Carneiro Et Al 2022

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Two-phase (acidogenic-methanogenic) anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactor


enhances the biological domestic sewage treatment: Perspectives for
recovering bioenergy and value-added by-products
Rodrigo B. Carneiro a, b, *, Gisele M. Gomes b, Marcelo Zaiat b, Álvaro J. Santos-Neto a
a
Laboratory of Chromatography (CROMA), Institute of Chemistry of São Carlos, University of São Paulo (USP), 400, Trabalhador São-Carlense Ave., São Carlos, São
Paulo, 13566-590, Brazil
b
Laboratory of Biological Processes (LPB), São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo (USP), 1100, João Dagnone Ave., Santa Angelina, 13563-120, São
Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The organic matter bioconversion into methane during anaerobic digestion (AD) comprises different steps, the
Anaerobic digestion acidogenic and methanogenic phases being clearly distinct in terms of metabolic activities. In this work, new
Biomethane configurations of anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactors (AFBBR) were operated under conventional methanogenic
Fermentation
conditions (single phase – SP-AFBBR, M1R), and in a sequential two-phase system, acidogenic reactor followed
Kinetics
Methanoregula
by methanogenic reactor (TP-AFBBR, AcR + M2R), in order to verify the impact of the AD phase separation on
Volatile organic acids the overall system performance in operational, kinetics and microbiological aspects. The results indicated that
feeding the methanogenic reactor with the acidogenic effluent stream provided a shorter operating start-up
period (11 and 32 days for SP and TP-AFBBR, respectively), a greater alkalinity generation (0.14 and 0.41 g-
1
CaCO3⋅g-COD−removed for M1R and M2R, respectively), and the optimization of biomethane production (methane
1
yield of 95 and 154 N-mLCH4⋅g-COD−removed for M1R and M2R, respectively). The COD removal kinetics was also
favored in the TP-AFBBR (k1-COD = 1.4 and 2.9 h− 1 for M1R and M2R, respectively), since the soluble fermen­
tation products were readily bioavailable to the biomass in the reactor. Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis was
the predominant pathway in the M2R, while the Methanosaeta-driven acetoclastic pathway predominated in the
M1R. The greater diversity of Bacteria and Archaea in M2R denotes a better balance between the species that
degrade volatile organic acids from AcR (i.e. Syntrophorhabdus, Syntrophus and Syntrophobacter) and the
hydrogenotrophic methanogens (Methanoregula, Methanolinea and Methanospirillum) that consume the biodeg­
radation products. The estimated bioenergy generation potential (range of 0.39–0.64 kWh⋅m− 3-sewage consid­
ering the COD removed) for full-scale TP-sewage treatment plants evidences the feasibility of energetic recovery
in the domestic sewage anaerobic treatment.

1. Introduction It is therefore necessary to apply alternative decentralized sewage


treatment systems that are able to attend this demand (Libralato et al.,
Sewage treatment is still deficient in many parts of the world, 2012). In addition, there is a growing trend to face domestic sewage as a
aggravating public health problems - waterborne diseases (e.g. diarrhea, potential source of value-added products that can be recovered, taking
cholera and bacterial dysentery), and environmental problems - aquatic into account the principles of sustainability and circular bioeconomy,
pollution and ecotoxicological impacts along the food chain (Vezzone such as water for reuse, fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and
et al., 2021). Wastewater treatment systems are often focused on assist sulfur), and bioenergy (methane and hydrogen) (Kong et al., 2021; Li
the needs of the urban population, making it impossible for populations and Yu, 2016; Stazi and Tomei, 2018; Yang et al., 2022).
far from large urban centers to access sewage collection and treatment. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is applied in the biological sewage

* Corresponding author. Laboratory of Chromatography (CROMA), Institute of Chemistry of São Carlos, University of São Paulo (USP), 400, Trabalhador São-
Carlense Ave., São Carlos, São Paulo, 13566-590, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: rodrigocarneiro@sc.usp.br (R.B. Carneiro), gisele.gomes@usp.br (G.M. Gomes), zaiat@sc.usp.br (M. Zaiat), alvarojsn@iqsc.usp.br (Á.J. Santos-
Neto).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115388
Received 10 March 2022; Received in revised form 23 April 2022; Accepted 21 May 2022
0301-4797/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

treatment around the world, among other factors, as it is a technology of sludge retention time and an inexpressive solids washout in the effluent
lower sludge production and lower operational, maintenance and en­ stream, which is usual in conventional reactors, e.g. UASB (Up-flow
ergy costs compared to aerobic treatment systems (Foresti et al., 2006). Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactors and septic tanks. Some disadvan­
The AD comprises a series of steps that promote the conversion of tages of these reactors are related to clogging of the bed interstices,
complex organic matter into biogas, composed mainly of methane (CH4) channeling and hydraulic short circuit zones, but these problems are
and carbon dioxide (CO2). These steps include hydrolysis, acidogenesis, mitigated by applying the ordering of the support material inside the
acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, which are catalyzed by different reaction bed (Carneiro et al., 2020; Mockaitis et al., 2014). The anaer­
microbial populations and enzymes (Cohen et al., 1980; Gujer and obic fixed bed biofilm reactors work as a system of immobilized biomass
Zehnder, 1983). Thus, the process occurs through the association be­ on a support bed, which has been presented in different materials, e.g.
tween hydrolytic, acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic microor­ polyurethane foam, vegetal carbon, synthetic pumice, ceramic, low- and
ganisms. The consumption of hydrogen, formate and acetate by high-density polyethylene. The formation of the biofilm in this support
methanogenic archaea affects the metabolism of other microbial com­ media allows the creation of a favorable environment for the growth and
munities. Formation of metabolites by fermentative bacteria is shifted to interaction interspecies of anaerobic microorganisms – fermentative
more oxidized products, whereas acetogenic bacteria are only able to bacteria and methanogenic archaeas (Garcia et al., 2008; Ratusznei
metabolize compounds when methanogenic archaea consume hydrogen et al., 2000; Zinatizadeh et al., 2017). Therefore, the application of
and formate efficiently (Stams et al., 2012). Therefore, the good effi­ AFBBR can lead to an effective bioenergetic recovery from sewage, as
ciency of the anaerobic digestion depends on a balance between the they are more compact units with greater operational stability, and
production and consumption of the intermediary products from the allow a higher organic load applied without compromising the treat­
fermentation process – short chain volatile organic acids (VOA), solvents ment system (Carneiro et al., 2019, 2020).
(alcohols and acetone), biohydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Given the scenario presented, this work aims to establish an anaer­
Several factors can affect the AD performance, such as pH, alkalinity, obic acidogenic-methanogenic two-stage treatment system to optimize
temperature, macro and micronutrient composition, proportion among the biomethane production in sewage treatment during AD. For this
the elements carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus (C:N:P), applied organic purpose, a comparison will be made for the first time of single-phase
loading rate, hydraulic retention time, food/microorganism ratio (F/M), (methanogenic reactor) and two-phase (acidogenic reactor + meth­
inoculum source (Daud et al., 2018; Roopnarain et al., 2021; Sella et al., anogenic reactor) systems in anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactors, in
2021). Therefore, some conditions of imbalance or stress, such as order to verify the impact of this phase separation on domestic sewage
organic overload or the toxic materials input to the reactor, can disfavor treatment, clarifying operational, kinetic and microbiological aspects. In
the methanogenic pathway, increasing CO2 and decreasing CH4 content addition, it is intended to highlight the possibility of generating and
in the biogas, since methanogenic archaea are more sensitive to load and using bioenergy from sewage by applying the AFBBR, as well as the
pH shocks than fermentative bacteria due to kinetic and thermodynamic recovery of soluble fermentation products, such as volatile organic
limitations (Hanvajanawong et al., 2022; Mota and Zaiat, 2018). acids, in order to make the process economically sustainable.
An alternative to improve anaerobic digestion and decrease the
possibility of methanogenesis collapse is to promote the separation of 2. Material and methods
the methanogenic step from the acidogenic step in the treatment system.
This can be achieved through a system with anaerobic reactors in series - 2.1. Single- and two-phase anaerobic reactors: System configuration and
acidogenic reactor followed by a methanogenic reactor. Due to the se­ operating conditions
lective pressure imposed by the phase separation, in the first reactor,
microbial reactions of hydrolysis of complex organic matter and gen­ Fig. S1 shows a layout of the treatment systems used in the study,
eration of soluble fermentation products (organic acids and solvents) which consists of two bench-scale anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactors
prevail, while in the second reactor, acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic (AFBBR) - a single-phase (SP-AFBBR, methanogenic), and a two-phase
methanogenic archaea prevail, which promote the conversion of these reactor (TP-AFBBR, acidogenic followed by methanogenic). The useful
by-products to biomethane (Fuess et al., 2017; Nabaterega et al., 2021). volume of each reactor is 2 L, and the fixed bed contains as support
Phase separation in anaerobic digestion was identified in the 1980s material eight vertical strips of polyurethane foam (length of 52 cm,
as promising for the degradation of high-strength industrial liquid base of 1 cm2, and mass of 7 g) along the reaction bed. The foam was
wastes, aiming at reduction of wastewater treatment plant capital and selected because it is a low-cost support material, easy to acquire, and it
operating costs, and higher net energy recovery (Ghosh et al., 1985). For offers excellent conditions for biomass adhesion and biofilm growth
municipal sewage, initial studies were more focused on optimizing the (Carneiro et al., 2019; Ribeiro et al., 2005). In order to facilitate dis­
sludge stabilization (Fongsatitkul et al., 1995). Van Ginkel et al. (2005) cussion of the results and the comparison between the systems, the
and Fernandes et al. (2010) demonstrated the possibility of generating methanogenic reactor of the SP-AFBBR was abbreviated as M1R, while
hydrogen from domestic sewage fermentation, reaching 40 and 200 the methanogenic reactor of the TP-AFBBR was abbreviated as M2R, and
mL-H2⋅g− 1-COD, respectively, which shows a scenario of bioenergetic the acidogenic reactor is the AcR.
diversification from this substrate. Guerrero et al. (2009) observed a The reactors were kept in a chamber with temperature control at
biogas generation potential in the two-phase anaerobic digestion pro­ 30 ◦ C, and are fed by peristaltic metering pumps. The hydraulic reten­
cess 97% higher than that obtained in the one-phase system treating tion time (HRT) adopted for the operation of each system is 12 h, ac­
synthetic domestic wastewater. Despite the mentioned advantages, cording to Carneiro et al. (2019). Thus, in the TP-AFBBR system each
there are no reports of the use of two-phase anaerobic reactors in reactor (acidogenic or methanogenic) was operated under a 6 h- HRT.
full-scale sewage treatment plants, due to the lack of experience with the For comparison purposes, both systems (SP- and TP-AFBBR) were
process, and difficulties in design, construction, and operation (Mota operated with the same applied organic loading rate (OLR) of 2
and Zaiat, 2018). Furthermore, it is clear that economic issues impose a kg-COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1, representative for the domestic sewage treatment
barrier to the advancement of this technology, which can be overcome (Chernicharo, 2015). The feed substrate consisted of a lab-made sewage
by the energy valuation of sewage, and taking into account the with a theoretical chemical oxygen demand (COD) of 1.0 g-COD⋅L− 1,
value-added products that will be generated. whose composition is detailed in Table S1 of Supplementary Material.
Anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactors (AFBBR) have been pointed out The total operating time of the bioreactors was 133 days.
as a promising alternative to conventional anaerobic sewage treatment A granular sludge from a UASB reactor in operation treating waste­
systems, since they have the ability to promote an excellent retention of water from a poultry slaughterhouse (Avícola Dacar S.A., located in the
active biomass in the reaction bed, enabling the maintenance of a high city of Tietê, SP, Brazil) was used for the inoculum of the M1R and M2R.

2
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

This inoculum has been successfully applied in the domestic sewage Biotechnology Information) database – project access number
anaerobic digestion (Carneiro et al., 2019), as it has a high diversity of PRJNA814683.
metabolic genes from microbial communities involved in the catabolic To compare the species diversity of the samples, the ecological
cycles of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus (Delforno et al., 2017). In the indices - Dominance (D), Diversity (Shannon-Wiener - H), and Richness
methanogenic reactors, the adhered biomass remained in contact with (Chao-1) - were calculated using the statistical software PAST (PAle­
the foam for 4 h before starting to feed them. For the AcR, an acid ontological STatistics, version 4.03, https://www.nhm.uio.no/english/
pre-treatment (pH 3, HCl 5 mol L− 1) was carried out on the same research/infrastructure/past/). The biomass microscopic evaluation
inoculum of the methanogenic reactors, prior to the immobilization of was performed by using a Leica phase contrast optical microscope
the biomass on the support material. In this case, the biomass remained coupled to an Optronics camera with image capture, and the software
in contact with the foam for 24 h before starting to feed the reactor, Image-Pro Plus 4.5.
according to the methodology described by Penteado et al. (2013). For
the AcR start-up, a higher OLR (24 kg-COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1) was applied for 2 2.3. Calculations
days, under an HRT of 2 h in order to eliminate the methanogenic
archaea from the reaction bed. Then, the OLR of the AcR returned to the The performance assessment of the reactors was monitored in terms
original design value, and its effluent was collected in a 20 L reservoir to of organic matter removal efficiency, taking into account the COD and
be the feed substrate for the M2R (Fig. S1). The concentration of volatile the conversion of total carbohydrates, according to Equation (1). In
solids in the raw inoculum was 22.9 ± 0.5 g L− 1, and each reactor addition, the reactors were evaluated in terms of methane production,
presented a concentration of adhered biomass equivalent to 2.93 ± 0.07 for the following response-variables: molar methane flow rate (MMFR,
g L− 1, 3.14 ± 0.08 g L− 1, and 3.26 ± 0.05 g L− 1, respectively for M1R, in N-mmolCH4⋅L− 1⋅d− 1, Equation (2)); volumetric methane production
M2R, and AcR. rate (VMPR, in N-mLCH4⋅L− 1⋅d− 1, Equation (3)); and methane yield
1
(MY, in N-mLCH4⋅g-COD−removed , Equation (4)). Considering the bio­
2.2. Analytical methods methane production in each system (SP- and TP-AFBBR), a comparison
was made in terms of the energetic potential of the biogas (EPCH4, in
1
2.2.1. Physicochemical analysis kJ⋅g-COD−removed , Equation (5)).
The physicochemical analysis of each reactor were performed twice
Cinfluent − Ceffluent
or three times a week for the following parameters - pH, alkalinity, COD, Removal (%) = .100 (1)
Cinfluent
total carbohydrates (CH) and biogas composition. Analysis of suspended
solids and soluble fermentation products (volatile organic acids - acetic, BFR . XCH4 . nbiogas
propionic, butyric, isobutyric, valeric, isovaleric, caproic, and lactic; MMFR = (2)
Vbiogas
solvents - ethanol, acetone, methanol and n-butanol) in the effluent
streams were performed once a week to monitor the treatment systems BFR . XCH4
performance. Conventional parameters were analyzed according to the VMPR = (3)
Vreactor
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Baird
et al., 2017) - pH (4500-H+ B, electrometric method); total and volatile BFR . XCH4
MY = ( ) (4)
suspended solids (TSS - 2540-E, VSS - 2540-E); COD (5220-D: closed SFR CODinfluent − CODeffluent
reflux, colorimetric method). The biogas composition (carbon dioxide,
methane, sulfide, nitrogen and hydrogen) was determined by gas EPCH4 = MY . HVCH4 (5)
chromatography with a thermal conductivity detector (GC/TCD), as
detailed in Lebrero et al. (2016) and Perna et al. (2013). The biogas flow where, C represents the COD or CH in mg⋅L− 1; XCH4 is the percentage of
rate (BFR) was measured using a semi-continuous gas meter with a methane in biogas; nbiogas and Vbiogas are the number of moles and the
J-tube hydraulic valve, according to Veiga et al. (1990), and the discrete volume of biogas (L) at standard temperature and pressure conditions
data was continuously acquired using an in-house developed software. (0 ◦ C, 1 atm); BFR is the biogas flow rate in mL⋅d− 1. SFR is the influent
According to the number of pulses recorded, the volume of biogas pro­ substrate flow rate of each reactor in L⋅d− 1; and HVCH4 is the heating
duced was obtained, following the pre-established J-tube calibration. value of methane - 40.68 kJ⋅N-mLCH−4 1 (Wang et al., 2018).
The other parameters were determined according to the following The stability of the anaerobic digestion process was also monitored
methods: alkalinity, titrimetry – Ripley et al. (1986); total carbohy­ in terms of the alkalinity generated in each reactor and the relation
drates, phenol-sulfuric method – Dubois et al. (1956); volatile organic between intermediate alkalinity (relative to volatile acids) and partial
acids and solvents, gas chromatography – Adorno et al. (2014); lactic alkalinity (relative to bicarbonate) (IA/PA ratio) (Ripley et al., 1986).
acid, colorimetric method – Taylor (1996). The relation between PA produced and COD consumed in each reactor
was used to compare the performance of both methanogenic reactors in
2.2.2. Microbiological analysis terms of buffering capacity against variations in pH of the medium. In
To carry out the microbiological characterization of the biomass addition, the organic mass balance in terms of COD was performed to
present in each reactor and compare them with each other and with the assess the consistency of the results obtained in each reactor, as detailed
original inoculum, fragments of polyurethane foam were collected in the in section S6 of the Supplementary Material.
reaction bed at the end of the operational period, and the adhered
biomass was detached by washing the foam with PBS (phosphate buff­ 2.4. Organic matter removal kinetics assessment
ered saline - 137 mmol L− 1 sodium chloride, 10 mmol L− 1 phosphate,
2.7 mmol L− 1 potassium chloride, pH 7.4). The genomic DNA extraction The kinetics of organic matter removal was assessed in terms of COD
from the biomass was achieved by applying the FastDNA™ SPIN Kit for decay along the spatial profile of the reaction bed, through samples
Soil DNA Extraction (MP Biomedicals). The primer sets used for the 16S collected at the side sampling points of each reactor (from P0–P5,
rRNA gene were 341F (CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG (Klindworth et al., Fig. S1). The experimental data obtained were adjusted by a first-order
2013)) and 806R (GGACTACNVGGGTWTCTAAT (Caporaso et al., kinetic model with residual concentration (Equation (6)), since the flow
2011)) for the Bacteria and Archaea domains. The sequencing of DNA pattern in the reactors was assumed to be an ideal plug-flow model,
samples and the bioinformatics analysis were performed by the com­ according to the previous hydrodynamic assays carried out by Carneiro
pany NGS (Piracicaba, SP, Brazil) adopting Illumina MiSeq technology. et al. (2019). In Equation (6), CODHRT is the COD along the reaction bed
The sequence data were deposited in the NCBI (National Center for for each HRT, COD0 is the COD in the influent stream (HRT = 0), CODR

3
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

is the COD residual in the reactor when the value of the reaction rate is monitoring of each reactor (M1R, AcR and M2R), in each considered
null. The parameter k1 stands for the apparent first-order kinetic coef­ system (SP-AFBBR and TP-AFBBR). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the removal
ficient, as it embodies the intrinsic kinetic constant as well as the in­ of organic matter in terms of COD was quite stable throughout the entire
ternal and external mass transfer resistances (Camargo et al., 2002). operational period of the reactors (133 days), reaching stability above
Each sampling point represents a fraction of the total HRT of each 90% at 11 and 32 days for SP and TP-AFBBR, respectively. SP-AFBBR
reactor – from 0 to 12 h in M1R, from 0 to 6 h in AcR and M2R. The VOA presented an overall average COD removal efficiency of 86 ± 16%,
content was also assessed at each sampling point in order to elucidate while TP-AFBBR reached 92 ± 7%, which denoted the importance of the
the main metabolic pathways during the anaerobic digestion in each acidogenic phase during the start-up of the system. After this period, the
bioreactor. The adjustments of the kinetic model obtained were made by COD removal in both systems was statistically the same (95 ± 3%, 96 ±
applying Origin software, version 8.5. 2%, respectively for SP- and TP-AFBBR), demonstrating the stability of
the reactors in the removal of organic matter.
CODHRT = (COD0 − CODR ) . e(− k1 . HRT)
+ CODR (6) Regarding the conversion of total carbohydrates, it was practically
complete in both systems, with the residual concentration in each
reactor below or very close to the detection limit (5 mg L− 1), since the
2.5. Statistical analysis
carbohydrates were easily assimilated by the biomass, and showing that
the hydrolytic step was not an impediment to the good performance of
The statistical differences between the two systems (SP- and TP-
anaerobic digestion. In the TP-AFBBR system, the prior bioconversion of
AFBBR) were calculated by applying Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of
carbohydrates in the AcR (95 ± 7%) into soluble fermentation products
one factor. The normal distribution of the experimental data was veri­
easily assimilated by acetogenic/methanogenic microorganisms,
fied by Shapiro-Wilks tests. To confirm the significant differences among
notably the volatile organic acids, facilitated their adaptation in the
the bioreactors, a Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparison test was
reactor and enhanced the methanogenic pathway in the M2R.
applied. Significant differences were considered when p-value ≤ 0.05,
The better performance of TP-AFBBR compared to SP-AFBBR was
assuming a 95% confidence interval. All statistical analyzes were carried
also evidenced by the biogas composition in each methanogenic reactor.
out using the PAST software, version 4.03.
The percentage of methane in biogas (XCH4) is significantly higher in
M2R (89 ± 6%) compared to M1R (76 ± 7%), as can be seen in Fig. 2.
3. Results and discussion Furthermore, according to the calculations carried out regarding the
biomethane production, it can be seen from Fig. 3 that this was signif­
3.1. Single-phase (SP-) and two-phase (TP-) AFBBR: comparative icantly higher in the M2R – methane yield (MY) = 95 ± 27 and 154 ± 42
performance assessment 1
N-mLCH4⋅g-COD−removed , for M1R and M2R, respectively. The mass bal­
ance in terms of organic load removal in each reactor (Table S3) denotes
Table 1 presents the main results of the operational performance that the MY results are consistent with the COD removal. The acidogenic
reactor presented a low percentage of methane in the biogas (6.9 ±
Table 1 1.8%, Table S2), however this shows that part of the influent COD was
Performance monitoring parameters of the SP- and TP-AFBBR. Values in bold are converted to methane, and that the acidic pretreatment applied was not
the averages and values in brackets are the standard deviations.
sufficient to eliminate all methanogens microbia from the reaction bed,
Parameter (unit) SP-AFBBR TP-AFBBR which will be further discussed in Section 3.4.
1
M1R AcR M2R AcR + The observed biogas production was 233 and 348 mL⋅L−reactor ⋅d− 1
M2R treating an OLR of 2.0 and 2.6 kg-COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1, respectively for M1R
OLRinfluent (kg- 2.0 (0.3) 4.0 (0.7) 2.6 (0.6) 2.0 (0.4) and M2R. Kora et al. (2020) evaluated an anaerobic moving bed biofilm
COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1) reactor (AnMBBR) with sponge cubic form carriers treating municipal
OLRremoved (kg- 1.7 (0.5) 1.4 (0.6) 2.3 (0.6) 1.8 (0.4) wastewater and observed an average biogas production of 173
COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1) 1
mL⋅L−reactor⋅d− 1 and a COD removal of 69% for an applied OLR of 2.1
HRT (h) 12 6 6 12
CODinfluent (mg⋅L− 1) 1013 (83) 1017 661 (127) 1017
kg-COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1. A competitive advantage is observed in AFBBR
(105) (105) compared to AnMBBR, evidencing that the conformation and mode of
CODeffluent (mg⋅L− 1) 135 (160) 661 (127) 77 (63) 77 (63) operation of the reaction bed can also influence the efficiency of the
COD Removal (%) 86 (16) 35 (12) 88 (10) 92 (7) anaerobic reactors.
CHinfluent (mg⋅L− 1) 838 (176) 803 (180) 41 (55) 803 (180)
Fig. 4 shows the concentration of volatile organic acids in the
CHeffluent (mg⋅L− 1) 4 (2) 41 (55) 5 (2) 5 (2)
CH Removal (%) 100 (0) 95 (7) 65 (25) 99 (0) effluent from AcR throughout the operation, and the resulting average
pHinfluent 7.73 6.83 5.73 6.83 composition. It is noted that the most relevant acid production routes
(0.19) (0.06) (0.50) (0.06) were the following, in this order: propionic > acetic > isovaleric >
pHeffluent 7.35 5.73 7.40 7.40
butyric > valeric > isobutyric > caproic > lactic. Solventogenic routes
(0.37) (0.50) (0.17) (0.17)
TAinfluent (mg-CaCO3⋅L− 1
) 327 (82) 44 (7) 195 (104) 44 (7)
were not relevant in the AcR, presenting a production of less than 2% in
TAeffluent (mg-CaCO3⋅L− 1
) 500 (100) 195 (104) 337 (127) 337 (127) terms of COD equivalent for the total identified soluble fermentation
PAinfluent (mg-CaCO3⋅L− 1
) 248 (67) 24 (5) 24 (36) 24 (5) products - acetone (0.85%), methanol (1.4%), ethanol (0.07%), butanol
1
PAeffluent (mg-CaCO3⋅L− ) 359 (113) 24 (36) 247 (88) 247 (88) (0.55%).
IA/PAeffluent 0.62 NAa 0.36 0.36
The low OLR applied to AcR (4.0 ± 0.7 kg-COD⋅m− 3⋅d− 1) linked to
(0.85) (0.13) (0.13)
BFR (mL⋅d− 1) 465 (113) NDb 695 (95) 695 (95) the predominance of the propionic pathway might explain the negligible
MMFR (N- 16.2 (4.0) NA 27.9 (4.2) 27.9 (4.2) percentage of biohydrogen in biogas in this reactor (0.53 ± 0.02%,
mmolCH4⋅L− 1⋅d− 1) Table S2). Maintaining the concentration of propionic acid low in the
VMPR (N-mLCH4⋅L− 1⋅d− 1) 182 (45) NA 312 (47) 312 (47) acidogenic reactor would be essential to optimize the bioH2 production,
MY (N-mLCH4⋅g- 95 (27) NA 154 (42) 154 (42)
1
COD−removed )
since the formation of this acid consumes bioH2 in an energetically
1
EPCH4 (kJ⋅g-COD−removed ) 3.9 (1.1) NA 6.3 (1.7) 6.3 (1.7) favorable reaction (ΔG < 0) during the anaerobic digestion, as can be
TSSeffluent (mg⋅L− 1) 42 (14) 69 (16) 42 (15) 42 (15) observed by the following (Saady, 2013).
− 1
VSSeffluent (mg⋅L ) 29 (8) 51 (13) 30 (12) 30 (12)
a
C6 H12 O6 + 2 H2 →2 CH3 CH2 COOH + 2 H2 O ΔG = − 279.4 ​ kJ
NA - Not applicable.
b
ND – Not detected. Another important point regarding the performance of the

