4.7 Article

Antibiotic removal from swine farming wastewater by anaerobic membrane bioreactor: Role of hydraulic retention time

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 677, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2023.121629

关键词

Anaerobic membrane bioreactor; Hydraulic retention time; Swine wastewater; Antibiotic removal; Methane yield

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the removal of veterinary antibiotics by anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) for swine wastewater treatment. Results showed that the removal efficiency of antibiotics varied from 21 to 99% regardless of HRT. Increasing HRT enhanced antibiotic removal and methane yield. Prolonging HRT also reduced membrane fouling in AnMBR operation.
This study investigated the impact of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the removal of veterinary antibiotics by an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) for swine wastewater treatment. Ten commonly used antibiotics in the group of tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, and sulfonamides were evaluated. Results show that a wide vari-ation from 21 to 99% was observed for antibiotic removal by AnMBR regardless of the applied HRT. The methane yield increased from 0.22 L/g COD to 0.28 L/g COD as the operational HRT was prolonged from 24 to 48 h for AnMBR. Doubling the HRT value enhanced removal of most antibiotics and methane yield by 2-30% and 22-47%, respectively. The enhanced antibiotic removal in response to HRT prolongation could be positively correlated to the enrichment of the genus unidentified_Synergistaceae. Moreover, prolonging HRT increased the relative abundance of the genera unidentified_Synergistaceae, Geobacter and Methanobrevibacter, which could strengthen hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis to enhance methane yield. In addition, HRT increase reduced the ratio of protein to polysaccharide in both extracellular polymeric substances and soluble microbial products, thereby, alleviating membrane fouling in AnMBR operation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据