Search for: All records

This study examines biodegradability (BD) and optimum conditions for the solid-state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) of organic solid poultry waste (organs, intestines, offal, and unprocessed meat) to maximize biomethane production. Three main parameters, substrate-to-inoculum (S/I) ratio, pH, and temperature, were evaluated for the SS-AD of organic solid poultry waste. pH was evaluated at non-adjusted pH, initially adjusted pH, and controlled pH conditions at a constant S/I ratio of 0.5 and temperature of 35 ± 1 °C. The S/I ratios were examined at (0.3, 0.5, 1, and 2) at a controlled pH of ≈7.9 and temperature of 35 ± 1 °C. The temperature was assessed at mesophilic (35 ± 1 °C) and thermophilic (55 ± 1 °C) conditions with a constant S/I ratio of 0.5 and controlled pH of ≈7.9. The results demonstrate that the highest biomethane production and BD were achieved with a controlled pH of ≈7.9 (689 ± 10 mg/L, 97.5 ± 1.4%). The initially adjusted pH (688 ± 14 mg/L, 97.3 ± 1.9%) and an S/I ratio of 0.3 (685 ± 8 mg/L, 96.8 ± 1.2%) had approximately equivalent outcomes. The thermophilic conditions yielded 78% lower biomethane yield than mesophilic conditions. The challenge of lower biomethane yield under thermophilic conditions will be resolved in future studies by determining the rate-limiting step. These observations highlight that SS-AD is a promising technology for biomethane production from solid organic poultry waste. 

To implement sustainable water resource management, the industries that produce a huge amount of wastewater are aiming to recycle wastewater. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an advanced membrane process that can produce potable water from wastewater. However, the presence of diverse pollutants in the wastewater necessitates effective pretreatment to ensure successful RO implementation. This study evaluated the efficiency of microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) as two pretreatment methods prior to RO, i.e., MF-RO and UF-RO, for recycling poultry slaughterhouse wastewater (PSWW). The direct treatment of PSWW with RO (direct RO) was also considered for comparison. In this study, membrane technology serves as a post treatment for PSWW, which was conventionally treated at Sanderson Farm. The results demonstrated that all of the processes, including MF-RO, UF-RO, and direct RO treatment of PSWW, rejected 100% of total phosphorus (TP), over 91.2% of chemical oxygen demand (COD), and 87% of total solids (TSs). Total nitrogen (TN) levels were reduced to 5 mg/L for MF-RO, 4 mg/L for UF-RO, and 9 mg/L for direct RO. In addition, the pretreatment of PSWW with MF and UF increased RO flux from 46.8 L/m2 h to 51 L/m2 h, an increase of approximately 9%. The product water obtained after MF-RO, UF-RO, and direct RO meets the required potable water quality standards for recycling PSWW in the poultry industry. A cost analysis demonstrated that MF-RO was the most economical option among membrane processes, primarily due to MF operating at a lower pressure and having a high water recovery ratio. In contrast, the cost of using RO without MF and UF pretreatments was approximately 2.6 times higher because of cleaning and maintenance expenses related to fouling. This study concluded that MF-RO is a preferable option for recycling PSWW. This pretreatment method would significantly contribute to environmental sustainability by reusing well-treated PSWW for industrial poultry purposes while maintaining cost efficiency. 

To address some challenges of food security and sustainability of the poultry processing industry, a sequential membrane process of ultrafiltration (UF), forward osmosis (FO), and reverse osmosis (RO) is proposed to treat semi-processed poultry slaughterhouse wastewater (PSWW) and water recovery. The pretreatment of PSWW with UF removed 36.7% of chemical oxygen demand (COD), 38.9% of total phosphorous (TP), 24.7% of total solids (TS), 14.5% of total volatile solids (TVS), 27.3% of total fixed solids (TFS), and 12.1% of total nitrogen (TN). Then, the PSWW was treated with FO membrane in FO mode, pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) mode, and L-DOPA coated membrane in the PRO mode. The FO mode was optimal for PSWW treatment by achieving the highest average flux of 10.4 ± 0.2 L/m2-h and the highest pollutant removal efficiency; 100% of COD, 100% of TP, 90.5% of TS, 85.3% of TVS, 92.1% of TFS, and 37.2% of TN. The performance of the FO membrane was entirely restored by flushing the membrane with 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate solution. RO significantly removed COD, TS, TVS, TFS, and TP. However, TN was reduced by only 62% because of the high ammonia concentration present in the draw solution. Overall, the sequential membrane process (UF-FO-RO) showed excellent performance by providing high rejection efficiency for pollutant removal and water recovery. 

Poultry slaughterhouses produce a large amount of wastewater, which is usually treated by conventional methods. The traditional techniques face some challenges, especially the incapability of recovering valuable nutrients and reusing the treated water. Therefore, membrane technology has been widely adopted by researchers due to its enormous advantages over conventional methods. Pressure-driven membranes, such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO), have been studied to purify poultry slaughterhouse wastewater (PSWW) as a standalone process or an integrated process with other procedures. Membrane technology showed excellent performance by providing high efficiency for pollutant removal and the recovery of water and valuable products. It may remove approximately all the pollutants from PSWW and purify the water to the required level for discharge to the environment and even reuse for industrial poultry processing purposes while being economically efficient. This article comprehensively reviews the treatment and reuse of PSWW with MF, UF, NF, and RO. Most valuable nutrients can be recovered by UF, and high-quality water for reuse in poultry processing can be produced by RO from PSWW. The incredible performance of membrane technology indicates that membrane technology is an alternative approach for treating PSWW.