treatment of chicken processing wastewater using...
TRANSCRIPT
TREATMENT OF CHICKEN PROCESSING WASTEWATER USING HYBRID
UPFLOW ANAEROBIC SLUDGE BLANKET (HUASB) COUPLED WITH
AERATED LAGOON (AL)
NUR FALILAH BINTI MAT DAUD
This thesis is submitted as a fulfillment of
the requirement for the award of the Degree of
Master of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
SEPTEMBER 2016
iii
DEDICATION
Specially dedicated to my beloved; Father and mother, Family, Friends, and my Fiancé.
Thank you for all patience, care, support and love. May The Almighty Allah SWT bless
all of you always forever, here and hereafter. Forever in my heart.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, all praise is to Allah, the Almighty for giving me the courage and
guidance to finish my project. The author would like to acknowledge and extend her
heartfelt gratitude to her Supervisor; Prof. Hj. Ab. Aziz bin Abdul Latiff, for his
advice and encouragement, without his guidance, this research would not have been
possible.
The author would also like to thank her beloved family especially her parents,
Mat Daud Bin Haji Seman and Zahrah Bt Omar dan other family members for their
unending support. Moreover, the author would like to express her love and affection
to her beloved fiance, Mohd Alimeen Bin Che Ibrahim, for being her ‗vitamin‘ from
time to time. Besides that, the author would like to thank her beloved friends, Tuan
Munirah Tuan Kamaruddin and Nik Suriayanti bt Md Zainan and lab mates who had
helped her during this project and for their support given.
Last but not least, the author would like to extend her gratitude to lab
assistants, Pn. Mahfuzah, En. Ridhwan, En Azri, En Faisal and staffs in Faculty of
Civil Engineering for helping her to complete her Master project. Thank you very
much.
v
ABSTRACT
Chicken processing center in Parit Raja, Johor was operated in small or medium
scale and using certain equipment and machinery. Mostly, chicken processing center
was located near to the drainage and their untreated wastewater discharged directly
to the drainage system. The wastewater produced by chicken processing wastewater
is known for its high pollutants and it will pollute the environment. Therefore, it
must treated prior to discharge. One of the method to be considered is anaerobic
digestion. Anaerobic wastewater treatment has been used as a main technology for
the treatment of medium and high strength wastewater. In this study, upflow
anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) and hybrid-UASB (HUASB) reactors were combined
with aerobic treatment using aerated lagoon (AL) to treat chicken processing
wastewater. Steel slag was used as filter media in the HUASB. This research aimed
to investigate the efficiency of combined anerobic and aerobic treatement using
HUASB-AL system. Effects of temperature and determination removal rate
coefficient, k during the operation are also investigated. Through this research, three
reactors had been installed namely HUASB-AL (R1), HUASB-AL (R2) and UASB-
AL (R3). R1 and R3 were operated at ambient temperature (26±3°C) meanwhile R2
was operated at thermophilic temperature (50±5°C). The average removals of
parameters tested ranged between 90-95% for COD, 90-93% for BOD, 46-86% for
total suspended solids, 29-49% for ammonia nitrogen and 82-84% for total
phosphorus. Average gas productions were recorded as 4742 mL/gCOD, 5261
mL/gCOD and 4192 mL/gCOD for R1, R2 and R3 respectively. In addition, the
average removal rate coefficient, k’ values were 2.0668 d-1
, 2.1265 d-1
and 1.6996 d-
1 for R1, R2 and R3 respectively. All the k‘ values occurred at OLR 4.32 g COD/L.d
for both R1 and R3 and 4.55 g COD/L.d. for R2. The development of sludge
granulation also studied. Overall, the HUASB reactors that operated at thermophilic
temperature had performed better than HUASB and UASB reactor that operated at
ambient temperature. The results obtained from this study will contribute to a better
understanding of chicken processing wastewater thus provide a better treatment
method.
vi
ABSTRAK
Pusat pemprosesan ayam di Parit Raja,Johor telah beroperasi di dalam skala kecil
atau sederhana menggunakan peralatan dan mesin tertentu. Kebanyakkannya, pusat
pemprosesan ayam terletak berhampiran sistem perparitan dan air yang tidak dirawat
ini dilepaskan terus ke sungai atau parit berdekatan. Umumnya mengetahui air sisa
pemprosesan ayam mengandungi kandungan bahan pencemar yang tinggi dan akan
menjejaskan alam sekitar. Oleh itu, ia mesti dirawat sebelum dilepaskan ke sungai.
Salah satu kaedah yang akan dipertimbangkan adalah pencernaan anaerobik.
Rawatan air sisa secara anaerobik telah digunakan sebagai teknologi utama untuk
merawat air sisa yang berkekuatan sederhana dan tinggi. Di dalam kajian ini, aliran
ke atas katil enapcemar anaerobik (UASB) dan hibrid-UASB (HUASB) telah
digabungkan dengan rawtan aerobik menggunakan lagun berudara telah dijalankan
untuk merawat air sisa pemprosesan ayam. Di dalam kajian ini juga, keluli sanga
telah digunakan sebagai bahan penapis di dalam reaktor HUASB. Kajian ini
memberi tumpuan kepada gabungan sistem rawatan air sisa menggunakan teknik
anaerobik dan aerobik menggunakan HUASB-AL reaktor. Kesan suhu dan
penentuan kadar penyingkiran bahan pencemar semasa ujikaji dijalankan juga
disiasat. Terdapat tiga jenis reaktor yang berbeza telah dijalankan iaitu HUASB-AL
(R1) (26±3°C), HUASB-AL (R2) (50±5°C) dan UASB-AL (R3) (26±3°C). R1 dan
R3 telah beroperasi di dalam suhu persekitaran manakala R2 operasi di dalam suhu
termofilik. Julat purata kecekapan penyingkiran parameter ujikaji adalah 90-95%
untuk COD, 90-93% untuk BOD, 46-86% untuk jumlah pepejal terlarut, 29-49%
untuk nitrogen ammonia dan 82-84% untuk jumlah fosforus. Jumlah purata gas yang
dihasilkan adalah 4742 mL/gCOD, 5261 mL/gCOD dan 4192 mL/gCOD untuk R1,
R2 dan R3. Di samping itu, nilai purata pekali penyingkiran k’ tertinggi adalah
2.0668 d-1
, 2.1265 d-1
dan 1.6996 d-1
untuk R1, R2 dan R3. Kesemua nilai purata k
berlaku pada pada 4.32 gCOD/L.d OLR untuk R1 dan R3 manakala 4.55
gCOD/L.d untuk R2. Pembentukan lapisan enapcemar juga dikaji. Secara
keseluruhannya, HUASB reaktor yang beroperasi pada suhu termofilik adalah lebih
baik berbanding HUASB atau UASB yang beroperasi pada suhu persekitaran.
Keputusan yang diperolehi daripada kajian ini diharapkan dapat menyumbang
kepada pemahaman proses rawatan air sisa pemprosesan ayam sekaligus dapat
menyediakan kaedah rawatan yang lebih baik.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS xx
LIST OF APPENDICES xxi
viii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research Objectives 5
1.4 Scope of Study 6
1.5 Significance of the study 6
1.6 Expected Outcomes 7
1.7 Thesis Outline 7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction to Chicken Processing Wastewater
in Malaysia 8
2.2 Characteristic of Chicken Processing Wastewater 9
2.3 Treatment of Chicken Processing Wastewater 12
2.4 Anaerobic Treatment of Chicken Processing
Wastewater 17
2.4.1 Background on Anaerobic Digestion 17
2.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion in the Thermophilic and
Ambient Temperature 19
2.4.3 Treatment Systems 23
2.4.3.1 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
ix
(UASB) 23
2.4.3.2 Hybrid-UASB (HUASB) 26
2.4.3.3 Support Packing Media in HUASB 28
2.4.3.3.1 Support Packing Media
Used in HUASB Reactor 29
2.4.3.3.2 Steel Slag as Material for
Environment Studies 30
Environment Studies 30
2.4.4 Anaerobic Granule Development 31
2.4.4.1 Microbiology of Anaerobic
Digestion 32
2.4.4.2 Seed sludge 35 35
2.4.5 Anaerobic Digestion Operational Conditions 37
2.4.5.1 Steady State Condition 38 37
2.4.5.2 MLVSS 39 38
2.4.5.3 Food to Microorganism (F/M) Ratio 39
2.5 Aerobic Treatment System 40
39
2.5.1 Aerated Lagoon 41
2.6 Types of Anaerobic - Aerobic Treatment Systems 43
2.7 Anaerobic Digestion Process Kinetics 46
x
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 49
3.2 Research Outline 50
3.3 Chicken Processing at Sampling Location 52
3.4 Inoculum Sludge 54
3.5 Start-Up of Reactors 55
3.6 Experimental Set-Up 56
3.7 Experimental Procedure 59
3.8 Parameters Analysis 59
3.8.1 pH 61
3.8.2 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 61
3.8.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 62
3.8.4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 62
3.8.5 Total Suspended Solid (TSS) 63
3.8.6 Total Phosphorus 63
3.8.7 Ammonium Nitrogen 64
3.8.8 Gas Production 64
3.8.9 Microstructural Imaging of Granules 65
3.8.10 Microorganism‘s Examination 66
3.8.11 Determination of Removal Rate Coefficients 66
xi
3.9 Statistical Analysis (ANOVA) 67
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Characteristic of Raw Chicken Wastewater 68
4.2 Relationship between OLR and HRT 70
4.3 pH Value 72
4.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 75
4.5 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 76
4.6 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 82
4.7 Total Suspended Solid 86
4.8 Ammonia Nitrogen 90
4.9 Total Phosphorus (TP) 93
4.10 Gas Production (Methane gas) 98
4.11 Biomass Concentration 100
4.12 Food to Microorganism (F/M) Ratio 102
4.13 Removal Rate Coefficients (k) 103
4.14 Morphology Study 108
4.14.1 Microbial Study (Gram‘s Staining) 109
4.14.2 Surface image (Scanning Electron
Microscopy SEM) Study 111
xii
4.14.3 HUASB/UASB and AL 112
4.14.4 Steel Slag 114
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion 117
5.2 Recommendation 119
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
NO OF TABLE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Results analysis for chicken processing wastewater 9
2.2 The concentration of several pollutants in poultry slaughterhouse
wastewater
11
2.3 Different available technologies used to treat slaughterhouse
wastewater
14
2.4 The advantages and disadvantages of an anaerobic digestion 18
2.5 The performance and efficiency of HUASB in treating several
types of wastewater
27
2.6 Requirements of packing media for an anaerobic filter 28
2.7 Chemical composition of steel slag 30
2.8 Efficiency of aerobic and anaerobic treatment systems based on
feature
41
2.9 Advantages and disadvantages of aerated lagoon 42
2.10 An overview of the most frequently applied anaerobic-aerobic
treatments systems
44
3.1 Characteristic of seed sludge 54
3.2 The reactor start-up operational conditions 55
xiv
3.3 Schedule for experiment analysis 60
3.4 Standard Method and Examination of Wastewater procedures
(2012)
60
4.1 Characteristic of raw chicken wastewater taken from the poultry
processing centre
69
4.2 Steady state periods for R1, R2, and R3 reactors. 71
4.3 k values for each OLR 104
4.4 Comparison of k values in another study by several researchers 104
4.5 Value of average removal rate, k 108
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
NO OF FIGURE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Growth rates of methanogens 20
2.2 Schematic diagram of UASB reactor 24
2.3 Schematic diagram of HUASB reactor 26
2.4 The biodegradation of wastewater compounds during the
anaerobic process of wastewater treatment
35
2.5 Anaerobic sludge granules from a UASB reactor 37
2.6 Aerobic decomposition in wastewater 40
2.7 Mass balance 48
3.1 Research process flowchart 51
3.2 (a) Slaughtering process 53
(b) Chicken drained with blood 53
(c) Scaldering process 53
(d) Feathering process 53
(e) Sedimentation tank 53
(f) Wastewater sampling point 53
3.3 Seed sludge before screened and after screened 54
3.4 Wastewater treatment system set-up in laboratory 57
3.5 Overall treatment system 58
3.6 Water displacement methods using inverted cylinder 65
4.1 OLR and HRT operated through experiment 71
4.2 The average pH values at each OLR for R1 (HUASB-AL)
xvi
(ambient 26±3°C) 73
4.3 The average pH values at each OLR for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
74
4.4 The average pH values at each OLR for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
74
4.5 Average of DO value for AL R1 75
4.6 Average of DO value in AL R2 76
4.7 Average of DO value in AL R3 76
4.8 Average COD concentration at each OLR for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
78
4.9 Average COD concentration at each OLR for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
78
4.10 Average COD concentration at each OLR for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
79
4.11 Average COD removal efficiency for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
80
4.12 Average COD removal efficiency for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
81
4.13 Average COD removal efficiency for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
81
4.14 Average BOD concentration at each OLR for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
82
4.15 Average BOD concentration at each OLR for R2 (HUASB-AL)
xvii
(thermophilic 50±5°C) 83
4.16 Average BOD concentration at each OLR for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
83
4.17 Average BOD removal efficiency for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
85
4.18 Average BOD removal efficiency for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
85
4.19 Average BOD removal efficiency for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
86
4.20 Average TSS concentration at each OLR for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
87
4.21 Average TSS concentration at each OLR for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
87
4.22 Average TSS concentration at each OLR for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
88
4.23 Average TSS removal efficiency for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
89
4.24 Average TSS removal efficiency for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
89
4.25 Average TSS removal efficiency for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
90
4.26 Average AN concentration at each OLR for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
92
4.27 Average AN concentration at each OLR for R2 (HUASB-AL)
xviii
(thermophilic 50±5°C) 92
4.28 Average AN concentration at each OLR for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
93
4.29 Average TP concentration at each OLR for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
94
4.30 Average TP concentration at each OLR for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
95
4.31 Average TP concentration at each OLR for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
95
4.32 Average TP removal efficiency for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
96
4.33 Average TP removal efficiency for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
97
4.34 Average TP removal efficiency for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
97
4.35 Average biogas production in R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
99
4.36 Average biogas production in R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
99
4.37 Average biogas production in R1 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
100
4.38 MLVSS concentration in each reactors 101
4.39 F/M ratio inside HUASB and UASB reactor at each OLR 103
4.40 The removal rate coefficient, k (d-1
) for each OLR at each steady
xix
state in R1 (HUASB-AL) (ambient 26±3°C) 105
4.41 The removal rate coefficient, k (d-1
) for each OLR at each steady
state in R2 (HUASB-AL) (thermophilic 50±5°C)
105
4.42
The removal rate coefficient, k (d-1
) for each OLR at each steady
state in R3 (UASB-AL) (ambient 26±3°C)
106
4.43 The value of average removal rate, k for R1 (HUASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
107
4.44 The value of average removal rate, k for R2 (HUASB-AL)
(thermophilic 50±5°C)
107
4.45 The value of average removal rate, k for R3 (UASB-AL)
(ambient 26±3°C)
108
4.46 Gram negative - Escherichia coli 109
4.47 Gram positive - Staphylococcus epidermidis 109
4.48 Gram positive microbes 110
4.49 Gram negative microbes 110
4.50 The raw sludge image before treatment, 1510X magnification. 111
4.51 Sludge granules image in HUASB/UASB and Aerated Lagoon
after end of treatment.
113
4.52 Steel slag image before treatment 115
4.53 Steel slag image after treatment 115
xx
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
APHA - American Public Health Association
AL - Aerated Lagoon
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD
CPW
-
-
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chicken Processing Wastewater
CH4 - Methane
ECP - Extracellular polymer
HRT - Hydraulic Retention Time
HUASB - Hybrid-UASB
KOH Potassium Hydroxide
L - Liter
mg - milligram
mL - Milliliter
mm - Millimeter
MLVSS - Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solid
N-NH3 - Ammonia-Nitrogen
OLR - Organic Loading Rate
POS - Palm Oil Shells
Q - Flow rate
SS - Suspended solids
SEM - Scanning Electron Micrograph
TSS - Total Suspended solids
TP - Total Phosphorus
USEPA - US Environmental Protection Agency
UASB - Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
VFA - Volatile Fatty Acid
xxi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Calculation of OLR and HRT
Appendix B ANOVA and t-test reports
Appendix C Data distribution for each reactor
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Wastewater is any water that has been adversely affected in quality by anthropogenic
influence. It comprises liquid waste discharged by domestic residences, industry, and
commercial premise and encompasses a wide range of potential contaminants and
concentrations. Wastewater is typically classified in any of the following three
categories; namely, high strength, medium strength and low strength. These
classifications are usually based on several factors, such as the amount of organic
material in the water, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) content, suspended
solids, also the dissolved oxygen and the temperature of wastewater (Ellis et al.,
2010). Industrial wastewater such as poultry slaughterhouses also produce
substantial amounts of wastewater containing high amounts of biodegradable organic
matter, and colloidal matter such as fats, proteins and cellulose (Mijinyawa and
Lawal, 2008). One of the major industrial wastewater is effluent from chicken
wastewater
2
Chicken processing wastewater (CPW) is a medium strength wastewater
consisting of various constituents in the forms of particulates, organics and nutrients.
The CPW is typically known for its floating material such as scum and grease
(Rajakumar et al., 2011). The process of obtaining the composition of CPW begins
with screening of course particles, CPW is mainly composed of diluted blood, fat
and suspended solid. It may also contains manure (Samsudin, 2010). CPW is the
cumulative wastewater that is generated by uncollected blood, feathers, eviscerations
and cleaning of the live haul area at a slaughter plant. The slaughter process of
poultry can be categorized into five major steps. The processes include, transporting
and unloading, hanging and slaughtering, bleed out, scalding and evisceration. The
steps of bleed out, scalding, and evisceration have the greatest impact on CPW
stream (Husain and Brian, 2011).
The typical consumption of water for a slaughterhouse varies from 0.8 to 6.7
m3/ton live weight in the U.S and comprises 80% of the fresh water input. Most of
the consumed water from a slaughterhouse is discharged as wastewater, including
high amounts of organic matter ranging from 4.7 to 9.9 kg BOD5 per slaughtered
animal in the U.S with 40 - 60% of insoluble fraction. The insoluble fraction is
usually in form of protein, fats and cellulose, this tend to degrade slowly and can
adversely affect the bioreactor Static Granular Bed Reactor (SGBR) performance
(Ellis and Evans, 2008).
Rajakumar et al., (2011) reported that India‘s poultry industry has been a
major activity in aspects of production chicken livestock. It has also consequently
led to the environmental pollution in aspects of high BOD, COD, TSS and other
various pollutants. Poultry plant may produce wastewater range from 5 to 10 gallons
per bird with 7 gallons being a typical value. In 2013, Sunder and Satyanarayan
reported that slaughterhouse wastewater depicts BOD/COD ratio 0.6 indicating its
highly biodegradable nature. The slaughter house wastewater causes de-oxygenation
of the water bodies (river) and ground water contamination.
However, the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater by various methods
such as aerobic and anaerobic biological systems and hybrid systems over the years
have been intensively studied (Bazrafshan et al., 2012). Anaerobic reactors have
3
been successfully installed in full-scale plants worldwide for treating high-strength
industrial wastewater (Kavitha, 2009).
Wastewater must be treated before it is discharged into river in order to
reduce environmental pollution. The Environmental Quality Act 1974 prohibits the
discharge of toxic pollutants without written permission into water (Samsudin,
2010). Mijinyawa and Lawal (2008) stated that the biological method of treatment
involves the use of bio organisms either in aerobic or anaerobic conditions to reduce
pathogenic loads.
One of the popular biological treatments has using UASB reactor. The UASB
reactor has been the most widely and successfully used high rate anaerobic
technology for treating several types of wastewater (Mahmoud, 2008). Khan et al.,
(2014) reported that the UASB technology is considered sustainable for
environmental protection and resource recovery. The BOD and SS removal
efficiency from UASB may vary from 55% to 75% for sewage treatment in India.
An upgraded version of UASB is the hybrid-UASB (HUASB) has become more
advanced in wastewater treatment which may be attached together with anaerobic
filter (Oktem et al 2007; Ibrahim 2014). HUASB has also been successfully applied
as treatment system for palm oil mill wastewater (Habeeb et al., 2011).
Therefore, the aim of this study needs to investigate the efficiency of
HUASB-AL and UASB-AL in treating chicken processing wastewater. In addition,
the effect of thermophilic temperature on the HUASB-AL reactor as compared to
ambient temperature also observed. Besides that, the removal rate coefficient, k of
the organic pollutant at various hydraulic retention time (HRT) and organic loading
rate (OLR) in HUASB-AL and UASB-AL reactors was studied using first order
equation. At the end of the study, sludge granulation also measured using scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) analysis.
1.2 Problem Statement
Chicken processing wastewater contains high chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil,
grease, fat, blood and feathers that could lead to environmental pollution and
disturbance of the ecosystem. The pollutant in the wastewater will obviously deplete
the dissolve oxygen in the waterways. Reduction of dissolved oxygen (DO) may
4
affect the aquatic life due to fat, oils and high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
from wastewater (Seswoya et al., 2006).
According to Palatsi et al., (2010), slaughterhouse wastewater is
characterized by a high organic content, mainly composed of proteins and fats. In
recent studies, researches have shown little information on quantification,
characteristics and treatment options of animal by-products and wastes from
slaughterhouses. Due to high methane yields produced from the high fat and protein,
the implication is that slaughterhouse waste can be considered a good substrate for
the anaerobic digestion process. Although, Vavilin et al., (2008) found that slow
hydrolysis rates and inhibitory process occurred. This is due to particulate materials
which are difficult to degrade, hydrolysis must be coupled with the growth of
hydrolytic bacteria, which can limit the overall degradation rate.
Yetilmezsoy and Sakar (2008) reported that pollutant loads discharged from
the poultry farms should be significantly reduced, and then a proper post-treatment
step should be performed to provide the requirements of environmental protection
laws. The main characteristics of slaughterhouse wastewater make it suitable for
biological treatment applications (De Nardi, 2008). Anaerobic digestion is
commonly used in wastewater treatment due to its low cost and high effectiveness.
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(HUASB) and anaerobic filter (AF) were anaerobic bioreactors that had been well
established in wastewater treatment system. Badroldin (2010) had stated that the
major advantage of the single UASB reactor compared to other anaerobic treatment
options is its ability to retain high biomass concentrations through granulation.
However, there are still disadvantages that need to improve such as long
start-up period required and instability of performance. The start-up period usually
takes 3 - 4 months and longer before the process can be put in operation (Badroldin,
2010, Ibrahim, 2014). In order to improve efficient of UASB reactor in the
treatment of wastewater, several factors need to be considered such as capacity of
UASB reactor for removing soluble and particulate chemical oxygen demand
(COD), the appropriate sludge and hydraulic retention time (HRT), suitable seed
sludge and the effect of temperature (Singh, 1999).
In order to alleviate this problem, a treatment method has been proposed
using combination of anaerobic Hybrid Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (HUASB)
5
and aerobic treatment Aerated Lagoon (AL). Effectiveness of the HUASB-AL
systems had been observed through several parameters study. The HUASB (R1) has
been designed to treat chicken processing wastewater and operated at thermophilic
temperature (50±5ºC). Another HUASB (R2) had operated in ambient temperature
(26±3ºC) in order to determine the effect of temperature on the HUASB reactor that
coupled with AL. Another anaerobic reactor Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) was also operated coupled with AL. This is to make comparison between
the HUASB and UASB systems in treating chicken processing wastewater. At the
end of study, microbial study also had done through using scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) analysis. Organic pollutant coefficient, k had determined using
first order equation at each steady state condition. So, this study is basically to
evaluate the performance of HUASB and AL in treating chicken processing
wastewater thus raise effectiveness of HUASB application in wastewater treatment
system.
1.3 Research Objectives
The objectives of this study were to determine the overall efficiency of HUASB-AL
and UASB-AL. The main objectives of this study are:
1. To investigate the efficiency of HUASB-AL and UASB-AL in
treating chicken processing wastewater
2. To study the effect of thermophilic temperature on the HUASB-AL
reactor as compared to ambient temperature.
3. To determine removal rate coefficient, k of the organic pollutant at
various hydraulic retention time (HRT) and organic loading rate
(OLR) in HUASB-AL and UASB-AL reactors.
4. To measure the biomass morphology analysis derived the from
treatment analysis.
