Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ammonia and temperature determine potential clustering in the anaerobic digestion microbiome

De Vrieze, Jo, Saunders, Aaron Marc, He, Ying, Fang, Jing, Nielsen, Per Halkjaer, Verstraete, Willy, Boon, Nico·2015·Water Research

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion is regarded as a key environmental technology in the present and future bio-based economy. The microbial community completing the anaerobic digestion process is considered complex, and several attempts already have been carried out to determine the key microbial populations. However, the key differences in the anaerobic digestion microbiomes, and the environmental/process parameters that drive these differences, remain poorly understood. In this research, we hypothesized that differences in operational parameters lead to a particular composition and organization of microbial communities in full-scale installations. A total of 38 samples were collected from 29 different full-scale anaerobic digestion installations, showing constant biogas production in function of time. Microbial community analysis was carried out by means of amplicon sequencing and real-time PCR. The bacterial community in all samples was dominated by representatives of the Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria, covering 86.1 ± 10.7% of the total bacterial community. Acetoclastic methanogenesis was dominated by Methanosaetaceae, yet, only the hydrogenotrophic Methanobacteriales correlated with biogas production, confirming their importance in high-rate anaerobic digestion systems. In-depth analysis of operational and environmental parameters and bacterial community structure indicated the presence of three potential clusters in anaerobic digestion. These clusters were determined by total ammonia concentration, free ammonia concentration and temperature, and characterized by an increased relative abundance of Bacteroidales, Clostridiales and Lactobacillales, respectively. None of the methanogenic populations, however, could be significantly attributed to any of the three clusters. Nonetheless, further experimental research will be required to validate the existence of these different clusters, and to which extent the presence of these clusters relates to stable or sub-optimal anaerobic digestion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.025

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
De Vrieze, J., Saunders, A. M., He, Y., Fang, J., Nielsen, P. H., Verstraete, W., & Boon, N.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
75
Pages
312-323
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053555532
Cited by
347
References
67
FWCI
46.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ammonia and temperature determine potential clustering in the anaerobic digestion microbiome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.025
The paper
De Vrieze, J., Saunders, A. M., He, Y., Fang, J., Nielsen, P. H., Verstraete, W., & Boon, N. (2015). Ammonia and temperature determine potential clustering in the anaerobic digestion microbiome. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.025

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.