Comparative efficacy of anaerobic digestion systems in removing antimicrobial resistance genes from swine wastewater.

Autor: Sun D; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Shi X; Beijing Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine, Animal Science and Technology College, Beijing University of Agriculture, Beijing 102206, China., Shen Y; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Liu Y; State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Luo S; State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Jin Y; State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Zhai W; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Liu L; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Deng Z; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Sun C; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Liu D; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Yang X; Hainan Animal Disease Control Center, Haikou 571100, China., Xie Y; Hainan Animal Disease Control Center, Haikou 571100, China., Krüger-Haker H; Institute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Center for Infection Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 14163, Germany; Veterinary Centre for Resistance Research (TZR), School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 14163, Germany., Wu C; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Schwarz S; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; Institute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Center for Infection Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 14163, Germany; Veterinary Centre for Resistance Research (TZR), School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 14163, Germany., Shen J; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China., Chen Y; State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China. Electronic address: yqchen@cau.edu.cn., Ma S; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China. Electronic address: shizhenma@cau.edu.cn., Wang Y; Technology Innovation Center for Food Safety Surveillance and Detection (Hainan), Sanya Institute of China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China; National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China. Electronic address: wangyang@cau.edu.cn.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of hazardous materials [J Hazard Mater] 2024 Dec 15; Vol. 485, pp. 136868. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Dec 15.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136868
Abstrakt: Swine farm wastewater is a major reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). Anaerobic digestion (AD), widely implemented in farms, has been extensively studied for ARG removal. However, a comparative study on ARG removal efficiency across the four principal AD systems - up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR), buried biogas digester (BBD), and septic tank (SPT) - is lacking. Herein, we employed metagenomic sequencing, ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, as well as atomic absorption spectrometry/atomic fluorescence spectrophotometry, and revealed that UASB and CSTR achieved higher removal efficiencies for both ARGs (67% and 57%) and antibiotic residues (100% and 90%) compared to BBD and SPT. Acinetobacter, Escherichia, Pseudomonas and Streptococcus were the primary ARG hosts, comprising over 65% of the total abundance in influent samples. UASB and CSTR systems demonstrated superior removal efficiencies for both mobile genetic elements (MGEs) and antibiotic residues, both of which had essential impacts on ARG profiles. In addition, heavy metals might contribute to variation in ARGs through horizontal gene transfer. Collectively, the variation in microbial communities and better removal of both MGEs and antibiotic residues contribute to the remarkable ARG removal efficiency of UASB and CSTR, therefore, advocating for the widespread adoption of these two AD systems in swine farms.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: