当前位置：文档库 › Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process - A review

Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process - A review

Review

Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process:A review

Ye Chen,Jay J.Cheng *,Kurt S.Creamer

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,North Carolina State University,Raleigh,NC 27695-7625,USA

Received 5April 2005;received in revised form 25January 2007;accepted 25January 2007

Available online 30March 2007

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion is an attractive waste treatment practice in which both pollution control and energy recovery can be achieved.Many agricultural and industrial wastes are ideal candidates for anaerobic digestion because they contain high levels of easily biodegrad-able materials.Problems such as low methane yield and process instability are often encountered in anaerobic digestion,preventing this technique from being widely applied.A wide variety of inhibitory substances are the primary cause of anaerobic digester upset or failure since they are present in substantial concentrations in wastes.Considerable research e?orts have been made to identify the mechanism and the controlling factors of inhibition.This review provides a detailed summary of the research conducted on the inhibition of anaer-obic processes.The inhibitors commonly present in anaerobic digesters include ammonia,sul?de,light metal ions,heavy metals,and organics.Due to the di?erence in anaerobic inocula,waste composition,and experimental methods and conditions,literature results on inhibition caused by speci?c toxicants vary widely.Co-digestion with other waste,adaptation of microorganisms to inhibitory sub-stances,and incorporation of methods to remove or counteract toxicants before anaerobic digestion can signi?cantly improve the waste treatment e?ciency.

Keywords:Anaerobic digestion;Agricultural wastes;Industrial wastes;Inhibition;Municipal wastes

1.Introduction

Anaerobic digestion involves the degradation and stabil-ization of organic materials under anaerobic conditions by microbial organisms and leads to the formation of biogas (a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane,a renewable energy source)and microbial biomass (Kelleher et al.,2000).Anaerobic treatment provides a method of reducing pollution from agricultural and industrial operations while at the same time o?setting the operations’usage of fossil fuels.As one of the most e?cient waste and wastewater treatment technologies,anaerobic digestion has been widely used for the treatment of municipal sludge and lim-ited application in the treatment of organic industrial wastes including fruit and vegetable processing wastes,packinghouse wastes,and agricultural wastes (Parkin and Miller,1983).Anaerobic digestion o?ers numerous signi?-cant advantages,such as low sludge production,low energy requirement,and possible energy recovery (Ghosh and Pohland,1974;van Staikenburg,1997).Compared to mes-ophilic digestion,thermophilic anaerobic digestion has additional bene?ts including a high degree of waste stabil-ization,more thorough destruction of viral and bacterial pathogens,and improved post-treatment sludge dewater-ing (Lo et al.,1985).In spite of these bene?ts,however,poor operational stability still prevents anaerobic digestion from being widely commercialized (Dupla et al.,2004).In anaerobic digestion,the acid forming and the meth-ane forming microorganisms di?er widely in terms of phys-iology,nutritional needs,growth kinetics,and sensitivity to environmental conditions (Pohland and Ghosh,1971).Failure to maintain the balance between these two groups of microorganisms is the primary cause of reactor instabil-ity (Demirel and Yenigu ¨n,2002).Inhibitory substances are often found to be the leading cause of anaerobic reactor upset and failure since they are present in substantial con-centrations in wastewaters and sludges.A wide variety of

Corresponding author.Tel.:+19195156733;fax:+19195157760.E-mail address:jay_cheng@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html, (J.J.Cheng).

Available online at https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,

Bioresource Technology 99(2008)

4044–4064

substances have been reported to be inhibitory to the anaerobic digestion processes.A material may be judged inhibitory when it causes an adverse shift in the microbial population or inhibition of bacterial growth.Inhibition is usually indicated by a decrease of the steady-state rate of methane gas production and accumulation of organic acids (Kroeker et al.,1979).

The aim of this review is to present a detailed compara-tive summary of the previous and current research on the inhibition of anaerobic processes by various inorganic and organic substances,focusing on:(1)mechanisms of inhibition,(2)factors a?ecting inhibition,and(3)common operating problems encountered in waste treatment processes.

2.Inhibitors

Literature on anaerobic digestion shows considerable variation in the inhibition/toxicity levels reported for most substances.The major reason for these variations is the complexity of the anaerobic digestion process where mech-anisms such as antagonism,synergism,acclimation,and complexing could signi?cantly a?ect the phenomenon of inhibition.

2.1.Ammonia

Ammonia is produced by the biological degradation of the nitrogenous matter,mostly in the form of proteins and urea(Kayhanian,1999).The quantity of ammonia that will be generated from an anaerobic biodegradation of organic substrate can be estimated using the following stoichiometric relationship(Tchobanoglous et al.,1993):

C a H b O c N dt4aàbà2ct3d

H2O

!4atbà2cà3d

CH4t

4aàbt2ct3d

CO2

td NH3e1T

Several mechanisms for ammonia inhibition have been pro-posed,such as a change in the intracellular pH,increase of maintenance energy requirement,and inhibition of a spe-ci?c enzyme reaction(Whittmann et al.,1995).Ammonium

ioneNHt

4Tand free ammonia(FA)(NH3)are the two prin-

cipal forms of inorganic ammonia nitrogen in aqueous

solution.FA has been suggested to be the main cause of

inhibition since it is freely membrane-permeable(Kroeker

et al.,1979;de Baere et al.,1984).The hydrophobic ammo-

nia molecule may di?use passively into the cell,causing

proton imbalance,and/or potassium de?ciency(Sprott

and Patel,1986;Gallert et al.,1998).

Among the four types of anaerobic microorganisms,the

methanogens are the least tolerant and the most likely to

cease growth due to ammonia inhibition(Kayhanian,

1994).As ammonia concentrations were increased in the

range of4051–5734mg NH3–N Là1,acidogenic popula-

tions in the granular sludge were hardly a?ected while the

methanogenic population lost56.5%of its activity(Koster

and Lettinga,1988).There is con?icting information in the

literature about the sensitivity of aceticlastic and hydro-

genotrophic methanogens.Some research based on the

comparison of methane production and growth rate indi-

cated that the inhibitory e?ect was in general stronger for

the aceticlastic than for the hydrogenotrophic methano-

gens(Koster and Lettinga,1984;Zeeman et al.,1985;

Sprott and Patel,1986;Bhattacharya and Parkin,1989;

Robbins et al.,1989;Angelidaki and Ahring,1993;Borja

et al.,1996a),while others observed the relatively high

resistance of acetate consuming methanogens to high total

ammonia nitrogen(TAN)levels as compared to hydrogen

utilizing methanogens(Zeeman et al.,1985;Wiegant and

Zeeman,1986).Among the methanogenic strains com-

monly isolated from sludge digesters,i.e.Methanospirillum

hungatei,Methanosarcina barkeri,Methanobacterium ther-

moautotrophicum,and Methanobacterium formicicum,Met-

hanospirillum hungatei was the most sensitive,being

inhibited at4.2g/L;the other three strains tested were

resistant to ammonia levels higher than10g/L(Jarrell

et al.,1987).

2.1.1.Factors controlling ammonia inhibition

2.1.1.1.Concentration.It is generally believed that ammo-

nia concentrations below200mg/L are bene?cial to anaer-

obic process since nitrogen is an essential nutrient for

anaerobic microorganisms(Liu and Sung,2002).A wide

range of inhibiting ammonia concentrations has been

reported in the literature,with the inhibitory TAN concen-

tration that caused a50%reduction in methane production

ranging from1.7to14g/L(Kroeker et al.,1979;van Vel-

Nomenclature

CSTR continuously stirred tank reactor

FA free ammonia

HRT hydraulic retention time

IC50,IC90,IC100the toxicant concentration that causes 50%,90%,and100%reduction in cumulative

methane production,respectively,over a?xed

period of exposure time LCFAs long chain fatty acids

MPB methane producing bacteria

SRB sulfate reducing bacteria

TAN total ammonia nitrogen

VFAs volatile fatty acids

UASB up?ow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644045

sen,1979;Braun et al.,1981;Parkin and Miller,1983;de Baere et al.,1984;Zeeman et al.,1985;Hashimoto,1986; Jarrell et al.,1987;Koster and Lettinga,1988;Bhattach-arya and Parkin,1989;Hendriksen and Ahring,1991; Angelidaki and Ahring,1993;Angelidaki and Ahring, 1994;Soubes et al.,1994;Kayhanian,1994;Borja et al., 1996b;Boardman and McVeigh,1997;Gallert and Winter, 1997;Guerrero et al.,1997;Krylova et al.,1997;Poggi-Varaldo et al.,1997;Chamy et al.,1998;Gallert et al., 1998;Hansen et al.,1998;Bujoczek et al.,2000;Sung and Liu,2003).The signi?cant di?erence in inhibiting ammonia concentration can be attributed to the di?erences in substrates and inocula,environmental conditions(tem-perature,pH),and acclimation periods(van Velsen et al., 1979;de Baere et al.,1984;Hashimoto,1986;Angelidaki and Ahring,1994).

2.1.1.2.pH.During treatment of waste containing high concentrations of TAN,pH a?ects the growth of microor-ganisms as well as the composition of TAN(Kroeker et al., 1979;Hashimoto,1983,1984;Hansen et al.,1999).Since the FA form of ammonia has been suggested to be the actual toxic agent,an increase in pH would result in increased toxicity(Borja et al.,1996b)because of the shift

to a higher FA to ionizedeNHt

4Tammonia ratio at higher

pH.Process instability due to ammonia often results in vol-atile fatty acids(VFAs)accumulation,which again leads to a decrease in pH and thereby declining concentration of FA.The interaction between FA,VFAs and pH may lead to an‘‘inhibited steady state’’,a condition where the pro-cess is running stably but with a lower methane yield (Angelidaki and Ahring,1993;Angelidaki et al.,1993).

Control of pH within the growth optimum of microor-ganisms may reduce ammonia toxicity(Bhattacharya and Parkin,1989).Acidi?cation of crab wastewater has been reported to enhance UASB reactor performance,as indi-cated by the lower e?uent COD concentration(Boardman and McVeigh,1997).Reducing pH from7.5to7.0during thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cow manure also increased the methane production by four times(Zeeman et al.,1985).During anaerobic digestion of liquid piggery manure(pH8),VFAs accumulated to316mg/L. Adjustment of pH to7.4led to reutilization of VFAs and lowered VFAs concentrations to20mg/L.The better per-formance at pH7.4has been attributed to the relief of ammonia-induced inhibition at low pH(Braun et al., 1981).It should also be noted that both methanogenic and acidogenic microorganisms have their optimal pH. Failing to maintain pH within an appropriate range could cause reactor failure although ammonia is at a safe level (Kroeker et al.,1979).

2.1.1.

3.Temperature.Both microbial growth rates and FA concentration are a?ected by temperature change.An increased process temperature in general has a positive e?ect on the metabolic rate of the microorganisms but also results in a higher concentration of FA.Several authors have found that anaerobic fermentation of wastes with a

high concentration of ammonia was more easily inhibited and less stable at thermophilic temperatures than at meso-philic temperatures(Braun et al.,1981;Parkin and Miller, 1983).Thermophilic digestion at50°C of cow manure with TAN above3g/L was found to be very di?cult(Hashim-oto,1983).A decrease in operating temperature from60°C to37°C in anaerobic digesters with a high ammonia con-centration provided relief from inhibition caused by FA, as indicated by an increase in biogas yield(Angelidaki and Ahring,1994;Hansen et al.,1999).Contrary to these ?ndings,Gallert and Winter(1997)studied the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes and reported that methane pro-duction was inhibited50%by0.22g/L FA at37°C and by 0.69g/L FA at55°C,indicating that thermophilic?ora tolerated at least twice as much FA as compared to meso-philic?ora.

2.1.1.4.Presence of other ions.Certain ions such as Na+, Ca2+,and Mg2+were found to be antagonistic to ammonia inhibition,a phenomenon in which the toxicity of one ion is decreased by the presence of other ion(s)(McCarty and McKinney,1961;Braun et al.,1981;Hendriksen and Ahr-ing,1991).Ammonia and sodium showed mutual anta-gonism,a situation where each ion can antagonize the toxicity produced by another ion.While0.15M ammonia reduced the methane production from acetic acid by20%, addition of0.002–0.05M Na+produced5%more methane compared to that from the control(a sample without addi-tion of inhibitor).Combination of Na+and K+or Na+and Mg2+resulted in around10%increase in methane yield compared to that produced by Na+alone(Kugelman and McCarty,1964).The addition of10%(w/v)phospho-rite ore was also reported to stimulate biogas generation from poultry manure when NHt

Cl was as high as30g/L (Krylova et al.,1997).This stimulation e?ect of phospho-rite can be partially attributed to the immobilization of the biomass on mineral particles,which prevented biomass washout from the reactor.Alleviation of ammonia inhibi-tion was also thought to be partially due to the antagonistic e?ect provided by minerals in the phosphorite ore(K+, Ca2+,Mg2+).However,inhibition caused by more than

50g/L of NHt

Cl was irreversible and could not be elimi-nated by addition of phosphorite(Krylova et al.,1997).

2.1.1.5.Acclimation.Acclimation is another factor that can in?uence the degree of ammonia inhibition.One of the?rst reports dealing with adaptation of methanogens to ammo-nia by exposing them to slowly increasing concentrations was the sludge digestion study of Melbinger and Donnellon (1971).At present,adaptation of methanogens to a wide variety of potentially inhibitory substances has been reported(Parkin and Miller,1983;Speece,1983;Speece and Parkin,1983).The adaptation may be the result of internal changes in the predominant species of methano-gens,or of a shift in the methanogenic population(Zeeman et al.,1985).

4046Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

Once adapted,the microorganisms can retain viability at concentrations far exceeding the initial inhibitory concen-trations(Kroeker et al.,1979;Parkin and Miller,1983; Bhattacharya and Parkin,1989;Angelidaki and Ahring, 1993).Koster and Lettinga(1988)reported that while unacclimated methanogens failed to produce methane at 1.9–2g N/L,they produced methane at11g N/L after adaptation.Hashimoto(1986)observed that ammonia inhibition began at about2.5g/L and4g/L for unaccli-mated and acclimated thermophilic methanogens,respec-tively.Successful operation of anaerobic?lters has been achieved at6g/L and7.8g/L after adaptation(Parkin et al.,1983;de Baere et al.,1984).Parkin and Miller (1983)reported that levels as high as8–9g/L of TAN could be tolerated with no signi?cant decrease in methane pro-duction after acclimation.The experiments clearly demon-strated the possibility of obtaining stable digestion of manure with ammonia concentrations exceeding5g N/L after an initial adaptation period.However,the methane yield was lower than that for reactors with a lower ammo-nia load(Koster and Lettinga,1988;Borja et al.,1996a).

2.1.2.Methods to counteract ammonia inhibition

To remove ammonia from the substrate,two physical–chemical methods can be utilized:air stripping and chemi-cal precipitation.Both have been proven to be technically feasible at high ammonia concentrations and in a complex wastewater matrix(Kabdasli et al.,2000).A common approach to ammonia inhibition relies on dilution of the manure to a total solid level of0.5–3.0%.However,the resulting increase in waste volume that must be processed makes this method economically unattractive(Callaghan et al.,1999).

Various types of inhibition can be counteracted by increasing the biomass retention in the reactor.It was found that the methane yield in a CSTR could be increased by switching o?the stirrer half an hour before and after substrate addition.This operation increased biomass reten-tion due to improved sedimentation resulting in an e?uent with a reduced concentration of biomass solids.This method,where particles within the reactor were allowed to settle,was promising since it was easy and economical to achieve(Hansen et al.,1998).Immobilizing the micro-organisms with di?erent types of inert material(clay,acti-vated carbon,zeolite)has been demonstrated to reduce inhibition of the biogas process and make the process more stable(Angelidaki et al.,1990;Nakhla et al.,1990;Borja et al.,1993;Hanaki et al.,1994;Hansen et al.,1998).Addi-tion of ionic exchangers or adsorbants which can remove inhibitors mitigates the ammonia inhibition(Borja et al., 1996a).Natural zeolite and glauconite show high selectivity for ammonium ion and can be used as an ionic exchanger for ammonia(Borja et al.,1996a;Hansen et al.,1998). When treating swine manure,addition of activated carbon at concentrations equal to2.5%(w/w)or higher or FeCl2 removed most of the sul?de in solution.Although activated carbon did not adsorb ammonia,it reduced inhibition of ammonia by removing sul?de,which otherwise would act synergistically with ammonia(Hansen et al.,1999).Addi-tion of antagonistic cations such as Mg2+or Ca2+stabilizes anaerobic degradation(McCarty and McKinney,1961). The positive e?ect of zeolite on the anaerobic process could partially be attributed to the presence of cations such as Ca2+and Na+that have been shown to counteract the inhibitory e?ect of ammonia(Borja et al.,1996a).

2.2.Sul?de

Sulfate is a common constituent of many industrial wastewaters(O’Flaherty et al.,1998a).In anaerobic reac-tors,sulfate is reduced to sul?de by the sulfate reducing bacteria(SRB)(Koster et al.,1986;Hilton and Oles-zkiewicz,1988).Sulfate reduction is performed by two major groups of SRB including incomplete oxidizers, which reduce compounds such as lactate to acetate and CO2,and complete oxidizers,which completely convert acetate to CO2and HCOà

.Two stages of inhibition exist as a result of sulfate reduction.Primary inhibition is due to competition for common organic and inorganic sub-strates from SRB,which suppresses methane production (Harada et al.,1994).Secondary inhibition results from the toxicity of sul?de to various bacteria groups(Anderson et al.,1982;Oude Elferink et al.,1994;Colleran et al.,1995; Colleran et al.,1998).

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition of SRB and other anaerobes

SRB are very diverse in terms of their metabolic path-ways(Oude Elferink et al.,1994).Compounds which can be completely or partially degraded by SRB include branched-chain and long chain fatty acids,ethanol and other alcohols,organic acids,and aromatic compounds (Oude Elferink et al.,1994).Laanbroek et al.(1984)ranked the a?nity of SRB for reduced substrates in the order of H2>propionate>other organic electron donors.Because of the variety in substrate utilization exhibited by SRB, they compete with several di?erent types of microorgan-isms involved in anaerobic digestion.SRB may compete with methanogens,acetogens,or fermentative microorgan-isms for available acetate,H2,propionate,and butyrate in anaerobic systems(McCartney and Oleszkiewicz,1993; Colleran et al.,1995).

The outcome of the competition between SRB and other anaerobic microorganisms determines the concentration of sul?de in the reactor system.Sul?de is toxic to methano-gens as well as to the SRB themselves(Winfrey and Zeikus, 1977;Karhadkar et al.,1987;McCartney and Oles-zkiewicz,1991;Reis et al.,1992;Okabe et al.,1995).Thus the concentration of sul?de and the susceptibility of anaer-obes to sul?de feed back into the competition between SRB and other anaerobes.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition between SRB and hydrolytic and acidogenic bacteria.SRB do not degrade natural biopoly-mers such as starch,glycogen,protein,or lipids and thus

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644047

depend on the activity of other organisms for providing them with degradation products(Hansen,1993).Conse-quently,competition does not occur in the hydrolysis stage. Although a few strains of SRB have been shown to utilize sugars and amino acids as substrate(Klemps et al.,1985; Min and Zinder,1990),vigourous growth of SRB on typ-ical acedogenic substrates is not common(Hansen,1993). It is generally agreed that SRB cannot e?ectively compete against the fast-growing fermentative microorganisms involved in monomer degradation(Postgate,1984). O’Flaherty et al.(1999)conducted tests to detect SRB in an anaerobic digester fed with glucose and lactose.No change of their degradation rates was detected upon addi-tion of sulfate,indicating that SRB species did not play any substantial role in the degradation of glucose and lactose.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition between SRB and acetogens.From a purely thermodynamic and kinetic standpoint,SRB should out-compete other anaerobes for substrate(Oude Elferink et al.,1994;Colleran et al.,1995;O’Flaherty et al.,1998a).

In practice,however,factors such as COD=SO2à

4ratio,the

relative population of SRB and other anaerobes,and the sensitivity of SRB and other anaerobes to sul?de toxicity in?uence the competition.As a result,the literature on anaerobic digestion of sulfate-containing wastewaters is highly complex and often contradictory.

Propionate is a key intermediate in anaerobic digestion and a substrate for all SRB.Degradation of propionate by SRB involves an incomplete conversion to acetate (O’Flaherty et al.,1998a).SRB show a higher a?nity for propionate and faster growth rates than the propionate-utilizing syntrophic species(Parkin et al.,1990;Uberoi and Bhattacharya,1995;Omil et al.,1996a).The K s and l max values for SRB were0.15dà1and23mg/L in full scale anaerobic digester while K s and l max values for syntrophic bacteria were0.05dà1and34mg/L,respectively(O’Flah-erty et al.,1997,1998b).As a result,sul?dogenic oxidation of propionate should be favored over the syntrophic route (Colleran et al.,1995).Several studies using various anaer-obic systems and sludges have con?rmed the importance of SRB in the degradation of propionate,indicating that su?dogenic oxidation is the key degradation pathway of this substrate(Mulder,1984;Ukei et al.,1988;Qatibi et al.,1990;Hepner et al.,1992;Colleran et al.,1994, 1998;O’Flaherty et al.,1997,1998a).

Butyrate and ethanol are also important fermentation intermediates in anaerobic digestion.Butyrate was utilized exclusively by SRB in a UASB reactor fed mixed VFAs

and sucroseeCOD=SO2à

4?0:5T(Visser et al.,1993).In

another hybrid reactor,both sul?dogenic and methano-

genic anaerobes were present at a COD=SO2à

4ratio of3

and 5.6,indicating that competition occurred among SRB and other anaerobes for butyrate and ethanol(Coll-eran et al.,1998;O’Flaherty et al.,1998a).The e?ective competition of non-SRB was attributed to the lower a?n-ity of SRB for butyrate and ethanol(Laanbroek et al., 1984;Overmeire et al.,1994)https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition between SRB and hydrogenotrophic

methanogens.From thermodynamic and substrate a?nity considerations,H2-oxidizing SRB should e?ectively out-compete hydrogenotrophic methanogens under the condi-tions prevailing in anaerobic digesters(Zinder,1993).This view was supported by data reported previously indicating that in reactors treating sulfate-containing wastewaters, H2oxidation is almost exclusively catalyzed by SRB(Rin-zema and Lettinga,1988;Visser et al.,1993;Alphenaar et al.,1993;Harada et al.,1994;Uberoi and Bhattacharya, 1995;Omil et al.,1996a;Colleran et al.,1998;O’Flaherty et al.,1999).Methanogenesis appeared to occur simulta-neously with sulfate-reduction,but methanogens could not compete for H2with the SRB(Oremland and Taylor, 1978).The predominance of SRB in H2utilization has been related to the more favorable kinetic parameters for SRB.Hydrogenotrophic SRB have a lower hydrogen threshold concentration than hydrogenotrophic methano-gens(Oude Elferink et al.,1994;Colleran et al.,1995). Temperature has been reported to impact the outcome of the competition between SRB and hydrogenotrophic methane producing bacteria(MPB).SRB were dominant at mesophilic condition(37°C),while MPB outcompeted SRB at thermophilic conditions(55°C).An explanation for this di?erence was not o?ered(Colleran and Pender, 2002).

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition between SRB and aceticlastic methanogens

Literature data on the outcome of competition between SRB and MPB for acetate are contradictory,with some authors reporting successful competition of SRB(Rinzema and Lettinga,1988;Alphenaar et al.,1993;Stucki et al., 1993;Gupta et al.,1994),whereas others reported domi-nance of MPB(Rinzema et al.,1988;Isa et al.,1986a,b; Visser et al.,1993;Omil et al.,1996a;Oude Elferink et al.,1994;Colleran et al.,1998;O’Flaherty et al., 1998a;De Smul et al.,1999;Colleran and Pender,2002).

Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the observed discrepancies.Choi and Rim(1991)attributed the outcome of the competition to the COD=SO2à

ratio.Ace-

ticlastic MPB predominated when the COD=SO2à

was above2.7;SRB predominated when this ratio was below 1.7.Active competition occurred between these ratios. O’Flaherty et al.(1998b)correlated the performance of MPB and SRB to the di?erent growth properties at di?er-ent pH values.Oude Elferink et al.(1994)observed that the initial population of SRB played a role in the competition between SRB and MPB.They calculated that by starting with a ratio of aceticlastic MPB/SRB of104:1and with a biomass retention time in the reactor of0.02dà1,it would take one year before the number of SRB equaled that of the MPB in the reactor.

Isa et al.(1986a,b)attributed the successful competition of MPB to their superior attachment capabilities.In?xed-?lm reactors,better attachment of microorganisms can e?ectively prevent biomass washout(Omil et al.,1996a).

4048Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

Colleran and Pender(2002)concluded that aceticlastic methanogens predominated because SRB have a lower a?nity for acetate than for other substrates.Under sul-fate-limiting conditions,acetate was believed to be the least favored substrate for sulfate reduction(Uberoi and Bhat-tacharya,1995).However,the dominance of SRB in ace-tate degradation was attributed to the kinetic advantages of SRB over MPB(Rinzema and Lettinga,1988;Gupta et al.,1994;Harada et al.,1994).Alphenaar et al.(1993) attributed the higher extent of organic removal by SRB to the long HRT used in the UASB/CSTR reactor,which led to the washout of the dispersed growing MPB.

2.2.

3.Sul?de inhibition towards di?erent trophic groups

There is considerable confusion in the literature with respect to the nature of sul?de toxicity and the e?ect of dif-ferent sul?des on microorganisms.Tursman and Cork (1988)reported that H2S was the toxic form of sul?de since it can di?use into the cell membrane.Once inside the cytoplasm,H2S may be inhibitory by denaturing native proteins through the formation of sul?de and disul?de cross-links between polypeptide chains(Conn et al., 1987),interfering with the various coenzyme sul?de link-ages,and interfering with the assimilatory metabolism of sulfur(Vogels et al.,1988).This theory was supported by the studies of Speece(1983).By contrast,McCartney and Oleszkiewicz(1991)observed that sul?de toxicity increased with increasing pH.Other studies on sul?de inhibition indi-cated that more than one inhibition threshold might be present under di?erent conditions.Koster et al.(1986) observed a high correlation between the unionized sul?de concentration and the maximum speci?c aceticlastic meth-anogenic activity in the pH range of6.4–7.2.At pH7.8–8.0,total sul?de concentration dictated the degree of inhi-bition.O’Flaherty et al.(1998b)observed that sul?de inhi-bition for all of the groups of bacteria was related to the unionized sul?de concentration in the pH range of6.8–7.2and total sul?de concentrations above pH7.2.Hilton and Oleszkiewicz(1990)showed that inhibition of SRB and MPB was correlated with the total sul?de and union-ized sul?de concentration,respectively.

There is also considerable discrepancy in the literature with respect to the levels of sul?de which can cause inhibi-tion to various trophic groups and which steps of the anaerobic transformation are most adversely a?ected by sul?de.Much of the data reported in the literature was obtained by adding sul?de to a system rather than by feed-ing sulfate.Thus,the interaction between SRB and non-SRB was not considered(Parkin et al.,1990).In addition, information on pH was rarely included,making it impossi-ble to draw reliable conclusions on the inhibition concen-trations.The inhibitory sul?de levels reported in the literature were in the range of100–800mg/L dissolved sul-?de or approximately50–400mg/L undissociated H2S (Parkin et al.,1990).Fermentative microorganisms which are responsible for the breakdown of monomers into smal-ler products were less a?ected by sul?de toxicity than SRB or MPB(McCartney and Oleszkiewicz,1991;Maillacher-uvu et al.,1993).Acetogens were found to be less suscepti-ble to sul?de inhibition than MPB;toxicity thresholds for acetogens were comparable with those of the SRB(O’Flah-erty et al.,1998b).

Sulfur is a required nutrient for methanogens(O’Flah-erty et al.,1999).It has been shown that the sulfur content of methanogens was higher than in other groups of micro-organisms generally found in anaerobic systems(Speece, 1983).The optimal level of sulfur reported in the literature varies from1to25mg S/L(Scherer and Sahm,1981).The levels reported in the literature for inhibition of MPB also vary,with IC50values of50–125mg H2S/L at pH7–8for suspended sludge and250mg H2S/L and90mg H2S/L at pH6.4–7.2and pH7.8–8.0,respectively(Parkin et al., 1983;Koster et al.,1986;Oleskiewicz et al.,1989;McCart-ney and Oleszkiewicz,1993;Maillacheruvu et al.,1993; O’Flaherty et al.,1998a).

2.2.4.Sulfate/sul?de toxicity control

Several processes can be applied to promote the removal of dissolved sulfate.One method to prevent sul?de toxicity is to dilute the wastewater stream,although in general this approach is considered undesirable because of the increase in the total volume of wastewater that must be treated.An alternative way to reduce the sul?de concentration in an anaerobic treatment system is by incorporating a sul?de removal step in the overall process.Sul?de removal tech-niques include physico-chemical techniques(stripping), chemical reactions(coagulation,oxidation,precipitation), or biological conversions(partial oxidation to elemental sulfur)(Oude Elferink et al.,1994;Song et al.,2001). Adaptation of the MPB to free H2S,particularly in reac-tors with?xed biomass,could increase the tolerance of MPB to sul?de.Isa et al.(1986a)reported that acclimated aceticlastic and hydrogenotrophic MPB were only slightly inhibited at more than1000mg/L free H2S.

2.3.Light metals ions(Na,K,Mg,Ca,and Al)

Salt toxicity has been studied in the biological?eld for several decades.High salt levels cause bacterial cells to dehydrate due to osmotic pressure(de Baere et al.,1984; Yerkes et al.,1997).Although the cations of salts in solu-tion must always be associated with the anions,the toxicity of salts was found to be predominantly determined by the cation(McCarty and McKinney,1961).The light metal ions including sodium,potassium,calcium,and magne-sium are present in the in?uent of anaerobic digesters.They may be released by the breakdown of organic matter(such as biomass),or added as pH adjustment chemicals(Grady et al.,1999).They are required for microbial growth and, consequently,a?ect speci?c growth rate like any other nutrient.While moderate concentrations stimulate micro-bial growth,excessive amounts slow down the growth, and even higher concentrations can cause severe inhibition or toxicity(Soto et al.,1993a).

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644049

2.3.1.Aluminum

Information in the literature about the e?ect of alumi-num on anaerobic digestion is minimal.The mechanism of aluminum inhibition was reported to be due to its com-petition with iron and manganese or to its adhesion to the microbial cell membrane or wall,which may a?ect micro-bial growth(Cabirol et al.,2003).Both acetogenic and methanogenic microorganisms were inhibited by the addi-tion of Al(OH)3.After exposed to1000mg/L Al(OH)3 for59days,the speci?c activity of methanogenic and ace-togenic microorganisms decreased by50%and72%, respectively(Cabirol et al.,2003).Jackson-Moss and Dun-can(1991)reported that2,500mg/L Al3+could be toler-ated by anaerobes after acclimation.

2.3.2.Calcium

Calcium is known to be essential for the growth of cer-tain strains of methanogens(Murray and Zinder,1985).It is also important in the formation of microbial aggregates (Thiele et al.,1990;Huang and Pinder,1995).Excessive amounts of calcium lead to precipitation of carbonate and phosphate,which may result in(i)scaling of reactors and pipes,(ii)scaling of biomass and reduced speci?c methanogenic activity,(iii)loss of bu?er capacity and essential nutrients for anaerobic degradation(Keenan et al.,1993;El-Mamouni et al.,1995;van Langerak et al.,1998).

Very little is known about the toxicity of Ca2+in the anaerobic system.Jackson-Moss et al.(1989)observed that Ca2+concentrations of up to7000mg/L had no inhibitory e?ect on anaerobic digestion.A large proportion of the Ca2+passed through the digester and was present in the e?uent.Kugelman and McCarty(1964)reported a much lower toxicity threshold.They showed that the optimum Ca2+concentration for methanation of acetic acid was 200mg/L.Ca2+was moderately inhibitory at a concentra-tion of2500–4000mg/L,but was strongly inhibitory at a concentration of8000mg/L.Addition of calcium can have a positive impact on reactors in which retention of biomass is desired.Addition of Ca2+increased the accumulation of bio?lm when Ca2+concentration in the feed was below 120mg/L.For Ca2+concentrations higher than120mg/ L,an accumulation of minerals and a decrease in water content in the bio?lm caused an inhibition of cellular metabolism(Huang and Pinder,1995).Similarly in UASB reactors,low Ca2+concentrations from100to200mg/L were reported to be bene?cial for sludge granulation(Cail and Barford,1985;Mahoney et al.,1987;Yu et al.,2001), whereas high Ca2+concentrations(greater than300mg/L) were reported to be detrimental(Hulsho?Pol et al.,1983; Thiele et al.,1990;Yu et al.,2001).

Calcium carbonate precipitation could also impact biomass activity.Calcium carbonate precipitation is dependent on the Ca2+concentration and on the COD removal e?ciency(van Langerak et al.,1998).The impact of precipitate on the biomass activity is complex.Highly scaled biomass is less active because of mass transfer limi-tations.However,active biomass could be formed in thin bio?lms on the surface of the precipitates.The overall activity of the biomass would be the average of the two e?ects(van Langerak et al.,1998).

2.3.3.Magnesium

The optimal Mg2+concentration was reported to be 720mg/L for the anaerobic bacterium Methanosarcina thermophila TM1and a Methanosarcinae-dominated UASB reactor(Ahring et al.,1991;Schmidt and Ahring, 1993).Cultures could be adapted to300mM Mg2+without a change in growth rate,but growth ceased at400mg/L Mg2+(Schmidt and Ahring,1993).Magnesium ions at high concentrations have been shown to stimulate the produc-tion of single cells(Harris,1987;Xun et al.,1988;Schmidt and Ahring,1993).The high sensitivity of single cells to lysis is an important factor in the loss of aceticlastic activity in anaerobic reactors.

2.3.4.Potassium

Maintenance of high levels of potassium in culture media or in a digester is undesirable since pure culture studies have shown that high levels of extracellular potas-sium(1.0M)lead to a passive in?ux of potassium ions that neutralize the membrane potential(Jarrell et al.,1984).In addition,potassium is one of the best extractants for metals bound to the exchangeable sites in sludge.Ilangovan and Noyola(1993)observed the increase of micronutrients (Cu2+,Zn2+,Ni2+,Mo2+,Co2+)in a UASB reactor treat-ing molasses stillage containing a high concentration of potassium.The removal of the essential micronutrients from active sludge was believed to be responsible for the low activity of anaerobic methanogenic population.

The toxic e?ect of potassium is rarely referenced in the literature.Low concentrations of potassium(less than 400mg/L)were observed to cause an enhancement in per-formance in both the thermophilic and mesophilic ranges while at higher concentrations there was an inhibitory e?ect that was more pronounced in the thermophilic tem-perature range.Slug feed studies,in which the concentra-tion of the cation was suddenly increased in actively fermenting cultures,were conducted to determine the toxicity of individual cations(Kugelman and McCarty, 1964).It was observed that0.15M K+caused50%inhibi-tion of acetate-utilizing methanogens.A series of studies have shown that K+inhibits the thermophilic digestion of simulated co?ee wastes(Fernandez and Forster,1993, 1994;Shi and Forster,1994).Information about the sensi-tivity of di?erent groups of microorganisms to potassium is con?icting.The results of batch tests using acetate as the carbon source showed that the gas production from both the control and samples with elevated K+were identical, indicating that the inhibition could be at the acidogenic stage(Fernandez and Forster,1994).Mouneimne et al. (2003)investigated the biotoxicity of potassium using ace-tate and glucose as substrates and anaerobic sludge as inoc-ulum.The IC50for acetate-utilizing microorganisms was

4050Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

found to be0.74mol/L.However,the degradation rates of glucose were virtually una?ected by potassium,indicating that the acetate-utilizing microorganisms exhibited a greater sensitivity to the toxic e?ects of cations than the acid-forming ones.

Sodium,magnesium,and ammonium were observed to mitigate potassium toxicity,with sodium producing the best https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,binations of cations produce antagonism superior to that of single cations.The best results were obtained for combinations of sodium and calcium,and combinations of sodium,calcium and ammonia(Kugel-man and McCarty,1964).

2.3.5.Sodium

Wastewaters with high concentrations of sodium are produced in the food processing industry(Soto et al., 1991).Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic?lters treat-ing e?uents from a mussel cooking factory were compared. The mesophilic reactor exhibited better performance than the thermophilic reactor,which was attributed to the more rapid adaptation of mesophilic sludges to the high salinity of the wastewater(Soto et al.,1991;Soto et al.,1992).In comparing VFA-degrading bacteria,sodium was more toxic to propionic acid-utilizing microorganisms than to acetic acid-utilizing ones(Soto et al.,1993b).This result was in agreement with the?ndings of Liu and Boone (1991),who found the NaCl toxicity decreased in the order of lignocellulose-degrading>acetate-utilizing>propio-nate-utilizing>H2/CO2-utilizing organisms.

2.3.5.1.Concentration.At low concentrations,sodium is essential for methanogens,probably because of its role in the formation of adenosine triphosphate or in the oxida-tion of NADH(Dimroth and Thomer,1989).McCarty (1964)reported sodium concentrations in the range of 100–200mg/L to be bene?cial for the growth of mesophilic anaerobes.According to Kugelman and Chin(1971),the optimal sodium concentration for mesophilic aceticlastic methanogens in waste treatment processes was230mg Na+/L.The optimal growth conditions for mesophilic hydrogenotrophic methanogens reportedly occurred at 350mg Na+/L(Patel and Roth,1977).At high concentra-tions,sodium could readily a?ect the activity of microor-ganisms and interfere with their metabolism(Kugelman and McCarty,1964;Rinzema et al.,1988;Gourdon et al.,1989;Balsleve-Olsen et al.,1990;Mende′z et al., 1995).The level of inhibition depends on the concentration of sodium ions.An early study reported sodium concentra-tions ranging from3500to5500mg/L to be moderately and8000mg/L to be strongly inhibitory to methanogens at mesophilic temperatures(McCarty,1964).The IC50for sodium inhibition has been reported to be 5.6–53g/L, depending on the adaptation period,antagonistic/synergis-tic e?ects,substrate,and reactor con?guration(Patel and Roth,1977;Rinzema et al.,1988;Liu and Boone,1991; Soto et al.,1993b;Feijoo et al.,1995;Omil et al.,1995a,b;Aspe′et al.,1997;Kim et al.,2000;Vallero et al.,2002;Chen et al.,2003;Vallero et al.,2003a,b). 2.3.5.2.Acclimation.Acclimation of methanogens to high concentrations of sodium over prolonged periods of time could increase the tolerance and shorten the lag phase before methane production begins(de Baere et al.,1984; Feijoo et al.,1995;Omil et al.,1995a,b,1996b;Chen et al.,2003).The tolerance is related to the Na+concentra-tion the methanogens acclimated to and the time of expo-sure.The IC100of methanogens increased from12.7to 22.8g/L when the methanogens were acclimated to4.1 and12.0g/L of Na+,respectively(Chen et al.,2003).Inoc-ulum showed increased tolerance for sodium as the time of acclimation increases.Mende′z et al.(1995)reported that IC90of inocula was12.0g/L when sludge was taken from anaerobic reactor after one day of acclimation and greater than17.0g/L when the acclimation period was719days. Anaerobic?lter sludge that treating high salinity wastewa-ter for2years also exhibited better performance than sludge that had been sampled from a central activity diges-ter employed for wastewater treatment for1year(Feijoo et al.,1995).Application of experimental results obtained from a batch reactor to a continuous reactor often overes-timated the sensitivity of the microorganisms.This may be attributable to the sudden change in sodium levels that microorganisms were exposed to in batch testing,giving them minimum time to adapt.In continuous testing, sodium concentration was often increased gradually,allow-ing su?cient time for the microorganisms to adapt(Feijoo et al.,1995).

Contrary to the?ndings in the previous section,Rin-zema et al.(1988)found no adaptation of Methanothrix sp.to high sodium concentrations after12weeks.Simi-larly,when treating methanol in a sulfate-reducing reactor, stepwise increases in NaCl could not increase the tolerance of SRB to sodium,indicating that the adaptation of ther-mophilic,sul?dogenic methanol-degrading bacteria to a high NaCl environment was unlikely to occur(Vallero et al.,2002,2003a,b).

2.3.5.3.Antagonistic/synergistic e?ects.Microorganisms accumulate cations and/or low-molecular-weight organic compounds,known as compatible solutes,when the extra-cellular solute concentration exceeds that of the cell cyto-plasm(Lai and Gunsalus,1992).The role of compatible solutes in osmoregulation was recognized and the antago-nistic e?ect of cations and betaine towards sodium has been investigated.Kugelman and McCarty(1964)showed that a combination of potassium and calcium signi?cantly increased the antagonism over that achieved by potassium alone.An anaerobic toxicity assay of sludge from mussel-processing wastewater also con?rmed that when using the e?uent of the anaerobic?lter as assay medium,the toler-ance to sodium was highly increased compared to distilled water(Soto et al.,1993b).This e?ect was attributed to the antagonism exerted by the presence of sea salts,probably

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644051

K+,Mg2+,and Ca2+.Information in the literature about the e?ect of Mg2+is con?icting.Ahring et al.(1991) reported an antagonistic e?ect of Mg2+for Na+.The inhibition by Na+was directly related to the Mg2+concen-tration.When the Mg2+was0.05mM or less,0.35M Na+ completely inhibited growth.More Na+was required for inhibition at higher Mg2+concentrations.However, beyond0.01M/L,Mg2+was reported to start showing a synergistic e?ect towards Na+(Kugelman and McCarty,

1964).Ca2+and NHt

4also showed synergistic e?ects

towards Na+(Kugelman and McCarty,1964).The anta-gonistic e?ect of the compatible solute betaine ((CH3)3N+CH2COOà)towards sodium toxicity was inves-tigated by Yerkes et al.(1997).Bacteria subjected to salin-ity stress have been shown to accumulate betaine in proportion to the salinity of the medium(Poukomailian and Booth,1992).Concentrations of betaine as low as 1mM have been shown to be e?ective in reducing the tox-icity of high concentrations of sodium by reducing acclima-tion or lag time,increasing substrate uptake rate,and increasing gas production(Yerkes et al.,1997).

2.4.Heavy metals

Heavy metals can be present in signi?cant concentra-tions in municipal sewage and sludge.The heavy metals identi?ed to be of particular concern include chromium, iron,cobalt,copper,zinc,cadmium,and nickel(Jin et al., 1998).A distinguishing feature of heavy metals is that, unlike many other toxic substances,they are not biode-gradable and can accumulate to potentially toxic concen-trations(Sterritt and Lester,1980).In one extensive study of anaerobic digester performance,it was found that heavy metal toxicity is one of the major causes of digester upset or failure(Swanwick et al.,1969).The toxic e?ect of heavy metals is attributed to disruption of enzyme function and structure by binding of the metals with thiol and other groups on protein molecules or by replacing naturally occurring metals in enzyme prosthetic groups(Vallee and Ulner,1972).

2.4.1.Factors controlling heavy metal inhibition

Many heavy metals are part of the essential enzymes that drive numerous anaerobic reactions.Analysis of ten methanogenic strains showed the following order of heavy metal composition in the cell:Fe)Zn P Ni>Co= Mo>Cu(Takashima and Speece,1989).Whether heavy metals would be stimulatory or inhibitory to anaerobic microorganisms is determined by the total metal concentra-tion,chemical forms of the metals,and process-related fac-tors such as pH and redox potential(Mosey et al.,1971; Lin and Chen,1999;Zayed and Winter,2000).It is gener-ally believed that acidogens are more resistant to heavy metal toxicity than methanogens(Zayed and Winter, 2000).However,Hickey et al.(1989)have speculated that some trophic group(s)or organisms within the anaerobic consortia in digesters might be more severely inhibited by a pulsed addition of heavy metals than the methanogenic populations.

2.4.1.1.Chemical forms of heavy metal.Because of the com-plexity of the anaerobic system,heavy metals may be involved in many physico-chemical processes including (1)precipitation as sul?de(except Cr),carbonate and hydroxides(Lawrence and McCarty,1965;Mosey et al., 1971),(2)sorption to the solid fraction,either biomass or inert particulate matter(Shen et al.,1993;Shin et al., 1997),and(3)formation of complexes in solution with intermediates and product compounds produced during digestion(Hayes and Theis,1978;Hickey et al.,1989;Cal-lander and Barford,1983a,b).Among these metal forms, only metals in soluble,free form are toxic to the microor-ganisms(Lawrence and McCarty,1965;Mosey and Hughes,1975;Oleszkiewicz and Sharma,1990).Several studies have con?rmed that the heavy metal toxicity corre-lated better to the metal’s free ionic concentration(deter-mined through a combination of dialysis and ion exchange)than to its total concentration(Bhattacharya and Sa?erman,1989;Bhattacharya et al.,1995a,b).In pre-vious reports,the various physico-chemical forms of a par-ticular heavy metal were rarely distinguished due to the complex interactions between the heavy metals and anaer-obic sludge and/or lack of analytical techniques for sepa-rating metal species(Gould and Genetelli,1978;Hayes and Theis,1978;Oleszkiewicz and Sharma,1990;Zayed and Winter,2000).This is one factor that explains the wide variation in reported toxic concentrations of heavy metals.

2.4.1.2.Concentrations.In addition to physico-chemical form,di?erences in substrate,bacteria genre,and environ-mental factors also explain the wide variation(from several to several hundreds of mg/L)in both the reported dosages of heavy metals and their relative toxicity(Lawrence and McCarty,1965;Hickey et al.,1989;Bhattacharya et al., 1995a;Jin et al.,1998;Lin and Chen,1999;Zayed and Winter,2000).Moreover,the operating solids level signi?-cantly impacts the heavy metal toxicity in anaerobic digest-ers by providing protection from metal inhibition.It has been suggested that inhibition due to heavy metals would be more comparable if metal dosage was expressed as mil-ligram of metal per gram of volatile solids(Hickey et al., 1989).Unfortunately,most of the literature only reported the inhibition concentration values in mg/L,which makes the comparison of inhibition concentrations more di?cult. Heavy metal concentrations that caused50%inhibition of methanogenesis during whey methanation indicated that toxicity decreased in the order of Cu>Zn>Ni.Similar results were obtained by Lin(1992,1993)and Lin and Chen(1999).This is,however,not surprising since Zn and Ni are components of several enzymes in anaerobic microorganisms(Nies,1999).The relative sensitivity of aci-dogenesis and methanogenesis to heavy metals is Cu>Zn>Cr>Cd>Ni>Pb and Cd>Cu>Cr>Zn> Pb>Ni,respectively(Lin,1992,1993).The relative

4052Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

toxicity of four metals to the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge was reported to be Cr>Ni>Cu>Zn(Wong and Cheung,1995).

2.4.1.

3.Antagonistic and synergistic e?ects.Industrial wastewaters or sludges generally contain many kinds of heavy metals which cause synergistic or antagonistic e?ects on anaerobic digestion.The level of inhibition is deter-mined by the species and the ratio of the individual compo-nents.Although toxicity of most mixed heavy metals such as Cr–Cd,Cr–Pb,Cr–Cd–Pb,and Zn–Cu–Ni was synergis-tic(Lin,1992),some of the metal mixtures showed antag-onistic inhibition(Lin,1993).In a variety of aerobic, facultative and anaerobic studies reviewed by Babich and Stotzky(1983),Ni was shown to act synergistically in Ni–Cu,Ni–Mo–Co,and Ni–Hg systems;antagonistically in Ni–Cd,Ni–Zn systems.Ahring and Westermann (1985)found that Ni decreased the toxicity of Cd and Cu.

2.4.2.Detoxi?cation of heavy metals

The most important methods for mitigating heavy metal toxicity are precipitation,sorption and chelation by organic and inorganic ligands(Oleszkiewicz and Sharma, 1990).Sul?de has been the main agent used to precipitate heavy metals.Reactor recovery from20mg/L of copper exposure was observed when sul?de was added after cop-per exposure.The addition of sul?de before copper expo-sure can signi?cantly shorten the time required for recovery(Jin et al.,1998;Zayed and Winter,2000).How-ever,caution must be exercised since excess sul?de can also be an important inhibitor to methanogens(Anderson et al., 1982).Excessive quantities of sul?de might be minimized by adding ferrous sulfate,which has the highest solubility of all toxic heavy metals.Heavy metals would combine with the sul?de in FeS,releasing Fe2+,which is relatively non-toxic up to several hundred mg/L.Presence of a solid phase in the reactor provides protection for anaerobic microorganisms from heavy metal inhibition(Jarrell et al.,1987).The protection e?ect is proportional to the surface area or the amount of solids.The mechanism is believed to be chemisorption(Gould and Genetelli,1984; Alibhai et al.,1985).The a?nity of sludge for heavy metals has been proposed as(in decreasing order): Cu>Cd>Zn>Ni(Gould and Genetelli,1984).Similarly, sorption of heavy metals to activated carbon,kaolin,ben-tonite,diatomite and waste materials such as compost and cellulose pulp waste can also mitigate inhibition(Ulmanu et al.,2003).Chelation by organic ligands has been well documented for several metals.Babich and Stotzky (1983)have shown a decrease in nickel toxicity by EDTA, PDA,NTA,aspartate,and citrate,in that order.

Exposure of microorganisms to heavy metals is known to activate a wide variety of intracellular detoxi?cation strategies(Gadd and Gri?ths,1978).The intracellular defense systems include biologically mediated precipitation or chelation of metal ions at the cell surface(Wood and Wang,1983),biomethylation(Summers,1986),exocytosis (expulsion of metals after their chemical inactivation inside the cell)(Silver and Phung,1996)and plasmid-mediated resistance(Wood and Wang,1983).

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,anics

A wide range of organic compounds can inhibit anaero-bic https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,anic chemicals which are poorly soluble in water or adsorbed to the surfaces of sludge solids may accumulate to high levels in anaerobic digesters.The accu-mulation of apolar pollutants in bacterial membranes causes the membrane to swell and leak,disrupting ion gra-dients and eventually causing cell lysis(Heipieper et al., 1994;Sikkema et al.,1994).

Organic compounds which have been reported to be toxic to the anaerobic processes include alkyl benzenes (Yang and Speece,1986;Renard et al.,1993),halogenated benzenes(van Beelen and van Vlaardingen,1994),nitro-benzenes(Bhattacharya et al.,1996),phenol and alkyl phe-nols(Sierra-Alvarez and Lettinga,1991a;Soto et al.,1991; Fang et al.,1995),halogenated phenols(Shin and Kwon, 1998),nitrophenols(Borja et al.,1997;Uberoi and Bhat-tacharya,1997a;McCue et al.,2003),alkanes(Mormile and Su?ita,1996),halogenated aliphatics(Stuckey et al., 1980;Boucquey et al.,1995),alcohols(Dimirer and Speece, 1998),halogenated alcohols(Blum and Speece,1991),alde-hydes(Gonzales-Gil et al.,2002),ethers(Playne and Smith, 1983;Hayward and Lau,1989),ketones(Playne and Smith,1983;Hayward and Lau,1989),acrylates,carbox-ylic acids,amines,nitriles,amides(Blum and Speece, 1991;Stergar et al.,2003),and pyridine and its derivatives (Liu et al.,1998).Moreover,some LCFAs(Koster and Cramer,1987),surfactants,and detergents were also reported to adversely impact anaerobic digestion(Madsen and Rasmussen,1996;Gavala and Ahring,2002).

The inhibition concentration ranges vary widely for spe-ci?c toxicants.The parameters that a?ect the toxicity of organic compounds include toxicant concentration,bio-mass concentration,toxicant exposure time,cell age,feed-ing pattern,acclimation,and temperature(Yang and Speece,1986).At lower concentrations,biodegradation of some toxicants can prevent inhibition;higher concentra-tions of toxicants generally lead to signi?cant inhibition of anaerobic processes(Anthony and Breimhurst,1981; O’Connor and Young,1989).With higher biomass concen-tration,reactors exhibit greater process stability in the presence of toxic shocks(Uberoi and Bhattacharya, 1997a).At equal solids concentrations,younger cultures were proved to be more robust and resistant to toxicants than older cultures(Yang and Speece,1986).Inhibition has been usually quanti?ed by determining the IC50con-centration.Because of a lack of consistency in exposure times between studies,which varied from30min(Dutka et al.,1983)to285h(Johnson and Young,1983),the inhi-bition concentrations can vary signi?cantly.

As with other inhibitory substances,microbial acclima-tion is an important parameter in assessing the inhibitory

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644053

e?ects of organic substances.Four interrelated mechanisms by which adaptation can occur have been suggested:(1) enrichment of organisms which can degrade the toxic com-pounds,(2)induction of speci?c enzymes for the degrada-tion,(3)genetic engineering and(4)exhaustion of preferential substrates before switching to the xenobiotic substrate,i.e.a diauxic pattern(Spain et al.,1980;Spain and van Veld,1983;van der Meer,1994).Acclimation of anaerobic microorganisms both increases their tolerance to the toxicants shock and enhances toxicant biodegrad-ability(Stuckey et al.,1980;Wu et al.,1993).

2.5.1.Chlorophenols

Chlorophenols include monochlorophenols(CPs), dichlorophenols(DCPs),trichlorophenols(TCP),tetra-chlorophenols(TeCPs),and pentachlorophenol(PCP). Chlorophenols are toxic to many organisms by disrupting the proton gradient across membranes and interfering with energy transduction of cells.The e?ect of aromatic compounds on membrane processes has been reviewed by Sikkema et al.(1995).

The relative toxicity of chlorophenols has been investi-gated by many researchers and the results are somewhat contradictory.Among di?erent isomer series,PCP was the most toxic to acidogens and methanogens.Approxi-mately0.5–10mg/L PCP caused inhibition to acidogenic and methanogenic populations(Bauer and Capone,1985; Godsy et al.,1986;Blum and Speece,1991;Patel et al., 1991;Uberoi and Bhattacharya,1997b;Piringer and Bhat-tacharya,1999).Sierra-Alverez and Lettinga(1991b)have described the relationship between the increase in the num-ber of chloro-substituents in the aromatic benzene rings and their toxicity to methanogenic processes.This theory was supported by the?nding of Jin and Bhattacharya (1996)that TCPs were more toxic than DCPs and CPs. However,other studies found no correlation between the toxicity of DCPs and TCPs and the number of chloro-sub-stituents(Blum and Speece,1991).Within individual iso-mer series,toxicity due to DCPs and TCPs to both propionate and acetate degradation was dependent on the substitution position of chlorine atoms on the benzene ring.Di?erent orders of relative toxicity have been reported(Jin and Bhattacharya,1996;Uberoi and Bhat-tacharya,1997b).The chlorine position on CPs did not sig-ni?cantly e?ect toxicity to either propionate or acetate degradation(Kim et al.,1994;Uberoi and Bhattacharya, 1997b).Davies-Venn et al.(1992),however,found that the toxicity of CPs to aceticlastic methanogenesis increased as the substituted chlorine group changed from the ortho to the meta to the para position on the benzene ring.

In relation to physico-chemical properties,previous studies with aromatic compounds indicated that those structural characteristics that decrease polarity increase toxicity(Kamlet et al.,1986;Patel et al.,1991).Com-pounds of greater hydrophobicity accumulate more e?-ciently in membranes,causing a greater disturbance to the membrane structure(Heipieper et al.,1994;Sikkema et al.,1994).A high correlation of the methanogenic toxic-ity to the log P(logarithm of the octano-water partition coe?cient)was obtained for chloro-substituted benzenes and phenols(Sierra-Alverez and Lettinga,1991b;Ennik-Maarsen et al.,1998).The relative hydrophobicity also provides an explanation for the relative toxicity of nitro-phenols and hydroxyphenols(Wang et al.,1991).

Literature data on the tolerance of di?erent important subpopulations in methanogenic sludges to the chlorophe-nols are also con?icting.This variation could be attributed to variations in microbial speci?c growth rates and/or the physiological state,which may a?ect the tolerance to an inhibitory compound as well as the accumulation of organic compounds in the cell(Ennik-Maarsen et al., 1998).Colleran et al.(1992)reported that aceticlastic meth-anogens,butyrate oxidizers and ethanol oxidizers,were similarly sensitive to halogenated aromatics,while hydro-genotrophs were less sensitive(Kim et al.,1996).In other studies,propionate degraders were found to be the most sensitive to chlorophenols(Johnson and Young,1983; Wu et al.,1993;Jin and Bhattacharya,1996),whereas Kim et al.(1994)concluded that ethanol degraders were not as sensitive as aceticlastic methanogens towards chnor-ophenols and chloroanilines.Degradation of initially inhibitory compounds was observed for2,4-DCP,2,3,6-TCP,2,3,5-TCP(Uberoi and Bhattacharya,1997b),4-CP,and2,4,6-TCP(Fantroussi et al.,1998)after acclima-tion.Acclimation was related to the concentration of sub-strates and their chemical structures(Link?eld et al.,1989).

2.5.2.Halogenated aliphatics

Most of the halogenated aliphatics are strong inhibitors of methanogenesis.In general,the brominated compounds were more inhibitory to methanogens than their chlori-nated analogs(Belay and Daniels,1987).Renard et al. (1993)measured the toxicity of a mixture of polychlori-nated organic compounds including C4Cl6,C2Cl6,C2Cl4, etc.and found that50%inhibition of methanogenesis started at3.3mg/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,plete inhibition of methanogene-sis occurred at100mg/L.Methanogenic toxicity data for other chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons are lacking(Stuc-key et al.,1980;Anthony and Breimhurst,1981).However, the methanogenic toxicity of chloroform,the most widely used chloroaliphatics,has been studied extensively.Among six chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents including carbon tetrachloride and1,1,1-trichloroethane,chloroform was found to be the most toxic to the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge(Swanwick and Foulkes,1971).A concentra-tion of0.01mg/L or more of chloroform in the sewage was likely to have an adverse e?ect on sludge digestion(Stick-ley,1970).The IC50concentration for this compound has been reported to range from0.15mg/L in unacclimated methanogenic consortia to50mg/L in acclimated consor-tia(Anthony and Breimhurst,1981;Parkin and Speece, 1983;Salenieks and Henry,1986;Yang and Speece,1986; Hickey et al.,1987;In et al.,1992).During anaerobic deg-radation of chloroform,reactive and toxic intermediates

4054Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

were formed,which partly contributed to its strong toxicity (van Beelen and van Vlaardingen,1994).

Unlike chloroaromatics,no relationship between the number of chloro-substituents and toxicity could be identi-?ed for chloroaliphatics.Polarity is an important factor, but it is insu?cient for the prediction of the toxicity of the di?erent compounds(Sanz et al.,1997).It was reported that tri-and tetrachloride derivatives of methane and eth-ane were more toxic than dichlorinated compounds.Per-chlorinated derivatives of ethane and ethene were scarcely inhibitory at concentrations near their maximum water sol-ubility(Sanz et al.,1994).Compared to their saturated counterparts,unsaturated chloroaliphatics were less toxic (Chou et al.,1978;Sanz et al.,1997).

Acclimation of methanogenic consortium to polychlori-nated aliphatic compounds is possible.Yang and Speece (1986)found that an anaerobic culture was able to accli-mate to the presence of chloroform while fermenting ace-tate to methane.Inhibition of unacclimated cultures by chloroform was noted at0.5mg/L,but with acclimation 15mg/L could be tolerated.Filho et al.(1992)reported that fermentative microorganisms acclimate more quickly than hydrogenotrophic ones,followed by H2producing acetogens and aceticlastic methanogens.

2.5.

3.N-substituted aromatics

N-substituted aromatics are reactive toxicants including nitrobenzenes,nitrophenols,aminophenols,aromatic amines,etc.(Blum and Speece,1991).Reactive toxicity is caused by speci?c chemical interactions with enzymes or interference with metabolic pathways(Balderston and Payne,1976).

Nitroaromatics are very toxic compounds to methano-gens,with IC50values generally ranging from0.014to 0.12mM(Johnson and Young,1983;Donlon et al.,1995; Bhattacharya et al.,1996).Aromatic amines,in contrast, are less inhibitory;the IC50values were between3.2and 67mM,perhaps due to their lower hydrophobicity (Razo-Flores et al.,1997).Nitroanilines were found to be the most toxic among N-substituted aromatics,partly because of their high chemical reactivity(Razo-Flores et al.,1997).

Increasing the number of nitro groups beyond one had limited e?ect in increasing the toxicity of nitrobenzenes. The addition of an extra amino group to aminophenol resulted in more toxic compounds,while the addition of an amino group to aniline resulted in less toxic phenylen-ediamines(Donlon et al.,1995).However,the combination of nitro and amino groups,e.g.nitroanilines,was found to be the most toxic substitute pattern(Donlon et al., 1995).Toxicity due to the mononitrophenols also depends on the substitution position.Among the nitrophenols stud-ied,the toxicity increased in the order of4-nitrophenol> 2-nitrophenol>3-nitrophenol for an acetate enrichment culture(Haghighi-Podeh et al.,1995;Haghighi-Podeh and Bhattacharya,1996).Similar results were observed for acetate and propionate enrichment culture(Uberoi and Bhattacharya,1997a).Another study found that para-nitrophenol was more toxic than meta-nitrophenol and the ortho-nitrophenol was the least toxic to methano-gens(Tseng and Yang,1994).

Acclimation of anaerobes to N-substituted aromatics decreases their toxicity and therefore enhances biodegrada-tion.4-Nitrophenol and2,4-dinitrophenol can be degraded at concentrations up to200mg/L after su?cient acclima-tion.The lag time before biodegradation started increased with increasing toxicant concentration(O’Connor and Young,1989).

2.5.4.LCFAs

Treatment of fatty materials by anaerobic digestion is often hampered because of the inhibitory e?ect of LCFAs. LCFAs have been reported to be inhibitory at low concen-trations for gram-positive but not gram-negative micro-organisms(Kabara et al.,1977).Methanogens can be inhibited by LCFAs due to their cell wall,which resembles that of gram-positive bacteria(Zeikus,1977).LCFAs show acute toxicity towards anaerobic consortium by adsorption onto the cell wall/membrane,interference with the trans-port or protective function(Rinzema et al.,1994).In addi-tion,sorption of a light layer of LCFAs to biomass leads to the?otation of sludge and consequent sludge washout (Rinzema et al.,1989).In UASB reactors,granular sludge ?otation sometimes occurred at concentrations far below the toxicity limit(Hwu et al.,1998).

Oleic acid was almost as inhibitory as lauric acid,which exhibited I50of4.3mM.Cyprylic acid was only slightly inhibitory(Koster and Cramer,1987).Koster and Cramer (1987)also observed enhanced toxicity of capric acid and myristic acid when lauric acid was present.LCFA toxicity varied with the type of anaerobic sludges and was more correlated to the sludges’physical characteristics(speci?c surface area and size distribution)than to their biological characteristics.Suspended and?occulent sludges,which have a higher speci?c surface area,su?ered much greater inhibition than did granular sludge(Hwu et al.,1996). Thermophiles have been reported to be more sensitive to LCFAs than mesophiles,possibly due to the di?erent com-position of cell membranes(Hwu and Lettinga,1997).

Biodegradation of LCFAs has been reported in both mesophilic and thermophilic environments(Hanaki et al., 1981;Angelidaki and Ahring,1992).It has been suggested that LCFAs exerted a bactericidal e?ect and no adaptation of methanogens occured(Hanaki et al.,1981;Koster and Cramer,1987;Angelidaki and Ahring,1992).However, recent studies based on the degradation of oleic acid in an anaerobic?xed-bed reactor showed that acclimation improved the resistance of the bio?lm to the presence of oleate and improved the biodegradation capacity com-pared to the bio?lm formed in the absence of lipids(Alves et al.,2001a,b).Addition of calcium has been shown to reduce LCFA inhibition,probably because of the forma-tion of insoluble salts(Hanaki et al.,1981;Angelidaki

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644055

and Ahring,1990).However,calcium addition cannot solve the problem of sludge?otation(Alves et al.,2001a,b).

2.5.5.Lignins and lignin related compounds

Lignin derivatives with aldehyde groups or apolar sub-stituents are highly toxic to methanogens.The aromatic carboxylic acids,however,were only mildly toxic.Op den Camp et al.(1988)tested the toxicity of several lignin model phenolic acids to the anaerobic degradation of cellu-lose and observed that the acids only caused inhibition of methane production at very high concentrations.Benjamin et al.(1984)evaluated the methanogenic toxicity of various lignin derived monomers present in kraft condensates and found that eugenol,with an apolar side chain,was more toxic than its counterpart guaiacol which lacks the side chain.

3.Engineering signi?cance

3.1.Agricultural wastes

Animal waste includes voided waste from livestock and poultry,wastewater,feedlot runo?,silage juices,bedding, and feed.These wastes are a substantial contributor to non-point source pollution and can a?ect wetland habitats and contaminate drinking water sources.Animal waste often has very high total ammonia nitrogen concentrations due to the presence of ammonia as well as protein and urea that readily release ammonia upon anaerobic treatment (Zeeman et al.,1985;Krylova et al.,1997;Hansen et al., 1998).Consequently,the principal instability associated with the anaerobic digestion of animal waste is ammonia inhibition(Zeeman et al.,1985;Hashimoto,1986;Kayha-nian,1994).Sudden increases in ammonia concentration in the feedstock are unusual(Hobson,1991).However,feed slurry that has been stored for some time in the animal house often contains high concentration of ammonia released from decomposition of organic nitrogen.Shock loading of this feed slurry can cause inhibition of anaerobic digesters(Hobson,1991).In addition to ammonia,swine manure also contains a high sulfate concentration derived from a protein-rich diet.The inhibition caused by ammo-nia and by sul?de in?uences each other(Hansen et al., 1999).Feed additives(antibiotics,chemotherapeutics)for improving food utilization and disinfectants for preventing infectious diseases have been widely used in intensive ani-mal production(Hilpert et al.,1984).In most cases,these compounds are in very low concentrations(less than 30ppm)in the waste and are generally not inhibitory (Hobson,1991).However,some synthetic chemotherapeu-tics such as Olaquindox may be strongly inhibitory even at 1mg/L(Hilpert et al.,1984).This concentration may be reached in practice and special treatments such as predilu-tion may be needed before anaerobic digestion(Varel and Hashimoto,1981;Hilpert et al.,1984;Poels et al.,1984).

Crop residues represent another fraction of agricultural waste.Substantial quantities of unused stalks,straws,and bark are produced from a variety of crops,which could be used for energy generation(Kalra and Panwar,1986). Crop residues typically contain a high lignocellulosic con-tent.Problems such as low gas yield during anaerobic digestion of these materials are usually associated with a high C/N ratio or high lignin content.In addition,the inhi-bition caused by pesticide and herbicide residues would a?ect digestion process kinetics(Khalil et al.,1991;Chakr-aborty et al.,2002).Certain plants generate resin extracts which protect them from biological damage.These extracts may be inhibitory to the digestion process(Speece,1987). Pretreatments such as acid or base hydrolysis are often employed before anaerobic digestion to increase biogas yield.However,byproducts formed in the pretreatment (fufural,hydroxymethyl fufural,formic acid,and levulinic acid)are potential inhibitors of anaerobic digestion.Micro-organisms may eventually adapt and/or degrade these byproducts,but process kinetics could be a?ected(Speece, 1987).

3.2.Municipal wastes

More than181.4million metric tons of municipal solid wastes are produced in the United States annually(US EPA,2000)with up to60%organic material(de Laclos et al.,1997).Due to the increase of source and on-site recy-cling and improved refuse-handling equipment,substantial fractions of the discarded paper fraction,metals,and glass are being recycled,resulting in the production of more organic-rich and less biotoxic biowaste(Ghosh et al., 2000).Because of its value as a potential renewable energy source and high biodegradability,there is a growing inter-est in anaerobic digestion of the biowaste.The principal instability associated with the anaerobic digestion of bio-waste is ammonia inhibition due to the degradation of pro-tein-containing materials(Kayhanian,1994;Gallert and Winter,1997;Gallert et al.,1998).The composition of the organic matter depends greatly on the source of the organic fraction.It was found that the digestion process deteriorated with increasing levels of ammonia-N,with total process cessation at a COD/N ratio of50(Poggi-Var-aldo et al.,1997,1998).Two practical methods,dilution of digester contents with water and adjustment of feedstock C/N,have been tested successfully to mitigate ammonia inhibition(Kayhanian,1999).In general,for solid wastes with a C/N ratio above20,the ammonia inhibition e?ect can be compensated by dilution with water which lowers the concentration of potential inhibitors.

Sludge production is an integral part of the domestic sewage treatment process.Due to their resistance to bio-degradation,heavy metals present in the raw sewage often accumulate in the sludge to potentially toxic concentra-tions.Petrasek and Kugelman(1983)found that most met-als were concentrated10–30-fold in the sludges produced in conventional wastewater treatment plants.Anaerobic digestion is the most typical method for stabilization of sludge prior to ultimate disposal in many countries

4056Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

(Hobson et al.,1981)and is usually the most sensitive pro-cess to heavy metal toxicity(Lester et al.,1983).The e?ects on digestion of chemical treatment of sludge were investi-gated by Gossett et al.(1978).Alum,ferric chloride and organic?occulent were reported to reduce:(1)gas produc-tion,(2)the methane content in the biogas,(3)COD removal,and(4)volatile suspended solids removal.A sim-ilar e?ect was observed for sewage emulsi?ers such as alkyl benzene sulphonate(ABS).

3.3.Industrial wastes

3.3.1.Food industry wastes

The food industries that could bene?t from anaerobic treatment include fruit and vegetable canning,edible oil re?ning,dairy production,seafood processing,meat pro-cessing,starch and sugar production,brewing,and fermen-tation.Wastes from food processing are high in organic matter and are therefore ideal for anaerobic digestion. However,the application of this technique may be hin-dered by the presence of various inhibitors.Seafood pro-cessing wastewaters contain high concentrations of di?erent cations and anions,mainly Na+,Clà,and SO2à

4 (Feijoo et al.,1995).The sodium concentration in these wastewaters may reach that of sea water(approximately 12g/L)(Rinzema et al.,1988).Hypersaline wastewaters are also generated in vegetable,vegetable oil,and dairy processing industries.Dairy wastewaters are rich in fats, proteins and carbohydrates(Rico et al.,1991).Wastewa-ters from the dairy industry are usually generated in an intermittent way,and the?ow and characteristics of waste-waters change from one factory to another depending on the type of systems and the methods of operation(Rico et al.,1991).It has been reported that the intermediates of fat degradation,glycerol and LCFAs,were below inhib-itory concentrations.However,ammonia produced from the degradation of milk proteins was62.2mg/L,close to the inhibition level of the anaerobic digestion process (Vidal et al.,2000).

Meat processing wastes are substantially di?erent from other food industry wastes.They are very strong wastes containing grease,blood,faeces,and recalcitrant organic matter such as straw and hair.During anaerobic digestion, protein and lipids degradation leads to the accumulation of ammonia and LCFAs,which are important inhibitors of the anaerobic microorganisms(Salminen and Rintala, 1999).The wastes also frequently include high concentra-tions of biocides and disinfectants such as hypochlorite (Tritt,1992).The di?cult nature of these wastes could be overcome by co-digestion,which could be advantageous due to an improved C/N ratio and dilution of the inhibi-tory compounds(Tritt,1992).

3.3.2.Paper and pulp industry wastes

The pulp and paper industry has several high strength waste streams that are of concern from an environmental standpoint.Since the pulp produced corresponds to only 40–45%of the original weight of the wood,the e?uents exhibit high COD concentrations(Ali and Sreekrishnan, 2001),which together with e?uent’s warm temperature (the waste is typically around35°C),makes anaerobic digestion a favorable waste treatment technique.Satisfac-tory digestion of paper mill e?uent has been reported (Rintala et al.,1991).The most common inhibitors to the anaerobic digestion process include sul?de,tannins,resin acids,LCFAs,and halogenated compounds(Ali and Sree-krishnan,2001).Sulfate is primarily produced in pulping operations using the sul?te process(Thompson et al., 2001).Sul?de removal can be achieved by sulfur bacteria which convert the sul?de ions to elemental sulfur(Buisman et al.,1991).Chen and Horan(1998)reported the use of a two-stage anaerobic-aerobic approach to remove COD and sulfate from newsprint mill wastewater.Tannins were found to contribute up to50%of the COD of the debarking process wastewater.They are known to exhibit methanogenic toxicity proportional to the extent of poly-merization(Field et al.,1988).Naturally occurred resin acids and LCFAs in the wood and bark could be trans-ferred to process waters during pulping operations.They have been shown to inhibit methanogens,especially the aceticlastic methanogens(Hanaki et al.,1981;Koster and Cramer,1987).Halogenated compounds are produced in the bleaching process.Their toxicity to anaerobes has been well documented.Most of the organic inhibitors are biode-gradable to a certain extent(Ali and Sreekrishnan,2001). However,knowledge of the possible contaminants present in the wastewater,their origins,and their degree of toxicity is essential to successful anaerobic treatment.

3.3.3.Textile industrial wastes

The main sources of wastewater generated by the textile industry originate from the washing(or scouring)and bleaching of natural?bers and from the dyeing and?nish-ing steps.Given the great variety of?bers,dyes,process aids,and?nishing products in use,these processes generate wastewaters of great chemical complexity(Vandevivere et al.,1998).Several laboratory-scale investigations have illustrated the potential of sequential anaerobic/aerobic biotreatment steps for textile wastewaters.Other studies have shown,however,that methanogenesis,and hence COD removal,is easily inhibited by textile e?uents (Athanasopoulos,1992).The components of textile waste-water that could be potential inhibitors are dye,dyeing auxiliaries(polyacrylates,phosphonates),surfactants(alkyl phenol ethoxylates),adsorbable organic halogens(chloro-form),and heavy metals(Feitkenhauer,2004;Lee and Pavlostathis,2004).

3.3.

4.Petrochemical re?neries wastes

Anaerobic digestion could also be of use in petrochem-ical re?neries.It has been found that after prolonged accli-mation,aldehydes,acids,alcohols,and esters could be used for methane production(Chou et al.,1978).The presence of hydroxyl groups and an increasing carbon chain reduced

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644057

the toxicity of compounds to the digester micro?ora.Accli-mation to aromatic ring and double-bond compounds was also possible.Chou et al.(1978)concluded that digestion of petrochemical wastes would not only result in a saving of energy over aerobic processes but would also produce methane on a scale for use as a fuel.

4.Conclusion

Anaerobic digestion is an e?cient waste treatment tech-nology that harnesses natural anaerobic decomposition to reduce waste volume and generate biogas at the same time. It has been widely applied to the treatment of waste from agricultural and industrial operations.Depending on the origin,the waste stream may contain inhibitory or even toxic substances such as ammonia,sul?de,heavy metals, and organics.Accumulation of these substances may cause reactor upset,as indicated by reduced biogas production and/or biogas methane content,and possible reactor fail-ure.Due to the di?erence in anaerobic microorganisms, waste composition,and experimental methods and condi-tions,results from previous investigations on inhibition of anaerobic processes vary substantially.Obtaining informa-tion on waste components is necessary for successful appli-cation of anaerobic digestion.It has been suggested that co-digestion with other waste,adaptation of microorgan-isms to inhibitory substances,and incorporation of methods to remove or counteract toxicants before anaerobic diges-tion can signi?cantly improve the waste treatment e?ciency. References

Ahring,B.K.,Westermann,P.,1985.Sensitivity of thermophilic metha-nogenic bacteria to heavy metals.Curr.Microbiol.12,273–276. Ahring, B.K.,Alatriste-Mondragon, F.,Westermann,P.,Mah,R.A., 1991.E?ects of cations on Methanosarcina thermophila TM-1growing on moderate concentrations of acetate:production of single cells.

Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.35,686–689.

Ali,M.,Sreekrishnan,T.R.,2001.Aquatic toxicity from pulp and paper mill e?uents:a review.Adv.Environ.Res.5,175–196.

Alibhai,K.R.K.,Mehrotra,I.,Foster,C.F.,1985.Heavy metal binding to digested sludge.Water Res.19,1983–1988.

Alphenaar,P.A.,Visser, A.,Lettinga,G.,1993.The e?ect of liquid upward velocity and hydraulic retention time on granulation in UASB reactors treating wastewater with a high sulphate content.Bioresour.

Technol.43,249–258.

Alves,M.M.,Mota Vieira,J.A.,Pereira A′lvares,R.M.,Pereira,M.A., Mota,M.,2001a.E?ects of lipids and oleic acid on biomass development in anaerobic?xed-bed reactors.Part I:bio?lm growth and activity.Water Res.35(1),255–263.

Alves,M.M.,Mota Vieira,J.A.,Pereira A′lvares,R.M.,Pereira,M.A., Mota,M.,2001b.E?ects of lipids and oleic acid on biomass development in anaerobic?xed-bed reactors.Part II:Oleic acid toxicity and biodegradability.Water Res.35(1),264–270. Anderson,G.K.,Donnelly,T.,Mckeown,K.J.,1982.Identi?cation and control of inhibition in the anaerobic treatment of industrial waste-water.Process Biochem.17,28–32.

Angelidaki,I.,Ahring,B.K.,1992.E?ects of free long-chain fatty acids on thermophilic anaerobic digestion.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.37, 808–812.

Angelidaki,I.,Ahring,B.K.,1993.Thermophilic digestion of livestock waste:the e?ect of ammonia.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.38,560–564.Angelidaki,I.,Ahring,B.K.,1994.Anaerobic thermophilic digestion of manure at di?erent ammonia loads:e?ect of temperature.Water Res.

28,727–731.

Angelidaki,I.,Petersen,S.P.,Ahring,B.K.,1990.E?ects of lipids on thermophilic anaerobic digestion and reduction of lipid inhibition upon addition of bentonite.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.33,469–472. Angelidaki,I.,Ellegaard,L.,Ahring,B.K.,1993.A mathematical model for dynamic simulation of anaerobic digestion of complex substrates: focusing on ammonia inhibition.Biotechnol.Bioeng.42,159–166. Anthony,R.M.,Breimhurst,L.H.,1981.Determining maximum in?uent concentrations of priority pollutants for treatment plants.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.53,1457–1468.

Aspe′,E.,Mart?′,M.,Roeckel,M.,1997.Anaerobic treatment of?shery wastewater using a marine sediment inoculum.Water Res.31(9), 2147–2160.

Athanasopoulos,N.,1992.Cotton yarn and fabric?nishing wastewater treatment using an anaerobic expanded bed reactor.Bioresour.

Technol.39,291–293.

Babich,H.,Stotzky,G.,1983.Toxicity of nickel to microbes,environ-mental aspects.Adv.Appl.Microbiol.29,195–295.

Balderston,W.L.,Payne,W.J.,1976.Inhibition of methanogenesis in salt marsh sediments and whole-cell suspensions of methanogenic bacteria by nitrogen oxides.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.32,264–269. Balsleve-Olsen,P.,Lynggaard-Jensen,A.,Nickelsen,C.,1990.Pilot-scale experiments on anaerobic treatment of wastewater from a?sh processing plant.Water Sci.Technol.22,463–474.

Bauer,J.E.,Capone, D.G.,1985.E?ects of four aromatic organic pollutants on microbial glucose metabolism and thymidine incorpo-ration in marine sediments.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.49,828–835. Belay,N.,Daniels,L.,1987.Production of ethane,ethylene,and acetylene from halogenated hydrocarbons by methanogenic bacteria.Appl.

Environ.Microbiol.53(7),1604–1610.

Benjamin,M.M.,Woods,S.L.,Ferguson,J.F.,1984.Anaerobic toxicity and biodegradability of pulp mill waste constituents.Water Res.18, 601–607.

Bhattacharya,S.K.,Parkin,G.F.,1989.The e?ect of ammonia on methane fermentation process.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.61(1), 55–59.

Bhattacharya,S.K.,Sa?erman,A.G.,1989.Determination of bioavailable nickel concentrations in inhibited methanogenic systems.Environ.

Technol.Lett.10(8),725–730.

Bhattacharya,S.K.,Madura,R.,Uberoi,V.,Haghighi-Podeh,M.R., 1995a.Toxic e?ects of cadmium on methanogenic systems.Water Res.

29(10),2339–2345.

Bhattacharya,S.K.,Uberoi,V.,Madura,R.L.,Haghighi-Podeh,M.R., 1995b.E?ect of cobalt on methanogenesis.Environ.Technol.16(3), 271–278.

Bhattacharya,S.,Qu,M.,Madura,R.L.,1996.E?ects of nitrobenzene and zinc on acetate utilizing methanogens.Water Res.30(12),3099–3105.

Blum,D.J.W.,Speece,R.E.,1991.A database of chemical toxicity to environmental bacteria and its use in interspecies comparisons and correlations.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.63,198–207. Boardman,G.D.,McVeigh,P.J.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,e of UASB technology to treat crab processing wastewaters.J.Environ.Eng.123,776–785.

Borja,R.,Sanche′z,E.,Weiland,P.,Travieso,L.,1993.E?ect of ionic exchanger addition on the anaerobic digestion of cow manure.

Environ.Technol.14,891–896.

Borja,R.,Sanche′z,E.,Duran,M.M.,1996a.E?ect of the clay mineral zeolite on ammonia inhibition of anaerobic thermophilic reactors treating cattle manure.J.Environ.Sci.Health A31(2),479–500. Borja,R.,Sanche′z, E.,Weiland,P.,1996b.In?uence of ammonia concentration on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cattle manure in up?ow anaerobic sludge blanket(UASB)reactors.Process Biochem.

31(5),477–483.

Borja,R.,Alba,J.,Banks, C.J.,1997.Impact of the main phenolic compounds of olive mill wastewater(OMW)on the kinetics of aceticlastic methanogenesis.Process Biochem.32(2),121–133.

4058Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

Boucquey,J.B.,Renard,P.,Amerlynck,P.,Filho,P.M.,Agathos,S.N., Naveau,H.,Nyns,E.J.,1995.High-rate continuous biodegradation of concentrated chlorinated aliphatics by a durable enrichment of methanogenic origin under carrier-dependent conditions.Biotechnol.

Bioeng.47,298–307.

Braun,B.,Huber,P.,Meyrath,J.,1981.Ammonia toxicity in liquid piggery manure digestion.Biotechnol.Lett.3,159–164.

Buisman, C.J.N.,Lettinga,G.,Paasschens, C.W.M.,Habets,L.H.A., 1991.Biotechnological sulphide removal from e?uents.Water Sci.

Technol.24,347–356.

Bujoczek,G.,Oleszkiewicz,J.,Sparling,R.,Cenkowski,S.,2000.High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure.J.Agric.Eng.Res.76, 51–60.

Cabirol,N.,Barraga′n, E.J.,Dura′n, A.,Noyola, A.,2003.E?ect of aluminum and sulphate on anaerobic digestion of sludge from waste-water enhanced primary treatment.Water Sci.Technol.48(6),235–240. Cail,R.G.,Barford,J.P.,1985.The development of granulation in an up?ow?oc digester and an up?ow anaerobic sludge blanket digest treating cane juice stillage.Biotechnol.Lett.7,493–498. Callaghan,F.J.,Wase,D.A.J.,Thayanithy,K.,Forster,C.F.,1999.Co-digestion of waste organic solids:batch studies.Bioresour.Technol.

67,117–122.

Callander,I.J.,Barford,J.P.,1983a.Precipitation,chelation,and the availability of metals as nutrients in anaerobic digestion.I.Method-ology.Biotechnol.Bioeng.25(8),1947–1957.

Callander,I.J.,Barford,J.P.,1983b.Precipitation,chelation,and the availability of metals as nutrients in anaerobic digestion.II.Applica-tions.Biotechnol.Bioeng.25(8),1959–1972.

Chakraborty,N.,Sarkar,G.M.,Lahiri,S.C.,2002.E?ect of pesticide (Tara-909)on biomethanation of sewage sludge and isolated metha-nogens.Biomass Bioenergy23(1),75–80.

Chamy,R.,Poirrier,P.,Schiappacasse,M.C.,Alkalay,D.,Guerrero,L., 1998.E?ect of ammonia content in the biodegradability of the salmon industry wastes.Bioprocess Eng.19,1–5.

Chen,W.,Horan,N.J.,1998.The treatment of high strength pulp and paper mill e?uent for wastewater re-use-(II)biological sulphate removal from e?uent with low COD/sulphate ratio.Environ.Technol.

19,163–171.

Chen,W.H.,Han,S.K.,Sung,S.,2003.Sodium inhibition of thermophilic methanogens.J.Environ.Eng.129(6),506–512.

Choi,E.,Rim,J.M.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition and inhibition of sulfate reducers and methane producers in anaerobic treatment.Water Sci.Technol.

23,1259–1264.

Chou,W.L.,Speece,R.E.,Siddiqi,R.H.,McKeon,K.,1978.The e?ect of petrochemical structure on methane fermentation toxicity.Prog.

Water Technol.10(5/6),545–558.

Colleran,E.,Pender,S.,2002.Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of sulphate-containing wastewaters.Water Sci.Technol.45

(10),231–235.

Colleran,E.,Concannon,F.,Golden,T.,Geoghegan,F.,Crumlish,B., Henry,M.,Coates,J.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,e of methanogenic activity tests to characterize anaerobic sludge,screen for anaerobic biodegradability and determine toxicity thresholds against individual anaerobic trophic groups and species.Water Sci.Technol.25,31–40.

Colleran,E.,Finnegan,S.,O’Keefe,R.B.,1994.Anaerobic digestion of high sulphate containing wastewater from the industrial production of citric acid.Water Sci.Technol.30(12),263–273.

Colleran, E.,Finnegan,S.,Lens,P.,1995.Anaerobic treatment of sulphate-containing waste streams.Anton.van Leeuw.67,29–46. Colleran,E.,Pender,S.,Phipott,U.,O’Flaherty,V.,Leahy,B.,1998.

Full-scale and laboratory-scale anaerobic treatment of citric acid production wastewater.Biodegradation9,233–245.

Conn,E.E.,Stumpf,P.K.,Bruening,G.,Doi,R.H.,1987.In:Conn,E.E., Stumpf,P.K.(Eds.),Outlines of Biochemistry.John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Davies-Venn,C.,Young,J.C.,Tabak,H.H.,1992.Impact of chlorophe-nols and chloroanilines on the kinetics of aceticlastic methanogenesis.

Environ.Sci.Technol.26,1627–1635.de Baere,L.A.,Devocht,M.,van Assche,P.,Verstraete,W.,1984.

In?uence of high NaCl and NH4Cl salt levels on methanogenic associations.Water Res.18,543–548.

de Laclos,H.F.,Desbois,S.,Saint-Joly,C.,1997.Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid organic waste:Valorga full-scale plant in Tilburg,the Netherlands.Water Sci.Technol.36(6–7),457–462.

Demirel,B.,Yenigu¨n,O.,2002.Two-phase anaerobic digestion processes:

a review.J.Chem.Tech.Biotechnol.77,743–755.

De Smul, A.,Goethals,L.,Verstraete,W.,1999.E?ect of COD to sulphate ratio and temperature in expanded-granular-sludge-blanket reactors for sulphate reduction.Process Biochem.34,407–416. Dimirer,G.N.,Speece,R.E.,1998.biotransformation of four3-carbon compounds(acrolein,acrylic acid,allyl alcohol and N-propanol)in UASB reactors.Water Res.32(3),747–759.

Dimroth,P.,Thomer,A.,1989.A primary respiratory Na+pump of an anaerobic bacterium:the Na+-dependent NADH:quinone oxidore-ductase of Klebsiella pneumoniae.Arch.Microbiol.151,439–444. Donlon,B.A.,Razo-Flores,E.,Field,J.A.,Lettinga,G.,1995.Toxicity of N-substituted aromatics to aceticlastic methanogenic activity in granular sludge.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.61(11),3889–3893. Dupla,M.,Conte,T.,Bouview,J.C.,Bernet,N.,Steyer,J.P.,2004.

Dynamic evaluation of a?xed bed anaerobic-digestion process in response to organic overloads and toxicant shock loads.Water Sci.

Technol.49(1),61–68.

Dutka, B.J.,Nyholm,N.,Petersen,J.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,parison of several microbiological toxicity screening-tests.Water Res.17,1363–1368.

El-Mamouni,R.,Guiot,S.R.,Mercier,P.,Sali,B.,Samson,R.,1995.

Limiting impact on granules activity of the multiplate anaerobic reactor(MPAR)treating whey permeate.Bioprocess Eng.,47–53. Ennik-Maarsen,K.A.,Louwerse,A.,Roelofsen,W.,Stams,A.J.M.,1998.

In?uence of monochlorophenols on methanogenic activity in granular sludge.Water Res.32(10),2977–2982.

Fang,H.H.P.,Chen,T.,Chan,O.C.,1995.Toxic e?ects of phenolic pollutants on anaerobic benzoate-degrading granules.Biotechnol.

Lett.17(1),117–120.

Fantroussi,S.E.,Giot,R.,Naveau,H.,Agathos,S.N.,1998.Acclimation of a methanogenic consortium to a mixture of hydroxylated aromatic compounds.Chemosphere36(7),1575–1583.

Feijoo,G.,Soto,M.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1995.Sodium inhibition in the anaerobic digestion process:antagonism and adaptation phenom-ena.Enzyme Microb.Technol.17,180–188.

Feitkenhauer,H.,2004.Fast online determination of surfactant inhibition in acidic phase bioreactors.Water Sci.Technol.49(1),23–29. Fernandez,N.,Forster,C.F.,1993.A study of the operation of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic?lters treating a synthetic co?ee waste.

Bioresour.Technol.45,223–227.

Fernandez,N.,Forster,C.F.,1994.The anaerobic digestion of simulated co?ee waste using thermophilic and mesophilic up?ow?lters.Process Safety Environ.Protect.72(B1),15–20.

Field,J.A.,Leyendecker,M.J.H.,Sierra-Alvarez,R.,Lettinga,G., Habets,L.H.A.,1988.The methanogenic toxicity of bark tannins and the anaerobic biodegradability of water soluble bark matter.

Water Sci.Technol.20,219–240.

Filho,P.M.,Amerlynck,P.,Nyns,E.J.,Naveau,H.P.,1992.Acclimation of a methanogenic consortium to polychlorinated compounds in a ?xed?lm stationary bed reactor.Water Sci.Technol.25(7),265–273. Gadd,G.M.,Gri?ths, A.J.,1978.Microorganisms and heavy metal toxicity.Microb.Ecol.4,303–317.

Gallert, C.,Winter,J.,1997.Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic waste:e?ect of ammonia on glucose degradation and methane production.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.

48,405–410.

Gallert, C.,Bauer,S.,Winter,J.,1998.E?ect of ammonia on the anaerobic degradation of protein by a mesophilic and thermophilic biowaste population.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.50,495–501. Gavala,H.N.,Ahring,B.K.,2002.Inhibition of the anaerobic digestion process by linear-alkylbenzene sulfonates.Biodegradation13,201–209.

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644059

Ghosh,S.,Pohland,F.G.,1974.Kinetics of substrate assimilation and product formation in anaerobic digestion.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.46,748–759.

Ghosh,S.,Henry,M.P.,Sajjad,A.,Mensinger,M.C.,Arora,J.L.,2000.

Pilot-scale gasi?cation of municipal solid wastes by high-rate and two-phase anaerobic digestion(TPAD).Water Sci.Technol.41(3),101–110.

Godsy,E.M.,Goerlitz,D.F.,Ehrlich,G.G.,1986.E?ects of pentachlo-rophenol on methanogenic fermentation of phenol.Bull.Environ.

Contam.Toxicol.36,271–277.

Gonzales-Gil,G.,Kleerebezem,R.,Lettinga,G.,2002.Conversion and toxicity characteristics of formaldehyde in aceticlastic methanogenic sludge.Biotechnol.Bioeng.79,314–322.

Gossett,J.M.,McCarty,P.L.,Wilson,J.C.,Evans,D.S.,1978.Anaerobic digestion of sludge from chemical treatment.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.50(3),533–542.

Gould,M.S.,Genetelli,E.J.,1978.Heavy metal complexation behavior in anaerobically digested sludge.Water Res.12,505–512.

Gould,M.S.,Genetelli,E.J.,1984.E?ects of complexation on heavy metal binding by anaerobically digested sludges.Water Res.18,123–126. Gourdon,R.,Comel,C.,Vermande,P.,Ve′rom,J.,1989.Kinetics of acetate,propionate and butyrate removal in the treatment of a semi-synthetic land?ll leachate on anaerobic?lter.Biotechnol.Bioeng.33, 1167–1181.

Grady Jr,C.P.L.,Daigger,G.T.,Lim,H.C.,1999.Biological Waste Water Treatment.Marcel Dekker,New York.

Guerrero,L.,Omil,F.,Mendez,R.,Lema,M.,1997.Treatment of saline wastewaters from?sh meal factories in an anaerobic?lter under extreme ammonia concentrations.Bioresour.Technol.61,69–78. Gupta,A.,Flora,J.R.V.,Gupta,M.,Sayles,G.D.,Suidan,M.T.,1994.

Methanogenesis and sulphate reduction in chemostats-1:kinetic studies and experiments.Water Res.28,781–793.

Haghighi-Podeh,M.R.,Bhattacharya,S.K.,1996.Fate and toxic e?ects of nitrophenols on anaerobic treatment systems.Water Sci.Technol.34 (5–6),345–350.

Haghighi-Podeh,M.R.,Bhattacharya,S.K.,Qu,M.,1995.E?ects of nitrophenols on acetate utilizing methanogenic systems.Water Res.29

(2),391–399.

Hanaki,K.,Mastsuo,T.,Nagase,M.,1981.Mechanism of inhibition caused by long chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion process.

Biotechnol.Bioeng.23,1591–1610.

Hanaki,K.,Hirunmasuwan,S.,Matsuo,T.,1994.Protection of meth-anogenic bacteria from low pH and toxic materials by immobilization using polyvinyl alcohol.Water Res.28,877–885.

Hansen,T.A.,1993.Carbon metabolism of sulfate-reducing bacteria.

In:Odom,J.M.,Rivers-Singleton,J.R.(Eds.),The Sulfate-reducing Bacteria:Contemporary Perspectives.Springer-Verlag,NY,pp.21–

40.

Hansen,K.H.,Angelidaki,I.,Ahring,B.K.,1998.Anaerobic digestion of swine manure:inhibition by ammonia.Water Res.32,5–12. Hansen,K.H.,Angelidaki,I.,Ahring,B.K.,1999.Improving thermophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure.Water Res.33,1805–1810. Harada,H.,Uemura,S.,Monomoi,K.,1994.Interactions between sulphate-reducing bacteria and methane-producing bacteria in UASB reactors fed with low strength wastes containing di?erent levels of sulphate.Water Res.,355–367.

Harris,J.E.,1987.Spontaneous disaggregation of Mathanosaricina mazei S-6and its use in the development of genetic techniques for Methanosarcina spp.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.53(10),2500–2504. Hashimoto,A.G.,1983.Thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic fermen-tation of swine manure.Agric.Wastes6,175–191.

Hashimoto,A.G.,1984.Methane from swine manure:e?ect of temper-ature and in?uent substrate concentration on kinetic parameter(k).

Agric.Wastes9,299–308.

Hashimoto,A.G.,1986.Ammonia inhibition of methanogenesis from cattle waste.Agric.Wastes17,241–261.

Hayes,T.D.,Theis,T.L.,1978.The distribution of heavy metals in anaerobic digestion.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.50,61–69.Hayward,G.,Lau,I.,1989.Toxicity of organic solvents to fatty acid forming bacteria.Can.J.Chem.Eng.67,157–161.

Heipieper,H.J.,Weber,F.J.,Sikkema,J.,Kewelch,H.,de Bont,J.A.M., 1994.Mechanisms of resistance of whole cells to toxic organic solvents.

Trends Biotechnol.12,409–415.

Hendriksen,H.V.,Ahring,B.K.,1991.E?ects of ammonia on growth and morphology of thermophilic hydrogen-oxidizing methanogenic bacte-ria.FEMS Microb.Ecol.85,241–246.

Hepner,B.,Zellner,G.,Diekman,H.,1992.Start-up and operation of a propionate-degrading?uidized-bed reactor.Appl.Microbiol.Biotech-nol.36,810–816.

Hickey,R.F.,Vanderwielen,J.,Switzenbaum,M.S.,1987.The e?ects of organic toxicants on methane production and hydrogen gas levels during the anaerobic digestion of waste anaerobic sludge.Water Res.

21(11),1417–1427.

Hickey,R.F.,Vanderwielen,J.,Switzenbaum,M.S.,1989.The e?ect of heavy metals on methane production and hydrogen and carbon monoxide levels during batch anaerobic sludge digestion.Water Res.

23,207–219.

Hilpert,R.,Winter,J.,Kandler,O.,1984.Agricultural feed additives and disinfectants as inhibitory factors in anaerobic digestion.Agric.Wastes 10,103–116.

Hilton, B.L.,Oleszkiewicz,J.A.,1990.Sul?de-induced inhibition of anaerobic digestion-closure.J.Environ.Eng.116,1007–1008. Hilton, B.L.,Oleszkiewicz,J.A.,1988.Sulphide-induced inhibition of anaerobic digestion.J.Environ.Eng.114,1377–1391.

Hobson,P.N.,Bous?eld,S.,Summers,R.,1981.In:Hobson,P.N.(Ed.), Methane Production from Agricultural and Domestic Wastes.Applied Science Publishers,London.

Hobson,P.N.,1991.The treatment of agricultural wastes.In:Wheatley,

A.(Ed.),Anaerobic Digestion:A Waste Treatment Technology.

Elsevier Applied Science,London,pp.93–138.

Huang,J.,Pinder,K.L.,1995.E?ects of calcium on development of anaerobic acidogenic bio?lms.Biotechnol.Bioeng.45,212–218. Hulsho?Pol,L.W.,de Zeeuw,W.J.,Velzeboer,C.T.M.,Lettinga,G., 1983.Granulation in UASB reactors.Water Sci.Technol.15,291–304. Hwu,C.S.,Lettinga,G.,1997.Acute toxicity of oleate to acetate-utilizing methanogens in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic sludges.

Enzyme Microb.Technol.21,297–301.

Hwu,C.S.,Donlon,B.,Lettinga,G.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,parative toxicity of long-chain fatty acid to anaerobic kludges from various origins.Water Sci.

Technol.34(5–6),351–358.

Hwu, C.S.,Tseng,S.K.,Yuan, C.Y.,Kulik,Z.,Lettinga,G.,1998.

Biosorption of long-chain fatty acids in UASB treatment process.

Water Res.32(5),1571–1579.

Ilangovan,K.,Noyola,A.,1993.Availability of micronutrients during anaerobic digestion of molasses stillage using an up?ow anaerobic sludge blanket(UASB)reactor.Environ.Technol.14,795–799.

In,S.J.,Fukui,M.,Suwa,Y.,Yamagishi,T.,Urushigawa,Y.,Mori,T., 1992.Analysis of substrates for methanogenesis in anaerobic sludges using speci?c inhibitors.Water Sci.Technol.26,847–856.

Isa,Z.,Grusenmeyer,S.,Verstraete,W.,1986a.Sulphate reduction relative to methane production in high-rate anaerobic digestion: technical aspects.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.51,572–579.

Isa,Z.,Grusenmeyer,S.,Verstraete,W.,1986b.Sulphate reduction relative to methane production in high-rate anaerobic digestion: mirobiological aspects.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.51,580–587. Jackson-Moss,C.A.,Duncan,J.R.,1991.The e?ect of aluminum on anaerobic digestion.Biotechnol.Lett.13(2),143–148.

Jackson-Moss,C.A.,Duncan,J.R.,Cooper,D.R.,1989.The e?ect of calcium on anaerobic digestion.Biotechnol.Lett.11(3),219–224. Jarrell,K.F.,Sprott,G.D.,Matheson,A.T.,1984.Intracellular potassium concentration and relative acidity of the ribosomal proteins of methanogenic bacteria.Can.J.Microbiol.30,663–668.

Jarrell,K.F.,Saulnier,M.,Ley,A.,1987.Inhibition of methanogenesis in pure cultures by ammonia,fatty acids,and heavy metals,and protection against heavy metal toxicity by sewage sludge.Can.J.

Microbiol.33,551–555.

4060Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

Jin,P.,Bhattacharya,S.K.,1996.Anaerobic removal of pentachlorophe-nol in presence of zinc.J.Environ.Eng.122(7),590–598.

Jin,P.,Bhattacharya,S.K.,Williama,C.J.,Zhang,H.,1998.E?ects of sul?de addition on copper inhibition in methanogenic systems.Water Res.32,977–988.

Johnson,L.D.,Young,J.C.,1983.Inhibition of anaerobic digestion by organic priority pollutants.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.55(12), 1441–1449.

Kabara,J.J.,Vrable,R.,Liekenjie,M.S.F.,1977.Antimicrobial lipids: natural and synthetic fatty acids and monoglycerides.Lipids12,753–759.

Kabdasli,I.,Tu¨nay,O.,O¨ztu¨rk,I.,Yilmaz,S.,Arikan,O.,2000.

Ammonia removal from young land?ll leachate by magnesium ammonium phosphate precipitation and air stripping.Water Sci.

Technol.41,237–240.

Kalra,M.S.,Panwar,J.S.,1986.Anaerobic digestion of rice crop residues.

Agric.Wastes17,263–269.

Kamlet,M.J.,Doherty,R.M.,Veith,G.D.,Taft,R.W.,Abraham,M.H., 1986.Solubility properties in polymers and biological media.An analysis of toxicant properties that in?uence inhibition of biolumines-cence in Photobacterium phosphoreum(the microtox method).Environ.

Sci.Technol.20,690–695.

Karhadkar,P.P.,Audic,J.-M.,Faup,G.M.,Khanna,P.,1987.Sul?de and sulfate inhibition of methanoenesis.Water Res.21,1061–1066. Kayhanian,M.,1994.Performance of a high-solids anaerobic digestion process under various ammonia concentrations.J.Chem.Tech.

Biotechnol.59,349–352.

Kayhanian,M.,1999.Ammonia inhibition in high-solids biogasi?cation: an overview and practical solutions.Environ.Technol.20,355–365. Keenan,P.J.,Isa,J.,Switzenbaum,M.S.,1993.Inorganic solids develop-ment in a pilot-scale anaerobic reactor treating municipal solid waste land?ll leachate.Water Environ.Res.65,181–188.

Kelleher,B.P.,Leahy,J.J.,Henihan,A.M.,O’Dwyer,T.F.,Sutton,D., Leahy,M.J.,2000.Advances in poultry litter disposal technology–a review.Bioresour.Technol.83,27–36.

Khalil,E.F.,Whitmore,T.N.,Gamaleldin,H.,Elbassel,A.,Lloyd,D., 1991.The e?ects of pesticides on anaerobic digestion processes.

Environ.Technol.12(6),471–475.

Kim,I.S.,Young,J.C.,Tabak,H.H.,1994.Kinetics of acetogenesis and methanogenesis in anaerobic reactions under toxic conditions.Water Environ.Res.66,119–131.

Kim,I.S.,Young,J.C.,Tabak,H.H.,1996.Impact of chloroanilines on hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis in ethanol-enriched cultures.Water Res.30,601–612.

Kim,I.S.,Kim,D.H.,Hyun,S.-H.,2000.E?ect of particle size and sodium ion concentration on anaerobic thermophilic food waste digestion.Water Sci.Technol.41(3),67–73.

Klemps,R.,Cypionka,H.,Widdel,F.,Pfennig,N.,1985.Growth with hydrogen,and further physiological characteristics of Desulfotomacu-lum species.Arch.Microbiol.143,203–208.

Koster,I.W.,Cramer,A.,1987.Inhibition of methanogenesis from acetate in granular sludge by long-chain fatty acids.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.

53(2),403–409.

Koster,I.W.,Lettinga,G.,1984.The in?uence of ammonium-nitrogen on the speci?c activity of pelletized methanogenic sludge.Agric.Wastes9,

2.5–216.

Koster,I.W.,Lettinga,G.,1988.Anaerobic digestion at extreme ammonia concentrations.Biol.Wastes25,51–59.

Koster,I.W.,Rinzema,A.,De Vegt,A.L.,Lettinga,G.,1986.Sul?de inhibition of the methanogenic activity of granular sludge at various pH levels.Water Res.20,1561–1567.

Kroeker,E.J.,Schulte,D.D.,Sparling,A.B.,Lapp,H.M.,1979.Anaer-obic treatment process stability.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.51,718–727.

Krylova,N.I.,Khabiboulline,R.E.,Naumova,R.P.,Nagel,M.A.,1997.

The in?uence of ammonium and methods for removal during the anaerobic treatment of poultry manure.J.Chem.Tech.Biotechnol.70, 99–105.Kugelman,I.J.,Chin,K.K.,1971.Toxicity,synergism,and antagonism in anaerobic waste treatment processes.In:Anaerobic Biological Treat-ment Processes,American Chemical Society Advances in Chemistry Series105,pp.55–90.

Kugelman,I.J.,McCarty,P.L.,1964.Cation toxicity and stimulation in anaerobic waste treatment.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.37,97–116. Laanbroek,J.H.,Geerlings,H.,Sitjtsma,L.,Veldkamp,H.,1984.

Competition for sulphate and ethanol among Desulfobacter Desulfo-bulbus and Desulfovibrio species isolated from intertidal sediments.

Appl.Environ.Microbiol.128,329–334.

Lai,M.-C.,Gunsalus,R.P.,1992.Glycine betaine and potassium ion are the major compatible solutes in the extremely halophilic methanogen Methanohalophilus Strain Z7302.J.Bacteriol.174(22),77474–77477. Lawrence,A.W.,McCarty,P.L.,1965.The role of sul?de in preventing heavy metal toxicity on anaerobic treatment.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.37,392–405.

Lee,Y.H.,Pavlostathis,S.G.,2004.Reuse of textile reactive azo dyebaths following biological decolorization.Water Environ.Res.76(1),56–66. Lester,J.N.,Sterritt,R.M.,Kirk,P.W.,1983.Signi?cance and behavior of heavy metals in wastewater treatment processes.II Sludge treatment and disposal.Sci.Total Environ.30,45–83.

Lin,C.Y.,1992.E?ect of heavy metals on volatile fatty acid degradation in anaerobic digestion.Water Res.26,177–183.

Lin,C.Y.,1993.E?ect of heavy metals on acidogenesis in anaerobic digestion.Water Res.27,147–152.

Lin,C.Y.,Chen,C.C.,1999.E?ect of heavy metals on the methanogenic UASB granule.Water Res.33,409–416.

Link?eld,T.G.,Su?ita,J.M.,Tiedje,J.M.,1989.Characterization of the acclimation period before anaerobic dehalogenation of halobenzoates.

Appl.Environ.Microbiol.55(11),2773–2778.

Liu,Y.,Boone,D.R.,1991.E?ects of salinity on methanogenic decom-position.Bioresour.Technol.35,271–273.

Liu,T.,Sung,S.,2002.Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic aceticlastic methanogens.Water Sci.Technol.45,113–120.

Liu,S.-M.,Wu, C.-H.,Huang,H.-J.,1998.Toxicity and anaerobic biodegradability of pyridine and its derivatives under sul?dogenic conditions.Chemosphere36(10),2345–2357.

Lo,K.V.,Liao,P.H.,March, A.C.,1985.Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of screened dairy manure.Biomass6,301–315.

Madsen,T.,Rasmussen,H.B.,1996.A method for screening the potential toxicity of organic chemicals to methanogenic gas production.Water Sci.Technol.33(6),213–220.

Mahoney, E.M.,Varangu,L.K.,Cairns,W.L.,Kosaric,N.,Murray, R.G.E.,1987.The e?ect of calcium on microbial aggregation during UASB reactor start-up.Water Sci.Technol.19,249–260. Maillacheruvu,K.Y.,Parkin,G.F.,Peng,W.C.,Kuo,W.C.,Oonge,Z.I., Lebduschka,V.,1993.Sul?de toxicity in anaerobic systems fed sulfate and various organics.Water Environ.Res.65,100–109. McCartney,D.M.,Oleszkiewicz,J.A.,1991.Sul?de inhibition of anaer-obic degradation of lactate and acetate.Water Res.25(2),203–209. McCartney,D.M.,Oleszkiewicz,J.A.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,petition between meth-anogens and sulphate reducers:e?ect of COD:sulphate ratio and acclimatization.Water Environ.Res.65,655–664.

McCarty,P.L.,1964.Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals.Public Works95(9),107–112.

McCarty,P.L.,McKinney,R.,1961.Salt toxicity in anaerobic digestion.

J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.33,399–415.

McCue,T.,Hoxworth,S.,Randall,A.A.,2003.Degradation of haloge-nated aliphatic compounds utilizing sequential anaerobic/aerobic treatment.Water Sci.Technol.47(10),79–84.

Melbinger,N.R.,Donnellon,J.,1971.Toxic e?ects of ammonia-nitrogen in high rate digestion.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.43,1658–1670. Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,Soto,M.,1995.Treatment of seafood-processing wastewaters in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic?lters.Water Environ.Res.67(1),33–45.

Min,H.,Zinder,S.H.,1990.Isolation and characterization of a thermophilic sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfotomaculum thermoace-toxidans sp.nov..Arch.Microbiol.153,399–404.

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644061

Mormile,M.R.,Su?ita,J.M.,1996.The toxicity of selected gasoline components to glucose methanogenesis by aquifer microorganisms.

Anaerobe2(5),299–303.

Mosey,F.E.,Hughes,D.A.,1975.The toxicity of heavy metal ions to anaerobic digestion.Water Pollut.Control74,18–39.

Mosey,F.E.,Swanwick,J.D.,Hughes,D.A.,1971.Factors a?ecting the availability of heavy metals to inhibit anaerobic digestion.Water Pollut.Control70,668–679.

Mouneimne,A.H.,Carre`re,H.,Bernet,N.,Delgene`s,J.P.,2003.E?ect of saponi?cation on the anaerobic digestion of solid fatty residues.

Bioresour.Technol.90,89–94.

Mulder,A.,1984.The e?ects of high sulphate concentrations on the methane fermentation of wastewater.In:Houwink,E.H.,Van der Meer,R.R.(Eds.),Innovations in Biotechnology.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam,pp.133–143.

Murray,P.A.,Zinder,Z.H.,1985.Nutritional requirements of Methan-osarcina sp.strain TM-1.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.50,49–56. Nakhla,G.F.,Suidan,M.T.,Pfe?er,J.T.,1990.Control of anaerobic GAC reactors treating inhibitory wastewaters.J.Water Pollut.

Control Fed.62,65–72.

Nies, D.H.,1999.Microbial heavy-metal resistance.Appl.Microbiol.

Biotechnol.51,730–750.

O’Connor,O.A.,Young,L.Y.,1989.Toxicity and anaerobic biodegrad-ability of substituted phenols under methanogenic conditions.Envi-ron.Toxicol.Chem.8,853–862.

O’Flaherty,V.,Lens,P.,deBeer,D.,Colleran,E.,1997.E?ect of feed composition and up?ow velocity aggregate characteristics in anaerobic up?ow reactors.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.47,102–107.

O’Flaherty,V.,Mahony,T.,O’Kennedy,R.,Colleran,E.,1998a.E?ect of pH on growth kinetics and sulphide toxicity thresholds of a range of methanogenic,syntrophic and sulphate-reducing bacteria.Process Biochem.33(5),555–569.

O’Flaherty,V.,Lens,P.,Leaky, B.,Colleran, E.,1998b.Long term competition between sulphate reducing and methane-producing bac-teria during full-scale anaerobic treatment of citric acid production wastewater.Water Res.32(3),815–825.

O’Flaherty,V.,Colohan,S.,Mulkerrins,D.,Colleran,E.,1999.E?ect of sulphate addition on volatile fatty acid and ethanol degradation in an anaerobic hybrid reactor.II:Microbial interactions and toxic e?ects.

Bioresour.Technol.68,109–120.

Okabe,S.,Nielsen,P.H.,Jones,W.L.,Characklis,W.G.,1995.Sul?de product inhibition of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans in batch and contin-uous cultures.Water Res.29(2),571–578.

Oleskiewicz,J.A.,Marstaller,T.,McCartney,D.M.,1989.E?ects of pH on sul?de toxicity to anaerobic processes.Environ.Technol.Lett.10, 815–822.

Oleszkiewicz,J.A.,Sharma,V.K.,1990.Stimulation and inhibition of anaerobic process by heavy metals–a review.Biol.Wastes31,45–

67.

Omil,F.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1995a.Characterization of biomass from a pilot plant digester treating saline wastewater.J.Chem.Tech.

Biotechnol.63,384–392.

Omil,F.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1995b.Anaerobic treatment of saline wastewaters under high sulphide and ammonia content.Bioresour.

Technol.54,269–278.

