Source analysis of organic matter in swine wastewater after anaerobic digestion with EEM-PARAFAC
- 498 Downloads
Swine wastewater is one of the most serious pollution sources, and it has attracted a great public concern in China. Anaerobic digestion technology is extensively used in swine wastewater treatment. However, the anaerobic digestion effluents are difficult to meet the discharge standard. The results from batch experiments showed that plenty of refractory organic matter remained in the effluents after mesophilic anaerobic digestion for 30 days. The effluent total COD (tCOD) and soluble COD (sCOD) were 483 and 324 mg/L, respectively, with the sCOD/tCOD ratio of 0.671. Fluorescence excitation–emission matrix (EEM) coupled with parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) revealed that the dissolved organic matter in the effluents was tryptophan-like substance, humic acid substance, and fulvic acid substance. Based on the appearance time during anaerobic digestion, tryptophan-like substance and humic acid substance were inferred to originate from the raw swine wastewater, and the fulvic acid substance was inferred to be formed in the anaerobic digestion. This work has revealed the source of residual organic matter in anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater and has provided some valuable information for the post-treatment.
KeywordsSwine wastewater Anaerobic digestion Refractory organic matter Source analysis
This work was financially supported by the Zhejiang Key Science and Technology Innovation Team Project Grant (No. 2013TD03).
- APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. A.P.H. Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Cook RL, Birdwell JE, Lattao C, Lowry M (2009) A multi-method comparison of Atchafalaya Basin surface water organic matter samples. J Environ Qual 38(2):702–711Google Scholar
- Crawford DL, Pometto AL, Crawford RL (1983) Lignin degradation by Streptomyces viridosporus: isolation and characterization of a new polymeric lignin degradation intermediate. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:898–904Google Scholar
- Goel S, Hozalski RM, Bouwer EJ (1995) Biodegradation of NOM: effect of NOM source and ozone dose. J Am Water Works Ass 87:90–105Google Scholar
- Hu CH, YU SD, Xu ZR (2002) Effect of mixed population of pig fecal bacteria on 3-methylindole (skatole) and indole production. Chinese Journal of Animal Science 38:10–11 (Chinese)Google Scholar
- Lakowicz JR (2006) Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wang YY, Qiu WF, Fan YZ, Gu JD (2002) Degradation pathways and mechanisms of substituted indoles under methanogenic condition. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology 8:514–519 (Chinese)Google Scholar
- Whang GD, Cho YM, Park H, Jang JG (2004) The removal of residual organic matter from biologically treated swine wastewater using membrane bioreactor process with powdered activated carbon. Water Sci Technol 49:451–457Google Scholar
- Yokoyama MT, Carlson JR (1974) Dissimilation of tryptophan and related indolic compounds by ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Appl Microbiol 27:540–548Google Scholar