Issue

Vol. 26 No. 2 (2014): Vol 26 Issue 2

Copyright (c) 2014 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Effect of Two Different Sulfamethazine Addition Methods on Psychrophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Wastewater

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.15419
Lu Huang1
1College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 2Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 3Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia 4Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan 528200, P.R. China *Corresponding author: E-mail: wuyinbao@scau.edu.cn 
Ruipeng Guo1
1College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 2Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 3Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia 4Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan 528200, P.R. China *Corresponding author: E-mail: wuyinbao@scau.edu.cn 
Juanboo Liang3
1College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 2Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 3Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia 4Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan 528200, P.R. China *Corresponding author: E-mail: wuyinbao@scau.edu.cn 
Baohua Ma4
1College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 2Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 3Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia 4Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan 528200, P.R. China *Corresponding author: E-mail: wuyinbao@scau.edu.cn 
Xindi Liao1
1College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 2Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 3Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia 4Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan 528200, P.R. China *Corresponding author: E-mail: wuyinbao@scau.edu.cn 
Yinbao Wu1
1College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 2Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, P.R. China 3Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia 4Nanhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Foshan 528200, P.R. China *Corresponding author: E-mail: wuyinbao@scau.edu.cn 

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 26 No. 2 (2014): Vol 26 Issue 2

Abstract

Veterinary antibiotic residue in manure is one of the most important factors which have an impact on the anaerobic digestion. This article studied the effect of sulfamethazine (SM-2) on psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure by two adding methods, addition of manure from swine fed with SM-2 in diet and direct addition of SM-2 with blank manure, under two adding concentrations of SM-2 (2.38 and 1.24 mg/g dry swine manure). Anaerobic digestion experiment was conducted at 20 ºC in laboratory digesters with the effective working volume of 1.3 L. Methane production of each digester was measured by displacement method daily. Grad samples were collected to determine the concentration of SM-2, pH, chemical oxygen demand (COD) in slurry and organic matter in biogas residue. The results showed that the concentration of SM-2 in anaerobic system fed with manure containing SM-2 was lower than that fed with blank manure and SM-2 under the same addition of SM-2 and the degradation rate of SM-2 in the high concentration treatment was faster than that in the low concentration treatment. Compared with the control group, the treatments added with SM-2 had no significant difference in methane production, COD in slurry and organic matter in biogas residue, but adding SM-2 and blank manure improved pH of swine slurry in SM-2 adding period. Due to the different degradation rate of SM-2 in anaerobic digestion between the two adding methods of SM-2, using manure collect from animals administered with SM-2 is more appropriate to assess the effect of SM-2 on anaerobic digestion.

Keywords

Sulfamethazine Swine manure Anaerobic digestion.
Huang1, L., Guo1, R., Liang3, J., Ma4, B., Liao1, X., & Wu1, Y. (2014). Effect of Two Different Sulfamethazine Addition Methods on Psychrophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Wastewater. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 26(2), 411–415. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.15419
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. M. Mellon, C. Benbrook and K.L. Benbrook Estimates of Antibiotics Abuse in livestock: Union of Concerned, Scientists Publications Washington DC, pp. 7-9 (2001)
  2. L. Zhao, Y.H. Dong and H. Wang, Sci. Total Environ., 408, 1069 (2010); doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.014.
  3. C.B. Fedler and D.L. Day, Trans. ASAE, 28, 523 (1985).
  4. D.I. Massé, D.L. Lu, L. Masse and R.L. Droste, Bioresour. Technol., 75, 205 (2000); doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00046-8.
  5. O.A. Arikan, L.J. Sikora, W. Mulbry, S.U. Khan, C. Rice and G.D. Foster, Process Biochem., 41, 1637 (2006); doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2006.03.010.
  6. J.J. Stone, S.A. Clay, Z. Zhu, K.L. Wong, L.R. Porath and G.M. Spellman, Water Res., 43, 4740 (2009); doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.08.005.
  7. A. Sankvist, M. Hagelberg and B. Mathisen, Bioenergy, 84, 422 (1984).
  8. Commission of Chinese Veterinary Pharmacopoeia, Veterinary Pharma-copoeia of the People Republic of China, China Agriculture Press (2005).
  9. J.C. Shi, X.D. Liao, Y.B. Wu and J.B. Liang, An. Feed Sci. Technol., 166-167, 457 (2011); doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.033.
  10. J.-P. Niu, Z.-H. Wu and Q.-Z. Shi, J. Anhui Agric. Sci., 37, 1767 (2009).
  11. C.L. Zhang, Y. Wang and F. Wang, Ecol. Environ., 16, 1679 (2007).
  12. L.L. Duan, Fate of Sulfamethazine and Its Metabolite in Sandy Loamy Soil, China Agriculture University (2005).
  13. K.A. Loftin, C. Henny, C.D. Adams, R. Surampali and M.R. Mormile, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 24, 782 (2005); doi:10.1897/04-093R.1.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0