Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Enzyme Microb Technol. 2025 Apr 4;188:110651. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2025.110651

Enhancement of the start-up and performance of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor using electrochemically-enriched biofilm

Mohamad Abdallah a,b, Stephanie Greige a, Christina F Webster b, Moustapha Harb c, Haluk Beyenal b, Mahmoud Wazne a,*
PMCID: PMC12103992  NIHMSID: NIHMS2073208  PMID: 40209633

Abstract

A novel approach was developed to accelerate the start-up of a 20-L UASB reactor under mesophilic conditions. Two runs were conducted, where the first run (Run I) was inoculated with anaerobic sludge, and the second run (Run II) was inoculated with the same sludge supplemented with enriched electro-active biofilms collected from the working and counter electrodes of anodic and cathodic bio-electrochemical systems (BESs). Reactors’ performance and microbial dynamics were monitored over 41 days. Methane production in Run II exceeded 200 mL-CH4/g-COD within 10 days, compared to 29 days in Run I. Run II achieved 80% removal of soluble COD after 13 days as compared to 23 days in Run I. Sludge washout in Run II stabilized after 3 days, achieving 70% VSS removal, whereas Run I required 17 days. Greater extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) values and higher protein-to-polysaccharide ratios in Run II may indicate accelerated granules formation mediated by EPS. 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis results revealed shared genera between both runs but different relative abundances. Methanothrix dominated in Run I, while other archaeal genera, mainly Methanosarcina and Methanobacterium increased in abundance in the Run II. The Enterobacteriaceae family was prevalent in both reactors, with three genera, Citrobacter, Klebsiella, and Enterobacter distinctly dominating at different time points, suggesting potential links with the initial seed sludge or enriched biofilm consortia. The addition of electrochemically grown biofilm in Run II likely enhanced the microbial diversity, contributed to the rapid development of granular syntrophic communities, and improved reactor performance.

Keywords: Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, Anaerobic digestion, Electrochemically grown biofilm, High-throughput sequencing, Microbial community

Graphical Abstract

Supplementation of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB) reactor with biofilms enriched in bioelectrochemical systems (BES) polarized at different electrode potentials reduced the start-up time. According to the results, the greater diversity of the BES microbial communities as well as higher protein-to-polysaccharide ratio in Run II likely contributed to the improved performance.

graphic file with name nihms-2073208-f0011.jpg

Introduction

There is a worldwide interest in high-rate anaerobic digestion systems for the treatment of high-strength organic wastewater. Anaerobic digestion is an attractive process for wastewater treatment because of its ability to convert organic waste to innocuous material with potential for energy recovery as methane [1]. Among the high-rate anaerobic digestion systems, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors are the most widely implemented with more than 3000 plants operating worldwide [2,3]. They are known to be robust high-rate systems in terms of performance, sludge stabilization, land requirement, and methane yield [48]. Several studies reported on UASB reactors achieving COD removal rates up to 98% and methane yields up to 330 mL-CH4/g-COD for various types of waste streams including domestic, synthetic, and industrial wastewaters [5,911]. The key feature of the UASB reactors is the formation of immobilized aggregated biomass known as granules which are retained at the bottom of the reactor with the aid of a gas-liquid-solid (GLS) separator system [1113].

The successful performance of UASB reactors is dependent on the formation of these well-structured dense granules that are comprised of an inert core covered by a consortium of syntrophic microbes that breakdown the organic waste [14,15]. The granules have better settling properties than normal sludge which enables vigorous granule-liquid interaction and high hydraulic loading rates. In granules, inter-species mass transfer limitations are reduced between syntrophic groups. However, a major drawback of the UASB technology is the long start-up time which can take up to 8 months accompanied by sludge washout, low methane yields, and inefficient COD removal rates [6,16]. UASB start-up is hindered mainly by the slow growth of methanogenic and hydrolytic microbes that form the granules required for treatment of complex wastewaters [12,17].

The formation of the granules is reported to be carried out by acetoclastic methanogens that act as scaffolding which immobilizes syntrophic bacteria through EPS secretion [12,13,18,19]. Many studies reported on the use of amendments such as cations, natural polymers, and synthetic polymers to accelerate the formation of granules by binding syntrophic anaerobic communities in UASB reactors. The addition of multivalent cations such as Ca2+, Fe2+, and Al3+ has shown positive effects on granulation though this effect seemed to be dependent on the wastewater COD concentration [20,21]. Better COD removal has also been observed in the presence of polymers, while other reports have suggested better removal efficiency without polymer addition [2224]. It is worth noting that polymers can bind microbial communities in an indiscriminate manner.

Other studies focused on the addition of enriched pure strains to the UASB reactors to improve granulation and overall performance. Li et al. (2015) reported on the enrichment of a UASB inoculum with a Methanosaeta strain. This resulted in the improvement of the UASB performance and granulation by immobilizing synergistic bacteria and methanogens, consequently facilitating volatile fatty acids (VFAs) degradation [18]. Keyser et al. demonstrated that the enrichment of a UASB inoculum with the bacterial strain Enterobacter sakazakii significantly enhanced the COD removal of winery wastewater influent in a shorter start-up time [25]. However, enrichment using a single strain may not be practically applicable for the treatment of complex substrates.

Several studies have focused on the integration of bioelectrochemical systems into UASB reactors to improve digestion performance [2630]. Some anaerobic communities were reported capable of extracellular electron transfer via direct interspecies electron transfer (DIET) through cell-to-cell or cell-to-mineral interaction [3134]. This mechanism was attributed to the exhibited electroactivity of some anaerobic communities, such as those belonging to the genera Geobacter and Clostridium, as well as the Anaerolineaceae family [3540]. Furthermore, methanogens following the acetoclastic pathway (Methanosaeta and Methanosarcina) [41] or the hydrogenotrophic pathway (Methanobacterium) [42] have been shown to exist simultaneously in anaerobic digesters, several of which are capable of direct electron transfer [33,43].

Interactions between electroactive communities and electrodes have been reported to be similar to interactions observed in anaerobic digester granules. The integration of bioelectrochemical systems into UASB reactors resulted in improved COD removal or methane yield due to the development of biofilms on the electrodes in addition to influencing the suspended biomass in the reactor [4446]. Other studies focused on the supplementation of UASB sludge with conductive materials such as granular activated carbon (GAC) as a mediator to DIET for electroactive bacteria and methanogens which resulted in those communities’ proliferation, subsequently leading to enhanced performance [17,47]. Operational conditions, such as poised voltage, support material, substrates, and inoculum type were reported to influence the development of the microbial community [48,49].

No studies to date have reported on the selective enrichment of biofilms on electrodes for harvest and direct use in UASB sludge as an inoculum to accelerate the start-up and improve the performance of UASB reactors. This could mitigate the challenges of using other methods such as the addition of pure strains, polymers, support materials, or applied external voltage. In this study, the performance of a UASB reactor inoculated with biofilms enriched in anaerobic bioelectrochemical systems (BESs) was compared to that of a control UASB. The harvested biofilms were grown in anodic and cathodic BESs at selected constant potentials to enrich bacterial and methanogenic electroactive communities using the same substrate as the one fed to the UASB reactors. Reactor performances were assessed based on start-up time, COD removal, methane yield, and sludge settleability. Microbial community characterization in was conducted using high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene.

Materials and Methods

UASB configuration and operation.

A 20-L lab-scale UASB reactor was used over two separate runs. The reactor assembly consisted of a reactor equipped with a gas-liquid-solid (GLS) separator system (Armfield Ltd, Hampshire, England). The UASB reactor was seeded with anaerobic sludge obtained from the anaerobic digester of the Bkassine WWTP (Saida, South Lebanon) and operated at a temperature of 35°C. Run I served as control, where the UASB was inoculated with only anaerobic sludge, while Run II was inoculated with the same anaerobic sludge with the addition of enriched electro-active biofilms obtained from the working and counter electrodes of the anodic and cathodic BESs. During both runs, the reactors treated synthetic feed with a COD of 2000 mg/L. The organic content of the feed consisted of the following per 1 g-COD: 186 mg milk powder, 633 mg sucrose, and 50.6 mg citric acid. The macronutrients and trace metal composition is shown in the Supplementary Information section. The UASB reactors were operated at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 48 hours and an organic loading rate (OLR) of 1 g-COD/L.d during both runs.

UASB effluent quality testing.

The reactor effluents were monitored regularly for chemical oxygen demand (COD), volatile fatty acids (VFAs), total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), and pH using standard methods.

UASB bed and profile analysis.

To monitor the stabilization of the UASB reactor, regular sampling of the UASB bed sludge was conducted to measure total and soluble COD, pH, TSS/VSS, Total VFAs, and the sludge volume index (SVI).

UASB biogas collection and analysis.

Biogas produced in the UASB was collected and analyzed using gas chromatography (GC) (7890B Agilent Technologies, USA) to determine CH4 and CO2 composition. The methane yield rate was calculated from the methane production normalized to the influent COD mass.

Microscopic examination.

Optic microscopy was performed on the UASB bed sludge to determine the size of granules. Images of the bed biomass dispersed in distilled water were taken using a high-quality camera and microscopic lens (LNKOO 30X Zoom Bright LED Stereo Microscope Magnifier).

UASB Microbial Sampling.

The samples for microbial community analysis were collected from the bed of the UASB reactors at various time intervals and from the raw seed sludge biomass (Sludge C and Sludge E). The DNA was then extracted for high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene to investigate the total microbial community.

EPS extraction.

Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS) analysis was conducted for UASB granules and raw sludge inoculum to quantify the content of proteins and carbohydrates. The phenol-sulfuric acid method with glucose as the standard was utilized to quantify the polysaccharide content (Total Carbohydrate Assay Kit, Sigma-Aldrich), while the total protein Pierce BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Scientific) was employed to determine the protein content of the extract. Results were averaged for duplicate samples from each sludge and normalized against the total extracted DNA concentration obtained from those same samples.

Detailed descriptions of the materials and methods are provided in the supplementary information of this paper.

Results

Biogas production and gas composition.

The lab-scale UASB reactor experiment was conducted in two consecutive runs. The first run served as control using anaerobic sludge as the inoculum (Run I). The second run was inoculated with the same anaerobic sludge in addition to enriched biofilms at the anodic and cathodic BES working and counter electrodes (Run II). The start-up was considered complete once stable methane production, sludge washout cessation, and stable COD removal (greater than 80%) were observed. After approximately 5 days of continuous operation, Run I and Run II started producing biogas containing CO2 and CH4. Figure S1 shows the methane composition of the produced biogas with Run II reaching a stable methane composition of around 70% after 15 days, while Run I required more than 34 days to exceed the 60% composition.

The daily volumetric methane production in Run I and Run II is shown in Figure S2, normalized over the effective volume of the UASB reactor [11]. Daily methane production in Run II was higher as compared to Run I, with rates greater than 100 mL/L.d obtained in 6 days while Run I required 28 days to reach similar results. The methane yield with respect to the amount of added COD was computed to assess methanogenic efficiency (Figure 1). Run II achieved stable yields greater than 200 mL-CH4/g-CODadded in about 10 days of operation whereas Run I needed 29 days to achieve this threshold. Several studies reported similar methane yield results for UASB reactors treating complex wastewaters [6,11]. A higher methane yield in a UASB could be dependent on the efficient enzymatic activity by the different syntrophic partners (hydrolytic, acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic) that make up the reactor’s immobilized granules. Together, these results demonstrate that UASBs amended with the enriched electroactive biofilms (Run II) adapt faster to the operational conditions through enhanced microbial activity compared to traditional anaerobic sludge inoculum (Run I).

Figure 1 -.

Figure 1 -

Comparison of the temporal variation in total COD (tCOD) removal, soluble COD (sCOD) removal and methane yield in both UASB runs. Symbols: Run I-tCOD (○); Run II-tCOD (●); Run I-sCOD (□); Run II-sCOD (■); Run I-methane yield (△); Run II-methane yield (▲). Methane yield was calculated as the daily methane production per influent COD.

COD removal and sludge washout assessment.

Effluent quality and treatment efficiency were evaluated in both runs to monitor enhancement in the treatment process. Data in Figure 1 demonstrates an improvement in the COD removal in both total and soluble forms, in addition to the total VFA removal between the two runs (Figure S3). Start-up was completed after nearly 19 days in Run II, compared to Run I which required 31 days to exceed 80% total COD removal efficiency. Because total COD incorporates both soluble and particulate material, the soluble COD removal was also assessed. Run II achieved 80% removal of soluble COD after 13 days as compared to Run I (23 days), which indicates efficient removal of the organic content in the influent wastewater at a faster rate in Run II. Comparable results to Run II COD removal were achievable for UASB processes treating wastewater containing complex organic components [4,13]. Sludge washout was another critical parameter evaluated in both UASB runs. Cessation of sludge washout is indicative of functional microbial immobilization in the form of granules within the UASB reactor. Sludge washout was not detected in the effluent of UASB Run II after approximately 3 days of operation (Figure S4, greater than 70% VSS removal), indicating the development of a well-adapted and settleable sludge whereas Run I required 17 days to reach VSS removal rates higher than 70%, with heavy washout observed within the first 2 weeks.

Granule sludge formation and settleability assessment.

To assess the differences between the sludge developed in the UASB bed of Runs I and II, several tests were performed to characterize the developed biomass (Table 1). During both runs, the pH remained within favorable methanogenic ranges over 6 weeks of operations. To measure biomass growth, the VSS of the bed was measured and showed an increase reaching 28.22 g/L in Run I (week 6), whereas Run II had a lower VSS concentration of 25.67 g/L. VSS/TSS ratios also increased in the two runs (0.75 and 0.87 in Run I and II by week 6, respectively) which shows the development of more stable biomass.

Table 1 -.

Different characteristics of the UASB bed biomass during Run I and Run II

Run I Run II

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 6 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 6
pH 8.44 7.15 6.82 6.84 8.44 6.75 7.21 6.96
VSS (g/L) 7.11 ± 192 29.33 ± 2.03 30.33 ±0.33 28.22 ± 0.51 8.00 ± 0.00 23.16 ± 1.18 22.67 ± 0.33 25.67 ± 0.00
VSS/TSS 0.58 0.69 0.85 0.75 0.71 0.85 0.87 0.87
tVFA (mg-HAc/L) 835 637 305 1025 835 500 868 1092

The tVFA data presented in Table 1 suggests that there were differences in substrate conversion dynamics between the two runs. At the end of week 1, both runs exhibited high initial tVFA concentrations (835 mg/L as acetic acid). Similar overall trends were also seen in week 2. However, tVFA concentrations started to increase in week 3 for Run II but not for Run I. This may indicate higher hydrolytic and acidogenic activity of the enriched electroactive biofilms with enhanced breakdown of organic matter into VFAs (and subsequently to methane). Further, the increase in tVFA in Run II in weeks 3 and 6 was not associated with a decrease in pH (likely because of the system buffer), and methane production was not negatively impacted (Figure S1).

The sludge volume index (SVI) was used to assess the settleability; and therefore, the degree of granulation in the bed sludge. Results in Figure 2 show the variation in the SVI between the runs over three-time intervals. Low SVI values are indicative of a granular sludge with good settleability while higher values represent more flocculant biomass [50]. Despite having relatively similar SVI during week 1 (61 and 66 mL/g-TSS for Run I and Run II, respectively), the values dropped sharply by week 3 which highlights the development of more consolidated sludge mass. By week 6, the SVI had dropped to approximately 33 mL/g-TSS for Run I (which corresponds to the flocculant sludge range of 20 to 40 mL/g-TSS), while Run II had an SVI of 17.8 mL/g-TSS which falls within the range of granular sludge (less than 20 mL/g-TSS) [15,51,52]. These results show that despite having lower VSS than the control run, the enriched UASB successfully developed granular biomass with high settleability coupled with efficient reactor performance and enhanced start-up.

Figure 2 -.

Figure 2 -

Comparison of the sludge volume index (SVI) of the bed sludge in both UASB runs at various points during their operations: Run I (red), Run II (blue).

Archaeal community structure and dynamics.

The predominant Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) at the genus level in the archaeal community was affiliated with Methanothrix (formerly Methanosaeta) for both reactors. Methanothrix is unique among methanogenic archaea in its ability to produce methane exclusively from acetate [53]. Methanothrix soehngenii was the species to which OTUs were most closely related. M. soehngenii was previously reported during the start-up of a mesophilic UASB treating maize alcohol wastewater under long-term low-strength operation, which favored its dominance due to its ability to compete for acetate with its long filaments [54,55].

Other methane-producing archaea such as Methanosarcina, Methanobacterium, and Methanospirillum were also detected in the control UASB while being more abundant in the enriched UASB (Figure 3). In Run II, the abundance of Methanothrix decreased as compared to Run I, while Methanosarcina increased after enrichment (31.5% on day 1) and remained relatively high at days 15 and 36 (20% and 16%, respectively).

Figure 3 -. Heatmap of the most abundant archaeal genera (> 2% relative abundance in at least one sample).

Figure 3 -

Key: AWE: working electrode anode, CWE: working electrode cathode, ACE: counter electrode anode, CCE: counter electrode cathode. Run I: UC19, and UC41 (UC stands for UASB Control) collected on days 19 and 41. Run II: UE1, UE15, and UE36 (UE stands for UASB Enriched) collected on days 1, 15, and 36 after enrichment. Sludge C and E: raw seed sludge fed to the control and enriched reactors, respectively.

High-throughput sequencing indicated that the abundance of hydrogenotrophic methanogens, namely Methanospirillum and Methanocorpusculum, decreased even though they were abundant in the seed sludge used (21.3% and 9.1% of the total archaeal community, respectively) while Methanobacterium increased during Run I. The hydrogenotrophic methanogen Methanobacterium increased as well from 3.2% in the seed sludge of the enriched reactor (Run II) to 11.6% after inoculation of the enriched biofilms, possibly due to the high relative abundance of Methanobacterium in the electrode biofilms of BES-A and BES-C. Further, Methanobacterium was present in higher abundance in the enriched biomass compared to the non-enriched biomass (4.8% and 1.1%, respectively). Methanospirillum thrived in the enriched reactor (Run II) compared to the control reactor (Run I) (reaching 3.5% on day 15). Both Methanobacterium and Methanospirillum, are responsible for the conversion of the intermediate products of digestion (such as acetate, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide) into methane [56,57].

Bacterial community structure and dynamics.

As shown in Figure 4 Figure 5, the dominant bacteria belonged to three major phyla: Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes. Other minor phyla were present as well in the bacterial consortia.

Figure 4 -. Analysis of the total microbial diversity of BES and UASB samples at the phylum, genus, and species levels (> 1.5% relative abundance in at least one sample).

Figure 4 -

Key: AWE: working electrode anode, CWE: working electrode cathode, ACE: counter electrode anode, CCE: counter electrode cathode. Run I: UC19, and UC41 (UC stands for UASB Control) collected on days 19 and 41. Run II: UE1, UE15, and UE36 (UE stands for UASB Enriched) collected on days 1, 15, and 36 after enrichment. Sludge C and E: raw seed sludge fed to the control and enriched reactors, respectively.

Figure 5 -.

Figure 5 -

The relative abundance (%) of the most predominant bacterial species in BES and UASB samples.

The phylum Proteobacteria was the most prominent in both UASB runs, with Enterobacteriaceae as the most abundant family. However, within this family, three genera Citrobacter, Klebsiella, and Enterobacter were distinctively dominant in both reactors. This could be linked to the presence of these genera in the initial seed sludge fed to each reactor or in the enriched biofilm. Citrobacter and Klebsiella were not detected in the sludge inoculated in the UASB reactor of Run II, but they grew in abundance immediately after enrichment with biofilms grown on BES electrodes. Citrobacter freundii, specifically, thrived in Run II, with a relative abundance of 34.4% on day 15 and 49.2% on day 36. This contrasts with Run I where C. freundii did not exceed a relative abundance of 1.1%. Citrobacter, particularly C. freundii, has been identified as an exoelectrogenic microorganism in microbial fuel cells. Feeding mode (batch feeding in BESs compared to continuous feeding in UASB) and seed sludge to feed ratio could have influenced their behavior and proliferation, and affected competition with other microorganisms present in both systems [5860]. Operational and environmental conditions in anaerobic wastewater treatment systems have been reported to exert selective pressure on the community, therefore, influencing the population structure, diversity, and heterogeneity [6164].

Klebsiella reached 32.4% relative abundance on day 19 in Run I compared to 6.8% on day 15 in Run II. Likewise, it had a relative abundance of 23.6% and 3.6% on days 41 and 36 of Runs I and II, respectively. Klebsiella strains were previously observed in a UASB reactor with glucose as substrate [26]. Enterobacter doubled in abundance between days 19 and 41 during Run I (5.5% and 12.8%, respectively), whereas it was mildly enriched during Run II (2.4% on day 15 and 1.4% on day 36). Species of the genus Enterobacter have been previously found to reduce the start-up time and increase the COD removal in the granular sludge of a UASB reactor treating brewery wastewater [25,65].

The detected members of the Enterobacteriaceae family in the present study were facultative anaerobes. These microorganisms are fermentative and employ analogous metabolic pathways, resulting in the production of acetate, ethanol, and formate [6668]. These three genera showed remarkable combined abundances accounting for 39.2% at day 19 and 37% at day 41 in Run I, likely helping to maintain a stable fermentation rate. It was suggested that Enterobacter and Klebsiella contributed to the consumption of the residual oxygen in an agitated granular sludge bed bioreactor, promoting the growth of the anaerobic Clostridium species that are sensitive to oxygen [6971]. These findings align with those of the current study, where an increase in the relative abundance of both Enterobacteriaceae members in both runs co-occurred with an increase of that of Clostridium sensu stricto.

The phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes contain fermentative bacteria that exhibit a strong hydrolytic capacity, which is particularly evident during the acidogenic phase [72]. Although the seed inoculum in both runs were rich with unclassified Bacteroidetes (18.2% and 36.8% for sludge of Run I and II, respectively), a sharp decreasing trend was observed by the end of both runs (0.3%). In the phylum Bacteroidetes, Macellibacteroides was the most present genus and is known to produce various VFAs from carbohydrates (lactate, acetate, butyrate, and iso-butyrate) [73]. A sharp increase in Macellibacteroides from day 19 to day 41 in the control reactor was observed (from 1.1% to 15.8%). This genus’ abundance was very low in the enriched UASB (1.3-2.3%).

OTUs belonging to the Lactobacillaceae family were the predominant subgroup among Firmicutes. Two lactic acid-producing bacteria, Latilactobacillus and Lactobacillus, increased in abundance compared to the inoculum of the control UASB and were enriched at day 19, but subsequently decreased at day 41. Several studies reported the negative effect of the development of Lactobacillales populations in anaerobic systems on substrate conversion rates, which can lead to reactor failure [7476]. Previous studies have reported the hindrance of hydrogen production by Clostridium strains, which was attributed to the secretion of bacteriocins by lactic acid-producing bacteria [74,77]. An increase in the abundance of Clostridium sensu stricto on day 41 of the control run was concomitant with a decrease in lactic acid-producing bacteria, the latter of which were not detected in the enriched reactor.

The genus Enterococcus was only abundant in the sludge used in Run II. Both genera decreased throughout the enrichment experiment, reaching similar abundances at day 15 (5.5%) and 36 (0.5% and 0.3% for Enterococcus lemanii and Enterococcus mundtii, respectively). The genus Trichococcus was present in significant abundances in seed sludges (Run I and Run II, around 10% relative abundance). A drastic decrease was seen for Trichococcus in the control run (from 9.8% in the seed to 1% on day 19). Although the inoculum contained Trichococcus, it was noted that the dominance of Trichococcus was gradually replaced by Latilactobacillus, both belonging to the same order. The Trichococcus OTU had 100% sequence similarity with Trichococcus flocculiformis, which is a filamentous bacterium first isolated from bulking sludge [78]. However, the introduction of T. flocculiformis to syntrophic co-cultures of Syntrophomonas wolfei and Methanospirillum hungatei resulted in a notable enhancement in volumetric methane production, which was linked to the tendency of T. flocculiformis to aggregate with syntrophic partners [79]. The presence of both Trichococcus (5.5% relative abundance) and Methanospirillum (3.5% relative abundance) at day 15 in the enriched sludge may have enhanced the settleability and methane production rates in the UASB reactor of Run II. A study on sewage sludge-derived hydrochar using glucose as substrate also showed higher methane production that corresponded with Trichococcus and Methanothrix as dominant genera, suggesting a potential role in DIET [80]. The high relative abundances of Methanothrix and Trichococcus during Run II of this work supports these previous observations.

Several members of Chloroflexi are known acetogens, providing acetate to other microorganisms through carbohydrate fermentation [81,82]. This phylum was found in both UASBs (5.4% and 2% highest abundance in Run I and II, respectively). Within Chloroflexi, the Anaerolineaceae family has been commonly identified in UASB systems, specifically [83].

Diversity analyses of microbial populations.

To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the microbial community structure, α-diversity was measured using various indices such as the Sobs, Chao, Shannon, and Simpson (measured as Inverse Simpson) indices and are represented in Table 2.

Table 2 -.

Richness and diversity estimation of microbial communities in samples obtained during BES enrichment and UASB Run I and Run II.

Sample ID Chao Sobs Good’s coverage (%) InvSimpson Shannon
AWE 11740 3366 98 25.7 4.3
ACE 11739 3223 98 13.6 3.7
CWE 11105 2916 98 15.6 3.7
CCE 10019 2745 98 11.7 3.6
Sludge C 9160 3574 97 18.1 4.2
UC19 9846 2800 97 9.0 3.8
UC41 9496 3151 97 9.0 3.4
Sludge E 13762 3287 97 6.5 3.0
UE1 21770 5933 96 25.7 4.9
UE15 13277 3017 96 7.0 3.5
UE36 16514 2816 98 3.6 2.4

The Sobs index measures the observed richness of OTUs. The InvSimpson and Shannon indices provide measures of the diversity and evenness of OTUs [84,85], with higher values indicating higher diversity and evenness. Both the AWE and ACE samples had very similar species richness (Chao index values of 11740 and 11739, respectively). The AWE sample had higher diversity and evenness of microbial species compared to the ACE sample, as indicated by the InvSimpson and Shannon indices (25.7 and 4.3 for AWE and 13.6 and 3.7 for ACE, respectively).