6
1.4 Scope of Study
The study focuses on laboratory scale of anaerobic-aerobic treatment system using
HUASB-AL and UASB-AL treatment systems. The sample of wastewater was
collected from chicken processing centre in Parit Raja. For evaluating the treatment
performance, several parameters were analysed during the experiment. Parameters
studied were BOD, COD, total suspended solid (TSS), total phosphorus (TP),
ammonia nitrogen (NH 3- N), gas production, pH and dissolved oxygen (DO). The
systems were operated as Reactor 1 (R1) HUASB-AL at ambient temperature
(26±3°C), Reactor 2 (R2) HUASB-AL at thermophilic temperature (50±5°C), and
Reactor 3 (R3) for UASB-AL at ambient temperature (26±3°C). Filtration media
made of steel slag were installed inside the HUASB reactors. The reactors were
seeded with 2.36 litres sludge obtained from a wastewater treatment plant at a
slaughter house. The performance of HUASB and UASB were determined with a
various hydraulic retention time (HRT) and organic loading rate (OLR). During the
treatment period, all parameter were determined three times per week. The surface
study of the granules was recorded using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). In
addition, volume of gas production (Methane, CH4) was measured using water
displacement method. The study was performed over 300 days period.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The study on combined systems of HUASB-AL and UASB-AL treatment systems
will hopefully gain new finding in treatment technology and will enhance
wastewater treatment methods that produced by industries.
Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater had caused contaminations to the
waterways with high concentration of pollutants such as COD, BOD, TSS, and TP
(Rajakumar and Meenambal, 2008).
The contribution of this study is obvious as the outcomes can be used as
guidelines on anaerobic and aerobic treatments as an alternative method to the
treatment chicken processing wastewater. An advantage of anaerobic treatment
systems is low nutrient and chemical requirement even though it takes a long start-up
7
period to achieve steady state. In addition, the idea of using steel slag as a support
media in HUASB reactor at ambient and thermophilic temperature will hopefully
generate a high potential to become a new support material.
1.6 Expected Outcomes
From this study, it is expected that the use of thermophilic temperature will enhance
the performance of the treatment system in HUASB reactor. The addition of aerated
lagoon after HUASB and UASB will further degrade the organics to an acceptable
level of compliance to the discharge standards as required by the Department of
Environment. Hopefully this study will explore new frontier in the treatment of
poultry wastewater.
1.7 Thesis Outline
This study is investigating the chicken processing wastewater treatment using
HUASB-AL and UASB-AL reactor and the effects of temperature on granules
development. Chapter 1 presents general introduction, problem statement, objectives,
scope of work, significance of the study, expected outcomes and thesis outline.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review covering the topics of history of anaerobic
wastewater treatment, removal rate of pollutant, chicken processing wastewater
characteristic, HUASB, UASB and aerated lagoon technology as well as their
advantages and disadvantages. Chapter 3 is presenting the methodology of whole
study of treating chicken processing wastewater using HUASB/UASB with different
operational conditions. Chapter 4 presents the data analysis and results from the
experiments. This include system performance; HUASB-AL (R1), HUASB-AL (R2)
and UASB-AL (R3), parameter evaluation analysis and surface image of sludge
using SEM. Lastly, conclusions, recommendations and future works will be
presented in chapter 5. References and appendices are attached at the end of the
thesis.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction to Chicken Processing Wastewater in Malaysia
Chicken is one of bird‘s family which had been eaten by most of the people in the
world. No bird has been so important to humans as the chicken-nor so selectively
bred. In Malaysia, chicken processing had occurred regularly in wet market and
some stalls at the road side. It was shown that untreated meat processing wastewater
caused a lot of environmental problems.
Pertubuhan Peladang Negeri Johor (PPNJ) abattoir is among the modern
fully automated abattoirs in the country using the latest technology. When killing
processes are occurred, the blood will be separated from the wastewater and it will
be treated separately. The wastewater was directed to the discharge drainage to
separate the feathers. It‘s also being screened by another defeathering process and fat
screening occurred before the wastewater goes into the aeration tank (Raja Yunus,
2006).
Poultry farming produce high quantities of organic wastes which are
typically rich in nutrients and which can well be used in agriculture to conserve and
9
recycle nutrients and to reduce waste discharge and use of chemical fertilisers.
However, without sufficient treatment these wastes may pose severe health risks,
odour, environmental pollution, and visual problems, or their use may be legally
banned altogether (Mohd Amirul Asyraf, 2010). Raja Yunus (2007) had treated
chicken processing wastewater using sand filtration. This lab scale has been recorded
the effluent value had achieved Standard B Limitation which were for BOD, COD,
SS, oil and grease also pH values are 11 mg/L, 35 mg/L,10 mg/L, <2.0 mg/L and
7.65 of concentration respectively. This is shows the treatment of chicken processing
wastewater using sand filtration method had been successful which the final effluent
had met with Standard B limitation and passed to discharge into the receiving water
bodies. The result analysis for chicken processing wastewater using sand filtration
showed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Results analysis for chicken processing wastewater (Raja Yunus, 2006).
Parameters Results Standard B limitation
Influent Effluent
BOD5, mg/L 222 11 50
COD, mg/L 624 35 100
SS, mg/L 132 10 100
O&G, mg/L < 2.0
pH - 7.65 5.5 – 9.0
2.2 Characteristic of Chicken Processing Wastewater
Chicken processing wastewater contains fat, oil, proteins, carbohydrate which are
generally referred to as bio-degradable organic compounds. Meat and poultry
processing wastes have high colloidal, fat and total suspended solid (TSS). Chicken
processing wastewater contains organic material including BOD5, COD, suspended
solids and grease and fats (Kamaruddin, 2007).
Municipal slaughterhouse generates a large volume of wastewater which
contains a significant amount of organic matter measured as COD from 5000 to
20000 mg/L (Padilla and Lopez, 2010). According to Sunder and Satyanarayan
(2013), slaughterhouse wastewater was categorized under high strength wastewater .
10
It has high concentrations of suspended solids, soluble and insoluble organics and
exhibits high COD and BOD. Slaughterhouse wastewater is highly proteinetious and
putrefies faster leading to environmental pollution problems. The value of several
pollutants was high in terms of COD, BOD and suspended solids in the range of
22000 to 27500 mg/l, 10800 to 14600 mg/l and 1280 to 1500 mg/l respectively.
Generally, slaughterhouse wastewater temperature typically varies between
20 °C and 35 °C. Effluent temperatures between 20 °C and 25 °C were reported for
slaughterhouses in Europe. The anaerobic degradation rate of organics increases with
temperature. The optimal organic loading rate (OLR) for upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactors treating slaughterhouse wastewater decreased by 36 %, from 11 to 7
kg/m3/d, when temperature was lowered from 30 °C to 20 °C (Masse‘ and Masse,
2001). Debik and Coskun (2009) reported treatment of poultry slaughterhouse
wastewater in UASB treatment system can removed 65 % of COD value at OLR
1.64 kg COD/m3.d. Meanwhile, nutrient removal 67 % at optimum OLR 0.77 kg
COD/m3.d at 25°C of temperature were done by (Pozo and Diez, 2005).
One of the most important applications of biotechnology is the treatment of
industrial and municipal wastewater to reduce environmental pollution. Effluents
from industrial poultry, porcine, or bovine slaughterhouses containing lipids,
proteins, blood, and other organic material, might cause environmental damage if
discharged untreated in rivers and creeks (Chavez et al., 2005).
Most COD in slaughterhouse wastewater is due to protein and fat. Chicken
processing effluents have a high COD content with a predominantly slow
biodegradable COD accounts for more than 70% of the total COD. The slowly
biodegradable components must be taken into account when selecting a treatment
process. Out of the total COD of wastewater generated from poultry processing,
about 89% is biodegradable, with a practically negligible particulate inert and large
soluble inert fraction. Depending upon the strength of the wastewater, a residual
effluent COD concentration from activated sludge process for poultry wastewater is
about 200 – 400 mg/L COD, 150 – 400 mg/L nitrate and 16- 50 mg/L phosphorus.
Table 2.2 shows the concentration of poultry slaughterhouse from around the world
(Kamaruddin, 2007).
11
Table 2.2: The concentration of several pollutants in poultry slaughterhouse
wastewater (Kamaruddin, 2007).
Wastewater BOD5 COD Fat, Oil &
grease
(FOG)
TSS Ammonia
nitrogen
(NH4N)
Total
Phosphorus(
TP)
Slaughterhouse
(Sayed
et.al.,1987)
490-650 1500-2200 50-100 65-87 12-20
Slaughterhouse
(Syober
et.al.,1990)
1600-1300 4200-8500 100-200 1300-
3400
20-30
Poultry processing
(Rusten
et.al.,1998)
600-6400 55-3570 40-3700 14-19
Poultry processing
(Ross and
Valatine, 1990)
1116 1177 169 9
Turkey processing
(Sheldon
et.al.,1990)
706 1552 253 281
Turkey processing
(Ross and
Valatine, 1990)
704 270 93
All unit in mg/L
One of the most important analytical characteristics of PPW is total solids
(TS), which is composed of floating, settleable, and colloidal matter. TS are defined
as the residual material remaining in a vessel after evaporating a sample and then
drying it at a specific temperature. TS can be categorized by particle size as total
suspended solids (TSS) plus total dissolved solids (TDS), or by organic content as
total volatile solids (TVS) plus total fixed solids (TFS). TSS is defined as the portion
the TS retained on a filter with a specific pore size (2.0 μm or smaller). TVS is the
weight loss after TS is ignited. Solids are an environmental concern because its
impact can increase turbidity which can clog fish gills and reduce oxygen transport
upon entering water bodies.
12
This study was performed in collaboration with Research within the Poultry
Science and Bio & Ag Engineering Departments at the University of Georgia to
establish both the variation individual birds have effecting PPW, as well as
determining which by-products have the greatest PPW impact. Early experiments
have shown that blood plays a major role impacting PPW. Results show that PPW
scalder samples collected from groups of broilers bled for 60 seconds had average
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total solids (TS) levels of 9.86 g and 8.12 g,
respectively. Conversely, carcasses bled for 120 seconds averaged COD and TS
levels of 6.49 g and 5.43 g, respectively. Increasing bleed time to 120 sec from 60
sec resulted in mean percent reductions of COD 34%, TS 33%, TSS 34%, TVS 36%,
and TKN 29% in scalder PPW.
2.3 Treatment of Chicken Processing Wastewater
There are many previous studies that had been performed for slaughterhouse
wastewater treatment. The study including studies on chicken, turkey, poultry, meat
and pig processing wastewater. These studies had been done all over the world.
Young (2004) had conducted a study on biological treatment of turkey
processing wastewater with sand filtration in Ohio, USA. The study was conducted
to assess the feasibility of turkey processing wastewater treatment with a sand filter
system. Turkey processing wastewater has higher fat and colloidal and suspended
solids contents than typical domestic wastewater. The volume of wastewater varies
with production. Wastewater flow rates and contaminant concentrations vary
depending on the operating conditions such as water use, blood recovery and the
numbers of turkeys processed. Turkey processing wastewater has a high chemical
oxygen demand (COD) content caused by protein and fat and there are mostly
slowly biodegradable fractions. The readily biodegradable COD is only 15%,
whereas the slowly biodegradable COD accounts for >70% of the total COD in the
wastewater.
The sand filtration system used in this study represents a feasible treatment
method to remove organic materials from turkey processing wastewater, including
total organic carbon (TOC) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and nutrients
13
(ammonia and phosphate). Based on the excellent performance, with >94% of TOC
and BOD5
removal during the treatment of turkey processing wastewater, sand
filtration would be used as a feasible alternative for secondary biological processes
with several benefits of biofilm processes.
Kiepper and Plumber (2011) had conducted a study in Georgia about impact
of poultry processing by-products on wastewater generation, treatment and
discharge. Each step of the process utilizes potable water and generates by-products
that combine to form the facility‘s wastewater stream. The slaughter of poultry can
be divided into five major steps: 1) Transport and unloading, 2) Hanging and
slaughtering, 3) Bleed out, 4) Scalding, and 5) Evisceration. The steps of bleed out,
scalding, and evisceration have the greatest impact on the poultry processing
wastewater (PPW) stream.
Kundu et al., (2013) had conducted treatment on slaughterhouse wastewater
using sequencing batch reactor (SBR). The performance of a laboratory-scale SBR
has been investigated in aerobic-anoxic sequential mode for simultaneous removal of
organic carbon and nitrogen from slaughterhouse wastewater. The reactor was
operated under three different variations of aerobic-anoxic sequence, namely, (4+4)
hr, (5+3), and (3+5) hr of total react period with two different sets of influent soluble
COD (SCOD) and ammonia nitrogen level 1000 to 50 mg/L, and 90 to 10 mg/L,
1000 to 50 mg/L and 180 to 10 mg/L respectively. It was observed that from 86 to
95% of soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) removal is accomplished at the
end of 8.0 hr of total react period. In case of (4+4) aerobic-anoxic operating cycle, a
reasonable degree of nitrification 90.12 and 74.75 % corresponding to initial
ammonia nitrogen value of 96.58 and 176.85 mg/L respectively were achieved. The
performance of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment using several
technology/method has been shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Different available technologies used to treat slaughterhouse wastewater (Kundu et a., 2013)
No Technology adopted Input characteristics of slaughterhouse wastewater Observations References
1 Anaerobic treatment of
Slaughterhouse
wastewaters
in a UASB (Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket)
reactor and in an anaerobic
filter (AF).
Slaughterhouse wastewater showed the highest
organic content with an average COD of 8000
mg/L, of which 70 % was proteins. The suspended
solids content represented between 15 and 30 % of
the COD.
The UASB reactor was run at OLR of 1–6.5
kg COD/m3/day. The COD removal was
90% for OLR up to 5 kg COD/m3/day and
60% for an OLR of 6.5 kg COD/m3/day. For
similar organic loading rates, the AF showed
lower removal efficiencies and lower
percentages of methanization
Ruiz et al., (1997)
2 Anaerobic sequencing
batch reactors.
Influent total chemical oxygen
demand (TCOD) ranged from 6908 to 11 500
mg/L, of which approximately 50% were in the
form of suspended solids (SS).
Total COD was reduced by 90 % to 96 % at
OLRs ranging from 2.07 to 4.93 kgm−3
d−1
and a hydraulic retention time of 2 days.
Soluble COD was reduced by over 95 % in
most samples.
Masse‘ and Masse
(2001)
3 Moving bed sequencing
batch reactor for piggery
wastewater treatment
COD, BOD, and suspended solids in the range of
4700–5900 mg/L, 1500–2300 mg/L, and 4000–
8000 mg/L, respectively
COD and BOD removal efficiency was
greater than 80 % and 90 %, respectively at
high organic loads of 1.18–2.36 kg
COD/m3⋅d. The moving-bed SBR gave TKN
removal efficiency of 86–93%
Sombatsompop, et al.,
(2011)
4 Fixed bed sequencing batch The wastewater has COD loadings in the range of COD, TN, and phosphorus removal Rahimi et al., (2011)
14
reactor (FBSBR). 0.5–1.5 Kg COD/m3 per day efficiencies were at range of 90–96 %, 60–
88 %, and 76–90 %, respectively
5 Chemical coagulation and
electrocoagulation
techniques.
COD and BOD5 of raw wastewater in the range of
5817 ± 473 and 2543 ± 362 mg/L.
Removal of COD and BOD5 more than 99 %
was obtained by adding 100mg/L PACl and
applied voltage 40 V.
Bazrafshan et al.,
2012)
6 Hybrid upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (HUASB)
reactor for treating poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater
Slaughterhouse wastewater showed total COD
3000–4800mg/L, soluble
COD 1030–3000 mg/L, BOD5
750–1890 mg/L, suspended solids
300–950 mg/L, alkalinity (as
CaCO3) 600–1340 mg/L, VFA (as
acetate) 250–540 mg/L, and pH
7–7.6.
The HUSB reactor was run at OLD of 19 kg
COD/m3/day and achieved TCOD and
SCOD removal efficiencies of 70–86 % and
80–92 %, respectively. The biogas was
varied between 1.1 and 5.2 m3/m
3 d with the
maximum methane content of 72 %.
Rajakumar et al.,
(2012)
7 Anaerobic hybrid reactor
was packed with light
weight floating media.
COD, BOD and Suspended Solids in the range of
22000–27500 mg/L, 10800–14600 mg/L, and
1280–1500 mg/L, respectively
COD and BOD reduction was found in the
range of 86.0–93.58 % and 88.9–95.71 %,
respectively.
Sunder and
Satyanarayan
(2013)
15
15
16
Other than that, Raja Yunus (2006) had studied the feasibility of two-layer sand
filter for removing chemical and physical components from poultry processing
wastewater. In this study, coarse sand and fine sand size 2.0 mm and 3.35 mm were
used as the filter media at a flow rate of 17.38 L/day. Pre-treatment process was
carried out to remove oil, grease, and suspended solid with filter aperture size of 0.5
mm to reduce clogging inside the filter sand system. From the results, efficiency of
BOD removal was 57 %, 63 % of COD removal and 72 % of TSS. It shows two
layers of sand filter system which is applied successfully achieved goals of the study.
The upflow anaerobic filter (UAF) system was used by Padilla and Lopez
(2010) to treat slaughterhouse wastewater in Mexico. An UAF was operated with
4.6 L capacity of plastic with rounded shape and cylindrical cavities as biofilm
support. The best organic matter removal efficiency measured as COD was 86% at
HRT of 24 h at 35 °C.
Caixeta et al., (2002) had reported using UASB to treat poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater. The reactor was equipped with an unconventional
configuration of the three phase separation system. The reactor was operated
continuously throughout 80 days with HRT of 14 h, 18 h, and 22 h. From the results,
91 %, 95 % and 86 % of removal efficiency for COD, BOD and TSS respectively.
This fact shows possibility of applying this treatment system to treat industrial
effluent was high.
Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater (PSW) by
electrocoagulation (EC) has been investigated by Kobya et al., (2006) in Turkey. The
thermostated, plexiglass electrocoagulator with the dimensions of 65 mm × 65 mm ×
110 mm, was equipped with four parallel monopolar electrodes; two anodes and two
cathodes with the dimensions of 46 mm × 55 mm × 3 mm, made of aluminum (99
%) or iron (99 %) plates. Characteristics of the PSW are as follows: COD 26 000 to
29 000 mg/L, BOD 10 000 to 12 000 mg/L, turbidity 550 to 600 NTU, oil and grease
1800 to 1500 mg/L, TSS 1200 to 840, initial pH 6.7. In the end of experiment, the
highest COD removal efficiency was reached with aluminum as 93 %, and
maximum oil and grease removal was obtained with iron electrodes as 98 %.
17
2.4 Anaerobic Treatment of Chicken Processing Wastewater
Several treatment methods have been reported for the treatment of poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater. The feasibility of using many individual or combined
reactor types to biologically treat poultry slaughterhouse wastewater was examined.
As poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters have high contents of particulates and fats,
high-rate and low-rate anaerobic digestion have usually been used. Difficulties
relating to fats and particulates have mainly been solved in the digestion processes
(Debik and Coskun, 2009). A previous study by Chavez et al., (2005) had obtained a
95% of BOD5 reduction in UASB at ambient temperatures within a hydraulic
residence time of 4 h. Moreira et al. (2002) introduced the sequencing batch reactor
(SBR) based on a fill-and-draw activated sludge system and removed 74% of the
COD. Del Nery et al. (2008) also conducted a full-scale study of a UASB, and they
succeeded in removing 65% of total COD and 85% of soluble COD at an average
OLR of 1.64 kg COD/m3 day.
In addition, some researchers investigated the effect of the dissolved air
flotation (DAF) system prior to the UASB to lower the influent load by reducing the
concentrations of grease, fat, and suspended solids (Del Nery et al., 2001 and Nardi
et al., 2008). In the SBR system, the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) as a
medium to attach microorganism was reported to increase COD and Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) removals by adsorption, and also to improve sludge quality
(Sirianuntapiboon and Manoonpong, 2001). Kobya et al. (2006) performed an
electro-coagulation treatment using aluminium electrodes with a 93% of COD
removal efficiency and 98% of oil-grease removal efficiency using iron electrodes.
Finally, Martinez (2003) observed that the addition of aluminium ion improved the
anaerobic treatment of poultry wastewater in a continuous stirred tank reactor
(CSTR).
2.4.1 Background on Anaerobic Digestion
Nowadays, the anaerobic technology has a very wide application in the field of
anaerobic digestion whether for liquid or bio-solid waste (Halim et al., 2008). Ooi
18
(2010) defined anaerobic digestion as a complex multistage process of organic
compound degradation to methane and carbon dioxide by the action of numerous
anaerobic microflora. The anaerobic digestion is by far the most common process to
treat wastewater sludge containing primary sludge. Primary sludge contains
numerous readily available organics that would induce a rapid growth of biomass if
treated aerobically. Anaerobic decomposition produces considerably less biomass
than aerobic process. The principal function of anaerobic digestion is to convert as
much of the sludge as possible to end products such as liquid and gases, while
producing as little residual biomass as possible.
According to Bwapwa (2010), anaerobic digestion is a microbial degradation
of an organic compound in the absence of oxygen. There is a conversion of organic
matter to CO2 and CH4 gases next to a sequence of biochemical reactions during an
anaerobic process. As a result, a breakdown of organics is occurring during the
digestion, this is made possible by anaerobic microorganisms. The anaerobic
digestion of an organic matter follows stages which are organized by different
categories of microorganisms. Most biodegradable organic matter is converted to
gases while only a small amount (about 10%) is converted to new cell mass through
microbial growth. Methane produced by anaerobic digestion can be used as energy
source to run a treatment plant; this is an economic advantage of the anaerobic over
the aerobic digestion.
Tables 2.4 present the advantages and disadvantages of an anaerobic
digestion in terms of costs, start up, sludge generation and buffering capacity
(Bwapwa, 2010).
Table 2.4: The advantages and disadvantages of an anaerobic digestion
(Bwapwa, 2010).
No Advantages Disadvantages
1 The operating costs for an anaerobic treatment plant are
relatively very low compared to an aerobic treatment
plant
Long start-up
2 Low energy consumption and production of biogas for
further application
High buffer requirements for
the pH control
3 The flexibility of an anaerobic system allows the High sensitivity of
19
technology to be applied on either a small or a large
scale.
microorganisms
4 Low sludge generation compared to aerobic systems due
to a lower yield coefficient.
Low pathogen and nutrients
removal
5 The excess sludge is well stabilized.
6 Low nutrient and chemical requirement: this is due to
the small biomass production during the course of an
anaerobic process; consequently, the nutrients
requirement is proportionally less.
From the Table 2.4, anaerobic digestion offers numerous significant
advantages, such as low sludge production, low energy requirement, and possible
energy recovery. Compared to mesophilic digestion, thermophilic anaerobic
digestion has additional benefits including a high degree of waste stabilization, more
thorough destruction of viral and bacterial pathogens, and improved post-treatment
sludge dewatering. In spite of these benefits, however, poor operational stability still
prevents anaerobic digestion from being widely commercialized (Chen et al., 2008).
Besides that, disadvantages of anaerobic digestion had required long start-up time
and only established for COD removal – low nutrient removal – and is not suitable
for the treatment of low-strength organic wastewater and cannot remove nutrients.
2.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion in the Thermophilic and Ambient Temperature
Many factors have to be considered to operate a successful anaerobic digestion
process. These factors include control of pH, temperature, dilution of feedstocks to
avoid inhibition of bacteria, suitable retention time and sufficient micronutrients and
macronutrients to support bacterial activity (Foucalt, 2011). Microorganisms are
classified into temperature classes on the basis of the optimum temperature and the
temperature span in which the species are able to grow and metabolize (Kavitha,
2009). Figure 2.1 shows the various methanogens and their growth rates.
20
Figure 2.1: Growth rates of methanogens (Kavitha, 2009)
Lettinga et al., (2006) has observed a strong temperature effect on the
maximum substrate utilization rates of microorganisms. In general, lowering the
operating temperature leads to a decrease in the maximum specific growth and
substrate utilization rates but it might also lead to an increased net biomass yield (g
biomass/g substrate converted) of methanogenic population or acidogenic sludge.
Kavitha, (2009) had concluded that the optimum temperature range is between 30
and 40°C and for temperatures below the optimum range the digestion rate decreases
by about 11% for each degree of temperature decrease.
As highlighted by Rizvi et al., (2014), the temperature considerably
influences the growth and survival of microorganisms. Although anaerobic treatment
is possible at all three temperature ranges (psychrophilic, mesophilic and
thermophilic) but low temperature usually leads to a decline in the maximum
specific growth rate and methanogenic activity. Methanogenic activity at this
temperature range is 10 to 20 times lower than the activity at 35 °C, which requires
an increase in the biomass in the reactor (10 to 20 times) or to operate at higher
Sludge Retention Time (SRT) and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) in order to
achieve the same COD removal efficiency as that obtained at 35 °C.
In order to provide high-rate oxidation of organic pollutants, microorganisms
must be provided with an environment that allows them to thrive. Temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen and other factors affect the natural selection, survival and growth
of microorganisms and their rate of biochemical oxidation. As temperature increases,
microbial activity also increases (Bunchanan and Seabloom, 2004)
21
i. Psychrophilic microorganisms thrive in a temperature range of -2°to 30°C.
Optimum temperature is 12°to 18°C (Bunchanan and Seabloom, 2004) .
ii. Mesophilic microorganisms thrive in a temperature range of 20°to 45°C.
Optimum temperature is 25°to 40°C (Bunchanan and Seabloom, 2004).
iii. Thermophilic microorganisms thrive in a temperature range of 45°to 75°C.
Optimum temperature is 55°to 65°C (Bunchanan and Seabloom, 2004).
Anaerobic treatment in countries with a low or moderate temperature climate
is a real challenge for researchers in the field of environmental technology
(Mahmoud, 2002). Thermophilic anaerobic degradation is up to 8 times faster and
more efficient than mesophilic. Disadvantages of thermophilic anaerobic
fermentation are the reduced process stability and reduced dewatering properties of
the fermented sludge and the requirement for large amounts of energy for heating,
whereas the thermal destruction of pathogenic bacteria at elevated temperatures is
considered a big advantage. The slightly higher rates of hydrolysis and fermentation
under thermophilic conditions have not led to a higher methane yield (Vindis et al.,
2009).
Thermophilic process offers several merits, such as an increased degradation
rate for organic solids, a high gas production rate, improved solid–liquid separation,
increased disinfection of pathogenic organisms and eliminating the need of cooling
for effluent of high temperature. Thermophilically grown sludge possesses
intrinsically much higher methanogenic activity than mesophilic sludge. Thus, it is
of practical interest to evaluate the performance of anaerobic treatment of phenolic
compounds in wastewater under thermophilic conditions (Sreekanth et al., 2009).
There are three distinct temperature ranges associated with microbial growth
in most of the biological processes namely: psycrophilic range between 4 and
approximately 15 °C, mesophilic range between 20 and approximately 40 °C and
thermophilic range between 45 and 70 °C and above. In each of these ranges, where
microbial growth is possible, within these ranges three temperatures values are
usually used to characterize the growth of the microorganism species namely (Mojiri
et al., 2012):
i. Minimum temperature, below which growth is not possible
ii. Optimum temperature, in which growth is maximum
22
iii. Maximum temperature, above which growth is not possible
Temperature is a significant variable that influences the anaerobic process of
wastewater treatment and enhances the microorganisms ability to produce methane
through digestion of organic matter (Habeeb, 2012). Choorit and Wisanrnwan
(2007) had treated Palm Oil Mill (POME) using anaerobic systems in mesophilic
(30 to 37 ºC) and thermophilic (50 to 60 ºC) temperatures. The 37 ºC reactor
achieved a 71% reduction of COD, a biogas production rate of 3.73 L of
gas/L[reactor]/day containing 71% methane, whereas the 55ºC reactor achieved a
70% reduction of COD, a biogas production rate of 4.66 L of gas/L[reactor]/day
containing 69% methane. Jideofor et al., (2013) had reported thermophilic
temperature (45 to 60 °C) acted as a faster kinetics with larger methane yield and
elimination of pathogen, observed to be more productive when compared to
mesophilic (20 to 40°C) and the removal of volatile fatty acids.
Yasar and Tabinda (2010) had stated that the efficiency of the anaerobic
process is highly dependent on reactor temperature. The temperature not only
influences the rate of the process but also the extent of degradation. Agrawal et al.,
(1997) had found a 78 % decrease in the gas production rate when the temperature
was lowered from 27 ºC to10 ºC. Rizvi, (2010) found that under psychrophilic
temperature (17 °C) and at early sludge age (60 days), COD and BOD removal by
the reactors was in the range of 57 to 62 % and 61 to 66 %, respectively. However,
COD and BOD removal efficiency of the reactors elevated to the range of 79-81 %
and 77 to 83 %, respectively at sludge age of 150 days and temperature of 30 °C. In
short, overall performance of both reactors was optimal at sludge age ranging from
120 to 150 days and temperature varying between 25 to 30 °C. Beux et al., (2007)
had discovered effect of temperature on two phase anaerobic reactors in treated
slaughterhouse wastewater was found at temperature 32 °C, the COD removal was
above 60 % for HRT values 20, 15, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 days meanwhile the COD removal
was decreased to 50% when HRT changed to 1 day.
In addition, Padilla and Lopez (2010) found that removal efficiency of COD
was 86.1 % at HRT of 24 h at 35 ºC. Chavez et al., (2005) obtained a 95 % of BOD5
reduction in UASB at ambient temperatures within a hydraulic residence time of 4 h.
Del Nery et al., (2008) also conducted a full-scale study of a UASB, and they
23
succeeded in removing 65 % of total COD and 85 % of soluble COD at an average
OLR of 1.64 kg COD/m3 day.
2.4.3 Treatment Systems
The technology of anaerobic digestion has become well established in the treatment
of industrial and urban effluents because of factors such as its low implementation
and maintenance costs, its excellent organic matter removal rate and the production
of methane (Miranda et al., 2005). Anaerobic treatment converts the wastewater
organic pollutants into small amount of sludge and large amount of biogas as source
of energy whereas aerobic treatment needs external input of energy for aeration
(Hampanavar and Shivayogimath, 2010). Many different methods are used to treat
wastewater from poultry processing plants. The method used depends largely on the
climate, location, availability of public treatment, and proximity to urban areas.
Treatment sys terns include; irrigation, lagoon systems, extended aeration and
municipal wastewater treatment both with and without preliminary treatment by the
poultry processor (Folson and Leonard, 1976).
2.4.3.1 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
The UASB reactor is a well-known treatment that can treat many types of
wastewater (Ibrahim, 2014). The UASB reactor is mainly classified under biological
reactors due to its sustainability (Habeeb, 2012). The basic approach towards
selection of technology for sewage treatment is low capital costs, low energy
requirements, low operation and maintenance costs and sustainability aspect (Khan
et al.,2014). The prominent physical features of a UASB reactor requiring careful
consideration are the feed inlet, gas separation, gas collection, and effluent
withdrawal. The feed inlet and gas separation designs are exclusive for the UASB
reactor. The feed inlet is designed to provide a uniform distribution of wastewater
and to avoid channeling or the formation of dead zones. Anaerobic bacteria convert
organic material into methane, carbon dioxide, and biomass while purifying the
24
wastewater (Rizvi, 2010). Figure 2.2 show an example of schematic diagram of
UASB reactor.
Figure 2.2: Schematic diagram of UASB reactor (Saleh and Mahmood, 2003)
Latif et al., (2011) had mentioned UASB requires a long solids retention
time, and also only a small portion of the degradable organic waste is being
synthesized to new cells. So far, UASB process technique has been applied for the
treatment of palm oil mill effluent, distillery wastewater, slaughterhouse wastewater,
piggery wastewater, dairy wastewater, fishmeal process wastewater, municipal
wastewater, potato waste leachate, coffee production wastewater, petrochemical
wastewater, low strength wastewaters like real cotton processing wastewater and
synthetic wastewater.
In the UASB process, the wastewater flows through a granular or flocculent
sludge bed where different physical and biochemical mechanisms act in order to
retain and biodegrade organic substances. Readily biodegradable substances are
quickly acidified and then converted into methane and other biogas components,
and, with the growth that usually arises (Aiyuk et al., 2010). The success of the
UASB reactor can be attributed to its capability to retain a high concentration of
sludge and efficient solids, liquid and water phase separation (Mahmoud et al., 2012)
UASB systems are known for their high volumetric treatment rates, good
methane (CH4) productivity, and low sludge production, which makes the process
economically and technologically attractive (Chavez et al., 2005). Mahmoud (2002)
had stated that are several parameter influence the performance of the UASB reactor.
REFERENCES
Abou.E.S.I, Fawzy. M.E, Emam. W.M, Ghazy.M.M.(2013). Decentrilized Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Using a Novel Hybrid Upflow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket Followed by Sand Filtration. Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences, Volume 4, Issue 1, pg 91-96.
Abdul Rahim.N.A. (2014). Rawatan Air Kumbahan Domestik di Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia dengan Menggunakan Kaedah Lagun Berudara.
Univerisiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Thesis. Bachelor Degree Civil
Engineering.
Acharya, B.K., Mohana S, Madamwar D. (2008) . Anaerobic Treatment of Distillery
Spent Wash-A Study on Upflow Anaerobic Fixed Film Bioreactor.
Bioresource Technology, 99, 4621– 4626.
Acharya, B. K., Pathak, H., Mohana, S., Shouche, Y., Singh, V., and Madamwar, D.
(2011). Kinetic Modelling And Microbial Community Assessment of
Anaerobic Biphasic Fixed Film Bioreactor Treating Distillery Spent Wash,
Water Res., 45, 4248-4259.
Ağdağ, O. N., and Sponza, D. T. (2005). Anaerobic/Aerobic Treatment of Municipal
Landfill Leachate in Sequential Two-Stage Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket Reactor (UASB)/Completely Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) Systems.
Process Biochemistry, 40(2), 895-902.
Aggelis, G.G., Gavala, H.N., Lyberatos, G. (2001). Combined and Separate Aerobic
and Anaerobic Biotreatment of Green Olive Debittering Wastewater, J.
Agric. Eng. Res. 80, 283–292.
Ahn, J. H., and Forster, C. F. (2000). Kinetic Analyses of The Operation of
Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Filters Treating A Simulated Starch
Wastewater. Process Biochemistry, 36(1), 19-23.
Aiyuk. S, Odonkorb. P, Thekod. N, Haandelc. A.V, Willy Verstraetea. (2010).
Technical Problems Ensuing from UASB Reactor Application in Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Without Pre-Treatment. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Development, Volume 1, No.5.
Akpor. O. B, Ogundeji. M. D, Olaolu. T. D, Aderiye. B. I. (2014). Microbial Roles
and Dynamics in Wastewater Treatment Systems: An overview.
International Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience, Volume 2, Issue 1, pg
156-168 .
Amenu, D. (2014). Characterization of Wastewater and Evaluation of The
Effectiveness of The Wastewater Treatement Systems. World Journal of Life
Sciences Research, 1(1), 1-11.
Appels, L., Baeyens, J., Degrève, J., & Dewil, R. (2008). Principles and potential of
the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Progress in energy and
combustion science, 34(6), 755-781.
Aygun, A., Nas, B., and Berktay, A. (2008). Influence of High Organic Loading
Rates on COD Removal and Sludge Production in Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactor. Environmental Engineering Science, 25(9), 1311-1316.
Azeera, N.B. (2010). Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) using HUASB
Reactors. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master Thesis.
Barca. C, Ge´rente. C, Meyer. D, Chazarenc. F, Andre`s. Y. (2013). Phosphate
Removal From Synthetic and Real Wastewater Using Steel Slags Produced
in Europe. Water Research, Volume 46, pg 2376-2384.
Bahadori, A. (2014). Definitions and Terminology. Waste Management in the
Chemical and Petroleum Industries, 277-306.
Bazrafshan. E, Mosrafapour. F. K, Farzadkia. M, Ownagh. K. A, Mahvi. A. H.
(2012). Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Combined Chemical
Coagulation and Electrocoagulation Process. PLoS ONE. Volume 7, Issue 6.
Banu. J. R, Kaliappan. S, Ick-Tae. Y. (2007). Two Stage Anaerobic Treatment of
Dairy Wastewater Using HUASB with PUF and PVC Carrier. Biotechnology
and Bioprocess Engineering, Volume 12, pg 257-264.
Banihani, Q. H., and Field, J. A. (2013). Treatment of High-Strength Synthetic
Sewage in A Laboratory-Scale Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed (UASB) with
Aerobic Activated Sludge (AS) Post-Treatment. Journal of Environmental
Science and Health, Part A, 48(3), 338-347.
Baloch MI, Akunna JC, Kierans M, Collier PJ (2008). Structural Analysis of
Anaerobic Granules in a Phase Separated Reactor by Electron Microscopy.
Bioresource Technology, 99, 922–929.
Badroldin. N. A, Latiff. A. A, Karim. A. T, Fulazzaky. M. A. (2008). POME
Treatment Using Hybrid Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (HUASB)
Reactors: Impact on COD Removal and Organic Loading Rates. Engineering
Postgraduate Conference.
Batstone D, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyhuzhnyi S, Pavlostathis S, Rozzi A, Sanders
W, Siegrist H, Vavilin V (2002). The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No.1
(ADM1). Water Sci Technol. 45, 65–73.
Barca, C., Meyer, D., Liira, M., Drissen, P., Comeau, Y., Andrès, Y., & Chazarenc,
F. (2014). Steel slag filters to upgrade phosphorus removal in small
wastewater treatment plants: removal mechanisms and performance.
Ecological Engineering, 68, 214-222.
Beux. S, Nunes. E, Barana. A. C. (2007). Effect of Temperature on Two-Phase
Anaerobic Reactors Treating Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Brazilian Archives
of Biology and Technology. Volume 50, Issue 6, pg 1061-1072.
Bhunia. P and Ghangrekar. M. M. (2007). Statistical Modelling and Optimization of
Biomass Granulation and COD Removal in UASB Reactors Treating Low
Strength Wastewaters. Journal of Bioresource Technology, Volume 99, pg
4229 - 4238.
Bhunia, P. & Ghangrekar, M. M. (2008). Analysis, Evaluation, and Optimization of
Kinetic Parameters for Performance Appraisal and Design of UASB
Reactors. Bioresource Technology, 99(7), 2132– 2140.
Bolzonella, D., Innocenti, L., Pavan, P., Traverso, P., and Cecchi, F. (2003). Semi-
Dry Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of The Organic Fraction of
Municipal Solid Waste: Focusing on The Start-Up Phase. Bioresource
technology, 86(2), 123-129.
Borghei, S. M., Sharbatmaleki, M., Pourrezaie, P., and Borghei, G. (2008). Kinetics
of Organic Removal in Fixed-Bed Aerobic Biological Reactor. Bioresource
technology, 99(5), 1118-1124.
Braguglia, C. M., Mininni, G., Tomei, M. C., and Rolle, E. (2006). Effect of
Feed/Inoculum Ratio on Anaerobic Digestion of Sonicated Sludge. Water
Science & Technology, 54(5), 77-84.
Building and Construction Authority (BCA), (2012).
Bunchanan. J. R, & Seabloom. R.W. (2004). Aerobic Treatment of Wastewater and
Aerobic Treatment Units. Module text. University Curriculum Development
for Decentrilized Wastewater Management.
Bustillo-Lecompte, C. F., Mehrvar, M., and Quiñones-Bolaños, E. (2013). Combined
Anaerobic-Aerobic and UV/H2O2 Processes for The Treatment of Synthetic
Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Part A, 48(9), 1122-1135.
Bwapwa. J. K (2010). Analysis of An Anaerobic Baffled Reactor Treating Complex
Particulate Wastewater in An Abr-Membrane Bioreactor Unit. University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Durban: Thesis Master of Science in Engineering.
Caixeta. C. E. T, Cammarota. M. C & Xavier. A. M. F. (2002). Slaughterhouse
Wastewater Treatment: Evaluation of a New Three-Phase Separation System
in a UASB Reactor. Journal of Bioresouce Technology, Volume 81, pg 61-
69.
Cakir, F. Y., & Stenstrom, M. K. (2005). Greenhouse Gas Production: A
Comparison Between Aerobic and Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment
Technology. Water Research, 39(17), 4197-4203.
Chen, Y., Cheng, J. J., and Creamer, K. S. (2008). Inhibition of Anaerobic Digestion
Process: A Review. Bioresource technology, 99(10), 4044 - 4064.
Chavez. C.P, Castillo. R.L, Dendooven,L, Escamilla-Silva.E.M. (2005). Poultry
Slaughter Wastewater Treatment with An Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket (UASB) Reactor. Journal Bioresource Technology, pg 1730–1736.
Chan, Y.J., Chong, M.F., Law. C.L., Hassell, D.G. (2009). A Review on Anaerobic-
Aerobic Treatment of Industrial and Municipal Wastewater, Chem. Eng. J,
155 1–18.
Chan, Y. J., Chong, M. F., and Law, C. L. (2012). Start-Up, Steady State
Performance and Kinetic Evaluation of A Thermophilic Integrated
Anaerobic–Aerobic Bioreactor (IAAB). Bioresource technology, 125, 145-
157.
Choorit. W & Wisarnwan. P. (2007). Effect of Temperature on The Anaerobic
Digestion of Palm Oil Mill Effluent. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology.
Volume 10 No.3, Issue of July 15.
Cooney, M., Maynard, N., Cannizzaro, C., & Benemann, J. (2007). Two-Phase
Anaerobic Digestion for Production of Hydrogen–Methane Mixtures.
Bioresource Technology, 98(14), 2641-2651.
Debik E. and Coskun T. (2009). Use of The Static Granular Bed Reactor (SGBR)
with Anaerobic Sludge to Treat Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater and
Kinetic Modelling. Elsevier Journal, Volume 100, pg 2777 – 2782.
Del Nery. V, Pozzi. E, Damianovic. M. H. R. Z, Domingues. M. R, Zaiat. M. (2008).
Granules Characteristics in the Vertical Profile of a Full-Scale Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Treating Poultry Slaughterhouse
Wastewater. Bioresource Technology, Volume 99, pg 2018–2024.
Del Nery V., de Nardi I.R., Damianovic, M.H.R.Z., Pozzi, E., Amorim, A.K.B.,
Zaiat M., (2007). Long-Term Operating Performance of A Poultry
Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment Plant. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 50, 102-114.
Del Nery, V., Damianovic, M. H. Z., Moura, R. B. M., Pozzi, E., & Foresti, E.
(2002). UASB Reactor Effluent Nitrogen Removal in an Aerated-Facultative
Pond at A Poultry Slaughterhouse.
Del Nery, V., Damianovic, M. H. Z., & Barros, F. G. (2001). The use of upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactors in the treatment of poultry slaughterhouse
wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 44(4), 83-88.
Demirer. .G. N and Chen. S. (2005). Two Phase Anaerobic Digestion of Unscreened
Dairy Manure. Process Biochemistry, Volume 40, pg 3, 542-3549.
Demirel B, and Scherer P. (2008) The Roles of Acetotrophic and Hydrogenotrophic
Methanogens During Anaerobic Conversion of Biomass to Methane: A
Review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnolgy, 7:173–90.
Del Pozo, R., and Diez, V. (2003). Organic Matter Removal in Combined
Anaerobic–Aerobic Fixed-Film Bioreactors. Water Research, 37(15), 3561-
3568.
Del Pozo R., Diez V., Beltran S., (2000). Anaerobic Pretreatment of Slaughterhouse
Wastewater Using Fixedfilm Reactors.s Bioresource Technology, 71, 143-
149.
Del Pozo, R., and Diez, V. (2005). Integrated Anaerobic–Aerobic Fixed-Film
Reactor for Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment. Water Research, 39(6),
1114-1122.
De Nardi, I. R., Fuzi, T. P., & Del Nery, V. (2008). Performance evaluation and
operating strategies of dissolved-air flotation system treating poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(3),
533-544.
Eastman, J. A., and Ferguson, J. F. (1981). Solubilization of Particulate Organic
Carbon During The Acid Phase of Anaerobic Digestion. Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation), 352-366.
Ellis T.G & K.M. Evans. (2008). A New High Rate Anaerobic Technology, The
Static Granular Bed Reactor (SGBR), for Renewable Energy Production
From Medium Strength Waste Streams. Journal of Waste Management and
The Environment IV, Volume 109.
Ellis.T.G and Mach. Kristin.F. Static Granular Bed Reactor. U.S. Patent 670,9591.
Enitan, A. M., Kumari, S., Swalaha, F. M., Adeyemo, J., Ramdhani, N., & Bux, F.
(2014). Kinetic Modelling and Characterization of Microbial Community
Present in a Full-Scale UASB Reactor Treating Brewery Effluent. Microbial
Ecology, 67(2), 358-368.
Farhadian, M., Duchez, D., Vachelard, C., and Larroche, C. (2008). Monoaromatics
Removal from Polluted Water Through Bioreactors—A Review. Water
Research, 42(6), 1325-1341.
Fernandez. J. M, Omil, F, Mendez. R. Lema. J. M. (2001). Anaerobic Treatment of
Fibreboard Manufacturing Wastewaters in a Pilot Scale Hybrid USBF
Reactor. Water Resource, Volume 35, No. 17, pg 4150–4158.
Foucault, L. J. (2011). Anaerobic Co-digestion of Chicken Processing Wastewater
and Crude Glycerol from Biodiesel (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University).
Gao. D, Liu. L, Liang. H, Wu.W. M. (2011). Comparison of Four Enhancement
Strategies for Aerobic Granulation in Sequencing Batch Reactors. Journal of
Hazardous Material, Volume 186, pg 320-327.
Gerardi, M. H. (2003). Settleability problems and loss of solids in the activated
sludge process. John Wiley & Sons.
Ghangrekar, M. M., Asolekar, S. R., and Joshi, S. G. (2005). Characteristics of
Sludge Developed Under Different Loading Conditions During UASB
Reactor Start-Up and Granulation. Water research, 39(6), 1123-1133.
Gizgis, N., Georgiou, M., and Diamadopoulos, E. (2006). Sequential
Anaerobic/Aerobic Biological Treatment of Olive Mill Wastewater and
Municipal Wastewater. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology,
81(9), 1563-1569.
Govindaradjane. S & Sundararajan. T. (2013). Performance and Kinetics Of A
HUASB Reactor for Treating Tapioca-Based Starch Industrial Waste Stream.
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT),
Volume 2, Issue 4, pg 55-64.
Gray, N.F. Water Technology: An Introduction for Environmental Scientists and
Engineers, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005.
Guimares.P, Normando.S.H, Lourdes.S.J, Nobre.F.N.M. (1996). Treatment of
Industrial Effluents by Aerated Lagoon. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Norte.
Guo, J., Peng, Y., Wang, S., Zheng, Y., Huang, H., & Wang, Z. (2009). Long-Term
Effect of Dissolved Oxygen on Partial Nitrification Performance And
Microbial Community Structure. Bioresource Technology, 100(11), 2796-
2802.
Halim. H. (2008). Isolation and identification of lipolytic bacteri from chicken
processing wastewater. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Thesis
Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering.
Habeeb. A. S. (2012). The Influence of Temperature and Types of Filter Media on
The POME Treatment Using The Hybrid Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(HUASB) Reactor. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Thesis. Master
Civil Engineering.
Habeeb, S. A., Ab Aziz, A. L., Zawawi, D. and Zulkifli, A. (2011a). A
Biodegradation and Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) using a
Hybrid-upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed (HUASB) Reactor. International
Journal of Energy and Environment, 2(4), 653-660.
Habeeb, S. A., Aziz, A. L., Zawawi, D., and Zulkifli, A. (2011b). A Review on
Granules Initiation and Development inside UASB Reactor and The Main
Factors Affecting Granules Formation Process. International Journal of
Energy and Environment, 2(2), 311-320.
Hampanavar.U.S & Shivayogimath.C.B. (2010). Anaerobic Treatment of Sugar
Industry Wastewater by Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor at
Ambient Temperature. International Journal of Environmental Sciences.
Volume 1, No 4,pg 631-638.
Hamdan.R & Mara.D. (2013). Aerated Blast-Furnace-Slag Filters for The
Simultaneous Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus From Primary
Facultative Pond Effluents. International Journal of Integrated Engineering,
Volume 5, No 1, pg 17-22.
Hemalatha.D, Sachitha.S, Keerthinarayana.S. (2014). Anaerobic Treatment of Pulp
and Paper Mill Wastewater Using Hybrid Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
Reactor (HUASBR). International Journal of Innovative Research in
Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 3, Issue 4, pg 11576 – 11584.
Husain S.Plumber and Brian H.Kiepper. (2011). Impact of Poultry Processing by
Products on Wastewater Generation, Treatment And Discharges. Proceeding
Paper for Georgia Water Resources Conference.
Hudayah. N, Suraraksa. B, Chaiprasert. P. (2012). The Effect Of Synthetic Cationic
Polymer Addition on Nucleation of Anaerobic Granules Under Different
Organic Loading Rate. International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry
and Bioinformatics, Volume 2, No. 4.
Hulshoff, L. W., Lettinga, G., de Castro Lopes, S. I., and Lens, P. N. L. (2004).
Anaerobic Sludge Granulation. Water Research, 38, 1376-1389.
Huang.L., Zhang B., Gao. B., Feng.L. (2009). Application of Anaerobic Granular
Sludge to Treatment of Fishmeal Industry Wastewaters Under Highly Saline
Conditions. International Conference on Energy and Environment
Technology. Pg 433-436.
Ibrahim.M.S.S. (2014). Treatment of Food Processing Industrial Wastewater Using
Two Stages Anaerobic System. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Thesis,
Master Civil Engineering.
Işık, M and Sponza, D. T. (2006). Biological Treatment of Acid Dyeing
Wastewater using a Sequential Anaerobic/Aerobic Reactor System. Enzyme
and Microbial Technology, 38(7), 887-892.
Isik, M and Sponza D.T. (2005). Substrate Removal Kinetics in an Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Decolorising Simulated Textile
Wastewater. Process Biochem., 40, pp. 1189–1198.
Işik, M., and Sponza, D. T. (2004). Anaerobic/Aerobic Sequential Treatment of a
Cotton Textile Mill Wastewater. Journal of Chemical Technology and
Biotechnology, 79(11), 1268-1274.
Işık, M., and Sponza, D. T. (2008). Anaerobic/Aerobic Treatment of a Simulated
Textile Wastewater. Separation and Purification Technology, 60(1), 64-72.
Jideofor.O.P, Akunna.J, Onyia.C.O, Solomon.B.O. (2013). A Comparative Study of
The Performance of Anaerobic Digestion of Seaweed (Ascophyllum
Nodosum) at Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures. Global Journal of
Biology, Agriculture & Health Sciences, Volume 2, Issue 4, pg 55-58.
Kadir, A., Afindy, M., Latiff, A., Aziz, A., & Daud, Z. (2015). Kinetics Study of
UASB and HUASB System in Treating Municipal Wastewater. In Applied
Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 773, pp. 1173-1177.
Kamaruddin, N.A. (2007). Rawatan Biologi Bagi Merawat Air Sisa Pemprosesan
Ayam Dengan Menggunakan Penuras Pasir Dua Lapisan. Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia: Thesis. Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering.
Kavitha.K. (2009). Feasibility Study of Upflow Anaerobic Filter For Pretreatment of
Municipal Wastewater. University of Singapore: Thesis, Master Civil
Engineering.
Kapdan, I. K., & Alparslan, S. (2005). Application of Anaerobic–Aerobic Sequential
Treatment System to Real Textile Wastewater for Color and COD Removal.
Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 36(2), 273-279.
Kettunen, R. H., and Rintala, J. A. (1995). Sequential Anaerobic–Aerobic Treatment
of Sulphur Rich Phenolic Leachates. Journal of Chemical Technology and
Biotechnology, 62(2), 177-184.
Khan. A.A, Gaur. R. Z, Mehrotra. I, Diamantis. V, Lew. B, Kazmi. A. A. (2014).
Performance Assessment of Different STPS Based on UASB Followed by
Aerobic Post Treatment Systems. Journal of Environmental Health Science
& Engineering 2014.
Kiepper. B. H & Plumber. H. S (2011). Impact of Poultry Processing by Products
on Wastewater Generation, Treatment And Discharges. Proceeding of the
2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference.
Kiepper. B. H. (2003). Characterization of Poultry Processing Operations,
Wastewater Generation, and Wastewater Treatment Using Mail Survey and
Nutrient Discharge Monitoring Methods. University of Georgia. Thesis:
Master of Science.
Kim. D. H, Shin. M. C, Choi. H. D, Seo. C. I, Baek. K. (2008). Removal
Mechanisms of Copper Using Steel-Making Slag: Adsorption and
Precipitation. Desalination, Volume 223, pg 283-289.
Korsak. L. (2008). Anaerobic Treatment of Wastewater in a UASB Reactor. Royal
Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden. Licentiate Thesis in Chemical
Engineering.
Kobya. M, Senturk. E, Bayramoglu. M. (2006).Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse
Wastewaters By Electrocoagulation. Hazardous Material, 133, 172-176.
Kuan-Yeow. S, Joo-hwa. T, Limei. T, Ying. Y. W, Choon-Hau. L. (2004). Effects of
Stressed Loading on Start-Up and Granulation in UASB Reactors. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, Volume 130, Issue 7, pg 743-750.
Kumar, K., Singh, G. K., Dastidar, M. G., and Sreekrishnan, T. R. (2014). Effect of
Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS) and Hydraulic Retention
Time (HRT) on The Performance of Activated Sludge Process During The
Biotreatment of Real Textile Wastewater. Water Resources and industry, 5,
1-8.
Kundu. P, Anupam. D, Somnath. M. (2013). Treatment of Slaughter House
Wastewater in a Sequencing Batch Reactor: Performance Evaluation and
Biodegradation Kinetics. BioMed Research International, Volume 201.
La Motta, E. J., Silva, E., Bustillos, A., Padrón, H., & Luque, J. (2007). Combined
Anaerobic/Aerobic Secondary Municipal Wastewater Treatment: Pilot-Plant
Demonstration of The UASB/Aerobic Solids Contact System. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 133(4), 397-403.
Latif. M. A, Ghufran. R, Abdul Wahid. Z, Ahmad. A. (2011). Integrated Application
of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor for The Treatment of
Wastewaters. Water Research, Volume 45, pg 4683-4699.
Lai. W. V. (2012). Production of Methane From Poultry Manure. Universiti
Malaysia Pahang. Thesis. Bachelor Degree in Chemical Engineering and
Nature.
Lettinga. G, Renato. C. L, Adrianus. C. H, Zeeman. G. (2006). The Effects of
Operational and Environmental Variations on Anaerobic Wastewater
Treatment Systems: A Review. Journal of Bioresouce Technology, Volume
97, pg 1105-1118.
Lew.B, Tarre.S, Belavski.M, Green.M. (2004). UASB Reactor for Domestic
Wastewater Treatment at Low Temperatures: A Comparison Between a
Classical UASB And Hybrid UASB-Filter Reactor. Water Science and
Technology, Volume 49, No 11-12,pg 295-301.
Li. J, Hu. B, Zheng. P, Qaisar. M, Mei. L. (2008). Filamentous Granular Sludge
Bulking in a Laboratory Scale UASB Reactor. Bioresource Technology,
Volume 99, pg 3431–3438.
Liu. Y, Xu. H. L, Show. K.Y, Tay. J. H. (2002). Anaerobic Granulation Technology
for Wastewater Treatment. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology ,
Volume 18, pg 99–113.
Lu, H., Zhang, G., Dai, X., Schideman, L., Zhang, Y., Li, B., and Wang, H. (2013).
A Novel Wastewater Treatment and Biomass Cultivation System Combining
Photosynthetic Bacteria and Membrane Bioreactor Technology.
Desalination, 322, 176-181.
Martinez, J. A. (2003). Influence of aluminum ion on the anaerobic treatment of a
poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. Mississippi State University.
Mahmud.Z.A. (2007). Biological Treatment of Chicken Processing Wastewater
Using Two Layer Sand Filtration: Application of Liquid Detergent.
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Thesis. Bachelor Degree in Civil
Engineering.
Mahmoud. N. (2008). High Strength Sewage Treatment in a UASB Reactor and an
Integrated UASB-Digester System. Journal of Bioresource Technology.
Volume 99, pg 7531-7538.
Mahmoud. N. (2002). Anaerobic Pre-Treatment of Sewage Under Low Temperature
(15ºc) Conditions in an Integrated UASB-Digester System. Wageningen
University. PhD: Thesis.
Masse‘.D.I & Masse.L. (2001). The Effect of Temperature on Slaughterhouse
Wastewater Treatment in Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactors. Journal of
Bioresource Technology. Volume 76, pg 91-98.
Mach.K.F & Ellis.T.G. (2000). Performance Characteristics of The Static Granular
Bed Reactor. Water Ennvironment Federation.
Maarup. S.N, Hamdan.R, Othman.N. (2013). Study on The Performance of a Pilot-
Scale Vertical Aerated Steel Slag Filter for Phosphorus Removal.
Advancements in Marine and Freshwater Sciences. UMTAS.
Miranda. L. A. S, Henriques. J. A. P, Monteggia. L. O. (2005). A Full-Scale UASB
Reactor For Treatment of Pig and Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater with a
High Oil And Grease Content. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering.
Volume 22, No. 04, pg 601 – 610.
Mijinyawa.Y and Lawal. N. S (2008). Treatment Efficiency and Economic Benefit
of Zartech Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ibadan,
Nigeria. Scientific Research and Essay. Volume 3(6), pg 219-223.
Moura. A, Marta. T, Isabel. H, Joana. D, Pedro.F, Anto´nio. C. (2009).
Characterization of Bacterial Diversity in Two Aerated Lagoons of a
Wastewater Treatment Plant Using PCR–DGGE Analysis. Microbiological
Research, Volume 164, pg 560-569.
Mojiri. A, Aziz. H. A, Zaman. Q. N, Aziz, S. Q. (2012). A Review on Anaerobic
Digestion, Bio-Reactor and Nitrogen Removal from Wastewater and Landfill
Leachate by Bio-Reactor. Advances in Environmental Biology, Volume 6,
Issue 7, pg 2143-2150.
Mohd Amirul Asyraf, A. (2010). Production of biogas from poultry manure
(Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Malaysia Pahang).
Moreira, M. P., Yamakawa, C. S., & Alegre, R. M. (2009). Performance of the
sequencing batch reactor to promote poultry wastewater nitrogen and COD
reduction. RECEN-Revista Ciências Exatas e Naturais, 4(2), 165-173.
Mullai. P, Huu-Hao N. G. O, Sabarathinam. P. (2011). Substrate Removal Kinetics
of An Anaerobic Hybrid Reactor Treating Pharmaceutical Wastewater.
Journal of Water Sustainability, Volume 1, Issue 3, pg 301-312.
National Slag Association (NSA). Properties and Uses of Iron and Steel Slags.
Symposium on Slag National Institute for Transport and Road Research
South Africa.
Najafpour. G. D, Tajallipour. M. K, Mohammadi. M. (2009). Kinetic Model for An
UASB Bioreactor: Dairy wastewater treatment. African Journal of
Biotechnology, Volume 8, Issue 15, pg 3590-3596.
Nopharatana A, Pullammanappallil, P. C, Clarke W. P. (2007). Kinetics and
Dynamic Modelling of Batch Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste
in a Stirred Reactor. Waste Management 27:595–603.
Oh. J. H. (2012). Performance Evaluation of The Pilot-Scale Static Granular Bed
Reactor (SGBR) for Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Bio Filter Treating
Septic Tank Effluent Using Recycled Rubber Particles. Iowa State
University: Thesis. PhD.
Oktem. Y. A, Ince. O, Sallis. P, Donnelly. T, Ince. B. K. (2007). Anaerobic
Treatment of a Chemical Synthesis-Based Pharmaceutical Wastewater in a
Hybrid Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor. Journal Bioresource
Technology. Volume 99, pg 1089–1096.
Ooi.K.H (2010). Study of COD Reduction by Anaerobic Digestion Using Mixed
Culture From Industrial Waste. Universiti Malaysia Pahang: Thesis Bachelor
Degree of Chemical Engoneering.
Pantea.E.V & Tamara.R. (2008). Thermophilic Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment.
Volume XIII. University Analele Oradea.
Pallavi. B (2012). Effects of Thermal Hydrolisis Pre-treatment on Anaerobic
Digestion of Sludge. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University:
Thesis, Master of Science in Civil Engineering.
Palatsi. J, Vinas. M, Guivernau. M, Fernandez. B, Flotats. X. (2011). Anaerobic
Digestion of Slaughterhouse Waste: Main Process Limitations and Microbial
Community Interactions. Journal of Bioresource Technology, Volume 102,
pg 2219–2227.
Padilla. G. E & Lopez. A. (2010). Kinetics of Organic Matter Degradation in an
Upflow Anaerobic Filter Using Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Journal of
Bioremediation and Biodegradation, Volume 1, Issue 2.
Parsamehr M. (2012). Modeling and analysis of a UASB reactor. Luleå University
of Technology.
Pierson, J. A., and Pavlostathis, S. G. (2000). Real-Time Monitoring and Control of
Sequencing Batch Reactors for Secondary Treatment of A Poultry Processing
Wastewater. Water Environment Research, 72(5), 585-592.
Pozo.R.D & Diez.V. (2005). Integrated Anaerobic-Aerobic Fixed-Film Reactor for
Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment. Journal of water research, Volume
39, pg 1114-1122.
Poh, P. E., and Chong, M. F. (2009). Development of Anaerobic Digestion Methods
for Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Treatment. Bioresource Technology,
100(1), 1-9.
Prashanth, S., Kumar, P., and Mehrotra, I. (2006). Anaerobic Degradability: Effect
of Particulate COD. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 132(4), 488-496.
R. Del Pozo and V. Diez. (2003). Organic Matter Removal in Combined Anaerobic–
Aerobic Fixed-Film Bioreactors,Water Research, 37, 3561–3568.
Raja Yunus. R.A. (2006). Rawatan Biologi Bagi Merawat Air Sisa Pemprosesan
Ayam Menggunakan Penuras Pasir Dua Lapisan. Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malaysia: Thesis. Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering.
Radojevic. M & Bashkin. V. N (2006). Practical Environment Analysis. 2nd
ed. The
Royal Society of Chemistry.
Rajakumar. R and Meenambal.T. (2008). Comparative Study on Start-Up
Performance of HUASB and AF Reactors Treating Poultry Slaughterhouse
Wastewater. International Journal of Environmental Research, Volume 2,
No 4, pg 401-410.
Rajakumar. R, Meenambal. T, Banu. J. R., Yeom. I.T (2011). Treatment of Poultry
Slaughterhouse Wastewater in Upflow Anaerobic Filter Under Low Upflow
Velocity. International Journal Environment Science Technology. Volume 8
(1), pg 149-158.
Rajakumar, R., Meenambal, T., Saravanan, P. M., and Ananthanarayanan, P. (2012).
Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater in Hybrid Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Packed with Pleated Polyvinylchloride
Rings. Bioresource Technology, 103, 116-122.
Ragsdale. S. W and Pierce. E. (2008). Acetogenesis and The Wood–Ljungdahl
Pathway of CO2 Fixation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta(BBA)- Proteins and
Proteomics, Volume 1784, Issue 12, pg 1873-1898.
Rahimi, Y., Torabian, A., Mehrdadi, N., & Shahmoradi, B. (2011). Simultaneous
nitrification–denitrification and phosphorus removal in a fixed bed
sequencing batch reactor (FBSBR). Journal of hazardous materials, 185(2),
852-857.
Rizvi.H, Ahmad.N, Abbas.F, Bukhari.I.H, Yasar.A, Ali.S, Yasmeen.T, Riaz,M.
(2014). Start-up of UASB Reactors Treating Municipal Wastewater and
Effect of Temperature/Sludge Age and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) On
Its Performance. Arabian Journal of Chemistry.
Rizvi. H. (2010). Sewage Treatment by An Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
Reactor (UASB) Under Subtropical Conditions. University of The Punjab.
PhD: Thesis.
Rich, L. G. (2003). Aerated lagoon technology. Lagoonsonline. com. Clemson
University.
Romli, M., Greenfield, P., F., and Lee, P., L. (1994). Effect of Recycle on a Two
Phase High-rate Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment System. Great Britain, 28
(2), 475-482.
Ruiz, I., Veiga, M. C., De Santiago, P., & Blazquez, R. (1997). Treatment of
slaughterhouse wastewater in a UASB reactor and an anaerobic filter.
Bioresource Technology, 60(3), 251-258.
Saleh. M. M. A and Mahmood. U.F. (2003). UASB/EGSB Applications for
Industrial Wastewater Treatment. Seventh International Water Technology
Conference Egypt.
Saatci, Y., Arslan, E. I., & Konar, V. (2003). Removal of Total Lipids and Fatty
Acids from Sunflower Oil Factory Effluent by UASB Reactor. Bioresource
Technology, 87(3), 269-272.
Samsudin. M. (2010). Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Fruit Enzyme.
University of Teknologi Malaysia: Thesis. Bachelor Degree in Civil
Engineering (Civil-Environmental).
Salminen, E., and Rintala, J. (2002). Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Poultry
Slaughterhouse Waste – A Review. Bioresource Technology, 83(1), 13-26.
Schmidt, J. E., and Ahring, B. K. (1996). Granular Sludge Formation in Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, 49(3), 229-246.
Seswoya. R, Mat Daud. A. M, Ali. Z. M. (2006). The First Attempt of Chicken
Wastewater Treatment Using Sand Filtration. University of Tun Hussein Onn
Malaysia.
She. Z, Zheng. X, Yang. B, Jin. C, Goa. M. (2006). Granule Development and
Performance in Sucrose Fed Anaerobic Baffled Reactors. Journal of
Biotechnology, Volume 122, Issue 2, pg 198-208.
Shilton A. N, Ibrahim. E, Alexsandra. D, Steven. P, Haverkamp.R. G, Stuart. C. B.
(2005). Phosphorus Removal by An ‗Active‘ Slag Filter; A Decade of Full
Scale Experience. Water Research, Volume 40, pg 113-118.
Singh. K.S. (1999). Municipal Wastewater Treatment by Upflow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket (UASB) Reactors. University of Regina. PhD: Thesis.
Sirianuntapiboon, S., & Manoonpong, K. (2001). Application of granular activated
carbon-sequencing batch reactor (GAC-SBR) system for treating wastewater
from slaughterhouse. Thammasat International Journal of Science and
Technology, 6(1).
Siedlecka..E.M, Kumirska.J, Ossowski.T, Glamowski.P, Golebiowski.M, Gadjus.J,
Kaczynski.Z, Stepnowski.P. (2008). Determination of Volatile Fatty Acids in
Environmental Aqueous Samples. Polish Journal of Environment Study,
Volume 17, No 3, pg 351-356.
Sombatsompop, K., Songpim, A., Reabroi, S., & Inkong-ngam, P. (2011). A
comparative study of sequencing batch reactor and movingbed sequencing
batch reactor for piggery wastewater treatment. Maejo International Journal
of Science and Technology, 5(2).
Spellman. F. R. (2003). Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations. CRC
Press LLC.
Sponza, D. T., and Demirden, P. (2007). Treatability of Sulfamerazine in Sequential
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB)/Completely Stirred Tank
Reactor (CSTR) Processes. Separation and Purification Technology, 56(1),
108-117.
Sreekanth. D, Sivaramakrishna. D, Himabindu. V, Anjaneyulu. Y. (2009).
Thermophilic Degradation of Phenolic Compounds in Lab Scale Hybrid Up
Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactors. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Volume 164, pg 1532–1539.
Stuetz. R. (2009). Principles of Water and Wastewater Treatment Process. United
Kingdom : IWA Publishing.
Sushma and Pal. J. (2013). Performance of UASB Reactor at Different Flow Rate
Treating Sewage Wastewater. International Journal of ChemTech Research,
Volume 5, No 2, pp 676 – 681.
Sunder.G.C and Satyanarayan. (2013). Efficient Treatment of Slaughterhouse
Wastewater By Anaerobic Hybrid Reactor Packed with Special Floating
Media. International Journal of Chemical and Physical Sciences, Volume 2,
Special Issue, pg 73-81.
Subramani, T., Krishnan, S., Kumaresan, P. K., and Selvam, P (2012). Treatability
Studies on Hybrid Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor for Pulp and
Paper Mill Wastewater. International Journal of Modern Engineering
Research (IJMER). Vol.2, Issue 3, pg 602-606.
Tay. J. H, Shun. P, Yanxin. H, Stephen. T. L. T. (2004). Effect of Organic Loading
Rate on Aerobic Granulation 2: Characteristics Of Aerobic Granules. Journal
of Environmental Engineering, Volume 130, pg 1102-1109.
Tawfik. A, Sobhey. M, Badawy. M. (2008). Treatment of a Combined Dairy and
Domestic Wastewater in An Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
Reactor Followed By Activated Sludge (AS System). Desalination, Volume
227, pg 167-177.
Tezel, U., Guven, E., Erguder, T. H., & Demirer, G. N. (2001). Sequential
(Anaerobic/Aerobic) Biological Treatment of Dalaman SEKA Pulp and
Paper Industry effluent. Waste management, 21(8), 717-724.
Tembhurkar. A. R and Mhaisalkar. V. A. (2007). Studies on Hydrolysis and
Acidogenesis of Kitchen Waste in Two Phase Anaerobic Digestion. Journal
of the IPHE, India, Volume 8, No 2.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burto, F. L., and Stensel, H. D. (2003). Wastewater Treatment
Engineering and Reuse. McGraw Hill Education.
Torkian. A, A. Eqbali, S.J. Hashemian. (2003). The Effect of Organic Loading Rate
on The Performance of UASB Reactor Treating Slaughterhouse Effluent.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 40, pg 1–11.
Turkdogan-Aydınol, F. I., and Yetilmezsoy, K. (2010). A Fuzzy-Logic-Based Model
to Predict Biogas and Methane Production Rates in a Pilot-Scale Mesophilic
UASB Reactor Treating Molasses Wastewater. Journal of hazardous
materials, 182(1), 460-471.
US EPA. (2002). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet. Aerated, Partial Mix Lagoons.
Uyanik. S. (2003). Granule Development in Anaerobic Baffled Reactors. Turkish J.
Eng. Env. Sci, Volume 27, pg 131-144.
Van Lier. J, Mahmoud. N, Zeeman. G. (2008). Biological Wastewater Treatment:
Principles Modelling and Design. IWA Publishing.
Vavilin. V.A, Fernandez. B, Palatsi. J, Flotats. X. (2008). Hydrolysis Kinetics in
Anaerobic Degradation of Particulate Organic Material: An overview.
Journal Waste Management, Volume 28, pg 939–951.
Van Haandel, A., Kato, M. T., Cavalcanti, P. F., & Florencio, L. (2006). Anaerobic
Reactor Design Concepts for The Treatment of Domestic Wastewater.
Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 5(1), 21-38.
Venkatesh. K.R, Rajendran. M. & Murugappan. A. (2013). Start-up of An Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Treating Low-Strength Wastewater
Inoculated with Non-Granular Sludge. International Refereed Journal of
Engineering and Science (IRJES). Volume 2, Issue 5, pg 46-53.
Verma. S. (2002). Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal
Solid Wastes. Columbia University. Thesis: Master of Science Degree in
Earth Resources Engineering.
Vindis. P, Mursec. B, Janzekovic. M, Cus. F. (2009). The Impact of Mesophilic and
Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion on Biogas Production. Journal of
Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering. Volume 36.
Issue 2. Pg 192-198.
Yasar. A & Tabinda. A.B. (2010). Anaerobic Treatment of Industrial Wastewater by
UASB Reactor Integrated with Chemical Oxidation Processes: An Overview.
Pol. J. Environ. Stud, Volume 19, pg 1051–1061.
Yan.B, Liu.K, Su.C, Zhao.W, Shi.J, Long. F, Wu. Y. (2011). Compared Selection of
Pretreatment Technology for Cassava Starch Wastewater Treated by
Anaerobic Process. Journal Environmental Engineering, pg 1533-1536.
Yasar. A & Tabinda. A. B. (2010). Anaerobic Treatment of Industrial Wastewater
by UASB Reactor Integrated with Chemical Oxidation Processes; An
Overview. Polish J. of Environ. Stud, Volume 19, No. 5, pg 1051-1061
Yeoh, B.G. (1995.) Anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewaters in Malaysia, in:
Post Conference Seminar on Industrial Wastewater Management in Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Yetilmezsoy K (2012) . Integration of Kinetic Modeling and Desirability Function
Approach for Multi-Objective Optimization of UASB Reactor Treating
Poultry Manure Wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 118(118), 189–101
Yetilmezsoy, K., Turkdogan-Aydinol, I., Gunay, A., and Ozis, I. (2011). Post
Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater and Appraisal of The
Economic Outcome. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
10(11), 1635-1645.
Yildrim. I. Z & Prezzi. M. (2011). Chemical, Mineralogical and Morphological
Properties of Steel Slag. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Volume 2011, pg
1-13.
Yi. T. C. (2008). Performance Evaluation of Steel Slag as Natural Aggregates
Replacement in Asphaltic Concrete. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Thesis:
Master of Science.
Young. W. K. (2004). Biological Treatment of Turkey Processing Wastewater with
Sand Filtration. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). The Ohio State
University.
Westholm.L.J. (2010). The Use of Blast Furnace Slag for Removal of Phosphorus
from Wastewater in Sweden. A Review. Journal of Water, pg 826-837.
Weber SD, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, Fried J. (2007). Microbial Composition and
Structure of Aerobic Granular Sewage Biofilms. Applied Environmental
Microbiology,73, 6233–6240.
Wijekoon, K. C., Visvanathan, C., & Abeynayaka, A. (2011). Effect of organic
loading rate on VFA production, organic matter removal and microbial
activity of a two-stage thermophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor.
Bioresource Technology, 102(9), 5353-5360.
Zhang. Y & Banks. C. J. (2013). Impact of Different Particle Size Distributions on
Anaerobic Digestion of The Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste.
Waste Management, Volume 33, pg 297–307.