Effect of fipronil on biogas production performance during anaerobic digestion of chicken manure and corn straw

References

• Wang, Y.; Sun, J.; Lin, H. Environmental pollution of livestock and poultry raising in rural areas and control measures: Taking Hebei Province in China as an example. Nature Environ. Pollut. Technol. 2017, 16, 849.
   Google Scholar
• Mottet, A.; Tempio, G. Global poultry production: Current state and future outlook and challenges. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 73, 245–256. doi:10.1017/S0043933917000071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tingle, C. C.; Rother, J. A.; Dewhurst, C. F.; Lauer, S.; King, W. J. Fipronil: environmental fate, ecotoxicology, and human health concerns. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 176, 1–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ong, S. Q.; Ahmad, H.; Jaal, Z.; Rus, A. C. Comparative effectiveness of insecticides for use against the house fly (Diptera: muscidae): Determination of resistance levels on a Malaysian poultry farm. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 352–359. doi:10.1093/jee/tov326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steelman, C. D.; Szalanski, A. L.; Trout, R.; Mckern, J. A.; Solorzano, C.; Austin, J. W. Susceptibility of the bed bug Cimex lectularius l. (Heteroptera: cimicidae) collected in poultry production facilities to selected insecticides. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 2008, 25, 41–51. doi:10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Castilhos Ghisi, N.; Ramsdorf, W. A.; Ferraro, M. V. M.; de Almeida, M. I. M.; de Oliveira Ribeiro, C. A.; Cestari, M. M. Evaluation of genotoxicity in Rhamdia quelen (Pisces, Siluriformes) after sub-chronic contamination with fipronil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 180, 589–599. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1807-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miranda, A. L.; Roche, H.; Randi, M. A. F.; Menezes, M. L. D.; Ribeiro, C. O. Bioaccumulation of chlorinated pesticides and PCBs in the tropical freshwater fish Hoplias malabaricus: Histopathological, physiological, and immunological findings. Environ. Int. 2008, 34, 939–949. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2008.02.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X. Management of agricultural nonpoint source pollution in China: Current status and challenges. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 53, 1–9. doi:10.2166/wst.2006.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi, V.; Srivastava, A.; Srivastava, P. C. Potential of some soil amendments in reducing leaching of fipronil to groundwater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 631–638. doi:10.1007/s13762-015-0883-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salokhe, S. G.; Sonawane, H. V.; Deshpande, S. G. Laboratory evaluation of fipronil on biological, parameters, gut microflora and physiology of Eudrilus eugeniae. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2014, 4, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Giorio, C.; Safer, A.; Sánchez-Bayo, F.; Tapparo, A.; Lentola, A.; Girolami, V.; Bonmatin, J. M. An update of the worldwide integrated assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 1: New molecules, metabolism, fate, and transport. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 1–33. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0394-3.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, N.; Ma, J. The variation characteristics of China's livestock and poultry manure production and its future development prospects. Agric. Outlook 2014, 10, 46–48.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, H. Q.; Fan, H. T.; Chen, W. W. Pollution status and prevention countermeasures of large-scale livestock and poultry farm wastes. Mod. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2011, 6, 282.
   Google Scholar
• Sakar, S.; Yetilmezsoy, K.; Kocak, E. Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock waste treatment—A literature review. Waste Manage. Res. 2009, 27, 3–18. doi:10.1177/0734242X07079060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L.; Zhao, L.; Ren, C.; Wang, F. The progress and prospects of rural biogas production in China. Energy Policy 2012, 51, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roubík, H.; Mazancová, J.; Phung, L. D.; Banout, J. Current approach to manure management for small-scale Southeast Asian farmers-using Vietnamese biogas and non-biogas farms as an example. Renew. Energy 2018, 115, 362–370. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonilla, S.; Choolaei, Z.; Meyer, T.; Edwards, E. A.; Yakunin, A. F.; Allen, D. G. Evaluating the effect of enzymatic pretreatment on the anaerobic digestibility of pulp and paper biosludge. Biotechnol. Rep. 2018, 17, 77–85. doi:10.1016/j.btre.2017.12.009.
   Google Scholar
• Parawira, W. Enzyme research and applications in biotechnological intensification of biogas production. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2012, 32, 172–186. doi:10.3109/07388551.2011.595384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z.,Y.; Min, H.; Wu, W. X. Effects of pesticide-contamination on the population of methanogens and methane emission in paddy rice soil. China Biogas 2003, 21, 18–21.
   Google Scholar
• Prieme, A.; Ekelund, F. Five pesticides decreased oxidation of atmospheric methane in a forest soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 831–835. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00246-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldt, T. S.; Jacobsen, C. S. Different toxic effects of the sulfonylurea herbicides metsulfuron methyl, chlorsulfuron and thifensulfuron methyl on fluorescent pseudomonads isolated from an agricultural soil. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1998, 161, 29–35. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.1998.tb12925.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parawira, W.; Murto, M.; Read, J. S.; Mattiasson, B. Profile of hydrolases and biogas production during two-stage mesophilic anaerobic digestion of solid potato waste. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 2945–2952. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2005.01.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miao, H.; Wang, S.; Zhao, M.; Huang, Z.; Ren, H.; Yan, Q.; Ruan, W. Codigestion of Taihu blue algae with swine manure for biogas production. Energy Convers. Manage. 2014, 77, 643–649. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouallagui, H.; Cheikh, R. B.; Marouani, L.; Hamdi, M. Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in a tubular digester. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 86, 85–89. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00097-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, M.; Qian, J. Q.; Li, Z. Z.; Y.Q. Effect Of, L. Enrofloxacin on hydrolytic enzyme activities and biogas production during anaerobic fermentation. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2016, 24, 1539–1546.
   Google Scholar
• Haider, M. R.; Yousaf, S.; Malik, R. N.; Visvanathan, C. Effect of mixing ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum ratio on biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 190, 451–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, F. C.; Macauley, B. J.; Harper, E. R. Investigation of various gases, pH and redox potential in mushroom composting phase I stacks. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1991, 31, 415–423. doi:10.1071/EA9910415.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C. H.; Hao, O. J. Sequencing batch reactor system for nutrient removal: ORP and pH profiles. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 1996, 67, 27–38. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4660(199609)67:1<27::AID-JCTB430>3.3.CO;2-U.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calli, B.; Mertoglu, B.; Inanc, B.; Yenigun, O. Effects of high free ammonia concentrations on the performances of anaerobic bioreactors. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 1285–1292. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2004.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujoczek, G.; Oleszkiewicz, J.; Sparling, R.; Cenkowski, S. High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2000, 76, 51–60. doi:10.1006/jaer.2000.0529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C.; Zheng, D.; Liu, G. J.; Deng, L. W.; Long, Y.; Fan, Z. H. Continuous dry fermentation of swine manure for biogas production. Waste Manage. 2015, 38, 436–442. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chae, K. J.; Jang, A.; Yim, S. K.; Kim, I. S. The effects of digestion temperature and temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rani, R. U.; Kumar, S. A.; Kaliappan, S.; Yeom, I. T.; Banu, J. R. Enhancing the anaerobic digestion potential of dairy waste activated sludge by two step sono-alkalization pretreatment. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2014, 21, 1065–1074. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2013.11.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, G. D.; Liu, R. H.; Shun, C. Effects of different concentrations of NaOH pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of rice straw for biogas production. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2011, 27, 59–63.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X.; Yang, G.; Feng, Y.; Ren, G.; Han, X. Optimizing feeding composition and carbon-nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 120, 78–83. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, Z. L.; Guo, Y.; Yang, G. H.; Ren, G. X.; Feng, Y. Z.; Zhou, X. W. Factors affecting biogas yields of manure-straw mixture. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2012, 31, 1624–1629.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, X.; Chang, C.; Xiao, X.; Lu, F.; He, Y.; Liu, G. Evaluating methane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of kitchen waste. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2085–2091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaghan, F. J.; Wase, D. A. J.; Thayanithy, K.; Forster, C. F. Continuous co-digestion of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 22, 71–77. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00057-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X.; Lu, X.; Li, F.; Yang, G. Effects of temperature and carbon-nitrogen (C/N) ratio on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure and rice straw: Focusing on ammonia inhibition. PLos One 2014, 9, e97265. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X. J.; Yang, G. H.; Feng, Y. Z.; Ren, G. X. Potential for biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of dairy and chicken manure with corn stalks. Adv Med Res. 2012, 347, 2484–2492. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.347-353.2484.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, M. Biodegradation and Bioremediation. Gulf Professional Publishing: Houston, TX, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, L.; Gao, X.; Liu, M.; Du, G.; Guo, J.; Ntakirutimana, T. Correlation among soil microorganisms, soil enzyme activities, and removal rates of pollutants in three constructed wetlands purifying micro-polluted river water. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 46, 98–106. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Paz Jimenez, M.; de la Horra, A.; Pruzzo, L.; Palma, M. R. Soil quality: A new index based on microbiological and biochemical parameters. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 35, 302–306. doi:10.1007/s00374-002-0450-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stingl, K.; Uhlemann, E. M.; Schmid, R.; Altendorf, K.; Bakker, E. P. Energetics of Helicobacter pylori and its implications for the mechanism of urease-dependent acid tolerance at pH 1. J. Bacteriol. 2002, 184, 3053–3060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y. G.; Shentu, X. P.; Shen, Y. C. Inhibition of porcine small intestinal sucrase by valienamine. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2005, 13, 429–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A.; Breure, A. M.; Andel, J. G. V.; Deursen, A. V. Influence of phase separation on the anaerobic digestion of glucose—I. Maximum COD-turnover rate during continuous operation. Water Res. 1980, 14, 1439–1448. doi:10.1016/0043-1354(80)90009-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosey, F. E. Mthematical modelling of the anaerobic digestion process: Regulatory mechanisms for the formation of short-chain volatile acids from glucose. Water. Sci. Technol. 1983, 15, 209–232. doi:10.2166/wst.1983.0168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H.; Sang, Y. L. Production of succinic acid by bacterial fermentation. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 352–361. doi:10.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.11.043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H.; Yi, X.; Bi, J.; Wang, P.; Liu, D.; Zhou, Z. The enantioselective environmental behavior and toxicological effects of pyriproxyfen in soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 365, 97–106. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.10.079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, A. L.; Yu, X. Y. Effects of fluazinam on soil sucrase activitiy and respiration. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2011, 19, 902–906. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1011.2011.00902.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, C. X.; Liu, J. J.; Chen, Q. Y.; Fan, J.; Zhou, Q. X.; Pan, F. Effects of sulfamonomethoxine on soil respiration and enzyme activity. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2010, 29, 314–318.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, S. P.; Duan, C. Q.; Liu, H. C. Impacts on sucrase and urease activity in soil by cypermethrin. Environ. Sci. Surv. 2008, 27, 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, K.; Haver, D.; Oki, L.; Gan, J. Transformation and sorption of fipronil in urban stream sediments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 8594–8600. doi:10.1021/jf8018886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopra, I.; Kumari, B. Dissipation of fipronil in water under laboratory conditions. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, 83, 828–831. doi:10.1007/s00128-009-9790-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, A. A.; Harwood, A. D.; You, J.; Landrum, P. F.; Lydy, M. J. Degradation of fipronil in anaerobic sediments and the effect on porewater concentrations. Chemosphere 2009, 77, 22–28. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.06.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H.; Cao, Y.; Tang, T.; Qian, K.; Chen, W. L.; Li, J. Biodegradation and chiral stability of fipronil in aerobic and flooded paddy soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 407, 428–437. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.08.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar