-
近10年来,我国的污水处理能力得到巨大提升,截至2018年底,我国建成运行的城镇污水处理厂处理能力已达1.95×108 m3·d−1[1]。由于我国城镇污水处理厂普遍采用传统活性污泥法工艺,随之产生的副产物—污泥的产量也急剧增加,目前,我国市政污泥年产量已超过4×107 t[1-2](含水率80%),因此,污泥的有效处理处置已成为亟待解决的问题。厌氧消化作为污泥减量化、稳定化和资源化的重要技术,在能源回收方面具有优势[3-4]。然而,由于停留时间较长、产甲烷速率较低等问题,污泥厌氧消化的实际应用效率仍有待提高。
有研究表明,添加导电碳材料可显著提高有机物厌氧消化的甲烷产率。MUMME等[5]发现生物炭能有效缓解有机垃圾厌氧消化过程中的氨胁迫效应。WATANABE等[6]发现生物炭可加速废甘油厌氧消化产甲烷速率。已有研究[7]表明,生物炭能在其孔隙中定植甲烷八叠球菌和甲烷鬃菌,从而提高了VFAs的代谢转化速率。还有研究[8-11]表明,具有电化学活性的活性炭或生物炭可促进微生物直接种间电子传递(direct interspecies electron transfer, DIET),从而加速了产甲烷的过程。污泥的厌氧消化本质上是微生物在厌氧环境中逐步降解代谢有机物的生物化学过程,多糖、蛋白质和脂类等大分子有机物经水解、发酵后产生挥发性脂肪酸(VFAs),VFAs的代谢转化则需依靠厌氧细菌和产甲烷古菌之间的微生物种间电子传递来克服热力学能量壁垒[12-14]。因此,如何提高微生物种间电子传递效率,进而加速产甲烷反应,是强化污泥厌氧消化亟待解决的关键问题。然而,拥有不同电化学性质的导电碳材料如何影响污泥厌氧消化产甲烷过程,其作用机制仍有待进一步的探究。
碳材料的电化学性质主要包括电子供给能力(electron donating capacity, EDC)、电子接受能力(electron accepting capacity, EAC)和导电性(electrical conductivity, EC)[15]。EDC和EAC通常反映了碳材料表面具有氧化还原活性的官能团的数量,而EC则与碳材料内部的芳构化片层结构数量呈正比,反映的是其转移电子的能力[14-15]。通常,在较低热解温度条件下制备的生物炭表面具有数量较多的官能团,而石墨等高度芳构化的碳材料的导电性则较好[15]。
本研究以玉米秸秆为原料,在热解温度为300、500和700 ℃的条件下制备了3种具有不同电化学活性的生物炭(CS300、CS500和CS700),在厌氧消化批次实验中分别添加3种生物炭和导电型石墨(graphite),考察了不同电化学性质的生物炭和石墨对污泥厌氧消化过程的影响,通过建立电化学性质-污泥甲烷产率之间的相关性以及对体系微生物群落结构变化的分析,揭示了其影响机制,可为提高污泥厌氧消化甲烷产率以及具有电化学活性的导电碳材料在厌氧消化工艺中的实际应用提供一定的理论支撑。
生物炭和石墨的电化学性质对剩余污泥厌氧消化产甲烷的影响
Effect of electrochemical properties of biochar and graphite on methane production in anaerobic digestion of excess activated sludge
-
摘要: 以玉米秸秆为原料,分别在300、500和700 ℃的条件下热解制备生物炭(CS300、CS500、CS700),对其理化性质(pH、比表面积、灰分含量、元素组成)和电化学性质(电子供给能力(EDC)、电子接受能力(EAC)、导电率(EC))进行了表征,并将3种生物炭和导电型石墨分别加入消化反应器进行污泥中温厌氧消化批次实验。结果表明:CS300具有最高的EDC(0.598 mmol·g−1),CS700具有最高的EAC(0.740 mmol·g−1),石墨的导电性最强(2.0×104 S·m−1);4种碳材料对污泥厌氧消化产甲烷均有促进作用,CS300、石墨、CS500和CS700实验组的甲烷累积总产量比对照组分别提高了42.4%、38.9%、28.9%和11.2%。微生物群落结构分析结果表明:甲烷生成的主要代谢途径是CO2还原代谢途径;3种生物炭材料均提高了Methanosarcina等氢营养型产甲烷古菌的相对丰度,CS300的富集能力最强,石墨的影响作用则不显著。冗余分析结果表明:4种碳材料的电化学性质对厌氧细菌群落组成变化的贡献度为52.7%,对厌氧古菌群落组成变化的贡献度为 64.4%;具有氧化还原活性的生物炭通过反复供给、接受电子大幅增加体系中微生物可用电子数量来提高互养微生物种间电子传递效率;而导电性能优秀的石墨则主要通过促进微生物的直接电子传递来提高甲烷产率。研究为解析具有电化学活性的碳材料对厌氧微生物菌群代谢特征和电子传递的影响规律提供了一定的理论支撑,对提高污泥厌氧消化效率、实现能源高效回收具有重要理论价值和现实意义。Abstract: Biochar was prepared by pyrolyzing corn stover biomass at 300, 500 and 700 ℃, respectively, and yielded CS300, CS500 and CS700. Their physicochemical properties including pH, surface area, ash content and elemental composition and electrochemical properties including EDC, EAC, EC were characterized. Then three types of biochar and the conductive graphite were dosed in digestion reactor to conduct the batch tests of mesophilic AD of sludge. The results showed that CS300 had the highest EDC of 0.598 mmol·g−1, CS700 had the highest EAC of 0.740 mmol·g−1, whereas Graphite had the highest EC of 2.0×104 S·m−1. All the materials could promote AD of sludge. In comparison to the control group, the addition of CS300, Graphite, CS500 or CS700 elevated the cumulative methane production by 42.4%, 38.9%, 28.9% and 11.2%, respectively. Analysis of microbial community indicated that methane was primarily produced via CO2 reduction pathway, which is attributed to the syntrophic association between syntrophic anaerobes and hydrogenotrophic methanogens. The addition of biochar raised the relative abundance of Methanosarcina and other hydrogenotrophic methanogens. CS300 had the best performance on enrich these methanogens, while graphite did not make significant contribution. RDA analysis showed that the parameters reflecting the electrochemical properties of carbon-based materials explained 52.7% and 64.4% of the bacterial and archaeal community in the sludge digesters, respectively. Redox-active biochar could sustainably donate and accept electrons over many redox cycles, improve the available electron quantity of microorganism in the system and facilitate electron transfer to CO2 reduction, and thereby enhance methanogenesis. Alternatively, graphite could directly transport electrons so that promotes direct interspecies electron transfer (DIET) in syntrophic communities for enhanced methane productivity. It provides theoretical support for the analysis of the influence of conductive carbon materials on the metabolic characteristics and electron transport of anaerobic microbial community. And it has important theoretical and practical value for improving the anaerobic digestion efficiency of sludge and achieving energy efficient recovery significantly.