4
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Fig. 1. Temporal profile of COD removal efficiency in the SP- and TP-AFBBR.

Fig. 2. Temporal variation of the percentage of CH4 and CO2 in biogas fraction in the methanogenic reactors.

Fig. 3. Boxplot of MMFR (a), VMPR (b), MY (c) and EP (d) in the methanogenic reactors.

5
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Fig. 4. Volatile organic acids concentration throughout the AcR-operational period (a) and effluent average composition (b).

bioreactors is the IA/PA ratio. It remained quite stable in both meth­ favorable kinetics of organic matter removal in the M2R was also evi­
anogenic reactors (M1R = 0.33 ± 0.07; M2R = 0.34 ± 0.11), except for denced by the higher bioCH4 production of and its percentage in biogas
the start-up period of the M1R (IA/PA = 1.74 ± 1.46), in which it pre­ (Figs. 2 and 3).
sented non-ideal values, which is also consistent with the higher XCO2 in The adjusted kinetic model points out to a possibility of reducing
the biogas (Fig. 2a). According to Ripley et al. (1986), when the AI/AP HRT in each reactor without compromising the COD removal efficiency,
ratio starts to become greater than 0.3, there may be a tendency towards since that at the first sampling point of the reaction bed the bioreactors
an imbalance in anaerobic digestion, with a direct impact on hydro­ have already reached removal stability. The ideal plug-flow reactors
genotrophic/acetoclactic methanogenesis. Nonetheless, it was not feature small intensity dispersion, indicated by the dispersion number
observed after the reactors reached steady-state conditions. It should be (D/u.L) < 0.01. According to Levenspiel (1999), taking into account the
noted that the acidogenic reactor did not receive any additional alka­ first order kinetic model applied to the bioreactors, it is obtained
linity dosage in order to favor the acidogenic route over the methano­ Equation (7). From this equation, applying the COD removal efficiency
genic route. Therefore, the M2R did not suffer any negative impact due obtained for each reactor (M1R and M2R = 92%; AcR = 39%), k1 ac­
to the absence of partial alkalinity (relative to bicarbonate) and unfa­ cording to Table 2, and D/uL = 0.01, the minimum HRTs that could be
vorable pH for methanogenesis in the effluent of the AcR (5.7 ± 0.5). applied in order to ensure the efficiencies reported in the kinetic tests
This was also evidenced by the operational results shown so far were estimated, as follows: HRT-M1R = 1.9 h, HRT-M2R = 0.9 h, and
(Figs. 1–3), in addition to the higher production of partial alkalinity per HRT-AcR = 0.4 h. Therefore, this estimated minimum HRT indicates a
organic load removed (M1R – 0.14 ± 0.05; M2R – 0.41 ± 0.22 reduction of the reaction volume, reducing the predicted implementa­
1
g-CaCO3⋅g-COD−removed ). Furthermore, the predicted energetic potential tion and operating costs for full-scale sewage treatment plants (STP). It is
from the bioCH4 production was considerably higher for the M2R, about worth mentioning that the kinetics of organic matter removal can sup­
1
1.6 times higher (M1R – 3.9 ± 1.1 kJ⋅g-COD−removed ; M2R – 6.3 ± 1.7 port the design and sizing of reactors, for optimization of the applied
− 1
kJ⋅g-CODremoved), showing the feasibility of TP-AFBBR in bioenergy HRT and estimation of the COD removal in full-scale STPs.
recovery. [ ]
− k1 . HRT+(k1 . HRT)2 uL
D
CODR
=e (7)
3.2. Organic matter removal kinetics assessment COD0
Regarding the CH removal in both systems (Fig. S2), it was noted that
The COD removal kinetics was evaluated through spatial profiles the CH bioconversion into volatile organic acids and their subsequent
along the reaction bed of each reactor. Fig. 5 presents the results ob­ consumption occurred very quickly in the methanogenic reactors, since
tained from each reactor and for each sampling carried out, and Table 2 the VOA was not detected along the reaction bed, evidencing their
clarifies the adjustment data of the kinetic models. It can be seen that the production and consumption right at the bottom of the reactor. None­
first-order kinetic model fitted very well to the experimental data, given theless, the VOA in the AcR were formed along the spatial profile, with
the high correlation coefficient (R2 > 0.98) for all adjustments. It was the maximum value found at the fifth sampling point (P4), as can be seen
found that the COD removal in the AcR in the two-phase system enabled in Fig. S3.
a more favorable removal kinetics in the methanogenic phase, compared
to the single-phase methanogenic reactor (k1-M1R = 1.35 ± 0.30 h− 1;
k1-M2R = 2.87 ± 1.84 h− 1), and also a lower residual concentration (CR-
M1R = 71.8 ± 5.4 mg L− 1; CR-M2R = 48.1 ± 5.1 mg L− 1). The more

Fig. 5. COD removal spatial profiles along the SP- (a) and TP-AFBBR (b). The points refer to the experimental data and the dotted lines indicate the adjustments of
the kinetic model obtained by applying the Origin software (version 8.5).

6
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Table 2
First-order kinetic expressions estimated for the COD removal in both treatment systems – SP- and TP-AFBBR. Values in bold are the averages and values in brackets are
the standard errors.
Parameter SP-AFBBR TP-AFBBR

M1-R AcR M2R

CODo CODR k1 (h− 1) R2 CODo CODR k1 (h− 1) R2 CODo CODR k1 (h− 1) R2


(mg⋅L− 1) (mg⋅L− 1) (mg⋅L− 1) (mg⋅L− 1) (mg⋅L− 1) (mg⋅L− 1)

1st 889.0 (2.1) 77.5 (0.9) 1.42 0.999 881.2 541.7 0.98 0.986 517.0 (8.5) 43.8 (3.5) 2.93 0.999
sampling (0.09) (28.6) (14.3) (0.23) (1.53)
2nd 1035.0 66.0 (5.3) 1.28 0.999 1001.1 600.3 1.51 0.979 639.0 (8.9) 52.3 (3.7) 2.80 0.999
sampling (12.8) (0.29) (38.6) (17.2) (0.70) (1.03)

3.3. Potential for recovering bioenergy and value-added by-products in principles of sustainability and circular bioeconomy.
sewage treatment plants
3.4. Comparative microbiological assessment
The results presented indicated the competitive advantage of TP-
AFBBR over SP-AFBBR. Considering the energy balance for both re­ The microbial communities’ characterization of the biofilm samples
actors, there is a greater potential for bioenergy recovery from the TP- from each reactor bed and from the original inoculum showed that the
system. In Table 3, an estimation of EPCH4 was made in full-scale taxonomic diversity was adequately represented, since the plateau was
anaerobic sewage treatment plants. It can be noted an expressive po­ reached for the rarefaction curves, as can be seen in Fig. S4. The
tential for bioenergy generation, range from 17 to 75 MWh⋅d− 1 phylogenetic analyzes of Bacteria and Archaea domains were repre­
(0.39–0.64 kWh⋅m− 3-sewage considering the COD removed in each sented through a heatmap (Table 4), in which genera with relative
STP) for the TP-system, which can make feasible the phases separation abundance (RA) greater than 1% in at least one of the samples were
during anaerobic domestic sewage treatment, since this energy can selected. Fig. S5 shows the microscopy images of the biomass samples
contribute to the reduction in costs of maintenance and operation in the collected at the end of the operational period of each reactor.
STP, and generate an energy surplus into the municipal electricity net. Among methanogenic archaea, only three genera were predominant
Taking into account that the kinetics of organic matter removal (Fig. 5 (RA > 1%) in the methanogenic bioreactors - Methanosaeta, Methanor­
and Table 2) was more favorable in the TP-system, it can be inferred that egula, and Methanolinea. The genus Methanospirillum was also found in
a decrease in HRT could generate an even greater contribution of bioCH4 the methanogenic reactors (M1R – RA = 0.46%; M2R – RA = 0.76%). It
in the biogas, since the reactor showed no kinetic limitations. Regarding was noted that both the hydrogenotrophic and acetoclastic pathway
the AcR, a greater biohydrogen production would be expected when the were present in M1R and M2R. Nonetheless, there is a greater predom­
HRT is reduced, which would lead to a significant increase in the organic inance of the hydrogenotrophic pathway in M2R by the greater RA of
load applied to the reactor. This bioH2 potential generation in the biogas archaea that consume H2/CO2 for the bioCH4 production (Methanor­
would promote an addition of bioenergy into the treatment system. egula, Methanolinea, and Methanospirillum), possibly due to the prior
Given this scenario, the dimensions of a full-scale TP-system could be fermentation in AcR, which was also evidenced by the lower XCO2 in
greatly reduced compared to the SP-system, since the HRT would be M2R biogas compared to M1R (Fig. 2). The genus Methanolinea produces
optimized, which would considerably reduce the costs of implementing methane from H2/CO2 and formate, fluoresces at 420 nm wavelength
the two-phase STP. and requires acetate for their growth, competing with acetoclastic-
In addition to the bioenergetic recovery potential of the TP-system, Methanosaeta (Fig. S5b) (Battumur et al., 2016; Kotelnikova et al., 1998;
the potential for generating value-added by-products, e.g., volatile Sakai et al., 2012). Thus, Methanolinea was favored in the M2R, since
organic acids such as acetic, butyric and propionic, should be high­ acetate was more readily bioavailable in this reactor, due to the con­
lighted. In the TP-system, the efficiency of converting the influent version by acidogenic/acetogenic bacteria in the AcR. The genus Meth­
organic matter into VOA was 31 ± 9%, representing an expressive po­ anoregula was detected with a high RA in AcR (13.4%), since this genus
tential for the production of metabolites considering the full-scale STPs is acid-tolerant and is often associated with acidogenic fermentative
reported in Table 3: 398–1459, 367–1344, and 194–711 ton⋅year− 1 of bacteria (Bräuer et al., 2011). It was responsible for the bioCH4 pro­
acetic, propionic and butyric acid, respectively (24–39, 22–36, and duction in the AcR biogas (XCH4 = 6.9%), showing that the acid pre­
12–19 g⋅m− 3-sewage for acetic, propionic and butyric acid, respec­ treatment was not effective in inactivating this archaea.
tively). Applying a lower HRT in AcR would be expected a higher Regarding the Bacteria domain, the genera Lactococcus and Clos­
acidification efficiency, given by the higher organic load applied, as well tridium_sensu_stricto of the phylum Firmicutes, Paludibacter and Para­
as a higher efficiency of the solventogenic pathway by the production of bacteroides of the phylum Bacteroidota were the most abundant in the
methanol, ethanol and butanol. These results point out to a usage AcR. The Clostridium genus is closely associated in fermentative pro­
diversification from the municipal sewage matrix, meeting the cesses of bioH2 production, it is a spore-forming bacteria and producer

Table 3
Estimation of energetic potential from biomethane generated in full-scale anaerobic sewage treatment plants around the world (Heffernan et al., 2011), taking into
account the two scenarios (SP- and TP-system) and the average values.
Country Sewage flow-rate (m3⋅d− 1) COD removed (g⋅m− 3) EPCH4 (MWh⋅d− 1) estimated EPCH4 (kWh⋅m− 3-sewage) estimated

SP-system TP-system SP-system TP-system

Brazil 164,000 262 46.2 74.7 0.28 0.46


Brazil 90,000 367 35.5 57.4 0.39 0.64
Brazil 48,000 314 16.2 26.2 0.34 0.55
Brazil 38,000 255 10.4 16.8 0.27 0.44
India 120,000 264 34.1 55.1 0.28 0.46
India 43,000 226 10.5 16.9 0.24 0.39
United Arab Emirates 49,000 360 19.0 30.7 0.39 0.63

7
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Table 4 formation of volatile organic acids, CO2, and H2 as end products (Dröge
Heatmap of relative abundance (%) for Archaea and Bacteria domains at genus et al., 2006; Su et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2016). The Treponema genus was
level of the samples from each reactor and the original inoculum. The 3-color also favored in the M1R, as it is a homoacetogenic bacterium which acts
gradient scale is represented according to the percentiles P30 (light blue directly on the acetate formation for Methanosaeta genus (Graber and
color), P50 (yellow color), and P70 (orange color). Only genera with RA > 1% in Breznak, 2004), the most abundant methanogen archaea in this reactor.
at least one sample were selected.
The number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and the total RA
for the Bacteria and Archaea domains are shown in Table 5. It can be
noted that the number of OTUs and RA for the Archaea domain was
lower in the AcR compared to the other samples, which was expected,
since this reactor selected only acid-tolerant methanogens (Methanor­
egula) and a more restricted group of hydrolytic/fermentative bacteria,
which is evidenced by the higher dominance index (D), but lower di­
versity (H) and richness (Chao-1) indices of species. Comparing the
methanogenic bioreactors, higher H and Chao-1 indices and lower D
index for M2R were observed, which implies a better interspecific
interaction between the fermentation metabolites-producers microor­
ganisms and the consumers of these products, culminating in a more
balanced anaerobic digestion, and favoring methanogenesis in TP-
AFBBR system, as previously discussed in section 3.1. Compared to
the inoculum, M1R and M2R presented higher D and H indices for the
Bacteria and Archaea domains, respectively. The greater diversification
of methanogenic hydrogenotrophic archaea to the detriment of the high
dominance of the acetoclastic genus Methanosaeta in the inoculum evi­
dences a deviation of the methanogenic route during the bioreactors
operation, possibly due to a selective pressure of the feed substrate with
less organic complexity (Table S1) compared to the nutritional medium
of the raw inoculum (Delforno et al., 2017).

