Comparative experiment on treating digested piggery wastewater with a biofilm MBR and conventional MBR: simultaneous removal of nitrogen and antibiotics

Abstract

The BF-MBR displayed higher removal rates of nitrogen, phosphorous and antibiotics.

The BF-MBR saved alkali consumption.

The removal of antibiotics was influenced significantly by HRT.

Membrane filtration greatly contributed to antibiotics removal.

A biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) and a conventional membrane bioreactor (MBR) were parallelly operated for treating digested piggery wastewater. The removal performance of COD, TN, NH₄⁺-N, TP as well as antibiotics were simultaneously studied when the hydraulic retention time (HRT) was gradually shortened from 9 d to 1 d and when the ratio of influent COD to TN was changed. The results showed that the effluent quality in both reactors was poor and unstable at an influent COD/TN ratio of 1.0±0.2. The effluent quality was significantly improved as the influent COD/TN ratio was increased to 2.3±0.5. The averaged removal rates of COD, NH₄⁺-N, TN and TP were 92.1%, 97.1%, 35.6% and 54.2%, respectively, in the BF-MBR, significantly higher than the corresponding values of 91.7%, 90.9%, 17.4% and 31.9% in the MBR. Analysis of 11 typical veterinary antibiotics (from the tetracycline, sulfonamide, quinolone, and macrolide families) revealed that the BF-MBR removed more antibiotics than the MBR. Although the antibiotics removal decreased with a shortened HRT, high antibiotics removals of 86.8%, 80.2% and 45.3% were observed in the BF-MBR at HRT of 5–4 d, 3–2 d and 1 d, respectively, while the corresponding values were only 83.8%, 57.0% and 25.5% in the MBR. Moreover, the BF-MBR showed a 15% higher retention rate of antibiotics and consumed 40% less alkalinity than the MBR. Results above suggest that the BF-MBR was more suitable for digested piggery wastewater treatment.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Alkalinity / Antibiotics / Biofilm / Digested piggery wastewater (DPW) / Membrane bioreactor

References

[1] Zhao B W, Li J Z, Leu S Y. An innovative wood-chip-framework soil infiltrator for treating anaerobic digested swine wastewater and analysis of the microbial community. Bioresource Technology, 2014, 173: 384–391

[2] Bernet N, Béline F. Challenges and innovations on biological treatment of livestock effluents. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(22): 5431–5436

[3] Vanotti M B, Szogi A A, Hunt P G, Millner P D, Humenik F J. Development of environmentally superior treatment system to replace anaerobic swine lagoons in the USA. Bioresource Technology, 2007, 98(17): 3184–3194

[4] Massé D, Rajagopal R, Singh G. Technical and operational feasibility of psychrophilic anaerobic digestion biotechnology for processing ammonia-rich waste. Applied Energy, 2014, 120: 49–55

[5] Wei D, Wan M, Liu R, Wang G R, Zhang X D, Wen X G, Zhao Y, Chen L J. Study on the quality of digested piggery wastewater in large-scale farms in Jiaxing. Environmental Sciences, 2014, 35(7): 2650–2657 (in Chinese)

[6] Deng L W, Zheng P, Chen Z A, Mahmood Q. Improvement in post-treatment of digested swine wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(8): 3136–3145

[7] Sui Q W, Liu C, Dong H M, Zhu Z P. Effect of ammonium nitrogen concentration on the ammonia-oxidizing bacteria community in a membrane bioreactor for the treatment of anaerobically digested swine wastewater. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2014, 118(3): 277–283

[8] Rajagopal R, Rousseau P, Bernet N, Béline F. Combined anaerobic and activated sludge anoxic/oxic treatment for piggery wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(3): 2185–2192

[9] Huang H M, Liu J H, Wang S F, Jiang Y, Xiao D, Ding L, Gao F M. Nutrients removal from swine wastewater by struvite precipitation recycling technology with the use of Mg₃(PO₄)₂ as active component. Ecological Engineering, 2016, 92: 111–118

[10] Zhang M C, Lawlor P G, Hu Z H, Zhan X M. Nutrient removal from separated pig manure digestate liquid using hybrid biofilters. Environmental Technology, 2013, 34(5): 645–651

[11] Gao L H, Shi Y L, Li W H, Niu H Y, Liu J M, Cai Y Q. Occurrence of antibiotics in eight sewage treatment plants in Beijing, China. Chemosphere, 2012, 86(6): 665–671

[12] Wang S H, Wang H. Adsorption behavior of antibiotic in soil environment: a critical review. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2015, 9(4): 565–574

[13] Pan X, Qiang Z M, Ben W W, Chen M X. Residual veterinary antibiotics in swine manure from concentrated animal feeding operations in Shandong Province, China. Chemosphere, 2011, 84(5): 695–700

[14] Braschi I, Blasioli S, Fellet C, Lorenzini R, Garelli A, Pori M, Giacomini D. Persistence and degradation of new b-lactam antibiotics in the soil and water environment. Chemosphere, 2013, 93(1): 152–159

[15] Fan X, Tao Y, Wei D, Zhang X, Lei Y, Noguchi H. Removal of organic matter and disinfection by-products precursors in a hybrid process combining ozonation with ceramic membrane ultrafiltration. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2015, 9(1): 112–120

[16] Prado N, Ochoa J, Amrane A. Zero Nuisance Piggeries: Long-term performance of MBR (membrane bioreactor) for dilute swine wastewater treatment using submerged membrane bioreactor in semi-industrial scale. Water Research, 2009, 43(6): 1549–1558

[17] Capodici M, Di Bella G, Di Trapani D, Torregrossa M. Pilot scale experiment with MBR operated in intermittent aeration condition: analysis of biological performance. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 177: 398–405

[18] Kornboonraksa T, Lee H S, Lee S H, Chiemchaisri C. Application of chemical precipitation and membrane bioreactor hybrid process for piggery wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(6): 1963–1968

[19] Sahar E, Messalem R, Cikurel H, Aharoni A , Brenner A, Godehardt M, Jekel M, Ernst M. Fate of antibiotics in activated sludge followed by ultrafiltration (CAS-UF) and in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Water Research, 2011, 45(16): 4827–4836

[20] Göbel A, McArdell C, Joss A, Siegrist H, Giger W. Fate of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in different wastewater treatment technologies. Science of the Total Environment, 2007, 372(2–3): 361–371

[21] Radjenovic J, Petrovic M, Barceló D. Analysis of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and removal using a membrane bioreactor. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2007, 387(4): 1365–1377

[22] MEPPRC (Ministry Environmental Protection of People’s Republic of China). Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Monitoring and Analysis. 4th ed.Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2002, 238–239, 252–256, 260–263, 266–269, 345–356 (in Chinese)

[23] Anthonisen A C, Loehr R C, Prakasam T B S, Srinath E G. Inhibition of nitrification by ammonia and nitrous acid. Journal- Water Pollution Control Federation, 1976, 48(5): 835–852

[24] Luo Y, Xu L, Rysz M, Wang Y Q, Zhang H, Alvarez P J J. Occurrence and transport of tetracycline, sulfonamide, quinolone, and macrolide antibiotics in the Haihe River Basin, China. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(5): 1827–1833

[25] Yang S, Yang F L, Fu Z M, Lei R B. Comparison between a moving bed membrane bioreactor and a conventional membrane bioreactor on organic carbon and nitrogen removal. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(8): 2369–2374

[26] Rodríguez-Hernández L, Esteban-García A L, Tejero I. Comparison between a fixed bed hybrid membrane bioreactor and a conventional membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment: a pilot-scale study. Bioresource Technology, 2014, 152: 212–219

[27] Khan S J, llyas S, Javid S, Visvanathan C, Jegatheesan V. Performance of suspended and attached growth MBR systems in treating high strength synthetic wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(9): 5331–5336

[28] Wei R C, Ge F, Huang S Y, Chen M, Wang R. Occurrence of veterinary antibiotics in animal wastewater and surface water around farms in Jiangsu Province, China. Chemosphere, 2011, 82(10): 1408–1414

[29] Brown K D, Kulis J, Thomson B, Chapman T H, Mawhinney D B. Occurrence of antibiotics in hospital, residential, and dairy effluent, municipal wastewater, and the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Science of the Total Environment, 2006, 366(2–3): 772–783

[30] Zorita S, Mårtensson L, Mathiasson L. Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals in a municipal sewage treatment system in the south of Sweden. Science of the Total Environment, 2009, 407(8): 2760–2770

[31] Choi Y J, KimL H, Zoh K D. Removal characteristics and mechanism of antibiotics using constructed wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 2016, 91: 85–92

[32] Carranza-Diaz O, Schultze-Nobre L, Moeder M, Nivala J, Kuschk P, Koeser H. Removal of selected organic micropollutants in planted and unplanted pilot-scale horizontal flow constructed wetlands under conditions of high organic load. Ecological Engineering, 2014, 71: 234–245

[33] McAdam E J, Bagnall J P, Soares A, Koh Y K K, Chiu T Y, Scrimshaw M D, Lester J N, Cartmell E. Fate of alkylphenolic compounds during activated sludge treatment: impact of loading and organic composition. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(1): 248–254

[34] Li W, Shi Y, Gao L, Liu J, Cai Y. Occurrence and removal of antibiotics in a municipal wastewater reclamation plant in Beijing, China. Chemosphere, 2013, 92(4): 435–444

[35] Yang S F, Lin C F, Wu C J, Ng K K, Lin A Y C, HongP K A. Fate of sulfonamide antibiotics in contact with activated sludge sorption and biodegradation. Water Research, 2012, 46(4): 1301–1308

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Major Science and Technology Projects in Zhejiang (No. 2014C03022), MRC Cooperation Program with Mitsubishi Rayon, Science and Technology Program in Jiaxing (No. 2015AY23004).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2017 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg