A Pilot Model for the Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Zeolite or Psidium-Leaf Powder as a Natural Coagulant, Followed by Filtration with Rice Straw, in Comparison with an Inorganic Coagulant
<p>Lab-scale of SHWW treatment system.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Jar test used in the coagulation and filtration of SHWW; (<b>b</b>) materials used in the coagulation and filtration of SHWW.</p> "> Figure 2 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Jar test used in the coagulation and filtration of SHWW; (<b>b</b>) materials used in the coagulation and filtration of SHWW.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS): Contaminant removal efficiencies of wastewater by coagulation processes using: (<b>a</b>) zeolite, (<b>b</b>) guava-leaf powder (GLP), and (<b>c</b>) alum.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Contaminant removal efficiencies of wastewater by coagulation processes using: (<b>a</b>) zeolite, (<b>b</b>) guava-leaf powder (GLP), and (<b>c</b>) alum. Total phosphorus (TP), Nitrogen Removal (TKN), Electric Conductivity, (EC), and total dissolved solids (TDS).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Microbiological contaminant removal efficiencies from wastewater by coagulation processes using (<b>a</b>)zeolite, (<b>b</b>) guava-leaf powder (GLP), and (<b>c</b>) Alum. Total bacterial count (TBC), total coliform count (TCC), fecal coliform (FC).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Contaminant removal efficiencies by the most effective dose of coagulants followed by filtration with physically treated rice straw (RS): Z 1200 mg; GLP 1000 mg; alum 6000 mg: (<b>a</b>) Chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS); (<b>b</b>) Total phosphorus (TP), nitrogen removal (N), electric conductivity (EC), and total dissolved solids (TDS); (<b>c</b>) Total bacterial count (TBC), total coliform count (TCC), and fecal coliform (FC).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Slaughterhouse Wastewater (SHWW) Collection and Characterization
2.2. Lab-Scale SHWW Treatment System
2.3. Sedimentation
2.4. Coagulation
2.5. Jar Test
Major Oxides | % | Physical Properties | |
---|---|---|---|
SiO2 | 70.5 | Overall surface area | 89.82 m2 gm−1 |
Al2O3 | 11.72 | Porosity % | 27.8% |
Na2O | 0.35 | Total pore area | 35.836 m2 gm−1 |
K2O | 4.57 | Average pore diameter | 0.0181 µm |
CaO | 1.01 | Bulk density | 1.83 gm cm−3 |
MgO | 0.48 | Humidity | 6.75% |
Fe2O3 | 2.56 | Solubility | 7.38% |
P2O5 | 0.02 | Swelling index | 2.52 |
TiO2 | 0.16 | pH | 6.8 |
MnO | 0.09 | Apparent density | 2.37gm cm−3 |
ZnO | 0.01 | ||
ZrO2 | 0.055 | ||
SO3 | 0.007 |
Coagulants | Coagulant Dosages (mg/L) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alum (A) | 2000 | 3000 | 4000 | 5000 | 6000 |
Zeolite (Z) | 400 | 600 | 800 | 1000 | 1200 |
Guava-leaf powder (GLP) | 1000 | 1500 | 2000 | 2500 | 3000 |
2.6. Filtration with Physically Activated Rice Straw (RS)
2.7. Analytical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Wastewater Characterization
3.2. Effect of 24 h Pretreatment Sedimentation of SHWW
3.3. Effect of the Coagulation Process
3.3.1. Effect of Coagulation Process Using Natural Zeolite (Z)
3.3.2. Effect of Coagulation Process Using Psidium Guajava-Leaf Powder (GLP)
3.3.3. Effect of Coagulation Process Using Alum
3.4. Effect of Filtration with Physically Activated Rice Straw (RS)
3.5. Evaluation of the Current Pilot Test Performance
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Nomenclature
Alum | Aluminum sulfate, Al2(SO4)3 |
BOD | Biological oxygen demand |
COD | Chemical oxygen demand |
EC | Electerical conductivity |
FC | Fecal coliform |
GLP | Guava-leaf powder |
PVC | Polyvinyl chloride |
POME | Palm-oil mill effluent |
RS | Rice straw |
SCOD | Soluble chemical oxygen demand |
SHWW | Slaughterhouse wastewater |
TBC | Total bacterial count |
TCC | Total coliform count |
TCOD | Total chemical oxygen demand |
TDS | Total dissolved solids |
TKN | Total Kieldahl nitrogen |
TN | Total nitrogen |
TP | Total phosphorus |
TSS | Total suspended solids |
Z | Zeolites |
References
- Kundu, P.; Debsarkar, A.; Mukherjee, S. Treatment of slaughter house wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor: Performance evaluation and biodegradation kinetics. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 134872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Elemile, O.O.; Raphael, D.O.; Omole, D.O.; Oloruntoba, E.O.; Ajayi, E.O.; Ohwavborua, N.A. Assessment of the impact of abattoir effluent on the quality of groundwater in a residential area of Omu-Aran, Nigeria. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2019, 31, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tritt, W.; Schuchardt, F. Materials flow and possibilities of treating liquid and solid wastes from slaughterhouses in Germany. A review. Bioresour. Technol. 1992, 41, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cristian, O. Characteristics of the untreated wastewater produced by food industry. An. Univ. Din Oradea Fasc. Protecţia Mediu. 2010, 15, 709–714. [Google Scholar]
- Ziara, R.M.; Li, S.; Dvorak, B.I.; Subbiah, J. Water and energy use of antimicrobial interventions in a mid-size beef packing plant. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2016, 32, 873–879. [Google Scholar]
- Massé, D.; Masse, L. Characterization of wastewater from hog slaughterhouses in Eastern Canada and evaluation of their in-plant wastewater treatment systems. Can. Agric. Eng. 2000, 42, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
- Bustillo-Lecompte, C.; Mehrvar, M.; Quiñones-Bolaños, E. Slaughterhouse wastewater characterization and treatment: An economic and public health necessity of the meat processing industry in Ontario, Canada. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2016, 4, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ün, Ü.T.; Koparal, A.S.; Öğütveren, Ü.B. Hybrid processes for the treatment of cattle-slaughterhouse wastewater using aluminum and iron electrodes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 164, 580–586. [Google Scholar]
- Suman, A.; Ahmad, T.; Ahmad, K. Dairy wastewater treatment using water treatment sludge as coagulant: A novel treatment approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1615–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazrafshan, E.; Kord Mostafapour, F.; Farzadkia, M.; Ownagh, K.A.; Mahvi, A.H. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by combined chemical coagulation and electrocoagulation process. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakoi, B.; Kaluli, J.W.; Ndiba, P.; Thiong’o, G. Banana pith as a natural coagulant for polluted river water. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagaba, A.; Kutty, S.; Hayder, G.; Latiff, A.; Aziz, N.; Umaru, I.; Ghaleb, A.; Abubakar, S.; Lawal, I.; Nasara, M. Sustainable use of natural and chemical coagulants for contaminants removal from palm oil mill effluent: A comparative analysis. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020, 11, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vatvani, C. The Toxic Waste That Enters Indonesia’s Citarum River, One of the World’s Most Polluted. Channel News Asia. 2018. Available online: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/indonesia-citarum-river-worlds-most-polluted-toxic-waste-10124436 (accessed on 14 April 2018).
- Montuori, P.; Lama, P.; Aurino, S.; Naviglio, D.; Triassi, M. Metals loads into the Mediterranean Sea: Estimate of Sarno River inputs and ecological risk. Ecotoxicology 2013, 22, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, M.R.; Camacho, F.P.; Sousa, V.S.; Bergamasco, R. Green technologies for cyanobacteria and natural organic matter water treatment using natural based products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 484–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitra, T.; Das, S.K. Cr (VI) removal from aqueous solution using Psidium guajava leaves as green adsorbent: Column studies. Appl. Water Sci. 2019, 9, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El-Sesy, M.E.; Mahran, B.N. The Antibacterial and Coagulant Activity of Psidium Guajava Leaves Extracts in Purification of Wastewater. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res. Asia 2020, 17, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alamin, M.; Samia, M.; Alqurashi, A.; Elsheikh, A. Bactericidal activity of Psidium guajava leaves against some pathogenic microbes. IOSR J. Dent. Med. Sci. 2016, 15, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
- Naili, M.; Errayes, A.; Alghazeer, R.; Mohammed, W.A.; Darwish, M. Evaluation of Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Psidium guajava L growing in Libya. Int. J. Adv. Biol. Biomed. Res. 2020, 8, 419–428. [Google Scholar]
- Abouelenien, F.A.; Elshahawy, I.S.; Hamad, M.E.; Elsaidy, N.R. Biosecurity assessment in relation to the occurrence of some coccidian parasites in poultry farms, with in vitro evaluation of Psidium gujava as coccidia sporulation inhibitor. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2021, 33, 532–543. [Google Scholar]
- Tasić, Ž.; Bogdanović, G.; Antonijević, M. Application of natural zeolite in wastewater treatment: A review. J. Min. Metall. A Min. 2019, 55, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madej, J. Sorption of Heavy Metal Ions of Chromium, Manganese, Selenium, Nickel, Cobalt, Iron from Aqueous Acidic Solutions in Batch and Dynamic Conditions on Natural and Synthetic Aluminosilicate Sorbents. Materials 2020, 13, 5271. [Google Scholar]
- Somvanshi, S.S.; Kumari, M. Comparative analysis of different vegetation indices with respect to atmospheric particulate pollution using sentinel data. Appl. Comput. Geosci. 2020, 7, 100032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakar, S.A.S.A. Binding Agent for Biodegradable Compression Molded Rice Straw Filled Rice Bran Packaging Products. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Abdelsalam, N.R.; Fouda, M.M.; Abdel-Megeed, A.; Ajarem, J.; Allam, A.A.; El-Naggar, M.E. Assessment of silver nanoparticles decorated starch and commercial zinc nanoparticles with respect to their genotoxicity on onion. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 133, 1008–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Shen, M.; Huang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Z.; Lin, B.; Cui, L. Efficient removal of Pb (II) through recycled biochar-mineral composite from the coagulation sludge of swine wastewater. Environ. Res. 2020, 190, 110014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegazy, B.; El-Khateeb, M.; El-adly Amira, A.; Kamel, M. Low-cost wastewater treatment technology. J. Appl. Sci. 2007, 7, 815–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patnaik, P. Handbook of Inorganic Chemicals; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2003; Volume 529. [Google Scholar]
- Mohammed, M.; Shitu, A.; Ibrahim, A. Removal of methylene blue using low cost adsorbent: A review. Res. J. Chem. Sci. ISSN 2014, 2231, 606X. [Google Scholar]
- Sarker, N.; Fakhruddin, A. Removal of phenol from aqueous solution using rice straw as adsorbent. Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 1459–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Omotayo, A.; Hammad, M.A.; Barker, K. Efficient data harvesting for tracing phenomena in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management (SSDBM’06), Vienna, Austria, 3–5 July 2006; pp. 59–70. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, L.A.; Asaad, A.A.; Khalifa, E.A. Laboratory approach for wastewater treatment utilizing chemical addition case study: El-Rahway Drain, Egypt. Life Sci. J. 2019, 16, 56–67. [Google Scholar]
- Sunder, G.C.; Satyanarayan, S. Efficient treatment of slaughter house wastewater by anaerobic hybrid reactor packed with special floating media. Int. J. Chem. Phys. Sci. 2013, 2, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
- Bustillo-Lecompte, C.F.; Mehrvar, M. Treatment of actual slaughterhouse wastewater by combined anaerobic–aerobic processes for biogas generation and removal of organics and nutrients: An optimization study towards a cleaner production in the meat processing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 278–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husam, A.-N.; Nassar, A. Slaughterhouses wastewater characteristics in the Gaza strip. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2019, 11, 844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mittal, G.S. Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application—a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 1119–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Mutairi, N.; Hamoda, M.; Al-Ghusain, I. Coagulant selection and sludge conditioning in a slaughterhouse wastewater treatment plant. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 95, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johns, M. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing industry: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 1995, 54, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amuda, O.; Alade, A. Coagulation/flocculation process in the treatment of abattoir wastewater. Desalination 2006, 196, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Xu, L.; Zhu, Z.; Wei, M. Study on potassium extraction by static adsorption using zeolite. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Remote Sensing, Environment and Transportation Engineering, Nanjing, Chian, 24–26 June 2011; pp. 4494–4497. [Google Scholar]
- Khotimah, C.; Handayani, D.; Hadiwidodo, M.; Wardhana, I. The efficiency of biological oxygen demand removal in domestic wastewater treatment using multi soil layering. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Kitakyushu, Japan, 25–26 April 2021; p. 012006. [Google Scholar]
- Gil-San-Millan, R.; Grau-Atienza, A.; Johnson, D.T.; Rico-Francés, S.; Serrano, E.; Linares, N.; Garcia-Martinez, J. Improving hydrogen production from the hydrolysis of ammonia borane by using multifunctional catalysts. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2018, 43, 17100–17111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syafalni, S.; Johari, N.; Satrio, S. Pre Treatment of River Water By Using Bentonite and Modified Zeolite. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2015, 10, 14515–14528. [Google Scholar]
- Samkutty, P.J.; Gough, R.H. Filtration treatment of dairy processing wastewater. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2002, 37, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakdawala, M.M.; Patel, Y.S. Studies on adsorption capacity of zeolite for removal of chemical and bio-chemical oxygen demands. Chem. J. 2015, 1, 139–143. [Google Scholar]
- Kotoulas, A.; Agathou, D.; Triantaphyllidou, I.E.; Tatoulis, T.I.; Akratos, C.S.; Tekerlekopoulou, A.G.; Vayenas, D.V. Zeolite as a potential medium for ammonium recovery and second cheese whey treatment. Water 2019, 11, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolaković, S.; Stefanović, D.; Milićević, D.; Trajković, S.; Milenković, S.; Kolaković, S.S.; Anđelković, L. Effects of reactive filters based on modified zeolite in dairy industry wastewater treatment process. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. CICEQ 2013, 19, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aly, A.A.; Hasan, Y.N.; Al-Farraj, A.S. Olive mill wastewater treatment using a simple zeolite-based low-cost method. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amfo-Out, R.; Agyenim, J.; Nimba-Bumah, G. Correlation Analysis of Groundwater Coloration from Mountainous Areas. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2014, 1, 16–24. [Google Scholar]
- Goswami, R.K.; Agrawal, K.; Mehariya, S.; Verma, P. Current perspective on wastewater treatment using photobioreactor for Tetraselmis sp.: An emerging and foreseeable sustainable approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 2021, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirsaheb, M.; Hadei, M.; Sharafi, K. Human health risk assessment by Monte Carlo simulation method for heavy metals of commonly consumed cereals in Iran-Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 96, 103697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widiastuti, N.; Wu, H.; Ang, M.; Zhang, D.-k. The potential application of natural zeolite for greywater treatment. Desalination 2008, 218, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, J.; Gonzalez, M.; Notario, J. Removal of bacterial indicators of pollution and organic matter by phillipsite-rich tuff columns. Appl. Clay Sci. 1992, 7, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanta, F.T.; Dubale, A.A.; Bebizuh, D.F.; Atlabachew, M. Copper doped zeolite composite for antimicrobial activity and heavy metal removal from waste water. BMC Chem. 2019, 13, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hrenović, J.; Tofant, A.; Ostović, M.; Milić, D. Effect of clinoptilolite addition on bacterial counts in pig slurry. Folia Microbiol 1999, 44, 729–734. [Google Scholar]
- Aly, S.; El-Sayed, A.M.; Tharwat, K.M.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Khaled, A.M.; Gad, A.M.; Mahmoud, A.T. Adsorption of Nile Blue Dye using Guava Leaf Powder. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2019, 8, 69–72. [Google Scholar]
- Doughari, J.; Manzara, S. In vitro antibacterial activity of crude leaf extracts of Mangifera indica Linn. Afr J Microbiol Res 2008, 2, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
- Abouelenien, F.; Miura, T.; Nakashimada, Y.; Elleboudy, N.S.; Al-Harbi, M.S.; Ali, E.F.; Shukry, M. Optimization of Biomethane Production via Fermentation of Chicken Manure Using Marine Sediment: A Modeling Approach Using Response Surface Methodology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aweng, E.; Jessuta, J.; Prawit, K.; Liyana, A. Potential of the concoction of Champereia manillana and Psidium guajava shoot extracts as coagulant for drinking water treatment. Malay. Nat. J. 2015, 67, 419–426. [Google Scholar]
- Loloei, M.; Alidadi, H.; Nekonam, G.; Kor, Y. Study of the coagulation process in wastewater treatment of dairy industries. Int. J. Environ. Health Eng. 2014, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewida, A.; Ibrahim, L. Comparative Performance Studies of Different Chemical Additives In Water Treatment On Variety Of Water Sources. Off. J. Arab Water Counc. 2014, 5, 50–69. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, L.A.; ElSayed, E.E. Performance evaluation of Suez Bay industrial wastewater treatment plant case study: Ataqa Region, Egypt. World 2019, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, B.A. Utilization of waste straw and husks from rice production: A review. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2020, 5, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajakumar, R.; Meenambal, T.; Saravanan, P.; Ananthanarayanan, P. Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater in hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor packed with pleated poly vinyl chloride rings. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 103, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirsaheb, M.; Amini, J.; Hossaini, H. Application of ABR/zeolite for TKN removal from compost leachate. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 102020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.; Sun, X.; Hao, D.; Li, S.; Gong, X.; Ding, H.; Yu, K. Sugarcane bagasse amendment improves the quality of green waste vermicompost and the growth of Eisenia fetida. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | Untreated SHWW (Mean Values) ± SD | 24 h Settled SHWW ± SD | Removal % | * Standards and Specifications of Sewage Licensed to Be Discharged into Brackish or Saline Surface-Water Bodies |
---|---|---|---|---|
pH | 7.32 ± 0.58 | 7.08 ± 0.28 | - | 7–8.5 |
BOD (mg/L) | 5094 ± 821 | 1634 ± 114.9 | 67.9 | 60 |
COD (mg/L) | 9680 ± 486.6 | 7680 ± 623.6 | 20.66 | 80 |
TSS (mg/L) | 480 ± 10 | 320 ± 26.5 | 33.3 | 50 |
TP (mg/L) | 12.4 ± 1.31 | 10.2 ± 0.3 | 17.7 | - |
TKN (mg/L) | 532 ± 10.58 | 448 ± 24.3 | 15.79 | - |
EC (ds/m) | 3.46 ± 0.31 | 3.12 ± 0.46 | 9.8 | - |
TDS (mg/L) | 1734 ± 77.95 | 1566 ± 25.06 | 9.7 | 650 |
Turbidity | 202 ± 9.16 | 182 ± 18 | 9.9 | 50 |
TBC (colony/mL) | 6.14 × 1013 ± 0.65 × 1010 | 3.8 × 1013 ± 0.65 × 1010 | 38.1 | - |
TCC (colony/mL) | 2.7 × 106 ± 1.5 × 104 | 2 × 106 ± 3.28 × 105 | 25.9 | 5000 (MPN/100 mL) |
FCC (colony/mL) | 1.5 × 104 ± 2 × 102 | 1.2 × 104 ± 2 × 102 | 20 | - |
Parameter | Method |
---|---|
pH | Standard method 4500-H+ pH value |
COD (chemical oxygen demand) | Standard method 5220 |
BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) | Standard method 5210 |
TSS | Standard Method 2540D |
TP | Standard method 4500-P |
TN | Standard method 4500-N |
EC | Standard method 2510 |
TDS | Standard method 2540A |
Turbidity | Standard method 2130 |
TBC | Standard method 9216 A |
TCC | Standard method 9222 A |
FC | Standard method 9222 A |
Parameters | Z 1200 | Z 1200 + RS | Removal% | GLP 1g | GLP 1g + RS | Removal% | Al 6g | Al 6g + RS | Removal % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pH | 7.08 ± 0.18 | 7.59 ± 0.075 | 6.99 ± 0.245 | 7.07 ± 0.006 | 4.45 ± 0.18 | 4.41 ± 0.31 | |||
BOD (mg/L) | 620 ± 68.14 | 480 ± 36.05 | 23 | 820 ± 75.66 | 570 ± 21.07 | 30.49 | 820 ± 48.87 | 560 ± 40.11 | 31.71 |
