Next Article in Journal
Incorporating Charging/Discharging Strategy of Electric Vehicles into Security-Constrained Optimal Power Flow to Support High Renewable Penetration
Next Article in Special Issue
Treatment of Slaughterhouse Waste Water Mixed with Serum from Lacteal Industry of Extremadura in Spain to Produce Clean Energy
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Development Pattern of a Water-Flowing Fissure Zone in Shortwall Block Mining
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Average Annual Consumption of Water in the Hospitals of Extremadura (Spain)
Article Menu
Issue 5 (May) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessReview
Energies 2017, 10(5), 731;

A Critical Review on Processes and Energy Profile of the Australian Meat Processing Industry

Hamawand for Research and Engineering Services, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
Aquatic Ecology and Ecosystem Studies Group, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
Institute for Agriculture and the Environment, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
Institute for Resilient Regions (IRR), University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD 4300, Australia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Carl-Fredrik Lindberg
Received: 28 February 2017 / Revised: 17 May 2017 / Accepted: 18 May 2017 / Published: 20 May 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy and Water, Current and Future Crisis)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2310 KB, uploaded 22 May 2017]   |  


This review article addresses wastewater treatment methods in the red meat processing industry. The focus is on conventional chemicals currently in use for abattoir wastewater treatment and energy related aspects. In addition, this article discusses the use of cleaning and sanitizing agents at the meat processing facilities and their effect on decision making in regard to selecting the treatment methods. This study shows that cleaning chemicals are currently used at a concentration of 2% to 3% which will further be diluted with the bulk wastewater. For example, for an abattoir that produces 3500 m3/day wastewater and uses around 200 L (3%) acid and alkaline chemicals, the final concentration of these chemical will be around 0.00017%. For this reason, the effects of these chemicals on the treatment method and the environment are very limited. Chemical treatment is highly efficient in removing soluble and colloidal particles from the red meat processing industry wastewater. Actually, it is shown that, if chemical treatment has been applied, then biological treatment can only be included for the treatment of the solid waste by-product and/or for production of bioenergy. Chemical treatment is recommended in all cases and especially when the wastewater is required to be reused or released to water streams. This study also shows that energy consumption for chemical treatment units is insignificant while efficient compared to other physical or biological units. A combination of a main (ferric chloride) and an aid coagulant has shown to be efficient and cost-effective in treating abattoir wastewater. The cost of using this combination per cubic meter wastewater treated is 0.055 USD/m3 compared to 0.11 USD/m3 for alum and the amount of sludge produced is 77% less than that produced by alum. In addition, the residues of these chemicals in the wastewater and the sludge have a positive or no impact on biological processes. Energy consumption from a small wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) installed to recycle wastewater for a meet facility can be around $500,000. View Full-Text
Keywords: wastewater treatment; cleaning agents; abattoir effluent; disinfection; energy consumption wastewater treatment; cleaning agents; abattoir effluent; disinfection; energy consumption

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Hamawand, I.; Ghadouani, A.; Bundschuh, J.; Hamawand, S.; Al Juboori, R.A.; Chakrabarty, S.; Yusaf, T. A Critical Review on Processes and Energy Profile of the Australian Meat Processing Industry. Energies 2017, 10, 731.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Energies EISSN 1996-1073 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top