Effects of temperature on biological nitrogen removal in batch membrane bioreactor and the microbial community mechanism
CHEN Yanlin1,2,3,, SUI Qianwen1,2, WANG Tuo1,2,3, HAI Yonglong1,2,3, YU Dawei1,2, CHEN Meixue1,2, WEI Yuansong1,2,3,4,, 1.State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China 2.Department of Water Pollution Control Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China 3.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 4.Institute of Energy, Jiangxi Academy of Sciences, Nanchang 330029, China
Abstract:Aiming at solving poor nitrogen removal performance and long process flow of swine wastewater treatment, a pilot scale sequencing batch membrane biological reactor(SMBR) was used to treat the swine wastewater in comparison with the current used A2/O treatment process. The results showed that good pollutant removals occurred even when the operating temperature of the SMBR decreased. The average effluent concentrations of ammonia, total nitrogen and COD were 10, 31 and 332 mg·L?1, and their removal rates were 98.6%, 96.5% and 96.5%, respectively; while their corresponding removal rates by A2/O were 99%, 88% and 97%, respectively. High-throughput sequencing and OTU classification showed that the major Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) in the SMBR were Nitrosomonas, and the nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) were mainly Nitrospira, Nitrobacter and Nitrolancea. And AOB was the main nitrifying bacteria in the SMBR, NOB was the main nitrifying bacteria in the A2/O process, and the abundance of denitrifying bacteria in the SMBR was higher than that in the A2/O process. Thus, compared with the A2/O, SMBR had the advantages of the short process and better biological nitrogen removal efficiency, which makes it have more application prospect. Key words:swine wastewater/ sequencing batch membrane bioreactor/ A2/O/ biological nitrogen removal/ temperature.
图1生猪养殖废水处理装置示意图 Figure1.Schematic diagram of treatment device for swine wastewater
HUANG H, ZHANG P, ZHANG Z, et al. Simultaneous removal of ammonia nitrogen and recovery of phosphate from swine wastewater by struvite electrochemical precipitation and recycling technology[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 127: 302-310. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.002
[3]
中华人民共和国环境保护部. 全国环境统计公报(2015)[R]. 2017.
[4]
NAGARAJAN D, KUSMAYADI A, YEN H W, et al. Current advances in biological swine wastewater treatment using microalgae-based processes[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 289: 121718.
[5]
GUO J, YANG C, ZENG G. Treatment of swine wastewater using chemically modified zeolite and bioflocculant from activated sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 143: 289-297. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.003
DAI W C, XU X C, LIU B, et al. Toward energy-neutral wastewater treatment: A membrane combined process of anaerobic digestion and nitritation-anammox for biogas recovery and nitrogen removal[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 279: 725-734. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.036
SUI Q W, JIANG C, YU D W, et al. Performance of a sequencing-batch membrane bioreactor (SMBR) with an automatic control strategy treating high-strength swine wastewater[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2018, 342: 210-219. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.05.010
[12]
SUI Q W, CHEN Y L, YU D W, et al. Fates of intracellular and extracellular antibiotic resistance genes and microbial community structures in typical swine wastewater treatment processes[J]. Environment International, 2019, 133: 105183. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105183
[13]
HAO X, HEIJNEN J J, LOOSDRECHT M. Model-based evaluation of temperature and inflow variations on a partial nitrification-ANAMMOX biofilm process[J]. Water Research, 2002, 36(19): 4839-4849. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00219-1
CAO Y S, VAN LOOSDRECHT M, DAIGGER G T. Mainstream partial nitritation-anammox in municipal wastewater treatment: Status, bottlenecks, and further studies[J]. Applied Microbiology Biotechnology & Bioengineering, 2017, 101(4): 1365-1383.
[16]
NOGUEIRA R, MELO L. Competition between Nitrospira spp. and Nitrobacter spp. in nitrite-oxidizing bioreactors[J]. Biotechnology Bioengineering, 2006, 95(1): 169-175. doi: 10.1002/bit.21004
[17]
ZHAO T, SHAO M F, LIN Y. 454 pyrosequencing reveals bacterial diversity of activated sludge from 14 sewage treatment plants[J]. The ISME Journal, 2012, 6(6): 1137-1147. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.188
YU K, ZHANG T. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analysis of microbial community structure and gene expression of activated sludge[J]. Plos One, 2012, 7(5): e38183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038183
1.State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China 2.Department of Water Pollution Control Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China 3.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 4.Institute of Energy, Jiangxi Academy of Sciences, Nanchang 330029, China Received Date: 2020-03-03 Accepted Date: 2020-07-02 Available Online: 2021-01-13 Keywords:swine wastewater/ sequencing batch membrane bioreactor/ A2/O/ biological nitrogen removal/ temperature Abstract:Aiming at solving poor nitrogen removal performance and long process flow of swine wastewater treatment, a pilot scale sequencing batch membrane biological reactor(SMBR) was used to treat the swine wastewater in comparison with the current used A2/O treatment process. The results showed that good pollutant removals occurred even when the operating temperature of the SMBR decreased. The average effluent concentrations of ammonia, total nitrogen and COD were 10, 31 and 332 mg·L?1, and their removal rates were 98.6%, 96.5% and 96.5%, respectively; while their corresponding removal rates by A2/O were 99%, 88% and 97%, respectively. High-throughput sequencing and OTU classification showed that the major Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) in the SMBR were Nitrosomonas, and the nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) were mainly Nitrospira, Nitrobacter and Nitrolancea. And AOB was the main nitrifying bacteria in the SMBR, NOB was the main nitrifying bacteria in the A2/O process, and the abundance of denitrifying bacteria in the SMBR was higher than that in the A2/O process. Thus, compared with the A2/O, SMBR had the advantages of the short process and better biological nitrogen removal efficiency, which makes it have more application prospect.