COD (mg/L) | 3040 ± 204.39 | 1600 ± 37.36 | 90 | 3200 ± 268.09 | 2240 ± 199.24 | 30 | 3200 ± 65.95 | 2760 ± 117.69 | 13.8 |
TSS (mg/L) | 190 ± 20 | 54 ± 4.58 | 71.58 | 420 ± 8.72 | 75 ± 5 | 82.14 | 240 ± 73.18 | 60 ± 6.08 | 75 |
TKN (mg/L) | 308 ± 19.31 | 240 ± 36.05 | 22.08 | 364 ± 15.62 | 280 ± 18.02 | 23.07 | 420 ± 20.42 | 392 ± 7.54 | 6.7 |
EC (ds/m) | 3.3 ± 0.26 | 2.72 ± 0.07 | 17.57 | 3.72 ± 0.17 | 2.78 ± 0.15 | 25.26 | 6.26 ± 0.42 | 5.24 ± 0.398 | 16.3 |
TDS (mg/L) | 1650 ± 100 | 1136 ± 49.12 | 31.15 | 1832 ± 50.71 | 1388 ± 87.78 | 24.24 | 3140 ± 79.86 | 2620 ± 88.45 | 16.6 |
Turbidity | 134 ± 3.6 | 32 ± 1.74 | 76.12 | 236 ± 14.23 | 39 ± 5.29 | 83.4 | 150 ± 4.35 | 37.4 ± 10.07 | 75.07 |
TBC (colony/mL) | 0.101 × 1013 ± 0.67 × 1011 | 0.001 × 1013 ± 1.67 × 1011 | 99 | 0.21 × 1013 ± 9.2 × 1011 | 0.101 × 1013 ± 17.2 × 1011 | 51.9 | 1 × 1013 ± 42.64 × 1011 | 0.025 × 1013 ± 20.64 × 1011 | 75.1 |
TCC (colony/mL) | 0.36 × 106 ± 1.34 × 104 | 0.002 × 106 ± 2.44 × 104 | 99.5 | 0.36 × 106 ± 30.62 × 104 | 0.36 × 106 ± 60.72 × 104 | 0 | 0.03 × 106 ± 4.2 × 104 | 0.026 × 106 ± 3.2 × 104 | 13.3 |
FCC (colony/mL) | 0.1 × 104 ± 0.08 × 103 | 0.086 × 104 ± 0.98 × 103 | 14 | 1 × 104 ± 10.02 × 102 | 0.1 × 104 ± 16.11 × 102 | 96.43 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Parameters | USHWW (Mean Values) ± SD | TSHWW | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
With Natural Zeolite | With GLP | With Alum | ||
pH | 7.32 ± 0.58 | 7.59 ± 0.075 | 7.07 ± 0.006 | 4.41 ± 0.31 |
BOD (mg/L) | 5094 ± 821 | 480 ± 36.05 | 570 ± 21.07 | 560 ± 40.11 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 90.58 | 88.8 | 89 | |
COD (mg/L) | 9680 ± 486.6 | 1600 ± 37.36 | 2240 ± 199.24 | 2760 ± 117.69 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 83.47 | 76.86 | 71.49 | |
TSS (mg/L) | 480 ± 10 | 54 ± 4.58 | 75 ± 5 | 60 ± 6.08 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 88.75 | 84.38 | 87.5 | |
TKN (mg/L) | 532 ± 10.58 | 240 ± 36.05 | 280 ± 18.02 | 392 ± 7.54 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 54.89 | 47.37 | 26.32 | |
EC (ds/m) | 3.46± 0.31 | 2.72 ± 0.07 | 2.78 ± 0.15 | 5.24 ± 0.398 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 21.39 | 19.65 | - | |
TDS (mg/L) | 1734 ± 77.95 | 1136 ± 49.12 | 1388 ± 87.78 | 2620 ± 88.45 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 34.49 | 19.95 | - | |
Turbidity | 202 ± 9.16 | 32 ± 1.74 | 39 ± 5.29 | 37.4 ± 10.07 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 84.16 | 80.69 | 81.49 | |
TBC (colony/mL) | 6.14 × 1013 ± 0.65 × 1010 | 0.001 × 1013 ± 1.67 × 1011 | 0.101 × 1013 ± 17.2 × 1011 | 0.025 × 1013 ± 42.64 × 1011 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 99.98 | 98.36 | 99.59 | |
TCC (colony/mL) | 2.7 × 106 ± 1.5 × 104 | 0.002 x 106 ± 2.44 × 104 | 0.36 × 106 ± 60.72 × 104 | 0.03 × 106 ± 4.2 × 104 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 99.93 | 86.67 | 98.89 | |
FCC (colony/mL) | 1.5 × 104 ± 2 × 102 | 0.086 × 104 ± 0.98 × 103 | 0.1 × 104 ± 16.11 × 102 | 0 |
Removal efficiency (%) | 94 | 93.3 | 100 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Abouelenien, F.; Trabik, Y.A.; Shukry, M.; El-Sharnouby, M.; Sayed, S.; Gaber, A.; Elsaidy, N.R. A Pilot Model for the Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Zeolite or Psidium-Leaf Powder as a Natural Coagulant, Followed by Filtration with Rice Straw, in Comparison with an Inorganic Coagulant. Processes 2022, 10, 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050887
Abouelenien F, Trabik YA, Shukry M, El-Sharnouby M, Sayed S, Gaber A, Elsaidy NR. A Pilot Model for the Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Zeolite or Psidium-Leaf Powder as a Natural Coagulant, Followed by Filtration with Rice Straw, in Comparison with an Inorganic Coagulant. Processes. 2022; 10(5):887. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050887
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbouelenien, Fatma, Yossra Ahmed Trabik, Mustafa Shukry, Mohamed El-Sharnouby, Samy Sayed, Ahmed Gaber, and Nagham Rafeek Elsaidy. 2022. "A Pilot Model for the Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Zeolite or Psidium-Leaf Powder as a Natural Coagulant, Followed by Filtration with Rice Straw, in Comparison with an Inorganic Coagulant" Processes 10, no. 5: 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050887