Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 29;8(2):188.
doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8020188.

Long-Term Mesophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Swine Manure with Corn Stover and Microbial Community Analysis

Haipeng Wang  1 , Teng Teeh Lim  2 , Cuong Duong  2 , Wei Zhang  1 , Congfeng Xu  1 , Lei Yan  1 , Zili Mei  3 , Weidong Wang  1
Affiliations

Long-Term Mesophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Swine Manure with Corn Stover and Microbial Community Analysis

Haipeng Wang et al. Microorganisms. .

Abstract

Long-term anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure (SM) and corn stover (CS) was conducted using semi-continuously loaded digesters under mesophilic conditions. A preliminary test was first conducted to test the effects of loading rates, and results indicated the 3 g-VS L-1 d-1 was the optimal loading rate. Based on the preliminary results, a verification replicated test was conducted with 3 g-VS L-1 d-1 loading rate and different SM/CS ratios (1:1, 2:1 and 1:2). Results showed that a SM/CS ratio of 2/1 was optimal, based on maximum observed methane-VSdes generation and carbon conversion efficiency (72.56 ± 3.40 mL g-1 and 40.59%, respectively). Amplicon sequencing analysis suggested that microbial diversity was increased with CS loading. Amino-acid-degrading bacteria were abundant in the treatment groups. Archaea Methanoculleus could enhance biogas and methane productions.

Keywords: Amplicon sequencing; biogas; farm waste; semi-continuous digesters; swine manure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Biogas (A) methane (B) production rates of the control (C1-C3) and treatment digesters, periods a and b were when the digesters were loaded with 2 and 3 g-VS L−1 d−1, and period c was when all digesters were loaded following the experiment design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Variation of biogas (A) and methane (B) production of control and treatments in Test 2.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The pH value in different treatments in Test 2.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Relative abundance of main taxa at phylum level.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Relative abundance of main taxa at genus level. Uncultured genus microbial was showed family level within bracket because of considerable abundance and importance degree.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chen Y., Cheng J.J., Creamer K.S. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion processes: A review. Biores. Tech. 2008;99:4044–4064. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Riaño B., Garcíagonzález M.C. On-farm treatment of swine manure based on solid-liquid separation and biological nitrification-denitrification of the liquid fraction. J. Environ. Manag. 2014;132:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lyberatos G., Skiadas I.V. Modelling of anaerobic digestion-a review. Glob. Nest. Int. J. 1999;1:63–76.
    1. Wang M., Zhang X.Y., Zhou J., Yuan Y.X., Dai Y.M., Li D., Liu X.F., Yan Z.Y. The dynamic changes and interactional networks of prokaryotic community between co-digestion and mono-digestions of corn stalk and pig manure. Biores. Tech. 2017;225:23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mata-Alvarez J., Dosta J., Romero-Güiza M.S., Fonoll X., Peces M., Astals S. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014;36:412–427. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.039. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources