Effect of Pretreatment on Hydraulic Performance of the Integrated Membrane Process for Concentrating Nutrient in Biogas Digestate from Swine Manure
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Setup of Integrated Membrane Process
2.2. Experiment Design
2.3. Physico-Chemical Characterization of the Biogas Digestate from Swine Manure
2.4. Calculations and Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Influence of HFUFM and CUFM on the Flux Changes
3.1.1. Fluxes of HFUFM and CUFM Pretreatment
3.1.2. Fluxes of Combined NF+RO Process
3.2. Characteristics of CUFM Permeate and HFUFM Permeate
3.3. Characteristics of RO Permeates of the Integrated Process
3.4. Characteristics of the Concentrates of the Integrated Process
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hu, Y.; Cheng, H.; Tao, S. Environmental and human health challenges of industrial livestock and poultry farming in China and their mitigation. Environ. Int. 2017, 107, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Świątczak, P.; Cydzik-Kwiatkowska, A.; Zielińska, M. Treatment of the liquid phase of digestate from a biogas plant for water reuse. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 276, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nagarajan, D.; Kusmayadi, A.; Yen, H.W.; Dong, C.D.; Lee, D.J.; Chang, J.S. Current advances in biological swine wastewater treatment using microalgae-based processes. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 289, 121718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nkoa, R. Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 473–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, D.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.S.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Kumar, S.M. Microalgae biomass from swine wastewater and its conversion to bioenergy. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 275, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mortola, N.; Romaniuk, R.; Cosentino, V.; Eiza, M.; Carfagno, P.; Rizzo, P.; Bres, P.; Riera, N.; Roba, M.; Butti, M.; et al. Potential Use of a Poultry Manure Digestate as a Biofertiliser: Evaluation of Soil Properties and Lactuca sativa Growth. Pedosphere 2019, 29, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigurnjak, I.; Vaneeckhaute, C.; Michels, E.; Ryckaert, B.; Ghekiere, G.; Tack, F.M.G.; Meers, E. Fertilizer performance of liquid fraction of digestate as synthetic nitrogen substitute in silage maize cultivation for three consecutive years. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 599, 1885–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Chen, L.; Wu, Q.; Zheng, T.; Yuan, H.; Peng, N.; He, M. The valorization of biogas slurry with a pilot dual stage reverse osmosis membrane process. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2019, 142, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, Q.C.; Liu, M.L.; Cao, X.L.; Wang, Y.; Xing, W.; Sun, S.P. Structure design and applications of dual-layer polymeric membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2018, 562, 85–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandoval, A.D.O.; Brião, V.B.; Fernandes, V.M.C.; Hemkemeier, A.; Friedrich, M.T. Stormwater management by microfiltration and ultrafiltration treatment. J. Water Process. Eng. 2019, 30, 100453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrade, L.H.; Mendes, F.D.D.S.; Cerqueira, N.; Espindola, J.C.; Amaral, M.C.S. Fouling evaluation in a MBR for dairy effluent treatment. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 11919–11930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ağtaş, M.; Yılmaz, Ö.; Dilaver, M.; Alp, K.; Koyuncu, İ. Hot water recovery and reuse in textile sector with pilot scale ceramic ultrafiltration/nanofiltration membrane system. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro-Munoz, R. The Role of New Inorganic Materials in Composite Membranes for Water Disinfection. Membranes 2020, 10, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Konieczny, K.; Kwiecińska, A.; Gworek, B. The recovery of water from slurry produced in high density livestock farming with the use of membrane processes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2011, 80, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makara, A.; Kowalski, Z. Pig manure treatment and purification by filtration. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 161, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masse, L.; Massé, D.I.; Pellerin, Y. The use of membranes for the treatment of manure: A critical literature review. Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 98, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gienau, T.; Ehrmanntraut, A.; Kraume, M.; Rosenberger, S. Influence of Ozone Treatment on Ultrafiltration Performance and Nutrient Flow in a Membrane Based Nutrient Recovery Process from Anaerobic Digestate. Membranes 2020, 10, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zacharof, M.-P.; Mandale, S.J.; Williams, P.M.; Lovitt, R.W. Nanofiltration of treated digested agricultural wastewater for recovery of carboxylic acids. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4749–4761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Ivars, J.; Martella, L.; Massella, M.; Carbonell-Alcaina, C.; Alcaina-Miranda, M.I.; Iborra-Clar, M.I. Nanofiltration as tertiary treatment method for removing trace pharmaceutically active compounds in wastewater from wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2017, 125, 360–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, H.; Yang, Z.; Lin, J.; Shen, J.; Ji, J.; Gao, C.; Van der Bruggen, B. Biogas slurry concentration hybrid membrane process: Pilot-testing and RO membrane cleaning. Desalination 2015, 368, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longlong, D.; Zhiye, Z.; Meng, W.; Bangxi, Z.; Guoxue, L. Research on comprehensive integration process and recycling technologies of biogas slurry. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2016, 32, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandefur, H.N.; Asgharpour, M.; Mariott, J.; Gottberg, E.; Vaden, J.; Matlock, M.; Hestekin, J. Recovery of nutrients from swine wastewater using ultrafiltration: Applications for microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 94, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caide, Y. Studies on Treatment Performance of Different Membrane Combinations for Pig Manure Digested Slurry; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Masse, L.; Massé, D.I.; Beaudette, V.; Muir, M. Size distribution and composition of particles in raw and anaerobically digested swine manure. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 1943–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcato, C.E.; Pinelli, E.; Pouech, P.; Winterton, P.; Guiresse, M. Particle size and metal distributions in anaerobically digested pig slurry. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 2340–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tambone, F.; Orzi, V.; D’Imporzano, G.; Adani, F. Solid and liquid fractionation of digestate: Mass balance, chemical characterization, and agronomic and environmental value. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 243, 1251–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masse, L.; Mondor, M.; Talbot, G.; Deschênes, L.; Drolet, H.; Gagnon, N.; St-Germain, F.; Puig-Bargués, J. Fouling of Reverse Osmosis Membranes Processing Swine Wastewater Pretreated by Mechanical Separation and Aerobic Biofiltration. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 1298–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, S.; Li, Y.; Ladewig, B.P. A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 595, 567–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhaveri, J.H.; Murthy, Z.V.P. A comprehensive review on anti-fouling nanocomposite membranes for pressure driven membrane separation processes. Desalination 2016, 379, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacharof, M.-P.; Lovitt, R.W. The filtration characteristics of anaerobic digester effluents employing cross flow ceramic membrane microfiltration for nutrient recovery. Desalination 2014, 341, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pieters, J.G.; Neukermans, G.G.J.; Colanbeen, M. Farm-scale Membrane Filtration of Sow Slurry. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1999, 73, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waeger, F.; Delhaye, T.; Fuchs, W. The use of ceramic microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes for particle removal from anaerobic digester effluents. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2010, 73, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fugère, R.; Mameri, N.; Gallot, J.E.; Comeau, Y. Treatment of pig farm effluents by ultrafiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 255, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, Y.; Dong, H.; Yin, F.; Yue, C. The Combined Process of Paper Filtration and Ultrafiltration for the Pretreatment of the Biogas Slurry from Swine Manure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abuzaid, N.S.; Bukhari, A.A.; Al-Hamouz, Z.M. Ground water coagulation using soluble stainless steel electrodes. Adv. Environ. Res. 2002, 6, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.H.; Park, B.; Shon, H.K.; Kim, S. Modeling full-scale osmotic membrane bioreactor systems with high sludge retention and low salt concentration factor for wastewater reclamation. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 190, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bella, G.D.; Trapani, D.D. A Brief Review on the Resistance-in-Series Model in Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs). Membranes 2019, 9, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salud Camilleri-Rumbau, M.; Popovic, O.; Briceno, K.; Errico, M.; Sotoft, L.F.; Christensen, K.V.; Norddahl, B. Ultrafiltration of separated digestate by tubular membranes: Influence of feed pretreatment on hydraulic performance and heavy metals removal. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujioka, T.; Nghiem, L.D.; Khan, S.J.; McDonald, J.A.; Poussade, Y.; Drewes, J.E. Effects of feed solution characteristics on the rejection of N-nitrosamines by reverse osmosis membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 409, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nghiem, L.D.; Coleman, P.J. NF/RO filtration of the hydrophobic ionogenic compound triclosan: Transport mechanisms and the influence of membrane fouling. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2008, 62, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voutchkov, N. Chapter 9-Membrane Filtration. In Pretreatment for Reverse Osmosis Desalination; Voutchkov, N., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 187–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camilleri-Rumbau, M.S.; Soler-Cabezas, J.L.; Christensen, K.V.; Norddahl, B.; Mendoza-Roca, J.A.; Vincent-Vela, M.C. Application of aquaporin-based forward osmosis membranes for processing of digestate liquid fractions. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 371, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MEEC. Discharge Standard of Pollutants for Livestock and Poultry Breeding; GB 18596-2001; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2001.
- MEEC. Standards for Irrigation Water Quality; GB 5084-2005; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2005.
- Sui, Q.; Zhang, J.; Chen, M.; Tong, J.; Wang, R.; Wei, Y. Distribution of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in anaerobic digestion and land application of swine wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 213, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gros, M.; Marti, E.; Balcazar, J.L.; Boy-Roura, M.; Busquets, A.; Colon, J.; Sanchez-Melsio, A.; Lekunberri, I.; Borrego, C.M.; Ponsa, S.; et al. Fate of pharmaceuticals and antibiotic resistance genes in a full-scale on-farm livestock waste treatment plant. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 378, 120716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shi, L.; Xie, S.; Hu, Z.; Wu, G.; Morrison, L.; Croot, P.; Hu, H.; Zhan, X. Nutrient recovery from pig manure digestate using electrodialysis reversal: Membrane fouling and feasibility of long-term operation. J. Membr. Sci. 2019, 573, 560–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | CUFM (Ceramic Membrane) | HFUFM (Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration Membrane) | NF (Nanofiltration Membrane) | RO (Reverse Osmosis Membrane) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Material | Ceramic CRM 301940 | Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) | DOW NF 270-4040 | DOW BW 30-4040 |
Filtration area (m2) | 0.96 | 30 | 7.6 | 7.6 |
Pore feature (nm) | 200 | 10–100 | 1–2 | <1 |
Filtration mechanism | Sieving | Sieving | Selective permeability | Selective permeability |
Max. pressure (bar) | 4 | 3 | 30 | 30 |
Max. temperature (°C) | 150 | 45 | 45 | 45 |
pH range | 0–14 | 2–10 | 2–11 | 2–11 |
Parameters | Analytical Method | Biogas Digestate Content |
---|---|---|
pH | pH glass electrode method | 7.60 ± 0.04 |
Electrical conductivity (EC) (ms·cm−1) | Electrode method | 7.44 ± 0.54 |
Turbidity (NTU) | Infrared scattering | 318.8 ± 56.1 |
NH4+-N (mg·L−1) | Salicylic acid spectrophotometry | 745.8 ± 12.3 |
Total nitrogen (TN) (mg·L−1) | Persulfate oxidation | 662.5 ± 36.3 |
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg·L−1) | Potassium dichromate rapid digestion spectrophotometry | 588.5 ± 16.1 |
Total phosphorus (TP) (mg·L−1) | Ammonium molybdenum spectrophotometry | 48.04 ± 3.77 |
Total suspended solids (TSS) (mg·L−1) | Filter paper drying weight method | 134.2 ± 14.5 |
Total solids (TS) (mg·L−1) | Drying weight method | 2263 ± 104 |
Volatile solids (VS) (mg·L−1) | Muffle furnace drying weight method | 750.7 ± 112.7 |
Total organic carbon (TOC) (mg·L−1) | Combustion oxidation-non-dispersive infrared absorption method | 210.8 ± 0.7 |
Total potassium (TK) (K+) (mg·L−1) | Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry | 362 |
Ca2+ (mg·L−1) | 32.6 | |
Na+ (mg·L−1) | 290 | |
Mg2+ (mg·L−1) | 46.6 | |
Cl− (mg·L−1) | Ion chromatography | 304 |
HCO3− (mg·L−1) | Acid–base indicator titration, potentiometric titration | 3880 |
(mg·L−1) | 0 | |
Sulfadimethylpyrimidine (ng·mL−1) | High performance liquid chromatography | 405.8 ± 15.5 |
Enrofloxacin (ng·mL−1) | 2.03 ± 0.03 | |
Ciprofloxacin (ng·mL−1) | 4.47 ± 0.02 | |
Oxytetracycline (ng·mL−1) | 82.12 ± 6.52 | |
Doxycycline (ng·mL−1) | 42.63 ± 4.10 |
Applied Process | Pore Size (nm) | Working Pressure (Bar) | Membrane Flux Range (L·(m2·h)−1) | Compared with This Study | Studies |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HFUFM pretreatment | 50 | 0.3 | 40.0 ~ 25.0 | slightly larger | [32] |
10 ~ 100 | 0.3 | 16.7 ~ 9.0 | slightly lower | [34] | |
10 | 1 | 40.0 ~ 25.0 | similar | [33] | |
10 ~ 100 | 0.6 | 35.0 ~ 17.0 | This study | ||
CUFM pretreatment | 200 | 1 | 140.0 ~ 120.0 | similar | [30] |
100 | 1.8 | reached 159.0 | similar | [31] | |
200 | 3 | 80.0 ~ 120.0 | similar | [23] | |
200 | 3 | 180.0 ~ 100.0 | This study |
Parameters | Biogas Digestate | CUFM Permeate | HFUFM Permeate |
---|---|---|---|
pH | 7.60 ± 0.04 | 7.96 ± 0.02 | 7.90 ± 0.09 |
EC (ms·cm−1) | 7.44 ± 0.54 | 6.61 ± 0.34 | 6.50 ± 0.63 |
Turbidity (NTU) | 318.8 ± 56.1 | 15.90 ± 0.28 | 31.25 ± 0.38 |
NH4+-N (mg·L−1) | 745.8 ± 12.3 | 528.50 ± 22.96 | 531.25 ± 27.27 |
TN (mg·L−1) | 662.5 ± 36.3 | 562.50 ± 96.01 | 535 ± 78.26 |
COD (mg·L−1) | 588.5 ± 16.1 | 546.00 ± 53.39 | 527 ± 48.42 |
TP (mg·L−1) | 48.04 ± 3.77 | 18.90 ± 2.88 | 16.46 ± 2.92 |
TSS (mg·L−1) | 134.2 ± 14.5 | 10.67 ± 3.77 | 13.67 ± 5.73 |
TS (mg·L−1) | 2263 ± 104 | 1131.33 ± 145.72 | 1208.00 ± 73.97 |
VS (mg·L−1) | 750.7 ± 112.7 | 533.33 ± 54.09 | 598.67 ± 44.58 |
TOC (mg·L−1) | 210.8 ± 0.7 | 172.63 ± 0.97 | 145.973 ± 1.64 |
TK (K+) (mg·L−1) | 362 | 404 | 314 |
Ca2+ (mg·L−1) | 32.6 | 48.9 | 46.4 |
Na+ (mg·L−1) | 290 | 283 | 236 |
Mg2+ (mg·L−1) | 46.6 | 47.4 | 46.3 |
Cl− (mg·L−1) | 304 | 281 | 275 |
HCO3− (mg·L−1) | 3880 | 3650 | 3420 |
(mg·L−1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sulfadimethylpyrimidine (ng·mL−1) | 405.8 ± 15.5 | 282.14 ± 46.9 | 399.90 ± 7.87 |
Enrofloxacin (ng·mL−1) | 2.03 ± 0.03 | 1.94±0.04 | 1.98 ± 0.06 |
Ciprofloxacin (ng·mL−1) | 4.47 ± 0.02 | 4.40 ± 0.11 | 4.44 ± 0.01 |
Oxytetracycline (ng·mL−1) | 82.12 ± 6.52 | 55.71 ± 8.65 | 83.36 ± 6.54 |
Doxycycline (ng·mL−1) | 42.63 ± 4.10 | 26.09 ± 1.11 | 35.23 ± 1.74 |