Omil,F.,Lens,P.,Hulsho?Pol,L.W.,Lettinga,G.,1996a.E?ect of upward velocity and sulphide concentration on volatile fatty acid degradation in a sulphidogenic granular sludge reactor.Process Biochem.31,699–710.

Omil,F.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1996b.Anaerobic treatment of seafood processing waste waters in an industrial anaerobic pilot plant.Water SA22(2),173–182.

Op den Camp,H.J.M.,Verhagen,F.J.M.,Kivaisi,A.K.,de Windt,F.E., Lubberding,H.J.,Gijzen,H.,Vogel,G.D.,1988.E?ects of lignin on the anaerobic degradation of(ligno)cellulosic wastes by rumen microorganisms.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.29,408–412. Oremland,R.S.,Taylor,B.F.,1978.Sulfate reduction and methanogenesis in marine sediments.Geochim.Cosmochim.42,209–214.Oude Elferink,S.J.W.H.,Visser,A.,Hulsho?Pol,L.W.,Stams,A.J.M., 1994.Sulphate reduction in methanogenic bioreactors.FEMS Micro-biol.Rev.15,119–136.

Overmeire,A.,Lens,P.,Verstraete,W.,1994.Mass transfer limitation of sulphate in methanogenic aggregates.Biotechnol.Bioeng.44,387–391. Parkin,G.F.,Miller,S.W.,1983.Response of methane fermentation to continuous addition of selected industrial toxicants.In:Proceedings of the37th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,West Lafayette,Ind. Parkin,G.F.,Speece,R.E.,1983.Attached versus suspended growth anaerobic reactors:response to toxic substances.Water Sci.Technol.

15,261–289.

Parkin,G.F.,Speece,R.E.,Yang,C.H.J.,Kocher,W.M.,1983.Response of methane fermentation systems to industrial toxicants.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.55,44–53.

Parkin,G.F.,Lynch,N.A.,Kuo,W.,Van Keuren,E.L.,Bhattacharya, S.K.,1990.Interaction between sulfate reducers and methanogens fed acetate and propionate.Res.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.62,780–788.

Patel,G.B.,Roth,L.A.,1977.E?ect of sodium chloride on growth and methane production of methanogens.Can.J.Microbiol.23,893–897. Patel,G.B.,Agnew,B.J.,Dicaire,C.J.,1991.Inhibition of pure cultures of methanogens by benzene-ring compounds.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.

57(10),2969–2974.

Petrasek,A.C.,Kugelman,I.J.,1983.Metals removal and partitioning in conventional wastewater treatment plants.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.55,1183–1190.

Piringer,G.,Bhattacharya,S.K.,1999.Toxicity and fate of pentachloro-phenol in anaerobic acidogenic systems.Water Res.33(11),2674–2682. Playne,M.J.,Smith,B.R.,1983.Toxicity of organic extraction reagents to anaerobic bacteria.Biotechnol.Bioeng.25,1251–1265.

Poels,J.,van Assche,P.,Verstraete,W.,1984.E?ects of disinfectants and antibiotics on the anaerobic digestion of piggery waste.Agric.Wastes 9,239–248.

Poggi-Varaldo,H.M.,Rodriguez-Vazquez,R.,Fernandez-Villagomez,G., Esparza-Garcia, F.,1997.Inhibition of mesophilic solid-substrate anaerobic digestion by ammonia nitrogen.Appl.Microbiol.Biotech-nol.47,284–291.

Poggi-Varaldo,H.M.,Arce-Medina, E.,Feranadez-Vellagomerz,G., Ca?arel-Mendez,S.,1998.Inhibition of mesophilic solid substrate anaerobic digestion by ammonia-rich wastes.Proceedings of52nd Industrial Waste Conference.Ann Arbor Press,Ann Arbor,MI,pp.

55–66.

Pohland,F.G.,Ghosh,S.,1971.Developments in anaerobic stabilization of organic wastes–the two-phase concept.Environ.Lett.1,255–266. Postgate,J.R.,1984.The Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria.Cambridge Univer-sity Press,Cambridge,England.

Poukomailian, B.,Booth,I.R.,1992.Glycine betaine transport by Staphylococcus aureus:evidence for two transport systems and for their possible roles in osmoregulation.J.Gen.Microbiol.138,2515–2518.

Qatibi,A.I.,Bories,A.,Garcia,J.L.,1990.E?ects of sulphate on lactate and C2-,C3-volatile fatty acid anaerobic degradation by a mixed microbial culture.Anton.van Leeuw.58,241–248.

Razo-Flores,E.,Donlon,B.,Lettinga,G.,Field,J.A.,1997.Biotransfor-mation and biodegradation of N-substituted aromatics in methano-genic granular sludge.FEMS Microbiol.Rev.20,525–538.

Reis,M.A.M.,Almeida,J.S.,Lemos,P.C.,Carrondo,M.J.T.,1992.E?ect of hydrogen sul?de on growth of sulfate reducing bacteria.Biotechnol.

Bioeng.40,593–600.

Renard,P.,Bouillon,C.,Neveau,H.,Nyns,E.-J.,1993.Toxicity of a mixture of polychlorinated organic compounds towards an unaccli-mated methanogenic consortium.Biotechnol.Lett.15(2),195–200. Rico,J.L.,Garcia,P.,Fdz-Polanco,F.,1991.Anaerobic treatment of cheese production wastewater using a UASB reactor.Bioresour.

Technol.37,271–276.

Rintala,J.,Martin,J.L.S.,Lettinga,G.,1991.Thermophilic anaerobic treatment of sulphate rich pulp and paper integrate process water.

Water Sci.Technol.24,149–160.

4062Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–4064

Rinzema,A.,Lettinga,G.,1988.The e?ect of sulphide on the anaerobic degradation of propionate.Environ.Technol.Lett.9,83–88. Rinzema, A.,van Lier,J.,Lettinga,G.,1988.Sodium inhibition of aceticlastic methanogens in granular sludge from a UASB reactor.

Enzyme Microbiol.Technol.10,24–32.

Rinzema,A.,Alphenaar,A.,Lettinga,G.,1989.The e?ect of lauric acid shock loads on the biological and physical performance of granular sludge in UASB reactors digesting acetate.J.Chem.Tech.Biotechnol.

46,257–266.

Rinzema, A.,Boone,M.,van Knippenberg,K.,Lettinga,G.,1994.

Bactericidal e?ect of long chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion.

Water Environ.Res.66,40–49.

Robbins,J.E.,Gerhard,S.A.,Kappel,T.J.,1989.E?ects of ammonia in anaerobic digestion and an example of digestor performance from cattle manure protein mixtures.Biol.Wastes27,1–14.

Salenieks,S.E.,Henry,J.G.,1986.Response of anaerobic?lters to toxic organics.Water Pollut.Res.J.Can.21,547–559.

Salminen, E.A.,Rintala,J.A.,1999.Anaerobic digestion of poultry slaughtering wastes.Environ.Technol.20,21–28.

Sanz,J.L.,Rodr?′guez,N.,Amils,R.,1994.Aceticlastic methanogenic toxicity produced by aliphatic organochloride solvents.Water Sci.

Technol.30(9),121–123.

Sanz,J.L.,Rodr?′guez,N.,Amils,R.,1997.E?ect of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons on the aceticlastic methanogenic activity of granular sludge.Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.47,324–328.

Scherer,P.,Sahm,H.,1981.In?uence of sulfur-containing-compounds on the growth of Methanosarcina barkeri in a de?ned medium.Eur.J.

Appl.Microbiol.Biotechnol.12,28–35.

Schmidt,J.E.,Ahring,B.K.,1993.E?ects of magnesium on thermophilic acetate-degrading granules in up?ow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)reactors.Enzyme Microbiol.Technol.15,304–310.

Shen,C.F.,Kosaric,N.,Blaszczyk,R.,1993.The e?ect of selected heavy metals(Ni,Co,and Fe)on anaerobic granules and their extracellular polymeric substances(EPS).Water Res.27,25–33.

Shi, D.,Forster, C.F.,1994.Inhibitory e?ects in the thermophilic anaerobic treatment of a simulated co?ee wastewater.Environ.

Technol.15,287–292.

Shin,H.-S.,Kwon,J.-C.,1998.Degradation and interaction between organic concentrations and toxicity of2,4,6-trichlorophenol in anaer-obic system.Biotechnol.Tech.12(1),39–43.

Shin,H.-S.,Oh,S.-E.,Lee,C.-Y.,1997.In?uence of sulfur compounds and heavy metals on the methanization of tannery wastewater.Water Sci.Technol.35(8),239–245.

Sierra-Alvarez,R.,Lettinga,G.,1991a.The e?ect of aromatic structure on the inhibition of aceticlastic methanogenesis in granular sludge.Appl.

Microbiol.Biotechnol.34,544–550.

Sierra-Alverez,R.,Lettinga,G.,1991b.The methanogenic toxicity of wastewater lignins and lignin related compounds.J.Chem.Tech.

Biotechnol.50(4),443–455.

Sikkema,J.,De Bont,J.A.M.,Poolman,B.,1994.Interactions of cyclic hydrocarbons with biological membranes.J.Biol.Chem.26,8022–8028.

Sikkema,J.,De Bont,J.A.M.,Poolman, B.,1995.Mechanisms of membrane toxicity of hydrocarbons.Microbiol.Rev.59,201–222. Silver,S.,Phung,L.T.,1996.Bacterial heavy metal resistance:new surprises.Annu.Rev.Microbiol.50,753–789.

Song,Z.,Williams, C.J.,Edyvean,R.G.J.,2001.Coagulation and anaerobic digestion of tannery wastewater.Process Saf.Environ.

Prot.79,23–28.

Soto,M.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1991.Biodegradability and toxicity in the anaerobic treatment of?sh canning wastewaters.Environ.Tech-nol.12,669–677.

Soto,M.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1992.Characterization and compar-ison of biomass from mesophilic and thermophilic?xed bed anaerobic digesters.Water Sci.Technol.25,203–212.

Soto,M.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1993a.Methanogenic and non-methanogenic activity tests:theoretical basis and experimental setup.

Water Res.27,1361–1376.Soto,M.,Mende′z,R.,Lema,J.M.,1993b.Sodium inhibition and sulphate reduction in the anaerobic treatment of mussel processing wastewaters.

J.Chem.Tech.Biotechnol.58,1–7.

Soubes,M.,Mux?′,L.,Ferna′ndez,A.,Tarlera,S.,Queirolo,M.,1994.

Inhibition of methanogenesis from acetate by Cr3+and ammonia.

Biotechnol.Lett.16,195–200.

Spain,J.C.,van Veld,P.A.,1983.Adaptation of natural microbial communities to degradation of xenobiotic compounds:e?ect of concentration,exposure time,inoculum and chemical structure.Appl.

Environ.Microbiol.45,428–435.

Spain,J.C.,Pritchard,P.H.,Bourquin,A.W.,1980.E?ects of adaptation on biodegradation rates in sediment/water cores from estuarine and freshwater environment.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.40,726–734. Speece,R.E.,1983.Anaerobic biotechnology for industrial waste treat-ment.Environ.Sci.Technol.17,A416–A427.

Speece,R.E.,1987.In:Chynoweth,D.P.,Isaacson,R.(Eds.),Anaerobic Digestion of Biomass.Elsevier Applied Science,pp.129–140. Speece,R.E.,Parkin,G.F.,1983.The response of methane bacteria to toxicity.In:Proceedings of the3rd International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion,Boston,MA.

Sprott,G.D.,Patel,G.B.,1986.Ammonia toxicity in pure cultures of methanogenic bacteria.System.Appl.Microbiol.7,358–363. Stergar,V.,Koncˇan-Zagorc,J.,Gotvanj-Zgajnar,A.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,boratory scale and pilot plant study on treatment of toxic wastewater from the petrochemical industry by UASB reactors.Water Sci.Technol.48(8), 97–102.

Sterritt,R.M.,Lester,J.N.,1980.Interaction of heavy metals with bacteria.Sci.Total Environ.14(1),5–17.

Stickley,D.P.,1970.The e?ect of chloroform in sewage on the production of gas from laboratory digesters.Water Pollut.Control69,585–590. Stuckey,D.C.,Owen,W.F.,McCarty,P.L.,1980.Anaerobic toxicity evaluation by batch and semi-continuous assays.J.Water Pollut.

Control Fed.52,720–729.

Stucki,G.,Hanselman,K.W.,Hu′rzeler,A.,1993.Biological sulphuric acid transformation:reactor design and process optimization.Bio-technol.Bioeng.41,303–315.

Summers,A.O.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8b10139665.html,anization,expression and evolution of genes for mercury resistance.Annu.Rev.Microbiol.40,607–634.

Sung,S.,Liu,T.,2003.Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic digestion.

Chemosphere53,43–52.

Swanwick,J.D.,Foulkes,M.,1971.Inhibition of anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge by chlorinated hydrocarbons.Water Pollut.Control70, 58–70.

Swanwick,J.D.,Shurben, D.G.,Jackson,S.,1969.A survey of the performance of sewage sludge digesters in Great Britain.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.68,639–653.

Takashima,M.,Speece,R.E.,1989.Mineral nutrient requirements for high rate methane fermentation of acetate at low SRT.Res.J.Water Pollut.Control Fed.61(11–12),1645–1650.

Tchobanoglous,G.,Theisen,H.,Vigil,S.,1993.Integrated Waste Management:Engineering Principles and Management Issues.

McGraw-Hill,New York.

Thiele,J.H.,Wu,W.-M.,Jain,M.K.,Zeikus,J.G.,1990.Ecoengineering high rate anaerobic digestion systems:analysis of improved syntrophic biomethanation catalysts.Biotechnol.Bioeng.35,990–999. Thompson,G.,Swain,J.,Kay,M.,Forster,C.F.,2001.The treatment of pulp and paper mill e?uent:a review.Bioresour.Technol.77,275–286. Tritt,W.P.,1992.The anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater in?xed-bed reactors.Bioresour.Technol.41,201–207.

Tseng,S.-K.,Yang,C.-J.,1994.The reaction characteristics of wastewater containing nitrophenol treated using an anaerobic biological?uidized bed.Water Sci.Technol.30(12),233–240.

Tursman,J.F.,Cork,D.J.,1988.In?uence of sulfate and sulfate-reducing bacteria on anaerobic digestion technology.In:Mizradi, A.,van Wezel,A.(Eds.),Biological Waste Treatment.Alan R.Liss,Inc. Uberoi,V.,Bhattacharya,S.K.,1995.Interactions among sulfate reduc-ers,acetogens,and methanogens in anaerobic propionate systems.

Water Environ.Res.67,330–339.

Y.Chen et al./Bioresource Technology99(2008)4044–40644063

如何写先进个人事迹

如何写先进个人事迹篇一：如何写先进事迹材料如何写先进事迹材料一般有两种情况：一是先进个人，如先进工作者、优秀党员、劳动模范等；一是先进集体或先进单位，如先进党支部、先进车间或科室，抗洪抢险先进集体等。无论是先进个人还是先进集体，他们的先进事迹，内容各不相同，因此要整理材料，不可能固定一个模式。一般来说，可大体从以下方面进行整理。 (1)要拟定恰当的标题。先进事迹材料的标题，有两部分内容必不可少，一是要写明先进个人姓名和先进集体的名称，使人一眼便看出是哪个人或哪个集体、哪个单位的先进事迹。二是要概括标明先进事迹的主要内容或材料的用途。例如《王鬃同志端正党风的先进事迹》、《关于评选张鬃同志为全国新长征突击手的材料》、《关于评选鬃处党支部为省直机关先进党支部的材料》等。 (2)正文。正文的开头，要写明先进个人的简要情况，包括：姓名、性别、年龄、工作单位、职务、是否党团员等。此外，还要写明有关单位准备授予他(她)什么荣誉称号，或给予哪种形式的奖励。对先进集体、先进单位，要根据其先进事迹的主要内容，寥寥数语即应写明，不须用更多的文字。然后，要写先进人物或先进集体的主要事迹。这部分内容是全篇材料

的主体，要下功夫写好，关键是要写得既具体，又不繁琐；既概括，又不抽象；既生动形象，又很实在。总之，就是要写得很有说服力，让人一看便可得出够得上先进的结论。比如，写一位端正党风先进人物的事迹材料，就应当着重写这位同志在发扬党的优良传统和作风方面都有哪些突出的先进事迹，在同不正之风作斗争中有哪些突出的表现。又如，写一位搞改革的先进人物的事迹材料，就应当着力写这位同志是从哪些方面进行改革的，已经取得了哪些突出的成果，特别是改革前后的．经济效益或社会效益都有了哪些明显的变化。在写这些先进事迹时，无论是先进个人还是先进集体的，都应选取那些具有代表性的具体事实来说明。必要时还可运用一些数字，以增强先进事迹材料的说服力。为了使先进事迹的内容眉目清晰、更加条理化，在文字表述上还可分成若干自然段来写，特别是对那些涉及较多方面的先进事迹材料，采取这种写法尤为必要。如果将各方面内容材料都混在一起，是不易写明的。在分段写时，最好在每段之前根据内容标出小标题，或以明确的观点加以概括，使标题或观点与内容浑然一体。最后，是先进事迹材料的署名。一般说，整理先进个人和先进集体的材料，都是以本级组织或上级组织的名义；是代表组织意见的。因此，材料整理完后，应经有关领导同志审定，以相应一级组织正式署名上报。这类材料不宜以个人名义署名。写作典型经验材料-般包括以下几部分： (1)标题。有多种写法，通常是把典型经验高度集中地概括出来，一

关于时间管理的英语作文 manage time

How to manage time Time treats everyone fairly that we all have 24 hours per day. Some of us are capable to make good use of time while some find it hard to do so. Knowing how to manage them is essential in our life. Take myself as an example. When I was still a senior high student, I was fully occupied with my studies. Therefore, I hardly had spare time to have fun or develop my hobbies. But things were changed after I entered university. I got more free time than ever before. But ironically, I found it difficult to adjust this kind of brand-new school life and there was no such thing called time management on my mind. It was not until the second year that I realized I had wasted my whole year doing nothing. I could have taken up a Spanish course. I could have read ten books about the stories of successful people. I could have applied for a part-time job to earn some working experiences. B ut I didn’t spend my time on any of them. I felt guilty whenever I looked back to the moments that I just sat around doing nothing. It’s said that better late than never. At least I had the consciousness that I should stop wasting my time. Making up my mind is the first step for me to learn to manage my time. Next, I wrote a timetable, setting some targets that I had to finish each day. For instance, on Monday, I must read two pieces of news and review all the lessons that I have learnt on that day. By the way, the daily plan that I made was flexible. If there’s something unexpected that I had to finish first, I would reduce the time for resting or delay my target to the next day. Also, I would try to achieve those targets ahead of time that I planed so that I could reserve some more time to relax or do something out of my plan. At the beginning, it’s kind of difficult to s tick to the plan. But as time went by, having a plan for time in advance became a part of my life. At the same time, I gradually became a well-organized person. Now I’ve grasped the time management skill and I’m able to use my time efficiently.

英语演讲稿：未来的工作

英语演讲稿：未来的工作这篇《英语演讲稿范文：未来的工作》，是特地，希望对大家有所帮助！热门演讲推荐：竞聘演讲稿 | 国旗下演讲稿 | 英语演讲稿 | 师德师风演讲稿 | 年会主持词 | 领导致辞 everybody good afternoon:. first of all thank the teacher gave me a story in my own future ideal job. everyone has a dream job. my dream is to bee a boss, own a pany. in order to achieve my dreams, i need to find a good job, to accumulate some experience and wealth, it is the necessary things of course, in the school good achievement and rich knowledge is also very important. good achievement and rich experience can let me work to make the right choice, have more opportunities and achievements. at the same time, munication is very important, because it determines whether my pany has a good future development. so i need to exercise their municative ability. i need to use all of the free time to learn

关于坚持的英语演讲稿

关于坚持的英语演讲稿 Results are not important, but they can persist for many years as a commemoration of. Many years ago, as a result of habits and overeating formed one of obesity, as well as indicators of overall physical disorders, so that affects my work and life. In friends to encourage and supervise, the participated in the team Now considered to have been more than three years, neither the fine rain, regardless of winter heat, a day out with 5:00 time. The beginning, have been discouraged, suffering, and disappointment, but in the end of the urging of friends, to re-get up, stand on the playground. 成绩并不重要，但可以作为坚持多年晨跑的一个纪念。多年前，由于庸懒习惯和暴饮暴食，形成了一身的肥胖，以及体检指标的全盘失常，以致于影响到了我的工作和生活。在好友的鼓励和督促下，参加了晨跑队伍。现在算来，已经三年多了，无论天晴下雨，不管寒冬酷暑，每天五点准时起来出门晨跑。开始时，也曾气馁过、痛苦过、失望过，但最后都在好友们的催促下，重新爬起来，站到了操场上。 In fact, I did not build big, nor strong muscles, not a sport-born people. Over the past few years to adhere to it, because I have a team behind, the strength of a strongteam here, very grateful to our team, for a long time, we encourage each other, and with sweat, enjoying common health happy. For example, Friends of the several run in order to maintain order and unable to attend the 10，000 meters race, and they are always concerned about the brothers and promptly inform the place and time, gives us confidence and courage. At the same time, also came on their own inner desire and pursuit for a good health, who wrote many of their own log in order to refuel for their own, and inspiring. 其实我没有高大身材，也没健壮肌肉，天生不属于运动型的人。几年来能够坚持下来，因为我的背后有一个团队，有着强大团队的力量，在这里，非常感谢我们的晨跑队，长期以来，我们相互鼓励着，一起流汗，共同享受着健康带来的快

关于管理的英语演讲

1.How to build a business that lasts100years 0:11Imagine that you are a product designer.And you've designed a product,a new type of product,called the human immune system.You're pitching this product to a skeptical,strictly no-nonsense manager.Let's call him Bob.I think we all know at least one Bob,right?How would that go? 0:34Bob,I've got this incredible idea for a completely new type of personal health product.It's called the human immune system.I can see from your face that you're having some problems with this.Don't worry.I know it's very complicated.I don't want to take you through the gory details,I just want to tell you about some of the amazing features of this product.First of all,it cleverly uses redundancy by having millions of copies of each component--leukocytes,white blood cells--before they're actually needed,to create a massive buffer against the unexpected.And it cleverly leverages diversity by having not just leukocytes but B cells,T cells,natural killer cells,antibodies.The components don't really matter.The point is that together,this diversity of different approaches can cope with more or less anything that evolution has been able to throw up.And the design is completely modular.You have the surface barrier of the human skin,you have the very rapidly reacting innate immune system and then you have the highly targeted adaptive immune system.The point is,that if one system fails,another can take over,creating a virtually foolproof system. 1:54I can see I'm losing you,Bob,but stay with me,because here is the really killer feature.The product is completely adaptive.It's able to actually develop targeted antibodies to threats that it's never even met before.It actually also does this with incredible prudence,detecting and reacting to every tiny threat,and furthermore, remembering every previous threat,in case they are ever encountered again.What I'm pitching you today is actually not a stand-alone product.The product is embedded in the larger system of the human body,and it works in complete harmony with that system,to create this unprecedented level of biological protection.So Bob,just tell me honestly,what do you think of my product? 2:47And Bob may say something like,I sincerely appreciate the effort and passion that have gone into your presentation,blah blah blah-- 2:56(Laughter) 2:58But honestly,it's total nonsense.You seem to be saying that the key selling points of your product are that it is inefficient and complex.Didn't they teach you 80-20?And furthermore,you're saying that this product is siloed.It overreacts, makes things up as it goes along and is actually designed for somebody else's benefit. I'm sorry to break it to you,but I don't think this one is a winner.

关于工作的优秀英语演讲稿

关于工作的优秀英语演讲稿 Different people have various ambitions. Some want to be engineers or doctors in the future. Some want to be scientists or businessmen. Still some wish to be teachers or lawers when they grow up in the days to come. Unlike other people, I prefer to be a farmer. However, it is not easy to be a farmer for Iwill be looked upon by others. Anyway,what I am trying to do is to make great contributions to agriculture. It is well known that farming is the basic of the country. Above all, farming is not only a challenge but also a good opportunity for the young. We can also make a big profit by growing vegetables and food in a scientific way. Besides we can apply what we have learned in school to farming. Thus our countryside will become more and more properous. I believe that any man with knowledge can do whatever they can so long as this job can meet his or her interest. All the working position can provide him with a good chance to become a talent. 1 ————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

个人先进事迹简介

个人先进事迹简介 01 在思想政治方面,xxxx同学积极向上,热爱祖国、热爱中国共产党,拥护中国共产党的领导.利用课余时间和党课机会认真学习政治理论,积极向党组织靠拢. 在学习上,xxxx同学认为只有把学习成绩确实提高才能为将来的实践打下扎实的基础,成为社会有用人才.学习努力、成绩优良. 在生活中,善于与人沟通,乐观向上,乐于助人.有健全的人格意识和良好的心理素质和从容、坦诚、乐观、快乐的生活态度,乐于帮助身边的同学,受到师生的好评. 02 xxx同学认真学习政治理论,积极上进,在校期间获得原院级三好生,和校级三好生,优秀团员称号,并获得三等奖学金. 在学习上遇到不理解的地方也常常向老师请教,还勇于向老师提出质疑.在完成自己学业的同时,能主动帮助其他同学解决学习上的难题,和其他同学共同探讨,共同进步. 在社会实践方面,xxxx同学参与了中国儿童文学精品“悦”读书系,插画绘制工作,xxxx同学在班中担任宣传委员,工作积极主动,认真负责,有较强的组织能力.能够在老师、班主任的指导下独立完成学院、班级布置的各项工作. 03 xxx同学在政治思想方面积极进取,严格要求自己.在学习方面刻苦努力,不断钻研,学习成绩优异,连续两年荣获国家励志奖学金；作

为一名学生干部,她总是充满激情的迎接并完成各项工作,荣获优秀团干部称号.在社会实践和志愿者活动中起到模范带头作用. 04 xxxx同学在思想方面,积极要求进步,为人诚实,尊敬师长.严格要求自己.在大一期间就积极参加了党课初、高级班的学习,拥护中国共产党的领导,并积极向党组织靠拢. 在工作上,作为班中的学习委员,对待工作兢兢业业、尽职尽责的完成班集体的各项工作任务.并在班级和系里能够起骨干带头作用.热心为同学服务,工作责任心强. 在学习上,学习目的明确、态度端正、刻苦努力,连续两学年在班级的综合测评排名中获得第1.并荣获院级二等奖学金、三好生、优秀班干部、优秀团员等奖项. 在社会实践方面,积极参加学校和班级组织的各项政治活动,并在志愿者活动中起到模范带头作用.积极锻炼身体.能够处理好学习与工作的关系,乐于助人,团结班中每一位同学,谦虚好学,受到师生的好评. 05 在思想方面,xxxx同学积极向上,热爱祖国、热爱中国共产党,拥护中国共产党的领导.作为一名共产党员时刻起到积极的带头作用,利用课余时间和党课机会认真学习政治理论. 在工作上,作为班中的团支部书记,xxxx同学积极策划组织各类团活动,具有良好的组织能力. 在学习上,xxxx同学学习努力、成绩优良、并热心帮助在学习上有困难的同学,连续两年获得二等奖学金. 在生活中,善于与人沟通,乐观向上,乐于助人.有健全的人格意识和良好的心理素质.

自我管理演讲稿英语翻译

尊敬的领导，老师，亲爱的同学们，大家好！我是5班的梁浩东。今天早上我坐车来学校的路上，我仔细观察了路上形形色色的人，有开着小车衣着精致的叔叔阿姨，有市场带着倦容的卖各种早点的阿姨，还有偶尔穿梭于人群中衣衫褴褛的乞丐。于是我问自己，十几年后我会成为怎样的自己，想成为社会成功人士还是碌碌无为的人呢，答案肯定是前者。那么十几年后我怎样才能如愿以偿呢，成为一个受人尊重，有价值的人呢？正如我今天演讲的题目是：自主管理。大家都知道爱玩是我们孩子的天性，学习也是我们的责任和义务。要怎样处理好这些矛盾，提高自主管理呢？首先，我们要有小主人翁思想，自己做自己的主人，要认识到我们学习，生活这一切都是我们自己走自己的人生路，并不是为了报答父母，更不是为了敷衍老师。我认为自主管理又可以理解为自我管理，在学习和生活中无处不在，比如通过老师，小组长来管理约束行为和同学们对自身行为的管理都属于自我管理。比如我们到一个旅游景点，看到一块大石头，有的同学特别兴奋，会想在上面刻上：某某某到此一游话。这时你就需要自我管理，你需要提醒自己，这样做会破坏景点，而且是一种素质低下的表现。你设想一下，如果别人家小孩去你家墙上乱涂乱画，你是何种感受。同样我们把自主管理放到学习上，在我们想偷懒，想逃避，想放弃的时候，我们可以通过自主管理来避免这些，通过他人或者自己的力量来完成。例如我会制定作息时间计划表，里面包括学习，运动，玩耍等内容的完成时间。那些学校学习尖子，他们学习好是智商高于我们吗，其实不然，在我所了解的哪些优秀的学霸传授经验里，就提到要能够自我管理，规范好学习时间的分分秒秒，只有辛勤的付出，才能取得优异成绩。在现实生活中，无数成功人士告诉我们自主管理的重要性。十几年后我想成为一位优秀的，为国家多做贡献的人。亲爱的同学们，你们们？让我们从现在开始重视和执行自主管理，十几年后成为那个你想成为的人。谢谢大家！

关于工作的英语演讲稿

关于工作的英语演讲稿【篇一：关于工作的英语演讲稿】关于工作的英语演讲稿 different people have various ambitions. some want to be engineers or doctors in the future. some want to be scientists or businessmen. still some wish to be teachers or lawers when they grow up in the days to come. unlike other people, i prefer to be a farmer. however, it is not easy to be a farmer for iwill be looked upon by others. anyway,what i am trying to do is to make great contributions to agriculture. it is well known that farming is the basic of the country. above all, farming is not only a challenge but also a good opportunity for the young. we can also make a big profit by growing vegetables and food in a scientific way. besides we can apply what we have learned in school to farming. thus our countryside will become more and more properous. i believe that any man with knowledge can do whatever they can so long as this job can meet his or her interest. all the working position can provide him with a good chance to become a talent. 【篇二：关于责任感的英语演讲稿】 im grateful that ive been given this opportunity to stand here as a spokesman. facing all of you on the stage, i have the exciting feeling of participating in this speech competition. the topic today is what we cannot afford to lose. if you ask me this question, i must tell you that i think the answer is a word---- responsibility. in my elementary years, there was a little girl in the class who worked very hard, however she could never do satisfactorily in her lessons. the teacher asked me to help her, and it was obvious that she expected a lot from me. but as a young boy, i was so restless and thoughtless, i always tried to get more time to play and enjoy myself. so she was always slighted over by me. one day before the final exam, she came up to me and said, could you please explain this to me? i can not understand it. i

关于时间管理的英语演讲

Dear teacher and colleagues: my topic is on “spare time”. It is a huge blessing that we can work 996. Jack Ma said at an Ali's internal communication activity, That means we should work at 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week .I question the entire premise of this piece. but I'm always interested in hearing what successful and especially rich people come up with time .So I finally found out Jack Ma also had said :”i f you don’t put out more time and energy than others ,how can you achieve the success you want? If you do not do 996 when you are young ,when will you ?”I quite agree with the idea that young people should fight for success .But there are a lot of survival activities to do in a day ,I want to focus on how much time they take from us and what can we do with the rest of the time. As all we known ,There are 168 hours in a week .We sleep roughly seven-and-a-half and eight hours a day .so around 56 hours a week . maybe it is slightly different for someone . We do our personal things like eating and bathing and maybe looking after kids -about three hours a day .so around 21 hours a week .And if you are working a full time job ,so 40 hours a week , Oh! Maybe it is impossible for us at

关于人英语演讲稿(精选多篇)

关于人英语演讲稿(精选多篇) 关于人的优美句子 1、“黑皮小子”是我对在公交车上偶遇两次的一个男孩的称呼代号。一听这个外号，你也定会知道他极黑了。他的脸总是黑黑的；裸露在短袖外的胳膊也是黑黑的；就连两只有厚厚耳垂的耳朵也那么黑黑的，时不时像黑色的猎犬竖起来倾听着什么；黑黑的扁鼻子时不时地深呼吸着，像是在警觉地嗅着什么异样的味道。 2、我不知道，如何诠释我的母亲，因为母亲淡淡的生活中却常常跳动着不一样的间最无私、最伟大、最崇高的爱，莫过于母爱。无私，因为她的爱只有付出，无需回报；伟大，因为她的爱寓于

普通、平凡和简单之中；崇高，是因为她的爱是用生命化作乳汁，哺育着我，使我的生命得以延续，得以蓬勃，得以灿烂。 3、我的左撇子伙伴是用左手写字的，就像我们的右手一样挥洒自如。在日常生活中，曾见过用左手拿筷子的，也有像超级林丹用左手打羽毛球的，但很少碰见用左手写字的。中国汉字笔画笔顺是左起右收，适合用右手写字。但我的左撇子伙伴写字是右起左收的，像鸡爪一样迈出田字格，左看右看，上看下看，每一个字都很难看。平时考试时间终了，他总是做不完试卷。于是老师就跟家长商量，决定让他左改右写。经过老师引导，家长配合，他自己刻苦练字，考试能够提前完成了。现在他的字像他本人一样阳光、帅气。 4、老师，他们是辛勤的园丁，帮助着那些幼苗茁壮成长。他们不怕辛苦地给我们改厚厚一叠的作业，给我们上课。一步一步一点一点地给我们知识。虽然

他们有时也会批评一些人，但是他们的批评是对我们有帮助的，我们也要理解他们。那些学习差的同学，老师会逐一地耐心教导，使他们的学习突飞猛进。使他们的耐心教导培养出了一批批优秀的人才。他们不怕辛苦、不怕劳累地教育着我们这些幼苗，难道不是美吗？ 5、我有一个表妹，还不到十岁，她那圆圆的小脸蛋儿，粉白中透着粉红，她的头发很浓密，而且好像马鬓毛一样的粗硬，但还是保留着孩子一样的蓬乱的美，卷曲的环绕着她那小小的耳朵。说起她，她可是一个古灵精怪的小女孩。 6、黑皮小子是一个善良的人，他要跟所有见过的人成为最好的朋友！这样人人都是他的好朋友，那么人人都是好友一样坦诚、关爱相交，这样人与人自然会和谐起来，少了许多争执了。 7、有人说，老师是土壤，把知识化作养分，传授给祖国的花朵，让他们茁壮成长。亦有人说，老师是一座知识的桥梁，把我们带进奇妙的科学世界，让

优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文

优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文 ***，男，198*年**月出生，200*年加入党组织，现为***支部书记。从事党务工作以来，兢兢业业、恪尽职守、辛勤工作，出色地完成了各项任务，在思想上、政治上同党中央保持高度一致，在业务上不断进取，团结同事，在工作岗位上取得了一定成绩。一、严于律己，勤于学习作为一名党务工作者，平时十分注重知识的更新，不断加强党的理论知识的学习，坚持把学习摆在重要位置，学习领会和及时掌握党和国家的路线、方针、政策，特别是党的十九大精神，注重政治理论水平的提高，具有坚定的理论信念;坚持党的基本路线，坚决执行党的各项方针政策，自觉履行党员义务，正确行使党员权利。平时注重加强业务和管理知识的学习，并运用到工作中去，不断提升自身工作能力，具有开拓创新精神，在思想上、政治上和行动上时刻同党中央保持高度一致。二、求真务实，开拓进取在工作中任劳任怨，踏实肯干，坚持原则，认真做好学院的党务工作，按照党章的要求，严格发展党员的每一个步骤，认真细致的对待每一份材料。配合党总支书记做好学院的党建工作，完善党总支建设方面的文件、材料和工作制度、管理制度等。

三、生活朴素，乐于助人平时重视与同事间的关系，主动与同事打成一片，善于发现他人的难处，及时妥善地给予帮助。在其它同志遇到困难时，积极主动伸出援助之手，尽自己最大努力帮助有需要的人。养成了批评与自我批评的优良作风，时常反省自己的工作，学习和生活。不但能够真诚的指出同事的缺点，也能够正确的对待他人的批评和意见。面对误解，总是一笑而过，不会因为误解和批评而耿耿于怀，而是诚恳的接受，从而不断的提高自己。在生活上勤俭节朴，不铺张浪费。身为一名老党员，我感到责任重大，应该做出表率，挤出更多的时间来投入到**党总支的工作中，不找借口，不讲条件，不畏困难，将总支建设摆在更重要的位置，解开工作中的思想疙瘩，为攻坚克难铺平道路，以支部为纽带，像战友一样团结，像家庭一样维系，像亲人一样关怀，践行入党誓言。把握机遇，迎接挑战，不负初心。

关于时间的英语演讲稿范文_演讲稿.doc

关于时间的英语演讲稿范文_演讲稿 and organizing people to learn from advanced areas to broaden their horizons in order to understand the team of cadres working conditions in schools, the ministry of education has traveled a number of primary and secondary schools to conduct research, listen to the views of the school party and government leaders to make school leadership cadres receive attention and guidance of the ministry of education to carry out a variety of practical activities to actively lead the majority of young teachers work hard to become qualified personnel and for them to put up the cast talent stage, a single sail swaying, after numerous twists and turns arrived in port, if there is wind, a hand, and naturally smooth arrival and guide students to strive to e xcel, need to nazhen “wind” - teacher. teachers should be ideological and moral education, culture education and the needs of students organically combining various activities for the students or students to carry out their own. for example: school quiz competitions, essay contests, ke benju performances and other activities to enable students to give full play to their talents. teachers rush toil, in order to that will enable students to continue to draw nutrients, to help them grow up healthily and become pillars of the country before. for all students in general education, the government departments have also not forget those who cared about the