Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology

ISSN: 0193-2691 (Print) 1532-2351 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldis20

Advanced technologies for poultry slaughterhouse

wastewater treatment: A systematic review

Bakar Radhi Baker, Radin Mohamed, Adel Al-Gheethi & Hamidi Abdul Aziz

To cite this article: Bakar Radhi Baker, Radin Mohamed, Adel Al-Gheethi & Hamidi Abdul Aziz
(2020): Advanced technologies for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment: A systematic
review, Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/01932691.2020.1721007

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2020.1721007

Published online: 08 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ldis20
JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2020.1721007

Advanced technologies for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment:

A systematic review
Bakar Radhi Bakera,b, Radin Mohameda , Adel Al-Gheethia , and Hamidi Abdul Azizc
a
Micro-Pollutant Research Centre (MPRC), Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Malaysia; bDepartment of Structures and Water Resources, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Kufa, Kufa, Iraq; cSchool of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The current review aims at improving the understanding on the treatment frameworks related to Received 21 September 2019
poultry slaughterhouse wastewater (PSWW) treatment efficiency. Technologies used for nutrient Accepted 19 January 2020
and organic removal during the last 10 years are discussed in this article. The selection of specific
KEYWORDS
treatment is dependent on the characteristics of wastewater, existing treatment cost, and compli-
Modifications treatment;
ance with regulations. The reverse osmosis (RO) technology, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and inte- poultry slaughterhouse
grated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) are among the technologies that can produce high- wastewater; activated
quality treated effluents. DAF is known to have the ability to remove 98.6% of biochemical oxygen sludge; growth process;
demand (BOD) and 97.9% of chemical oxygen demand (COD) while RO can only remove up to composite fiber
90.0% and 97.9% of total nitrogen (TN) and COD. The anaerobic sequencing batch reactor
(ANSBR) technology efficiently gave 90% of TN and COD removal. However, gaps and limitations
have been recognized in regards to TP removal. Advanced technologies are considered successful
in terms of water recycling and reuse and waste reduction in poultry slaughterhouses that can
offer a more cost-effective waste management.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

1. Introduction
industries (Table 1) while more than 29% by a global agri-
Global demand for poultry has increased with overall cultural section.[3,4]
increase in the global food demand. According to FAO,[1] Discharging directly a huge amount of wastewater into
the poultry meat production in 2009 was 92.2 million water body might greatly affect the quality of natural water.
tonnes (MT) and has increased to 107.0 MT/years in 2017. Eutrophication is one of the adverse effects from that
In 2023, the production is expected to increase by 10%[2] improper act on environment; and it occurred as a result of
(Figure 1). Processing section of poultry industries creates high nutrient loading into water system. The growth of algae
a huge amount of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater in water systems can risk nearby residents and negatively
(PSWW) from the slaughterhouse cleaning facilities, affects the fishing.[4,5] In Malaysia, around 61% of poultry
poultry slaughtering, and poultry processing sectors (PPS). slaughterhouses dispose of their wastewater directly into
Poultry industries consume 24% of the total freshwater community sewerage systems or into the water body without
compared to other industries such as food and beverage treatment. In contrast, 39% of poultry slaughterhouses treat

CONTACT Radin Mohamed [email protected]; Adel Al-Gheethi [email protected]; [email protected] Micro-Pollutant Research Centre (MPRC),
Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat,
Johor, Malaysia.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Figure 1. World poultry production annually by region. MT: million tonnes.

Table 1. Freshwater usage in food industries. processes efficiency, an accomplish of standard limits and
Food industry Usage of water (%) environmental impact. Current technologies including opti-
Poultry processing 24 mization and performance aspects of the PSWW treatment
Dairy 13
Beverages 12
system for nutrient and organics removal involving com-
Vegetables 10 bined processes and biological treatment are also addressed.
Fruits 9 The current review allows us to improve the scope and
Oilseeds 8
Seafood 3 shape the direction of research on PSWW treatment tech-
nologies. Finally, the current review discusses open research
challenges and issues and provides few suggestions for
their wastewater by using aeration tank, dissolved air flota-
future work.
tion, lagoon and settlement tank for PSWW before the final
disposal into the natural water systems.[6]
The current work presents a systematic literature review
(SLR) according to Yacob et al.[7] guidelines, which consist 2. Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater
of three phases (plan, conduct and document review) and characterization
their corresponding steps (Figure 2). Related review papers
in this field have been focusing on certain aspects of PSWW Poultry processing wastewater comprises high level of pro-
treatment and solutions such as the type of treatment, treat- teins, fats, and carbohydrates that are generated from meat
ment methods, and evaluation methods. The current paper particles, feathers, skin, and blood residues.[8–10] The
offers a thorough and detailed review of various approaches residual of blood and meat particles, in addition to sanitiz-
on PSWW treatment technologies based on removal per- ing and cleaning compounds, are mainly the sources of
centage (%), final concentrations of the treated effluents (mg phosphorus which could either be organic and inorganic
L
1), and guidelines and regulations that are feasible at the phosphates.[11] The characteristics of PSWW are tabulated
industries. A large body of research is consulted in prepar- in Table 2. The contaminants in poultry wastewater are
ation for this comprehensive literature review paper. A total determined in terms of biochemical oxygen demand
of 126 article papers from 1998 to 2019 including eight (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids
review papers are covered in this current review. Figure 3 (SS), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4-H), total phosphorus (TP),
shows the number of articles that were reviewed and dis- and pH. According to the studies in Table 2, the concentra-
cussed according to years. tions of BOD5, COD, total suspended solids (TSS), NH4-H,
This paper aims to provide guidelines for developing total nitrogen (TN), total organic carbon (TOC), TP, total
improved PSWW treatment methods and strategies includ- solids (TS), and pH exceed the allowable standard limit by
ing effective integrated solutions. The paper contexts on World Bank (see section 1.3) for wastewater effluent.[12–14]
PSWW treatment technologies prompt such effluents to PSWW shows biodegradable qualities (BOD5/COD) more
comply with guidelines and regulations. It exploits and clas- than 0.6.[15,16] The TP and TN concentrations are ranging
sifies the common PSWW characterization like nutrient and from 60–18 and 420–400 mg L
1, respectively which repre-
organic materials, determines particular target, and recog- sent 10–25 times higher than standard limits according to
nizes appropriate treatment technologies. The review of US EPA.[17] The demands of COD:N:P ratio or (N to P
PSWW treatment technologies is based on various types of ratio) are optimum for biological treatment processing.[18]
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

Figure 2. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews.

Figure 3. An overview of the articles reviewed.

3. Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater guidelines different regulations, vary depending on the category of food,
and regulations agricultural, and industrial waste/wastewaters.[25–27] According
Guidelines and regulations are required components in address- to Table 3, the highest level of standard limits among the pre-
ing the environmental impact of PSWW in the industry sented standards are standards by World Bank while the lowest
system.[21] The standard limits for the disposal of PSWW set standard limits are set by Australian Environment Council. As
by the World Bank Guidelines,[13] Canada Environment for Canadian, the standard limits are set at a wider range.
Organization (2001 and 2012), Australian Environment Council Suitability of the new environmental standards provides extra
(ANZECC, 2000), Malaysian Environment Quality (2009), and source of energy recovery like biogas production from the
European Communities (CEC, 1999) among others are tabu- PSWW treatment through combination of anaerobic–aerobic
lated in Table 3. It has been noted that different countries have systems involving the conversion of PSWW organic materials
4 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Table 2. Characteristics of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater.

Country BOD5 TSS COD AN TN TOC TP TS pH References
[19]
China NR NR 2000 NR 160 NR NR NR NR
[15]
Canada NR 1164 4221 NR 401 546 NR NR 6.9
[3]
Brazil 750–1890 300–950 3000–4800 16–165 NR NR 16–32 1400–3900 7–7.6
[20]
Brazil 750–1890 800–1800 1003–3000 NR NR NR NR NR 7.1
[21]
Turkey 1209 1164 4221 NR 427 546 50 NR 6.9
[22]
Brazil 4635 NR 11,588 63.66 8.59 NR 48.4 6394 6.9
[23]
Nigeria 1900–2200 2280–2446 3610–4180 NR NR NR 50.3 NR NR
[24]
USA NR NR 2319 164.5 NR NR 18.1 2000 6.7
World Bank 30.0 50 125 10 10 – 2 – 6–9 [13]

Except pH, all values are in (mg/L), NR: not reported.

Table 3. Comparison between limitation and standard by many worldwide agencies for PSWW discharge.
Parameter WB standards EU standards US standards CA standardsa AU standards MY standards
BOD5 (mg/L) 30.00 25.00 26.00 5.00–30.00 6.00–10.00 20
COD (mg/L) 125.00 125.00 NR NR 3.00BOD5 120
TSS (mg/L) 50.00 35.00 30.00 5.00–30.00 10.00–15.00 50
TN (mg/L) 10.00 10.00 8.00 1.00 0.10–10.00 NR
a
For BOD5 and TSS limits in Canadian standards are 5, 20, and 30 mg/L in freshwater lakes and slow-flowing streams; rivers, streams, and estua-
ries; and shoreline, respectively.
WB: World Bank; CA: Canadian; AU: Australian; MY: Malaysia; TN: total nitrogen; TSS: total suspended solids.

