Environmental Engineering Research

Korean Society of Environmental Engineers (대한환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Waste treatment with the pilot scale ATAD and EGSB pig slurry management system followed by sequencing batch treatment

  • Lee, Young-Shin (Department of Environment Engineering, Hanseo University) ;
  • Han, Gee-Bong (Department of Biosciences and Environmental Engineering, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2015.06.09
  • Accepted : 2015.08.10
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Experiments for highly concentrated contaminants in pig waste slurry were carried out for the feasibility test of a pilot-scale innovative process scheme of engaging autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) and expended granular sludge bed (EGSB) followed by sequencing batch reactor (SBR) system. Contaminants in pig waste slurry such as organic substance, total nitrogen (TN), ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorus (TP) contents were successfully reduced in the system. Total volatile solids (TVS) and chemical oxygen demands (COD) for organic matter in the feed were 32.92 g/L and 42.55 g/L respectively, and they were reduced by about 98.7% and 99.2%, respectively in the system. The overall removal efficiencies for TN and ammonium nitrogen were found to be 98.1 and 98.5%, respectively. The overall removal efficiency for total phosphorus was also found to be 92.5%. Faecal coliform density was reduced to <$1.2{\times}10^4CFU/g$ total solids. Biogas and $CH_4$ were produced in the range of 0.39-0.85 and $0.25-0.62m^3/kg$ [VS removed], respectively. The biogas produced in the system comprised of $295{\pm}26ppm$ (v/v) [$H_2S$].