-
表 1 批次实验设计
Table 1. Experimental setup for batch test
组别 消化底物 接种污泥 导电碳材料 消化实验 对照组 + + − CS300 + + CS300 CS500 + + CS500 CS700 + + CS700 石墨 + + 石墨 对照实验 对照组-N − + − CS300-N − + CS300 CS500-N − + CS500 CS700-N − + CS700 石墨-N − + 石墨 注:“+”表示添加,“−”表示不添加。 表 2 4种碳材料的理化性质和电化学性质
Table 2. Physicochemical and electrochemical properties of four carbon-based materials
样品 理化性质 电化学性质 产率/% pH 比表面积/(m2·g−1) 灰分/% O/C H/C EDC/(mmol·g−1) EAC/(mmol·g−1) EEC/(mmol·g−1) EC/(S·m−1) CS300 45.42 8.35 19.75 15.87 0.21 0.76 0.598 0.409 1.007 3.5×10−8 CS500 31.33 10.12 20.05 20.43 0.13 0.46 0.317 0.309 0.626 7.0×10−5 CS700 23.60 10.39 32.76 22.06 0.06 0.28 0.228 0.740 0.968 107.3 石墨 — 7.15 65.32 1.51 0.003 0.27 0.036 0.075 0.111 2.0×104 表 3 4种碳材料的灰分组成
Table 3. Components of ash in four carbon-based materials
g·kg−1 样品 K Mg Ni Ti Co Zn Al Ca Fe Na Si CS300 331.0 11.6 0.067 1 1.176 0.025 3 0.330 6 124.3 44.0 4.39 331.1 1 487.0 CS500 312.4 12.0 0.098 9 1.108 0.020 1 0.329 5 121.1 43.1 3.17 326.7 2 436.0 CS700 323 12.0 0.084 6 1.134 0.021 7 7.099 164.8 178.6 4.36 690.1 412.2 石墨 290.6 18.9 0.000 1 0.026 0.001 5 0.004 55.0 10.2 0.24 214.3 557.2 表 4 基于修正Gompertz模型的产甲烷动力学拟合结果
Table 4. Fitting results of the methane production data using the modified Gompertz model
组别 停滞期/d 最大甲烷产率/
(mL·(g·d)−1)最大甲烷产量/
(mL·g−1)R2 对照组 6.98 12.45 196.67 0.996 7 CS300 7.67 26.35 255.76 0.994 8 CS500 8.89 18.21 219.12 0.988 9 CS700 9.75 16.47 204.02 0.988 6 石墨组 7.98 27.09 234.28 0.994 9 -
[1] 中华人民共和国生态环境部. 生态环境部公布2018年度《水污染防止行动计划》重点任务实施情况[EB/OL]. [2019-07-23]. http://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk15/201907/t20190723_712133.html, 2019. [2] YANG G, ZHANG G M, WANG H C. Current state of sludge production, management, treatment and disposal in China[J]. Water Research, 2015, 78: 60-73. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.04.002 [3] MCCARTY P L, BAE J, KIM J. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producer: Can this be achieved?[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45: 7100-7106. [4] SHEN Y W, LINVILLE J L, URGUN-DEMIRTAS M, et al. An overview of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the United States: Challenges and opportunities towards energy-neutral WWTPs[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 50: 346-362. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.129 [5] MUMME J, SROCKE F, HEEG K, et al. Use of biochars in anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2014, 164: 189-197. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.008 [6] WATANABE R, TADA C, BABA Y, et al. Enhancing methane production during the anaerobic digestion of crude glycerol using Japanese cedar charcoal[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 150: 387-392. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.030 [7] LV F, LUO C H, SHAO L M, et al. Biochar alleviates combined stress of ammonium and acids by firstly enriching Methanosaeta and then Methanosarcina[J]. Water Research, 2016, 90: 34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.029 [8] CHEN S S, ROTARU A, SHRESTHA P M, et al. Promoting interspecies electron transfer with biochar[J]. Scientific Reports, 2014, 4: 5019. [9] ROTARU A, SHRESTHA P M, LIU F, et al. Direct interspecies electron transfer between Geobacter metallireducens and Methanosarcina barkeri[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2014, 80: 4599-4605. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00895-14 [10] LOVLEY D R. Happy together: Microbial communities that hook up to swap electrons[J]. The ISME Journal, 2017, 11: 327-336. [11] LOVLEY D R. Syntrophy goes electric: Direct interspecies electron transfer[J]. Annual Review of Microbiology, 2017, 71: 643-664. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-030117-020420 [12] DE BOK F A M, PLUGGE C M, STAMS A J M. Interspecies electron transfer in methanogenic propionate degrading consortia[J]. Water Research, 2004, 38: 1368-1375. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.11.028 [13] MCINERNEY M J, STRUCHTEMEYER C G, SIEBER J S, et al. Physiology, ecology, phylogeny, and genomics of microorganisms capable of syntrophic metabolism[J]. Annals of the New York Academy Sciences, 2008, 1125: 58-72. doi: 10.1196/annals.1419.005 [14] STAMS A J M, PLUGGE C M. Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and archaea[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2009, 7: 568-577. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2166 [15] KLVPFEL L, KEILUWEIT M, KLEBER M, et al. Redox properties of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar)[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2014, 48: 5601-5611. [16] SHEN Y W, LINVILLE J L, URGUN-DEMIRTAS M, et al. Producing pipeline-quality biomethane via anaerobic digestion of sludge amended with corn stover biochar with in-situ CO2 removal[J]. Applied Energy, 2015, 158: 300-309. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.016 [17] SUN T, LEVIN B D A, GUZMAN J J L, et al. Rapid electron transfer by the carbon matrix in natural pyrogenic carbon[J]. Nature Communication, 2017, 8: 14873. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14873 [18] CRUZ VIGGI C, SIMONETTI S, PALMA E, et al. Enhancing methane production from food waste fermentate using biochar: The added value of electrochemical testing in pre-selecting the most effective type of biochar[J]. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 2017, 10: 303. doi: 10.1186/s13068-017-0994-7 [19] KWANG H K, JAE-YOUNG K, TAE-SU C, et al. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on physicochemical properties of biochar obtained from the fast pyrolysis of pitch pine (Pinus rigida)[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2012, 118: 158-162. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.094 [20] BREWER C E, SCHMIDT-ROHR K, SATRIO J A, et al. Characterization of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems[J]. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 2009, 28: 386-396. [21] ZHAO L, CAO X D, MASEK O, et al. Heterogeneity of biochar properties as a function of feedstock sources and production temperatures[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2013, 256-257: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.04.015 [22] LIU W J, JIANG H, YU H Q. Development of biochar-based functional materials: Toward a sustainable platform carbon material[J]. Chemical Reviews, 2015, 115: 12251-12285. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00195 [23] ZHANG C F, KATAYAMA A. Humin as an electron mediator for microbial reductive dehalogenation[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46: 6575-6583. [24] XU Y, LU Y Q, DAI X H, et al. The influence of organic-binding metals on the biogas conversion of sewage sludge[J]. Water Research, 2017, 126: 329-341. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.046 [25] WERNER J J, KNIGHTS D, GARCIA M L, et al. Bacterial community structures are unique and resilient in full-scale bioenergy systems[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011, 108: 4158-4163. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015676108 [26] RIVIERE D, DESVIGNES V, PELLETIER E, et al. Towards the definition of a core of microorganisms involved in anaerobic digestion of sludge[J]. The ISME Journal, 2009, 3: 700-714. [27] SUNDBERG C, AL-SOUND W A, LARSSOM M, et al. 454 pyrosequencing analyses of bacterial and archaeal richness in 21 full-scale biogas digesters[J]. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2013, 85: 612-626. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12148 [28] DE VRIEZE J, RAPORT L, ROUME H, et al. The full-scale anaerobic digestion microbiome is represented by specific marker populations[J]. Water Research, 2016, 104: 101-110. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.08.008 [29] ITO T, YOSHIGUCHI K, ARIESYADY H D, et al. Identification of a novel acetate-utilizing bacterium belonging to Synergistes group 4 in anaerobic digester sludge[J]. The ISME Journal, 2011, 5: 1844-1856. [30] ZHAO Z Q, ZHANG Y B, WOODARD T L, et al. Enhancing syntrophic metabolism in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors with conductive carbon materials[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 191: 140-145. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.007 [31] ZHAO Z Q, ZHANG Y B, HOLMES D E, et al. Potential enhancement of direct interspecies electron transfer for syntrophic metabolism of propionate and butyrate with biochar in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 209: 148-156. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.005 [32] ZHAO Z Q, LI Y, QUAN X, et al. Towards engineering application: Potential mechanism for enhancing anaerobic digestion of complex organic waste with different types of conductive materials[J]. Water Research, 2017, 115: 266-277. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.067 [33] DANG Y, HOLMES D E, ZHAO Z Q, et al. Enhancing anaerobic digestion of complex organic waste with carbon-based conductive materials[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 220: 516-522. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.114 [34] JING Y H, WAN J J, ANGELIDAKI I, et al. iTRAQ quantitative proteomic analysis reveals the pathways for methanation of propionate facilitated by magnetite[J]. Water Research, 2017, 108: 212-221. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.077 [35] WANG T, ZHANG D, DAI L L, et al. Magnetite triggering enhanced direct interspecies electron transfer: A scavenger for the blockage of electron transfer in anaerobic digestion of high-solids sewage sludge[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018, 52: 7160-7169. [36] MAUS I, WIBBERG D, STANTSCHEFF R, et al. Complete genome sequence of the hydrogenotrophic, methanogenic archaeon Methanoculleus bourgensis strain MS2(T): Isolated from a sewage sludge digester[J]. Journal Bacteriology, 2012, 194: 5487-5488. doi: 10.1128/JB.01292-12 [37] ROTARU A, SHRESTHA P M, LIU F H, et al. A new model for electron flow during anaerobic digestion: Direct interspecies electron transfer to Methanosaeta for the reduction of carbon dioxide to methane[J]. Energy & Environmental Science, 2014, 7: 408-415. [38] CONKLIN A, STENSEL H D, FERGUSON J. Growth kinetics and competition between Methanosarcina and Methanosaeta in mesophilic anaerobic digestion[J]. Water Environment Research, 2006, 78: 486-496. doi: 10.2175/106143006X95393 [39] DE VRIEZE J, HENNEBEL T, BOON N, et al. Methanosarcina: The rediscovered methanogen for heavy duty biomethanation[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2012, 112: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.079 [40] SMITH K S, INGRAM-SMITH C. Methanosaeta, the forgotten methanogen[J]. Trends in Microbiology, 2007, 15: 150-155. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2007.02.002 [41] KARAKASHEV D, BATSTONE D J, TRABLY E, et al. Acetate oxidation is the dominant methanogenic pathway from acetate in the absence of Methanosaetaceae[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2006, 72: 5138-5141. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00489-06 [42] KAPPLEER A, WUESTNER M L, RUECKER A, et al. Biochar as an electron shuttle between bacteria and Fe(III) minerals[J]. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2014, 1(8): 339-344. [43] SMITH J A, NEVIN K P, LOVLEY D R. Syntrophic growth via quinone-mediated interspecies electron transfer[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015, 6: 121. [44] WU S, FANG G D, WANG Y J, et al. Redox-active oxygen-containing functional groups in activated carbon facilitate microbial reduction of ferrihydrite[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51: 9709-9717. [45] PREVOTEAU A, RONSSE F, CID I, et al. The electron donating capacity of biochar is dramatically underestimated[J]. Scientific Reports, 2016, 6: 32870. doi: 10.1038/srep32870 [46] YANG Y F, ZHANG Y B, LI Z Y, et al. Adding granular activated carbon into anaerobic sludge digestion to promote methane production and sludge decomposition[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 149: 1101-1108. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.156