(resource recovery) into biogas. Despite the advantages, anaer- sedimentation or coagulation/flocculation process. In this
obic treatment systems hardly generate wastewater effluents that process, the solid particles are separated from the liquid by
comply with new limitation and standard for wastewater efflu- coagulation or flocculation and sedimentation process.
ent discharge. This is because the degradation of organic matter Thereafter, the pollutants are removed by using membrane
in anaerobic treatment systems for PSWW is not complete. treatment or EC.[4,15,25,33,34]
This shows that anaerobic treatment cannot be used alone.[10,14]

4.1. Primary wastewater treatment (PWWT)

4. PSWW treatment technologies
Primary wastewater treatment (PWWT) separates all large
PSWW treatment plants usually comprise of dissolved air
solid particles that are produced during the slaughtering
flotation (DAF) system and up-flow anaerobic sludge blan-
from wastewater. Screeners and sieves are generally unit
ket (UASB) reactors as a primary treatment. However, these
operations for removal TSS from wastewater. Big size solids
methods have low efficiency for nutrient removal to achieve
in wastewater ranging from 10 to 30 mm diameter are hold
the standards limit implemented by recent stringent regula-
on the screener mesh. Wastewater solids that have more
tions. Del Nery et al.[3] and UN Division of Sustainable
than 0.5 mm diameter can use rotary screeners to hold solids
Development[28] claimed that the effluents treated by the
to prevent blocking or clogging the instrumentation.
traditional treatment processes should be subjected for
According to Chernicharo,[34] mesh screening can remove
advanced treatment to reduce TN and TP concentrations in
the wastewater for safe disposal. PSWW treatment systems BOD5 up to 30% by dissociating solid particles and reduce
are categorized in biological treatment, mixed processes and more than 60% of the PSWW solids. PWWT removes TSS
physicochemical systems.[29,30] by gravity as a mechanical process[35]; BOD5 by 30% and
Biological treatment system includes three systems: aer- TSS by 60% and reduces the levels of ammonia from 24.7 to
obic, anaerobic and wetlands. The use of anaerobic and aer- 1.5 mg L
1.[18,34]
obic systems simultaneously involves many further Other PWWT of PSWW includes solid separation
processes. Common processes are sedimentation or coagula- method by introducing air from the bottom of PSWW influ-
tion/flocculation (solids separation from liquor), membrane ent.[36] Thus, light fat, grease, and solid particles are carried
technologies and electrocoagulation (EC), with each have to the tank surface as a sludge blanket form, where they will
their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, aer- constantly remove scum by scraping method, resulted in
obic systems work at a higher wastewater rate than anaer- removal of 25.8% COD and 31.6% BOD from the initial
obic systems. Anaerobic systems need simple equipment concentrations of wastewater.[37] The TSS is removed during
because there is no need for aeration system. In addition, the primary treatment by mechanical process by gravity.[35]
aerobic system is cost-effective with high removal efficien- He et al.[38] reported that the concentrations of TSS for
cies.[15–17,31,32] Mixed or combined processes such as chem- influent slaughtering wastewater are more than 200 mg/L;
ical coagulation (CC), EC, coagulation/adsorption process, this amount can be reduced by 35% through primary treat-
and anaerobic filter (AF) attached to an aerobic SBR have ment. Borowitzka[35] revealed that the ammonia in PSWW
high efficiencies for treating wastewater at low cost.[3,15,16,32] reduced from 24.7 to 1.5 mg L
1, while nitrate (NO3) and
The physicochemical wastewater treatment includes separ- nitrite (NO2) concentrations dropped from 0.29 mg L
1 to
ation of PSWW into several components based on 0.15 mg L
1 within 6 days of the treatment period.
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

Figure 4. Different physicochemical wastewater treatment processes. UF: ultrafiltration; MF: microfiltration; RO: reverse osmosis.

4.2. Land application of poultry wastewater dependent on wastewater characteristics and the effluent
treatment (LAT) requirements.[46] Del Nery et al.[3] evaluates the performance
of a DAF system for PSWW treatment. The instability of
Land application is one of the treatment methods after pre-
performance was observed due to the variability of the efflu-
liminary treatment for PSWW involving biodegradable
ent characteristics quality in addition to the insufficiency of
materials. It can be defined as a direct irrigation of PSWW
the chemical additions in the DAF system. Therefore, the
within the agricultural field.[15,39] Such biodegradable mate- advanced quality of DAF-effluent can be accomplished by
rials in land applications are used to support soil nutrients managing the chemical pretreatment and the operating con-
by directly putting them into earth. Recently, the most com- ditions of DAF system. Separation of solids from water
mercial PSWW treatment systems are open lands because using DAF systems is carried out by bringing air into a
this application can be scaled up easily and is comparatively PSWW influent, through the bottom of the tank (Figure 5a).
cheap to build.[40] Some lands application is constructed on The efficiency of DAF in removing SS from PSWW
non-arable areas to enhance nearby power plants through ranged between 38 and 70%, while the removal of fats was
carbon dioxide gas access, while others are built near waste- between 63 and 95%.[47–49] In contrast, the addition of floc-
water treatment plants to easily access nutrient supplies. culants or polymers into DAF might improve the SS and oil
Currently, a large number of demonstration land applica- and gas (O&G) removal by 99%.[50] The maximum removal
tions are under construction in many cities in the world like of COD and BOD5 of PSWW via DAF process was
Florida, Hawaii, and New Mexico.[37] The current directions 90%[39,47,50] by pre-treating the PSWW wastewater. The
focus on the advance production of algal biomass through study recorded an improvement in the removal of fats by
optimization of land application systems.[35,39,41] However, 63–95%. Fonkwe et al.[9] examined DAF system using polya-
the process depends on the climate change; for instance, in luminum chloride as a flocculant under 300 kPa effluent
moderate countries, the land application is not suitable dur- pressure for PSWW treatment. The SS removal was 43%,
ing the winter season.[39,42] One more disadvantage is the while O&G was removed by 49%. The study revealed that at
possibility of soil and groundwater contamination.[37,43] In 450 kPa, the removal of O&G reached 99 and 74% SS. Del
contrast, the benefits of field applications include the reuse Nery et al.[3] revealed that the removal efficiencies of COD,
of by-products from the PSWW and fertilizer source.[39] BOD5, and O&G in PSWW using modified DAF system
LAT is used to support soil nutrients through biodegradable with HRT 24 hours were 97.9, 98.6, and 91.1%, respectively.
materials by directly putting them into earth[40] and enhance According to Fonkwe et al.,[9] DAF able to accomplish mod-
power plants nearby through access of carbon dioxide erate to high NO3
1 and NO2
1 removal. In contrast, DAF
gas[37] and optimize the advance production of algal disadvantages are corresponding to poor TSS separation and
biomass.[39,41] regular malfunctioning.[9]

4.3. Physicochemical wastewater treatment processes 4.3.2. Electrocoagulation (EC)

There are many methods for physicochemical wastewater The EC system is an advanced technology used for PSWW
treatment processes (Figure 4), particularly for reducing treatment. EC system has been approved as an effective
BOD5, oil, fat, and TSS in PSWW.[33,34] technology for nutrients, heavy metals and pathogens
removal from PSWW by bringing the electric current with-
out chemical additive.[20,23,51–53] In this technology, alumi-
4.3.1. Solid separation from water (dissolved air flotation) num (Al) and iron (Fe) are utilized as electrodes. The
DAF process has been used for food industry wastewater process requires the generation of small-sized ions with high
treatment as a primary treatment to separate suspended par- charge (M3þ) ions as anodes. Additionally, in acidic
ticles from wastewater.[3,44–46] Variables for DAF processing medium, Hþ ions interact with electrodes, or in alkaline
system can be divided into hydraulic load, rate of recycle, medium with OH ions.[20,52] Figure 5b illustrates the regular
saturation pressure and ratio of air/solids which are EC reactor, consisting of a preliminary settling tank which
6 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Figure 5. (a) Typical DAF reactor diagram. (b) Regular EC reactor diagram. Adopted from De Nardi et al.[20]

responsible for pretreatment. As a fermentation reactor, 4.3.3. Membrane processes system (MS)
peristaltic pump ensures the effluent rise to the electrochem- Membrane processes system is an alternative option for
ical reactor, as a result of pressure (inside the electrochem- PSWW treatment. Microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis
ical reactor) by the gravity and pump effect. The effluent (RO) and ultrafiltration (UF) systems are capable to remove
returns to preliminary settling tank which provides fermen- macromolecules, particles, colloids, and microorganisms
tation to homogenize the dissolved metallic element to pass (Table 5).[51,55,56] Borowitzka[35] used UF process to treat
through the electrochemical reactor. Bayar et al.[9] examined PSWW with 68.54 mg/L of TN and 181.44 mg/L of COD.
the removal efficiencies of COD and BOD5 from PSWW by The study revealed that the maximum removal of COD and
using EC system. The concentrations of BOD5 and COD in TN was 94.52 and 44%, respectively. Almandoz et al.[56]
the raw PSWW were 1123 and 2171 mg/L, respectively. investigated the effectiveness of ceramic composite mem-
Thus, the EC system removed BOD5 of 96.80, and COD of brane filter as UF for treating slaughterhouse wastewater.
85.00%. The efficiency of EC treatment depends on the opti- The study recorded high removal efficiency of bacteria 99%,
mization of operating parameters which plays an important while removed COD and TN by 90.63% and 45.22%,
role in removal of color, BOD5, and COD. Therefore, in respectively. However, membrane technology is expensive,
many studies, EC system was optimized using response sur- De Nardi et al.[20] evaluated the performance and effective-
face methodology (RSM) and factorial level design based on ness of the membrane bioreactors process (MF) for PSWW
reaction time, current density and influent parameters. treatment and assessed the total cost, hydraulic retention
Qin et al.[53] and Awang et al.[54] revealed that the opti- time (HRT), and removal percentage of TN and TP.
mum conditions were recorded at 55 minutes of reaction The study stated that the total cost has increased with the
time, 30 mA/cm2 of current density, and 220 mg/L of COD high contents of TN and TP in the raw PSWW. It can be
influent concentrations at which the removal of color, concluded that despite the importance of membrane filter
BOD5, and COD were 96.80, 81.30, and 85%, respectively. technology for removing nutrients, it faces the biggest chal-
One more factor which affects EC system is pH of the lenges. Membrane can foul in high organic concentrated
PSWW. Studies have indicated that high performance of EC streams like PSWW due to the formation of thick layers of
reactor was recorded at low pH[52] (Table 4). biofouling onto membrane surfaces. This attachment will
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

Table 4. The treatment technology based on EC.

Removal percentage (%)
BOD5 TN COD Advantages Disadvantages References
[9]
NR NR 85% Effective technology for removing nutrients, The efficiency of EC treatment depends on the
[53,54]
81.30% NR 85% heavy metals as well as pathogens. optimization of operating parameters.
[52]
NR NR 85% Without chemical additive. Highly affecting by pH.
[52]
97% 84% 93% Capable to remove particles and colloids. High operation and maintenance costs.

limit the permeation rate of wastewater via membranes.[58] comparable to a combined system in economic expression
Nowadays, membrane process is a very important separation due to the increase in electricity costs. Therefore, production
process wastewater treatment technology, which becomes of biogas is an important issue for energy recovery that will
increasingly competitive. Through, application of membrane be understood as cost savings for poultry slaughterhouse
technologies as a tertiary treatment of secondary effluent to treatment plant based on PSWW characteristics.[22,62]
obtain a high-quality final effluent that can be reused for Anaerobic filtration chambers (AFC) is another biological
different purposes.[56] and physical treatment systems used for PSWW where
wastewater flow moves over the biological fixed-bed reactors
with filtration compartment (Figure 7b). The mechanisms
4.4. Biological processing system (BPS) for the removal of organic material take place as a function
The efficiency of aerobic and anaerobic treatment of PSWW of the filtration compartment. The particles (biomass) are
depends on the qualities of PSWW.[24] Both methods are held inside and then affixed to the surface filter. Therefore,
used as decomposers to degrade the organic materials into AFC system is applied as secondary treatment because of
simple substrates. Moreover, this technology reduces BOD5 high recovery rates of biogas and high removal of solid par-
by 90%[37] (Figure 6). ticles. Whittaker[60] studied the influence of high and mod-
erate temperature conditions in the AFC reactor on the
treatment of PSWW. The study revealed that over 90% of
4.4.1. Anaerobic treatment system (AnTS) removal efficiency for COD was achieved under moderate
The anaerobic treatment systems have various benefits temperatures, while 72% of the removal was recorded under
including low-level sludge production and high BOD5 high temperature conditions. Rajakumar et al.[63] reported
removal with less energy for biogas recovery.[16,31] The deg- that AFC reactor performance for treated PSWW was likely
radation of organic compounds in PSWW during the anaer- to be influenced by low flow velocity at moderate tempera-
obic system by microorganism which converts the organic tures conditions (>35  C). The findings show that the
matter into methane and CO2. However, the high organic removals efficiency of COD is 79% when 10.05 kg/m3 daily
strength of PSWW might affect negatively the efficiency of organic loading (OL) at 12 hours HRT. Moreover, the
anaerobic process.[9] Therefore, the anaerobic system should methane production ranges from 46 to 56%. Oyanedel-
be followed by extra post-treatment to remove TP, TN, and Craver et al. and Mancl et al.[64,65] have highlighted the per-
pathogenic microorganisms.[33,37] The related higher time- formance of AFC reactor for PSWW treatment. The study
space afford considerably an economic property of anaerobic indicates that over 80% of COD was reduced whilst 90% of
treatment systems.[37] Hence, the mixing of aerobic and TN was reduced at the first day of the treatment process.
anaerobic processes is likely an alternative to conventional Anaerobic lagoon (AL) is a common and popular method
systems to meet the current discharge limitations.[33,34,59] A in the regions where field and weather availability allow the
modified septic tank is considered as a continuously stirred structure of ALs to treat PSWW.[37,66,67] The wastewater
tank reactor (CSTR). CSTR has many baffles and compart- inlet from the lagoon bottom is mixed with gas. AL depth is
ments in which the PSWW flows from inlet over and under ranged from 3 to 5 m and from 5–10 days HRTs. The litera-
compartments to outlet (Figure 7). The system enhances the ture claimed that AL removed 97% of TSS, 96% of COD,
biomass contact time which leads to the increase in biodeg- and 95% of BOD5.[13,37,52] The main disadvantage of AL sys-
radation of organic matter in PSWW and improves the tem is the weather conditions and odor production.
removal of COD and BOD5 by 91%.[38,60] Cao and However, AL is considered as low operation and mainten-
Mehrvar[61] stated that CSTR of PSWW showed high effi- ance costs and an efficient choice to treat high organic
ciency removal for TOC by 93% within 3 days of CSTR wastewater, since mechanically, ALs is simple and can be
treatment period. Bustillo-Lecompte et al.[40] tested the effi- controlled by nonprofessionals.[68,69] ALs are applied in
ciency of CSTR in treating PSWW with 183.35 mg/L of many countries such as Canada, the United States, Malaysia,
TOC and 63.38 mg/L of TN. The system reduces TOC by Thailand, India, Vietnam, China, and Germany (UN
51% and TN by 88%. Tong et al.[19] developed CSTR as a Division of Sustainable Development, 2000). US EPA[17]
pilot-scale anaerobic–aerobic PSWW treatment process to indicated that ALs removed 87% of BOD5 and SS by 80%.
enhance COD and TN removal. The system recorded that The production of methane was estimated to be 0.5 m3/kg
the COD removal efficiency was higher than 98% and TN BOD5. Moreover, the covered ALs might achieve high bio-
satisfied with the forthcoming USEPA discharge standard of gas quantities with high BOD5 loading.[70] In Malaysia, the
25 mg/L. On the other hand, if TOC amounts were removed covered ALs construction with enough durability to stand
at low or medium level, the CSTR as a single system can be wind and higher rainfall rates must be costly.[6] Nonetheless,
 8 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

References the ALs depend on the weather temperature; for instance, in

North Canada, the average temperature obtained in ALs
[20]

[56]

[57]
[51]
ranges from 0 to 8.5  C during the winter.[6] The sensitivity
of anaerobic bacteria becomes higher when temperature rap-
Membrane technology is

concentrated streams.
Faces biggest challenges
was achieved for TN.
Low removal efficiency

idly changed. As a result of these changes, ALs almost are

with high organic
Disadvantages

impossible to fail throughout a winter season.

The anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ANSBR) is
expensive.

of fouling

another method used to treat PSWW. The method has low

operation and maintenance cost. The reactions inside the
reactor, settling, decanting and feeding phases take place
within one tank. However, the mixing process happens in
efficiency was achieved

treatment technology.

the cycle reaction.[37,47,71,72] Furthermore, to optimize

macromolecules and
High ability to remove

process wastewater
Important separation
for COD, BOD, TP.

ANSBR performance, a sporadic feeding of PSWW influent

microorganisms,
Advantages

is needed for a recycling wastewater stream.[47] A schematic

adsorptive High removal

diagram of reactor is introduced in Figure 7c. Anaerobic

colloids.

sludge blanket up-flow reactor (ASBUR) is similar to

ANSBR. The mechanism of ASBUR process depends on the
bacterial attached to the granules. The PSWW enters from
preferential

the bottom of the reactor, the influent filled the sludge blan-
adsorptive
mechanism
Sieving and

Sieving and

Diffusive
Transfer

ket and follows inter this wastewater to biomass film.

–

Finally, the wastewater comes out from the top of reactor.

Fundamentally, ASBUR includes three main phases: firstly,
influent as PSWW; secondly, film as biomass; finally pro-
asymmetric/
asymmetric

composite
Membrane

duced methane gas on digestion.[3] According to the same

isotropic

DP ¼ (10–40) bar, T ¼ (20–25) C, Nonporous

type

author (refs), ANSBR treatment for slaughterhouse waste-

Porous

High costs DP ¼ (0.1–5) bar, T ¼ (20–22) C, Porous

water under HRT 1 day and OL of 10.05 kg/m3 day gave

95.8% of COD removal, 94.0% of BOD5, 50.5% of TP and
DP ¼ (8–12) bar, T ¼ (18–20) C,

61% of TN. Caldera et al.[73] uses ASBUR to treat PSWW at

pH ¼ (3–8.2), v ¼ 0.0084 m s
1
pH ¼ (6–7), v ¼ (3–4.5) m s
1
pH ¼ (3–6) v ¼ (3–4.5) m s
1

UF: ultrafiltration; MF: microfiltration; RO: reverse osmosis; NR: not recorded; P: pressure; T: temperature; v: velocity.

mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. The initial concen-

Operating condition

trations of COD ranged from 1820 to 12,790 mg/L, the sys-

tem reduced COD by 94.31% within 1 day of the treatment
NR

period (HRT) under the OL rate of 9000 mg/L day.

Moreover, Sarti et al.[14] investigated the efficiency of
Table 5. Removal comparison between many membrane dimensions used in PSWW treatment.

ASBUR for treating PSWW as a function of OL (31,000 mg

L
1), temperature (25–39  C), and HRTs (3.5–4.5 hours).
The study shows that ASBUR exhibited 95% of BOD5
removal. Li et al.[37] evaluated the performance of ASBUR
High costs

for tearing of PSWW with COD between 1400 and

Cost

NR
NR

3600 mg/L. The system removed 70% of COD during the

treatment process at various OL rates and feeding condi-
0.001–0.005

tions. Fongsatitkul et al.[23] assessed the performance of

0.08–0.55
size (mm)

0.01–0.1
0.030
Pore

ASBUR for PSWW treatment with raw wastewater concen-

trations of 5000 mg/L COD and 360 mg/L TN with 6 hour
cycles. The efficiency removal of COD was 95% and 95% for
Removal Removal
BOD5 (%) TN (%)
27–44

45.22

NR
90

TN. Therefore, anaerobic treatment systems have come

handy with low OL rates, and can be recognized as a good
degradation and pollution control processes show good
94.52–94.74 80–97.89
50.00
NR

NR

overall results as complimentary treatment.

COD (%)
Removal

4.4.2. Aerobic treatment system (AeTS)

83–97

90.63

85.80

In aerobic treatment units (ATUs) system, aerobic microor-

ganisms are causative organic materials removal in the oxy-
gen (O2) existence. The amount of O2 and treatment period
Removal
Membrane TOC (%)
75–96

44.81

NR
NR

for this system can be increased with high strength of

PSWW. ATUs are usually applied as the last nutrients
removal using anaerobic techniques.[42] There are several
configurations of aerobic reactors such as aerobic SBR and
MF

RO
UF

UF

activated sludge (AS). Nevertheless, the biological treatment

 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Figure 6. Different biological treatment processes. S: substrate concentration available to microorganisms; Sbulk: substrate concentration in the bulk of the liquid;
CSTR: Continuously stirred tank reactor; AFC: anaerobic filtration chambers; AL: anaerobic lagoon; ANSBR; anaerobic sequencing batch reactor; AS; activated sludge;
ASBR: aerobic sequencing batch reactor; ASG: aerobic suspended growth configuration; AGBR: attached growth bioreactor; IFAS: integrated fixed film acti-
vated sludge.

system is identically similar, and must be determined if concentrations of TOC and TN were 1009 and 254 mg/L,
nitrogen (N2) is involved.[16,17] In ATUs system, 88% of respectively. The study showed that AS process removed
ammonia can be oxidized.[4] Aerobic system digestions for 73.46% of TN and 95.03% of TOC with 254 mg L
1 of TN
short-time attained a better flocculability of sludge. Also, it and 1009 mg L
1 of TOC in the raw PSWW. In contrast, at
has higher biomass reusability and retention, higher micro- initial concentrations of 144 mg/L for TN and 639 mg/L for
bial density with millions of bacteria cells per gram of bio- TOC, the highest TN removal was 75.15%, and TOC was
mass, and broader selection of bacterial strains for plausible 94.26% after 8 days of HRT. It can be concluded that the
bio-augmentation.[25] ATUs are commonly employed for increase in organic removal rate occurred at a constant aer-
removal of nutrients after using anaerobic techniques and ation basin DO level, as a result to proliferation of filament-
for final decontamination.[25] However, the biological pro- ous microorganisms.[57] These organisms grew beyond the
cess is very similar, and being necessary to define if nitrogen general limits of the flow into the bulk solution and caused
removal is required.[23] Aerobic reactors may have several sludge bulking. The decreasing wastewater discharge resulted
configurations. Many authors demonstrated that using in the reduction of the filamentous microorganisms and the
ATUs with stacked configuration in treating high strength production of a non-bulking sludge.
PSWW is advantageous due to minimal space requirements, Aerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) is a system
low capital cost and excellent COD removal efficiencies which involves filling, reaction, settling, drawing, and idle
(around 83%).[16,25] stage. Fongsatitkul et al.[78] reveals that the ASBR removed
AS system is widely used for industries and municipal 95% of COD and TN from PSWW. Li et al.[79] evaluated
wastewater treatment (Figure 8). The main purpose of AS the effect of aeration on nutrients and organic content
system is to eliminate insoluble and soluble organics mater- removal from PSWW at room temperature for 8 hours. The
ial from the wastewater[37,74] and to improve the settlement initial concentrations of TN and COD were 350 mg/L and
process.[15,17,32] However, poor settling flocs recorded in 4000 mg/L, respectively. The study showed that higher aer-
PSWW might be due to the fat contents and low levels of ation amount (0.4 L/min) increased the removal efficiencies
dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, the PSWW treatment of COD and TN to 90 and 34%, respectively. In contrast, at
process should be aerated to reduce the sludge product.[39] 0.8 L/min of aeration, the removal of COD was 97% and
Pab
on and G
elvez[75] investigated a full-scale 144,000 L of 95% for TN. Koide et al.[41] and Seviour et al.[32] reported
AS reactor to remove BOD5, COD, and TSS from raw that the removal efficiencies achieved by ASBR (6 hour
PSWW and obtained 5242, 9040, and 2973 mg/L of initial cycles) for COD, TP and TN were 95%, 98%, and 97%,
concentrations, respectively. The maximum removal respectively. Peng et al.[80] studied a 5 L ASBR full-scale
achieved was 89.73% for BOD5, 89.03% for COD and mixed with suspended growth biomass for PSWW nutrients
94.09% for TSS with HRT 2-day and wastewater influent and organic content. The central composite design (CCD)
rate of 1.38 L/s. program at 16 hours cycles was used for optimal conditions.
Fongsatitkul et al.[23] studied the AS system to treat The system removed 85.91% of TN and 62.13% of COD.
PSWW effluent using two 10 L reactors in parallel, continu- Kundu et al.[81] considered ASBR system for treating
ous flow, and internal recycle. Among these full-scale sys- PSWW in a laboratory-scale. The raw concentrations of TN
tems, two reactors achieved removal efficiency up to 97.60, ranging between 90 and 180 mg/L, and between 950 and
89% for COD and TP, respectively, while total Kjeldahl 1050 mg/L for COD. The study recorded 95% of COD
nitrogen (TKN) was removed by 81.50%. Bustillo-Lecompte removal after 8 hours and between 74.75 and 90.12 mg/L of
et al.[18] assessed the performance and costs of AS process TN. Rajab et al.[5] studied the performance of ASBR for
for removal of TOC and TN from PSWW. Influent treating PSWW (high-strength wastewater) with initial
10 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Figure 7. (a) Regular CSTR bioreactor diagram example. (b) Regular AFC reactor diagram. (c) Regular ANSBR reactor diagram.
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

Figure 8. (a) Regular AS reactor diagram. (b) Schematic diagram of IFAS (Del Pozo et al.[76]) (c) Schematic diagram of SB (Aziz et al.[77]).
12 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

organisms responsible for the transformation of organic

materials and other constituents are “attached” on some
unmoving solid surfaces or fixed films.[88–90] The system has
some advantages such as low requirement of energy and
operating costs besides its simplicity, minimization is needed
for settling capacity, and smaller reactor volume.[91–93] The
system is more suitable for treating high-strength wastewater
such as PSWW due to higher biomass concentrations
attached to the reactor.[44,94] Fonkwe et al.[8] evaluated
AGBR as a primary treatment for synthetic PSWW. The
AGBR was designed to reduce the effect of suspended solids
on membrane fouling in the bioreactor. COD and TN con-
centrations in the raw PSWW was 250 mg/L and 23.9 mg/L.
The study reported that the maximum removal of COD was
95% while was 90% for TN. Qiao et al.[95] used AGBR to
treat high-strength organic wastewater effluent using swim-
bed technology with 12,000 mg/L of COD. The attach
growth reactor achieved removal efficiency of 80% for COD
within 3 hours of HRT.
The integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) is the
modification of conventional AS. It has been applied to
meet more stringent environmental regulation. The inte-
grated IFAS is one of the popular and relatively new tech-
Figure 9. Schematic diagram of CF. nologies which has been introduced in the last 15 years
(Figure 8b). The system depends on a moving bed biofilm
concentration of 1500 mg/L for BOD5, 2010 mg/L for COD, reactor, in which solid media is suspended plastic pieces or
and 110 mg/L for NH3-N and within 24 hours of HRT. The fixed synthetic mesh are added to suspended growth reac-
system removed 97% of BOD5, 95% of COD and 90% of tors to provide attachment surfaces for biofilms.[63,95,96] The
NH3-N. Based on the above-mentioned studies, it was noted technology combines between conventional AS process and
that ASBR has high efficiency to improve the quality of attached growth process. IFAS has several advantages
PSWW and reduce the COD and TN to meet the standard including larger process stability, reduced sludge production
limits required for safe disposal. and reduced solids loading on the secondary clari-
Aerobic suspended growth configuration (ASG) is fiers.[2,90,97,98] The IFAS procedure incorporates the sus-
another aerobic system which has been used for treating of pended activated sludge (SAS) processes and fixed-film. In
PSWW. However, the system is comparatively sensitive and other words, the added mass medium to the aired basins
need skill to control operation activities and free from bulk- and a small basin volume makes sludge nitrification to be
ing.[60] SBR is one of the advanced technologies in the aer- considerably achievable in the nitrification process. In add-
obic suspended growth treatment system.[4,36,82,83] Irvine ition, mass medium supplies surface area for the develop-
and Moe[84] examined the efficiency of ASG to treat slaugh- ment of microbes.[12,51,99] However, on the last clarifiers, the
terhouse wastewater with 1100 mg/m3/day of COD 5 days of attached growth does not enforce excessive solids loading,
HRT within 6 months of treatment period. The study since the microbe development remains in the aired basin.
showed 67% of BOD5 and 55% of COD removal. The study IFAS system needs no additional operator compared to
also compared between SBR at 800 mg/L/day of COD load- conventional AS system. MLSS are settled in the last clari-
ing for COD and BOD5 removal/day. The results showed fiers and thickened and brought back as return activated
66% of COD removal and 92% of BOD5 with HRT 24 hours. sludge (RAS) with the exclusion of waste remains needed to
Mohan et al.[85] studied a full-scale ASG in SBR at 26–28  C be removed to maintain the age of suspended sludge. The
and with 24 hours of HRT pH of complex organic waste- age of suspended sludge ranges from 4 to 5 days at nearly
water was adjusted to 7.1 ± 0.2, the DO was maintained in 10  C to achieve high removal efficiency. Del Pozo et al.[76]
the range of 3.0– 4.5 mg/L. The study established that SBR investigated the performance of IFAS system for treating
performance is conditional with OL rate. Moreover, the sys- PSWW with 770 mg/L of COD and 84 mg L
1 of TN, the
tem resists its performance up to 1.7 kg/m3/day of COD and IFAS system removed 93% of COD and 67% of TN. Kim
above 3.5 kg/m3/day of COD loading rate showed that the et al.[63] used IFAS pilot systems for COD, TN, and TP
system performance was limited. removal from PSWW. The influent flow rate was
The attached microorganism-based system which is used 3.8  103 m3/day with COD loading of 390 ± 127 mg/L and
to treat PSWW is called attached growth bioreactor within 22 days HRT. The study revealed that at 8 days of
(AGBR). The concept for applying acrylic-fiber biomass car- HRT, 90% of COD was removed, TP decreased to 1 mg/L at
rier lies in the manipulation of the capacity of organisms 8th day of HRT. The effluent generated from IFAS system
and the ability to grow on several surfaces.[86,87] The contains 3.6 ± 1.2 mg L
1 ammonia and 5.1 mg L
1 nitrate.
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

Figure 10. A schematic diagram of ADTS reactor in PSWW treatment.

Swim-bed system (SB) technology system combines a microorganisms, which generate electrons and protons.
novel support material net-type acryl-fiber biomass carrier Electrons are transported through an external electric circuit
known as biofringe (BF). BF has been used to treat high- to the cathode, and protons diffuse to the cathodic chamber
rate wastewater (organic wastewater).[4,74,100–102] Swim-bed via proton exchange separators. PSWW treated in single-
BF has established an effective treatment of high-strength chamber noncatalyzed MFC achieved 95.49% COD removal
organic wastewater volumetric loadings up to 12 kg/m3/d and 99.0% turbidity removal. The MFC systems for waste-
with 80% of COD removal within 3 hours of HRT. In swim- water treatment recover inorganic metal pollutants from
bed with BF, the biomass is attached to a flexible matrix in pollutants (COD or TOC) by power densities. Besides that,
a fixed position medium which enlarges the surface area for MFC systems have several additional advantages over con-
reactions to occur.[103] Simultaneously, the moving of a ventional wastewater treatment processes, offer a combin-
matrix caused by flow of wastewater creates a “swimming” ation of biological (SB) and electrochemical processes, better
motion that enhances nutrients transfer (mass transfer) to treatment efficiencies, minimum sludge generation, and self-
the attached growth. BF has an aerobic zone near surface sustainable systems with lower operating costs.
and anaerobic zone inside sludge, which increases the per-
formance of nitrification and nitrogen removal.[4,74,104–106]
Figure 8c shows the schematic of SB system. Wagner 4.4.3. Sequencing batch biofilm with composite fiber (CF)
et al.[107] evaluated the performance of SB with high- technique (SBBCF)
strength OLs containing more than 12,000 mg COD/L/d The regulation for wastewater treatment system prioritizes
using the biomass attachment BF. The study reported that the development of wastewater treatment technology to
80% of COD was removed within 3 hours of HRT. employ environmentally-friendly and economical systems
Moreover, up to 133 g/m of BF biomass was held with con- with minimal use of chemicals. Therefore, new methods and
sider to the BF holding. However, a limited improvement of technologies have been rigorously developed for the purpose
nitrification was recorded at less than 1600 mg/L of COD of achieving effective and efficient pollutants removal. One
loading. Baker et al.[62] evaluated a SB fixed-film reactor of the latest developments of biological treatment is the use
with BF and only conventional AS with BOD5 loading of fixed film with fiber as the biomass carrier.[2,109,110] The
653 mg/L for PSWW treatment under (25  C temperature utilization of fiber as a biomass carrier such as biofilm
and pH at neutral 7.0 ± 0.5). The overall COD for SB fixed- exhibits good performance in removing pollutants especially
film reactor removals were 84.3% for BOD5/COD ratio of nutrition substance.[2,111–113] For this reason, development
67% with 14 days, along with 98.8% of BOD5 removal. to seek new materials that are able to offer good removal
According to Rathour et al.[108] a developed SB system efficiency of organic, nitrogen, and phosphorus contents at
dual-chamber microbial fuel cells (MFC) treatment system considerable cost is highly promoted. Furthermore, there is
has been used for the treatment of several wastewater pollu- yet an attempt to employ composite fiber (CF) in this tech-
tants such as PSWW. In this system, an anaerobic anodic nology so far. The prospect of using this type of biomass
chamber is fed with the substrate for metabolism of carrier is very high and the technology is relatively new. In
14 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Figure 11. A schematic diagram of EGSB reactor in PSWW treatment.

response to the problems, new technology via CF to reduce 4.5. Advanced processing system (APS)
the wastewater contamination has received much interest
Recently, advanced processes have been encouraged for
worldwide. By using this type of biomass carrier, an
PSWW treatment to remove a large amount of organic pol-
improvement in the settling characteristics was achieved in
lutants. These methods have several advantages like easy
the reactor. According to this approach, through wastewater
operation, small production of sludge, low consumption of
flow, a flexing of the matrix creates a swimming motion
energy, and environmentally compatible.[23]
that enhances mass transfer of nutrients to the attached bio-
mass.[25,114] Moreover, this swimming motion enhances sep-
aration of excess biomass which causes formation of a dense 4.5.1. Electrochemical advanced oxidation processes
sludge floc.[2,115] In fact, a sludge settling properties could (EAOxP)
be improved by employing the CF material as a biomass Electrochemical oxidation processes (EAOxP) are the modi-
carrier. The reduced SVI value gradually decrease MLSS at fications of electrochemical processes to meet a new strin-
the same time, indicating that increase in the attached gent regulation. The EAOxP is new and one of the popular
sludge on the CF material.[77,116] treatment technologies. The system depends on the electro-
CF as a biomass carrier is a highly efficient contact Fenton process, where Fenton reaction, hydrogen peroxide
material that keeps a high volume of bacteria externally and reacts with Fe to produce ferric ions and hydroxyl radicals.
internally and never releases bacteria all the time when The hydrogen peroxide is added to degrade the harmful
reactor run.[39] There are many advantages when combining compounds in this process. This technology has several
CF as a biomass carrier (adhesive) with swim bed technolo- advantages include reduce sludge production and more
gies such as high processing performance, less space, less treatment stability.[117] According to Davarnejad and
sludge produced, no need for additional chemical for coagu- Nasiri,[117] the optimum conditions for EAOxP system using
lation pretreatment even for high suspended solids and con- RSM software program were found at 4.38 pH, 55.60 minutes
centrations of oil due to the longer retention time of reaction time and 74.07 mA/cm2 current density removed
sludge.[25] Figure 9 shows the schematic of CF technique. It COD at 92.37%. Also, at pH 3.39, 49.22 minutes reaction
shows that the volume of reactor tanks was 10 liters. It was time, and 67.90 mA/cm2 current density, the removal of
made from Plexiglas material. Three CF sheets were installed color obtained was 88.06%. EAOxP was also investigated by
inside the aerobic reactor tanks. Air was added into an oxic De Sena et al.,[118] who reported the effect of reaction time,
tank by three air nozzles using air pump. DO was approxi- pH, current density (CD) and volume, also on COD and
mately 0.5 mg/L. Airflow was adjusted by an airflow meter. color removal. The researcher detected that optimum condi-
CF technique reduced sludge production and solids loadings tion was 55.60 minutes reaction time, 4.38 pH, 3.73 H2O/
in comparison to the conventional wastewater treatment. Fe2þ molar ratio, 74.07 mA/cm2 CD, and 1.63 mL/L volume
This is because the composite fiber providing oxic zone at ratio for 92.3% COD removal. The optimum condition for
periphery and anoxic zone inside sludge, which increases 88.0% color removal was 3.39 pH, 49.22 minutes reaction
the performance of nitrification and nitrogen removal.[74,80] time, 3.62 H2O/Fe2þ molar ratio, and CD of 67.90 mA/cm2.
In swim-bed CF, large amounts of biomass are attached to a
flexible matrix in a fixed position medium which enlarges
the surface area for reactions to occur. The flexing of matrix 4.5.2. Anaerobic digestion treatment system (ADTS)
is induced by wastewater flow creating a “swimming” The anaerobic digestion treatment system (ADTS) is another
motion that enhances mass transfer of nutrients to the advanced method for PSWW treatment. The method also
attached growth. CF has an aerobic zone near surface and produces biogas. The digestion and biogas production take
anaerobic zone inside sludge, which increases the perform- place within one tank (batch-fed anaerobic co-digestion
ance of nitrification and nitrogen removal.[25,74] reactors). However, this process is a part of biochemical
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

Table 6. The comparison between PSWW treatment technologies.

PSWW treatment technologies
PWWT BPS
AnTS AeTS
PWWT LAT DAF EC MS CSTR AFC AL ANSBR AS ASBR ASG AGBR IFAS SB SBBCF
BOD5 O X X X O X O X X X X O O X X X
COD O X X X X X O X X X X O X X X X
TN O X O X O X X O O O X O O O O X
TP O X O X X O O O O O O O O X O X
TSS X X X O X O X X O X O X X X X X
O&G X X X O X O O O O O O O O O X O
Color X X X X X O O O O O X X O O O O
X: efficient of removal; O: inefficient of removal.

process which decomposed a complex organic compound in 48% (min.) and 93% (max.) using response surface method-
the absence of oxygen by anaerobic microorganisms.[37,47,119] ology (RSM) to optimize EGSB reactor at OLR 1.01 g COD/L.
Latifi et al.[119] optimized ADTS performance, the effective vol- day (min.), and 4.82 g COD/L/day (max).
ume of reactors (0.5–0.7 L) that were feed with wastewater, has
27 g total volatile solids (TVS). The reactor was vacuumed
4.5.4. Static granular bed reactor (SGBR)
using vacuum pump to inject nitrogen (N2) gas at the upper
The aim of applied SGBR reactor in the PSWW treatment is
reactor to create a new environment (anaerobic) and take out
to reduce the organic load. The SGBR scale consisted of a
the remaining air. The researchers installed circulation system
cylinder reactor shaped made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
with water bath to keep the reactor temperature at 34  C. A
with 1.53 L volume and the 0.071 m diameter and 0.5867 m
schematic diagram of reactor is introduced in Figure 10.
height. Other 5 L containers were applied to store wastewater
According to the same author, ADTS treatment for slaughter-
prior to treatment. At the upper of the SGBR, a PVC pipe was
house wastewater was conducted under 50 days of retention
placed to distribute the entire feed across the reactor. To pre-
time at 34  C. Also, inoculum-substrate ratio (ISR) of 4 and TS
vent clogging underdrain pipes and granular sludge washout, a
of 5% at a larger scale (20 L). The production of methane and
5 mm diameter pea gravel was used as an underdrain. Also, a
biogas were recorded to be 0.402 and 0.574 m3/kg, respectively,
grit sieve (2 mm) was placed at the bottom of the reactor to
and the digester leads to 63% VS removal and 88% COD
hold the pea gravel. Using peristaltic pump, the PSWW was
removal. Christian et al.[120] reported on the high-strength
fed at the top of the reactor. The temperature of reactor rang-
wastewater treatment. This anaerobic digestion with membrane
ing between 35 and 37  C. Finally, a 0.50 L plastic bag was
bioreactor has an effluent design of 475,000 L/d with
used to collect biogas.[123] Basitere et al.[123] tested the effi-
39,000 mg/L COD, 18,000 mg/L BOD, and 12,000 mg/L TSS
ciency of SGBR in treating PSWW with a range between 1223
loadings. The anaerobic digestion with membrane bioreactor
and 9695 mg/L of COD, 2375 mg/L of average BOD and
giving COD and BOD removals efficiency of 99.4% and 99.9%
554 mg/L of average oil and grease (FOG). The system reduced
at the concentrations of 210 and 20 mg/L, respectively.
average COD by 93%, TSS by 95% and FOG removal by 90%.
Debik et al.[124] applied the SGBR system to treat PSWW and
4.5.3. Expanded granular sludge blanket reactor (EGSBR) 85% average COD reduction was observed at an OLR of
Due to the EGSBR recirculation stream which is known to 1.64 kg COD/m3/day. The comparison between PSWW treat-
increase sludge expansion for improved efficiency, it was ment technologies is presented in Table 6.
recorded that the COD removal achieved 67% for PSWW
without a pretreatment process.[121] According to Basitere
5. Conclusion
et al.[121] two-stage system of anaerobic digester EGSB joined
with two bioreactors (anoxic and aerobic) was introduced to Biological treatment technologies are among the approaches
treat PSWW. The EGSB consisted of a cylindrical formed with for PSWW treatment. The approach is mainly presented to
a 1.2 L volume and heights of 0.22 m and 0.06 m. For solids successfully remove the organic and nutrient materials from
and biogas separation purpose, the gas–liquid separator was wastewater without the addition of chemicals and cost. The
installed at the top of the reactor column (Figure 11). To opti- suspended biomass is an important factor in selecting an
mize EGSB performance, the velocity of up-flow reactor was appropriate biological treatment technique because most of
kept at 1.1 m/h. The reactor temperature was maintained at the methods are used for the PSWW treatment. Which are
37  C using water from a thermostatic circulating water bath. effective to remove the suspended solids, organic matter and
This gives high COD values of 2–6 g/L, and average BOD and nutrient loading from PSWW. The BPS is found to be one
FOG value of 2.4 g/L and 0.55 g/L, respectively. The COD of the most efficient treatment technologies. Based on the
removal from the system was 40%, 57% and 55% at 0.5, 0.7 review above, it can be concluded that:
and 1.0 g COD/L/day of OL rates. At high OLR (1.0 g COD/L.
day), the COD removal from EGSB was recorded at 65%.  The literature lacks attempt to evaluate, select and extract
Williams et al.[122] revealed the efficient removal of COD was optimized features of PSWW treatment technologies to
16 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

develop an advanced PSWW treatment, for removal and [4] Rosegrant, M. W.; Paisner, M. S.; Meijer, S.; Witcover, J.
mitigation methods. The classifiers need to be continu- 2020 Global Food Outlook: Trends, Alternatives, and Choices
(Vol. 11); International Food Policy Research Institute:
ously supported with new and updated features to Washington, DC, 2001. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
address new PSWW pollution threats. 44a3/d7adeed77bf153c411592a73617d9065b9e7.pdf
 There is a dominant need to explore the practical and [5] Baker, R. B. Explore the Pollution Load of Slaughterhouse
real utility of PSWW treatment and a need to perform Wastewater and Their Treatment Potential Using Biofilm
more large-scale field studies that can simulate heteroge- Reactor. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2016, 7, pp. 1757–1761.
[6] Rajab, A. R.; Salim, M. R.; Sohaili, J.; Anuar, A. N.;
neous and scalable PSWW pollution. Lakkaboyana, S. K. Performance of Integrated Anaerobic/
 Research conducted on the removal of contaminants Aerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor Treating Poultry
from PSWW using swim-bed system and advance proc- Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 313, 967–974.
essing system is lacking. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.10.144.
 Most of the reviewed methods are lacking in treatment [7] Yacob, S.; Hassan, M. A.; Shirai, Y.; Wakisaka, M.; Subash, S.
Baseline Study of Methane Emission from Anaerobic Ponds of
mechanisms against the recycling of PSWW. Palm Oil Mill Effluent Treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2006,
 Various contaminants and their removal by biological 366, 187–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.07.003.
processing system (BPS) exist based on variety of factors [8] Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D. G. Preferred
which include size of BPS, type of contaminants, initial Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:
pH, batch conditions, temperature, hardness, DO, and The PRISMA Statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62,
1006–1012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.
the presence of natural organic compounds. So, a more [9] Bayar, S.; Yildiz, Y. S.; Yilmaz, A. E.; Irdemez, S. The Effect of
detailed work on these interactions is needed to obtain Stirring Speed and Current Density on Removal Efficiency of
further insights. Besides, how to use the DO more effect- Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater by Electrocoagulation
ively in BPS system is still a question. Method. Desalination 2011, 280, 103–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.
 Studies on PSWW treatment processes are mostly carried desal.2011.06.061.
[10] Dadi, D.; Mengistie, E.; Terefe, G.; Getahun, T.; Haddis, A.;
out at the lab scale. Most laboratory studies have eval- Birke, W.; et al. Assessment of the Effluent Quality of Wet
uated the performance of PSWW treatment technologies Coffee Processing Wastewater and Its Influence on
in removing relatively high concentrations of contami- Downstream Water Quality. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2018, 18,
nants. However, conclusions drawn from the lab experi- 201–211. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2017.10.007.
[11] Mittal, G. S. Treatment of Wastewater from Abattoirs before
ments may not reflect the performances at contaminated
Land Application: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97,
sites. Thus, there is a need to perform more large-scale 1119–1135. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.11.021.
field studies and to explore the practical utility of treat- [12] Del Nery, V.; De Nardi, I. R.; Damianovic, M. H. R. Z.; Pozzi,
ment technologies on commercial scale. E.; Amorim, A. K. B.; Zaiat, M. Long-Term Operating
Performance of a Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 50, 102–114.
Funding DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.06.001.
[13] World Bank Group. Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS)
The authors would like to thanks to the Research Management Centre Guidelines for Meat Processing. General EHS Guidelines:
(RMC), UTHM for providing FRGs Grant (K184) (Modification of Environmental Wastewater and Ambient Water Quality 2007.
Bead Adsorbents with Ceramic Sanitary Ware Waste (CSWW) and http://www.ifc.org/ehsguidelines (accessed March 10, 2015).
Chitosan for Laundry Greywater (LGW) Safe Disposal) as a financial [14] APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
support for this research project. Wastewater; American Public Health Association: Washington,
DC, 2002. https://betastatic.fishersci.com/content/dam/fisher-
sci/en_US/documents/.pdf
[15] Bustillo-Lecompte, C.; Mehrvar, M.; Qui~ nones-Bola~nos, E.
ORCID Slaughterhouse Wastewater Characterization and Treatment:
An Economic and Public Health Necessity of the Meat
Radin Mohamed https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2023-9196 Processing Industry in Ontario, Canada. J. Geosci. Environ.
Adel Al-Gheethi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7257-2954 Protect. 2016, 4, 175–186. DOI: 10.4236/gep.2016.44021.
[16] Bustillo-Lecompte, C. F.; Knight, M.; Mehrvar, M. Assessing
the Performance of UV/H2O as a Pretreatment Process in
References TOC Removal of an Actual Petroleum Refinery Wastewater
and Its Inhibitory Effects on Activated Sludge. Can. J. Chem.
[1] Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Assessment of the Eng. 2015, 93, 798–807. DOI: 10.1002/cjce.22180.2.
World Food Security Situation, Committee on World Food [17] US EPA. NPDES Permit Writers Guidance Manual and Example
Security, Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA-
Nations, Rome 2017. www.fao.org/3/a-I7658e.pdf. 833-B-04-001; Washington, DC: US EPA, 2003.
[2] Weerasekara, A. W.; Jenkins, S.; Abbott, L. K.; Waite, I.; [18] Bustillo-Lecompte, C. F.; Mehrvar, M.; Qui~ nones-Bola~
nos, E.
McGrath, J. W.; Larma, I.; Eroglu, E.; O’Donnell, A.; Whiteley, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of TOC Removal from
A. S. Microbial Phylogenetic and Functional Responses within Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Combined Anaerobic-
Acidified Wastewater Communities Exhibiting Enhanced Aerobic and UV/H2O Processes. J. Environ. Manage. 2014,
Phosphate Uptake. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 220, 55–61. DOI: 134, 145–152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.035.
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.037. [19] Tong, S.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, M.; Wei, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, S.; Sun, S.
[3] Del Nery, V.; Damianovic, M.; Moura, R.; Pozzi, E.; Pires, E.; Effect of the Supernatant Reflux Position and Ratio on the
Foresti, E. Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment Nitrogen Removal Performance of Anaerobic-Aerobic
Plant for High Quality Effluent. Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 73, Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment Process. Environ. Eng.
309–316. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2015.494. Res. 2019, 45, 12–34. DOI: 10.4491/eer.2019.091.
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17

[20] De Nardi, I. R.; Del Nery, V.; Amorim, A. K. B.; dos Santos, High Ammonia Nitrogen Wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2018,
N. G.; Chimenes, F. Performances of SBR, Chemical–DAF and 249, 241–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.013.
UV Disinfection for Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater [38] He, Y.; Xu, P.; Li, C.; Zhang, B. High-Concentration Food and
Reclamation. Desalination 2011, 269, 184–189. DOI: 10.1016/j. Poultry Wastewater Treatment by an Anaerobic Membrane
desal.2010.10.060. Bioreactor. Water Res. 2005, 39, 4110–4118. DOI: 10.1016/j.
[21] Yetilmezsoy, K.; Ilhan, F.; Sapci-Zengin, Z.; Sakar, S.; Gonullu, watres.2005.07.030.
M. T. Decolorization and COD Reduction of UASB Pretreated [39] Chan, Y. J.; Chong, M. F.; Law, C. L. Biological Treatment of
Poultry Manure Wastewater by Electrocoagulation Process: A Anaerobically Digested Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Using a
Post-Treatment Study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 162, 120–132. Lab-Scale Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR). J. Environ. Manage.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.015. 2010, 91, 1738–1746. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.021.
[22] De Nardi, I.; Fuzi, T.; Del Nery, V. Performance Evaluation and [40] Bustillo-Lecompte, C. F.; Mehrvar, M.; Qui~ nones-Bola~
nos, E.
Operating Strategies of Dissolved-Air Flotation System Treating Combined Anaerobic-Aerobic and UV/H2O2 Processes for the
Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, Treatment of Synthetic Slaughterhouse Wastewater. J. Environ.
52, 533–544. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.06.005. Sci. Health A 2013, 48, 1122–1135. DOI: 10.1080/10934529.
[23] Aquino, J. M.; Pereira, G. F.; Rocha-Filho, R. C.; Bocchi, N.; 2013.774662.
Biaggio, S. R. Combined Coagulation and Electrochemical Process [41] Koide, R. T.; Nguyen, B. T.; Howard Skinner, R.; Dell, C. J.;
to Treat and Detoxify a Real Textile Effluent. Water Air Soil Adler, P. R.; Drohan, P. J.; Licht, M.; Matthews, M. B.; Nettles,
Pollut. 2016, 227, 266. DOI: 10.1007/s11270-016-2967-z. R.; Ricks, K.; Watkins, J. Comparing Biochar Application
[24] Pierson, J. A.; Pavlostathis, S. G. Real-Time Monitoring and Methods for Switchgrass Yield and C Sequestration on
Control of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Secondary Contrasting Marginal Lands in Pennsylvania, USA. Bioenergy
Treatment of a Poultry Processing Wastewater. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 11, 784–802. DOI: 10.1007/s12155-018-9940-1.
Res. 2000, 72, 585–592. DOI: 10.2175/106143000X138166. [42] San Jose, T. Bird Slaughterhouse: Generation and Purification
[25] Van Haandel, A.; van der Lubbe, J. Handbook of Biological of Their Water. Tecnol. Agua 2004, 24, 48–51.
Wastewater Treatment – Design and Optimisation of Activated [43] Ruiz, G.; Jeison, D.; Chamy, R. Nitrification with High Nitrite
Sludge Systems, 2nd ed.; IWA Publishing: London, 2012. Accumulation for the Treatment of Wastewater with High
[26] Kist, L. T.; Moutaqi, S. E.; Machado, E. L. Cleaner Production Ammonia Concentration. Water Res. 2003, 37, 1371–1377.
in the Management of Water Use at a Poultry Slaughterhouse DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00475-X.
of Vale dp Taquari, Brazil: A Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, [44] IWA. Microbial Ecology of Activated Sludge; IWA Publishing:
17, 1200–1205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.006. London: 2010. DOI: 10.2166/9781780401645.
[27] Avery, L. M.; Killham, K.; Jones, D. L. Survival of E. coli [45] Park, H.-D.; Noguera, D. R. Evaluating the Effect of Dissolved
O157:H7 in Organic Wastes Destined for Land Application. J. Oxygen on Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacterial Communities in
Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 98, 814–822. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672. Activated Sludge. Water Res. 2004, 38, 3275–3286. DOI: 10.
2004.02524.x. 1016/j.watres.2004.04.047.
[28] UN Division of Sustainable Development. Changing [46] Adlan, M. N.; Palaniandy, P.; Aziz, H. A. Optimization of
Consumption and Product Patterns: Organic Agriculture, Coagulation and Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Using
Background Paper 4; Department of Economic and Social Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Desalination 2011, 277,
Affairs: New York. 2000. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/ 74–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.006.
ecn172000-bp4.pdf. [47] Chan, Y. J.; Chong, M. F.; Law, C. L.; Hassell, D. A Review on
[29] Sperling, M. V. Basic Principles of Wastewater Treatment Anaerobic-Aerobic Treatment of Industrial and Municipal
Biological Wastewater Treatment Series, Vol. 2; IWA Wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 155, 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.
Publishing: London, 2007. https://www.iwapublishing.com/ 2009.06.041.
sites/default/files/ebooks/9781780402093.pdf. [48] Hsiao, T.-H.; Huang, J.-S.; Huang, Y.-I. Process Kinetics of an
[30] Atuanya, E. I.; Aigbirior, M. Mesophilic Biomethanation and Activated-Sludge Reactor System Treating Poultry
Treatment of Poultry Waste-Water Using Pilot Scale UASB Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Environ. Technol. 2012, 33,
Reactor. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 2002, 77, 139–147. 829–835. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2011.597782.
[31] Sarti, A.; Lamon, A.; Ono, A.; Foresti, E. A New Device to [49] Ansari, S.; Alavi, J.; Yaseen, Z. M. Performance of Full-Scale
Select Carriers for Biomass Immobilization and Application in Coagulation-Flocculation/DAF as a Pre-Treatment Technology
an Aerobic/Anaerobic Fixed-Bed Sequencing Batch Biofilm for Biodegradability Enhancement of High Strength
Reactor for Nitrogen Removal. Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 74, Wastepaper-Recycling Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2666–2674. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2016.410. 2018, 25, 33978–33991. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3340-0.
[32] Seviour, R. J.; Mino, T.; Onuki, M. The Microbiology of [50] Ong, S.-A.; Toorisaka, E.; Hirata, M.; Hano, T. Treatment of
Biological Phosphorus Removal in Activated Sludge Systems. Azo Dye Orange II in Aerobic and anaerobic SBR Systems.
FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 27, 99–127. DOI: 10.1016/S0168- Proc. Biochem. 2005, 40, 2907–2914. DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.
6445(03)00021-4. 2005.01.009.
[33] Johns, M. Developments in Wastewater Treatment in the Meat [51] Sroka, E.; Bohdziewicz, J. Integrated System of Activated
Processing Industry: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 1995, 54, Sludge-Reverse Osmosis in the Treatment of the Wastewater
203–216. DOI: 10.1016/0960-8524(95)00140-9. from the Meat Industry Strategy for a Simultaneous
[34] Chernicharo, C. Post-Treatment Options for the Anaerobic Nitrification/Denitrification of a Slaughterhouse Wastewater in
Treatment of Domestic Wastewater. Rev. Environ. Sci. a Sequencing Batch Reactor: ASM2d Modeling and Verification.
Biotechnol. 2006, 5, 73–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11157-005-5683-5. Environ. Technol. 2005, 26, 1081–1100. DOI: 10.1080/
[35] Borowitzka, M. A. Commercial Production of Microalgae: 09593332608618478.
Ponds, Tanks, Tubes and Fermenters. J. Biotechnol. 1999, 70, [52] Kobya, M.; Senturk, E.; Bayramoglu, M. Treatment of Poultry
313–321. DOI: 10.1016/s0079-6352(99)80123-4. Slaughterhouse Wastewaters by Electrocoagulation. J. Hazard.
[36] ODNR, O.D.H., O.D.A., and OEPA. State Actions for Water Mater. 2006, 133, 172–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.10.007.
Quality Improvement at Grand Lake, Saint Marys; Department [53] Qin, X.; Yang, B.; Gao, F.; Chen, G. Treatment of Restaurant
of Natural Resources: Columbus, OH, 2010. http://www.wthr. Wastewater by Pilot-Scale Electrocoagulation-Electroflotation:
com/sites/wthr.com/files/archive/ohioplan.pdf. Optimization of Operating Conditions. J. Environ. Eng. 2013,
[37] Li, J.; Wei, J.; Ngo, H. H.; Guo, W.; Liu, H.; Du, B.; Wei, Q.; 139, 1004–1016. 1943-7870.0000687. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.
Wei, D. Characterization of Soluble Microbial Products in a [54] Awang, Z. B.; Bashir, M. J. K.; Kutty, S. R. M.; Isa, M. H.
Partial Nitrification Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor Treating Post-Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using
18 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Electrochemical Oxidation. Res. J. Chem. Environ. 2011, 15, [72] Fonkwe, L. G.; Singh, R. K.; Lee, J. H. Poultry Processing
229–237. Wastes. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2001, 6, 257.
[55] Dodds, W. K.; Bouska, W. W.; Eitzmann, J. L.; Pilger, T. J.; [73] Caldera, Y.; Madueno, P.; Griborio, A.; Fernandez, N.;
Pitts, K. L.; Riley, A. J.; Schloesser, J. T.; Thornbrugh, D. J. Gutierrez, E. Effect of the Organic Load in the Performance
Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential the UASB Reactor Treating Slaughterhouse Effluent. Rev. Tec.
Economic Damages. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 12–19. Fac. Ing. Univ. Zulia 2005, 28, 119–127.
DOI: 10.1021/es801217q. [74] Seviour, R. J.; McIlroy, S. The Microbiology of Phosphorus
[56] Almandoz, M. C.; Pagliero, C. L.; Ochoa, N. A.; Marchese, J. Removal in Activated Sludge Processes – The Current State of
Composite Ceramic Membranes from Natural Play. J. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 115–124. DOI: 10.1007/s12275-
Aluminosilicates for Microfiltration Applications. Ceram. Int. 008-0051-0.
2015, 41, 5621–5633. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.12.144. [75] Pab
on, S. L.; Gelvez, J. H. S. Starting-up and Operating a Full-
[57] Yordanov, D. Preliminary Study of the Efficiency of Scale Activated Sludge System for Slaughterhouse Wastewater.
Ultrafiltration Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse Ing. Invest. 2009, 29, 53–58. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/iei/
Wastewater. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 16, 700–704. v29n2/v29n2a08.pdf.
[58] Selmane, D.; Christophe, V.; Gholamreza, D. Extraction of [76] Del Pozo, R.; Diez, V. Integrated Anaerobic–Aerobic Fixed-
Proteins from Slaughterhouse by-Products: Influence of Film Reactor for Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment. Water
Operating Conditions on Functional Properties. Meat Sci. Res. 2005, 39, 1114–1122. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.01.013.
2008, 79, 640–647. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.029. [77] Aziz, H. A.; Ling, T. J.; Haque, A. A. M.; Umar, M.; Adlan,
[59] Mass
e, D. I.; Masse, L. Characterization of Wastewater from M. N. Leachate Treatment by Swim-Bed Bio Fringe
Hog Slaughterhouses in Eastern Canada and Evaluation of Technology. Desalination 2011, 276, 278–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.
Their in-Plant Wastewater Treatment Systems. Can. Agr. Eng. desal.2011.03.063.
2000, 42, 139–146. [78] Fongsatitkul, P.; Wareham, D. G.; Elefsiniotis, P.; Charoensuk, P.
[60] Whittaker, A. Wastewater Treatment: Advanced Suspended Treatment of a Slaughterhouse Wastewater: Effect of Internal
Growth Technology. Filtr. Separat. 2007, 44, 19–21. DOI: 10. Recycle Rate on Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Kjeldahl
1016/S0015-1882(07)70282-3. Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Removal. Environ. Technol. 2011,
[61] Cao, W.; Mehrvar, M. Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment 32, 1755–1759. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2011.555421.
by Combined Anaerobic Baffled Reactor and UV/ [79] Li, J.; Healy, M. G.; Zhan, X.; Norton, D.; Rodgers, M. Effect
H2O2 Processes. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89, 1136–1143. of Aeration Rate on Nutrient Removal from Slaughterhouse
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.12.001.2. Wastewater in Intermittently Aerated Sequencing Batch
[62] Baker, R. B.; Haque, A. A. M.; Aziz, H. A. Nitrification in Reactors. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2008, 192, 251–261. DOI: 10.
Suspended Growth Bioreactor for Treating Seafood 1007/s11270-008-9652-9.
Wastewater. Casp. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 2, 212–218. [80] Peng, Y.; Gao, S.; Wang, S.; Lu, B. Partial Nitrification from
[63] Rajakumar, R.; Meenambal, T.; Banu, J. R.; Yeom, I. Slaughterhouse and Domestic Wastewater by Aeration Control
Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater in Upflow at Ambient Temperature. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2007, 15,
Anaerobic Filter under Low Upflow Velocity. Int. J. Environ. 115–121. DOI: 10.1021/es070850f.
Sci. Technol. 2011, 8, 149–158. DOI: 10.1007/BF03326204. [81] Kundu, P.; Debsarkar, A.; Mukherjee, S. Kinetic Modeling for
[64] Mancl, K. M.; Kopp, R.; Tuovinen, O. H. Treatment of Meat- Simultaneous Organic Carbon Oxidation, Nitrification, and
Processing Wastewater with a Low-Cost Sand/Gravel Denitrification of Abattoir Wastewater in Sequencing Batch
Bioreactor System. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2016, 2016, Reactor. Bioremediat. J. 2014, 18, 267–286. DOI: 10.1080/
3326–3335. DOI: 10.13031/aea.12683. 10889868.2014.939134.
[65] Oyanedel-Craver, V.; Lazarova, V.; Garrido, J.; Mendez, R. [82] Peng, Y.-Z.; Wang, X.-L.; Li, B.-K. Anoxic Biological Phosphorus
Comparative Study between a Hybrid System and a Biofilm Uptake and the Effect of Excessive Aeration on Biological
System for the Treatment of Ammonia and Organic Matter in Phosphorus Removal in the A20 Process. Desalination 2006, 189,
Wastewaters. J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 135, 351–358. DOI: 10. 155–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.06.023.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:5(351). [83] Oyanedel-Craver, V.; Ruiz, G.; Chamy, R. Nitrite
[66] Regmi, P.; Thomas, W.; Schafran, G.; Bott, C.; Rutherford, B.; Accumulation in Activated Sludge and Airlift Reactors:
Waltrip, D. Nitrogen Removal Assessment through Process Performance Comparison. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2005, 22,
Nitrification Rates and Media Biofilm Accumulation in an 450–458. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2005.22.450.
IFAS Process Demonstration Study. Water Res. 2011, 45, [84] Irvine, R. L.; Moe, W. M. Periodic Biofiletr Operation for
6699–6708. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.009. Enhance Performance during Unsteady State Loading
[67] Throb€ack, I. N. Exploring Denitrifying Communities in the Condition. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 45, 231–239. DOI: 10.
Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural 2166/wst.2001.0142.
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 2006. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn= [85] Mohan, S. V.; Chandrashekara Rao, N.; Krishna Prasad, K.;
urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-1017. Madhavi, B. T. V.; Sharma, P. N. Treatment of Complex
[68] Jayathilakan, K.; Sultana, K.; Radhakrishna, K.; Bawa, A. Chemical Wastewater in a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) with
Utilization of Byproducts and Waste Materials from Meat, an Aerobic Suspended Growth Con Nuration. Proc. Biochem.
Poultry and Fish Processing Industries: A Review. J. Food Sci. 2005, 40, 1501–1508. DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2003.02.001.
Technol. 2012, 49, 278–293. DOI: 10.1007/s13197-011-0290-7. [86] Li, J.; Xing, X. H.; Wang, B. Z. Characteristics of Phosphorus
[69] Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse; Removal from Wastewater by Biofilm Sequencing Batch
McGraw-Hill: New York, 2004. Reactor (SBR). Biochem. Eng. J. 2003, 16, 279–285. DOI: 10.
[70] Cardinali-Rezende, J.; Debarry, R. B.; Colturato, L.; Carneiro, 1016/S1369-703X(03)00071-8.
E. V.; Chartone-Souza, E.; Nascimento, A. Molecular [87] Casani, S.; Rouhany, M.; Knøchel, S. A Discussion Paper on
Identification and Dynamics of Microbial Communities in Challenges and Limitations to Water Reuse and Hygiene in
Reactor Treating Organic Household Waste. Appl. Microbiol. the Food Industry. Water Res. 2005, 39, 1134–1146. DOI: 10.
Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 777–789. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-009-2071-z. 1016/j.watres.2004.12.015.
[71] Rodgers, M.; Zhan, X. M.; Burke, M. D. Nutrient Removal in [88] Mekonnen, M. M.; Hoekstra, A. Y. Global Gray Water
a Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor (SBBR) Using a Vertically Footprint and Water Pollution Levels Related to
Moving Biofilm System. Environ. Technol. 2004, 25, 211–218. Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loads to Fresh Water. Environ. Sci.
DOI: 10.1080/09593330409355454. Technol. 2015, 49, 12860–12868. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03191.
 JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19

[89] Gavrilescu, M.; Macoveanu, M. Wastewater Treatment Environments. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2002, 10,
Attached Growth Process Engineering in Bioprocess Eng. 115–141. 892826575 DOI: 10.1023/A:1020.
Bioproc. Eng. 2000, 23, 95–106. DOI: 10.1007/s004490050030. [106] Van der Lubbe, J.; van Haandel, A. Handbook Biological Waste
[90] Stricker, A.; Barrie, A.; Maas, C. L. A.; Fernandes, W.; Water Treatment Design and Optimisation of Activated Sludge
Lishman, L. Comparison of Performance and Operation of Systems; Quist Publishing: Leidschendam, 2007, 345–356. DOI:
Side-by-Side Integrated Fixed-Film and Conventional 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.057.
Activated Sludge Processes at Demonstration Scale. Water [107] Wagner, M.; Noguera, D. R.; Juretschko, S.; Rath, G.; Koops,
Environ. Res. 2009, 81, 219–232. H.-P.; Schleifer, K.-H. Combining fluorescent in Situ
[91] Kim, H.; Gellner, J. W.; Boltz, J. P.; Freudenberg, R. G.; Hybridization (FISH) with Cultivation and Mathematical
Gunsch, C. K.; Schuler, A. J. Effects of Integrated Fixed Film Modeling to Study Population Structure and Function of
Activated Sludge Media on in Biological Nutrient Removal Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria in SB for Activated Sludge. Water
Systems. Water Res. 2010, 44, 1553–1561. DOI: 10.1016/j. Sci. Technol. 1998, 37, 441–449. DOI: 10.1016/S0273-
watres.2009.11.001. 1223(98)00143-7.
[92] Reardon, R.; Chavan, R.; Kreidler, D.; DeArmond, J. Can [108] Rathour, R.; Kalola, V.; Johnson, J.; Jain, K.; Madamwar, D.;
Innovative Technologies Provide Benefits to Municipal Water Desai, C. Treatment of Various Types of Wastewaters Using
Resource Recovery Facilities. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2016, Microbial Fuel Cell Systems. In Microbial Electrochemical
14, 4354–4373. DOI: 10.2175/193864716819712872. Technology, Elsevier, 2019; pp 665–692. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-
[93] Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Kong, Y.; Gao, K.; Yao, W. 444-64052-9.00027-3.
Influence of Various Operating Conditions on Cleaning [109] Wang, Q. H.; Feng, C. P.; Zhao, Y. X.; Hao, C. B.
Efficiency in Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Activated Sludge Denitrification of Nitrate Contaminated Groundwater with a
Process. Part V: Chemical Cleaning Model. J. Taiwan Inst. Fiber-Based Biofilm Reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100,
Chem. Eng. 2016, 63, 52–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.003. 2223–2227. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.057.
[94] WEF. Nutrient Removal WEF Manual Practice, No. 43; [110] Alm, J.; Schroeder, S.; Beer, M.; Mcllroy, S.; Bayly, R. C.; May,
McGraw-Hill: New York, 2010. J. W.; Vasiliadis, O.; Seviour, R. J. Ecology of the Microbial
[95] Qiao, S.; Kawakubo, Y.; Koyama, T.; Furukawa, K. Partial Community Removing Phosphate from Wastewater under
Nitritation of Raw Anaerobic Sludge Digester Liquor by Continuously Aerobic Conditions in a Sequencing Batch
Swim-Bed and Swim-Bed Activated Sludge Processes and Reactor. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 2257–2270. DOI:
Comparison of Their Sludge Characteristics. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 10.1128/AEM.02080-06.
[111] Sirianuntapiboon, S.; Hongsrisuwan, T. Removal of Zn2þ and
2008, 106, 433–441. DOI: 10.1263/jbb.106.433.
[96] Peng, Y. Z.; Chen, Y.; Peng, C. Y.; Liu, M.; Wang, S. Y.; Song, Cu2þ by a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) System. Bioresour.
Technol. 2007, 98, 808–818. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.03.022.
X. Q.; Cui, Y. W. Nitrite Accumulation by Aeration
[112] Roul, C. The International JUTE Commodity System; Northern
Controlled in Sequencing Batch Reactors Treating Domestic
Book Centre: New Delhi, 2009.
Wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 2004, 50, 35–43. DOI: 10.
[113] Sanchez, O.; Labelle, M.-A.; Gadbois, A.; Laflamme, E.; Dold,
2166/wst.2004.0603.
P. L.; Laporte, A.; Comeau, Y. Recovery of Particulate Matter
[97] N
un~ez, L. A.; Fuente, E.; Mart
ınez, B.; Garc
ıa, P. A.
from a High-Rate Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor by High-Rate
Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment Using Ferric and
Dissolved Air Flotation. Water Qual. Res. J. 2018, 53, 181–190.
Aluminium Salts and Organic Polyelectrolites. J. Environ. Sci.
DOI: 10.2166/wqrj.2018.003.
Health 1999, A 34, 721–736. DOI: 10.1080/10934529909376861.
[114] Yang, W.; Cicek, N.; Ilg, J. State-of-the-Art of Membrane
[98] Sriwiriyarat, T.; Pittayakool, K.; Fongsatitkul, P.;
Bioreactors: Worldwide Research and Commercial
Chinwetkitvanich, S. Stability and Capacity Enhancements of
Applications in North America. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 270,
Activated Sludge Process by IFAS Technology. J. Environ. Sci. 201–211. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.
Health A Tox. Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2008, 43, [115] Wang, D.-B.; Li, X.-M.; Yang, Q.; Zeng, G.-M.; Liao, D.-X.;
1318–1324. DOI: 10.1080/10934520802177961. Zhang, J. Biological Phosphorus Removal in Sequencing Batch
[99] Kim, S.; Yang, P. Y. Combined Removal of High-Strength Reactor with Single-Stage Oxic Process. Bioresour. Technol.
Organics and Nitrogen Using Two-Stage Entrapped Mixed 2008, 99, 5466–5473. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.
Microbial Cell (2EMMCV) Process. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2005, 11,
R

[116] Sirianuntapiboon, S.; Jeeyachok, N.; Larplai, R. Sequencing

945951. https://www.cheric.org/PDF/JIEC/IE11/IE11-6-0945.pdf. Batch Reactor Biofilm System for Treatment of Milk Industry
[100] Sirianuntapiboon, S.; Sansak, J. Treatability Studies with Wastewater. J. Environ. Manage. 2005, 76, 177–183. DOI: 10.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) and Sequencing Batch 1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.018.
Reactor (SBR) System for Industry Wastewater Containing [117] Davarnejad, R.; Nasiri, S. Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment
Direct Dyes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 159, 404–411. DOI: 10. Using an Advanced Oxidation Process: Optimization Study.
1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.031. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 223, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.008.
[101] Nicolella, C.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Heijnen, J. J. Wastewater [118] De Sena, R. F.; Tambosi, J. L.; Genena, A. K.; Moreira, R.; de,
Treatment with Particulate Biofilm Reactors. J. Biotechnol. 2000, F. P. M.; Schr€oder, H. F.; Jos
e, H. J. Treatment of Meat Industry
80, 1–33. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00229-7. Wastewater Using Dissolved Air Flotation and Advanced
[102] Van Den Hende, S.; Carr
e, E.; Cocaud, E.; Beelen, V.; Boon, Oxidation Processes Monitored by GC–MS and LC–MS. Chem.
N.; Vervaeren, H. Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters by Eng. J. 2009, 152, 151–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2009.04.021.
Microalgal Bacterial Flocs in Sequencing Batch Reactors. [119] Latifi, P.; Karrabi, M.; Danesh, S. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of
Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 161, 245–254. DOI: 10.1016/j.bio- Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastes with Sewage Sludge in Batch-
rtech.2014.03.057. Mode Bioreactors (Effect of Inoculum-Substrate Ratio and
[103] Baker, R. B. Suspended Growth Bioreactor and Their Potential Total Solids). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 288–296.
Application for Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment. J. Civil DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.015.
Environ. Res. 2015, 7, 20–25. [120] Christian, S.; Grant, S.; McCarthy, P.; Wilson, D.; Mills, D.
[104] Psoch, C.; Schiewer, S. Direct Filtration of Natural and The first Two Years of Full-Scale Anaerobic Membrane
Simulated River Water with Air Sparging and Sponge Ball Bioreactor (AnMBR) Operation Treating High Strength
Application for Fouling Control. Desalination 2006, 197, Industrial Wastewater. Water Pract. Technol. 2011, 6. DOI: 10.
190–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.11.027. 2166/wpt.2011.032.
[105] Philips, S.; Laanbroek, H.J.; Verstraete, W., Origin, Causes and [121] Basitere, M.; Williams, Y.; Sheldon, M.; Ntwampe, S.; De Jager, D.;
Effects of Increased Nitrite Concentrations in Aquatic Dlangamandla, C. Performance of an Expanded Granular Sludge
20 B. R. BAKER ET AL.

Bed (EGSB) Reactor Coupled with Anoxic and Aerobic Bioreactors [123] Basitere, M.; Rinquest, Z.; Njoya, M.; Sheldon, M. S.;
for Treating Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Water Pract. Ntwampe, S. K. O. Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse
Technol. 2016, 11, 86–92. DOI: 10.2166/wpt.2016.013. Wastewater Using a Static Granular Bed Reactor (SGBR)
[122] Williams, Y.; Ngongang, M.; Njoya, M.; Basitere, M.; Coupled with Ultrafiltration (UF) Membrane System. Water
Ntwampe, S. K. 2018 Optimisation of COD Removal from Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 106–114. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2017.179.
Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Response Surface [124] Debik, E.; Coskun, T. Use of the Static Granular Bed Reactor
Methodology for an EGSB. Presented at the 10th Eastern (SGBR) with Anaerobic Sludge to Treat Poultry Slaughterhouse
European Young Water Professionals Conference IWA YWP, Wastewater and Kinetic Modeling. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100,
Zagreb, Croatia. http://hdl.handle.net/11189/6360. 2777–2782. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.058.