Keywords

References

  1. Deng L, Cai C, Chen Z. The treatment of pig slurry by a full-scale anaerobic-adding raw wastewater-intermittent aeration process. Biosys. Eng. 2007;98:327-334 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.08.001
  2. Vanotti MB, Szogi AA, Hunt PG, Millner PD, Humenik FJ. Development of an environmentally superior treatment system to replace anaerobic swine lagoons in the USA. Bioresour. Technol. 2007;98:3184-3194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.009
  3. Lopez-Fernandeza R, Aristizabal C, Irusta R. Ultrafiltration as an advanced tertiary treatment of anaerobically digested swine manure liquid fraction: A practical and theoretical study. J. Memb. Sci. 2012;375:268-275.
  4. Ippersiel D, Mondor M, Lamarche F, Tremblay F, Dubreuil J, Masse L. Nitrogen potential recovery and concentration of ammonia from swine manure using electrodialysis coupled with air stripping. J. Env. Manage. 2012;95:165-169 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.026
  5. Riano B, Garcia-Gonzalez MC. On-farm treatment of swine manure based on solid-liquid separation and biological nitrification-denitrification of the liquid fraction. J. Env. Manage. 2014;132: 87-93 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.014
  6. Beline F, Martinez J. Nitrogen transformations during biological aerobic treatment of pig slurry: effect of intermittent aeration on nitrous oxide emissions. Bioresour. Technol. 2002;83:225-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00219-X
  7. Kelly HG, Mavinic DS. Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion Research Application and Operational Experience. In: WEFTEC 2003 Workshop W104 Thermophilic Digestion; 2003 Nov 11; Los Angeles.
  8. Park CH, Bae YS, Han GB. Implementation of an excess sludge reduction step in an activated sludge process. J. Env. Sci. Heal. Part A 2010; 45:709-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934521003648925
  9. Mavinic DS, Mahendraker V, Sharma A, Kelly HG. Effect of microaerophilic conditions on autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion process. J. Env. Eng. 2001;127:311-316. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2001)127:4(311)
  10. Hansen KH, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Improving thermophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Water Res. 1999;33:1805-1810. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00410-2
  11. O'Reilly C, Colleran E. Microbial sulphate reduction during anaerobic digestion: EGSB process performance and potential for nitrite suppression of SRB activity. Water Sci. Technol. 2005;52:371-376.
  12. Veeresh GS, Kumar P, Mehrotra I. Treatment of phenol and cresols in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process: a review. Water Res. 2005;39:154-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.07.028
  13. Karakashev D, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I. Innovative process scheme for removal of organic matter, phosphorous and nitrogen from pig manure. Water Res. 2008;42:4083-4090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.06.021
  14. Lee YS, Han GB. Pig slurry treatment by a hybrid multi-stage unit system consisting of an ATAD and an EGSB followed by a SBR reactor. Biosys. Eng. 2012;111:243-250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.11.014
  15. Mace S, Mata-Alvarez J. Utilization of SBR technology for wastewater treatment: an overview. Ind. Eng. Chem. Resour. 2002;41:5539-5553. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0201821
  16. Obaja D, Mace S, Mata-Alvarez J. Biological nutrient removal by a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) using an internal organic carbon source in digested piggery wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2005;96:7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.03.002
  17. Han GB, Lee BH, Lee YW. Development of soil-covered SBR process for small scale sewage treatment. Env. Technol. 2006;27:715-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593332708618684
  18. Zhu J, Zhang Z, Miller C. A laboratory scale sequencing batch reactor with the addition of acetate to remove nutrient and organic matter in pig slurry. Biosys. Eng. 2006;93:437-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.01.010
  19. Apha A. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. Washington D.C.: American Public Health Association; 1998.
  20. Layden MN, Mavinic DC, Kelly HG, Moles R, Bertlett J. Autothermol thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) - Part I: review of origins, design, and process operation. J. Env. Eng. Sci. 2007;6:665-678. https://doi.org/10.1139/S07-015
  21. Mark CM, Loosdrecht V, Henze M. Maintenance, endogeneous respiration, lysis, decay and predation. Water Sci. Technol. 1999;39:11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(98)00771-9
  22. Yan S, Miyanaga K, Xing X H, Tanjiyan Y. Succession of bacterial community and enzymatic activities of activated sludge by heat-treatment for reduction of excess sludge. Biochem. Eng. J. 2008;39:598-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2007.12.002
  23. Li X, Ma H, Wang Q, Matsumoto S. Isolation, identification of sludge-lysing strain and its utilization in thermophilic aerobic digestion for waste activated sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:2475-2483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.019
  24. Lee JW, Lee HW, Kim SW. Nitrogen removal characteristics analyzed with gas and microbial community in thermophilic aerobic digestion for piggery waste treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2004;49:349-357.
  25. Yu GH, He PJ, Shao LM, Zhu YS. Extracellular proteins, polysaccharides and enzymes impact on sludge aerobic digestion after ultrasonic pretreatment. Water Res. 2008;42:1925-1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.11.022
  26. Willers HC, Derikx JL, Ten Have PJ, Vijn TK. Emission of ammonia and nitrous oxide from aerobic treatment of veal calf slurry. J. Agricul. Eng. Res. 1996;63:345-352. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1996.0037
  27. Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Avery SM, Munro F, Moore A. Analyses of Livestock Production, Waste Storage, and Pathogen Levels and Prevalences in Farm Manures. Appl. Env. Microb. 2005;71:1231-1236. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.3.1231-1236.2005
  28. Pagilla KR, Kim HJ, Cheunbarn T. Aerobic thermophilic and anaerobic mesophilic treatment of swine waste. Water Res. 2000;34:2747-2753. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00012-9
  29. Ginnivan MJ, Woods JL, O'Callaghan JR. Thermophilic aerobic treatment of pig slurry. J. Agricul. Eng. Res. 1981;26:455-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(81)90079-2
  30. Vanotti MB, Szogi AA, Millner PD, Loughrin JH. Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:5406-5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.019
  31. Vanotti MB, Millner PD, Hunt PG, Ellison AQ. Removal of pathogen and indicator microorganisms from liquid swine manure in multi-step biological and chemical treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2005;96:209-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.010
  32. Beline F, Daumer ML, Loyon L, Pourcher AM, Dabert P, Guiziou F, Peu P. The efficiency of biological aerobic treatment of piggery wastewater to control nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogen and gas emissions. Water Sci. Technol. 2008;57:1909-1914. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.316
  33. Lee SI., Park JH., Ko KW., Koopman B. Effect of fermented swine wastes on biological nutrient removal in sequencing batch reactors. Water Res. 1997;97:1807-1812.
  34. Kuo CM, Chen TY, Lin TH, Kao CY, Lai JT, Chang JS, Lin CS. Cultivation of Chlorella sp. GD using piggery wastewater for biomass and lipid production. Biore. Technol, 2015;194:326-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.026

Cited by

  1. Integrated expanded granular sludge bed and sequential batch reactor treating beet sugar industrial wastewater and recovering bioenergy vol.23, pp.20, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7307-8
  2. Acidification during aerobic treatment of digested swine wastewater and its effect on pollutant removal vol.33, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2017.1308502
  3. Use of citric acid for reducing CH4 and H2S emissions during storage of pig slurry and increasing biogas production: Lab- and pilot-scale test, and assessment vol.753, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142080