Parameters | RO Permeate with HFUFM Pretreatment Method | RO Permeate with CUFM Pretreatment Method | Discharge Standard of Pollutants for Livestock and Poultry Breeding (GB 18596-2001) [43] | Standards for Irrigation Water Quality (GB 5084-2005) [44] |
---|---|---|---|---|
pH | 8.76 ± 0.40 | 9.06 ± 0.03 | - | 5.5~8.5 |
EC (ms·cm−1) | 0.39 ± 0.08 | 0.40 ± 0.06 | - | - |
Turbidity (NTU) | 0.40 ± 0.20 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | - | - |
COD (mg·L−1) | 3.0 ± 2.1 | 8.0 ± 1.2 | 400 | 150 |
TN (mg·L−1) | 45.8 ± 8.0 | 49.0 ± 12.8 | - | - |
NH4+-N (mg·L−1) | 45.8 ± 6.8 | 47.6 ± 7.9 | 80 | - |
TP (mg·L−1) | 0.20 ± 0.17 | 0.68 ± 0.10 | 8.0 | - |
TSS (mg·L−1) | 0.0 ± 1.6 | 0.0 ± 1.6 | 200 | 80 |
TS (mg·L−1) | 62.7 ± 15.4 | 65.3 ± 4.1 | - | - |
VS (mg·L−1) | 10.0 ± 4.3 | 12.0 ± 3.3 | - | - |
TOC (mg·L−1) | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | - | - |
HCO3− (mg·L−1) | 70.9 | 67.8 ± 3.4 | - | - |
(mg·L−1) | 72.7 ± 3.7 | 93.9 ± 4.7 | - | - |
K+ (mg·L−1) | 13.6 ± 0.7 | 14.9 ± 0.8 | - | - |
Ca2+ (mg·L−1) | 1.08 ± 0.06 | 1.58 ± 0.08 | - | - |
Na+ (mg·L−1) | 10.8 ± 0.5 | 11.6 ± 0.2 | - | - |
Mg2+ (mg·L−1) | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 0.77 ± 0.39 | - | - |
Cl− (mg·L−1) | 14.6 ± 0.7 | 16.3 ± 0.9 | - | 350 |
Sulfadimethylpyrimidine (ng·mL−1) | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | - | - |
Enrofloxacin (ng·mL−1) | 0 | 0 | - | - |
Ciprofloxacin (ng·mL−1) | 0 | 0 | - | - |
Oxytetracycline (ng·mL−1) | 33.1 ± 7.4 | 19.0 ± 13.5 | - | - |
Doxycycline (ng·mL−1) | 0 | 0 | - | - |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhan, Y.; Yin, F.; Yue, C.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, Z.; Zou, M.; Dong, H. Effect of Pretreatment on Hydraulic Performance of the Integrated Membrane Process for Concentrating Nutrient in Biogas Digestate from Swine Manure. Membranes 2020, 10, 249. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/membranes10100249
Zhan Y, Yin F, Yue C, Zhu J, Zhu Z, Zou M, Dong H. Effect of Pretreatment on Hydraulic Performance of the Integrated Membrane Process for Concentrating Nutrient in Biogas Digestate from Swine Manure. Membranes. 2020; 10(10):249. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/membranes10100249
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhan, Yuanhang, Fubin Yin, Caide Yue, Jun Zhu, Zhiping Zhu, Mengyuan Zou, and Hongmin Dong. 2020. "Effect of Pretreatment on Hydraulic Performance of the Integrated Membrane Process for Concentrating Nutrient in Biogas Digestate from Swine Manure" Membranes 10, no. 10: 249. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/membranes10100249