Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Review Slaughterhouse wastewater characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat processing industry: A review on trends and advances Ciro Fernando Bustillo-Lecompte a, Mehrab Mehrvar b, * a b Graduate Programs in Environmental Applied Science and Management, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada Department of Chemical Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 15 May 2015 Received in revised form 1 July 2015 Accepted 2 July 2015 Available online xxx A thorough review of advancement in slaughterhouse wastewater (SWW) characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat processing industry is presented. This study also provides a general review of the environmental impacts, health effects, and regulatory frameworks relevant to the SWW management. A significant progress in high-rate anaerobic treatment, nutrient removal, advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), and the combination of biological treatment and AOPs for SWW treatment is highlighted. The treatment processes are described and few examples of their applications are given. Conversely, few advances are accounted in terms of waste minimization and water use reduction, reuse, and recycle in slaughterhouses, which may offer new alternatives for cost-effective waste management. An overview of the most frequently applied technologies and combined processes for organic and nutrient removal during the last decade is also summarized. Several types of individual and combined processes have been used for the SWW treatment. Nevertheless, the selection of a particular technology depends on the characteristics of the wastewater, the available technology, and the compliance with regulations. This review facilitates a better understanding of current difficulties that can be found during production and management of the SWW, including treatment and characteristics of the final effluent. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Slaughterhouse wastewater (SWW) Wastewater treatment Combined processes Biological treatment Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) 1. Introduction The increasing growth of world population has augmented the pollution of freshwater due to the inadequate discharge of waste~o water, especially in developing countries (US EPA, 2004; Leita et al., 2006; Gopala Krishna et al., 2009; Feng et al., 2009). For this reason, water and wastewater treatment has become crucial for the continuing development of the society. Moreover, the progressively stricter standards for effluent discharge worldwide have made the developing of advanced wastewater treatment technologies necessary (Environment Canada, 2000, 2012; US EPA, 2004; World Bank Group, 2007). Besides, the continuing decreasing availability of freshwater resources has rearranged the objectives in the wastewater treatment field from disposal to reuse and recycling. As a result, a high level of treatment efficiency has to be achieved. Given the differences in location, economic resources, * Corresponding author. E-mail address:
[email protected] (M. Mehrvar). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.008 0301-4797/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. living standards of different countries, and characteristics of water and its pollutants, many nations adopt diverse techniques for water and wastewater treatment (Daigger, 2009). The meat processing sector produces large volumes of slaughterhouse wastewater (SWW) due to the slaughtering of animals and cleaning of the slaughterhouse facilities and meat processing plants (MPPs). The meat processing industry uses 24% of the total freshwater consumed by the food and beverage industry (Table 1) and up to 29% of that consumed by the agricultural sector worldwide (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). SWW composition varies significantly depending on the diverse industrial processes and specific water demand (Matsumura and Mierzwa, 2008; Debik and Coskun, 2009; Bustillo-Lecompte et al., 2013, 2014). Slaughterhouses are part of a large industry, which is common to numerous countries worldwide where meat is an important part of their diet. Therefore, SWWs require significant treatment for a safe and sustainable release to the environment (Johns, 1995). Nevertheless, review articles on SWW and the meat processing industry are not widely available (Bull et al., 1982; Tritt and Schuchardt, 1992; Johns, 1995; Salminen and Rintala, 2002; 1992. Therefore. 2014) in order to gather information on the current characteristics of the actual SWW. common practices on storage. 2013).. M. commonly discharge the SWW into the municipal sewer system after preliminary onsite treatment (Mittal. SWW is usually evaluated in Regulations and guidelines are essential components in dealing with the environmental impact of slaughterhouses in the meat processing industry. 1995. which yields Table 2 General characteristics of slaughterhouse wastewater. 2000). cleaning agents. 2006). Bustillo-Lecompte et al. Besides.900 50e841 270e6400 4. guidelines.. and turbidity. 2009). among others. 2012. along with SWW characteristics. SWW is considered detrimental worldwide due to its complex composition of fats. As a result. FAO. 2014). Furthermore. (2013) have projected a steady doubling growth of meat production until 2050. It is also important to note that disinfectant.288 C. and only 2% utilize grease trap for fat separation and blood collection. usually containing considerable amounts of total phosphorus (TP). 53% of Ontario's slaughterhouses do not treat their wastewater prior to disposal. there were 10 SWW samples taken from selected provincially licensed MPPs at the time of study. Wu and Mittal.01e100 175e400 200e300 546 1209 4221 427 1164 6. and water reuse. Arvanitoyannis and Ladas. there are approximately 142 MPPs in Ontario that can process 100e200 animals per month. 1997. 2014). and disposal. 2011. Parameter Range Mean TOC (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/L) COD (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) pH TP (mg/L) Orto-PO4 (mg/L) Orto-P2O5 (mg/L) K (mg/L) Color (mg/L Pt scale) Turbidity (FAUa) 70e1200 150e4635 500e15. and the type of treatment.F. pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms. Wu and Mittal. Thirty-nine questionnaires were returned for an overall response rate of 30. or disposal methods used in Ontario. including biological treatment. and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (Tritt and Schuchardt. 2009). 2007). Canada. 2012. representing an increase of 29% over eight years (FAO. In the present study. total nitrogen (TN). SWW contains high levels of organics. Canada. Slaughterhouse wastewater guidelines and regulations The global meat production was doubled in the last three decades (Mekonnen and Hoekstra. 1992). Moreover. proteins. the production of beef has been increasing continuously in recent years. 2006. chemical oxygen demand (COD). 2011. which makes slaughterhouses a significant producer of wastewater effluents (De Sena et al. Mittal. storage.47%. Only 16% of Ontario's slaughterhouses use dissolved air flotation (DAF) or aeration. SWW samples also include nutrients. type of animals processed.10 25e200 20e100 10e80 0. Furthermore. advanced oxidation processes (AOPs). terms of bulk parameters due to the specific amounts of SWW and pollutant loads related to the animals slaughtered and processed that vary among the meat processing industry. The treatment systems used in the meat processing industry are commonly viewed as a regulatory requirement. Thus. it operates 30 weeks per year. The major part of the contamination is caused by blood and by stomach and intestinal mucus (Tritt and Schuchardt. The World Bank Group (2007) classifies a slaughterhouse plant as a meat processing facility that may consume between 2. This review aims to identify the most recent trends and advances in meat processing effluent management and SWW treatment technologies. and de and tergents and disinfectants used for cleaning activities (Masse Masse.5 and 40 m3 of water per metric tons of meat produced. it can be inferred that the number of slaughterhouse facilities will increase. treatment. 2013. total suspended solids (TSS). performance. and fibers from the slaughtering process (Johns. It was found that 51% of the MPPs do not treat their wastewater onsite. and regulations. design. According to Table 1.95 50 25 20 90 290 275 a FAU. MMPs usually pay fines to dispose of their wastewater at and Masse. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Table 1 Freshwater consumption in beverage and food industries. 2013). slaughters approximately 600 animals per day. 2000. Food industry Water consumption (%) Meat processing Beverages Dairy Other food Fruits and vegetables Bakery and tortilla products Grain and oilseeds Sugar and confectionary Animal food Seafood 24 13 12 11 10 9 9 5 5 2 Mittal. the assessment of possible alternatives to minimize operational and maintenance (O&M) costs is also discussed. municipal wastewater treatment plants (Masse According to Wu and Mittal (2011). this study presents current technologies based on the technical advances in efficiency. slaughterhouses and MPPs in Ontario.90e8. Characterization of slaughterhouse wastewater 3. 17% use aerobic treatment. Bustillo-Lecompte. and mean water usage per day of 2000 m3. and optimization of the SWW treatment processes for organics and nutrient removal. resulting in a greater volume of high-strength wastewater to be treated. The remaining 31% of slaughterhouses utilize passive systems such as storage tank or lagoon to settle solids. Barrera et al. Common SWW characteristics have been described in previous studies and summarized in Table 2. a typical MPP in Ontario has been established more than 20 years ago. formazine attenuation units. BustilloLecompte et al. 2. From 2002 to 2007.7 106 metric tons. 2011. According to Mittal (2006). the annual global production of beef was increased to 14. 2006. rather characterization of microorganisms present in SWW and disinfection are the main focus in recent years (Franke-Whittle and Insam. Table 3 shows overall SWW characteristics gathered from the returned questionnaires and the 10 SWW samples. with a maximum capacity of over 2500 animals/day. the meat processing industry is one of the major consumers of freshwater among food and beverage processing facilities. 2008). heavy metals. 2013)... 32% utilize passive systems such as storage tanks to settle solids. color. Cao and Mehrvar. Furthermore. combined processes. total organic carbon (TOC). management. mostly in India and China due to income increases and the shift toward a western-like diet rich in proteins (Pingali. . 1992). Thus. 1995.e. Debik and Coskun. a questionnaire was distributed to 128 slaughterhouses licensed by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA. it increases capital and O&M costs. Ruiz et al. DAF. i. and pharmaceuticals for veterinary purposes can be present in the SWW (Tritt and Schuchardt. Bouwman et al.. Johns. 2014). .. primary. The first step in SWW management is the minimization of the process inputs (Johns. typically the separation of solids from the liquor by sedimentation or coagulation/flocculation. Mittal. formazine attenuation units.2 0.. For that reason.1 48. streams.5e1718 60e339 25. San Jose Eryuruk et al. For instance. anaerobic systems require less complex equipment since no aeration system is required. 1982. Johns. the limits of BOD and TSS are 5. but they can be divided into five major subgroups: land application.9 30. AOPs. biological treatment. The standards and regulations governing the meat processing industry vary significantly worldwide. SWWs have been considered as an industrial waste in the category of agricultural and food industries and classified as one of the most harmful wastewaters to the environment by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006.. SWW management methods after preliminary treatment are various. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages.9 3092 5577 2649 862 156 42.0e6. US EPA (2004).. Physicochemical treatment involves the separation of the SWW into various components. Vymazal. 4. secondary. 2014.1e15 a In the case of Canadian standards. SWW treatment methods are similar to current technologies used in municipal wastewater and may include preliminary. 2014. which are discussed below. 2013). some MPPs are allowed to discharge their effluent into the municipal sewer system after demonstrating an adequate reduction of BOD loads by Direct discharge of raw SWW effluents to a water body is impractical due to their high organic strength. Kist et al. 2009). which have their own advantages and disadvantages (Bull et al. including the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC. 2011).2e76.. Bugallo et al. and even tertiary treatment. either anaerobic or aerobic processes should not be used as the sole treatment alternative because of the characteristics of their final effluents that are required to comply with current effluent discharge limits and standards (Chan et al. However. Almandoz et al. . Bustillo-Lecompte et al. Benefits of the combined anaerobiceaerobic processes include potential resource recovery from the conversion of organic pollutants into biogas with high overall treatment efficiency (Chan et al. gies (Bull et al. Therefore. SWW discharge may cause deoxygenation of rivers and contamination of groundwater (US EPA.a. 2015). San Jose Mittal. physicochemical treatment.. Thus.F. a complete degradation of organic matter present in SWW is not conceivable using anaerobic treatment alone. Typically. Mittal. and estuaries.5 a 289 preliminary treatment (Mittal. 1995. and nutrients (Amorim et al. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment FAU. Nevertheless. 178e391 271e279 6. 2004. a regular slaughterhouse generates vast amounts of wastewater and is commonly not an efficient user of fresh water. In several countries. Aerobic systems are more common since they commonly operate at a higher rate than anaerobic systems. Environment Canada (2000. negative financial impacts (Sneeringer. Although typical water consumption varies considerably in the meat processing business. and 30 mg/L in freshwater lakes and slow-flowing streams.04 34. 1995. 2009).39e9938 527e15. MPP effluents contain solubilized organic material that is adequate for posttreatment using aerobic systems. However.. 2004. 2006). The main factors determining whether a plant can discharge into a municipal sewer or not are related to the plant size as well as the volume and organic concentration of the wastewater produced (US EPA. AOPs are diverse and include UV/H2O2 and UV/O3 for the oxidation and Table 4 Comparison of standard limits of different jurisdictions worldwide for slaughterhouse wastewater discharge. 1991). and removal of pollutants using electrocoagulation (EC) and membrane technolo. SWWs may contain toxic and non-biodegradable organic substances that make biological treatment alone insufficient (Oller et al. Bustillo-Lecompte. M. compliance with current environmental legislation may provide an extra source of revenue by including energy recovery from the treatment. refractory. 2000)...256 200e8231 72. 2015). preliminary treatment. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Table 3 Characteristics of slaughterhouse wastewater from selected provincially inspected meat processing plants in Ontario. Parameter World Bank standards EU standards US standards Canadian standardsa Australian standards BOD (mg/L) COD (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) 30 125 50 10 25 125 35 10 26 n/a 30 8 5e30 n/a 5e30 1 6e10 3 BOD 10e15 0. Table 4 describes the standard levels and concentration limits of organic constituents to be discharged into water bodies as recommended by different worldwide agencies.. advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) can be employed as an alternative to improve the SWW biodegradability containing recalcitrant. anaerobic treatment is used because of the high organic concentrations present in SWWs (Cao and Mehrvar. 2005).8 52. whereas. non-biodegradable.. 2009). nevertheless. such as biogas production from anaerobic treatment. 2006). Thus.. 1992. appropriated disposal. 1995). Akbaripoor et al. 2007. and combined processes (Valta et al. It is usually preferable to identify and minimize wastewater generation at its source. both anaerobic and aerobic systems may be further sub-divided into other processes.3 289 275 6. 1982. 1982.C.. 2011. 2009. among others. slaughterhouses are regulated by tradition and practice (Casani et al.7e75. 2006. biogas. Nevertheless. and shoreline. the selection of a particular treatment technology is subject to the SWW characteristics. 20.3 0. fertilizers. available technology. rivers.01e0. and toxic compounds. 2014). 2004). 2004). Parameter Range Mean TSS (mg/L) COD (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Orto-PO4 (mg/L) Orto-P2O5 (mg/L) K (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) Color (mg/L Pt scale) Turbidity (FAUa) pH 0. Tritt and Schuchardt. Recovery of valuable by-products from SWW is currently focused on high-quality effluents. Johns. Land application usually involves direct irrigation of the SWW onto agricultural land (Bull et al. 2012). respectively.06 n.3 27.. Biological treatment are divided into anaerobic and aerobic systems as well as constructed wetlands (CWs).. the Council of the European Communities (CEC. and/or further treatment of SWW are performed. and compliance with current regulations.1e77. 2006.. Results show maximum COD. and 41..8% for TSS. and TSS removal efficiencies of up to 65. One of the typical methods of the primary treatment is the DAF process. clogging. soil contamination. respectively. Hence. 2006. Melo et al. Preliminary treatment In preliminary treatment. and COD. Barrera et al. lime. Bayar et al. 4. Electrocoagulation The EC process has been recently used for SWW treatment as a cost-effective advanced wastewater treatment technology. using polyaluminum chloride as the reagent. On the other hand. Large solids in wastewater with a diameter of 10e30 mm are retained on the mesh of the screener. where the air is introduced from the bottom of the vessel. among others. thus. Among these coagulants. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 degradation of organic and inorganic materials present in SWW through reactions with hydroxyl radicals (OH) (Mittal. 1995. 1999. 2005). Mittal. Thus. and alum were used. dewater. volume can be reduced by 41. 4..6%. Dissolved air flotation DAF systems refer to the wateresolid separation method by introducing air into a SWW influent.3. Therefore. 2006). 2006. light solids. flotation. At the end. Al. nutrients.3. 2008). Whereas. DAF drawbacks are related to regular malfunctioning and poor TSS separation (Kiepper. De Nardi et al. 2009. De Nardi et al. using combined ferrous sulfate and anionic polyelectrolyte. Physicochemical treatment methods Following preliminary treatment. On the other hand.. 2014). Emamjomeh and Sivakumar. Fe. BOD. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. energy usage related to the treatment and transportation increases. Fig. and 43.. and alum as coagulants. 2004). the combination of lime and alum also results in an increased COD removal of up to 42. screening can separate up to 60% of the solids from the SWW and remove more than 30% of the BOD (Mittal. TSS. 2011. 2011. and even pathogens from SWW by introducing an electric current without adding chemicals (Kobya et al.. The combination of ferrous sulfate and lime improves the COD removal rate to 56.. 2008. and 98%. Likewise. Different physicochemical treatment technologies are discussed in the following subsections. The efficiency of the DAF system can be enhanced by adding polymers and other flocculants for pH adjustment and flocculation of particulate matter. One drawback of the land application is related to the temperature . and it is necessary to balance the pH after addition of the coagulant in order to achieve an appropriate flocculation (San . Pt. and Jose aluminum chlorohydrate have been used as coagulants to treat SWW. 2006. 2008. these sacrificial electrodes might be interacting with Hþ ions in an acidic medium. if inorganic coagulant aids are used. 2006. 4. if alum is used in combination with lime. Satyanarayan et al. SnO2. Furthermore. TiO2.. 2013). 2011)... TN. EC has been confirmed to be an effective technology for the removal of organics. Typical unit operations for the preliminary removal of TSS in wastewater include regular screeners. respectively. COD. 2014).290 C. 2008. Finally combined processes are cost-effective with high removal efficiencies that can lead to a reduction in O&M costs compared to individual processes (Tritt and Schuchardt. and 75. fat. De Sena et al.3. lime alone achieves removal rates of up to 38.8. Results show that as the alum dose increases. ferrous sulfate. Additionally. Screw screen compactors are used to transport... 4. Physicochemical treatment methods usually involve the separation of solids from the liquid. homogenization/ equalization.. and COD from SWW. the EC process involves onsite generation of M3þ ions using sacrificial anodes. Mittal. all solids and large particles generated during the slaughtering process are separated from wastewater. the SWW requires to be stored during that period. respectively. advantages of land application include the recovery of useful by-products from the SWW. (2012) used lime and alum individually and in combination as coagulants for the treatment of SWW. possible surface and groundwater pollution. and TSS. Cao and Mehrvar. 2011. Aguilar et al. COD removal increases to a maximum of 92% along with the sludge volume. which makes the process not feasible. Results show that although alum was effective for the removal of TP and TSS from SWW. Other pretreatments include catch basins. volume in order to be treated as solid waste (San Jose 2006). For instance. odor. respectively. TSS.2. ferric sulfate. 34.. (2005) studied the physicochemical treatment of SWW effluent using anionic polyelectrolyte. respectively. alternative source of fertilizer. Aluminum sulfate. Bustillo-Lecompte.2. 4. Kobya et al. 1992.8%. and BOD in SWW (Al-Mutairi et al.9. although not cost-effective. Qin et al. or with OH ions in an alkaline medium (Bayramoglu et al. whereas the sludge settling was high. an increase in lime dosage increased the COD reduction to a maximum of 74%.. M.1. 49. where a scraping assembly constantly removes scum. Conversely. The ideal size for separation during flotation is searched. 4.3.. depending on the strength of the SWW. or sieves. ferric sulfate. 2011. Other disadvantages include aesthetics. Luiz et al. and the sludge volume decreased as compared to that of alum. 2001).F. 2011. Results show TP. strainers. The coagulationeflocculation technology was used by Amuda and Alade (2006) at the laboratory-scale for the removal of TP. being Fe and Al the most widely used. Tariq et al. ferric chloride.9% for BOD. heavy metals. 2006). minimizing the moisture content and . Bayar .0%. and improvement of soil structure (Mittal. can be utilized as electrodes for the EC process. the generation of sludge is increased.6. and compact all the remaining solids from the previous screeners. biodegradable materials can be used to provide nutrients to the soil by directly placing them into the land. 2009. 36... 2004. Mittal. 1 illustrates a typical EC reactor.3.. 2006. Conversely. results in good removal rates of up to 54. 2013. Chan et al. especially for reducing fat.1. Rotary screeners are used to retain solids with a diameter of more than 0. 2009. Luiz et al.2.6% (Nún 2002. 2004). TP. and settlers.9. 88. The DAF process efficiencies for COD and BOD removal are usually from 30 to 90% and from 70 to 80%. DAF systems are also capable of achieving moderate to high nutrient removal (Johns. Several coagulants including ferric chloride. 2012.5 mm in order to avoid fouling. the land appliand the geography (San Jose cation in temperate countries is not feasible throughout the year due to the winter season. Coagulation and flocculation Coagulants and flocculants are added into a reactor vessel where the floc is conditioned. Moreover. and pathogens presence and persistence (Avery et al. 2004. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. 2013. it is recommended to send the effluent to a subsequent primary or secondary treatment.1. Al-Mutairi et al. Blood coagulants such as ferric chloride and aluminum sulfate can be also added to the SWW to promote protein aggregation and precipitation in addition to fat and grease flotation. the sludge ~ ez et al. Cao and Mehrvar. and grease are transported to the surface forming a sludge blanket. and COD removals of up to 99. Land application In land application. ferric sulfate was more efficient in reducing COD.. 2011). or jamming of the equipment. the combined dosages of lime and alum give a maximum removal of 85% in COD with low sludge volume. and electrode number.22. Thus.52e94. respectively. nanofiltration (NF). making the ceramic CM suitable for MF treatment of SWW. 50. TN. Awang et al. 87.. et al. 96.. Similar results were obtained by Ozyonar and Karagozoglu (2014). An UF membrane was utilized in the MBR. BOD. Although high organic removal can be achieved by membrane processes. Furthermore.3. High removal efficiencies at low pH and current density values were obtained. (2011) used the EC process for the post-treatment of SWW. TOC. membrane processes can face Büyükgüngo major problems of fouling while processing highly concentrated feed streams such as SWW. (2011. Likewise. Nevertheless. 65. 2005. Results showed that the UF could be an efficient purification method by achieving 98 and 99% removal of TSS and fats. The optimum conditions were obtained at COD influent concentrations of 220 mg/L. sacrificial electrodes (Fe and Al) depreciation.8. Kobya et al. Reverse osmosis (RO). and 13. denitrification is required to further treat this effluent. and 102 mg/L. electrode material. whereas maximum oilegrease efficiency was obtained using Fe as the electrode material. (2006) studied the influence of pH. and macromolecules depending on the pore size (Table 5). Therefore. 3.63%. respectively. 97. Ozyonar and Karagozoglu. operating time. (2008) evaluated the EC process in economic terms for the removal of organic compounds from SWW. 93. respectively. COD. respectively.C. with total operating costs between 0. 4. and COD. 16. The effects of current density.81. (2012) examined the performance of EC for SWW treatment in a batch system using Fe electrodes.40 $/m3. the characteristics of the influent SWW for RO treatment were 76. it was found that further work is required at the pilot-scale to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EC process. and operating time. Results showed a removal efficiency of 85. Yordanov (2010) investigated the feasibility of using UF for SWW treatment. respectively.71 $/m3 of treated SWW effluent. Thus.0 mg/L for COD.30.00% was achieved for color. 2014). COD. of 0. Up to 44.5 mA/cm2 at pH of 3. BOD. (2006) with a particular focus on COD removal. and 90. M. Although organic matter was successfully removed. a high nitrate concentration in the treated effluent remained. and current density near 30 mA/cm2. 93.80e97. Asselin et al. microorganisms. and influent COD on color. BOD. respectively. TP. and TN. and sludge disposal. . operating time. The efficiencies of BOD and COD removals were 97. Up to 93% of COD was removed using Al as the electrode material. Biological treatment Reducing BOD concentration in SWW is the main focus of the secondary treatment by removing soluble organic compounds that remain after primary treatment (Pierson and Pavlostathis.0.4. ultrafiltration (UF).6. 84. Thus. Thus. 2011. electricity. including energy. a removal response of 96. (2006). The raw SWW was first pretreated using activated sludge (AS). electrode consumptions. (2015) evaluated the effectiveness of a MF ceramic composite membrane (CM). and COD. Membrane processes are also increasingly used for removal of bacteria. turbidity.0. reaching 98% removal. after RO treatment.87 $/m3. Organic matter and nutrient removal rates were improved by augmenting current density.0%. 2011).0. Al electrodes were found less cost-effective than Fe electrodes with total costs of 2. 55 min reaction time. 4. Results show that using mild steel bipolar electrodes achieves COD. Membrane technology Membrane technology is becoming an alternative for SWW treatment. € r (2011) investigated the performance of Gürel and Büyükgüngo membrane bioreactors (MBRs) for nutrients and organics removal from SWW. Bayar et al. and 90. and 81% for BOD.. it can be concluded that RO is a feasible technology for SWW post-treatment. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 291 respectively. involving a total cost. Results show that Fe sacrificial electrodes are more cost-effective than Al electrodes. chemicals.5. Thus. 81. nearly 50% of the total costs of using Al. 2000). Bohdziewicz and Sroka (2005) studied the performance of the RO process for SWW treatment as secondary effluent.80. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for the treatment of SWW using EC was conducted by Bayramoglu et al. and current density of the EC process for SWW treatment on oilegrease and COD removal. Fig. respectively. Total operating cost included O&M.0. as well as TOC. still nutrients' removals require this process to be coupled with another conventional process (Gürel and €r. Other performance parameters included pH. 2014. respectively. which is difficult to remove and can greatly restrict the permeation rate through the membranes due to the formation of thick biofouling layers onto the membrane surfaces (He et al. and microfiltration (MF) processes are able to remove particles. 10. 94. sacrificial electrode and electrical energy consumption. respectively. The results show a total insoluble residue rejections of 100%. and sludge handling costs. high bacterial removal (87e99%). Selmane et al. Likewise.. for COD. TP. COD removal efficiencies of up to 85% were obtained with the current density of 0. Schematic diagram of a typical electrocoagulation unit. TN.89 and 94. 2015). Thus. and organic matter in SWW treatment (Almandoz et al. 2008). and 97% removals were obtained for TN. and TSS. and oilegrease removals of up to 84.30 and 0. and BOD removal efficiencies were investigated using a 3-level factorial design and response surface methodology (RSM).F. 2014) studied the influence of current density and pH on the treatment of SWW by means of EC with Al electrodes. and 99%. respectively. 45. Experiments were conducted at laboratory pilot-scale by using mild steel and Al sacrificial electrodes.74%.4. Almandoz et al. On the other hand. Ahmadian et al. and COD removal rates of 44. Bustillo-Lecompte. BOD. colloids. reaction time. and TN. which is comparable to that found by Bayramoglu et al. Results show removal efficiencies of up to 97. TP. and 85. current density. particulates. 1. TSS. The initial COD. when calculating total costs for Al and Fe sacrificial electrodes at optimum conditions. TP. and TN concentrations were 571.76 and 0. 1999. the biological treatment is able to remove up to 90% BOD from MPP effluents by aerobic or anaerobic processes (Mittal. AS. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Table 5 Comparison of different membrane dimensions and pore size exclusion used in SWW treatment.. Biological treatment may include different combinations of various processes including anaerobic.F. in which the removal of organic matter and other constituents such as TN. Individual biological treatment using an ABR at a laboratoryscale was studied by Bustillo-Lecompte et al. 2. ABRs are considered an optimized version of a common septic tank. hydraulic retention time (HRT). 4.52e94. 2014). 2009. A typical anaerobic filter is presented in Fig. 2009. it hardly produces effluents that comply with current discharge limits and standards (Table 4).2. where aerobic and anaerobic digestion are used as individual or combined processes depending on the characteristics of the SWW being treated (Martínez et al. Since there is an increased contact time with the active biomass. Furthermore. Cao and Mehrvar (2011) evaluated the performance of the combined ABR and UV/H2O2 processes at a laboratory-scale to treat SWW. 2005). Typical configurations for SWW anaerobic treatment include anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR). ABRs have a series of compartments and baffles under which the SWW flows under and over from the inlet to the outlet. M.4. biogas production is an important asset to be used due to its potential energy recovery that will be translated into cost savings for MPPs because of the characteristics of SWWs (Bustillo-Lecompte et al. and trickling filters among others (Masse 2000).. Biological treatment is used to remove organics and eventually pathogens from SWW effluents using microorganisms. 1995). 2000. (2014) also evaluated the effectiveness and performance of the ABR process for the treatment of SWW using a CEA by assessing the total electricity cost. When the SWW runs through the filtration chambers.38 mgTN/ L. Anaerobic filters (AFs) are fixed-bed biological reactors with filtration chambers. (2013) to treat SWW with an influent concentration of 183. 2013). Maximum removals of TOC and TN were achieved by up to 88. . Besides. Schematic diagram of a typical anaerobic filter system. and facultative and Masse. lagoons. Results show that combined processes had higher removal efficiencies for SWW treatment rather than using individual processes. 2006. the ABR as an individual process can be comparable to combined processes in economic terms since electricity costs gradually increase. 2. particles are confined inside. Mittal. 2006. 2014). TP. Anaerobic treatment Anaerobic digestion is the preferred biological treatment that is applied in SWW treatment due to its effectiveness in treating highstrength wastewater (Cao and Mehrvar. Results show that costs increase with the amount of TOC removed. During anaerobic treatment. Although anaerobic treatment possesses great advantages.80e97. Rajakumar et al.8 days of treatment. 2010). AFs are commonly found working in series. a higher biodegradation occurs. Generally speaking. As a result. 2006). is completed (Chernicharo.100 0. Thus..74 85. Moreover..1.89 50.00 Almandoz et al.63 83. The upflow compartments provide an improved removal of organics with BOD and COD removals of up to 90% (Barber and Stuckey. 2009. Bustillo-Lecompte. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. anaerobic filter (AF).. low sludge production (5e20%) compared to those of aerobic systems.00e97. Membrane type Pore size (mm) TOC removal (%) COD removal (%) BOD removal (%) TN removal (%) Reference Microfiltration (MF) Ultrafiltration (UF) Ultrafiltration (UF) Reverse Osmosis (RO) 0. then.00e96. 1992). Anaerobic filter. recovery (Masse Bustillo-Lecompte et al. Oliveira and Von Sperling. The results showed that COD removal efficiencies of up to 90% can be achieved for organic loading rates (OLRs) of 9000 mg/L day under mesophilic conditions and 72% under thermophilic conditions. Chan et al. The performance of up-flow anaerobic filters (UAFs) has been examined under thermophilic and mesophilic conditions for SWW treatment (Gannoun et al.1. 4. anaerobically treated effluents usually need additional post-treatment. (2015) €r (2011) Gürel and Büyükgüngo Yordanov (2010) Bohdziewicz and Sroka (2005) Biological treatment is usually applied as a secondary treatment process in MPPs. although anaerobic treatment is an efficient process.080e0. the organic material is removed by the active biomass attached to the filter surface..1. Hence. if low or intermediate amounts of TOC are to be removed. organic compounds are degraded by different bacteria into CO2 and CH4 in the absence of oxygen.001e0.52%.4. Therefore.81 75. and removal percentage of TOC. anaerobic systems have several advantages such as high COD removal.. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. anaerobic lagoon (AL). 4. the associated higher spaceetime yield contributes considerably to the economic viability of anaerobic treatment plants (Tritt and Schuchardt.550 0. Kus¸çu and Sponza. (2011) evaluated the performance of an UAF Fig.88 and 51. the combination of anaerobiceaerobic systems is a potential alternative to conventional methods in order to satisfy current effluent discharge standards (Chan et al. up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB). and pathogenic organisms.1. Anaerobic baffled reactor.35 mgTOC/L and 63.030 0. aerobic. 2011). Maximum TOC removals of up to 95% were obtained for influent concentrations of 973 mgTOC/L after 3. the SWW organic strength makes it difficult to achieve complete stabilization of the organic compounds (Chan et al. and anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (SBR).292 C.005 44. AFs are used as secondary treatment due to its high solid removal and biogas recovery rates.00 45. An AF is designed as an anaerobic digestion column packed with different types of media (Mittal.00 e e 90.4.80 e e 97..00 94. Gomec. respectively. 2013). 2009. 2009). and less energy requirements with potential nutrient and biogas and Masse.22 27e44 e 90. especially if high TOC removal rates are required. 2006).010e0. Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor and anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. A maximum 95% removal of BOD was obtained with OLRs up to 31. Caldera et al. results show that by reducing HRT to less than 10 h in the UASB. Therefore. aerobic bacteria are accountable for the removal of organic materials in the presence of oxygen. Miranda et al. n and Ge lvez (2009) evaluated the performance of a 144 m3 Pabo full-scale AS reactor for SWW treatment. synthetic floating covers are used to trap odor and collect biogas. 2014). ALs are popular in countries where weather and land availability permit the construction of lagoons for the treatment of SWW (Johns. respectively. COD removal efficiencies increased proportionally to OLRs. The feeding. temperature change. Typical ALs are constructed with a depth of 3e5 m for HRTs of 5e10 days. Efficiencies of ALs to remove BOD. 2004). solid as biomass.2. the biological process is very similar. UASB reactors consist of three stages: liquid as SWW. 2006). and . recommended for SWW treatment (Johns. M. settling. The AS process has been widely applied in different industries as a commonly known cost-effective method for the treatment of SWW. Moreover. Two distinct mechanisms are applied in AS. 2006). Moreover. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 reactor for SWW treatment under low up-flow velocity at mesophilic conditions of up to 35 C. providing sufficient heating power for the SWW treatment plant. 96. Bustillo-Lecompte.790 mg/L.4. The lower velocity used in the study conducted by Rajakumar et al. Essentially. an intermittent feeding strategy of the SWW influent eliminates the need for a recycling stream or an . COD removals of 79% were achieved at OLRs of 10. The performance of AF bioreactors for SWW treatment was assessed by Stets et al. wind. (2014) by evaluating the influence of the characteristics of the support medium. (2014) compared the effectiveness of two upflow anaerobic packed-bed filters (UAPFs) for SWW treatment at a laboratory-scale. The production of CH4 was assessed at various OLRs and feeding conditions. in order to optimize the performance of anaerobic SBRs.. and exits at the top of the vessel. rotating biological contactors (RBCs).4. The COD removal reached 60% for an influent concentration of up to 15. 4. 2012). (2005) evaluated the removal of BOD from SWW Cha 293 using 3 L UASB reactors and a 3-levels factorial design and RSM.4. substrate. with temperature values ranging between 25 and 39 C at HRTs between 3. Influent COD concentrations were varied from 1820 to 12.F. The average produced methane varied between 46 and 56%. 2006. COD removal efficiencies of up to 90% were obtained with the influent COD concentrations of 3437 mg/L. Mittal. 2006).3. Anaerobic lagoon. The wastewater influent usually flows from the bottom of the lagoon.C. AS systems treating SWW produce poor settling flocs because of fats present in SWW influents and low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. and using different packing material.800 mg/L. The results demonstrated an adequate efficiency of the UASB reactor to treat SWW of up to 94. Bulk SWW parameters including BOD. (2011) analyzed the performance of a UASB reactor under ambient conditions for SWW treatment after solid separation.05 kg/m3 day and HRT of 12 h. Thus. 4.000 mg/L under optimum conditions. 4. the biomass film. respectively. A typical AS system is depicted in Fig. adsorption and oxidation of the organic matter (Bull et al. sludge wash out appears and lower COD removal efficiencies of less than 70% are obtained (Rajakumar et al. The purpose of the AS process is to remove soluble and insoluble organics from the wastewater and to change this material into a flocculent microbial suspension that is then settled in a clarifier. Activated sludge process. Three AF configurations were studied using different support media resulting in maximum COD removals of up to 80% and TN removals of up to 90% at HRT of 1 day. McCabe et al. COD. The UAPF was proven to be self-sufficient in terms of energy requirements. Mittal. 1995). flows upward through the sludge blanket. 2014). (2005) assessed the performance of an 800 m3 UASB for SWW treatment. respectively (US EPA. equalizing tank (Masse and Masse UASB reactors are similar to anaerobic SBRs. ALs are the preferred option because of their simplicity and low O&M costs (McCabe et al. these covers must be durable to resist inclement weather. ALs are not mechanically mixed. Typical configurations for SWW aerobic treatment Jose include activated sludge (AS). under mesophilic conditions.1. a posttreatment is required to comply with current water quality standards for water body discharge. Thus.5 h. and TSS have been reported to be 97. On the other hand. (2005) evaluated the performance of a UASB reactor of 4 L at mesophilic conditions for the treatment of SWW. and microorganisms present in the sludge. Aerobic treatment is commonly used for final decontamination and removal of nutrients after using physicochemical or anaerobic techniques (Chernicharo.38 L/s with a 2-day HRT. Influent concentrations of COD and oil and grease (O&G) were in the range of 1400e3600 and 413e645 mg/L. The HRT are longer than that of typical municipal wastewater treatment plants to guarantee a sludge age in the range of 5e20 days. ensuring anaerobic conditions and low heat loss. Oxygen was injected using a highefficiency air equipment. reactions. and 95%. An anaerobic SBR requires low capital and O&M costs. and gas as CO2 and CH4 produced during digestion (Mittal. Aerobic reactors may have several configurations.. COD. Mijalova Nacheva et al. Thus. and although some gas mixing may be present. O&G and COD removal efficiencies reached 27e58 and 70e92%. 2004. AS is an aerobic treatment method that brings the effluent into contact with air and free floating flocs of microorganisms including bacteria and protozoa. 3. 2005). 9040. 2008). Results show that the UASB performance was enhanced when influent COD/O&G ratios remained at 10%. and decanting stages take place in the same basin and anaerobic SBRs also eliminate the requirements of complete mixing.. Martinez et al. The UASB process uses granules to capture bacteria. 2006).4. 2008). The main drawbacks of ALs are related to odor regeneration and weather conditions. 