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

Da Sun; Xiaomin Shi; Yingbo Shen; Ying Liu; Sunlin Luo; Yongpeng Jin; Weishuai Zhai; Lu Liu; Zhaoju Deng; Chengtao Sun; Dejun Liu; Xin Yang; Youzhi Xie; Henrike Krüger-Haker; Congming Wu; Stefan Schwarz; Jianzhong Shen; Yiqiang Chen; Shizhen Ma; Yang Wang

doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136868

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

J Hazard Mater. 2024 Dec 15:485:136868. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136868. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Da Sun¹, Xiaomin Shi², Yingbo Shen¹, Ying Liu³, Sunlin Luo³, Yongpeng Jin³, Weishuai Zhai¹, Lu Liu¹, Zhaoju Deng¹, Chengtao Sun¹, Dejun Liu¹, Xin Yang⁴, Youzhi Xie⁴, Henrike Krüger-Haker⁵, Congming Wu¹, Stefan Schwarz⁶, Jianzhong Shen¹, Yiqiang Chen⁷, Shizhen Ma⁸, Yang Wang⁹

Affiliations

¹ 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.
² Beijing Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine, Animal Science and Technology College, Beijing University of Agriculture, Beijing 102206, China.
³ State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
⁴ Hainan Animal Disease Control Center, Haikou 571100, China.
⁵ 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.
⁶ 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.
⁷ State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China. Electronic address: yqchen@cau.edu.cn.
⁸ National Key Laboratory of Veterinary Public Health Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China. Electronic address: shizhenma@cau.edu.cn.
⁹ 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.

PMID: 39708598
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136868

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Antibiotic residues; Antimicrobial resistance genes; Heavy metals; Mobile genetic elements.