Modified Ludzack–Ettinger system role in efficient nitrogen removal from swine manure under high total suspended solids concentration

  • C. E. HollasEmail author
  • A. Chini
  • F. G. Antes
  • N. V. do Prado
  • M. Bortoli
  • A. Kunz
Original Paper


The current scenario requires treatment systems with high efficiency, easy operation and low cost. The solid–liquid separation process as a pre-treatment of swine manure is an efficient strategy improving the wastewater management and treatment. In this sense, the aim of this study was to establish for the first time a condition in which swine manure treatment could be successfully performed using a simple solid-liquid separation, combined with nitrification and denitrification process in a modified Ludzack–Ettinger system. The solids separation was done with a brush-roller screen (2 mm mesh) followed by a settling unit. The nitrogen removal unit was composed of a modified Ludzack–Ettinger process, operated in three phases, according to different sedimentation times in the solid–liquid separation process. The modified Ludzack–Ettinger system showed good performance for treatment of swine wastewater with total suspend solids concentration higher than 14 g L−1, reaching removal efficiency of 88.3% for nitrogen and 86.3% for total organic carbon removal. The results obtained in this study confirm that it is possible to operate the modified Ludzack–Ettinger system at high total solids concentration using a simple solid–liquid separation process keeping a high nitrogen removal efficiency.


Denitrification Nitrification Settling Solid–liquid separation Swine wastewater 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the project SISTRATES FUNTEC-BNDES (Contract Number 15.2.0837.1), CNPq and CAPES.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Andrews JF (1968) A mathematical model for the continuous culture of microorganisms utilizing inhibitory substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 10:707–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthonisen AC, Srinath EG, Loehr RC, Prakasam TBS (1976) Inhibition of nitrification and nitrous acid compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 48:835–852. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basheer AA (2018) Chemical chiral pollution: impact on the society and science and need of the regulations in the 21st entury. Chirality 30:402–406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassin JP (2018) New processes for biological nitrogen removal. In: Advanced biological processes for wastewater treatment. Springer, Cham.
  5. Buha DM, Atalia KR, Shah NK (2017) Continuous process study on simultaneous nitrification–denitrification of high ammoniacal nitrogen load wastewater in aerobic–anoxic sequencing bioreactors. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14:2451–2458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton CH (2007) The potential contribution of separation technologies to the management of livestock manure. Livest Sci 112:208–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cestonaro do Amaral A, Kunz A, Radis Steinmetz RL et al (2016) Influence of solid–liquid separation strategy on biogas yield from a stratified swine production system. J Environ Manag 168:229–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiumenti A (2015) Complete nitrification-denitrification of swine manure in a full-scale, non-conventional composting system. Waste Manag 46:577–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Prá MC, Kunz A, Bortoli M et al (2012) Simultaneous removal of TOC and TSS in swine wastewater using the partial nitritation process. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 87:1641–1647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Prá MC, Kunz A, Bortoli M et al (2016) Kinetic models for nitrogen inhibition in ANAMMOX and nitrification process on deammonification system at room temperature. Bioresour Technol 202:33–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dublen D, Steinhauser A (2011) Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction, 2nd edn. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGa, Wemheim. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards VH (1970) The influence of high substrate concentrations on microbial kinetics. Biotechnol Bioeng 12:679–712. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falahati F, Baghdadi M, Aminzadeh B (2018) Treatment of dairy wastewater by graphene oxide nanoadsorbent and sludge separation, using In Situ Sludge Magnetic Impregnation (ISSMI). Pollution 4:29–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng L, Jia R, Zeng Z et al (2018) Simultaneous nitrification–denitrification and microbial community profile in an oxygen-limiting intermittent aeration SBBR with biodegradable carriers. Biodegradation 29:473–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fragoso RA, Duarte EA, Paiva J (2015) Contribution of coagulation–flocculation process for a more sustainable pig slurry management. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:4–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gao F, Nan J, Li S, Wang Y (2018) Modeling and simulation of a biological process for treating different COD: N ratio wastewater using an extended ASM1 model. Chem Eng J 332:671–681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geraldi MH (ed) (2006) Wastewater bacteria. Wiley, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giongo A, Bortoli M, De Prá MC et al (2018) swine wastewater nitrogen removal at different C/N ratios using the modified Ludzack-Ettinger process. Eng Agri 4430:968–977. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golzary A, Tavakoli O, Rezaei Y, Karbassi AR (2018) Wastewater treatment by Azolla filiculoides (A study on color, odor, cod, nitrate, and phosphate removal). Pollution 4:69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta VK, Ali I (2013) Environmental water: advances in treatment, remediation and recycling, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habibi A, Amrei D, Pajoum F (2018) A novel open raceway pond design for microalgae growth and nutrients removal from treated slaughterhouse wastewater. Pollution 4:103–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He T, Li Z, Xie D et al (2018) Simultaneous nitrification and denitrification with different mixed nitrogen loads by a hypothermia aerobic bacterium. Biodegradation 29:159–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewawasam C, Matsuura N, Maharjan N et al (2017) Oxygen transfer dynamics and nitrification in a novel rotational sponge reactor. Biochem Eng J 128:162–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hjorth M, Christensen KV, Christensen ML, Sommer SG (2010) Solid–liquid separation of animal slurry in therory and practice. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:153–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunz A, Mukhtar S (2016) Hydrophobic membrane technology for ammonia extraction from wastewaters. Eng Agrícola 36:377–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunz A, Miele M, Steinmetz RLR (2009) Advanced swine manure treatment and utilization in Brazil. Bioresour Technol 100:5485–5489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lackner S, Horn H (2012) Evaluating operation strategies and process stability of a single stage nitritation-anammox SBR by use of the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). Bioresour Technol 107:70–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leyva-Díaz JC, González-Martínez A, González-López J et al (2015) Kinetic modeling and microbiological study of two-step nitrification in a membrane bioreactor and hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Chem Eng J 259:692–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu G, Wang J (2017) Enhanced removal of total nitrogen and total phosphorus by applying intermittent aeration to the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process. J Clean Prod 166:163–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu F, Hu X, Zhao X et al (2018) Rapid nitrification process upgrade coupled with succession of the microbial community in a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Bioresour Technol 249:1062–1065. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Makara A, Kowalski Z (2015) Pig manure treatment and purification by filtration. J Environ Manag 161:317–324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martinho D (2015) The agricultural economics of the 21st century. Springer, Cham. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalf L, Eddy HP (2003) Wastewater engineering treatment and reuse, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohan TVK, Nancharaiah YV, Venugopalan VP, Satya Sai PM (2016) Effect of C/N ratio on denitrification of high-strength nitrate wastewater in anoxic granular sludge sequencing batch reactors. Ecol Eng 91:441–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Annu Rev Microbiol 3:371–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peng W, Pivato A, Lavagnolo MC, Raga R (2018) Digestate application in landfill bioreactors to remove nitrogen of old landfill leachate. Waste Manag 74:335–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Qu D, Wang C, Wang Y et al (2015) Heterotrophic nitrification and aerobic denitrification by a novel groundwater origin cold-adapted bacterium at low temperatures. RSC Adv 5:5149–5157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riaño B, García-González MC (2014) On-farm treatment of swine manure based on solid–liquid separation and biological nitrification–denitrification of the liquid fraction. J Environ Manag 132:87–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rice EW, Baird RB, Eaton AD (eds) (2017) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 23rd edn. American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Shahriari T, Saeb B (2017) Assessment of effective operational parameters on dyeing wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation process. Pollution 3:517–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Teissier G (1942) Growth of bacterial populations and the available substrate concentration. Rev Sci Instrum 3208:209–214Google Scholar
  42. Tullo E, Finzi A, Guarino M (2019) Review: environmental impact of livestock farming and precision livestock farming as a mitigation strategy. Sci Total Environ 650:2751–2760. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vanotti MB, Szogi AA, Millner PD, Loughrin JH (2009) Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresour Technol 100:5406–5416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Viancelli A, Kunz A, Steinmetz RLR et al (2013) Performance of two swine manure treatment systems on chemical composition and on the reduction of pathogens. Chemosphere 90:1539–1544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Von Sperling M (1996) Princípios básicos do tratamento de esgotos, vol 2. Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  46. Von Sperling M (2007) Activated sludge and aerobic biofilm reactors. IWA Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Weißbach M, Drewes JE, Koch K (2018) Application of the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) for process control and monitoring nitrite in a Coupled Aerobic-anoxic Nitrous Decomposition Operation (CANDO). Chem Eng J 343:484–491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang J, Trela J, Plaza E et al (2016) Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) as a control parameter in a single-stage partial nitritation/anammox process treating reject water. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 91:2582–2589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhou Y, Ma J, Zhang Y et al (2017) Improving water quality in China: environmental investment pays dividends. Water Res 118:152–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zoppas FM, Bernardes AM, Meneguzzi Á (2016) Parâmetros operacionais na remoção biológica de nitrogênio de águas por nitrificação e desnitrificação simultânea. Eng Sanit Ambient 21:29–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Estadual do Oeste do ParanáCascavelBrazil
  2. 2.Embrapa Suínos e AvesConcórdiaBrazil
  3. 3.Universidade Tecnológica Federal do ParanáFrancisco BeltrãoBrazil

Personalised recommendations