Next Article in Journal
Morpho-Physiological and Metal Accumulation Responses of Hemp Plants (Cannabis Sativa L.) Grown on Soil from an Agro-Industrial Contaminated Area
Previous Article in Journal
A New Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methodology for the Selection of New Water Supply Infrastructure
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Performance Comparison of Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors Treating High-Strength Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater

by
Mohammed Ali Musa
1,2,
Syazwani Idrus
1,*,
Hasfalina Che Man
3 and
Nik Norsyahariati Nik Daud
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Department of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, University of Maiduguri, P.M.B. 1069, Maiduguri 600230, Borno State, Nigeria
3
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(4), 806; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040806
Submission received: 12 February 2019 / Revised: 13 March 2019 / Accepted: 15 March 2019 / Published: 18 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Wastewater Treatment and Reuse)

Abstract

Cattle slaughterhouse wastewater (CSWW) with an average chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand of 32,000 mg/L and 17,000 mg/L, respectively, can cause a severe environmental hazard if discharged untreated. Conventional upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor is used in the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater to meet the discharge standard limit of wastewater discharge set by the Department of Environment Malaysia (DOE). However, at higher loading rates the conventional systems are characterized by slow-growing microorganism resulting in long startup period, surface scum formation, and sludge washout. In this work, the performance of two laboratory scale (12 L) conventional (R1) and modified (R2) UASB reactors treating CSWW at mesophilic (36 ± 1 °C) condition were investigated. Both reactors were subjected to increasing organic loading rate (OLR) from 1.75 to 32 g L−1 day−1. The average COD, BOD5, and TSS removal efficiencies were ˃90%, at an OLR between 1.75 to 5 g L−1 day−1. The study revealed that R1 drastically reduced to 50, 53, and 43% with increasing OLR until 16 g L−1 day−1, whereas R2 maintained 76, 77, and 88% respectively, under the same OLR. Sign of reactor instability was very much pronounced in R1, showing poorly active Methanosaeta spp., whereas R2 showed a predominantly active Methanosarcina spp.
Keywords: anaerobic treatment; UASB reactors; wastewater; environment; organic loading rate; hydraulic retention time anaerobic treatment; UASB reactors; wastewater; environment; organic loading rate; hydraulic retention time

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Musa, M.A.; Idrus, S.; Che Man, H.; Nik Daud, N.N. Performance Comparison of Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors Treating High-Strength Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Water 2019, 11, 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040806

AMA Style

Musa MA, Idrus S, Che Man H, Nik Daud NN. Performance Comparison of Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors Treating High-Strength Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Water. 2019; 11(4):806. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040806

Chicago/Turabian Style

Musa, Mohammed Ali, Syazwani Idrus, Hasfalina Che Man, and Nik Norsyahariati Nik Daud. 2019. "Performance Comparison of Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors Treating High-Strength Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater" Water 11, no. 4: 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040806

APA Style

Musa, M. A., Idrus, S., Che Man, H., & Nik Daud, N. N. (2019). Performance Comparison of Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors Treating High-Strength Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Water, 11(4), 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040806

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop