04336naa a2200265 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902400400006010000180010024501320011826000090025052035660025965000100382565000200383565000120385565000110386765000110387865300160388970000130390570000240391870000210394270000200396370000210398377300660400420583962016-12-12       2016    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d7 a10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.014.2DOI1 aAMARAL, A. C.  aInfluence of solideliquid separation strategy on biogas yield from a stratified swine production system.h[electronic resource]  c2016  aAbstract: As the fourth largest swine producer and exporter, Brazil has increased its participation in the global swine production market. Generally, these units concentrate a large number of animals and generate effluents that must be correctly managed to prevent environmental impacts, being anaerobic digestion is an interesting alternative for treating these effluents. The low-volatile solid concentration in the manure suggests the need for solideliquid separation as a tool to improve the biogas generation capacity. This study aimed to determine the influence of simplified and inexpensive solideliquid separation strategies (screening and settling) and the different manures produced during each swine production phase (gestating and farrowing sow houses, nursery houses and finishing houses) on biogas and methane yield. We collected samples in two gestating sow houses (GSH-a and GSH-b), two farrowing sow houses (FSH-a and FSH-b), a nursery house (NH) and a finishing house (FH). Biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests were performed according to international standard procedures. The settled sludge fraction comprised 20e30% of the raw manure volume, which comprises 40e60% of the total methane yield. The methane potential of the settled sludge fraction was approximately two times higher than the methane potential of the supernatant fraction. The biogas yield differed among the raw manures from different swine production phases (GSH-a 326.4 and GSHb 577.1; FSH-a 860.1 and FSH-b 479.2; NH -970.2; FH 474.5 NmLbiogas.gVS1). The differences were relativ e to the production phase (feed type and feeding techniques) and the management of the effluent inside the facilities (water management). Brazilian swine production has increased his participation in the global market, been the fourth producer and the fourth exporter. The segregation of swine production in multiple sites has increased its importance, due to the possibilities to have more specialized units. Generally, these units concentrate a large number of animals and generate effluents that must be correctly managed to avoid environmental impact. Due to the biodegradability of manure, anaerobic digestion is an interesting alternative to treat these effluents. The low volatile solid concentration in the swine manure suggests the need for solideliquid separation as a tool to improve biogas generation capacity. The present study aimed to determine the influence of simplified and cheap solideliquid separation strategies (based on screening and settling) and different manure of each swine production phases (gestating and farrowing sows houses, nursery houses and finishing houses) on biogas and methane yield. We collected samples in two gestating sows house (GSH-a and GSH-b), two farrowing sows house (FSH-a and FSH-b), a nursery house (NH) and a finishing house (FH). The Biochemical Methane Production (BMP) tests were performed according to international standard procedure (VDI 4630). The settled sludge fraction responds for 20e30% of raw manure volume, producing 40e60% of the total methane yield. The methane potential of settled sludge fraction was about 2 times higher than the supernatant fraction. There are differences on biogas yield between the raw manure of different swine production phases (GSH-a 326.4 and GSH-b 577.1; FSH-a 860.1 and FSH-b 479.2; NH 970.2; FH 474.5 NmLbiogas.gVS1). The differences are relative to production phase (feed type, feeding techniques, etc.), but also the management of the effluent inside the facilities (water management).  aSwine  aWaste treatment  aBiogás  aDejeto  aSuíno  aPig manures1 aKUNZ, A.1 aSTEINMETZ, R. L. R.1 aSCUSSIATO, L. A.1 aTÁPPARO, D. C.1 aGASPARETO, T. C.  tJournal of Environmental Managementgv. 68, p. 229-235, 2016.