Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Online News Trends of the Metaverse in South Korea: A Data-Mining-Driven Semantic Network Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Hybrid Intelligence for Marine Biodiversity: Integrating Citizen Science with AI for Enhanced Intertidal Conservation Efforts at Cape Santiago, Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Developing an MQ-LSTM-Based Cultural Tourism Accelerator with Database Security
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Harmful Algal Bloom Detection Model Combining Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Multi-Factor and Meteorological Heterogeneous Data
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cultivation of Brackish Water Microalgae for Pig Manure Liquid Digestate Recycling

1
Department of Aquaculture, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan
2
Center of Excellence for the Oceans, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan
3
Livestock Management Division, Livestock Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Tainan 71246, Taiwan
4
Department of Environmental Biology and Fisheries Science, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(23), 16278; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316278
Submission received: 23 October 2023 / Revised: 19 November 2023 / Accepted: 21 November 2023 / Published: 24 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management and Conservation of the Oceans)

Abstract

:
Sustainability and recycling of agricultural and animal husbandry waste are important. Pig manure contains relatively high concentrations of organic matter, such as nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and phosphate, and a direct discharge can cause environmental pollution. This study successfully culturing four brackish water microalgae, including Tetraselmis chuii, Isochrysis galbana, Chlorella vulgaris, and Proteomonas sulcata, by using a diluted digestate solution of pig manure (NH3 concentration is lower than 10 mg/L). These microalgae can reach their highest cell concentration within 3–7 days of cultivation. The small microalgae, C. vulgaris and I. galbana, reached a cell density of 2.5 × 107 and 1.5 × 107, respectively, whereas lower cell densities were documented for large microalgae T. chuii (1.4 × 106) and P. sulcata (1.6 × 106). Our findings highlight the feasibility of sustainable treatment of animal manure using brackish water microalgae. These results provide opportunities to reduce freshwater usage and environmental pollutions, and support microalgae production for further aquaculture application.

1. Introduction

The rapid expansion of the livestock industry, notably pig farming, poses significant environmental challenges due to the substantial generation of waste [1,2,3]. In Taiwan, pig farming is a major contributor to the issue of waste generation; approximately 5 million metric tons of waste are produced annually, predominantly from pig manure [4,5]. This waste, rich in organics, nitrogen, and phosphates, poses serious environmental risks if not properly managed, affecting water, soil, and air quality [1,2,3].
Pig farm wastewater is especially problematic, characterized by high concentrations of organic matter, suspended solids, and potentially harmful substances, like antibiotics and hormones [6,7,8,9]. Traditional biotechnologies for treating this wastewater, such as anaerobic digestion and various physical or chemical methods, are effective, but they often involve high costs and resource wastage [6,7,8,9]. Smaller-scale farms in Taiwan, which typically follow a three-stage wastewater treatment process, face issues like high electricity costs and residual nitrogen and phosphorus in effluents. These factors underscore the importance of exploring alternative solutions for manure management [4,5].
In response to these challenges, the concept of circular agriculture, which emphasizes recycling agricultural resources, has emerged as a crucial strategy for sustainability [10,11,12,13]. This approach includes transforming waste into valuable resources through innovative treatment methods. For instance, countries like Denmark and Italy have successfully utilized animal waste for agricultural fertilization [10,11,12,13].
A promising aspect of circular agriculture is the cultivation of microalgae using nutrient-rich effluents from pig farming [14,15,16,17,18]. This not only treats the effluent effectively but also produces valuable biomass that can be economically leveraged. Despite its potential, there are significant challenges, such as the variability of digestate composition, the cost of cultivation, and safety concerns, which hinder the large-scale application of this technology [17,18,19,20,21]. Microalgae, recognized for their high lipid content and efficiency in treating various pollutants, present a viable solution for wastewater treatment [22,23,24]. However, challenges like efficient harvesting and the high water content in suspension cultures necessitate innovative approaches, such as direct use in aquaculture, to circumvent the costs of harvesting [25,26,27].
Aquaculture often employs fish meal, agricultural fertilizers, organic fertilizers, or fish slurry from lesser-value fish for anaerobic fermentation in fertilization ponds [28]. If pig manure digestate could be utilized to cultivate aquaculture-specific algae, it would save on input costs for raw materials and fertilizers and offer a novel utilization model for the digestate. In Taiwan, where brackish aquaculture predominates, and many pig farms are located in coastal areas, there is an opportunity to integrate pig manure digestate with saltwater microalgae cultivation. This study explores the potential of using pig manure and urine digestion liquid to cultivate four saltwater microalgae species, aiming to produce feed organisms for shellfish and aquaculture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microalage Culture

Four pure-strain algae, Tetraselmis chuii, Isochrysis galbana, Chlorella vulgaris, and Proteomonas sulcata, were sourced from the Taiwan International Algae Research Fund, National Taiwan Ocean University. These microalgae were cultured in 250 mL conical flasks in static, each containing 100 mL of filtered and autoclaved natural seawater (salinity 30–33) enriched with F/2 medium (https://utex.org/, accessed on 1 October 2023) and maintained in a climate-controlled room at 26 ± 1 °C with a 12-h light-dark cycle at an illumination of 4000 lux. The cultures, utilized during their exponential growth phase, were inoculated every 10–14 days, ensuring a consistent supply of active biomass for the experiments.

2.2. Collection and Preparation of Pig Manure Liquid Digestate

From March to August 2022, pig manure liquid digestate was sourced from pig farms in Chang-hua’s coastal region, Taiwan, each housing 500–1000 pigs. This digestate was processed through solid–liquid separation and anaerobic digestion. The liquid was filtered using a 100-mesh filter net to remove suspended solids, stored in chemical barrels, and then transported to the laboratory. A comprehensive analysis of the liquid digestate was completed within three days of collection to maintain data accuracy and relevance (Supplementary SA1).

2.3. Water Quality Parameters

When using pig manure liquid digestate as a nutrient source for cultivating microalgae, the deep brown color of the digestate can interfere with the determination of algal color and the outcomes of colorimetric water quality assessments, necessitating calibration of colorimetric measurements. Tests were conducted using a Lovibond XD7500 spectrophotometer (The Tintometer Limited, Amesbury, England) in conjunction with proprietary reagents, then diluting samples to concentrations within the ranges recommended in the manual. In practice, once the digestate was diluted 50–100-fold, its original color was no longer pronounced, and the test results were minimally impacted. Additionally, the digestate, when collected, often contained high levels of suspended solids and continued to undergo digestion and nitrification reactions before algae cultivation. Therefore, water quality tests were conducted after each preparation to ensure the reliability of our experimental results. In field applications, where using the Lovibond XD7500 spectrophotometer is impractical, the WaterLink Spin Touch FX photometer was employed for rapid testing. Despite variations between the two testing methods, data obtained from the WaterLink Spin Touch FX photometer (LaMotte Company, Chestertown, MD, USA) was adjusted based on the results from the Lovibond XD7500 spectrophotometer for calibration.

2.4. Digestate Application in Microalgae Cultivation

Initial tests on the four algae strains established the optimal digestate dilution ratio for cultivation, finding a 50 to 100-fold dilution with 2–10 mg/L ammonia nitrogen most effective. Post-preparation, the culture medium was sterilized, and following algae inoculation, water quality parameters (NH3, PO43−, NO2, NO3) were assessed using an Lovibond XD7500 spectrophotometer (The Tintometer Limited, Amesbury, England) and standard test kits. Algae concentration was determined using hemocytometer-based cell counts conducted in triplicate.

2.4.1. Four Algae Strains in the Same Digestate Medium

Over 14 days, the four algae strains were cultured under identical conditions, with water quality and cell counts assessed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 14. An additional 7-day period followed to observe potential aging effects on the algae. The experiment was conducted in a climate-controlled room at 26 ± 1 °C with a 12 h light–dark cycle at an illumination of 4000 lux.

2.4.2. Four Algae Strains in Different Digestate Mediums

In parallel, C. vulgaris and T. chuii were grown across eight different digestate mediums, and I. galbana and P. sulcata were grown in 10 other mediums. All were grown over 14 days and were evaluated at similar intervals. Separately, T. chuii was cultivated in 40 distinct digestate mediums over 7 days, with assessments conducted on days 0 and 7. All these study subsets maintained the consistent cultivation conditions outlined in Section 2.4.1.

2.5. Field Application of Digestate-Cultivated Algae

Field tests (outdoor) ranged from 200 and 500 L (microalgae and zooplankton) to 10 tons (bivalves) and involved species like rotifers, copepods, Japanese clam (Corbicula japonica), and oyster seedlings (Magallana angulata). The digestate and seawater were not disinfected or sterilized during cultivation but were filtered (300-mesh). Cultivation commenced with a mixture of T. chuii and C. vulgaris, anticipating some contamination over time. Initial concentrations were 10 rotifer and 0.1 copepods per mL, and bivalve seedlings were fed the cultivated algae daily. Water quality parameters, including NH3 (0–4.0 mg/L), NO3 (0–60 mg/L), NO2 (0–2.0 mg/L), and PO43− (0–2.0 mg/L), were regularly measured using a WaterLink Spin Touch FX photometer (LaMotte Company, Chestertown, MD, USA).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The average values of three independent replicates of all trials are presented. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze differences among growth based on cell numbers in all trials. The SPSS software (SPSS Statistics 29) was used for all the statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Four Algae Strains in the Same Digestate Medium

The microalgae T. chuii, I. galbana, C. vulgaris, and P. sulcata were cultivated using pig manure liquid digestate in the experiments. The digestate was optimally diluted 50–100 times (keeping NH3 concentrations 2–3 mg/L), with an initial algae inoculation ratio of 8 × 104 to 2.5 × 106. In Experiment 2.4.1, the NH3 concentration was measured at 2.7 mg/L, and the NO3 concentration (186 mg/L) was relatively high. After 1–3 days of cultivation, the NH3 was almost entirely depleted, with NO3 predominating after that point. By the 7th day of cultivation, I. galbana and P. sulcata reached their peak concentrations and then declined (1.5 × 107 and 1.6 × 106, respectively; Figure 1). In contrast, T. chuii and C. vulgaris did not reach their highest concentrations until day 14 of cultivation (1.4 × 106 and 2.5 × 107, respectively; Figure 1). Notably, NO2 levels increased over time, while PO43− was scarcely consumed.

3.2. Chlorophyta Algae Cultivation in Eight Different Digestate Mediums

In Experiment 2.4.2, the cultivation concentrations of C. vulgaris ranged between 2.86 × 106 and 1.65 × 107 (ANOVA, p < 0.001, Supplementary SA2). In contrast, those of T. chuii ranged from 7.15 × 105 to 1.09 × 106 (ANOVA, p < 0.001, Supplementary SA2), exhibiting a wide adaptation range to nutrient salts (NH3 from 6.8 to 10.8, NO3 from 0 to 210; Figure 2 and Figure 3). Similar to Experiment 2.4.1, there were no significant effects on C. vulgaris and T. chuii when NH3 was below 10 mg/L and NO3 was under 200. However, when NH3 was higher (exceeding 10 mg/L), even after 14 days of cultivation, NH3 was not wholly utilized, leaving higher residues, which might be the reason for the lower final concentrations of C. vulgaris (Figure 2, trials 7–8) The excess of NO3 and PO43− had no significant effects on algal growth. Still, the accumulation of unused nutrients could potentially affect the subsequent use of algae in feeding zooplankton and bivalves.

3.3. Chromista Algae Cultivation in 10 Different Digestate Mediums

In Experiment 2.4.2, the cultivation concentrations of I. galbana ranged from 3.8 × 106 to 1.5 × 107 (ANOVA, p < 0.001, Supplementary SA2), while those of P. sulcata were between 1.3 × 106 and 8.8 × 106 (ANOVA, p < 0.001, Supplementary SA2), demonstrating a broad adaptability to nutrient salts (NH3 from 5.4 to 12.6, NO3 from 3 to 95; Figure 4 and Figure 5). Similar to Experiment 2.4.1, there were no notable impacts on I. galbana and P. sulcata when NH3 was less than 10 mg/L and NO3 was below 200. However, when NH3 levels were higher (more than 10 mg/L), even after 14 days of cultivation, not all NH3 could be consumed entirely, leaving a higher residue, which may explain the lower final concentrations of I. galbana (Figure 4, trials 8). The effects of excessive NO3 and PO43− on algal growth were less clear, but the accumulation of nutrients that are not fully utilized might affect the subsequent application of these algae in feeding zooplankton and bivalves.

3.4. Tetraselmis Algae Cultivation in 40 Different Digestate Mediums

A total of 40 trials were further conducted on T. chuii. The cultivation concentrations of T. chuii ranged from 3.75 × 105 to 1.5 × 106 (ANOVA, p < 0.001, Supplementary SA2), showcasing a wide adaptability to nutrient salts (NH3 from 4.1 to 47.2, NO3 from 0 to 4.2; Figure 6), with the highest concentrations similar to those in other group experiments. Consistent with other tests, when NH3 was above 10 mg/L, NH3 could not be fully utilized even after 7 days of cultivation, leaving higher residues. However, T. chuii exhibited a higher tolerance to elevated NH3 levels, resulting in a lesser impact on cell concentrations after 7 days (Figure 6, trials 10, 20, 30, and 40). Additionally, when NH3 was below 7 mg/L and PO43− was under 3 mg/L, T. chuii could absorb most of the nutrients within 7 days (Figure 6, trials 10, 20, 30 and 40).

3.5. Field Application of Digestate-Cultivated Algae

Outdoor cultivation of a mixture of microalgae (T. chuii and C. vulgaris) was conducted in 200–500 L volumes, achieving concentrations between 1.3 and 2.5 × 105 (Figure 7). Following cultivation to higher densities, protozoans, diatoms, and dinoflagellates began to appear. When using 50–100-fold diluted digestate (with NH3 concentration at 5.9 mg/L, NO3 at 3 mg/L, and PO43− at 1.5 mg/L), NH3 was wholly consumed after 7 days, while varying residues of NO3 and PO43− remained (Figure 7). The mixed algae culture could sustain itself for 3–7 days without additional digestate, depending on the outdoor weather conditions. Prolonged maintenance was possible with multiple additions of diluted digestate (50 to 100 times), but this led to increased algal residue on the walls and bottom of the containers.
In outdoor cultures, both adult and juvenile, zooplankton (rotifers and copepods) and bivalves (clams and oysters) showed average growth, with no significant difference compared to chemical fertilizers. When applying digestate as fertilizer in the field, keeping NH3 concentrations below 10 mg/L did not result in toxicity or excessive accumulation of nutrients for the microalgae. A clear impact was observed for copepods when NH3 concentrations exceeded 5 mg/L. Subsequently, the cultivated low-density mixed algae culture could be transferred to FRP barrels for further microalgae expansion or feeding bait animals. Ammonia nitrogen levels were monitored to stay below 0.1 mg/L in bivalve tanks, below one mg/L in zooplankton tanks, and under ten mg/L in algae tanks (Figure 8). Post-feeding, algae concentrations in bivalve tanks were kept below 1.0 × 104, in zooplankton tanks below 1.0 × 105, and in algae tanks typically between 1.0 × 104 and 5.0 × 105, varying with algal strains and climate conditions. After a week of cultivating the mixed algae, rotifers introduced into the culture reached their peak density (32–54 ind/mL) approximately one week later. In comparison, copepods took two weeks to get their highest density (0.52–0.7 ind/mL).

4. Discussion

The rapid growth of the livestock industry, especially in developing countries, has led to a significant increase in animal waste, posing environmental challenges [28,29]. In 2019 in Taiwan, there were a substantial number of pig farms (5991) with about 5.5 million pigs, resulting in a large volume of pollutant wastewater [4,5]. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is widely used for its environmental benefits, notably in reducing methane emissions and producing biogas energy. In Taiwan, AD is primarily adopted by large-scale pig farms, as setting up biogas plants requires significant investment [4,5,30]. Smaller-scale farms in Taiwan, which typically have from 500 to 1000 pigs, often use a standard three-stage wastewater treatment that includes solid–liquid separation, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic aeration. While this method is effective in some aspects, it incurs high electricity and maintenance costs. It does not fully address the issue of nutrient-rich effluents, which can contribute to eutrophication. Thus, while AD technology helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, its effectiveness in mitigating the environmental impact on water resources remains limited, underscoring the need for alternative manure management strategies [1,2,3].
The use of microalgae for treating wastewater from various sources is being increasingly researched. Wastewater treatment systems based on algae primarily employ eukaryotic green algae and prokaryotic cyanobacteria [31], with several studies highlighting the efficiency of Chlorella [18,19,20,21,22,32]. For instance, Safi et al. [22] compiled the effects of Chlorella vulgaris on different types of wastewater (agricultural, municipal), reporting nitrogen removal of 45–97% and phosphorus removal of 28–96%. Silva et al. [31] found that Chlorella sorokiniana and Chlorocaccum sp. could grow in tubular photobioreactors (PBRs) and remove nitrogen and phosphorus from anaerobically digested blackwater, with removal rates of 28–62 mg.L−1.d−1 for nitrogen and 2.3–5.4 mg.L−1.d−1 for phosphorus. Other green algae, such as Scenedesmus, have also shown promising results [16,33,34,35]. Figler et al. [33] used Coelastrum morus to remove nitrogen and phosphorus from high-saline wastewater. The four brackish microalgae used in this study have not been applied in wastewater treatment, partly due to the fact that most wastewater treatments focus on fresh water, with limited demand for saline wastewater treatment [35]. The green algae Chlorella vulgaris is a marine type with a lower tolerance and treatment capacity for ammonium nitrogen than other studies. Moreover, Tetraselmis chuii performed better with higher levels of ammonium nitrogen (Figure 1 and Figure 6).
Although the brackish water microalgae used in our study showed a lower tolerance to ammonium nitrogen than freshwater microalgae, there is a practical need for treating these types of livestock wastewater in Taiwan, an island nation with many livestock farms near the coast. In Chang-hua, the location of digestate collection, coastal areas are often a mix of livestock farms and brackish aquaculture. Wastewater discharged from livestock farms frequently causes eutrophication in drainage channels, serving as water inlets and outlets for brackish ponds. In these areas, bivalve farming (hard clam; Meretrix taiwanica) is a major product. High ammonium nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the inlet make water quality control difficult. Therefore, treating this livestock wastewater with brackish water microalgae meets a real need.
Beyond nitrogen, phosphorus is a crucial factor limiting algal growth in water. A study of 227 lakes in northwestern Ontario, Canada, found that bodies of water remained eutrophic as long as they contained sufficient phosphorus [36]. When phosphorus input is limited, microorganisms cannot acquire phosphorus through alternative pathways, and the amount of algae in the water rapidly decreases. When nitrogen input is limited, the water stimulates the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, with little effect on the amount of algae [36,37,38]. Studies have shown that, even under aerobic conditions in the ocean and coastal seas, certain non-heterocystous filamentous cyanobacteria and unicellular cyanobacteria can contribute significantly to nitrogen fixation [37,38]. Thus, phosphorus is the main factor regulating algal numbers in the water [37,38]. In our study, ammonia was the first to be utilized, and excess phosphorus was rarely wholly consumed, so over long-term serial cultivation, the accumulation of too much phosphorus could affect subsequent applications (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Nutrient concentrations in wastewater vary greatly. However, nutrient concentrations and imbalanced N:P ratios can result in insufficient growth or nutrient removal [39]. Numerous studies have reported the significance of the N:P ratio from ecological and biotechnological approaches. However, significant variations exist among different phytoplankton species [37]. It is generally acknowledged that this ratio could represent the ideal nutrient proportion essential for growth. Still, algae-specific differences exist: eukaryotic algae’s average optimal N:P ratio ranges from 16–23 N to 1 P [37,39]. In contrast, the discovered optimal ratio for cyanobacteria is 10–16 N to 1 P [38]. The interaction between single or multiple algal species and bacteria can influence the optimal nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio [37,38,39].
In the study, significant production, accumulation, or disappearance of NO2 was observed (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). Generally, algae do not participate in nitrification processes. This is because ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, primarily belonging to the β- and γ-proteobacteria, perform the oxidation of NH4+ to NO2. Subsequently, nitrite-oxidizing bacteria carry out the oxidation of NO2 to NO3 [40]. In the non-sterile algae cultivation process, bacterial growth is rapid, leading to the swift production, accumulation, or disappearance of NO2. Due to the limited total amount of ammonia throughout the cultivation process, it is challenging for ammonia-oxidizing bacteria to dominate and persist [41]. This could be one of the reasons for the slow initial growth of microalgae.
Four microalgae strains could inoculate smoothly in our year-long microalgae cultivation when utilizing digestate as a nutrient source. Compared to the F/2 medium, it had a shorter preservation period under conditions containing more organic matter and ammonia. However, digestate could replace complex vitamins and soil extracts with only a minimal addition. This could be because the digestate originates from a difficult nutrient source and organic matter composition [17,31]. While the digestate was sterilized in the small-scale cultivation experiments, it can be used directly in outdoor cultivation. In addition to removing nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater, the two types of green algae cultivated are the most suitable for outdoor cultivation. They are widely used in bivalve cultivation and for producing zooplankton for fish larvae [42]. The other two types of Chromista algae are primarily cultured indoors and supplied for aquaculture mollusk larvae [43]. Therefore, despite the less efficient wastewater treatment effect, the application of using digestate for cultivating microalgae for aquaculture purposes has been demonstrated (Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Further application can be divided into three stages. First, the microalgae are cultured in small-scale tanks with digestate. The second stage involves large-scale outdoor bivalve farming (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Finally, the large-scale outdoor cultivation system is connected with livestock farms, and wastewater treatment can be conducted on-site. This approach helps circumvent the challenge of transporting large volumes of digestate over long distances and eliminates the need to harvest microalgae. Furthermore, it is anticipated to decrease transport costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Enhancing the system’s sustainability, this method holds the potential to achieve a more significant energy surplus [44]. Digestate was utilized instead of the chemical media we initially employed in practical aquaculture applications, achieving favorable results. Digestate proves to be a convenient and straightforward fertilization source, providing effective control of ammonia nitrogen content. Traditionally, bivalves and planktonic fauna and flora in Taiwan were cultivated using the direct application of animal manure for fertilization and fermentation. However, general consumers no longer widely accept the current method of applying raw manure [45]. The early practice of bivalve–livestock–tilapia co-production in Taiwan has disappeared due to the rejection of natural manure. Utilizing digestate as a replacement for non-anaerobically digested manure, especially in the initial cultivation of algae, offers the advantage of reducing harmful bacteria and antibiotics, thereby enhancing the safety of aquatic products [46]. Our study shows the potential of digestate for on-site fertilization in the livestock–saltwater bivalves–fish circular agriculture production system.
As global awareness of sustainable agriculture and environmental protection grows, the technology of treating livestock wastewater with microalgae is gaining broader attention. Cultivating microalgae in brackish/seawater combinations with livestock wastewater might supply some of the missing nutrients and reduce freshwater use, offering a unique and potentially sustainable approach. Our current methods require digestate dilution for these algae to grow normally. However, it is possible that, through gradual adaptation methods or the selection of specific algal strains, the dilution rate can be reduced or even without dilution [47,48]. Future research should optimize microalgae growth conditions, improve nutrient removal efficiency, and develop economic systems to treat diverse wastewater types concurrently. This integrated approach will contribute to the sustainable development of coastal areas where livestock and aquaculture coexist.

5. Conclusions

Microalgae have tremendous potential in the treatment of livestock wastewater. Although there are still some challenges, such as cost, system optimization, and scaled-up production, with the advancement of technology and increased environmental awareness, microalgae technology will become an integral part of sustainable agriculture in the future. The potential of saltwater microalgae for use in livestock wastewater treatment and saline aquaculture has been demonstrated. By integrating innovative technologies and optimized management strategies, saltwater microalgae can address the wastewater treatment issue in the livestock industry, reduce freshwater use, and contribute to the new concept of circular agriculture. This holds significant importance for promoting environmental sustainability and ecological stability.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su152316278/s1, SA1. Water quality parameters of four samples of digestate; SA2. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Figure 2 (A2_Figure_2), Figure 3 (A2_Figure_3), Figure 4 (A2_Figure_4), Figure 5 (A2_Figure_5) and Figure 6 (A2_Figure_6).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.-C.C., T.-H.H. (Tzu-Hsuan Huang), T.-H.H. (Ting-Hsun Hsiao), L.-Y.W. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); methodology, Y.-C.C., T.-H.H. (Tzu-Hsuan Huang), T.-H.H. (Ting-Hsun Hsiao) and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); software, Y.-C.C. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); validation, Y.-C.C., Y.-J.P. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); formal analysis, T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); investigation, Y.-C.C. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); resources, Y.-J.P., T.-H.H. (Tzu-Hsuan Huang), T.-H.H. (Ting-Hsun Hsiao), L.-Y.W. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); data curation, Y.-C.C. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); writing—original draft preparation, Y.-C.C., Y.-J.P., T.-H.H. (Tzu-Hsuan Huang) and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); writing—review and editing, T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); visualization, Y.-C.C. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); supervision, L.-Y.W. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); project administration, L.-Y.W. and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu); funding acquisition, L.-Y.W., T.-H.H. (Ting-Hsun Hsiao) and T.-H.H. (Te-Hua Hsu). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the Livestock Research Institute, Council of Agriculture, Taiwan, with grant number 111AS-14.1.2-LI-L4, and the Ministry of Education, Taiwan (Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project to Center of Excellence for the Oceans, National Taiwan Ocean University).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research did not involve any humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Yu-Ze Lee, Yu-Ze Lin, Lu Lin, and Yu-Ting Chiu for helping with algae cultivation experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Khoshnevisan, B.; Duan, N.; Tsapekos, P.; Awasthi, M.K.; Liu, Z.; Mohammadi, A.; Angelidaki, I.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, J.; et al. A Critical Review on Livestock Manure Biorefinery Technologies: Sustainability, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ronga, D.; Mantovi, P.; Pacchioli, M.T.; Pulvirenti, A.; Bigi, F.; Allesina, G.; Pedrazzi, S.; Tava, A.; Dal Prà, A. Combined Effects of Dewatering, Composting and Pelleting to Valorize and Delocalize Livestock Manure, Improving Agricultural Sustainability. Agronomy 2020, 10, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Finzi, A.; Mattachini, G.; Lovarelli, D.; Riva, E.; Provolo, G. Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of a Collective Integrated Treatment System for Energy Recovery and Nutrient Removal from Livestock Manure. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, Y.-R.; Tsai, W.-T. Valorization of Value-Added Resources from the Anaerobic Digestion of Swine-Raising Manure for Circular Economy in Taiwan. Fermentation 2020, 6, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hsu, E. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Recycling of Agricultural Wastes in Taiwan. Waste Manag. 2021, 120, 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhang, R.-M.; Liu, X.; Wang, S.-L.; Fang, L.-X.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y.-H.; Liao, X.-P. Distribution Patterns of Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Their Bacterial Hosts in Pig Farm Wastewater Treatment Systems and Soil Fertilized with Pig Manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 758, 143654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cheng, D.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.S.; Liu, Y.W.; Zhou, J.L.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Bui, X.T.; Zhang, X.B. Bioprocessing for Elimination Antibiotics and Hormones from Swine Wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 1664–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Cheng, D.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Liu, Y.; Wei, Q.; Wei, D. A Critical Review on Antibiotics and Hormones in Swine Wastewater: Water Pollution Problems and Control Approaches. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 387, 121682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tigini, V.; Franchino, M.; Bona, F.; Varese, G.C. Is Digestate Safe? A Study on Its Ecotoxicity and Environmental Risk on a Pig Manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 551–552, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Duan, N.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Lin, C.; Liu, Z.; Liu, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Anaerobic Digestion of Pig Manure Coupled with Different Digestate Treatment Technologies. Environ. Int. 2020, 137, 105522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nkoa, R. Agricultural Benefits and Environmental Risks of Soil Fertilization with Anaerobic Digestates: A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 473–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Walsh, J.J.; Jones, D.L.; Edwards-Jones, G.; Williams, A.P. Replacing Inorganic Fertilizer with Anaerobic Digestate May Maintain Agricultural Productivity at Less Environmental Cost. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 840–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Samoraj, M.; Mironiuk, M.; Izydorczyk, G.; Witek-Krowiak, A.; Szopa, D.; Moustakas, K.; Chojnacka, K. The Challenges and Perspectives for Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Waste and Fertilizer Application of the Digestate. Chemosphere 2022, 295, 133799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhao, G.; Wang, X.; Hong, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhai, Q.; Zhang, H. Attached Cultivation of Microalgae on Rational Carriers for Swine Wastewater Treatment and Biomass Harvesting. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 351, 127014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhou, J.; Wu, Y.; Pan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Lu, H.; Duan, N. Pretreatment of Pig Manure Liquid Digestate for Microalgae Cultivation via Innovative Flocculation-Biological Contact Oxidation Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Xu, J.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, G.; Zhang, H. Nutrient Removal and Biogas Upgrading by Integrating Freshwater Algae Cultivation with Piggery Anaerobic Digestate Liquid Treatment. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 6493–6501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bauer, L.; Ranglová, K.; Masojídek, J.; Drosg, B.; Meixner, K. Digestate as Sustainable Nutrient Source for Microalgae—Challenges and Prospects. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pulgarin, A.; Kapeller, A.G.; Tarik, M.; Egloff, S.; Mariotto, M.; Ludwig, C.; Refardt, D. Cultivation of Microalgae at High-Density with Pretreated Liquid Digestate as a Nitrogen Source: Fate of Nitrogen and Improvements on Growth Limitations. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zou, X.; Xu, K.; Chang, W.; Qu, Y.; Li, Y. A Novel Microalgal Biofilm Reactor Using Walnut Shell as Substratum for Microalgae Biofilm Cultivation and Lipid Accumulation. Renew. Energy 2021, 175, 676–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Q.; Yu, Z.; Jin, S.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Guo, D.; Hu, M.; Ruan, R.; Liu, Y. Role of Surface Roughness in the Algal Short-Term Cell Adhesion and Long-Term Biofilm Cultivation under Dynamic Flow Condition. Algal Res. 2020, 46, 101787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, Z.; Wang, H.; Cheng, P.; Chang, T.; Chen, P.; Zhou, C.; Ruan, R. Development of Integrated Culture Systems and Harvesting Methods for Improved Algal Biomass Productivity and Wastewater Resource Recovery—A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 746, 141039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Safi, C.; Zebib, B.; Merah, O.; Pontalier, P.-Y.; Vaca-Garcia, C. Morphology, Composition, Production, Processing and Applications of Chlorella vulgaris: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Singh, G.; Patidar, S.K. Development and Applications of Attached Growth System for Microalgae Biomass Production. BioEnergy Res. 2021, 14, 709–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lam, M.K.; Lee, K.T. Microalgae Biofuels: A Critical Review of Issues, Problems and the Way Forward. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 673–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mantzorou, A.; Ververidis, F. Microalgal Biofilms: A Further Step over Current Microalgal Cultivation Techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 3187–3201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhang, Q.; Yu, Z.; Jin, S.; Zhu, L.; Liu, C.; Zheng, H.; Zhou, T.; Liu, Y.; Ruan, R. Lignocellulosic Residue as Bio-Carrier for Algal Biofilm Growth: Effects of Carrier Physicochemical Proprieties and Toxicity on Algal Biomass Production and Composition. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 293, 122091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Singh, G.; Patidar, S.K. Microalgae Harvesting Techniques: A Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 217, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Thornton, P.K.; Gerber, P.J. Climate Change and the Growth of the Livestock Sector in Developing Countries. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2010, 15, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harrison, M.T.; Cullen, B.R.; Mayberry, D.E.; Cowie, A.L.; Bilotto, F.; Badgery, W.B.; Liu, K.; Davison, T.; Christie, K.M.; Muleke, A.; et al. Carbon Myopia: The Urgent Need for Integrated Social, Economic and Environmental Action in the Livestock Sector. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 5726–5761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tsai, W.-T.; Lin, C.-I. Overview Analysis of Bioenergy from Livestock Manure Management in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2682–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Markou, G.; Diamantis, A.; Arapoglou, D.; Mitrogiannis, D.; González-Fernández, C.; Unc, A. Growing Spirulina (Arthrospira Platensis) in Seawater Supplemented with Digestate: Trade-Offs between Increased Salinity, Nutrient and Light Availability. Biochem. Eng. J. 2021, 165, 107815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Silva, G.H.R.; Sueitt, A.P.E.; Haimes, S.; Tripidaki, A.; van Zwieten, R.; Fernandes, T.V. Feasibility of Closing Nutrient Cycles from Black Water by Microalgae-Based Technology. Algal Res. 2019, 44, 101715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Figler, A.; Márton, K.; B-Béres, V.; Bácsi, I. Effects of Nutrient Content and Nitrogen to Phosphorous Ratio on the Growth, Nutrient Removal and Desalination Properties of the Green Alga Coelastrum Morus on a Laboratory Scale. Energies 2021, 14, 2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Q.; Li, X.; Guo, D.; Ye, T.; Xiong, M.; Zhu, L.; Liu, C.; Jin, S.; Hu, Z. Operation of a Vertical Algal Biofilm Enhanced Raceway Pond for Nutrient Removal and Microalgae-Based Byproducts Production under Different Wastewater Loadings. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 253, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Yu, Z.; Pei, H.; Li, Y.; Yang, Z.; Xie, Z.; Hou, Q.; Nie, C. Inclined Algal Biofilm Photobioreactor (IABPBR) for Cost-Effective Cultivation of Lipid-Rich Microalgae and Treatment of Seawater-Diluted Anaerobically Digested Effluent from Kitchen Waste with the Aid of Phytohormones. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 315, 123761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schindler, D.W.; Hecky, R.E.; Findlay, D.L.; Stainton, M.P.; Parker, B.R.; Paterson, M.J.; Beaty, K.G.; Lyng, M.; Kasian, S.E.M. Eutrophication of Lakes Cannot Be Controlled by Reducing Nitrogen Input: Results of a 37-Year Whole-Ecosystem Experiment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 11254–11258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hillebrand, H.; Steinert, G.; Boersma, M.; Malzahn, A.; Meunier, C.L.; Plum, C.; Ptacnik, R. Goldman Revisited: Faster-Growing Phytoplankton Has Lower N : P and Lower Stoichiometric Flexibility. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2013, 58, 2076–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xiao, M.; Burford, M.A.; Wood, S.A.; Aubriot, L.; Ibelings, B.W.; Prentice, M.J.; Galvanese, E.F.; Harris, T.D.; Hamilton, D.P. Schindler’s Legacy: From Eutrophic Lakes to the Phosphorus Utilization Strategies of Cyanobacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2022, 46, fuac029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fernandes, T.V.; Suárez-Muñoz, M.; Trebuch, L.M.; Verbraak, P.J.; Van de Waal, D.B. Toward an Ecologically Optimized N:P Recovery from Wastewater by Microalgae. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Purkhold, U.; Pommerening-Röser, A.; Juretschko, S.; Schmid, M.C.; Koops, H.-P.; Wagner, M. Phylogeny of All Recognized Species of Ammonia Oxidizers Based on Comparative 16S rRNA and amoA Sequence Analysis: Implications for Molecular Diversity Surveys. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 5368–5382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Risgaard-Petersen, N.; Nicolaisen, M.H.; Revsbech, N.P.; Lomstein, B.A. Competition between Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria and Benthic Microalgae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5528–5537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Paul, B.; Chang, Y.-C.; Lin, Y.-Y.; Hsu, T.-H.; Pan, Y.-J. Effects of Temperature and Microalgal Diet on the Fecundity, Population Growth and Fatty Acid Composition of Pseudodiaptomus Ishigakiensis (Calanoid, Copepoda). Aquac. Rep. 2023, 32, 101715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chang, Y.-C.; Ma, C.-H.; Lee, H.-T.; Hsu, T.-H. Polyculture of Juvenile Dog Conch Laevistrombus Canarium Reveals High Potentiality in Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Biology 2021, 10, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Dassey, A.J.; Hall, S.G.; Theegala, C.S. An Analysis of Energy Consumption for Algal Biodiesel Production: Comparing the Literature with Current Estimates. Algal Res. 2014, 4, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Quines, O.D. Microorganisms: Indicators of Pollution in Integrated Livestock-Fish Farming Systems. Environ. Int. 1988, 14, 531–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, S.; Show, P.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Ho, S.-H. Algae-Mediated Antibiotic Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology 2022, 9, 100145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, S.-A.; Lee, N.; Oh, H.-M.; Ahn, C.-Y. Stepwise Treatment of Undiluted Raw Piggery Wastewater, Using Three Microalgal Species Adapted to High Ammonia. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 127934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nwoba, E.G.; Vadiveloo, A.; Bahri, P.B.; McKirdy, S.J.; Moheimani, N.R. Understanding Photochemical Adaptations of Microalgal Ammonium Extremophiles to Elevated Ammonium Concentrations in Abattoir Anaerobic Digestate. Algal Res. 2023, 75, 103272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Growth and water quality parameters of four microalgae strains by the diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 1. Growth and water quality parameters of four microalgae strains by the diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g001
Figure 2. Growth and water quality parameters of Chlorella vulgaris by eight diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 2. Growth and water quality parameters of Chlorella vulgaris by eight diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g002
Figure 3. Growth and water quality parameters of Tetraselmis chuii by eight diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 3. Growth and water quality parameters of Tetraselmis chuii by eight diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g003
Figure 4. Growth and water quality parameters of Isochrysis galbana by 10 diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 4. Growth and water quality parameters of Isochrysis galbana by 10 diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g004
Figure 5. Growth and water quality parameters of Proteomonas sulcata by 10 diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 5. Growth and water quality parameters of Proteomonas sulcata by 10 diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g005
Figure 6. Growth and water quality parameters of Tetraselmis chuii by 40 diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 6. Growth and water quality parameters of Tetraselmis chuii by 40 diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g006
Figure 7. Growth and water quality parameters of mixed algae by four diluted digestate mediums.
Figure 7. Growth and water quality parameters of mixed algae by four diluted digestate mediums.
Sustainability 15 16278 g007
Figure 8. Field application and its operation parameters for algae cultivation using diluted digestate and for feeding rotifers, copepods, and bivalves.
Figure 8. Field application and its operation parameters for algae cultivation using diluted digestate and for feeding rotifers, copepods, and bivalves.
Sustainability 15 16278 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chang, Y.-C.; Pan, Y.-J.; Huang, T.-H.; Hsiao, T.-H.; Wei, L.-Y.; Hsu, T.-H. Cultivation of Brackish Water Microalgae for Pig Manure Liquid Digestate Recycling. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316278

AMA Style

Chang Y-C, Pan Y-J, Huang T-H, Hsiao T-H, Wei L-Y, Hsu T-H. Cultivation of Brackish Water Microalgae for Pig Manure Liquid Digestate Recycling. Sustainability. 2023; 15(23):16278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316278

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chang, Yung-Cheng, Yen-Ju Pan, Tzu-Hsuan Huang, Ting-Hsun Hsiao, Liang-Yu Wei, and Te-Hua Hsu. 2023. "Cultivation of Brackish Water Microalgae for Pig Manure Liquid Digestate Recycling" Sustainability 15, no. 23: 16278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316278

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop