Elsevier

Biomass and Bioenergy

Volume 99, April 2017, Pages 21-30
Biomass and Bioenergy

Research paper
Effect of humic acids on the activity of pure and mixed methanogenic cultures

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.012Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Most of the tested hydrogenotrophic methanogens were inhibited by humic acid (HA).

  • M. concilii was not affected by HA whereas, M. barkeri was severely affected by HA.

  • The inhibitory effect seems to be linked to the cell wall structure of methanogens.

  • Anaerobic sludge was less affected by HA, but less methane production was observed.

Abstract

The impact of humic acid (HA) on methanogenic activity was investigated. Methanogenic crushed granular sludge and pure cultures of mesophilic methanogens were incubated in batch cultures with HA. Initial methane production rates and substrate consumption rates were quantified. In the presence of 1 kg m−3 HA, the methane production rate of all hydrogenotrophic methanogens was inhibited by more than 75%, except Methanospirillum hungatei that was not inhibited up to 5 kg m−3 HA. The acetoclastic Methanosarcina barkeri was completely inhibited by HA ≥1 kg m−3. However, Methanosaeta concilii was only slightly affected by HA up to 3 kg m−3. When methanogenic granular sludge was incubated with HA, the specific methanogenic activity (SMA) tests showed less inhibition, when compared to the pure cultures of methanogens. The SMA test with H2/CO2, formate and acetate showed reduced initial methane production rate of 42%, 23% and 40%, respectively. Differences in HA susceptibility were explained by differences in cell wall structure.

Introduction

Methanogens are strictly anaerobic archaea that have diverse morphology and phylogeny. Their ecological niches are widely distributed. They can be found in aquatic sediments (marshes and swamps), stagnant soil (peat bogs and rice fields), marine geothermal vents, the digestive tract of animals (ruminants and termites) and in engineered anaerobic digesters [1]. Methanogens are sensitive to environmental factors. Wide range of organic compounds, such as long chain fatty acids, aromatic compounds, xenobiotics, and inorganic compounds such as ammonia and heavy metals have been described to affect the methanogenic activity [2].

Humic acids (HA) are charged polyelectrolyte complexes due to the presence of carboxylic, phenolic, ketonic, aromatic and aliphatic groups and interact with both living and non-living matter [3]. They can function as electron shuttles in anaerobic environments for fermentive, iron-reducing and sulphate-reducing bacteria, as well as for methanogenic archaea [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Although the role of HA in natural environments is known, their abundance, composition and effect in engineered systems (e.g. in anaerobic digesters) are not defined well in the literature. In an anaerobic digester environment, abundance and composition of HA mainly depend on the type of the feed [9]. HA concentrations can reach up to mass fraction of 1.5% of total solids in the treatment sludge and agricultural waste, such as manure and maize [9], [10], [11]. Abundance of HA in anaerobic digesters may negatively affect the overall conversion processes. Indeed, the negative effect of HA on hydrolysis step of anaerobic digestion was shown [9], [12], [13], [14]. In addition, a decrease in methanogenic activity was observed in the presence of HA [12], [13], [14], [15]. However, from these experiments it was not evident whether the methanogens were affected and if so, which physiological groups/phylotypes of methanogens were most vulnerable to HA inhibition. Thus, it is important to determine the physiological response of different methanogenic groups to get more information about the methane production in the anaerobic digesters, having higher HA concentrations.

In this study, important acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic methanogenic groups, belonging to Methanosaetaceae, Methanosarcinaceae, Methanospirillaceae, and Methanobacteriaceae, were selected to test their methanogenic activity in the presence and absence of HA. These methanogenic groups were selected due to their high abundance in most of the anaerobic digesters [16]. The methanogenic activity of pure cultures was compared to anaerobic crushed methanogenic granular sludge from a full scale UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactor treating paper mill wastewater. In this scope, batch tests were set-up in identical conditions for both pure and mixed cultures. During the batch experiments, methanogenic activity of each experimental group was monitored with gas and organic acid measurements.

Section snippets

Experimental set-up

The effect of humic acid (CAS Number 68131-04-4, Sigma-Aldrich, Zwijndrecht, The Netherlands) on mesophilic methanogens was investigated in batch tests. Crushed mesophilic anaerobic granular sludge and pure cultures of methanogens were tested. Batch incubations were performed in 120-cm3 bottles with 50 cm3 bicarbonate buffered mineral salts medium, supplemented with cysteine (0.96 kg m−3), trace elements and a vitamin mixture. Additionally, 0.12 kg m−3 acetate was added to the hydrogenotrophic

Effect of humic acid on methanogenic cultures

For all methanogenic pure cultures used in this study, the recovery of reducing equivalents in the form of CH4, produced from H2/CO2, acetate and formate, was always higher than 85%.

Conclusions

The effect of HA on methanogenic activity was demonstrated using pure cultures and mixed cultures. With the exception of Methanospirillum hungatei, all pure cultures of hydrogenotrophic methanogens tested were severely affected by addition of HA. Of the acetoclastic methanogens tested, Methanosaeta concilii was not affected by HA, whereas Methanosarcina barkeri was severely affected by HA. Anaerobic sludge was less affected by the addition of HA. However, a clear gap in the reducing equivalent

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW (STW-11612), which is part of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), and which is partly funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

The authors thank Vicente T. Sedano Núñez for providing cultures of Methanobacterium formicicum and Methanospirillum hungatei, and Marjan J. Smeulders for proofreading the manuscript.

References (29)

  • C.W. Steinberg et al.

    Humic substances

    Environ. Sci. Poll. Res.

    (2008)
  • M. Benz et al.

    Humic acid reduction by Propionibacterium freudenreichii and other fermenting bacteria

    Appl. Environ. Microbiol.

    (1998)
  • F.J. Cervantes et al.

    Reduction of humic substances by halorespiring, sulphate-reducing and methanogenic microorganisms

    Environ. Microbiol.

    (2002)
  • L. Klüpfel et al.

    Humic substances as fully regenerable electron acceptors in recurrently anoxic environments

    Nat. Geosci.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (41)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Both authors contributed equally.

    View full text