreatment to enhance biomethane production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    19. Mads Ujarak Sieborg & Brian Dahl Jønson & Søren Ugilt Larsen & Ali Heidarzadeh Vazifehkhoran & Jin Mi Triolo, 2020. "Co-Ensiling of Wheat Straw as an Alternative Pre-Treatment to Chemical, Hydrothermal and Mechanical Methods for Methane Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Yodpetch, Viphada & Jeenmuang, Kan & Viriyakul, Chakorn & Kulprathipanja, Santi & Rangsunvigit, Pramoch, 2026. "Solidified natural gas (SNG) technology for biogas/biomethane storage: Current status and future outlook," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 226(PA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:243-:d:89866. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.