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that phase separation of anaerobic diges­


tion in anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactors into acidogenesis and
methanogenesis promotes the enhancement of biomethane production
in domestic wastewater biological treatment systems. The two-phase
anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactor (TP-AFBBR) proved to be a prom­
ising alternative for the domestic wastewater treatment, since the
of solvents, e.g. butanol, ethanol and acetone (Poehlein et al., 2014). In methanogenesis in this system was more stable and the biomethane
Fig. S5a, the presence of endospores or cells in sporulation process can production was potentiated by feeding the methanogenic reactor from
be observed, and they might be associated with Clostridium genera, the acidogenic effluent. Fermentation products, notably volatile organic
confirming its high RA in AcR. The Lactococcus genus is facultative acids, facilitated bioconversion and organic matter removal kinetics in
anaerobic and can grow from sucrose and starch, which are readily TP-AFBBR (COD removal = 86 and 92% for SP-AFBBR and TP-AFBBR,
available in the feed substrate of bioreactors. Its presence may also be respectively). Biomethane production was increased by 1.7-fold in TP-
associated with the formation of organic acids in AcR (Fig. 4) (Meucci AFBBR (312 N-mLCH4⋅L− 1⋅d− 1) compared to SP-AFBBR (182 N-
et al., 2015). The Paludibacter and Parabacteroides genera are meso­ mLCH4⋅L− 1⋅d− 1). Phylogenetic analyzes and ecological indices showed
philic, obligately anaerobic, and acetate- and propionate-producing that M2R presented a greater diversity of Archaea, supporting the results
fermentative (Qiu et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019), which explains the found with a greater bioCH4 percentage in biogas (76 and 89% for M1R
preferred metabolic pathways of propionic and acetic acid production and M2R, respectively) and alkalinity generated (0.14 and 0.41 g-
1
along the AcR reaction bed (Fig. 4). CaCO3⋅g-COD−removed for M1R and M2R, respectively), thus demon­
For methanogenic reactors, the Smithella genus was the most abun­ strating that anaerobic digestion was favored in TP-AFBBR. Hydro­
dant. It is a VOAs-oxidizing bacteria, able to oxidize propionate to ac­ genotrophic methanogenesis (Methanoregula, Methanolinea and
etate, grows in co-culture with hydrogenotrophic archaea, e.g. Methanospirillum) was the main organic matter bioconversion pathway
Methanospirillum (Sobieraj and Boone, 2015), which corroborates its in the M2R, in contrast to M1R, which presented a higher relative
greater relative abundance in the methanogenic phase of each system. It abundance of Methanosaeta. The results of this study also highlight the
was noted that some bacterial genera were favored in the M2R, due to bioenergetic potential from biomethane in this innovative fixed biofilm
1
the optimization of the previous volatile acids production in the AcR. treatment system configuration – EPCH4 = 3.9 and 6.3 kJ⋅g-COD−removed
The genera of the phylum Desulfobacterota, i.e. Syntrophorhabdus, Syn­ for M1R and M2R, respectively. The estimates of bioenergy generation in
trophus and Syntrophobacter, showed greater RA in the M2R compared to two-phase full-scale sewage treatment plants point out to the possibility
M1R (Table 4), since these microbial groups are often associated with of energy recovery in the STP itself and in the municipal electricity grid,
anaerobic degradation of VOA (notably propionic acid) to acetate and not to mention the recovery of value-added products, such as acetic,
CO2 in the presence of hydrogenotrophic methanogens and the propionic and butyric acid, diversifying the uses of the domestic sewage
sulfate-reducing Desulfovibrio (Fig. S5c) (Boone and Bryant, 1980; Chen matrix in the context of the circular bioeconomy.
et al., 2005; Jackson et al., 1999; Qiu et al., 2008). In contrast, some
genera were found in higher RA in M1R, possibly due to the composition Funding
of the reactor’s nutritional medium. For example, the genera Lentimi­
crobium, Spirochaeta and Blvii28_wastewater-sludge_group grow chemo­ This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation
organotrophically on carbohydrates, including starch and sucrose, with (FAPESP - grant numbers 2019/22532-0, 2017/02147-0, and 2015/

8
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Table 5
Operational taxonomic units (OTUs), Relative abundance (RA), and ecological indices of species for Bacteria and Archaea domains of the biomass samples from each
bioreactor and from the original inoculum.
Parameter Inoculum M1R M2R AR

Bacteria Archaea Bacteria Archaea Bacteria Archaea Bacteria Archaea

OTUs 12403 3242 12069 2599 14151 2615 14650 2296


RA (%) 79 21 82 18 84 16 86 14
Dominance (D) 0.042 0.450 0.072 0.354 0.060 0.307 0.131 0.981
Diversity (Shannon – H) 3.677 0.957 3.226 1.194 3.386 1.259 2.526 0.054
Richness (Chao-1) 101 5 67 7 92 5 52 2

06246-7); and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Educa­ Caporaso, J.G., Lauber, C.L., Walters, W.A., Berg-Lyons, D., Lozupone, C.A.,
Turnbaugh, P.J., Fierer, N., Knight, R., 2011. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity
tion Personnel (CAPES - Finance Code 001).
at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108,
4516–4522. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000080107.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Carneiro, R.B., Mukaeda, C.M., Sabatini, C.A., Santos-Neto, Á.J., Zaiat, M., 2020.
Influence of organic loading rate on ciprofloxacin and sulfamethoxazole
biodegradation in anaerobic fixed bed biofilm reactors. J. Environ. Manag. 273
Rodrigo B. Carneiro: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111170.
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original Carneiro, R.B., Sabatini, C.A., Santos-Neto, Á.J., Zaiat, M., 2019. Feasibility of anaerobic
packed and structured-bed reactors for sulfamethoxazole and ciprofloxacin removal
draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Project administration, from domestic sewage. Sci. Total Environ. 678, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Funding acquisition. Gisele M. Gomes: Methodology, Investigation, scitotenv.2019.04.437.
Visualization. Marcelo Zaiat: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – Chen, S., Liu, X., Dong, X., 2005. Syntrophobacter sulfatireducens sp . nov ., a novel
syntrophic , propionate-oxidizing bacterium isolated from UASB reactors. Int. J.
review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration,
Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 55, 1319–1324. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.63565-0.
Funding acquisition. Álvaro J. Santos-Neto: Conceptualization, Re­ Chernicharo, C.A. de L., 2015. Anaerobic reactors. In: Biological Wastewater Treatment
sources, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project in Warm Climate Regions. IWA Publishing, London. https://doi.org/10.2166/
9781780402116.
administration, Funding acquisition.
Cohen, A., Breure, A.M., van Andel, J.G., van Deursen, A., 1980. Influence of phase
separation on the anaerobic digestion of glucose-I maximum COD-turnover rate
during continuous operation. Water Res. 14, 1439–1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Declaration of competing interest 0043-1354(80)90009-3.
Daud, M.K., Rizvi, H., Akram, M.F., Ali, S., Rizwan, M., Nafees, M., Jin, Z.S., 2018.
Review of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor technology: effect of different
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial parameters and developments for domestic wastewater treatment. J. Chem. https://
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence doi.org/10.1155/2018/1596319, 2018.
the work reported in this paper. Delforno, T.P., Júnior, G.V.L., Noronha, M.F., Sakamoto, I.K., Varesche, M.B.A.,
Oliveira, V.M., 2017. Microbial Diversity of a Full- Scale UASB Reactor Applied to
Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment : Integration of 16S rRNA Gene
Acknowledgements Amplicon and Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mbo3.443.
Dröge, S., Fröhlich, J., Radek, R., König, H., 2006. Spirochaeta coccoides sp. nov., a novel
The authors would like to thank Dr. Eloisa Pozzi and Dr. Isabel K. coccoid spirochete from the hindgut of the termite Neotermes castaneus. Appl.
Sakamoto for their valuable support with the microbiological analysis; Environ. Microbiol. 72, 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.1.392-
and Dr. Carolina Sabatini and Dr. Maria Angela for their technical 397.2006.
Dubois, M., Gilles, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A., Smith, F., 1956. Colorimetric
support. method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 28,
350–356. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60111a017.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Fernandes, B.S., Peixoto, G., Albrecht, F.R., Saavedra del Aguila, N.K., Zaiat, M., 2010.
Potential to produce biohydrogen from various wastewaters. Energy Sustain. Dev.
14, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.03.004.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Fongsatitkul, P., Mavinic, D.S., Lo, K.V., 1995. Two-phase anaerobic digestion (UASB-
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115388. UASB) process: design criteria and optimal system loading capacity. Can. J. Civ. Eng.
22, 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1139/l95-064.
Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., Vallero, M., 2006. Anaerobic processes as the core technology for
References sustainable domestic wastewater treatment: consolidated applications, new trends,
perspectives, and challenges. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 3–19. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11157-005-4630-9.
Adorno, M.A.T., Hirasawa, J.S., Varesche, M.B.A., 2014. Development and validation of
Fuess, L.T., Kiyuna, L.S.M., Ferraz, A.D.N., Persinoti, G.F., Squina, F.M., Garcia, M.L.,
two methods to quantify volatile acids (C2-C6) by GC/FID: headspace (Automatic
Zaiat, M., 2017. Thermophilic two-phase anaerobic digestion using an innovative
and Manual) and Liquid-Liquid Extraction (LLE). Am. J. Anal. Chem. 406–414.
fixed-bed reactor for enhanced organic matter removal and bioenergy recovery from
https://doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2014.57049.
sugarcane vinasse. Appl. Energy 189, 480–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Baird, R.B., Eaton, A.D., Rice, E.W., 2017. Standard Methods for the Examination of
apenergy.2016.12.071.
Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed. American Public Health Association. American
Garcia, M.L., Lapa, K.R., Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., 2008. Effects of bed materials on the
Water Works Association/American Public Works Association/Water Environment
performance of an anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor treating domestic
Federation.
sewage. J. Environ. Manag. 88, 1471–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Battumur, U., Yoon, Y.M., Kim, C.H., 2016. Isolation and characterization of a new
jenvman.2007.07.015.
methanobacterium formicicum KOR-1 from an anaerobic digester using pig slurry.
Ghosh, S., Ombregt, J.P., Pipyn, P., 1985. Methane production from industrial wastes by
AJAS (Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci.) 29, 586–593. https://doi.org/10.5713/
two-phase anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 19, 1083–1088. https://doi.org/
ajas.15.0507.
10.1016/0043-1354(85)90343-4.
Boone, D.R., Bryant, M.P., 1980. Propionate-degrading bacterium, Syntrophobacter
Graber, J.R., Breznak, J. a, 2004. Physiology and nutrition of Treponema primitia, an
wolinii sp. nov. gen. nov., from methanogenic ecosystems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
H2/CO2-acetogenic spirochete from termite hindguts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70,
40, 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.40.3.626-632.1980.
1307–1314. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.3.1307.
Bräuer, S.L., Cadillo-Quiroz, H., Ward, R.J., Yavitt, J.B., Zinder, S.H., 2011.
Guerrero, L., Montalvo, S., Coronado, E., Chamy, R., Poirrier, P., Crutchik, D.,
Methanoregula boonei gen. nov., sp. nov., an acidiphilic methanogen isolated from
Sanchez, E., De La Rubia, M.A., Borja, R., 2009. Performance evaluation of a two-
an acidic peat bog. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 61, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1099/
phase anaerobic digestion process of synthetic domestic wastewater at ambient
ijs.0.021782-0.
temperature. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 44,
Camargo, E.F.M., Ratusznei, S.M., Rodrigues, J.A.D., Zaiat, M., Borzani, W., 2002.
673–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934520902847794.
Treatment of low-strength wastewater using immobilized biomass in a sequencing
Gujer, W., Zehnder, A.J.B., 1983. Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Water Sci.
batch external loop reactor: influence of the medium superficial velocity on the
Technol. 15, 127–167. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1983.0164.
stability and performance. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 19, 267–275. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S0104-66322002000300001.