When comparing the AWE, CWE, and CCE samples, the AWE microbial communities exhibited higher species richness, diversity, and evenness as compared to the CWE and CCE samples. When comparing samples from both before and after enrichment from Run II (Sludge E and UE1), results indicate that UE1 had higher richness than Sludge E. The Sobs value for Sludge E was 3287, which was lower than that of UE1 (5933). The latter, therefore, had higher species diversity compared to the Sludge E (InvSimpson 25.7 and 4.9 and Shannon 6.5 and 3, respectively). Sample UE1 had the highest InvSimpson and Shannon indices and, therefore, the highest diversity and evenness of the microbial community among all samples. It also had the highest estimated richness with a Chao index of 21770 [86]. These findings indicate that the enrichment with BES biofilms caused a notable rise in species diversity during the start-up phase of UASB reactors. Species richness, diversity, and evenness dropped gradually after the enrichment, as evidenced by progressively decreasing values of related indices (Sobs, InvSimpson, and Shannon) in samples UE15 and UE36.

Sludge C (from the control run) exhibited the greatest number of observed species, as indicated by its Sobs index of 3574. Similarly, this sample had the highest diversity, species richness, and evenness with relatively high InvSimpson and Shannon indices (18.1 and 4.2, respectively). The microbial richness in the control reactor biomass communities declined notably between the start-up of Run I and day 19 (from 3574 to 2800). This decrease, observed in both runs, may be due to the shift from continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR), where the inoculum sludge was initially developed in, to UASB, which might have resulted in the inhibition of certain species and, concurrently, the proliferation of other species that thrived in the system. The adaptation of the microbial communities to the UASB likely led to a recovery of microbial diversity as indicated by the Sobs and InvSimpson indices on day 41. Overall, changes in the calculated diversity indices and richness values of the samples were in line with the observed variations in the relative abundances of different microbial groups.

EPS content and composition in the raw and UASB sludge.

The EPS content and composition in the seed inoculum and UASB sludges are presented in Table 3. Results showed that the enriched UASB Run II samples had higher amounts of EPS with higher concentrations of both PN and PS compared to the seed Sludge C and control UASB Run I samples.

Table 3 -.

Content composition of EPS in the inoculum sludge and UASB granular sludge.

EPS composition (μg/μg DNA)
Control UASB Run I Enriched UASB Run II

Content Sludge C UC19 UC57 Sludge E UE 15 UE 32
PN 15.1 56.8 41.5 1 495 633.9
PS 20.9 103.3 89.3 2.4 51.5 790.5
Total EPS 35.9 160.1 130.8 3.4 546.5 1424.4
PN/PS 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 9.6 0.8

Key: PN: protein, PS: polysaccharide, PN/PS: protein to polysaccharide ratio

Polysaccharides were the dominant component of EPS during Run I causing a decrease in the PN/PS ratio. Conversely, on day 15 of Run II, the PN/PS ratio increased (9.6) compared to the seed Sludge E (0.4), indicating a shift in the composition of EPS towards more protein-like substances. The increase in protein content in these tightly bound extracted EPS was reported to reflect the development of stable granular sludge as a transition from flocs to granules [87,88]. Additionally, a higher PN/PS ratio was previously linked to higher hydrophobicity, which is favorable for EPS stickiness and sludge granulation [89,90]. At day 32 of Run II, a substantial increase in both PN (633.86 μg/μg DNA) and PS (790.53 μg/μg DNA) content was observed. Interestingly, proteins have been considered as redox mediators that shuttle electrons to acceptors or from donors by extracellular electron transfer (EET), probably playing a significant role in enhancing methanogenesis [9195].

Microscopic analysis of UASB granule morphology.

Imaging analysis was performed on the granular sludge in the UASB bed using a microscope lens (Figure S5). The size of the granules ranged between approximately 0.5 mm and 2 mm. Previous studies have reported variable sizes of sludge granules operated in UASBs operating under different conditions, with sizes ranging from 0.2 mm to 5 mm [4,6,96]. Variability in granular sizes could be attributed to environmental and operational conditions rather than performance reasons. These conditions are directly correlated to the hydrodynamics within the UASB system and are affected by physical parameters such as upflow velocities and shear stress caused by influent flow, which can help determine agglomerate sizes to suit the applied conditions [19,97].

Correlation between the microbial community and reactors’ performance.

Spearman correlation analysis revealed strong associations (borderline significance due to the small sample size) between key microbial taxa and reactor performance parameters on days 19 and 41 of Run I, and on days 15 and 36 of Run II (ρ ≥ ±0.95, p = 0.051). Notably, both Citrobacter freundii and Citrobacter europaeus exhibited strong positive correlations with VSS removal, which aligns with their dominance in Run II (44.8–64.2% relative abundance on days 15–36, Figure 4) and might have contributed to rapid sludge stabilization as evidenced by the high VSS removal achieved (≥95%, Figure S4). In contrast, their low abundance in Run I (<1.1%, Figure 4) corresponded with delayed sludge stabilization (Figure S4). Both Citrobacter species were also associated with protein production in the EPS matrix, which could play a key role in the development of stable granular sludge. Additionally, Citrobacter spp. have been demonstrated to facilitate extracellular electron transfer through membrane-associated proteins (possibly c-type cytochromes) [98]. This suggests that Citrobacter spp. may have contributed to sludge stabilization by enhancing electron transfer in Run II. Conversely, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterobacter mori exhibited strong negative correlations with VSS removal, which is consistent with their low abundance in Run II compared to Run I (17 days to stabilize).

Latilactobacillus graminis and Lactobacillus delbrueckii, which were abundant in Run I but absent in Run II (Figure S4), correlated negatively with methane yield. The low methane yields observed on days 19 and 41 in Run I (Figure 1) illustrate their potential negative impact. High abundances of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) such as these have been previously shown to suppress hydrogen production and contribute to reactor failure [99,100]. It should be noted that some other studies on UASB systems have shown a positive association between LAB, hydrogen-producing bacteria, and acetoclastic methanogens, which resulted in higher methane production [101,102]. Thus, the impact of LAB on UASB performance still requires further investigation. Unclassified Anaerolineaceae also had negative associations with COD removal and methane production, as indicated by its higher abundance in Run I and its reduced abundance in Run II. Conversely, methane content was strongly associated with Macellibacteroides fermentans, which increased in Run I (from 1.1% on day 19 to 15.8% on day 41, Figure 4). This increase correlated with a rise in methane content in biogas (from 48% to 77% by day 41, Figure S1).

Discussion

The goal of this research was to reduce the start-up time of UASB reactors through the addition of electroactive biofilm enriched in BES systems. All indicators suggested an improved start-up and performance in Run II as compared to Run I. Daily methane production in Run II was higher than Run I. Methane composition of the produced biogas in Run II reached a stable level in a shorter time frame than in Run I. Stable methane yield with respect to the amount of added COD was achieved in Run II (200 mL/g-CODadded) in 19 days less (around 65% time reduction) compared to Run I. Moreover, sludge ceased to be detected in the effluent of Run II in a much shorter time frame than in Run I, indicating the development of well-adapted and settleable sludge. The high SVI values in Run I sludge indicated poor settleability, therefore, a flocculant sludge, whereas the sludge in Run II was characterized as granular, having low SVI values and good settleability. A difference in the physical structure of both sludges was observed, with granular sludge being more compact and stable than flocculant sludge.

Even though the microbial communities shared similar genera in both runs, their relative abundance was significantly different (p-values < 0.05). A substantial change in the archaeal community structure was observed in Run II as compared to Run I. Methanothrix comprised the majority of methanogens in the control UASB sludge, but their proportion decreased in the enriched reactor with the increase of the relative abundance of various genera including Methanosarcina, Methanobacterium, Methanospirillum, Methanomassiliicoccus, Methanoculleus, and Methanoregula. The greater diversity of methanogens may have pointed out the need for metabolically versatile methanogens to obtain high methane production rates through hydrogenotrophic, acetoclastic, and methylotrophic pathways as well as to speed up the sludge granulation process [13,18,103].

Similarly, the investigation of the bacterial taxa showed a significant difference between the control and enriched runs, particularly within the phylum Proteobacteria. Notably, members of the genus Citrobacter thrived in the biofilm-enriched reactor, becoming the most abundant among all microorganisms, while having a lower abundance in the control run despite being present in the seed sludge. Past studies reported on electroactive bacterial enrichment in coupled bioelectrochemical-UASB reactors and their impact on improving the reactor’s performance [104,105].

Contrary to what was anticipated, Clostridium sensu stricto, which was expected to be abundant after biofilm enrichment, was relatively low during Run II. They increased throughout both runs, possibly due to their ability to form spores in order to survive and recover [106,107]. It is worth mentioning that Enterobacter and Klebsiella may have contributed to this rebound [70,71].

The EPS values were greater in Run II compared to those in Run I, which was likely due to the addition of the EPS-rich electrochemically grown biofilms in Run II [108]. The higher EPS values and PN/PS ratios may have accelerated the formation of EPS-mediated granules in Run II. EPS form a matrix that enmeshes the microbial cells, thus mediating interaction [109,110]. Polymer additives have been reported to accelerate the aggregation of sludge [23,111]. However, a very few studies focused on the bacterial production of EPS to accelerate the granulation of sludge in UASB reactors [112]. Moreover, some studies have reported on the role of EPS in microbial EET within electroactive biofilms. The composition of EPS, particularly higher protein content, is advantageous for driving EET in anaerobic granular sludge [113116] and anodic biofilms [117]. This positive impact is due to certain functional carboxylic groups present in hydrophobic proteins that contribute to the negative charge of the sludge [118]. Proper supplementation of protein in the influent substrate can provide the needed components for synthesizing EPS, successful granular formation, and enhancement of microbial interaction [12,111].

The shaping of anaerobic microbiomes depends largely on feedstock type (livestock manure, food wastes, municipal solid wastes, industrial wastewater, etc.) and composition in terms of carbohydrates and proteins [119,120]. Furthermore, selecting the appropriate inoculum in anaerobic digesters has been shown to be essential in affecting the microbial structure and enhancing process performance and robustness [121124]. The greater community diversity in the BES also may have accelerated the faster development of the syntrophic communities in Run II. A complex feed, such as the one used in our study, is reported to require a more diverse microbial community to ensure rapid granulation by key methanogens and syntrophic organisms [3,103,111]. A high microbial diversity in anaerobic digesters ensures the process’ resilience and efficacy [125]. Thus, the fast development of a diverse community in the BES and its use as an inoculum may have aided in the accelerated start-up of Run II, possibly through supplementation with symbiotic microorganisms that facilitated substrate consumption and intragranular substrate diffusion between the different species [3,126]. However, some of the exoelectroactive microorganisms identified from the BES systems were not present or did not thrive in Run II. Various factors, such as operational conditions and metabolic versatility in the sludge, could have played a role in the adaptation of these microbes to different environments [127,128].

Through the results of this work, it appeared that the growth of a diverse syntrophic electrochemically enriched biofilm in the BES and its use as an inoculant directly aided in the accelerated start-up of the UASB reactor in Run II. Similarities in the microbial community composition include the presence of genera such as, Klebsiella, Clostridium, Enterobacter, and Methanothrix, which were consistently observed in both runs, however a higher microbial diversity was seen in Run I compared to Run II where an increased abundance of specific taxa like Citrobacter spp. was noted. The communities in Run II were able to form viable granules faster. The EPS content and composition in the enriched run may have positively influenced aggregation and led to increased efficiency of anaerobic treatment and biogas production.

The biofilm-enriched sludge used in Run II reduced the formation time of granular syntrophic microbial communities from the flocculent sludge compared to Run I, which had direct implications on digestion performance. This was likely aided by the microbial community structure’s significant divergence between Run I and Run II. In Run I, facultative anaerobes (Klebsiella and Enterobacter) and lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillales) dominated during the first 15 days of the experiment (Figure 4), possibly contributing to decreased digestion efficiency as evidenced by the relatively low methane yields (Figure 1). However, the increase in the abundance of the fermentative-acetogenic bacterium Macellibacteroides fermentans correlated with an increased methane yield by day 41 (Figure 1) [129]. Conversely, biofilm enrichment in Run II promoted the selection of taxa such as Citrobacter spp., which likely facilitated granulation through secretion of protein-rich EPS. It is noteworthy that secreted proteins can also support potential extracellular electron transfer and function as electron shuttles [59,60,98]. Further, a probable syntrophic relationship between Trichococcus and Methanospirillum may have improved both sludge settleability and methane yield [79]. These findings demonstrate that the enrichment of biofilms influenced microbial structure within the UASB reactor by proliferation of functional syntrophic microbes. The resulting synergistic consortia likely supported the reduced startup time and enhanced performance through improved granule stabilization and substrate degradation.

Conclusion

This study’s results indicated that the start-up of a UASB reactor could be accelerated via addition of enriched electro-active biofilms collected from the working and counter electrodes of anodic and cathodic bio-electrochemical reactors. The enriched UASB reactor (Run II) reached 80% COD removal after 13 days compared to 23 days in the control reactor (Run I). Moreover, sludge washout was not detected in the effluent of Run II after 3 days of operation, whereas Run I required 17 days to reach 70% VSS removal rates. The daily methane production in Run II exceeded that of Run I, achieving production rates of 200 mL-CH4/g-COD within just 10 days, compared to 29 days in Run I, indicating a 65%-time reduction to achieve this value. Similarly, the methane content of the produced biogas in Run II stabilized at approximately 70% after 15 days, while Run I required over 34 days to reach 60% methane content.

The enriched biofilm UASB (Run II) in our study had greater EPS values, PN/PS ratios, and greater microbial diversity. In Run I, a longer time was needed for a flocculent sludge consortium to form the syntrophic granular community for efficient digestion of the complex feed. Conversely, the supplementation of the inoculant with EPS-rich biofilm from the electrodes had accelerated the formation of viable granules and therefore decreased start-up time. Even though the microbial communities shared similar genera in both runs, viable granules formed faster in the enriched run. The method developed in this study could be used to mitigate slow UASB start-up which is hindered by the slow growth of syntrophic methanogenic and hydrolytic microbial communities that form the granules, especially when treating complex wastewaters. Future studies may focus on delineating specific signatures of microbial activity associated with various species and digestion pathways, along with optimizing the protocol for varied operational conditions and feed streams.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights:

  • The addition of electrochemically-grown biofilm accelerated UASB reactor start-up.

  • Enriched biofilm enhanced granule formation and anaerobic treatment efficiency.

  • COD removal, microbial diversity, and biogas production improved with biofilm enrichment.

  • Enterobacteriaceae family was the most abundant in both reactors.

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number T32GM152310, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Biotechnology Training Program under award number T32GM8336. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. 2235552. This article is also derived from the Subject Data funded in whole or part by NAS and USAID under the USAID Prime Award Number AID-OAA-A-11-00012, and any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or NAS. Beyenal acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation USA with award #1706889. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Author Agreement Statement

We the undersigned declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process. He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs.

Data Availability

The sequences obtained in this study were deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under the BioProject accession number PRJNA924133 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=PRJNA924133

References

  • 1.Von Sperling M; Chernicharo C.A.d.L. Biological wastewater treatment in warm climate regions; IWA publishing: London, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Van Lier J; Van der Zee F; Frijters C; Ersahin M Celebrating 40 years anaerobic sludge bed reactors for industrial wastewater treatment. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 2015, 14, 681–702. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Abbasi T; Abbasi S Renewable energy sources: their impact on global warming and pollution; PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.: 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Del Nery V; Pozzi E; Damianovic MHRZ; Domingues MR; Zaiat M Granules characteristics in the vertical profile of a full-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. Bioresource Technology 2008, 99, 2018–2024, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dutta A; Davies C; Ikumi DS Performance of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor and other anaerobic reactor configurations for wastewater treatment: a comparative review and critical updates. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua 2018, 67, 858–884, doi: 10.2166/aqua.2018.090. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Singh KS; Viraraghavan T Start-up and operation of UASB reactors at 20 C for municipal wastewater treatment. Journal of fermentation and Bioengineering 1998, 85, 609–614. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chen G-H; van Loosdrecht MC; Ekama GA; Brdjanovic D Biological wastewater treatment: principles, modeling and design; IWA publishing: 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chong S; Sen TK; Kayaalp A; Ang HM The performance enhancements of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge treatment–a state-of-the-art review. Water Research 2012, 46, 3434–3470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alzate-Gaviria LM; Sebastian PJ; Pérez-Hernández A; Eapen D Comparison of two anaerobic systems for hydrogen production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and synthetic wastewater. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 3141–3146, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.02.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vadlani PV; Ramachandran KB Evaluation of UASB reactor performance during start-up operation using synthetic mixed-acid waste. Bioresource Technology 2008, 99, 8231–8236, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wu J; Jiang B; Kong Z; Yang C; Li L; Feng B; Luo Z; Xu K-Q; Kobayashi T; Li Y-Y Improved stability of up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating starch wastewater by pre-acidification: Impact on microbial community and metabolic dynamics. Bioresource Technology 2021, 326, 124781, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gagliano MC; Sudmalis D; Pei R; Temmink H; Plugge CM Microbial Community Drivers in Anaerobic Granulation at High Salinity. Front. Microbiol 2020, 11, 235, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Keyser M; Witthuhn RC; Lamprecht C; Coetzee MPA; Britz TJ PCR-based DGGE fingerprinting and identification of methanogens detected in three different types of UASB granules. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 2006, 29, 77–84, doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2005.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schmidt JE; Ahring BK Granular sludge formation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 2000, 49, 229–246, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19960205)49:3<229::AID-BIT1>3.0.CO;2-M. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Subramanyam R; Mishra IM Characteristics of methanogenic granules grown on glucose in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biosystems Engineering 2013, 114, 113–123, doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.11.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mu Y; Yu H-Q; Wang Y The role of pH in the fermentative H2 production from an acidogenic granule-based reactor. Chemosphere 2006, 64, 350–358, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhang Y; Guo B; Zhang L; Zhang H; Liu Y Microbial community dynamics in granular activated carbon enhanced up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) treating municipal sewage under sulfate reducing and psychrophilic conditions. Chemical Engineering Journal 2021, 405, 126957, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.126957. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Li L; Zheng M; Ma H; Gong S; Ai G; Liu X; Li J; Wang K; Dong X Significant performance enhancement of a UASB reactor by using acyl homoserine lactones to facilitate the long filaments of Methanosaeta harundinacea 6Ac. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 2015, 99, 6471–6480, doi: 10.1007/s00253-015-6478-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu Y; Xu H-L; Yang S-F; Tay J-H Mechanisms and models for anaerobic granulation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Water Research 2003, 37, 661–673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sondhi A; Guha S; Harendranath C; Singh A Effect of Aluminum (Al3+) on ranulation in Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Treating Low-Strength Synthetic Wastewater. Water Environment Research 2010, 82, 715–724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yu H; Fang HH; Tay J Effects of Fe2+ on sludge granulation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Water Science and Technology 2000, 41, 199–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schmidt JE; Ahring BK Granular sludge formation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Biotechnology and bioengineering 1996, 49, 229–246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cayetano RDA; Kim G-B; Park J; Yang Y-H; Jeon B-H; Jang M; Kim S-H Biofilm formation as a method of improved treatment during anaerobic digestion of organic matter for biogas recovery. Bioresource technology 2022, 344, 126309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martău GA; Mihai M; Vodnar DC The use of chitosan, alginate, and pectin in the biomedical and food sector—biocompatibility, bioadhesiveness, and biodegradability. Polymers 2019, 11, 1837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Keyser M; Witthuhn RC; Ronquest LC; Britz TJ Treatment of winery effluent with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) – granular sludges enriched with Enterobacter sakazakii. Biotechnology Letters 2003, 25, 1893–1898, doi: 10.1023/B:BILE.0000003978.72266.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yu Z; Leng X; Zhao S; Ji J; Zhou T; Khan A; Kakde A; Liu P; Li X A review on the applications of microbial electrolysis cells in anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology 2018, 255, 340–348, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dange P; Pandit S; Jadhav D; Shanmugam P; Gupta PK; Kumar S; Kumar M; Yang Y-H; Bhatia SK Recent Developments in Microbial Electrolysis Cell-Based Biohydrogen Production Utilizing Wastewater as a Feedstock. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8796, doi: 10.3390/su13168796. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Baek G; Kim K-Y; Logan BE Impact of surface area and current generation of microbial electrolysis cell electrodes inserted into anaerobic digesters. Chemical Engineering Journal 2021, 426, 131281, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.131281. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Badwal SPS; Giddey SS; Munnings C; Bhatt AI; Hollenkamp AF Emerging electrochemical energy conversion and storage technologies. Front. Chem 2014, 2, doi: 10.3389/fchem.2014.00079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fudge T; Bulmer I; Bowman K; Pathmakanthan S; Gambier W; Dehouche Z; Al-Salem SM; Constantinou A Microbial Electrolysis Cells for Decentralised Wastewater Treatment: The Next Steps. Water 2021, 13, 445, doi: 10.3390/w13040445. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.He A-Y; Yin C-Y; Xu H; Kong X-P; Xue J-W; Zhu J; Jiang M; Wu H Enhanced butanol production in a microbial electrolysis cell by Clostridium beijerinckii IB4. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2016, 39, 245–254, doi: 10.1007/s00449-015-1508-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.He C; Zhang B; Jiang Y; Liu H; Zhao H-P Microbial electrolysis cell produced biogas as sustainable electron donor for microbial chromate reduction. Chemical Engineering Journal 2021, 403, 126429, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.126429. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Morita M; Malvankar NS; Franks AE; Summers ZM; Giloteaux L; Rotaru AE; Rotaru C; Lovley DR Potential for Direct Interspecies Electron Transfer in Methanogenic Wastewater Digester Aggregates. mBio 2011, 2, e00159–00111, doi: 10.1128/mBio.00159-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shrestha PM; Rotaru A-E Plugging in or going wireless: strategies for interspecies electron transfer. Front. Microbiol 2014, 5, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kiely PD; Cusick R; Call DF; Selembo PA; Regan JM; Logan BE Anode microbial communities produced by changing from microbial fuel cell to microbial electrolysis cell operation using two different wastewaters. Bioresource Technology 2011, 102, 388–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yang Y; Xu M; Guo J; Sun G Bacterial extracellular electron transfer in bioelectrochemical systems. Process Biochemistry 2012, 47, 1707–1714, doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2012.07.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wu C; Cheng Y-Y; Li B-B; Li W-W; Li D-B; Yu H-Q Electron acceptor dependence of electron shuttle secretion and extracellular electron transfer by Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Bioresource Technology 2013, 136, 711–714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lovley DR; Holmes DE Electromicrobiology: the ecophysiology of phylogenetically diverse electroactive microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol 2022, 20, 5–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Koch C; Harnisch F Is there a specific ecological niche for electroactive microorganisms? ChemElectroChem 2016, 3, 1282–1295. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Liu T; Ou H; Su K; Hu Z; He C; Wang W Promoting direct interspecies electron transfer and acetoclastic methanogenesis for enhancing anaerobic digestion of butanol octanol wastewater by coupling granular activated carbon and exogenous hydrogen. Bioresource Technology 2021, 337, 125417, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lovley DR Happy together: microbial communities that hook up to swap electrons. ISME J 2017, 11, 327–336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zheng S; Liu F; Wang B; Zhang Y; Lovley DR Methanobacterium capable of direct interspecies electron transfer. Environ. Sci. Technol 2020, 54, 15347–15354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Blasco-Gómez R; Batlle-Vilanova P; Villano M; Balaguer M; Colprim J; Puig S On the Edge of Research and Technological Application: A Critical Review of Electromethanogenesis. IJMS 2017, 18, 874, doi: 10.3390/ijms18040874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen H; Gao X; Wang C; Shao J; Xu X; Zhu L Efficient 2,4-dichloronitrobenzene removal in the coupled BES-UASB reactor: Effect of external voltage mode. Bioresource Technology 2017, 241, 879–886, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Yang G; Wang J; Zhang H; Jia H; Zhang Y; Gao F Applying bio-electric field of microbial fuel cell-upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor catalyzed blast furnace dusting ash for promoting anaerobic digestion. Water Research 2019, 149, 215–224, doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhen G; Lu X; Kobayashi T; Su L; Kumar G; Bakonyi P; He Y; Sivagurunathan P; Nemestóthy N; Xu K; et al. Continuous micro-current stimulation to upgrade methanolic wastewater biodegradation and biomethane recovery in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Chemosphere 2017, 180, 229–238, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang Y; Guo B; Zhang L; Liu Y Key syntrophic partnerships identified in a granular activated carbon amended UASB treating municipal sewage under low temperature conditions. Bioresource Technology 2020, 312, 123556, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Renslow RS; Babauta JT; Dohnalkova AC; Boyanov MI; Kemner KM; Majors PD; Fredrickson JK; Beyenal H Metabolic spatial variability in electrode-respiring Geobacter sulfurreducens biofilms. Energy Environ. Sci 2013, 6, 1827, doi: 10.1039/c3ee40203g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zhu X; Yates MD; Hatzell MC; Ananda Rao H; Saikaly PE; Logan BE Microbial Community Composition Is Unaffected by Anode Potential. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48, 1352–1358, doi: 10.1021/es404690q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li S; He K; Gao N; Nan J Characteristic Analysis on Temporal Evolution of Granulation in a Modified Anaerobic Digestion System. Applied Sciences 2022, 12, 12127. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ghangrekar MM; Asolekar SR; Ranganathan KR; Joshi SG Experience with UASB reactor start-up under different operating conditions. Water Science and Technology 1996, 34, 421–428. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lettinga G; van Velsen AFM; Hobma SW; de Zeeuw W; Klapwijk A Use of the upflow sludge blanket (USB) reactor concept for biological wastewater treatment, especially for anaerobic treatment. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 1980, 22, 699–734, doi: 10.1002/bit.260220402. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Huser BA; Wuhrmann K; Zehnder AJ Methanothrix soehngenii gen. nov. sp. nov., a new acetotrophic non-hydrogen-oxidizing methane bacterium. Arch. Microbiol 1982, 132, 1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Huang JP; Liu LL; Shao YM; Song HJ; Wu LC; Xiao L Study on Cultivation and Morphology of Granular Sludge in Improved Methanogenic UASB. AMM; 2012, 209-211, 1152–1157, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.209-211.1152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Touzel JP; Prensier G; Roustan JL; Thomas I, Dubourguier H,; Albagnac, G. Description of a new strain of Methanothrix soehngenii and rejection of Methanothrix concilii as a synonym of Methanothrix soehngenii. International journal of systematic bacteriology 1988, 38, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cadillo-Quiroz H; Bräuer S; Goodson N; Yavitt J; Zinder S Methanobacterium paludis sp nov and a novel strain of Methanobacterium lacus isolated from northern peatlands. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 2014, 64, doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.059964-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Parshina SN; Ermakova AV; Bomberg M; Detkova EN Methanospirillum stamsii sp. nov., a psychrotolerant, hydrogenotrophic, methanogenic archaeon isolated from an anaerobic expanded granular sludge bed bioreactor operated at low temperature. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 2014, 64, 180–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Jimenez Pacheco HG; Portocarrero Banda AA; Vilca Cayllahua EI; Miranda Ramos LM; Alvarez Tohalino VL; Del Carpio Beltran HJ; Delgado Sarmiento PK New Electrogenic Microorganism Citrobacter sp. Isolated from Microbial Fuel Cell and Bacterial Characteristics Determination. Energies 2023, 16, 3047. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Huang J; Zhu N; Cao Y; Peng Y; Wu P; Dong W Exoelectrogenic bacterium phylogenetically related to Citrobacter freundii, isolated from anodic biofilm of a microbial fuel cell. Applied biochemistry and biotechnology 2015, 175, 1879–1891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zheng W; Cai T; Huang M; Chen D Comparison of electrochemical performances and microbial community structures of two photosynthetic microbial fuel cells. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2017, 124, 551–558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Koskinen PE; Kaksonen AH; Puhakka JA The relationship between instability of H2 production and compositions of bacterial communities within a dark fermentation fluidised-bed bioreactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng 2007, 97, 742–758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kim W; Hwang K; Shin SG; Lee S; Hwang S Effect of high temperature on bacterial community dynamics in anaerobic acidogenesis using mesophilic sludge inoculum. Bioresource Technology 2010, 101, S17–S22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Vasconcelos E; Leitão R; Santaella S Factors that affect bacterial ecology in hydrogen-producing anaerobic reactors. Bioenergy Research 2016, 9, 1260–1271. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Won S; Lau A Effects of key operational parameters on biohydrogen production via anaerobic fermentation in a sequencing batch reactor. Bioresource Technology 2011, 102, 6876–6883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Maintinguer SI; Lazaro CZ; Pachiega R; Varesche MBA; Sequinel R; de Oliveira JE Hydrogen bioproduction with Enterobacter sp. isolated from brewery wastewater. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 152–160, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Zhu B; Lou M-M; Xie G-L; Wang G-F; Zhou Q; Wang F; Fang Y; Su T; Li B; Duan Y-P Enterobacter mori sp. nov., associated with bacterial wilt on Morus alba L. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 2011, 61, 2769–2774, doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.028613-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Rodrigues C; Passet V; Rakotondrasoa A; Diallo TA; Criscuolo A; Brisse S Description of Klebsiella africanensis sp. nov., Klebsiella variicola subsp. tropicalensis subsp. nov. and Klebsiella variicola subsp. variicola subsp. nov. Res Microbiol 2019, 170, 165–170, doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2019.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Merla C; Rodrigues C; Passet V; Corbella M; Thorpe HA; Kallonen TVS; Zong Z; Marone P; Bandi C; Sassera D; et al. Description of Klebsiella spallanzanii sp. nov. and of Klebsiella pasteurii sp. nov. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2360, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hung C-H; Lee K-S; Cheng L-H; Huang Y-H; Lin P-J; Chang J-S Quantitative analysis of a high-rate hydrogen-producing microbial community in anaerobic agitated granular sludge bed bioreactors using glucose as substrate. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 2007, 75, 693–701, doi: 10.1007/s00253-007-0854-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hung C-H; Cheng C-H; Guan D-W; Wang S-T; Hsu S-C; Liang C-M; Lin C-Y Interactions between Clostridium sp. and other facultative anaerobes in a self-formed granular sludge hydrogen-producing bioreactor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 8704–8711, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.06.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Paillet F; Marone A; Moscoviz R; Steyer J-P; Tapia-Venegas E; Bernet N; Trably E Improvement of biohydrogen production from glycerol in micro-oxidative environment. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 17802–17812, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Amin FR; Khalid H; El-Mashad HM; Chen C; Liu G; Zhang R Functions of bacteria and archaea participating in the bioconversion of organic waste for methane production. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 763, 143007, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Jabari L; Gannoun H; Cayol J-L; Hedi A; Sakamoto M; Falsen E; Ohkuma M; Hamdi M; Fauque G; Ollivier B Macellibacteroides fermentans gen. nov., sp. nov., a member of the family Porphyromonadaceae isolated from an upflow anaerobic filter treating abattoir wastewaters. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 2012, 62, 2522–2527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Noike T. Inhibition of hydrogen fermentation of organic wastes by lactic acid bacteria. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2002, 27, 1367–1371, doi: 10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00120-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Ghimire A; Trably E; Frunzo L; Pirozzi F; Lens PN; Esposito G; Cazier EA; Escudié R Effect of total solids content on biohydrogen production and lactic acid accumulation during dark fermentation of organic waste biomass. Bioresource Technology 2018, 248, 180–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Sani K; Kongjan P; Pakhathirathien C; Cheirsilp B; Sompong O; Raketh M; Kana R; Jariyaboon R Effectiveness of using two-stage anaerobic digestion to recover bio-energy from high strength palm oil mill effluents with simultaneous treatment. Journal of Water process engineering 2021, 39, 101661. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.O’Sullivan L; Ross RP; Hill C Potential of bacteriocin-producing lactic acid bacteria for improvements in food safety and quality. Biochimie 2002, 84, 593–604, doi: 10.1016/S0300-9084(02)01457-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Scheff G; Salcher O; Lingens F Trichococcus flocculiformis gen. nov. sp. nov. A new gram-positive filamentous bacterium isolated from bulking sludge. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 1984, 19, 114–119, doi: 10.1007/BF00302451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Doloman A; Boeren S; Miller CD; Sousa DZ Stimulating Effect of Trichococcus flocculiformis on a Coculture of Syntrophomonas wolfei and Methanospirillum hungatei. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2022, 88, e00391–00322, doi: 10.1128/aem.00391-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wainaina S; Awasthi MK; Sarsaiya S; Chen H; Singh E; Kumar A; Ravindran B; Awasthi SK; Liu T; Duan Y; et al. Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies. Bioresource Technology 2020, 301, 122778, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Xia Y; Wang Y; Wang Y; Chin FYL; Zhang T Cellular adhesiveness and cellulolytic capacity in Anaerolineae revealed by omics-based genome interpretation. Biotechnology for Biofuels 2016, 9, 111, doi: 10.1186/s13068-016-0524-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Gaio J; Lora NL; Iltchenco J; Magrini FE; Paesi S Seasonal characterization of the prokaryotic microbiota of full-scale anaerobic UASB reactors treating domestic sewage in southern Brazil. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2023, 46, 69–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Yamada T; Sekiguchi Y Cultivation of Uncultured Chloroflexi Subphyla: Significance and Ecophysiology of Formerly Uncultured Chloroflexi ‘Subphylum I’ with Natural and Biotechnological Relevance. Microb. Environ. 2009, 24, 205–216, doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME09151S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Simpson EH Measurement of diversity. nature 1949, 163, 688–688. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Shannon CE A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Chao A; Chazdon RL; Colwell RK; Shen TJ A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecology letters 2005, 8, 148–159. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Kim J; Choi H; Lee C Formation and characterization of conductive magnetite-embedded granules in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating dairy wastewater. Bioresource technology 2022, 345, 126492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Liu X; Liu J; Deng D; Li R; Guo C; Ma J; Chen M Investigation of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) in four types of sludge: Factors influencing EPS properties and sludge granulation. Journal of Water Process Engineering 2021, 40, 101924. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Wang W; Yan Y; Zhao Y; Shi Q; Wang Y Characterization of stratified EPS and their role in the initial adhesion of anammox consortia. Water research 2020, 169, 115223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Santschi PH; Chin W-C; Quigg A; Xu C; Kamalanathan M; Lin P; Shiu R-F Marine gel interactions with hydrophilic and hydrophobic pollutants. Gels 2021, 7, 83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Xiao Y; Zhang E; Zhang J; Dai Y; Yang Z; Christensen HE; Ulstrup J; Zhao F Extracellular polymeric substances are transient media for microbial extracellular electron transfer. Science advances 2017, 3, e1700623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tan B; Zhou S; Wang Y; Zhang B; Zhou L; Yuan Y Molecular insight into electron transfer properties of extracellular polymeric substances of electroactive bacteria by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Science China Technological Sciences 2019, 62, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Zakaria BS; Dhar BR Characterization and significance of extracellular polymeric substances, reactive oxygen species, and extracellular electron transfer in methanogenic biocathode. Sci Rep 2021, 11, 7933, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-87118-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Borole AP; Reguera G; Ringeisen B; Wang Z-W; Feng Y; Kim BH Electroactive biofilms: current status and future research needs. Energy & Environmental Science 2011, 4, 4813–4834. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Yang C; Feng C; Chen N; Deng Y; Hu W; Xue L Development of a novel palm fiber biofilm electrode reactor (PBER) for nitrate-contaminated wastewater treatment: performance and mechanism. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2020, 6, 839–850. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Hulshoff Pol LW; de Zeeuw WJ; Velzeboer CTM; Lettinga G Granulation in UASB-Reactors. Water Science and Technology 1983, 15, 291–304, doi: 10.2166/wst.1983.0172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Liu Y; Tay J-H The essential role of hydrodynamic shear force in the formation of biofilm and granular sludge. Water research 2002, 36, 1653–1665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Xu S; Liu H New exoelectrogen Citrobacter sp. SX-1 isolated from a microbial fuel cell. Journal of applied microbiology 2011, 111, 1108–1115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Cardeña R; Buitrón G; Valdez-Vazquez I; Contreras M Biohydrogen production from cheese whey in UASB and packed bed reactors: Impact of microbial interactions on productivity. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2025. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Correa-Villa C; Moreno-Cárdenas E; de Bruijn J Presence of lactic acid bacteria in hydrogen production by dark fermentation: competition or synergy. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 2024, 40, 1–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Yun J; Lee SD; Cho K-S Biomethane production and microbial community response according to influent concentration of molasses wastewater in a UASB reactor. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 2016, 100, 4675–4683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Kim TG; Yun J; Cho K-S The close relation between Lactococcus and Methanosaeta is a keystone for stable methane production from molasses wastewater in a UASB reactor. Applied microbiology and biotechnology 2015, 99, 8271–8283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Nnaji CC A review of the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Desalination and Water Treatment 2014, 52, 4122–4143, doi: 10.1080/19443994.2013.800809. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Feng Q; Song Y-C; Yoo K; Kuppanan N; Subudhi S; Lal B Influence of neutralization in acidic distillery wastewater on direct interspecies electron transfer for methane production in an upflow anaerobic bioelectrochemical reactor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 27774–27783, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.228. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Jiang X; Shen J; Han Y; Lou S; Han W; Sun X; Li J; Mu Y; Wang L Efficient nitro reduction and dechlorination of 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene through the integration of bioelectrochemical system into upflow anaerobic sludge blanket: A comprehensive study. Water Research 2016, 88, 257–265, doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Al-Hinai MA; Jones SW; Papoutsakis ET The Clostridium sporulation programs: diversity and preservation of endospore differentiation. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 2015, 79, 19–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Allison SD; Martiny JB Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105, 11512–11519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Greige S; Abdallah M; Webster CF; Beyenal H; Harb M; Wazne M Microbial community analysis of the biofilms of both working and counter electrodes in single-chamber microbial electrolysis cells. Manuscript submitted for publication (EMT). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Sheng G-P; Yu H-Q; Li X-Y Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) of microbial aggregates in biological wastewater treatment systems: a review. Biotechnology advances 2010, 28, 882–894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Ding Z; Bourven I; Guibaud G; van Hullebusch ED; Panico A; Pirozzi F; Esposito G Role of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) production in bioaggregation: application to wastewater treatment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015, 99, 9883–9905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Tiwari MK; Guha S; Harendranath C; Tripathi S Influence of extrinsic factors on granulation in UASB reactor. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2006, 71, 145–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Zhou W; Imai T; Ukita M; Li F; Yuasa A Effect of loading rate on the granulation process and granular activity in a bench scale UASB reactor. Bioresource technology 2007, 98, 1386–1392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Liu Y; Li Z; Zhang Y; Burns K; Zhao N Extracellular electron transfer in electroactive anaerobic granular sludge mediated by the phenothiazine derivative. Journal of Power Sources 2022, 527, 231212. [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Li B; Sun J-D; Tang C; Zhou J; Wu X-Y; Jia H-H; Wei P; Zhang Y-F; Yong X-Y Coordinated response of Au-NPs/rGO modified electroactive biofilms under phenolic compounds shock: comprehensive analysis from architecture, composition, and activity. Water Research 2021, 189, 116589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Dubé C-D; Guiot SR Characterization of the protein fraction of the extracellular polymeric substances of three anaerobic granular sludges. AMB Expr 2019, 9, 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Zhu L; Zhou J; Lv M; Yu H; Zhao H; Xu X Specific component comparison of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) in flocs and granular sludge using EEM and SDS-PAGE. Chemosphere 2015, 121, 26–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Yang G; Huang L; Yu Z; Liu X; Chen S; Zeng J; Zhou S; Zhuang L Anode potentials regulate Geobacter biofilms: new insights from the composition and spatial structure of extracellular polymeric substances. Water Research 2019, 159, 294–301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Dignac M-F; Urbain V; Rybacki D; Bruchet A; Snidaro D; Scribe P Chemical description of extracellular polymers: implication on activated sludge floc structure. Water Science and Technology 1998, 38, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Harirchi S; Wainaina S; Sar T; Nojoumi SA; Parchami M; Parchami M; Varjani S; Khanal SK; Wong J; Awasthi MK Microbiological insights into anaerobic digestion for biogas, hydrogen or volatile fatty acids (VFAs): a review. Bioengineered 2022, 13, 6521–6557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Abdallah M; Greige S; Beyenal H; Harb M; Wazne M Investigating microbial dynamics and potential advantages of anaerobic co-digestion of cheese whey and poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters. Scientific Reports 2022, 12, 10529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Zhang W; Wang X; Xing W; Li R; Yang T Responses of anaerobic digestion of food waste to coupling effects of inoculum origins, organic loads and pH control under high load: Process performance and microbial characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management 2021, 279, 111772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Obata O; Ditchfield A; Hatton A; Akunna J Investigating the impact of inoculum source on anaerobic digestion of various species of marine macroalgae. Algal Research 2020, 46, 101803. [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Kang H-J; Lee S-H; Lim T-G; Park H-D Effect of inoculum concentration on methanogenesis by direct interspecies electron transfer: Performance and microbial community composition. Bioresource Technology 2019, 291, 121881, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Li Y; Wang Y; Yu Z; Lu J; Li D; Wang G; Li Y; Wu Y; Li S; Xu F Effect of inoculum and substrate/inoculum ratio on the performance and methanogenic archaeal community structure in solid state anaerobic co-digestion of tomato residues with dairy manure and corn stover. Waste Management 2018, 81, 117–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Krohn C; Khudur L; Dias DA; van den Akker B; Rees CA; Crosbie ND; Surapaneni A; O’Carroll DM; Stuetz RM; Batstone DJ The role of microbial ecology in improving the performance of anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1079136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Hasany M; Mardanpour MM; Yaghmaei S Biocatalysts in microbial electrolysis cells: A review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 1477–1493, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.097. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Thapa BS; Kim T; Pandit S; Song YE; Afsharian YP; Rahimnejad M; Kim JR; Oh S-E Overview of electroactive microorganisms and electron transfer mechanisms in microbial electrochemistry. Bioresource Technology 2022, 347, 126579, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Mainardis M; Buttazzoni M; Goi D Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) technology for energy recovery: a review on state-of-the-art and recent technological advances. Bioengineering 2020, 7, 43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Guo N; Ma X; Ren S; Wang S; Wang Y Mechanisms of metabolic performance enhancement during electrically assisted anaerobic treatment of chloramphenicol wastewater. Water research 2019, 156, 199–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1

Data Availability Statement

The sequences obtained in this study were deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under the BioProject accession number PRJNA924133 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=PRJNA924133

RESOURCES