THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OF CHICKEN SLAUGHTERHOUSE BY USING SUBMERGED UPFLOW
ANAEROBIC BIOFILTER
Oleh : Muhammad Al Kholif (a), Joni Hermana
(b)
a & b Department of
Environmental Engineering,
Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Abstract
The wastewater of a chicken
slaughterhouse (RPA), in the form
of rumen or gastric contents, excess bloods, fats and the rinsed
water becomes a source of environmental pollution. In addition to this,
the RPA’s activity could also produce
the methane gas from converting its high
COD concentration, that is a very potential source of the
greenhouse gases. The purpose of
this study is to assess the
performance of a Submerged Upflow
Anaerobic Biofilter in removing the COD concentration of the RPA
wastewater. During the research, the
media used were fragmented stones and
using the media hydraulic loading
rates variations of 0.006; 0.009
and 0.015 m3/m2media.day.
From the result, it was shown that the
greatest removal efficiency was
96,32% with the hydraulic load of 0.006 m3/m2media.day,
while the hydraulic
load of 0.009
yielded removal efficiency of 90,80% and 0.015 m3/m2media.day
yielded removal efficiency of 90,18%.
Keyword: Media hydraulic load,
chicken slaughterhouse wastewater, submerged upflow anaerobic biofilter.
1.
Introductions
Industrial wastewater a chicken slaughterhouse (RPA)
is one of the sources of environmental
pollution. The wastewater RPA in
the form of rumen contents
or gastric contents, excess blood or fat, and the rinsed water,
can act as a
medium for microbial growth
so that the waste is more biodegradable. The number and characteristics of industrial
wastewater in the
RPA vary greatly depends on the industrial process
and water used
for each slaughter activity
(Del Nery et al., 2001a). During the degradation process in the water, ammonia
(NH3) and sour gas (H2S) were produced
above the maximum water quality standard. Both gases cause bad odours besides consume an
excessive use of dissolved oxygen
that could result in a lack of oxygen
for aquatic biota. Ammonia is formed during
anaerobic digestion of protein and from
the long-chain fatty acids that are formed
in the digestion of lipids (Bayr et al, 2012; Cuetos et al, 2008; Salminen and Rintala,
2002).
According to Del and Damianovic
in Tarntip and
Thungkao (2011), chicken
slaughter will produce wastewater,
especially during the process of cutting
and washing of carcasses. The RPA wastewater contains various physical-chemical and microbiological
contents, including Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus thuringiensis, and Lysinibacillus fusiform (Tarntip and Thungkao,
2011).
The high organic content of the RPA wastewater, including: TSS, oils or fats, and also nutrient that could
lead to eutrophication and threaten the aquatic ecosystems. It is estimated
that the amount of waste in the form of fat from whole fresh chicken is about
7.80 – 17.7 % of the chicken weight (Awonorin et al., 1995). From a medium-sized broiler chicken (2 – 3 kg of
weight), it can produce about 100 grams of fat which attached to the gizzard
and tail, and approximately 2.10% of fat contained in the breast of a chicken
(Nafiah, 2010) .
The COD content of the RPA wastewater has a concentration
that exceeds the quality
standard. The initial sampling
result of COD concentration was
656 mg/l, and the
submerged anaerobic biofilter
system is considered to be appropriate to
treat the RPA waste. The
biofilter process was able to treat farm waste with the BOD removal efficiency of 80-90% (Metcalf &
Eddy, 2004).
Furthermore, the use of anaerobic technology provides a good solution for the RPA wastewater,
both from its composition or organic pollutant concentration (Padmono,
2005). Other anaerobic treatment technology options for the RPA wastewater are
anaerobic contact process (ACP), upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB),
anaerobic filter process (AF), and
anaerobic sequence batch reactor (ASBR)
(US-EPA, 2002;
Johns, 1995). Biofilter
(or submerged filter) is a
term for the reactor
that was developed with the principle of microbes to grow and attach on
a layer of filter
media and to form a biofilm as an attached growth
microorganism (Slamet and Masduqi, 2000). The purpose of this study is therefore to assess
the performance of anaerobic submerged biofilter in treating the COD
concentration of RPA wastewater.
2. Material and Methods
During this study, the media hydraulic loading was varied to remove the COD
concentration of RPA wastewater by using the submerged upflow anaerobic biofilter. The media hydraulic load rates used were
0,006 m3/m2media.day, 0,009 m3/m2media.day
and 0,015 m3/m2media.day, addressed as Reactor
I, II and III respectively. The biofilter media were gravel or fragmented
stones with the mean diameter of 3 cm. The reactor used was shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Biofilter media used in anaerobic submerged biofilter
|
Reactor
|
Lenght (m)
|
Width (m)
|
Height (m)
|
Bulk Filter Media Volume (m3)
|
|
I
|
0.30
|
0.30
|
0.55
|
0.02598
|
|
II
|
0.25
|
0.25
|
0.55
|
0.01804
|
|
III
|
0.20
|
0.20
|
0.55
|
0.01150
|
The amount of media used in each reactor was
calculated by using the equation:
With the media height of 55 cm and the total media volume of 12
cm3, the number of media stones is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Number of gravel media in each anaerobic submerged biofilter
|
Reactor
|
Total volume of gravel
|
Volume 1 media (cm3)
|
Amount Media
|
|
|
(m3)
|
(cm3)
|
|||
|
I
|
0.02598
|
25.980
|
12
|
2.165
|
|
II
|
0.01804
|
18.040
|
1.504
|
|
|
III
|
0.01150
|
11.500
|
936
|
|
The surface area of the media (Asurface)
was obtained after the gravel media volume was calculated, by using the equation (2):
.................................................................................. (2)
Where :
a =
Number of media
As’ = Asurface
1 media
Table 3. Total available Asurface media inside the reactor
|
Reactor
|
Number of media
|
Asurface single media (cm2)
|
Asurface total media (m2)
|
|
I
|
2.165
|
30.3
|
6.5
|
|
II
|
1.504
|
30.3
|
4.5
|
|
III
|
936
|
30.3
|
3.0
|
The media hydraulic loading rates (HLR)
was then calculated based on the calculated surface area in Table 3 by using the following equation (Eq. 3) and the results
were tabulated in Table 4 below:
Table 4. Media hydraulic
loading rates (HLR) variations
|
Reactor
|
Debit (m3/day)
|
Asurface total (m2)
|
Media HLR (m3/m2media.day)
|
|
I
|
0.045
|
6.5
|
0.006
|
|
II
|
0.045
|
4.5
|
0.009
|
|
III
|
0.045
|
3.0
|
0.015
|
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Effect of media HLR 0.006
m3/m2media.day to COD removal
The COD removal by the anaerobic submerged biofilter reactor through biological processes is
shown in Table 5 and Figure 1. The media used for the
attached microorganisms were gravel with the media HLR
of 0.006 m3/m2media.day.
Table 5. The COD removal with the HLR of 0.006 m3/m2media.day
|
Day
|
COD Removal Efficiency in Reactor I (%)
|
|
1
|
67.63
|
|
2
|
73.18
|
|
3
|
95.76
|
|
4
|
96.32
|
|
5
|
70.78
|
|
6
|
69.56
|
|
7
|
51.29
|
|
Average (%)
|
74.93
|
The COD removal of Reactor I had the average value of 74.93%
with an average influent
COD of 657
mg/l. The highest COD removal efficiency occurred in the
4th day during the anaerobic
biofilter process, i.e: 96.32%. The removal efficiency of higher than 90% indicated
that the anaerobic submerged biofilter reactor is
suitable for treating the organic pollutant concentration of the RPA wastewater.
Figure 1. The COD removal
efficiency of Reactor I
It is also observed that starting from the 5th day, the COD removal efficiency decreased
gradually and declining even lower than the removal from the first day of experiment.
3.2. Effect of media HLR 0.009
m3/m2media.day to COD removal
The COD removal during the treatment process using the
media HLR of 0.009
m3/m2media.day in Reactor II is presented in Table 6 and Figure 2 below.
Table 6. The COD removal with the HLR of 0.009 m3/m2media.day
|
Day
|
COD Removal Efficiency in Reactor II (%)
|
|
1
|
57.90
|
|
2
|
68.18
|
|
3
|
87.88
|
|
4
|
90.80
|
|
5
|
73.21
|
|
6
|
59.82
|
|
7
|
47.23
|
|
Average (%)
|
69.27
|
The COD influent had an average of 657 mg/L, but the removal efficiency varied.
The highest COD removal
efficiency occurred on the 4th
day of running time with the COD removal
of 90.80%. While the total average
of COD removal was obtained at 69.27%. Similar to the previous
observation with the Reactor I, the removal efficiency decrease after its reach
the optimum removal efficiency. This was supported by the decreasing activity of microorganisms in degrading the wastewater.
From the above data, it could be concluded that the
microorganisms worked optimally in treating the RPA wastewater on
the 4th day of observation.
The decreased microorganisms activity could be caused by several things,
such as reduced food supply or nutrients obtained
by microorganisms or can be caused by endogenous
phase.
Figure 2. The COD removal
efficiency of Reactor II
Figure 2 above explains that the similar trend as shown in Figure 1, the COD
removal started to increase slowly until it reached the optimum condition on the
3th day to the 4th day. The COD removal efficiency
decreased since the 5th day and continued until the 7th
day of observation. Decrease in the microorganisms activity could be observed
from the analysis of COD parameter.
3.3. Effect of media HLR 0.015
m3/m2media.day to COD removal
The COD removal during the treatment process using the
media HLR of 0.015
m3/m2media.day in Reactor III is presented in Table 7 and Figure 3 below.
Tabel 7. The COD removal with the HLR of 0.015 m3/m2media.day
|
Day
|
Efficiency values (%) at Reactor III
|
|
1
|
58.05
|
|
2
|
62.88
|
|
3
|
87.88
|
|
4
|
90.18
|
|
5
|
68.34
|
|
6
|
64.69
|
|
7
|
48.86
|
|
Average (%)
|
68.70
|
The average removal efficiency of COD
that occurs in the Reactor III was not so much
different from the average of
COD removal efficiency in the Reactor II. The average COD removal efficiency was 68.70%. As observed in
the Reactor I and Reactor II where the greatest removal efficiency occurred on the 4th day, the
Reactor III reached the maximum 90.18% efficiency.
Then, the removal eventually decreased afterward.
Figure 3. The COD removal
efficiency of Reactor III
Figure 3 above explains that in general, the same pattern of COD
removal during the experiments. In this case, the
average COD removal occurred
after the 5th day until the 7th day of
observation. Thus it can be said
that the performance of microorganisms declining after reaching its
optimum condition.
4. Conclusions
From the analysis above it can be concluded
that the greatest COD removal efficiency occurred at the Reactor I with media HLR of 0.006
m3/m2media.d COD, namely 96.32%. Moreover, it can also be concluded that the media HLR inversely
affects the COD removal efficiency while it was on the contrary for the media
surface area.
5. References
Awonorin, S.O., J.A. Ayoade,
F.O. Bamiro, and L.O. Oyewole. 1995. Relationship of rendering process temperature and time
to selected quality parameters of poultry byproduct meal. Lebensm Wiss. u. Techhnology 28: 129 – 134.
Bayr, S., Rantanen, M.,
Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2012. Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic
co-digestion of Rendering Plant and Slaughterhouse Wastes. Bioresour. Technol.
104, 28–36.
Cuetos, M.J., Gomez, X.,
Otero, M., Morán, A., 2008. Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Slaughterhouse Waste
(SHW) at Laboratory Scale: Influence of co-digestion with the Organic Fraction
of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW). Biochem. Eng. J. 40, 99–106.
Del Nery V, Damianovic MHZ,
Barros FG. The Use of an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor in the
Treatment of Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Water Sci Technol 2001a; 44 (4)
: 83 – 8.
Metcalf and Eddy. 2004. Wastewater
Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, Inc. Fourth Edition, International Edition.
McGraw - Hill Companies, Inc. New York.
Nafiah. 2010. Fat Chicken Antidotal
Global Warming. http://id.shvoong.com/exactsciences/chemistry/2035780-lemak-ayam–cegah
global-warming/.(18 Maret 2011).
Padmono, Djoko. 2005. Alternative Waste Treatment Slaughterhouse-Cakung. Journal
of Environmental Technology P3TL-BPPT, Volume 6 Nomor 1:
303-310.
Salminen, E.A., Rintala, J.A.,
2002. Semi-Continuous Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Poultry Slaughterhouse
Waste: Effect of Hydraulic Retention Time and Loading. Water Res. 36,
3175–3182.
Slamet, A. and Masduqi, A, (2000), Process Unit, Department
of Environmental Engineering FTSP-ITS, Surabaya.
Tarntip.R and S. Thungkao. 2011. Isolation of Proteolytic, Lipolytic, and Bioemulsifying Bacteria for
Improvement of the Aerobic Treatment of Poultry Processing Wastewater.
Afr. J. Microbiol. Rsc 5 (2) : 30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Onsite
Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Komentar
Posting Komentar