9
R.B. Carneiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 317 (2022) 115388

Hanvajanawong, K., Suyamud, B., Suwannasilp, B., Lohwacharin, J., Visvanathan, C., Ratusznei, S.M., Rodrigues, J.A.D., Camargo, E.F.M., Zaiat, M., Borzani, W., 2000.
2022. Unravelling capability of two-stage thermophilic anaerobic membrane Operating feasibility of anaerobic whey treatment in a stirred sequencing batch
bioreactors for high organic loading wastewater: effect of support media addition reactor containing immobilized biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 75, 127–132. https://
and irreversible fouling. Bioresour. Technol. 126725 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00048-1.
biortech.2022.126725. Ribeiro, R., Varesche, M.B.A., Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., 2005. Influence of the carbon source
Heffernan, B., Van Lier, J.B., Van Der Lubbe, J., 2011. Performance review of large scale on the anaerobic biomass adhesion on polyurethane foam matrices. J. Environ.
up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket sewage treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 63, Manag. 74, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.09.004.
100–107. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.017. Ripley, L.E., Boyle, W.C., Converse, J.C., 1986. Improved alkalimetric monitoring for
Jackson, B.E., Bhupathiraju, V.K., Tanner, R.S., Woese, C.R., McInerney, M.J., 1999. anaerobic digestion of high-strenght wastes. Water Pollut. Control Fed 58, 406–411.
Syntrophus aciditrophicus sp. nov., a new anaerobic bacterium that degrades fatty https://doi.org/10.1109/APMC.2005.1606770.
acids and benzoate in syntrophic association with hydrogen- using microorganisms. Roopnarain, A., Rama, H., Ndaba, B., Bello-Akinosho, M., Bamuza-Pemu, E., Adeleke, R.,
Arch. Microbiol. 171, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002030050685. 2021. Unravelling the anaerobic digestion ‘black box’: biotechnological approaches
Klindworth, A., Pruesse, E., Schweer, T., Peplies, J., Quast, C., Horn, M., Glöckner, F.O., for process optimization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 152 https://doi.org/10.1016/
2013. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and j.rser.2021.111717.
next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 1–11. Saady, N.M.C., 2013. Homoacetogenesis during hydrogen production by mixed cultures
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks808. dark fermentation: unresolved challenge. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38, 13172–13191.
Kong, Z., Li, L., Wu, J., Wang, T., Rong, C., Luo, Z., Pan, Y., Li, D., Li, Y., Huang, Y., Li, Y. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.07.122.
Y., 2021. Evaluation of bio-energy recovery from the anaerobic treatment of Sakai, S., Ehara, M., Tseng, I.C., Yamaguchi, T., Bräuer, S.L., Cadillo-Quiroz, H.,
municipal wastewater by a pilot-scale submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor Zinder, S.H., Imachi, H., 2012. Methanolinea mesophila sp. nov., a
(AnMBR) at ambient temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 339 https://doi.org/ hydrogenotrophic methanogen isolated from rice field soil, and proposal of the
10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125551. archaeal family Methanoregulaceae fam. nov. within the order Methanomicrobiales.
Kora, E., Theodorelou, D., Gatidou, G., Fountoulakis, M.S., 2020. Removal of polar Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 62, 1389–1395. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.035048-
micropollutants from domestic wastewater using a methanogenic – aerobic moving 0.
bed biofilm reactor system. Chem. Eng. J. 382, 122983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sella, C.F., Carneiro, R.B., Sabatini, C.A., Sakamoto, I.K., Zaiat, M., 2021. Can different
cej.2019.122983. inoculum sources influence the biodegradation of sulfamethoxazole antibiotic
Kotelnikova, S., Macario, A.J.L., Pedersen, K., 1998. Methanobacterium subterraneurn during anaerobic digestion? Braz. J. Chem. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43153-
sp. nov., a new alkaliphilic, eurythermic and halotolerant methanogen isolated from 021-00178-3.
deep granitic groundwater. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 48, 357–367. https://doi.org/ Sobieraj, M., Boone, D.R., 2015. Smithella . Bergey’s Man. Syst. Archaea Bact. 1–3.
10.1099/00207713-48-2-357. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118960608.gbm01063.
Lebrero, R., Toledo-Cervantes, A., Muñoz, R., del Nery, V., Foresti, E., 2016. Biogas Stams, A.J.M., Sousa, D.Z., Kleerebezem, R., Plugge, C.M., 2012. Role of syntrophic
upgrading from vinasse digesters: a comparison between an anoxic biotrickling filter microbial communities in high-rate methanogenic bioreactors. Water Sci. Technol.
and an algal-bacterial photobioreactor. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 91, 66, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.192.
2488–2495. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4843. Stazi, V., Tomei, M.C., 2018. Enhancing anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater:
Levenspiel, O., 1999. Chemical Reaction Engineering, third ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., state of the art, innovative technologies and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ.
New York, NY, USA. 635, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.071.
Li, W.W., Yu, H.Q., 2016. Advances in energy-producing anaerobic biotechnologies for Su, X.L., Tian, Q., Zhang, J., Yuan, X.Z., Shi, X.S., Guo, R.B., Qiu, Y.L., 2014.
municipal wastewater treatment. Engineering 2, 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Acetobacteroides hydrogenigenes gen. nov., Sp. nov., an anaerobic hydrogen-
J.ENG.2016.04.017. producing bacterium in the family Rikenellaceae isolated from a reed swamp. Int. J.
Libralato, G., Volpi Ghirardini, A., Avezzù, F., 2012. To centralise or to decentralise: an Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 64, 2986–2991. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.063917-0.
overview of the most recent trends in wastewater treatment management. Sun, L., Toyonaga, M., Ohashi, A., Tourlousse, D.M., Matsuura, N., Meng, X.Y.,
J. Environ. Manag. 94, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.010. Tamaki, H., Hanada, S., Cruz, R., Yamaguchi, T., Sekiguchi, Y., 2016.
Meucci, A., Zago, M., Rossetti, L., Fornasari, M.E., Bonvini, B., Tidona, F., Povolo, M., Lentimicrobium saccharophilum gen. nov., sp. nov., a strictly anaerobic bacterium
Contarini, G., Carminati, D., Giraffa, G., 2015. Lactococcus hircilactis sp. nov. and representing a new family in the phylum bacteroidetes, and proposal of
Lactococcus laudensis sp. nov., isolated from milk. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, lentimicrobiaceae fam. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66, 2635–2642. https://doi.
2091–2096. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.000225. org/10.1099/ijsem.0.001103.
Mockaitis, G., Pantoja, J.L.R., Rodrigues, J.A.D., Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., 2014. Continuous Taylor, K.A.C.C., 1996. A simple colorimetric assay for muramic acid and lactic acid.
anaerobic bioreactor with a fixed-structure bed (ABFSB) for wastewater treatment Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. Part A Enzyme Eng. Biotechnol. 56, 49–58. https://doi.
with low solids and low applied organic loading content. Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 37, org/10.1007/BF02787869.
1361–1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-013-1108-y. Van Ginkel, S.W., Oh, S.E., Logan, B.E., 2005. Biohydrogen gas production from food
Mota, V.T., Zaiat, M., 2018. Two- vs. single-stage anaerobic reactors: evaluation of processing and domestic wastewaters. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 30, 1535–1542.
effluent quality and energy production potential using sucrose-based wastewater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.09.017.
Water Sci. Technol. 78 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2018.470, 1966–1979. Veiga, M.C., Soto, M., Méndez, R., Lema, J.M., 1990. A new device for measurement and
Nabaterega, R., Kumar, V., Khoei, S., Eskicioglu, C., 2021. A review on two-stage control of gas production by bench scale anaerobic digesters. Water Res. 24,
anaerobic digestion options for optimizing municipal wastewater sludge treatment 1551–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(90)90090-S.
process. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 105502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vezzone, M., dos Anjos, R.M., Cesar, R.G., Muniz, M., Cardoso, R., Felizardo, J.P.,
jece.2021.105502. Vasconcelos, D., Polivanov, H., 2021. Using stable isotopes to discriminate
Penteado, E.D., Lazaro, C.Z., Sakamoto, I.K., Zaiat, M., 2013. Influence of seed sludge anthropogenic impacts of the sedimentary organic matter pollution in the Rodrigo de
and pretreatment method on hydrogen production in packed-bed anaerobic reactors. Freitas Lagoon (RJ, Brazil). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 4515–4530. https://doi.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38, 6137–6145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1007/s11356-020-10835-8.
ijhydene.2013.01.067. Wang, S., Jena, U., Das, K.C., 2018. Biomethane production potential of slaughterhouse
Perna, V., Castelló, E., Wenzel, J., Zampol, C., Fontes Lima, D.M., Borzacconi, L., waste in the United States. Energy Convers. Manag. 173, 143–157. https://doi.org/
Varesche, M.B., Zaiat, M., Etchebehere, C., 2013. Hydrogen production in an upflow 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.059.
anaerobic packed bed reactor used to treat cheese whey. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38, Wang, Y.J., Xu, X.J., Zhou, N., Sun, Y., Liu, C., Liu, S.J., You, X., 2019. Parabacteroides
54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.022. acidifaciens sp. Nov., isolated from human faeces. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 69,
Poehlein, A., Krabben, P., Dürre, P., Daniel, R., 2014. Complete genome sequence of the 761–766. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.003230.
solvent producer Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum strain DSM 14923. Yang, J., van Lier, J.B., Li, J., Guo, J., Fang, F., 2022. Integrated anaerobic and algal
Genome Announc. 2, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.01056-14 (Copyright). bioreactors: a promising conceptual alternative approach for conventional sewage
Qiu, Y.L., Hanada, S., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., Kamagata, Y., Sekiguchi, Y., 2008. treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 343, 126115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Syntrophorhabdus aromaticivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., the first cultured anaerobe biortech.2021.126115.
capable of degrading phenol to acetate in obligate syntrophic associations with a Zinatizadeh, A.A., Mohammadi, P., Mirghorayshi, M., Ibrahim, S., Younesi, H.,
hydrogenotrophic methanogen. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 2051–2058. https:// Mohamed, A.R., 2017. An anaerobic hybrid bioreactor of granular and immobilized
doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02378-07. biomass for anaerobic digestion (AD) and dark fermentation (DF) of palm oil mill
Qiu, Y.L., Kuang, X.Z., Shi, X.S., Yuan, X.Z., Guo, R.B., 2014. Paludibacter jiangxiensis sp. effluent: mass transfer evaluation in granular sludge and role of internal packing.
nov., a strictly anaerobic, propionate-producing bacterium isolated from rice paddy Biomass Bioenergy 103, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.05.006.
field. Arch. Microbiol. 196, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-013-0951-1.

10

You might also like