Optimisation of bioscrubber systems to simultaneously remove methane and purify wastewater from intensive pig farms
The use of bioscrubber is attracting increasing attention for exhaust gas treatment in intensive pig farming. However, the challenge is to improve the methane (CH4) removal efficiency as well as the possibility of pig house wastewater treatment. Three laboratory-scale bioscrubbers, each equipped with different recirculation water types, livestock wastewater (10-times-diluted pig house wastewater supernatant), a methanotroph growth medium (10-times-diluted), and tap water, were established to evaluate the performance of CH4 removal and wastewater treatment. The results showed that enhanced CH4 removal efficiency (25%) can be rapidly achieved with improved methanotrophic activity due to extra nutrient support from the wastewater. The majority of the CH4 was removed in the middle to end part of the bioscrubbers, which indicated that CH4 removal could be potentially optimised by extending the length of the reactor. Moreover, 52–86% of the ammonium (NH4+-N), total organic carbon (TOC), and phosphate (PO43−-P) removal were simultaneously achieved with CH4 removal in the present study. Based on these results, this study introduces a low-cost and simple-to-operate method to improve CH4 removal and simultaneously treat pig farm wastewater in bioscrubbers.
KeywordsBiofiltration Climate change control Greenhouse gas Methanotroph activity Pig farm wastewater
The authors express their sincere gratitude to Wilfried Gläseker for his technical assistance.
This work was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, support code 033RD1102B), National Key Research and Development Plan (Grant No. 2018YFD0800100), the Beijing Municipal Education Commission Joint Building Project (35030004). The PhD scholarships of Fang Liu were supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and Universität Hamburg-DAAD co-funded Merit Scholarship.
- Aguilar M, Abaigar A, Merino P, Estellés F, Calvet S (2010) Effect of a bioscrubber on NH3, N2O, CH4 and CO2 emissions from a pig facility in Spain. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering-AgEng 2010: towards environmental technologies, Clermont-Ferrand, France 6–8 September 2010. CemagrefGoogle Scholar
- Belzile M, Lemay SP, Zegan D, Feddes JJ, Godbout S, Larouche J-P, Martel M (2010) Reduction of gas and odour emissions from a swine building using a biotrickling filter. XVIIth World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, pp 13–17Google Scholar
- Bodelier PL, Frenzel P (1999) Contribution of methanotrophic and nitrifying bacteria to CH4 and NH4 + oxidation in the rhizosphere of rice plants as determined by new methods of discrimination. Appl Environ Microbiol 65(5):1826–1833Google Scholar
- IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland 151 ppGoogle Scholar
- Li X, Zhang M, Liu F, Chen L, Li Y, Li Y, Xiao R, Wu J (2018) Seasonality distribution of the abundance and activity of nitrification and denitrification microorganisms in sediments of surface flow constructed wetlands planted with Myriophyllum elatinoides during swine wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 248:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McLeod A (2011) World livestock 2011—livestock in food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
- Sanders T, Fiencke C, Pfeiffer E-M (2010) Small-scale variability of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), C/N ratios and ammonia oxidizing capacities in various permafrost affected soils of Samoylov Island, Lena River Delta, Northeast Siberia. Polarforschung 80(1):23–35Google Scholar
- Saunois M, Bousquet P, Poulter B et al (2016) The global methane budget 2000–2012. Earth Syst Sci Data (Online) 8(2):697–751Google Scholar
- Whittenbury R, Phillips K, Wilkinson J (1970) Enrichment, isolation and some properties of methane-utilizing bacteria. Microbiology 61(2):205–218Google Scholar