CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cow manure as additive to a DMBR for stable and high-rate digestion of food waste: Performance and microbial community

Xing, Bao-Shan, Han, Yule, Wang, Xiaochang C., Ma, Jing, Cao, Sifan, Li, Qian, Wen, Junwei, Yuan, Honglin·2020·Water Research
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115099
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cow manure (CM) was added to a dynamic membrane bioreactor (DMBR) operated under anaerobic condition for enhancing food waste (FW) digestion for over 300 days with stepwise increase of organic loading rates (OLRs) from 1.07 to 11.9 g COD/L/day. At a FW/CM ratio of 3.5:1 (based on volatile solids), the mixed liquor pH was always above 8.0 and no apparent volatile fatty acids (VFAs) accumulation occurred even at the highest OLR of 11.9 g COD/L/day (hydraulic retention time as 10 days and solid retention time as 15.5 days, correspondingly), indicating a very stable operation condition which resulted in an average CH 4 yield as high as 250 mL/g COD and CH 4 production as high as 2.71 L CH 4 /L/day. The hardly biodegradable organic components, such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, were effectively degraded by 78.3%, 58.8%, and 47.5%, respectively. Significantly high anaerobic digestion reaction ratios, especially the hydrolysis ratio which is usually the limiting factor, were calculated based on experimental results. Furthermore, the high lignocellulase contents and coenzyme F 420 levels, along with the decrease of cellulose crystallinity from 72.6% to 16.4% in the feedstock, provided strong evidence of an enhanced biological activity by CM addition. By high-throughput sequencing analysis, more abundant and diverse bacterial, archaeal, and fungal genera were identified from the DMBR sludge. With CM addition, the biodegradation of lignocellulose might have produced sufficie…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115099

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Agyeman, 2014, Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure: effects of food waste particle size and organic loading rate, J. Environ. Manag., 133, 268
  2. Anthonisen, 1976, Inhibition of nitrification by ammonia and nitrous acid, J. Water Pollut. Con. F., 5, 835
  3. Baba, 2005, Alternative splicing produces two endoglucanases with one or two carbohydrate-binding modules in Mucor circinelloides, J. Bacteriol., 187, 3045, 10.1128/JB.187.9.3045-3051.2005 · DOI
  4. Brown, 2013, Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of yard waste and food waste for biogas production, Bioresour. Technol., 127, 275, 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.081 · DOI
  5. Buswell, 1952, Mechanism of methane fermentation, Ind. Eng. Chem., 44, 550, 10.1021/ie50507a033 · DOI
  6. Cayetano, 2019, Food waste treatment in an anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR): performance monitoring and microbial community analysis, Bioresour. Technol., 280, 158, 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.025 · DOI
  7. Chen, 2017, Enhanced methanogenic degradation of cellulose-containing sewage via fungi-methanogens syntrophic association in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor, Bioresour. Technol., 245, 810, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.046 · DOI
  8. Dahiya, 2018, Food waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy, Bioresour. Technol., 248, 2, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.176 · DOI
  9. El-Mashad, 2010, Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste, Bioresour. Technol., 101, 4021, 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.027 · DOI
  10. El-Mashad, 2007, Co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure for biogas production, T. ASABE, 5, 1815, 10.13031/2013.23945 · DOI
  11. Hu, 2016, Towards stable operation of a dynamic membrane bioreactor (DMBR): operational process, behavior and retention effect of dynamic membrane, J. Membr. Sci., 498, 20, 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.10.009 · DOI
  12. Hu, 2008, Microscale analysis of in vitro anaerobic degradation of lignocellulosic wastes by rumen microorganisms, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 276, 10.1021/es071915h · DOI
  13. Imachi, 2016, Sedimentibacter acidaminivorans sp. nov., an anaerobic, amino acids-utilizing bacterium isolated from marine subsurface sediment, Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 66, 1293, 10.1099/ijsem.0.000878 · DOI
  14. Jin, 2012, Identification and characterization of a fungal strain with lignin and cellulose hydrolysis activities, Afr. J. Microbiol. Res., 6, 6545, 10.5897/AJMR12.476 · DOI
  15. Kurade, 2019, Acetoclastic methanogenesis led by Methanosarcina in anaerobic co-digestion of fats, oil and grease for enhanced production of methane, Bioresour. Technol., 272, 351, 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.047 · DOI
  16. Li, 2017, Effects of loading rate and temperature on anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge in a high frequency feeding system, looking in particular at stability and efficiency, Bioresour. Technol., 237, 231, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.045 · DOI
  17. Li, 2015, Sulfate addition as an effective method to improve methane fermentation performance and propionate degradation in thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of coffee grounds, milk and waste activated sludge with AnMBR, Bioresour. Technol., 185, 308, 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.019 · DOI
  18. Li, 2018, Responses of microbial capacity and community on the performance of mesophilic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge in a high-frequency feeding CSTR, Bioresour. Technol., 260, 85, 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.087 · DOI
  19. Li, 2009, Anaerobic codigestion of kitchen waste with cattle manure for biogas production, Energy Fuel., 23, 2225, 10.1021/ef8008772 · DOI
  20. Li, 2018, Methane production through anaerobic digestion: participation and digestion characteristics of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, Appl. Energy, 226, 1219, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.055 · DOI
  21. Li, 2017, Simultaneous chemical oxygen demand removal, methane production and heavy metal precipitation in the biological treatment of landfill leachate using acid mine drainage as sulfate resource, J. Biosci. Bioeng., 124, 71, 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2017.02.009 · DOI
  22. Ma, 2018, Towards utmost bioenergy conversion efficiency of food waste: pretreatment, co-digestion, and reactor type, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 90, 700, 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.110 · DOI
  23. Marañón, 2012, Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge to increase biogas production, Waste Manag., 32, 1821, 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.033 · DOI
  24. Melikoglu, 2013, Analysing global food waste problem: pinpointing the facts and estimating the energy content, Cent. Eur. J. Eng., 3, 157
  25. Morais, 2013, Sugiyamaella xylanicola sp. nov., a xylan-degrading yeast species isolated from rotting wood, Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 63, 2356, 10.1099/ijs.0.050856-0 · DOI
  26. Neves, 2009, Co-digestion of cow manure, food waste and intermittent input of fat, Bioresour. Technol., 100, 1957, 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.030 · DOI
  27. Ohga, 2001, Transcriptional regulation of laccase and cellulase genes during growth and fruiting of Lentinula edodes on supplemented sawdust, FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 201, 111, 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10741.x · DOI
  28. Park, 2018, Effect of feeding mode and dilution on the performance and microbial community population in anaerobic digestion of food waste, Bioresour. Technol., 248, 134, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.025 · DOI
  29. Park, 2010, Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance, Biotechnol. Biofuels, 3, 1, 10.1186/1754-6834-3-10 · DOI
  30. Pelletier, 2008, Cloacamonas Acidaminovorans": genome sequence reconstruction provides a first glimpse of a new bacterial division, J. Bacteriol., 190, 2572, 10.1128/JB.01248-07 · DOI
  31. Qiang, 2012, High-solid mesophilic methane fermentation of food waste with an emphasis on Iron, Cobalt, and Nickel requirements, Bioresour. Technol., 103, 21, 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.036 · DOI
  32. Qiang, 2013, Trace metals requirements for continuous thermophilic methane fermentation of high-solid food waste, Chem. Eng. J., 222, 330, 10.1016/j.cej.2013.02.076 · DOI
  33. Qin, 2018, Biogas recovery from two-phase anaerobic digestion of food waste and paper waste: optimization of paper waste addition, Sci. Total Environ., 634, 1222, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.341 · DOI
  34. Rajagopal, 2013, Anaerobic co-digestion of source segregated brown water (feces-without-urine) and food waste: for Singapore context, Sci. Total Environ., 443, 877, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.016 · DOI
  35. Reynolds, 1987, Evaluation and improvement of methods for coenzyme F420 analysis in anaerobic sludges, J. Microbiol. Methods, 7, 115, 10.1016/0167-7012(87)90032-7 · DOI
  36. Schnürer, 2016, Biogas production: microbiology and technology, Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol., 156, 195
  37. Sun, 2015, From mesophilic to thermophilic digestion: the transitions of anaerobic bacterial, archaeal, and fungal community structures in sludge and manure samples, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 99, 10271, 10.1007/s00253-015-6866-9 · DOI
  38. Tang, 2017, Dynamic membrane-assisted fermentation of food wastes for enhancing lactic acid production, Bioresour. Technol., 234, 40, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.019 · DOI
  39. Tišma, 2018, Corn silage fungal-based solid-state pretreatment for enhanced biogas production in anaerobic co-digestion with cow manure, Bioresour. Technol., 253, 220, 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.037 · DOI
  40. Wang, 2007, Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 16, 5261, 10.1128/AEM.00062-07 · DOI
  41. Xiao, 2018, Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of food waste: a comparison with single-stage digestions based on performance and energy balance, Bioresour. Technol., 249, 826, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.084 · DOI
  42. Xie, 2014, An anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) for landfill leachate treatment: performance and microbial community identification, Bioresour. Technol., 161, 29, 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.014 · DOI
  43. Xing, 2019, Persistent action of cow rumen microorganisms in thorough biodegradation of wheat straw by dark fermentation, Environ. Sci. Technol.
  44. Yang, 2019, Mitigation of ammonia inhibition through bioaugmentation with different microorganisms during anaerobic digestion: selection of strains and reactor performance evaluation, Water Res., 155, 214, 10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.048 · DOI
  45. Yenigun, 2013, Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review, Process Biochem., 48, 901, 10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012 · DOI
  46. Zhang, 2014, Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 38, 383, 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.038 · DOI
  47. Zhang, 2013, The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure, Bioresour. Technol., 129, 170, 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.138 · DOI
  48. Zhang, 2017, Three-stage anaerobic digester for food waste, Appl. Energy, 194, 287, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.116 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 76

Metadata

Authors
Xing, B.-S., Han, Y., Wang, X. C., Ma, J., Cao, S., Li, Q., Wen, J., & Yuan, H.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
168
Pages
115099
ISSN
0043-1354
DOI
10.1016/j.watres.2019.115099
Cited by
76
References
0
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China

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