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.