4. Al-Mutairi. Although UASB reactors are found to be efficient for SWW treatment. 2007. The UASB reactor showed an optimum COD removal efficiency of up to 90% at a HRT of 10 h. ice and snow accumulation (Mittal. a scum layer is typical to appear on the surface of the ALs. The average treated flow was 1. Mittal. 2006.31% for the removal of COD. 1982.1. intermittent and mixing may occur in the course of the reacting cycles (Masse Masse. Rajakumar and Meenambal (2008) evaluated the performance of the UASB process for SWW treatment.1.4. 2000.2. and aerobic SBR. Influent COD concentrations varied from 3000 to 4800 mg/L. However.. the SWW enters from the bottom of the reactor.5 and 4. Nevertheless. and being necessary to define if nitrogen removal is required (San . Del Nery et al. Design criteria of the AS process for SWW treatment require extended aeration to minimize the sludge production. and TSS with an influent concentration of 5242. Aerobic treatment In aerobic systems. vez et al. (2011) allowed an active microbial formation with stable pH demonstrating that SWW can be treated using AFs under low up-flow velocity. 1995. The treatment time and the amount of required oxygen increase suddenly with the strength of SWW.. Experiments were conducted for 90 days at HRT of 24 h. BOD. and COD.03% were achieved for TSS. settling. For an influent concentration of 639 mgTOC/L and 144 mgTN/L. there are five stages including filling.26%.66% and TN removals reached 43. During the fourth stage. the clean supernatant liquor exits the tank as the effluent. if low or intermediate amounts of TOC are to be removed.4. the TN removal efficiency increases considerably. Likewise.09. (2013. Bustillo-Lecompte. and idle. Rotary biological contactor. The performance of a 6-stage RBC pilot plant for post-treatment of SWW was investigated by Torkian et al. and the TP removal reached its maximum around 85e89%. Therefore. at an aeration rate of 0. (2008. aeration rates above 0. Filali-Meknassi et al. and ceftiofur from SWW in batch reactors. The overall removal efficiencies for BOD and COD decreased by increasing the OLR. the aeration of the mixed liquor is executed for the reactions to occur (aerobic phase). (2005a. Thus. On the other hand. Results show that at higher aeration rates. M. However. respectively. Two 10 L continuous-flow reactors running in parallel with internal recycle (IR) were used. High efficiencies for COD. performance. respectively. During the third stage. especially during the first stages of the system. respectively.73.4. The RBC process allows the wastewater to come in contact with a biological medium in order to absorb and metabolize the organic content as well as to remove other pollutants before discharge to the environment (Mittal. (2011) examined the performance of the AS system to treat SWW. were evaluated. respectively. At higher influent TOC and TN concentrations.15%. decanting/drawing. Results indicated successful post-treatment of SWW to meet regulatory requirements with a BOD removal efficiency of up to 88%. Hsiao et al. 3. Aerobic sequencing batch reactor. Predicted values were validated by the experimental values. 2973 mg/L. In an aerobic SBR.2. respectively.20% of COD from SWW.. Then.3. On the other hand.4 L/min. and TN removal of 95.2. Nevertheless. For instance. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. Conversely. TP.F. the TSS start to settle since there is no aeration or mixing. TN and COD removal efficiencies reached 34 and 90%. 2014) evaluated the effectiveness. these removal rates are still low for effluent discharge. 98.46% TN removals. tetracycline. 1995) compared to conventional aerobic treatment systems such as the AS process. (2008) assessed the influence of the aeration rate on organics and nutrients removal from SWW using two laboratory-scale SBRs operated at ambient temperature for 8 h.2. 2009) evaluated the performance of SBRs under 6 h cycles for SWW treatment. it is required to consider alternative methods for treating this effluent such as AOPs. the total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) removal rate ranged from 81. Schematic diagram of a typical activated sludge system. TOC removals reached 89. 89. and 89. Sludge bioreactors with initial pharmaceutical concentrations of 100 g/L presented removal rates of 68% for enrofloxacin and 77% for tetracycline from the aqueous phase.8 L/min permitted removal efficiencies of up to 97 and 95% for COD and TN. In the first stage. Al-Ahmady (2005) studied the COD removal in RBC systems as a function of the OLR. Maximum removal efficiencies of 94. and 97% were achieved. Johns. and TN removals reached 75. and costs of an AS reactor for the treatment of SWW using a CEA. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the COD residual concentration was highly sensitive to the variation of the maximum specific substrate utilization rate. The influent concentrations of TN and COD were 350 and 4000 mg/L. whereas at 8 days. .19% at HRT of 5 days. by means of the CEA. 2005b) studied the performance of an aerobic SBR for SWW treatment with influent concentrations of 5000 mgCOD/L and 360 mgTN/L. Carvalho et al. 1982. Results showed that sorption to wastewater organic content and biomass was accountable for a significant fraction of the pharmaceuticals removal. (2003).50 to 95. respectively. (2013) aimed to evaluate the role of AS process in the removal of veterinary drugs including enrofloxacin. Li et al. the feed enters the reactor while mixing is provided by mechanical means in the absence of air (anoxic phase). reaction. 2006). TOC removals reached 94. the AS process is comparable to combined processes in economic terms. 4. 4. it was found that the AS process is an efficient process with optimum TOC removal of up to 88% at a cost of 4 $/kg of TOC removed. The AS system at the temperature of 26 C removed up to 97. the TOC and TN removal are higher. Conversely.03% TOC and 73. respectively. Overall efficiencies were achieved for COD and TN in the range 95e96% and 95e97%. The aerobic AS reactor obtained the best performance under TOC and TN influent concentrations of 1009 and 254 mg/L with up to 95.294 C. Lemaire et al. the performance of an RBC to treat SWW has been reported as inadequate in literature (Bull et al. Fongsatitkul et al. (2012) evaluated different kinetic parameters for an AS reactor treating SWW using the Monod equation and compared to the data obtained from the experiment.60%. The COD removal efficiency reached up to 97. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Fig. producing a noticeable COD intensification.60%. A wide range of COD removal of 40e85% can be obtained when treating SWW by RBCs as a result of the specific OLR applied. 2008. to current biological processes.. (2012) for the treatment of SWW with HRT of 111 days and 89% 295 active volume. Mehrvar and Venhuis. 51. Hamad et al. the costs associated with this technology are its main drawback. 2012. Advanced oxidation processes AOPs are becoming an interesting alternative to conventional treatment and a complimentary treatment option. Up to 85. Results showed a COD removal of up to 95% at 8 h. the overall efficiency of ozonation in terms of BOD removals was in the order of 42%. 2012. biodegradation..27 to 71. Although the treatment system achieved satisfactory pollutant removals of 91. Mohajerani et al. COD.40%. and 98%. Cao and Mehrvar. BOD. the TP removal was null. and chemical processes that occur when microorganisms. respectively. and 85% for BOD5. On the other hand. TN. Influent concentrations of TN and COD were 90e180 and 950e1050 mg/L.C. (2014) evaluated the removal of TN from SWW at low temperatures of up to 11 C through partial nitrificationedenitrification by means of an 8-L SBR. Two vertical flow constructed wetlands (VFCWs) and one horizontal flow constructed wetland (HFCW) were used. respectively.13% removal efficiencies were achieved for TN and COD. especially in rural areas since the biological treatment is a cost-effective method (Chan et al. Under the intermittent aeration strategy. 2009. Low COD. and TSS efficiency removals were obtained at a dose rate of 0. 2015. A reasonable degree of nitrification between 74. photo-oxidation. 2006. Mehrvar and Tabrizi. 1800 mg/L. and TN. The UV/H2O2 process was five times more rapidly in degrading aromatics than UV only. The UV/H2O2 process has been found to be effective for SWW treatment. 2004. and 56e64 mg/L.20 to 25. soil. Edalatmanesh et al. 2014. water reuse. 2014. The optimum aeration rate was found to be 0. 2009. Mowla et al.03.. Furthermore. The CW accounted for 30% of the organic matter removal in the system. the maximum DO was fixed at 10% saturation.20% of COD. Up to 95. Nevertheless.. Up to 99% of microorganisms were inactivated. 2005..58 mg/L. 2005. AOPs may inactivate microorganisms without adding additional chemicals to the SWW in comparison to other techniques such as chlorination that are commonly used in water disinfection. plants. 99. 2012. a highly reactive species produced from the reaction of the H2O2 with the UV light (Tabrizi and Mehrvar. and 87% removal efficiencies were achieved for BOD. and TN from the SWW influent. 571. Nevertheless. Results showed that sand and gravel beds of CWs could be effective in removal of organic substances. up to 97. 98. Bustillo-Lecompte et al.. (2011. Zhan et al. 2009. respectively.12% was achieved for TN influent concentrations of 176. A total of 20 cycles were completed to investigate the kinetics for the degradation of COD and TN. as either pretreatment or post-treatment. (2009) examined the TN removal from SWW in a SBR at laboratory-scale using two aeration strategies. Although the results obtained at high doses. A 5-L aerobic SBR with suspended biomass was used by Mees et al.. Up to 95% in COD removal efficiency was reached after 5 h of .. Kinetic coefficients were also determined. 2014. respectively... 2015).F. thus. and 5. 72. 2009. Ghafoori et al. TSS. simplicity in design. Ozonation technology was used for the treatment of SWW by Millamena (1992).9 kGy/h.40. respectively. 2500. and 78. BOD. OLRs of up to 610 mgCOD/ L day were used at cycles of 12 h. Likewise. 2009. and TN in the ranges of 293e314. The SWW influent had average concentrations of 3188.91% and 62. Cao and Mehrvar. combining biological. Gamma radiation (GR) was evaluated by Melo et al. Barrera et al. 88.. an on-site measurement of DO levels can be used to regulate the SBR operation in order to improve TN removal. BOD. and TN removal rates ranged from 28. intermittent and continuous. 2012. (2004) studied a full-scale constructed Gutie subsurface-flow wetland system. 4. and TN.. Odong et al.28 to 75. 2015). 2011. and TSS. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 respectively. respectively.85 and 96.90.. COD. respectively. and TSS concentrations of 6068. rrez-Sarabia et al. Oller et al. Bustillo-Lecompte.3. TP.65e85. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. (2013. photosynthesis. 2014.4. 2014) for the removal of organics and nutrients from SWW. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. 2006. and subsequent organics and nutrients uptake by the system. Therefore. respectively. COD.. 2014) for the removal of TN and COD from SWW at laboratory-scale. and relatively few impacts on the environment. physical. This interaction results in the appearance of sedimentation. the DO was maintained at 10% saturation during the first hour of the reaction phase. Ozonation was also used by Wu and Doan (2005) for the treatment of SWW. Mehrvar and Tabrizi. 79e87. Oxidation and degradation of pollutants by UV/H2O2 rely on hydroxyl radicals (OH). Edalatmanesh et al. Moreover. Constructed wetlands Constructed wetlands (CWs) are an attractive alternative to conventional wastewater treatment. Mohajerani et al. Results showed that the utilization of a low concentration ozone stream of 110 mg/h for the removal of the majority of organics in slaughterhouse wastewater was not feasible. De Sena et al.75% was observed at high absorbed irradiation dosages (25 kGy/h). TOC reached 34% removal.40. Optimal conditions were obtained by a central composite design (CCD) at 16-h cycles. 2011.. CWs simulate the mechanisms of natural wetlands for water purification.75 and 90. BOD. the final effluent could not meet local standards. A schematic diagram of a single lamp UV/H2O2 photoreactor system is presented in Fig. and TN removal efficiencies of 96. Mowla et al.. Ghafoori et al. respectively. 4. Results showed a broad range of removal for different vegetation. 9. Luiz et al. 2004. respectively. 2011. the COD and BOD removal were only 10.. BOD. at low DO range. under the continuous aeration strategy. This is due to low O&M costs. The UV/H2O2 process is one of the most widely used AOPs. Barrera et al. M. and 500 mg/L for COD. Venhuis and Mehrvar. (2009) evaluated the UV/H2O2 process for the treatment of a secondary SWW effluent. (2008) for the treatment of SWW. The performance of CW systems for the treatment of SWW was evaluated by Soroko (2007). atmosphere. Therefore. 2014. The performance of a SBR was evaluated by Kundu et al. AOPs have come handy to be recognized as advanced degradation. and water interact. and then at 2% for the remaining reaction phase. and pollution control processes showing excellent overall results as complimentary treatment (Tabrizi and Mehrvar. TP. (2013) investigated different CWs for the treatment of SWW with influent concentrations of COD. Results show that ozone was effective in disinfecting SWW after 8 min using an ozone dosage of up to 23. With pretreatment. and better removal was attained with COD at 58%.5.. 89. avoiding the possible formation of hazardous by-products (De Sena et al. Luiz et al. 2008. 2013.. The influent concentration of the SWW contained COD. respectively.09 mg/min per L. Bustillo-Lecompte et al... respectively.. adsorption. 2014).70 and 23. respectively. Hamad et al. a decrease of BOD in the range of 38. TN removals of 91 and 95% were accomplished by continuous and intermittent aeration.6 L/min at maximum TP. A CW with Typha latifolia was constructed by Carreau et al. Pan et al. Results show that the UV/H2O2 treatment was more effective than conventional UV alone in removing organic matter.60%. filtration. De Sena et al. 4. 2015). 4.5 h with a H2O2 dosage of 529 mg/L.60 and 95. Moreover. along with TN removals of up to 67% for a TN influent load of 0. Bazrafshan et al. Del Pozo and Diez (2005) evaluated a combined anaerobiceaerobic fixed-film reactor for SWW treatment under submesophilic conditions (25 C). 2015). (2012) assessed the performance of combined chemical coagulation (CC) and EC for the SWW treatment. An optimum molar ratio dosage of 14. and COD removals.296 C. Up to 81% COD removals were obtained and was found to be inversely correlated to OLRs. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 expensive if applied alone. (2013.76%).. (2014). respectively. The degradation of TOC and microorganism disinfection from synthetic SWW secondary effluents were investigated by Barrera et al. De Sena et al. 2014.80%). Cao and Mehrvar. (2009) for SWW effluents using various coagulants. Up to 84. Furthermore. and TN (99. The AF operated with OLR in the range of Lo 3. The raw SWW was first pretreated using activated sludge (AS). although the UV/H2O2 process is effective to treat the SWW. respectively.8 days and 3. ferric chloride. was used for SWW treatment (Lo pez et al. respectively. the combined CCeEC processes were found to be more efficient than EC alone for SWW treatment. 2012.70%. over 95% COD was removed in 9 h.6 mg/L was used.83%). Results show that optimum COD removal efficiencies of up to 92% are obtained by using alum as the coagulant. A TOC influent concentration of 157. 2012. Nevertheless.6 h within the UV/H2O2 reactor. TOC loadings of up to 350 mg/L were used in the SWW influent. Thus. 2014) evaluated the performance and operating costs of treating SWW using combined biological and AOPs. The H2O2 dosage of 3. It may be stated that it is beneficial. 2011. On the other hand. 2011. 2013. in terms of operation and economics.. it was discovered that the photochemical processes were capable of rapid bacteria inactivation in less than 30 s. 2009.77 kg/m3 day. When coupling the AF to the SBR.5 to 12. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. consisting of an AF pezattached to an aerobic SBR.084 kg N/m3 day. 64. 2012. 2015). The UV/H2O2 alone was found to be the least efficient process with optimum removals of up to 50% at a cost of 67 $/kg of TOC removed. were obtained at HRTs of 2. Combined processes Fig.F. As a result. and 83% of BOD.2% for UV-C/H2O2 and VUV/H2O2.5 kg/m3 day and at HRTs of up to 72 h. (2013) evaluated the performance of the UV/H2O2 process for the SWW treatment. Vymazal. An optimum TOC removal of 75% was obtained for influent concentrations of up to 65 mgTOC/L and HRTs of 180 min with H2O2 dosages of 900 mg/L.. Therefore. 2006.. TOC.. (2012) using UV-C and vacuum-ultraviolet (VUV). A combined coagulation/adsorption process was evaluated by Mahtab et al.7e16. Optimum H2O2/TOC molar ratios of 1. Bazrafshan et al. 2010).6. 2009. A laboratory scale anaerobiceaerobic system... A comparison was made in terms of the treatment capability and overall costs for different technologies including . the TOC removal was not significantly increased by augmenting the HRT.. Results showed a high removal of contaminants from the SWW by the combined processes. Bohdziewicz and Sroka (2005) considered combined AS-RO system for the treatment of SWW. and lime.03 mgH2O2/mgTOCin was also found for the UV/H2O2 process.. such as alum. Bustillo-Lecompte. BOD and COD removal rates were directly proportional to the applied voltage and coagulant dosage with up to 99% removal efficiencies for both parameters. TP (99. Results showed that the AOPs increased the removal of organics from pre-treated SWW samples with overall COD and BOD removal rates of up to 97. The UV/H2O2 alone was compared to other treatment technologies to treat SWW as an individual method by Bustillo-Lecompte et al. Up to 95% TOC. SWWs are one of the major concerns of the agro-industrial sector because of the high amounts of water used in the process of slaughtering and further cleaning of the facilities (De Sena et al. Oller et al.5 mg/L in the anaerobic section. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. Chan et al. to implement combined processes for the treatment of SWW since it couples the benefit of different technologies to improve high strength industrial wastewater management (Kus¸çu and Sponza.. Results showed that combined processes are more efficient than individual processes for SWW treatment. TOC removals ranged from 5. Consequently. and 97% BOD removals were obtained for influent concentrations of 973 mg/L at HRTs in the ABR of up to 3. Moreover. J. Bazrafshan et al.77%). BOD (99. Valta et al. Cao and Mehrvar (2011) evaluated a UV/H2O2 photoreactor as the post-treatment of a synthetic SWW at a laboratory scale. treatment. respectively.5 and 2. 4. ferrous sulfate. SWW treatment by the combination of AOPs and biological processes is recommended while they are optimized at an appropriate residence time in each reactor. the UV/H2O2 is SWW effluents are part of the food and beverage industry wastewaters (Oller et al. Overall COD removals of up to 93% were obtained for OLRs of 0. M. 2007. it was concluded that the combined coagulation/adsorption process made not significant improvement in COD removal from SWW..5 mgH2O2/h per mg TOC in the influent was found to be the optimum for the UV/H2O2 process. AOPs might be considered to enhance SWW effluents quality for water reuse purposes. 2011. (2009) studied the effectiveness of AOPs for the treatment of SWW using UV/H2O2 and photo-Fenton in a laboratory scale. Barrera et al. 2014). 98% COD. Ahn et al. including COD (99. Cao and Mehrvar (2011) evaluated the combined ABR and UV/H2O2 processes at laboratory scale for synthetic SWW treatment. Bustillo-Lecompte et al. optimum conditions were detected at OLRs below 11 kg/m3 day with HRT of 24 h. Valta et al. Schematic diagram of a single lamp UV/H2O2 photoreactor. Denitrification only implied 12e34% of the TN removal being limited by DO levels above 0..5 were found for VUV and UV-C. 000 2.20e95. (2009) Kist et al.00e78.60 80.0e8.60e97.03 70. (2008) Lemaire et al.00 AnaP 60 e 4200e9100 e 565e785 e 72. (2005a) Filali-Meknassi et al. (2009) Gannoun et al.00 e 80e98 e 66.20e98.00 e 97.42 e e e 97.60 e e 32.00e78.60 60.32 75.00 e e e EC AnaP-AeP 0.13 0. (2009) Zhan et al.00 82.00e86.30e97.00e58.0e21 84e409 85.000 e e 70e147 e e 60.00 AeP AnaP e 12e48 e e 298e1115 6500 e 2900 e e e e 53.400 e e 1190e2624 3501e8030 300e1000 186 147e233 e e e e e 99.00e93.00 e 27.60 e 45.96 46. (2005b) Kus¸çu and Sponza (2005) Masse and Masse (2005) Miranda et al.00 97. (2007) Del Nery et al.00e93.226e15. (2011) ndez-Romero et al.70 e e 95. (2008) Rajakumar and Meenambal (2008) Debik and Coskun (2009) De Sena et al.5 25 e e 1000 e 3000e4800 e e 4159e5817 750e1890 e e 2204e2543 109e325 e e 92e137 e 70.00e44.77 71. (2012) Barrera et al.00 97.00 62.70 e 97.00 e 95.72 AnaP UF EC AnaP-AOP 30e97 e 1.00 95. (2006) Kobya et al.60 UF 720e1344 50e328 114e1033 e 82e127 75.42 249 e e 2600e2900 3000 12.00 86. (2007) Saddoud and Sayadi (2007) Soroko (2007) Al-Mutairi et al. (2011) €r Gürel and Büyükgüngo (2011) Mees et al.00 99.00 e 86.0 12.88 e e 93.00e96.5 e e 42 8. (2008) Melo et al.00e84. (2008) Asselin et al.10e96.40 AnaP-AeP AnaP AnaP AnaP 24 e 69 30e80 e e e e 6000e14.50e63.790 5800e11. Bustillo-Lecompte.65e85.6e138 e e e e 80.33 104 e 16e72 e e e e 2000e3000 2800e3500 24.52e94.80 AnaP AnaP AnaP-AeP 24e2160 360 23e91 3500 e e 1820e12.00 e 73.00 83.00 18.00e97.60 34.00 90.0 10e3600 e e e e e e e 1030e3000 3188 431 1290e1670 1913e5157 e 6400e8320 2850e4700 3000e4800 2452e2500 1320 2700e3100 1559e2683 3860 e 1000e2900 750e1890 494e500 5.00e64.40 72.000 e e 1198 5143e8360 100e200 220e350 139 46.00 97.F.90e95.00 98. (2011) Rajakumar et al.900 3610e4180 2171 2110e2305 21.70e67.00e90.00e99.00e88.00e80.89 e 96.00 e e e 90.60 e 79.00e96.80 89.00 91.42 e e e 2600e2900 e e 10.90 94.00 14.000 e e e 10.10 AnaP EC AOP EC-CC 12 0.50e96.00 e e 77.80 e AOP EC 0. (2009) Al-Mutairi (2010) pez-Lo pez et al. (2006) Kus¸çu and Sponza (2006) Ahn et al.00 e e e CC-AeP AeP AeP AnaP-AeP-CC 0. M. Me (2011) Mijalova Nacheva et al.00e93.20e10.0e1.000e10.70 AeP-AOP AnaP AnaP AnaP AnaP AOP CC-AdP AeP 0.00 97.00 62.00e92.00 91.00 AeP 48 e 5155e5675 e 369e431 e 96.00e6.00 52. (2011) Ahmadian et al. (2005) Satyanarayan et al. (2009) Kabdas¸l et al. (2009) Luiz et al. (2005) Cha Del Pozo and Diez (2005) Filali-Meknassi et al.00e99.90 99.C.83 2.60e56.60 e 93.0e5. (2009) Mahtab et al.00 e 80.00 81.50 48 48e240 10 42 5 2 29 e e e e e e e e 2800e3000 5800e6100 2100e2425 2373e2610 7460e9300 e 6605 9040 1400e1600 e e 900e2000 e e 5703 5242 e 530e810 250e260 78e457 271e317 e e e e e e e e e e e 80.00 38.000 6363e11.00 e e e AnaP e e 3437 2646 218 e 76e90 e 8.00 AnaP-AeP-UV AnaP-AeP 12 16 e e 23e70 876e1987 0.58e97.48e92.00 96.20e63.00 50.00 18.00 21.00e97.038 5042e8320 13e179 e e e 70.50e95.00 e 57.0 1.60e92.60 e 99. (2011) Fongsatitkul et al.00e99. (2012) Bazrafshan et al.00e97.73 e e 76.65 84. (2012) 57.00e96.00 94.60 e e e 1.000 1900e2200 1123 1020e1143 e e e 80e334 e e e 89.92 90.83 99. (2009) n and Ge lvez Pabo (2009) Wang et al.00e95. (2008) De Nardi et al.20 e e e e 97.00 e 75e93 e 56. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 297 Table 6 Comparison of different technologies and their combination for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment.00e99.00e67.00 97.6 e e e 260e306 250e350 109e325 e e e e e e e 15. (2009) Lemaire et al.40 e e 48.80 89.00 18.30e95.00e93. Processesa HRTb (h) TOCinc (mg/L) CODinc (mg/L) BODinc (mg/L) TNinc (mg/L) TOC removal (%) COD removal BOD removal TN removal (%) (%) (%) Reference AeP-RO 8e36 e 5300 2900 557 e 99.51e94.00 e 36. (2010) Yordanov (2010) Bayar et al.150 e 150e260 e AeP 49 e 5000e5098 e 349e370 e 95.00 e 75e80 Bohdziewicz and Sroka (2005) Caldera et al.74 75.600 1190e2800 e 4524e8700 610e1150 1176 e 11e11.00 (continued on next page) .00e95.00e83.00 69.76e98.80e97.00 AnaP-AeP 249 e 3000 e e e 90e92 e e AnaP 24e48 e 7083 e 547 e 93.00e40. (2005) Wu and Doan (2005) Bayramoglu et al.00 88. (2011) Cao and Mehrvar (2011) De Nardi et al. (2007) Amorim et al.10e97.90e63. (2008) Li et al. Lo (2010) Marcos et al.75 e e 78.000e12.00 93.70 23.500 3102 2360e4690 7148e20.2 76e91 e e e 80e950 8450e41.00 e CW AeP EC AnaP GR AeP AeP AnaP e 3. (2005) vez et al.31 e e e 20.9 e e AnaP CC 18e27 e e e 1400e3600 e 10. AOPs may also provide high-quality treated water allowing water recycle in the meat processing industry.00e94. (2013) Hossaini et al.22 22. (2014) Ozyonar and Karagozoglu (2014) Pan et al. followed by physicochemical treatment.22 78.70 e e e e e e e 76.36. (2013) Keskes et al. influent concentration of total organic carbon.60 e e EC EC 1. (2013) Siqueira et al.27e71. and Ryerson University is greatly appreciated.10 e 1152e1312 2240 150 18. (2013) McCabe et al.00 28. ultrafiltration.79 $/m3 day. UV.20 98.000e15. (2014) Martinez et al.200 1790e4760 293e3141 2273e20. CODin.00 74e94 30 79. including DAF.00e83.5 h with an estimated cost of 6. reverse osmosis. highlighting commonly used parameters.00 Dallago et al. (2012) Rajakumar et al. aerobic process. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Table 6 (continued ) Processesa HRTb (h) TOCinc (mg/L) CODinc (mg/L) BODinc (mg/L) TNinc (mg/L) TOC removal (%) COD removal BOD removal TN removal (%) (%) (%) Reference AeP AeP AeP-UF AnaP CC AnaP AnaP AnaP-AeP AnaP-AeP-AOP 12e20 110e583 48 20e96 3. (2015) Jensen et al.00e72.20 e 67. chemical oxygen demand.98 95. CC.0 23 39e72 172 e 24e36 1.381 4214e4240 e e e e e 547e576 143e175 e 5200 115 108e295 e e e e 44. Summary and conclusions A summary of the most commonly applied technologies and combined processes during the last decade is portrayed in Table 6. Hydraulic retention time. (2014) Li et al.00 70. the treated SWW effluent usually need further treatment by membrane technologies. and total nitrogen. and combined ABR-AS-UV/H2O2 processes. the BAT.00 69. anaerobic process.100 3337e4150 e e 30e76 e 1410e7020 1950e2640 1950e3400 200e250 6.22. (2014) Stets et al.28e75.23 e 8. the selection of a specific treatment mainly depends on the characteristics of the SWW being treated. . and 99. with particular attention to treatment efficiencies in terms of organic and nutrient removal. CW.50e99. (2013) Kundu et al.03 51. (2013) Carvalho et al.40 e e e 97. The treatment efficiency of SWW varies extensively. 96.80e98.00e86.08 89 e e e e e e e e 76.00 76. and fat separation. activated carbon. Although the organic matter and nutrient removal can achieve high efficiencies.22e99. respectively.76e91.09 90. it depends on several factors including. (2014) Almandoz et al.78 85. AOP. AS.0 e e e e e e 6185e6840 1400e2500 49e137 12. Therefore.F.073 2171 e 3000e3500 3450e4365 e 834e3186 79e87 e 1123 610e4635 1050e1200 214e256 296e690 90e196 52e64 570e1603 148 50e841 e e e e e e e 75. UF.00 81. respectively. and UV/H2O2. (2012) Affes et al. BODin.50e21.298 C.30e77.00 e e e 5. (2014) Kundu et al.68 13.673 418 e e e 1529e1705 5571e6288 5820 750e1890 e 117 630e650 4500 50e100 435e665 e e e e 169 254e428 e e 91. (2014) Yoon et al.0 41e76 e e e e e e e 100e1200 6485e6840 5590e11. and TN. but not limited to.17e98.31e93. settling. GR. However.0e96 888 24 46e72 48e72 0. Bustillo-Lecompte. 5. coagulation/flocculation.36e95.00e60. b HRT. (2014) Bustillo-Lecompte et al.500 1529e1705 e e e 435e665 290 e e e 92.00 e AeP AeP-AnaP AnaP AnaP AnaP AOP 3.750 1040e24. and HRT.00e65. combined ABR-AS. TOC.42 0. advanced oxidation process.00 28. (2015) e e a AC. combined processes have evolved into a reliable technology that is nowadays successfully used for many types of SWW effluents.10e96.98% by the UV/H2O2.20e25. biochemical oxygen demand.00 54. Nevertheless. (2013) Bustillo-Lecompte et al.1e27 e e e e e e e e e 9. gamma radiation. AeP.00 e 55. RO. 96. M.60 68.04e1. the characteristics of the SWW. (2014) Hern andez-Ramírez et al. (2013) Bayar et al.00e98. AOPs. AS. (2013) Odong et al.600 480 2084e13.60 AeP AeP AeP AOP 240 1.10. (2013) Louvet et al. chemical coagulation.40 3. Overall efficiencies reached 75.40 e e e 99.16 42. (2014) Mees et al.81e93.11 30. ultraviolet light. combined AS-ABR.20 e e e AeP AeP AnaP AnaP MF AnaP-MF 12e3360 12e16 24e480 2640 e 48e168 1435 e e e 183 470e2778 6057e6193 356e384 88 18. Acknowledgments The financial support of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).81 86.20 AeP-AnaP AeP AnaP AnaP CW AnaP EC AnaP-AeP-AOP 8.5 e e e 840 e e e e e e e 90. (2014) Eryuruk et al.50e97. (2014) Manh et al. AdP. (2012) Hsiao et al.40e96. and/or secondary biological treatment.00 e 90. microfiltration.70 80. (2012) Tariq et al.70 e e 11. (2013) Khennoussi et al.90 e 93. c TOCin. such as COD. the selection of a particular treatment method for SWW treatment requires an analysis of the characteristics of the SWW being treated and the best available technology (BAT) in order to comply with current regulations and different jurisdictions worldwide. (2013) Nery et al. TNin.00e77. BOD. AnaP.20e98. A CEA was performed at optimal conditions for the SWW treatment by optimizing the total electricity cost. or other appropriate treatment methods as combined processes.00e90. ABR. and the compliance with current regulations under different political jurisdictions.00 e e e e 84.11 97. The combined ABR-AS-UV/H2O2 processes reached a maximum TOC removal of 99% in 76.00 95.46e92.53. blood collection. ABR. and the pollutant concentration in the influent. (2012) Park et al. electrocoagulation.800 1014e12. the HRT.00e98.00 92. (2012) Keskes et al. 89. H2O2 consumption.63 97.0e24 794e3948 24 75e168 e e e e e e e e 941e1009 5220 850e1400 1764e2244 5659e9238 6970 3000e4800 70. EC.70e90. (2014) McCabe et al.60 85.0 8.00 83.00 e e e e 98. SWWs are commonly pre-treated by screening. (2013) Barana et al.47.62 76. The combined ABR-AS-UV/H2O2 system was proven to be the most cost-effective solution compared to other processes for the TOC removal under these conditions.90 60. 94. Table 6 also reveals that several types of individual and combined processes have been used for the SWW treatment.00e89.30 e 94. Ontario Trillium Scholarship (OTS) Program.42e80.0 48 0.00 9.200 2052e2296 e e 10.00 e e e e e 89.90 e e e e e e 97.00e80. MF.80 45.40e81. adsorption process. constructed wetland. .doi. Pushchak.2006.doi.. Rahimi..org/10. 103e107.035071. K. 1. S..doi. Water Treat.. Amuda. Bayramoglu.1016/j.10. Water conservation and effluent minimization: case study of a poultry slaughterhouse. Int. J. L.. http://dx.Z.org/10. M. N.1365-2672. Martins. Bioresour. J. S..2012.environment.R.H. E. A..P.039. 3390/ijerph2005030012.ceramint.).. N. Ochoa. O. Water Res.S. J.doi.org/10. S. M. C. A.1016/j. 1335e1350. 2006..M. Simultaneous high-strength organic and nitrogen removal with combined anaerobic upflow bed filter and aerobic membrane bioreactor. Chemosphere 72 (11). 2006.008. Kord Mostafapour. Eyvaz.2007.04.03.F.. Env. 12e17. 2008. Mehrvar. Eng. A.R. Asselin.S. R. D. Y. Bostan. 15 (2). Bazrafshan. Sep.. Desalin. A. 5621e5633. M. Moazed.018. Farzadkia.desal. e40108.doi. Microbiol.x...1016/j. Water Sci. Technol. Nutrient removal and sludge production in the coagulationeflocculation process.. 114e121.2007. N. Int.2010.org/10. http://dx.gov..org/10.org/10.net/publication/236177043. J. Shin. S.144. Yildiz.06. Del Nery.. 2910e2919. S. Bustillo-Lecompte.K.C.S. Alade. Al-Shammari. 543e559. Ladas. Senturk. 2012.. Int. Barana.biortech.S. coli O157:H7 in organic wastes destined for land application.. 2008.. Bayar. M..H. Arvanitoyannis.07.02524. Technol. M. http://dx.-F. Technol. M.tr/MakaleSayac.doi.org/10.S. http://dx. Public Health 2 (3e4).2012. 51 (1).doi.187...1016/j. Yildiz. M.R. K. 404e408. Purif. Mahvi. E. Environ. Battimelli.1016/j.researchgate.04. Composite ceramic membranes from natural aluminosilicates for microfiltration applications. Damianovic..1111/j.1504/IJEWM.061.. http://dx. Nitrogen and organic matter removal in an intermittently aerated fixed-bed reactor for post-treatment of anaerobic effluent from a slaughterhouse wastewater treatment plant. Desalination 196 (1e3).1016/j. Lee. Environ. L.. V.1016/S0043-1354(98)00371-6. F. 453e459. 2008. 1 (3). In: The Guidelines. McCarthy. Pozzi. Y.015. Yilmaz.2013... Barber.13652621. D. Isa. http://dx. Eng.2005. Blais. 2013. 36 (11). http://dx. seppur. 2015.. Soler. Avery. http://dx. M. Available online: http://www.R. Gilbride. J. Chem. N.2006. Int. W. J. Artarmon. Kobya. X. doi.org/10. Saez.B.chemosphere. M. 2013.pone. Irdemez. Ahmadian. 2007.H. 50e58. 41 (4). PLoS One 7 (6) art. http://dx. 90 (9). 2014.. D. Carre 299 Saponification pretreatment and solids recirculation as a new anaerobic process for the treatment of slaughterhouse waste. Waste Manag.. Amorim. Al-Sharifi.B.06. 754e760. B. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC. Jones. http://dx. 2005.org/10. Environ. M.H. Yousefi. Pagliero. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Nomenclature ABR AC AdP AeP AF AnaP ANN ANZECC anaerobic baffled reactor activated carbon adsorption process aerobic process anaerobic filter anaerobic process artificial neural networks Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council AOP advanced oxidation process AS activated sludge BAT best available technology BOD biochemical oxygen demand BODin influent concentration of biochemical oxygen demand CC chemical coagulation CCD central composite design CEA cost-effectiveness analysis CEC council of the European communities CM composite membrane COD chemical oxygen demand CODin influent concentration of chemical oxygen demand CSTR continuous flow stirred-tank reactor CW constructed wetland DAF dissolved air flotation DO dissolved oxygen EC electrocoagulation ECO environmental commissioner of Ontario FAU formazine attenuation units GR gamma radiation HFCW horizontal flow constructed wetland HRT hydraulic retention time IR internal recycle MBR membrane bioreactor MF microfiltration OLR organic loading rates OMAFRA Ontario ministry of agricultural and rural affairs PACl Polyaluminum chloride RO reverse osmosis RSM response surface methodology SBR sequencing batch reactor TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TN total nitrogen TNin influent concentration of total nitrogen TOC total organic carbon TOCin influent concentration of total organic carbon UAF up-flow anaerobic filter UAPF up-flow anaerobic packed-bed filters UF ultrafiltration US EPA united states environmental protection agency UV ultraviolet light UV/H2O2 ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide TSS total suspended solids VFCW vertical flow constructed wetlands VUV vacuum-ultraviolet Appendix A. Conserv..doi.C. J. H..005. Eng. 2002. N..2011.. The effect of stirring speed and current density on removal efficiency of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater by electrocoagulation method.2005. Desalination 280 (1e3). C.pdf. T. Barrera. http:// dx. http://dx. Chem.10. http://dx. Chem. Resour. Res... A.11. 167e175. A. 51 (3). F. Technical and economic analysis of electrocoagulation for the treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. Y. Survival of E.org/10. S... 2008.C.W.Z. Evaluation study of a slaughterhouse wastewater treatment plant including contact-assisted activated sludge and DAF. 460e467. Bae..08..1016/ j. Meat waste treatment methods and potential uses. http://dx. Water Res. Desalination 202 (1e3). Killham.resconrec.04. 1727e1733.2013. Technol.Z. 93e100.. Palatsi. Marchese.org/10. Nat.1016/j..12. J.org/10. D..doi.. Van Ginkel. Al-Mutairi.doi.A.2011.. H. Chae. 2012.B. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.. V. Effect of organic loading on rotating biological contactor efficiency.org/10. R. Investigation of aerobic-anaerobic integrated bioreactor system for treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. 43 (3).. Des.x.gen.jece. V.cherd. 814e822. Lopes. S.D. H.. org/10..doi. Ahn..0040108. http://dx. Flotats.biortech. J.003. 6 (3e4). 2012.org/10. 2005.. J.desal. M.. no.12.. Ortuno.2004. Fatehizadeh. 2000.800268. Almandoz. K.C. A.doi. 52 (16e18).2006. Koparal. The effect of initial pH on treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater by electrocoagulation method.. Yilmaz..1016/j.doi. P. http://www. Food Sci. M. http://dx. E.. H.046. Del Nery.. NSW (accessed 23.org/ 10. http://dx. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by combined chemical coagulation and electrocoagulation process. 33 (7). Stuckey.094. 98 (4).12. 229e237.232.L. Desalination 225 (1).org/10.U.2014. http://www.doi. http://dx.doi. 393e409.F. 3047e3053.2015. Kang.K.org/10. Appl.1016/j... 1559e1578. Kinetic study of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation using Fe electrodes. Res. S..Y.M. 100 (1).. http://dx. Bashir.. A. Recycl.L. Sci.067. A. 1371/journal.T.doi. Kutty. Pendashteh.doi. References re. 469e477. M. 8 (3). doi..1016/j.. Reusing date seed residues as a low cost adsorbent for slaughterhouse wastewater purification. Akbaripoor. J.A. Drogui.A. Effectiveness of electrocoagulation process in removing organic compounds from slaughterhouse wastewater using monopolar and bipolar electrolytic cells.S...E.... S. 2000).org/10. Affes.T.. M. I. E.au/system/files/resources/ 53cda9ea-7ec2-49d4-af29-d1dde09e96ef/files/nwqms-guidelines-4-vol1.15. Photolytic treatment of organic constituents and bacterial pathogens in secondary effluent of synthetic slaughterhouse wastewater. Al-Mutairi. A.1080/ 19443994... http://dx. The use of the anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for wastewater treatment: a review. Al-Mutairi..org/10. Foresti. K. Al-Ahmady. Technol. Benmoussa. ANZECC..12. Laursen.aspx?ID¼3551.01492.... 131. A.org/10.J. Awang.1111/j.2008. Steyer.nobel. J. Bioresour. Res....org/22-31..2166/wst. http://dx. Ceram. 2011. Aerobic selectors in slaughterhouse activated sludge systems: a preliminary investigation. Z. M. 2011. 1999.jenvman.desal.030..K. 2014. . Ownagh.. Int.doi.R. Bayar. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx. I. S..P.1016/j. J. De Nardi.doi. vol.1016/S0043-1354(01)00508-5. A.Z. Post-treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater using electrochemical oxidation. 66 (4).. Llorens. Aguilar. desal.E. M. 2007.doi. Coagulation/flocculation process in the treatment of abattoir wastewater.I..1016/j. 2010. Zare. 128e137.doi.04. Treatment of low-strength soluble wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR).. Sayadi. Technol. T.1016/j..org/10. E..biortech. de la Torre. 40 (5). doi. Gutie organic load in the performance the UASB reactor treating slaughterhouse effluent.. Franke-Whittle. N. 1991.2008. 2009.doi. V.1016/j. H.. Environ. C.doi. 2005. Waste Manag..pdf.pdf. Madani.A. Sci.watres. E..C. Italy (accessed 10. Omri. G.html. 2013.. 2012.). Qiu.2004. Y.F.1016/j. 50 (1). Chan..org.org/10. Goldewijk. Jahani. 99 (17). J. S.. Fern rrez. Pozzi. C.org/ 10.. A. Coskun.. F.15. (accessed 10. P... Effects of temperature and feed strength on a carrier anaerobic baffled reactor treating dilute wastewater. S.2008..biortech..org/10. A.. 142. K.. J. J.. Environ. W. 73e92. Can.R. 1007/s11356-013-1867-7. FAO. 90 (1). Lett. A. Maduen andez. 1243e1252..12.. 102e114. ~ ones-Bolan ~ os.2013..csc-scc.G. Manag. Mater. Van Der Hoek. 2005b. 10 (2). 2013.1016/j. Sci.T. Available online: http://laws-lois. 2013. A. R.1016/j.. Available online: http://www. Hoekstra. http://dx. E. 76 (4). Eng. Sci.2008.555421. Evolving urban water and residuals management paradigms: water reclamation and reuse. R.biortech. org/10.. Moreira.Y. Rev. 166e176.A. J. Res.org/10. Eng. Technol. A..2006.Z. Appl. M. S. C. SOR/2012-139..015.2014.03. Process Biochem. Zulia 28 (2).resconrec. A. 152 (1). Conserv. 269e277. M. Urban wastewater treatment directive 91/271/EEC. Auriol. M.J.org/10. and their effect on the inactivation of different pathogens: a review. Filali-Meknassi. Mehrvar.011.J.M.. Okbi. Performance evaluation and operating strategies of dissolved-air flotation system treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. chemicaleDAF and UV disinfection for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater reclamation. Meat and Meat Products.org/10.pdf.jenvman. J. Hamdi. Pollut. Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations.011. M.desal. Eng.K. In: http://dx. 40e52. R. E. M. Zaiat.doi.11.079. Acad. Rufino. Recycl. 3 (3).doi. Evaluation of a surface flow constructed wetland treating abattoir wastewater. M. Cost-effectiveness Bustillo-Lecompte. M. M.. 1122e1135.011.. M. 001. Tyagi. C. http://dx. 64 (1).D.H. Gannoun.2013. P..R.M. P.1016/j.N. Microbial monitoring by molecular tools of an upflow anaerobic filter treating abattoir wastewaters. Jabari.ir/article_738_ 36.). C. 2009. Surampalli.111.org/10. Sivakumar. 2010.. Chan. Del Pozo.J. http://dx. Elefsiniotis. A.org/10. Y.... 214e219. 1081e1100.2013. Water Environ. J. Treatment alternatives of slaughterhouse wastes. L. Res. 757e766.1016/j. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900-2050 period.. Mahmood.1016/j. 2009. E. 25e36. Cao.15. J.R..doi...D.org/10. Surampalli. 2005. Treatment of slaughterhouse plant wastewater by Gürel. N.1016/j..06. Rouhany.doi.. ~ ones-Bolan ~ os. Assessing the performance of UV/H2O2 as a pretreatment process in TOC removal of an actual petroleum refinery wastewater and its inhibitory effects on activated sludge. R. Technol. K. Final Report. http://dx. 856e860... 2007. de Nardi. 1730e1736. U. Design strategy for a simultaneous nitrification/denitrification of a slaughterhouse wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor: ASM2d modeling and verification.. Bouallagui. De Nardi. H. J. Pirra. Y. Framework and Recommendations Concerning Effluent Quality of Wastewater Disposed by Federal Institutions. 2018e2024.org/10. N. Lo slaughterhouses in Galicia (NW Spain).jenvman.M..005. Sci. L.036. P. H. Amorim. Drizo... Diez.doi.. Pozzi.do?recordID¼US201400097811. V. ~ o.C.1016/j.org/10.F.doi. U. 151e157.. ca/PDF/SOR-2012-139..M.doi. 1134e1146. P. 26 (10).2011. Kumar. http://dx. 155 (1e2). Environ.T. M. Carvalho. P. Hassell.F. Integrated anaerobic-aerobic fixed-film reactor for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment. J. E. 39 (6). http://dx. http://dx. J.P. 1114e1122. Van Der Zaag. 2014.2175/106143009X425898. Q. Environ. 81 (8).06.org/10. Chem.P. Law. de Assis. J. Technol. 2005a. H.org/10... Ind.F..org/10. http://dx.. http://dx.C.. A.K.. Technol. Gopala Krishna. 461e468. Y...W. P.justice.D.22180. Del Nery. Technol.Y.2007.. 93 (5). Fuzi. Rev. Environment Canada. P. RinderknechtGutie Seijas.2009. Insam. Natl. P. biortech. Bouwman. L. 694410. Bouallagui..org/10.03. 2005. A.D. http://dx. 20 (12).ijer..pdf. Bakir Ogutveren. Res. M. Sroka. A.org/10. 39 (6). J. Almeida. P. H. Chem.org/10. Microbiol.N. Kumar. Eur. Bioresour. 117e126. M. Dallago.041.org/10.. R. 111e121.doi. 2008.G. Granules characteristics in the vertical profile of a full-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater..1016/j. Wareham. A. total Kjeldahl nitrogen and total phosphorus removal. A review on anaerobic-aerobic treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater. Long-term operating performance of a poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment plant.014. T.doi. Ferna ndez-Villago mez. Mehrvar. 184e189. 1755e1759. J. 150. Manag. Electrocoagulation in a plugflow reactor: the treatment of cattle abattoir wastewater by iron rod anodes. doi.001.. Environ. The treatment of wastewaters from the meat industry: a review. 2009. Desalination 269 (1).jhazmat. Rome. Domingues. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by combined anaerobic baffled reactor and UV/H2O2 processes. Tec. Hamdi. Water Sci. Büyükgüngo using a membrane bioreactor. Van Vuuren... Technol. 2013..12. 1016/j. http://eurlex. Nitrification and denitrification of a poultry slaughterhouse wastewater according to cycle time and ammoniacal nitrogen concentration using surface response methodology. Period. Hasan. Ch avez. The water footprint of poultry. J... Debik. P. Edalatmanesh. R.net/download/journals/2012-issue_2/157.....-J. S.013. Tambosi. Ghafoori. Radioact. Off. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 Bohdziewicz..Z. Water Res.1061/(ASCE)1090025X(2005)9:3(179).10. Water Res. 533e544.ca/ text/plcy/doc/318-6-gl_e.. R. Damianovic. 119e127..2008.. Technol.Y. M. Pract. Crit. Bioresour.procbio. Basto. J. org/10. Casani.1073/pnas.scitotenv. Chem. and resource recovery.doi.. Res. 89 (7).. Lester. 8221e8225.2013. Phosphorus co-precipitation in the biological treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor.B.doi.493774. Martínez-Pereda..europa.. 2008....12. 2011. Conserv. 1982.1016/j.doi.001. M. Fardeau. 99 (6). A. http://dx.. 179e192.. Sci. De Nardi. http://dx. Environ. http://dx.2009. H. Escamilla-Silva. http://dx. 1e18. CEC. 134. G.. C. Public Health 8 (2). Carreau. E. 139e151. L.1016/j. Communities L (135).. 2015. M.scielo.doi. H. dos Santos..Y. 2008. http://dx. Resour.doi.. http://dx. Del Nery..R. D. C.doi. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of biologically pretreated abattoir wastewaters in an upflow anaerobic filter.1016/j... 2014.doi. E.2010. pez. R. 809e823. 2014. pork and beef: a comparative study in different countries and production systems.org/10. 86 (11). 2013. http://agris. Y.doi.2166/wst.1002/cjce.. 2009. Jamieson. Gomec. I.. Effect of the Caldera.org/10.2005. http://dx. Review of pollutants removed by electrocoagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation processes. 1517e1523. V.08. Optimization of phenol degradation in a combined photochemical-biological wastewater treatment system.M.W. Environ.cherd.H. H.. 100 (11). 2013. Khelifi. Analysis of the Bugallo.1016/j.. Des. Eng. Total Environ.K. Quin anaerobic-aerobic and UV/H2O2 processes for the treatment of synthetic slaughterhouse wastewater. €der.). I..F. K. D. 2777e2782. 03. 1016/j. Available online: http://www.R. Poultry slaughter wastewater treatment with an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor.. 90 (5). 1663e1679. Eng... 28 (5). Resour....1016/ j. M. Fac.doi. J.C. Dhib.R.. Filali-Meknassi. 2011. 2011.gc. 8790e8800. J. Moreira.K.doi... Comeau.. Proc. Bustillo-Lecompte.B.017. Zaiat.M. Bull. Comeau.K. M.. 2013.org/10. http://dx.2010.1007/s11157-005-5683-5. Use of the Static Granular Bed Reactor (SGBR) with anaerobic sludge to treat poultry slaughterhouse wastewater and kinetic modeling. Des. M.1080/09593330. €r. P.. Res. 145e152. Water Resour.08.M.1016/j. M.1016/j.01.. I. Res. Dendooven.. 656e661.doi. Food Agric. Manag. 52 (3).. R. Genena. Desalination 238 (1e3). org/10. Ing. 1169e1184. Fongsatitkul.jenvman. Gannoun.M. 2013. D.d.org/10.15.2010. http://dx.ve/ scielo. Integrated system of activated sludge-reverse osmosis in the treatment of the wastewater from the meat industry.03. 170 (1). 2004. Chem.. http://dx. http://dx. R. Recycl. Environ.doi. Y. Beusen. L.. http://www. H.2011.T. M. http://www. 1e2.. Bioresour.M.1080/09593338209384107.. Manag. Treatment of a slaughterhouse wastewater: effect of internal recycle rate on chemical oxygen demand. Univ. Gomes.doi. A. decentralization.. Sonophotolytic degradation of synthetic pharmaceutical wastewater: statistical experimental design and modeling. Kunz. J. Charoensuk. rrez-Sarabia. Health A 45 (10)... Del Nery. 5 (1). Bioresour. Chem. doi. Tezcanun. G. Damianovic. Shen.jenvman.001.. Chong. Mehrvar. Schro .L.. Feng..doi.B. Mehrvar.fao.J. 2008. Knight. 96 (15).. D.017.. Godon. Performances of SBR.M.fao. Bioresour. Hazard. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN)..1080/ 10934529.11.06. E. R.-L.. T.doi. M.org/10.03.. 798e807. R. Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater.cherd. http:// dx. 2005..org/10. 2012. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment in a full-scale system with constructed wetlands.org/ agris-search/search. 39 (2). M.doi. High-rate anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater at ambient operating temperatures: a review on benefits and drawbacks. Int.021.R.org/10.doi. M. http://dx. R.org/10.... V. I. Bustillo-Lecompte. http://dx. http://dx. http://dx. H. 32 (15).C. Mehrvar.org/10. 2015.04.org/docrep/ 019/i3473e/i3473e.3109/1040841X.W. Activated sludge systems removal efficiency of veterinary pharmaceuticals from slaughterhouse wastewater.300 C.. 263e271.V. Chernicharo. Daigger.2003..doi.org/10. Environ.R. http://dx. Treatment of meat industry wastewater using dissolved air Jose flotation and advanced oxidation processes monitored by GC-MS and LC-MS. Environ. M.L. R. Castillo.2012. .doi.019.P.F.cej. Quin analysis of TOC removal from slaughterhouse wastewater using combined anaerobic-aerobic and UV/H2O2 processes. A.2007. Mekonnen.R.C.P.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri¼CELEX:31991L0271&from¼EN. Water Environ.058.1080/10934529.12..1080/ 09593332608618478. http://dx. Eryuruk. H.wri. U. Mees. 2012. 9 (3).035.. 2009. Health A 48 (9). Chimenes.. http://dx.05.03. Stehfest. Mehrvar.1012878108.. Knøchel.774662. http://dx. 481.06.. V. http://dx. http:// dx. 2011. A... Poggi-Varaldo. Comparison of coagulants and De Sena.Fr. C.org/10..2004. Sterritt.doi.php?script¼sci_arttext&pid¼S0254-07702005000200003. S. http://worldfood.. Griborio. Sci. Federal Committee on Environmental Management Systems (FCEMS)/Wastewater Working Group (accessed 10. Biotechnol.. Combined Bustillo-Lecompte. Technol. Del Nery.. M. S. 2006. M.1016/j.060. Environ.. Environ. M. Tyagi.1016/j.F.2008. Andrade.org/10. Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets.12. Fisheries Act. A discussion paper on challenges and limitations to water reuse and hygiene in the food industry. S.F. Van Acker. E.desal. 110 (52).047..H. http://dx.. Hu. Mowla.. J. L. Agric. . 2009. Hazard.cej. biortech.P. Willems.2009. Toxic.11.F.resconrec.org/10. Fang.gc. S. De Sena. R.03. 20882e20887.H. Environ.. http://dx. Amorim. I. 2000.1016/j.... Gerbens-Leenes. Eng. Gordon. Council of the European Communities (CEC).677. http:// dx.doi.. 2009. Emamjomeh.. L. 2005.. Auriol.org/10. R. R. Rev... M.watres. Jose coagulation aids for treatment of meat processing wastewater by column flotation.2007. C. Environment Canada. . Keskes..N. no.doi.. Chemosphere 91 (5).. 192 (1e4). The effects of operational and environmental variations on anaerobic wastewater treatment systems: a review.org/10. J. http://dx. Hazard. Mijalova Nacheva.. Borzacconi. Water Sci. J.. Louvet. 2013 art. 31 (3). 2006. http://dx.enzmictec. http://dx. 2006. Energ. Silva. J. 100 (6). R.org/10. Environ.006.lrrd. 40 (3e4)..A.org/10.1155/2013/134872. Prod. F. Masse draulic shock loads on anaerobic sequencing batch reactors treating slaughterhouse wastewater at 20 C. M. Genena. M.2013.. http://dx.1081/ESE-200056129.doi.-S. 2006. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 334e343. http://dx... 103 (1).org/10.21844.. Ozcan.org/ 10.-I. O.2166/wst.doi.. A.org/10.1016/j. Millamena. Nasir...B. Bioresour. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by hydrolysis and Bardenpho process.1016/j.A.org/10.1080/10889868. C. P. 2005. B.. pp. M. 2011. Homeky.R.C. Shafiq. C. ~ eriz.. 1228e1236. D.S. S..jhazmat.. http://dx. High-concentration food wastewater treatment by an anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Can. 2009. 75e82. 2008. H. Herrera-Lo pez. 2013. M.P. Vilas Boas. Lo pez-Lo pez.. http:// dx..2009. Water Air Soil Pollut. D.. Sin Rada.org/10.doi. Dung. 829e835.. Environ. Passig... D. B. Technol. Debsarkar. Clean.. Eng. R. B. In: Advanced Engineering and Technology Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Congress on Advanced Engineering and Technology CAET 2014. Me ndez-Romero.M. Y. I. Hamdi.583.... chemosphere.001. 322e332. Godon. M. H. particulate organic.P.. 2005. Hsiao.C.M.apenergy. M. Mukherjee. S. L... 267e286. L. Reshadat. E.. 1375e1379....09. Application of struvite precipitation coupled with biological treatment to slaughterhouse wastewaters. Technol.2175/106143004X141924. Int.. 28e34..2009. 581e597.1080/09593330. Photocatalytic treatment of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) in water.L. Brazil: a case study. Jensen. L.. 2012..pdf. 877e884. Environ.. E.. 1869e1874.2011. Phys.. Characterization of wastewater from hog slaughterMasse houses in Eastern Canada and evaluation of their in-plant wastewater treatment systems. Y.007.2005. Braz. Technol.T..doi.2166/wst. M. http://dx. Hossaini.. M..C.265. N. Kundu... http://dx. 1484e1492. F.. 1992.. 2012. S... 63 (5). Kinetic behavior of nitrification in the post-treatment of poultry wastewater in a sequential batch reactor. http://dx.doi.. R. Bioeng. http:// dx. Agric. 270e275.S.doi. M. http://dx.org/10.2005. Investigating wastewater modelling as a tool to predict anaerobic decomposition and biogas yield of abattoir effluent. Treatment of wastewater from slaughterhouse by biodigester and Vetiveria zizanioides L. 34 (3). B.jece. H. Kinetic modeling for simultaneous organic carbon oxidation.B... M.816373. Mohamad. G. Kus¸çu.04.1016/j.org/10.E. Mehrvar.. 312.. A.. Casellas.cep. Characterization of the effluent wastewater from abattoirs for . Radiat. 1200e1205.02. http://www.. Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor...K.A.002.doi. L. 2166/wst. Mehrvar. 2001.G.doi. S. Process kinetics of an activated-sludge reactor system treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater.doi.1201/b16699-88.1016/j. http://dx. G. org/10. Mierzwa.doi.. Li. Vallejo-Rodríguez.N. Environ.1016/ 0960-8524(95)00140-9. D.. Janoschka.1080/09593330903136856. Moreira..018. B.2011.939134. S. H. 172e176. Combined photochemical and biological processes for the treatment of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate in water. A. S.A.2006.radphyschem.2013. Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters by electrocoagulation. http://dx. Technol. A full-scale UASB reactor for treatment of pig and cattle slaughterhouse wastewater with a high oil and grease content. Evaluation of Luiz. L. Gomes.org/10.. S.doi. Technol.res.. Water Environ.. A.. Zeeman.H. D. Rural Dev. 319e326. Fatehizadeh. M. 12 (1e3). http://dx.1016/j.. Treatment efficiencies of a sequential anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR)/completely stirred tank reactor (CSTR) system at increasing p-nitrophenol and COD loading rates. Tertiary Luiz..doi. 54. X. 17 (13).. 1016/j.2014.1016/ j.. Ghasemi. Proc. http://dx. S. Hoekstra.doi. 1225e1232. Kobya. A sequencing batch reactor system for high-level biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal from abattoir wastewater. 339e350. Yousefi. J. J.org/10.engr.M. Xu. J. 23e31.T. Cabo Verde.10. C. 2013. 2000.. Torretta.org/10.. Water Sci.org/10.. A.2014. Guo. Miranda. Coagulation/adsorption combined treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Hamad.. 132e141. E. Chem. 2009. 22 (4). M. Technol.J. Environ. Rev.I. Yuan. Schro € der... Del Real-Olvera. 2004.polymdegradstab. Eng. Galisteo. http://dx. J. 2014. L. M. 559e566. Tunay.T. Sci. Marcelino.org/10. .doi.O. Me Hydrodynamic and kinetic assessment of an anaerobic fixed-bed reactor for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment.. Monteggia.S. Mekonnen.1080/ 09593330903470693..L.K. J. E. E. Chem. 006. M.org/10. Gomes. A. http://dx. Pan.C.01. 217e221..A.org/10..in/handle/123456789/18367. Performance of anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) treating synthetic wastewater containing p-nitrophenol. R..P.org/10. J.03. 42 (3). R. Le Minh.02.C. Evaluation of a Lo 301 combined anaerobic and aerobic system for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater.doi.doi. J. and hyMasse. Li. ~ as. J. Mees. 2014. Van Am. L. 2012.. Desalin. ndez-Ramírez.H. Tariq. doi.. Chem. Res.. Application of enhanced softening process in slaughterhouse wastewater treatment. 2005.org/10.. Hasan. A. Gomes. Fed. Huang.. Kiepper. Achieving the nitrite pathway using aeration phase length control and step-feed in an SBR removing nutrients from abattoir wastewater. http://dx. Bouallagui.M. Nitrogen removal in a SBR operated with and without pre-denitrification: effect of the carbon:nitrogen ratio and the cycle time.doi.I.org/10. Vilas Boas.468. org/10. Y. Process Biochem.1016/0273-1223(96http://dx. 2014. Hamawand.1016/j.. Eng.002. Godon.M.004. Abid.jclepro. Chahlaouider. http://dx. 4110e4118. http://dx. http://dx. Ragazzi. M. 1 (4). Copelli.1007/ s10021-011-9517-8. P. McCabe. Harris.D.. P.X.. T. F.org/10.doi.C. Vaz. Environ.H. Treatment of the effluent from a red meat slaughterhouse by electrocoagulation flotation with iron electrodes..063.. Debsarkar. Botelho. Norton. Gamma radiation induced effects on slaughterhouse wastewater treatment.. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors enable high rate treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Manh.org/lrrd26/4/manh26068..N. F. Eng. Water Sci. S. M. E. 2013. O. 251e261. € Kus¸çu.. 2013. Technol. 60 (7). S. V. M.doi. Bioresour.. http://dx. http://dx. 63 (9). Sci. Resour. 12e25. Biochem.procbio. Jose hybrid treatments to produce high quality reuse water. Ahmadian. 2008. Ecosystems 15 (3). P.doi.org/10. Moreira. 015.org/10. Lo Combustible gas production (methane) and biodegradation of solid and liquid mixtures of meat industry wastes. Sponza.. J.2012.org/10.2175/ 193864701790864854. 133 (1e3). 2014.doi. M.J. 2011..952.F.org/10. 1095e1101. Biodegradation 20 (3). € Kabdas¸l.037.. Bustillo-Lecompte. Technol. Environ.12.. Experimental study of polyvinyl alcohol degradation in aqueous solution by UV/H2O2 process. 32 (12). Cleaner production in the management of water use at a poultry slaughterhouse of Vale do Taquari.1016/j.01. Process Biochem.doi. 1007/s10532-008-9225-z.bej. Mees. Rivera.M. Mittal. Polym.. 954e964... M. Bouallagui.org/10.. Dagot. http://dx.L...S. 2006.org/10. M. Technol. doi. Sponza.A. M. M.012.. Mallo. Zhang. G. 2013. Mukherjee. G. Matsumura. 2014. Lemaire.02.doi.A. 97. Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewaters using anaerobic filters..1016/j.. doi. J.. E. Van Haandel. Bioremediat.J. 648e655.. 2008. L. 1105e1118. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing industry: a review.resconrec..htm.doi.B. C. Treatment of Martínez..10. Water Res. 1080/09593330.watres. Biomed.1016/0273-1223(96)00143-6. 98e100.02..S. Effect of aeration rate on nutrient removal from slaughterhouse wastewater in intermittently aerated sequencing batch reactors. P. Bayramoglu. 135e150. R. J.009. Technol.. Senturk. 401e415.1590/ S0100-69162011000500013.B. http://dx. B.2013.. H.B. ^ Kist.J. R.07.doi. Treatment of slaughter house wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor: performance evaluation and biodegradation kinetics. Leit~ ao. Marcos. 2013.R. Chaouch.F.. Rajabi Gilan. M. 35 (3). Zhan. S. Gomes. A. Melo.doi. Masse. http:// nopr. Minguela. T. N. D. 87 (5).2011.2004. Yap. nitrification. http://dx. A.1007/s11270-008-9652-9.10. 1995.09. Li.J.V. 2015.1080/ 09593330. Tabrizi. 2014. Baillie. In: http://dx. A. J.2013.7202/1016064ar. Lomelí Serrano. Kundu.Fr. http://dx. Health A 40 (5).ca/ societies/csae/c9918. Leo n-Becerril. 26 (4) art.. P. S.2007. 2010. 11 (1). Biotechnol. Dhib.org/10. 273e280. Lemaire. 2009. 50 (3).2005. Degrad.org/10. He. T.2004.. . 103 (1). http://dx.827729. Pons. E.2011. B.07. Biological sludge reduction during abattoir wastewater treatment process using a sequencing batch aerobic system. 2009.1016/j.doi... Yusaf. 30 (10). Hamdi. D. C. T. D. B.04.. A. M. A. McCabe. Aquac. Environ. D. N. D. H. 134872.5004/dwt. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: investigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. M. doi. J.F.. 2014. Recycl. Boyle-Gotla.. 36 (7).niscair. Venhuis. org/10. Enzyme Microb.org/10. Livest. 39 (17). Raboni.. 2001 (12).doi. R.. Mater. Water Sci.. A. I. G. 2005. 2011.. 888e895.L. Ozone treatment of slaughterhouse and laboratory wastewaters. J.T. 2008. S.doi. In: http:// dx. O. Technol.org/10.1016/j.Y. 115e123. F. A.. Machado. Chem.1002/bit. A. 18 (4). Water conservation and reuse in poultry processing plant-A case study. Z. Jose treatment of slaughterhouse effluent: degradation kinetics applying UV radiation or H2O2/UV.597782. 139e146.. S.2015. A survey of wastewater treatment practices in the broiler industry. .1016/0144-8609(92) 90018-S.M.doi. Monitoring of slaughterhouse wastewater biodegradation in a SBR using fluorescence and UVVisible absorbance. R. Performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor for the aerobic treatment of abattoir wastewater.C.. Cuadros.1007/978-3-319-03674-8_26.org/10. Khennoussi. M.2013.doi. http://dx.. S.apenergy. Stud.011.. Johns.. Water Treat. ndez-Romero.696713.org/10.. 798e808. 33 (7).030. http://dx. D. Zhang.A.. Bernet.org/10. J. Batstone.1016/j.1590/ S0104-66322005000400013. http://dx. N. 2010..C.2007. http://dx.org/10.. Branco. Vin slaughterhouse wastewater. http://dx. 203e216. http://www. Conserv... 20 (3).biortech.doi. http://dx.org/10. Al-Kassir. 97 (9).1016/j..org/10. Technol.D. Z. http://dx. Moutaqi..org/10. G. O.. no. and denitrification of abattoir wastewater in sequencing batch reactor..1080/09593330. Eng. 2014.usask.org/10. http://dx. 41 (7). http://dx. Appl. J. Indian J. 2005.doi.procbio. Hamawand.org/10.. Sci. 601e610.M.doi.doi.org/10. D. Hmaied. Energy 114.... Appl... Process. pez-Lo pez.2009..D. Pidou. Eng. Lettinga. A. H. Bioresour.D.. 2009. http://dx. Martinez. H. 835e842. Res. http://dx. 273e280. J...1016/j.. S. Health A 41 (4).. A.. 2046e2051. M...org/10. Vallejo-Rodriguez.. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Keller. 1729e1735. P.... Mehrvar. Yilmaz.. 77 (1). Yuan. Mahtab.doi. Rodgers. 52 (6).007. Herna Artificial neural network modeling of slaughterhouse wastewater removal of COD and TSS by electrocoagulation.J. Technol.R.K. J. A... 1995. 2011. J.2011..biortech. 333e341.D.020. Marcos.doi. I. . Gannoun. Technol.. Environ. Reyes Pantoja. Eng. Fuzziness Soft Comput. http://dx. J..doi.-H. Eau 26 (2). Huang.doi.1016/j. org/10. Henriques.1080/10934520600572975.doi. http://dx.doi. 99e104. 31 (5).. Chem. http://dx. Keskes. Carney.. M. 68. 35 (1). Stabil.. pez-Rodríguez. Effect of soluble organic. 1003e1012.. M.1016/j.. Agric.2009. Healy. Technol. Baillie. S. F.1016/j. 3335e3347.1002/ jctb. 2013. Bioprocess Biosyst.2013. Meenambal.. S.138. Potential of anaerobic digestion for material recovery and energy production in waste biomass from a poultry slaughterhouse. http://dx. 7e14.2007. X.20569.1061/(ASCE)EE. I.053640. 20 (3). E. 411e423. Extraction of proteins from slaughterhouse by-products: influence of operating conditions on functional properties. 41 (3). biortech. 2011. 235e245.. San Jose Tecnol.. Bustillo-Lecompte. 2014. Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters: a review. 1299e1306.J. Fuente. M. Biotechnol. 2012.11.. J.03. 10..doi. Res.021.1080/ 10934529909376861.ac.. 69 (173).C. R. J. Agric. 2004.org/10..2007. Schuchardt. Combination of sonophotolysis and aerobic activated sludge processes for treatment of synthetic pharmaceutical wastewater.. Health A 34 (3). 2007.org/10.cgi/ 20002F0Q. Silva. M. Bulg.2014. 80 (7)... 281e298. General EHS Guidelines: Environmental Wastewater and Ambient Water Quality (accessed 10. Overview of water usage and wastewater management in the food and beverage industry.-W.2013. Environ. Oh. Meat Sci. 2007. Von Sperling. Available online: http://www. 607e614.. no. S. 74e87. J. Malamis. scitotenv. S. F. T. 2004. The potential of four tropical wetland plants for the treatment of abattoir effluent. J. http://dx. Optimization of coagulation process for the treatment of the characterized slaughterhouse wastewater. Effects of environmental regulation on economic activity and pollution in commercial agriculture. 71. 2005. Liu.foodpol. 721e736. http://dx.. J. A. http://dx.resconrec. http://dx. 401e410. 4444e4455. Tritt. 470e477. 90 (3).F.C.C. Can.. S.2006.htm. http://dx. Fei. 828e833. G..org/10. Odong.ca/docs/journal/54/C12062..org/10. M. D. J.org/10. 1004e1016. M. Christophe... Water Environ. 2005.M. OMAFRA. http://dx. Pak.020. P. 16 (3).gov.. Eng.E.. Environ. http://dx.16.org/10.061.D. http://dx.org/10. 1943-7870. Omara. http:// dx..2009.-Y.18. Bioresour.R. Bla wastewater in a UASB reactor and an anaerobic filter..2013.doi. Chem. 139 (7). S. csbe-scgab..006. Venhuis.org/10. J. 3029e3081. 441e447. Starting-up and operating a full-scale activated Pabo sludge system for slaughterhouse wastewater.doi.doi.org/10. H.doi. Eng.. Anal.. 2014.). J. 35 (3). http://dx.June. Can. Treatment of restaurant wastewater by pilot-scale electrocoagulation... Technol. Eng. V. X. R.. Huang. ~ ez. Park.A..2012. Sci.08.S. 59 (7). Tariq. 8 (1). Ge lvez. J. J. Environ.. Health A 39 (11e12). Technol. L.1007/ BF03326204. Zhan.-Z. J. M. Rajakumar.doi.epa. Policy 9 (1) art. Mittal. 1707e1716. J.E. Food Policy 32 (3).org/10.001. T..C. Kim. .1081/ESE-200068007..doi.). A.1081/LFRI200029422. Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater in hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor packed with pleated poly vinyl chloride rings. D. M...pdf. Healy. 2006. S. Characterization of provincially inspected slaughterhouse wastewater in Ontario.ecoleng. J... http://dx. http://dx.L. Soroko.-T.doi.3. J. 72 (5).2175/ 106143003X141015. Res.es/servlet/articulo? codigo¼969301.815535.. J. 4141e4166. Waheed. Disinfection of recycled red-meat-processing wastewater by ozone. Mehrvar. 232e237. org/ehsguidelines. Rintala. Investigation of technical and economic analysis of electrocoagulation process for the treatment of great and small cattle slaughterhouse wastewater.doi.P. 700e706. P. Pavlostathis. A review. Yang. H. Ecol. Chem. R.P. 2015. Nitrogen removal from slaughterhouse wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor under controlled low DO conditions.org.doi. 34 (1). Vymazal.1016/j. V. Treatment of slaughterhouse Ruiz.doi.034. 2010. doi. Caldas. M. Environ. 2003. Res. J.. Kansiime.G. 409 (20). 2009. 2013. Real-time monitoring and control of sequencing batch reactors for secondary treatment of a poultry processing wastewater. http://dx. Mowla. 2014. http:// www.org/10. http://dx.org/10.org/10. R..M..08. T. Technol. http://www... Technol. Health A 40 (9).-Y.064. 13 (2)... 13e26. Shafiq. Yoon. P. Pan. 251e258.doi. B. D.. http://dx. Ellis. http://dx. M.. J.. http://dx.org/ 10..T.. Combination of Advanced Oxidation Processes and biological treatments for wastewater decontamination . 1119e1135. Gao. Damianovic. 2011.org/10. Valta. Environ. B. Barana.B.org/10. http://nepis. 2011.doi. Meenambal. 7 (3e4).. Technol. 2002. Res..org/10.org/16/06-06-10. Bird slaughterhouse: generation and purification of their water..G.1007/s00449-011-0585-0. R. Nery.doi.org/10. Doan.org/10.2011. Environ. March 17.1016/j.doi. De Santiago. Qin.1080/09593332608618554. Stets. Karagozoglu. Henry. 2000. 149 (3).unirioja. A. Res. and advances. C. E. J. Chen..pdf. M.. 203e222.. J.09. Wu. Total Environ. 60 (3). org/10..14.-H. Materials flow and possibilities of treating liquid and solid wastes from slaughterhouses in Germany. Effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the meat and poultry products point source category. 2012.. Ozyonar. Selmane. 26 (4). Econ. Zhan. Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater in upflow anaerobic filter under low upflow velocity. Yeom. Mehrvar / Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 287e302 land application. Microbial community and performance of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment filters. 2014.doi. Li.04. 16 (6).. Slaughterhouse wastewater Nún treatment using ferric and aluminium salts and organic polyelectrolites. http://dx. 2007. Eng. Water Treat. Resour.. Steffens. Gholamreza.07.S. L. 255.org/10.org/10. http://dx. Mittal. Pierson. Mater.4238/2014. X. R.1016/j.0000687.ir/article_221_4. 53. M. M.2009.. A. R.1016/S1642-3593(07)70117-9. F. Int.1109/ICBBE. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaughterhouse waste . Ontario Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) (accessed 10.. 2009. S. Environ. F.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.a review. 2013.. Wu. 2014. US EPA. Siqueira.. 43e48. 35 (4). Rajakumar. I. Ein-Mozaffari. Veiga. Ing. T. Kim.H.. T. Torkian. Eng.doi. Water Environ. 83 (1). U. 2007. Agua 24 (251). Q.doi. B..doi.A. Waste Manag. 97 (9). no. M..10. Recycl..doi. A. Khan.9e6. T. Sayadi. 339e343.787373. http://dx. 2012. 204e209. Influence of organic loading rate on s production in fluidthe anaerobic treatment of sugarcane vinasse and bioga ized bed reactor. V. F. Technol. http://dx..934100.org/10. Provincially Licensed Meat Plants in Ontario.doi. Ananthanarayanan. 32 (5).omafra. G.G. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: implications for research and policy. Mol.doi. Meenambal. http://dx.org/10. http://dx. P.. 116e122.H.1080/09593330.A. Dhib.scielo.R..11.A. Sci.electroflotation: optimization of operating conditions. Z. 53e58.doi. Posttreatment of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-treated industrial wastewater by a rotating biological contactor. Environ...E.1080/10934529.org/10. doi... Photolytic treatment of aqueous linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS). Manag. 1997.H..H. 149e158. Integration of advanced oxidation technologies and biological processes: recent developments.. Int. 229e256. Hydrobiol. Pingali.1016/j. http://dx. http://dx. http://dx. Study on treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater with co-coagulation flotation and SBR process.15. Kyambadde.doi.1016/j.L.. 52 (1e3).A.. Technol.. 2009. http://dx.. J. Invest. P.1007/s00449-008-0283-8.-H. I.doi. J. S..1016/j. A. Int. K. http://dx. http://dx. 73. 2014. 700e704.PDF?Dockey¼20002F0Q. 79 (4).. Long-term performance and operational strategies of a poultry slaughterhouse waste stabilization pond system in a tropical climate. C. Y.G. Sneeringer.M. 2008. Loizidou. S.2014. Galv~ ao. 2014. Environ..org/10. M.09..2202/1935-1682. L. Kosanovic. Agency (US EPA) Fed.. J.2248. 5163535.. Desalin.S. R. Siddique. 719e729.2175/ 106143000X138166. http:// www. Wang.2010. Eng.. http://ijer. Environmental. Moustakas. Ecohydrol.I. P. X. http://dx.meatsci.1080/19443994. 2009. M. http://dx.org/ 10. Salminen. 75 (3).. Mohajerani. Desalin. Damiano. Sci.on. In: 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering iCBBE 2009 art. 2013. 459e468.org/10. . Mehrvar. Environ.. Sanchez-Perez.. Sci. 2004..a review. 31. Hashemian. Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application a review. Alinejad. Zhang. Conserv. B. 1999. De Nardi. Etto. G. 2005. Sci. Technol.1504/IJETM.doi.co/pdf/iei/v29n2/v29n2a08. 2009. 53 (12). Hazard.org/10. M.. J.ca/english/food/inspection/maps/ TblAllAbattoirs. W. Application of acidogenic fixed-bed reactor prior to anaerobic membrane bioreactor for sustainable slaughterhouse wastewater treatment.030. http://dx. I..Z.. 585e592.org/10.832336. Environ..H. J. Bioresour. Technol. Oliveira. 48e51. Regist. http://dialnet. Evaluation of an on-site pilot static granular bed reactor (SGBR) for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Pires. Martínez. E. E. Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for Meat Processing. Rajesh Banu.. Satyanarayan. Conventional approach for abattoir wastewater treatment. S.302 C..2013.agrojournal. 2014.biortech..org/10.. L. S. Comparative study on start-up performance of HUASB and AF reactors treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. 1731e1739. Ind.. K. Photoreactor design and CFD modelling of a UV/H2O2 process for distillery wastewater treatment.1016/S0960-8524(01)00199-7..1016/j. Public Health 2 (4). Bioresour. Bioresour. G. Sci. Yordanov. 6.. E.2166/wst.org/10. Genet. Sci.doi.html.. D... Oller. J. zquez. Chem.. World Bank Group.5163535. Pozzi.. M. 2012. T.org/10. http://dx. Eng.PDF.. Vanerkar.org/10.doi. Biosyst.1016/S0960-8524(97)00020-5.2013. Tabrizi. 2008.doi. http://dx.org/10.W... Available online: http://www. 724e751. Xu. Sci.. wasman.cej. Mehrvar.06. jhazmat.doi. Technol.. Technol..org/10. Malato. Oh.doi. Prot. Rajakumar. Food Rev.ifc..1324.029. X. 640e647.-M.1016/0960-8524(92)90008-L.. http://dx... Performance evaluation of UASB reactor systems with and without post-treatment. Preliminary study of the efficiency of ultrafiltration treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. Ayub.pdf. 29 (2). Canada. J. Mehrvar. n. M.M. Int. 55 (1). Guo.1080/19443994.1016/j.1016/j. J. trends. Health A 48 (13). Water Treat. doi. R. M.1081/LESA-200034939. 103 (1).doi. Ramakant. Water Sci. García. E. Nitrogen removal from slaughterhouse wastewater through partial nitrification followed by denitrification in intermittently aerated sequencing batch reactors at 11 C.1002/cjce. S.ut.B. S. Cruz.2004.. Ahmad. Saravanan. Bioresour. Treatment of wastewater from small slaughterhouse in hybrid constructed wetlands systems.. 1992.031. Saddoud. K.doi. Bioprocess Biosyst.G..