Users Online: 122
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 27-36

Characterization and treatment of wastewater from food processing industry: A review


Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomosho, Oyo State, Nigeria

Date of Submission26-Jul-2017
Date of Acceptance15-Jul-2018
Date of Web Publication30-Aug-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Abdur-Rahim Adebisi Giwa
Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, P.M.B. 4000, Ogbomoso, Oyo State
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijas.ijas_11_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


The food processing industry contributes to economic growth and makes food more available. Wastewaters discharged from food industries need to be characterized often for their compliance to standards by regulatory authorities. In order to reduce environmental pollution, these industries use different treatment methods to treat their wastewater. Characterization of wastewater helps in developing various treatment methods among which are biological techniques, advanced oxidation process (AOP), and more recently adsorption. The biological treatment and AOP have undergone several investigations in the past few years and have advantages ranging from low operation cost to no waste product but not as efficient as adsorption which has low operation cost and high efficiency. This review focuses on works been done on characterization as well as the treatment of wastewater from food processing industry.

Keywords: Adsorption, advanced oxidation process, biological, economic


How to cite this article:
Aderibigbe DO, Giwa ARA, Bello IA. Characterization and treatment of wastewater from food processing industry: A review. Imam J Appl Sci 2017;2:27-36

How to cite this URL:
Aderibigbe DO, Giwa ARA, Bello IA. Characterization and treatment of wastewater from food processing industry: A review. Imam J Appl Sci [serial online] 2017 [cited 2018 Sep 20];2:27-36. Available from: http://www.e-ijas.org/text.asp?2017/2/2/27/240161




  Introduction Top


Water is a resource as well as a life source because of its importance for life and its usefulness for several purposes such as in agricultural, industrial, domestic, recreation, and environmental activities. This also makes it a precious commodity.[39],[90] Industries are established to manufacture products targeted at meeting the demand of increasing population in developing countries. These industries are the backbone of development of a country. However, as they produce useful products, they also generate wastes and potentially harmful by-products which leads to pollution of the environment.[2],[23],[97],[99] Pollution can be as a result of contamination of air, soil, and water, but the common one with processing industries is water. Wastewaters released from industries are associated with diseases which may be linked to the current shorter life expectancy in the developing countries.[104],[105] In addition, aquatic organisms are adversely affected when untreated or poorly treated industrial wastewaters are discharged into water bodies.

Industrial wastewater contains sanitary waste, process wastes from manufacturing sections, wash water from equipment sections, and relatively uncontaminated water from heating and cooling operations. Naturally, all wastewaters contain both organic and inorganic compounds which account for their usual high dissolved solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).[28],[63],[75],[109] Food processing industries often produce to increase accessibility to more edible products and can process raw materials such as fruit, vegetables, and milk. They require large amount of water for each batch of production. Water is used throughout operations such as production, cleaning, sanitizing, materials transport, and cooling.

Several methods which include physical, chemical, and biological processes like coagulation/flocculation process have been used for the treatment of these wastewaters,[5],[75],[90] biological photooxidation.[13] However, the latest and the widely used one is adsorption using activated carbon. There are limited studies on characterization-assisted adsorption methods, hence the need for this review to give a detailed account of works available on the subject matter.


  Characterization of Wastewater from Food Processing Industries Top


Food processing industries consist of a variety of industries such as dairy, snacks, sweets, beverages, and distillery. Wastewaters from these industries come from different plant operations such as production, cleaning, sanitizing, cooling, and materials transport.[3]

However, the constituents of these wastewaters are biodegradable due to high organic substances and may also be nontoxic. This eventually results in high concentrations of BOD, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and suspended solids (SSs).[18] The characteristics of wastewater play a major role in selecting the type of treatment to be carried out on it.[19] Typical characteristics of a food processing industry are shown in [Table 1].[97],[99],[102]
Table 1: Characteristics of a typical food processing industry

Click here to view


Schmidt and Ahring[92] characterized and treated wastewater from a multiproduct food processing company (fruits and vegetables). They observed that wastewater from peas processing plants had COD value of 5.8 mg/L, total solid (TS) of 4.5 mg/L, and volatile solid (VS) of 3.8 mg/L while that of carrot has COD of 7.7 mg/L, TS of 11 mg/L, and VS of 6 mg/L. Furthermore, celery processing plant wastewater is characterized by COD of 1.4 mg/L, TS of 1.7 mg/L, and VS of 1.2 mg/L while that of leek has COD of 4.1 mg/L, TS of 2.1 mg/L, and VS of 1.6 mg/L. Characterization of wastewaters from beverage and vegetable industries was also carried out by Tariq et al.[97] They found out that the wastewater from the vegetable ghee had a pH of 7.80, electrical conductivity (EC) of 288, total SS (TSS) of 422 mg/L, total dissolved solid (TDS) of 288 mg/L, and BOD of 110 mg/L while that of the beverage has pH of 8.9, EC of 832, TSS of 125 mg/L, TDS of 82 mg/L, and BOD of 191 mg/L. Characterization of wastewater from dairy products industry are presented in [Table 2].
Table 2: Characteristics of wastewater from dairy industries

Click here to view


In characterizing effluents from food processing plants, Vanerkar et al.[102] took composite samples of wastewater from different food industries (dairy, beverage, meat and poultry, fruit, etc.) and reported the following results: pH 4.12–4.28, TSS 2210 mg/L, TS 3830 mg/L, COD 11,220 mg/L, BOD 6860 mg/L, TP 3.2 mg/L, and TN 16.4 mg/L.

Tikariha and Sahu[99] embarked on the characterization and treatment of wastewater from dairy industry. The wastewater was collected on monthly interval for a whole year. The analysis revealed the following characteristics: pH 6.1–7.7, EC 352.7–954.0 μmhos/cm, BOD 9033 mg/L, COD 4958 mg/L, and TP 18–26.42 mg/L. Dubey and Joshi[23] characterized and treated the wastewater from the ice cream industry in 2015. The characteristics are pH 6.96–7.95, COD 1,600–3,200 mg/L, BOD 1800 mg/L, TS 3788–3800 mg/L, and TSS 1158–1183 mg/L.

Thomas et al.[98] reported the physicochemical analysis of seafood processing effluents. The following parameters and their values were observed: pH 6.8–7.5, TS 2211.5–3779.9 mg/L, TSS 191.5–680.6 mg/L, BOD 964–2250 mg/L, and COD 1442–2700 mg/L.

Characterization of wastewater from sugar industry was carried out by Lakdawala and Patel.[54] The characteristics revealed that the wastewater has a pH of 6.61, COD 1529.01 mg/L, and BOD 910 mg/L. The slaughterhouse wastewater was characterized and treated by Bustillo-Lecompte et al.[13] The following range of results of the characterization were recorded: pH 4.90–8.10, BOD 610–4635 mg/L, COD 1250–15,900 mg/L, TSS 300–2800 mg/L, TN 50–841 mg/L, and TP 25–200 mg/L. Characterization studies helped in designing a treatment plan ranging from biological treatment methods to adsorption.


  Methods of Treating Wastewater from Food Processing Industries Top


Discharging untreated wastewaters from food processing industries into rivers and other aquatic environment contribute to eutrophication by addition of phosphorus and nitrogen compounds. Hence, many food processing industries used a whole array of methods in treating their wastewater before the eventual disposal.[74] These treatment methods include photocatalysis,[1],[12],[13],[42],[45],[67],[68],[92] coagulation,[49],[50],[82],[89],[102],[106] AOP such as fenton reaction,[25],[55],[58],[60],[68],[100] electrochemical oxidation,[27],[37],[41],[85],[101] ozonation,[7],[16],[56],[88] biological treatments such as anaerobic digestion,[19],[24],[86],[92],[99],[107] aerobic digestion,[10],[31],[57],[83],[103] combined treatment of anerobic/aerobic system,[12],[13],[33],[58],[83],[103] phytoremediation,[68] and adsorption.[3],[8],[15],[40],[52],[54],[55],[63],[74],[81],[91]

Biological treatment (bioremediation/biodegradation) of food processing industries wastewater

The conventional chemical/physicochemical methods of treating effluents from industries have not been successful in overcoming the complex pollution load of industrial wastewater, and sometimes they also contribute to another type of complex by-product which is more difficult to treat and further pollutes the soil or water sources.[80] Furthermore, these methods (chemical/physicochemical) utilize costly chemicals and treatment units which are difficult to manage in the industries.[4] However, biological methods involve the use of microbes and plants for the treatment of effluents. Microbes undergo degradation or conversion of the waste into some other form. Most importantly, whether degradation or conversion to other products, the end product is nontoxic and less problematic than the initial substance. Microorganism plays an important role in the degradation of xenobiotics and in maintaining the steady-state concentration of chemicals in the environment.[60] Biological treatment can be achieved by aerobic and anaerobic method. Various high rate reactors have been designed for the biological treatment at full-scale operation.[20]

In 2016, Noukeu et al.[68] used stillage (Eichhornia crassipes and Panicum maximum) to treat effluent from food processing industries. In this study, they collected effluents from food processing industries and characterized them before and after treatment. The results revealed that treating with E. crassipes reduced TDS from 3100 mg/L to 351 mg/L, COD from 22,500 mg/L to 150 mg/L, BOD5 from 20,300 mg/L to 123 mg/L, SS from 100 mg/L to 8 mg/L, phosphate from 101 mg/L from 2.4 mg/L, and nitrate from 12 mg/L to 8 mg/L, while treatment with P. maximum makes TDS to reduce from 3100 mg/L to 576 mg/L, COD from 22500 mg/L to 380 mg/L, BOD5 from 20,300 to 239 mg/L, SS from 100 mg/L to 12 mg/L, and nitrates from 12 mg/L to 0 mg/L.

Anaerobic treatment

The treatment of industrial wastewaters using anaerobic technology was used earlier for the treatment of effluents from various industries such as tanneries, food processing ranging from high-strength waste to low-strength waste. Various reactors have been developed to treat wastewater from different industries such as anaerobic contact reactor, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB), fluidized bed reactor, and anaerobic fixed-film reactor.[80]

In anaerobic treatment, the high organic content in effluents decomposes into methane and carbon dioxide with the help of microorganisms. This treatment shows huge advantages such as production of very little sludge, requirement of less amount of energy, operation at high organic loading rate, need of low nutrient amount, and production of biogas which can be utilized for energy production in the process.[65] Ganesh et al.[35] studied the performance of upflow anaerobic fixed-seed reactors for the treatment of winery wastewater and reported that 80% COD removal was attained.

Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor

UASB reactors have been used widely in treating effluent.[11] Its effective use depends on the formation of active and able granules. These granules consist of self-immobilized, compact form of aggregate of organisms, and lead to their (organisms) effective retention. UASB reactors have some advantages such as independence from mechanical mixing, recycling of sludge biomass, and ability to cope up with perturbances caused by the high loading rate. This reactor is effective in the treatment of effluent in psychrophile conditions.[80]

Schmidt and Ahring[92] treated wastewater from a multiproduct food processing company by UASB reactors. The company processes peas, carrots, celery, roots, and leeks. Four UASB reactors were used for the four different types of wastewater. They noted that there were significant differences in both the activities of the different metabolic groups and the numbers of bacteria in the metabolic group were found indicating that problems could occur when changing from one wastewater to another. On further investigation, they observed that there is significant decrease in overall efficiency when (i) changing from celery wastewater to any other wastewaters due to a significant increase in the organic loading rate of the reactor and (ii) Leek wastewater with high content of lipids and protein was fed to the reactor.

Several studies have been conducted on the use of UASB reactor for the treatment of wastewater from food processing industries.[79] Esparza et al.[29] treated cereal-processing wastewater with UASB reactor and observed 82%–92% COD removal at 17°C with hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 5.2 h. Furthermore, Shastry et al.[94] investigated the treatment of hydrogenated vegetable oil wastewater using UASB reactor and the result revealed COD removal efficiency of 80%–99%. Rajagopal et al.[78] reported the configuration of a UASB reactor and its use in treating wine distillery wastewater. They observed that the method had a high COD removal efficiency of 85%. García et al.[36] also used UASB reactor with polyacrylamide to treat liquid fraction of dairy manure. They found out that the reactor achieved 83% COD removal compared with UASB reactor without the polymer (77% COD removal). In their work on the treatment of synthetic dairy wastewater in series using the same UASB reactor, Kim and Shin[47] reported COD removal of 80%.

Some researchers applied UASB reactors to raw wastewater from cheese–whey industries and their report showed COD removal efficiency of 81%–99%.[14] On the other hand, Yang et al.[108] and Rodgers et al.[86] used UASB reactors to treat cheese–whey wastewater (CWW) in raw and diluted form. Yang et al.[107] reported the COD removal efficiency of 94.6%–96.4% under thermophilic conditions and HRT of 10 days in raw CWW, while Rodgers et al.[86] obtained 89% and HRT of 1 day under mesophilic condition.

Dubey and Joshi[24] treated ice cream industry wastewater using UASB reactor. They revealed that after 12 h in the reactor there was removal of TS, TSS, and TDS by 63.80%, 64.95%, and 61.45%, respectively. Furthermore, there was COD reduction of 66.67% and BOD reduction of 70%.

Other anaerobic reactors

The application of some other anaerobic reactors has also been studied. Rajagopal et al.[77] used upflow anaerobic filters packed with low-density polyethylene medial to treat wastewater discharge from various agro food industries and concluded that the reactor is effective in treating wastewater from these industries. Fuzzato et al.[34] treated lipid-rich wastewater with anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor and achieved 90% removal efficiency. Bialek et al.[9] investigated the performance of two kinds of reactors; inverted fluidized bed and expanded granular sludge bed reactors using it to treat simulated dairy wastewater and observed that at 37°C and HRT of 24 h, there was 80% COD removal. Tikariha and Sahu[99] used anaerobic process in a bioreactor to treat wastewater from the dairy industry. They reported that there was 80% COD removal after 2 days in the reactor while it increased to 90% after 4 days.

Zhukova et al.[109] studied the use of combined anaerobic/aerobic in treating the wastewater from food industry in removing nitrogen compounds. They installed four bioreactors in series and found out that there was a removal efficiency of 98%.

Aerobic reactor

Fang[30] reported the aerobic treatment of cheese wastewater and achieved 89% of COD elimination. Furthermore, Frigon et al.[33]treated another cheese wastewater and observed COD reduction of 98%. Rivas et al.[82] treated CWW with aerobic activated sludge and achieved 97% COD removal. Furthermore, in 2011, Rivas et al.[83] treated another CWW with an aerobic reactor (not activated sludge) and achieved 95% COD reduction. Work on aerobic treatment of wastewater from food is scanty because of its limitation which is excessive sludge formation.

Advanced oxidation processes

These processes involve the production of highly free radicals (OH) through chemical, photochemical, and photocatalytic reactors. The methods include Fenton process, ultraviolet (UV) photolysis, sonication, ozonation, and electrochemical oxidation. This applies most especially to refractory organic pollutants.[43],[69]

Electrochemical coagulation

This method involves the formation of OH at active sites of anode and using it to decontaminate wastewater containing organic pollutants.[84] Xu et al.[106] reported the recovery and characterization of by-product from egg processing plant wastewater using coagulant. They used four coagulants, namely, lignosulfonate (LSA), bentonite (BEN), carboxymethylcellulose, and ferric chloride (FeCl3). They observed that for the four coagulants, there was removal efficiency of 90%, 97%, and 95% for COD, turbidity, and TS, respectively.

Electrocoagulation using Fe and Al was used to treat wastewater from cattle slaughterhouse by Un et al.[101] The results revealed that there was 94.4% removal of COD using Al electrode, while it was 81.1% using Fe electrode. Baker's yeast wastewater was treated by Kobya and Delipinar[48] using Fe and Al electrodes. They reported COD removal of 71%, total organic carbon (TOC) removal of 53%, and turbidity reduction of 90% at pH of 6.5, current density of 70 A/m2, and operating time of 50 min for Al electrode. For Fe electrode, COD removal of 69%, TOC removal of 52%, and turbidity reduction of 56% were obtained at pH of 7, current density of 70 A/m2 and operating time of 50 min. Roa-morales et al.[85] used aluminum electrocoagulation and hydrogen peroxide to treat wastewater from pasta and cookie wastewater under the condition of pH 4 and current density of 18.2 mA/m2. COD removal of 90%, BOD reduction of 96%, and TS removal of 95% were achieved. Vanerkar et al.[102] treated the wastewater from food processing industry using coagulation/flocculation process. They reported that with lime dosage of 200 mg/L, there was reduction in COD and BOD of 53.59% and 57.19%, respectively. They also investigated the potential of alum as a coagulant which showed the reduction in COD and BOD varied between 16.81%–29.97% and 22.81%–38.81% for doses between 50 and 100 mg/L, respectively. They also observed more efficiency when lime of 200 mg/L was combined with 0.3 mg/L of magnafloc E-207 (a polyelectrolyte) which was 67.61%, 71.01%, and 81.53% reductions in COD, BOD, and SS, respectively.

Sangeetha et al.[89] studied the COD removal from sago industries wastewater and the optimization of the process parameters using Box–Behnken design. The result revealed that at optimum condition at 100 mg/L of alum (coagulant) dosage, pH 4.5, and 2.5 g/L concentration of wastewater, there was COD removal efficiency of 67.86%.

Fenton process

This involves oxidation with Fenton's reagent which is a mixture of ferrous ions and hydrogen peroxide.[38] Several researchers have investigated the use of this method on wastewater from different food and allied processing industries. Effluents from baker's yeast industry were treated using Fenton's oxidation by Pala and Erden.[70] They reported 88% COD removal at pH 4 and reaction time of 20 min. Livestock producing industry wastewater was also treated using Fenton process and COD and color removal of 88% and 95.4%, respectively, were reported by Lee and Shoda.[56] In addition, when treated with Fenton's reagents, wastewater from olive oil mill recorded 80% COD removal and 85% total phenol removal. This was reported by Kiril Mert et al.[58]

Ozonation

This process uses ozone (O3) as oxidizing agents. O3, being a strong oxidizing agent, leaves no toxic residue that has to be removed or disposed.[100] It reacts well with conjugated double bond which is often associated with color.[17] Olive oil mill wastewater was also treated by ozonation. This was done at three different times of 60, 90, and 120 min with the highest efficiency achieved at 120 min. The results revealed polyphenols and COD reduction of 82.4% and 59.8%, respectively. The study was reported by Andreozzi et al.[7] Distillery wastewater was treated by Sangave et al.[88] using ozonation process. They achieved 79% COD reduction, while the treatment of molasses fermentation wastewater gave 90% color reduction and COD removal of 37%.[17]

Photocatalysis

This process involves the excitation of semiconductors by electromagnetic radiation to produce conduction band electrons and valence band holes capable of removing pollutants.[95] Some catalytic materials that have been studied include TiO2, ZnO, SnO, WO3, ZrO2, CeO, and YO3.[87]

Oily wastewater from restaurant was treated with UV/TiO2 under the following conditions of 10 min of radiation, 150 mg/L of TiO2, and pH of 7.0. The study revealed the removal efficiency of COD, BOD, and oil of 63%, 43%, and 70%, respectively, it was reported by Kang et al.[45] Furthermore, Agustina et al.[1] reported the treatment of winery wastewater with TiO2/H2O2; about 84% COD removal was achieved in the process. Molasses fermentation wastewater was subjected to treatment with calcined YO3 and the report indicated that there was decolorization of 98.23% and COD removal of 92.98%. The study was carried out by Qin et al.[75] A study was conducted on treatment of molasses wastewater with UV/TiO2/MoO3 by Navgire et al.[67] They observed 70% color removal and reduction of COD (90%), BOD (90%), and TDS (50%).

Combined process

This method is usually employed to reduce cost and enhance efficiency. It is also used to reduce reaction time.[108] A combination of photocatalysis and ozonation processes (UV/H2O2/O3) was used to treat coffee wastewater by Zayas et al.[108] They observed that the process was capable of reducing COD content of the wastewater by 87% in 35 min at optimum pH of 2.0. De Sena et al.[22] used dissolved air floatation (DAF) with UV/H2O2 or photo-Fenton to treat wastewater from the meat industry. They reported that using DAF/UV/H2O2 gives reduction of BOD5, COD, TS, and VS by 82.9%, 91.1%, 72.5%, and 77.0%, respectively. Olive mill wastewater was also treated with UV/O3 and the removal of 91% COD was achieved by Lafi et al.[53] But when olive mill wastewater was subjected to modified photo-Fenton/ozonation, there was 87.9% polyphenol reduction and 64.9% COD reduction. The study was carried out by Andreozzi et al.[7]

Coagulation/flocculation process

This is referred to as the most simple and economical. It involves using a solution of some salts to precipitate dissolved organic compounds. The use of coagulants such as alum and FeCl3 has been studied.[74],[102] Qasim and Mane[74] used alum to treat wastewater from dairy, sweets, snacks, and ice-cream industries, respectively. Wastewaters from the different food processing industries were treated with lime, alum, ferrous sulfate (FeSO4), and FeCl3. They reported the following percentage removal: 71.5% SS, 65.58% BOD, and 59.47% COD using lime. In the case of alum, 54.5% SS removal, 38.81% BOD removal, and 29.97% COD removal were achieved all at 300 mg/L dose of coagulant. The results revealed that FeSO4 coagulant gave 72.52% SS removal, 58.22% BOD removal, and 52.99% COD removal while that of FeCl3 gives 71.15% SS removal, 44.64% BOD removal, and 41.59% COD removal at 175 mg/L dose of coagulants.

Xu et al.[106] used four coagulants, namely Lignosulfonate (LSA), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), bentonite (BEN), and FeCl3, to treat wastewater from egg processing plant. They reported that using LSA, the removal percentages for COD, TSS, and turbidity (TUR) were 94%, 99%, and 98%, respectively, while those for CMC were 95%, 99%, and 98% for COD, TSS, and TUR, respectively. They also observed that using BEN gave 97% COD removal, 98.7% TSS removal, and 99% turbidity removal while for FeCl3, 88% COD removal, 99% TSS removal, and 99% TOR removal were achieved. Cheese Whey Wastewater (CWW) was treated with three coagulants, namely FeSO4, FeCl3, and alum, by Rivas et al.[82] The results obtained indicated that there was reduction of COD by 43%, BOD 67%, TOR 97%, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), 43%, and phosphorus (P) 89% for FeSO4 while in the case of FeCl3, percentage removal was 32% for COD, 23% for BOD, 72% for TOR, 44% for TKN, and 14% for P. On the other hand, alum removed COD by 35%, BOD 36%, TOR 96%, TKN 44%, and P by 77%.

Adsorption

This is a natural process by which molecules of dissolved substance collect on and adhere to the surface of an adsorbent (solid). It occurs when the attraction force at the adsorbent surface overcome the attractive forces of the dissolved substance of the liquid.[74] Works have been done on treatment of wastewater using adsorption techniques. Notable among this is a study conducted by Amuda and Ibrahim.[6] The authors used commercial activated carbon, activated carbon from coconut shell to treat wastewater from a beverage industry. The results showed that acid-activated coconut shell carbon has the highest COD removal of about 92% followed by barium chloride-activated coconut shell carbon with 72% and commercial-activated carbon with 69% COD removal. Petalas et al.[73] used an agricultural by-product, olive pomace, as an adsorbent in removing total phenols in the wastewater from an olive mill industry. They reported that at optimum conditions, the adsorption efficiency for the removal of total phenols was 40%. Studies on the adsorptive treatment of distillery wastewater by bagasse fly ash, a by-product from sugar industry, was carried out by Kulkarni et al.[52] They indicated that at optimum pH of 6 and contact time of 2.5 h, there was 85% COD removal.

Qasim and Mane[74] investigated the treatment of wastewater from dairy, sweet, and ice-cream industries by adsorption. They observed that there was reduction in COD and TDS upon treatment with activated carbon. Sugar mill effluent was treated with activated charcoal, wood ash, and bagasse pith by Suxena and Madan.[96] The results revealed that there was 76.18% COD reduction, 70.65% BOD reduction, 86.6% TDS reduction, and 79.18% TS reduction for activated charcoal while for wood ash, there was reduction in COD, BOD, TDS, and TS by 67.43%, 58.64%, 74.08%, and 72.34%, respectively. The percentage reduction in COD, BOD, TDS and TS when treated with bagasse was found to be 74.41%, 60.71%, 83.99% and 76.22% respectively. Murali et al.[64] used a low-cost biosorbent, water hyacinth, to reduce the COD of wastewater from the dairy industry. They observed that at optimum contact time of 40 min, there was COD reduction of 65.4% and at optimum dosage of 15 g, there was a reduction of 89.5%.

Karale and Suryavanshi[46] treated dairy wastewater with a mixture of coconut shell-activated carbon (CSAC) and laterite. They use column chromatography to investigate the effect of operating parameter. The results indicated that when CSAC and laterite were mixed in ratio 1:1, there was COD reduction of 72.85% and BOD reduction of 76.75%, while on mixing with ratio 2:1 (CSAC to laterite), COD reduces to 75.3% and BOD reduces to 79.69%, and then mixing with ratio 1:2 (CSAC to laterite), COD reduces to 80.65% and BOD reduces to 81.09%. Lakdawala and Patel[51] studied the adsorption capacity of zeolite for removal of chemical and BODs from wastewater from the sugar industry. The results revealed that at optimum dosage of 160 g/L, there was 26.67% COD reduction and 30.79% BOD reduction. Sasikala and Muthuraman[90] studied the reduction of COD in pond water by activated carbons from Moringa oleifera, sugarcane bagasse, coconut coir, and sawdust. They observed that at optimum conditions sawdust-activated carbon has the highest percentage removal of COD of 95% followed by coconut coir which is 75% while sugarcane bagasse has 45% and then Moringa oleifera's was 70%. Wastewater from the dairy industry was also treated with rice husk using the principle of adsorption. This was studied by Pathak et al.[72] The investigation was carried out with variation of parameters such as contact time and adsorbent dosage. The results showed that there was maximum COD removal of 92.5% at dosage of 5 g/L, pH of 2, and temperature of 30°C. Subjecting the data to isotherm and kinetics models, it was observed that the adsorption process followed Langmuir isotherm closely and fitted into pseudo-second-order kinetic model. The thermodynamic parameters also suggested that the process was spontaneous, exothermic, and enthalpy driven.


  Conclusion Top


One of the most important industries in civilized societies is the food processing industry. Food, because of its importance to life, makes large numbers of humans and animals to be dependent on it. But aside this, food processing produces enormous pollutants, therefore, the growth of food processing industries may have hazardous effect on the quality of aquatic environment and human health. Thus, one of the major causes of concern about the day by day increased level of water pollution is the food processing industry; hence, there is a need for regular monitoring and characterization of wastewaters from food processing industries. As a result of the rapid decrease in the level of water resources, and the increasing demand for water, it is important to reuse wastewater by finding and using a treatment process that is sustainable to clean up polluted wastewater that is economical and safe and could be easily accessed by the common people.

Industry is a point source of pollution because contaminants are produced during manufacturing process. Different treatment methods for food processing have contributed largely in determining the fate of these recalcitrant organic substances in various treatment systems. These include advanced oxidation processes such as ozonation, Fenton reaction, ultrasonic irradiation, direct photolysis and photocatalysis (TiO2 and solar), and coagulation/flocculation. These methods significantly improved the removal rate and biodegradability of organics from food processing wastewater. However, there is a need to increase treatment efficiencies, identify the degradation substances, and determine the feasibility and the cost of full-scale operations. This gives rise to the use of biological methods.

Biological methods of treatment have been used long ago for the treatment of food processing wastewater. They are subdivided into aerobic and anaerobic processes; anaerobic processes include anaerobic filters, sludge reactors, sequence batch reactor, membrane batch reactor, and use of activated sludge. However, some factors come into play that requires modifications for the food processing wastewater to adapt to enhance high efficiency of biodegradability and capable mineralization of biological processes.

Adsorption is the latest means of treating wastewater which has high efficiency and produces no sludge. It is also very economical in that the adsorbent can be desorbed and reused for further treatment. But in the early discovery of adsorption method, activated charcoal was used as adsorbent, but the need to reduce the cost of adsorption gives rise to finding an alternative cheaper and equally effective and efficient adsorbent. This was achieved by so many researchers which used carbonaceous materials such as barks, roots, leaves, shells, husks of both plant and animal whether in raw, modified, or carbonized form and these have been found to have high treatment efficiencies as that of activated charcoal. All these processes are aimed at having a pollutant-free wastewater which goes into the environment, but adsorption seems to be the less cumbersome, easy to operate, and cheap. However, all the technologies, when singly used have lower efficiencies compared to when two or more treatment methods are combined, especially with adsorption. This is likely to be one of the best technologies to protect and clean up the environment.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Agustina TE, Ang HM, Pareek VK. Treatment of winery wastewater using a photocatalytic/photolytic reactor. Chem Eng J 2008;135:151-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ajao AT, Adebayo GB, Yakubu SE. Bioremediation of textile industrial effluent using mixed culture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus subtilis immobilized on agar in a bioreactor. J Microbiol Biotechnol Res 2011;1:50-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Alvarez PM, Pocostales JP, Beltrán FJ. Granular activated carbon promoted ozonation of a food-processing secondary effluent. J Hazard Mater 2011;185:776-83.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Amin A, Naik AT, Azhar M, Nayak H. Bioremediation of different wastewaters – A review. Cont J Fish Aquat Sci 2013;7:7-17.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Amuda OS, Amoo IA, Ajayi OO. Performance optimization of some coagulants/flocculant in the treatment of a beverage industrial wastewater. J Hazard Mater B 2006;129:69-72.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Amuda OS, Ibrahim AO. Industrial wastewater treatment using natural material as adsorbent. Afr J Biotech 2006;5:1483-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Andreozzi R, Canterino M, Di Somma I, Lo Giudice R, Marotta R, Pinto G, et al. Effect of combined physico-chemical processes on the phytotoxicity of olive mill wastewaters. Water Res 2008;42:1684-92.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ayoub GM, Hamzeh A, Semerijan L. Post treatment of tannery wastewater using lime/bittern coagulation and activated carbon adsorption. Desalinination 2011;273:339-65.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bialek K, Kumar A, Mahony T, Lens PN, O'Flaherty V. Microbial community structure and dynamics in anaerobic fluidized-bed and granular sludge-bed reactors: Influence of operational temperature and reactor configuration. Microb Biotechnol 2012;5:738-52.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bloor JC, Anderson GK, Willey AR. High rate aerobic treatment of brewery wastewater using the jet loop reactor. Water Res 1995;29:1217-23.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Borja R, Banks J. Response of an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor treating ice cream wastewater to organic hydraulic, temperature and pH shocks. J Biotechnol 1995;39:251-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Ghafoori S, Mehrvar M. Assessing the performance of UV/H2O as a pretreatment process in TOC removal of an actual petroleum refinery wastewater and its inhibitory effects on activated sludge. Canadian JChem Eng 2015;93:798-807.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bustillo-Lecompte C, Mehrvar M, Quinones-Bolanos E. Slaughter house wastewater characterization and treatment: An economic and public health necessity of the meat processing industry in Ontario, Canada. J Geosci Environ Protect 2016;4:175-86.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Carvalho F, Prazeres AR, Rivas J. Cheese whey wastewater: Characterization and treatment. Sci Total Environ 2013;445-446:385-96.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Chaudhari PK, Mishra IM, Chand S. Decoulorization ad removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD) with energy recovery: Treatment of biodigester effluent of a molasses – Based alcohol distillery using inorganic coagulants. Colloids and surfaces. Physicochem Eng Aspects 2007;296:238-47.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Coca M, Peña M, González G. Variables affecting efficiency of molasses fermentation wastewater ozonation. Chemosphere 2005;60:1408-15.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Coca M, Peña M, González G. Kinetic study of ozonation of molasses fermentation wastewater. J Hazard Mater 2007;149:364-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Cristian O. Characteristics of untreated wastewater produced by food industry. Analele Universilatii Oradeq Fascicula Protectia Mediului 2010;15:709-14.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Debik E, Coskun T. Use of static Granular Bed reactor (SGBR) with anaerobic sludge to treat poultry slaughter house wastewater and kinetic modelling. Biores Technol 2009;100:2777-82.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Deegan AM, Shaik B, Nolan K, Urell K, Oelgemoller M, Tobin J, et al. Treatment options for wastewater effluents from pharmaceutical companies. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2011;8:649-66.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Deshpande DP, Patil PJ, Anekar SV. Biomethanation of dairy waste. Res J Chem Sci 2012;2:35-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
De Sena FR, Tambosi JL, Geneva AK, Moreira R, Schrider HF, Jose HJ. Treatment of meat industry wastewater using dissolved air floatation and advanced oxidation processes monitored by GC-MS and LC-MS. Chem Eng J 2009;152:151-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
de Souza SM, Bonilla KA, de Souza AA. Removal of COD and color from hydrolyzed textile azo dye by combined ozonation and biological treatment. J Hazard Mater 2010;179:35-42.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Dubey ES, Joshi YP. Characterization and treatment of ice cream industry wastewater using UASB reactor. Int J New Technol Sci Eng 2015;2:69-77.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Duran A, Monteagudo JM, Carnicer A. Photo-Fenton mineralization of synthetic apple –Juice wastewater. Chem Eng J 2011;168:102-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Ebrahimi A, Najafpour CD, Mohammadi M, Hashemiyeh B. Biological treatment of whey in an UASFF bioreactor following a three-stage RBC. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q 2010;16:175-82.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Elaoud SC, Panizza M, Cerisola G, Mhiri T. Electrochemical degradation of sinapinic acid on BOD anode. Desalination 2011;272:148-53.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Emongor V, Nkegbe E, Kealotswe B, Koorapetse I, Sankwa S, Keikanetswe S. Pollution indicators in Gaborone industrial effluent. J Appl Sci 2005;5:147-50.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Esparza Soto M, Solís Morelos C, Hernández Torres JJ. Anaerobic treatment of a medium strength industrial wastewater at low-temperature and short hydraulic retention time: A pilot-scale experience. Water Sci Technol 2011;64:1629-35.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Fang HH. Treatment of wastewater from a whey processing plant using activated sludge and anaerobic processes. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:2015-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Farizoglu B, Keskinler B, Yildiz E, Nuhoglu A. Cheese whey treatment performance of an aerobic jet loop membrane bioreactor. Proc Biochem 2004;39:2283-91.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Fathallah Z, Elkharrim K, Ayyach A, Fathallah R, Hbaiz E, Hamid C, et al. Characterization of industrial wastewater treated by natural lagoon (papermill in Sidi Yahia Gharb, Morocco). Int J Innov Appl Stud 2014;7:1363-70.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Frigon JC, Breton J, Bruneau T, Moletta R, Guiot SR. The treatment of cheese whey wastewater by sequential anaerobic and aerobic steps in a single digester at pilot scale. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:4156-63.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Fuzzato MC, Tallarico Adorno MA, de Pinho SC, Pibeiro R, Tommaso G. Simplified mathematical model for an anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor treating lipid-rich wastewater subject to rising organic loading rates. Environ Eng Sci 2009;26:1197-206.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Ganesh R, Rajinikanth R, Thanikal JV, Ramanujam RA, Torrijos M. Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in fixed bed reactors. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2010;33:619-28.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
García H, Rico C, García PA, Rico JL. Flocculants effect in biomass retention in a UASB reactor treating dairy manure. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:6028-36.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Gengec E, Kobya M, Demirbas E, Akyol A, Oktor K. Optimization of baker's yeast wastewater using response surface methodology by electrocoagulation. Desalination 2012;286:200-9.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Gogate PR, Pandiit AB. A review of impertaive technologies for wastewater treatment II: hybrid methods. J Adv Environ Res 2004;8:501-51.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Gotmare M, Dhoble RM, Pittule AP. Biomethanation of dairy waste water through UASB at mesophilic temperature range. Int J Adv Eng Sci Technol 2011;8:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Hami ML, Al-Hashimi MA, Al-Doori MM. Effect of activated carbon on BOD and COD removal in a dissolved air flotation unit, beating refinery wastewater. Desalination 2007;216:116-22.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Hanafi F, Assobhei O, Mountadar M. Detoxification and discoloration of Moroccan olive mill wastewater by electrocoagulation. J Hazard Mater 2010;174:807-12.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Inamdar J, Singh SK. Photocatalytic detoxification method for zero effluent discharge in dairy industry: Effect of operation parameters. Int J Chem Biomolecular Eng 2008;1:160-4.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Jamil TS, Ghaly MY, El-Seesy IE, Souaya ER, Nasr RA. A comparative study among different photochemical oxidation processes to enhance the biodegradability of paper mill wastewater. J Hazard Mater 2011;185:353-8.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Janczukowicz W, Zielinski M, Dbowski M. Biodegradable evaluation of dairy effluents originated in selected sections of dairy production. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:4199-205.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Kang JX, Lu L, Zhan W, Li B, Li DS, Ren YZ, et al. Photocatalytic pretreatment of oily wastewater from the restaurant by a vacuum ultraviolet/TiO2 system. J Hazard Mater 2011;186:849-54.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Karale SS, Suryavanshi MM. Dairy wastewater treatment using coconut shell activated carbon and laterite as low cost adsorbents. Int J Civil Struct Environ Infrast Eng Res Dev 2014;4:9-14.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Kim SH, Shin HS. Enhanced lipid degradation in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor by integration with an acidogenic reactor. Water Environ Res 2010;82:267-72.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Kiril Mert B, Yonar T, Yalili Kiliç M, Kestioğlu K. Pre-treatment studies on olive oil mill effluent using physicochemical, Fenton and Fenton-like oxidations processes. J Hazard Mater 2010;174:122-8.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Kobya M, Delipinar S. Treatment of the Baker's yeast wastewater by electrocoagulation. J Hazard Mater 2008;154:1133-40.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Kokila A, Parmar SP, Patel R, Dabhi Y. Effective use of ferrous sulfate and alum as a coagulant in treatment of dairy industry wastewater. J Eng Appl Sci 2011;6:42-5.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Konieczny P, Ekner E, Uchman W, Kufel B. Effective use of ferric sulfate in treatment of different food industry wastewater. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment 2015;4:123-32.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Kulkarni SJ, Patil SV, Bhalerao YP. Flyash adsorption studies for organic matter removal accompanying increase in dissolved oxygen. Int J Chem Eng Appl 2011;2:434-8.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Lafi WK, Shannak B, Al-Shannag M, Al-Anber Z, Al-Hasan M. Treatment of olive mill wastewater by combined advanced oxidation and biodegradation. Sep Purif Technol 2009;70:141-6.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Lakdawala MM, Patel YS. Studies on adsorption capacity of zeolite for removal of chemical and biochemical oxygen demands. Chem J 2015;1:139-43.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Lambert SD, Graham NI. Removal of non-specific dissolved organic matter from upland potable water supplies- I. Adsorption. Water Res 1995;29:2421-6.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Lee H, Shoda M. Removal of COD and color from livestock wastewater by the Fenton method. J Hazard Mater 2008;153:1314-9.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Lucas MS, Peres JA, Puma GL. Treatment of winery wastewater by ozone – Based advanced oxidation processes (O3, O3/UV and O3/UV/H2O2) in a pilot – Scale bubble column reactor and process economics. Sep Purif Technol 2010;72:235-41.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Martins RC, Quinta-Ferreira RM. Final remediation of post – Biological treated milk whey wastewater by ozone. Int J Chem React Eng 2010;8:A142.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Misal SA, Lingojuvar DP, Shinde RM, Gawai KR. Purification and characterization of azoreductase from alkaliphilic strains bacillus radius. Process Biochem 2011;46:264-9.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Mishra S, Barik SK, Agyappan S, Mohapatra BC. Fish bioassays for evaluation of raw and bioremediated dairy effluent. Bioresour Technol 2000;72:213-8.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Monroy HO, Vazquezz M, Derramadero JC, Guyot JP. Anaerobic – Aerobic treatment of dairy wastewater with national technology in Mexico; the case of “Elsanz”. 3rd International Symposium on Waste Management Problems in Agro-Industries, Mexico City; 1995. p. 202-9.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Monteagudo JM, Duran A, Corral JM, Carnicer A, Frades JM, Alonso MA. Ferri oxalate – Induced solar photo-Fenton system for the treatment of winery wastewater. Chem Eng J 2012;181:281-8.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Mortula M, Shabani S. Removal of TDS and BOD from synthetic industrial wastewater via adsorption. 2012 International Conference on Environmental, Biomedical and Biotechnology. Vol. 41. International Proceedings of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering; 2012. p. 166-70.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Murali K, Karuppiah PL, Nithish M, Sajith Kumar S, Suresh Raja V. COD reduction using low cost biosorbent as part of cleaner production. Int J Sci Res Public 2013;3:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Nandy T, Shastry S, Kaul SN. Wastewater management in a cane molasses distillery involving bioresource recovery. J Environ Manage 2002;65:25-38.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Navarro P, Sarasa J, Sierra D, Esteban S, Ovelleiro JL. Degradation of wine industry wastewaters by photocatalytic advanced oxidation. Water Sci Technol 2005;51:113-20.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Navgire M, Yelwande A, Tayde D, Arbad B, Lande M. Photodegradation of molasses by a MoO3-TiO2 Nanocrystalline composite material. Chin J Catal 2012;33:261-6.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Noukeu NA, Gouado I, Priso RJ, Ndongo D, Taffono VD, Dibong SD, et al. Characteristics of effluent from food processing industries as stillage treatment trial with Eichhornia crassipes and Panicum maximum. Water Res Ind 2016;16:1-18.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Oller I, Malato S, Sánchez-Pérez JA. Combination of advanced oxidation processes and biological treatments for wastewater decontamination – A review. Sci Total Environ 2011;409:4141-66.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Pala A, Erden G. Decolorization of a baker's yeast industry effluent by fenton oxidation. J Hazard Mater 2005;127:141-8.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Passeggi M, López I, Borzacconi L. Integrated anaerobic treatment of dairy industrial wastewater and sludge. Water Sci Technol 2009;59:501-6.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Pathak U, Das P, Banerjee P, Datta S. Treatment of wastewater from a dairy industry using rice husk as adsorbed: Treatment efficiency, isotherm, thermodynamics and kinetics modelling. J Therm 2016;2:1-7. [doi: 10155/2016/3746316].  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Petalas AV, Elia E, Stasinakis AS, Halvadakis CP. Use of a low cost agricultural by-product for the adsorption of total phenols contained in olive mill wastewater. Proceeding of the 10th International Conference in Environmental, Science and Technology, Kus Island, Greece; 2007. p. 1145-52.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Qasim W, Mane AV. Characterization and treatment of selected food industrial effluents by coagulation and adsorption technologies. Water Resour Ind 2013;4:1-12.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Qin Z, Liang Y, Liu Z, Jiang W. Preparation of inYO3 catalyst and its application in photodegradation of molasses fermentation wastewater. J Environ Sci (China) 2011;23:1219-24.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Rajagopal R. Treatment of Agro-Food Industrial Wastewater Using UAF and Hybrid UASB-UAF Reactors. Ph. D Thesis. Roorkee, India: Indian Institute of Technology; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Rajagopal R, Ganesh R, Escudie R, Mehrotra I, Kumar P, Thanikal JV, et al. High rate anaerobic filters with floating supports for the treatment of effluent from small scale agro-food industries. Desalin Water Treat 2009;4:183-90.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Rajagopal R, Mehrotra I, Kumar P, Torrijos M. Evaluation of a hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge-filter bed reactor: Effect of the proportion of packing medium on performance. Water Sci Technol 2010;61:1441-50.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Rajagopal R, Torrijos M, Kumar P, Mehrotra I. Substrate removal kinetics in high-rate upflow anaerobic filters packed with low-density polyethylene media treating high-strength agro-food wastewaters. J Environ Manage 2013;116:101-6.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Rana RS, Singh P, Kanderi V, Singh R, Dobhal R, Gupta S. A review on characterization and bioremediation of pharmaceutical industries wastewater: An Indian perspective. Appl Water Sci 2014;7:1-12. [Doi: 10. 1007/s13201-014-1225-3].  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Rao M, Bhole AG. Removal of organic matter from dairy industry wastewater using low cost adsorbents. J India Chem Eng 2002;A44:25-8.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Rivas J, Prazeres AR, Carvalho F, Beltrán F. Treatment of cheese whey wastewater: Combined coagulation-flocculation and aerobic biodegradation. J Agric Food Chem 2010;58:7871-7.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Rivas J, Prazeres AR, Carvalho F. Aerobic biodegradation of precoagulated cheese whey wastewater. J Agric Food Chem 2011;59:2511-7.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Rizzo L. Bioassays as a tool for evaluating advanced oxidation process in water and wastewater treatment. Water Res 2011;45:4311-40.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Roa-Morales G, Campos-Medina E, Aguilera-Cotero J, Bilyeu B, Barrera-Diaz C. Aluminium electrocoagulation with peroxide applied to wastewater from pasta and cookie processing. Sep Purif Technol 2007;54:124-9.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Rodgers M, Zhan XM, Dolan B. Mixing characteristics and whey wastewater treatment of a novel moving anaerobic biofilm reactor. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 2004;39:2183-93.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Sakthivel S, Neppolia B, Shankar MV, Arabindoco B, Palanichamy M, Murugesan V. Solar photocatalytic degradation of azo dye: Comparison of photocatalytic efficiency of ZnO and TiO2. Sol Energy Mat Sol C 2003;77:65-82.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Sangave PC, Gogate PR, Pandit AB. Combination of ozonation with conventional aerobic oxidation for distillery wastewater treatment. Chemosphere 2007;68:32-41.  Back to cited text no. 88
    
89.
Sangeetha V, Sivakumar V, Sudha A, Priyenka Devi KS. Optimization of process parameters for COD removal by coagulation treatment using Box-Behnken design. Int J Eng Technol 2014;6:1053-8.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
Sasikala S, Muthuraman G. Reduction of chemical oxygen demand (COD) in stabilization of pond water by various activated carbons. Int J Chem Technol Res 2015;7:2924-8.  Back to cited text no. 90
    
91.
Satyawali Y, Balakrishnan M. Wastewater treatment in molasses-based alcohol distilleries for COD and color removal: A review. J Environ Manage 2008;86:481-97.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
Schmidt JE, Ahring BK. Treatment of wastewater from a multiproduct food processing company in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor: The effect of seasonal variation. Pure Appl Chem 1997;69:2447-52.  Back to cited text no. 92
    
93.
Selma MV, Allende A, López-Gálvez F, Conesa MA, Gil MI. Heterogeneous photocatalytic disinfection of wash waters from the fresh-cut vegetable industry. J Food Prot 2008;71:286-92.  Back to cited text no. 93
    
94.
Shastry S, Nandy T, Wate SR, Kaul SN. Hydrogenated vegetable oil industry wastewater treatment using UASB reactor system with recourse to energy recovery. Water Air Soil Pollut 2010;208:323-33.  Back to cited text no. 94
    
95.
Stasinakis AS. Use of selected advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for wastewater treatment – A mini review. Global NEST J 2008;10:376-85.  Back to cited text no. 95
    
96.
Suxena C, Madan S. Evaluation of adsorbents efficacy for the removal of pollutants from sugarmill effluents. ARPN J Agric Biol Sci 2012;7:325-9.  Back to cited text no. 96
    
97.
Tariq M, Ali M, Shah Z. Characteristics of industrial effluents and their possible impacts on quality of underground water. Soil Environ 2006;25:64-9.  Back to cited text no. 97
    
98.
Thomas S, Nair MV, Singh IS. Physicochemical analysis of seafood processing effluents in Aro Grang Panchayath Kerala. IOSR J Environ Sci Toxicol Food Technol 2015;9:38-44.  Back to cited text no. 98
    
99.
Tikariha A, Sahu O. Study of characteristics and treatments of dairy industry wastewater. J Appl Environ Microbiol 2014;2:16-22.  Back to cited text no. 99
    
100.
Tokumura M, Ohta A, Znad HT, Kawase Y. UV light assisted decolorization of dark brown colored coffee effluent by photo-fenton reaction. Water Res 2006;40:3775-84.  Back to cited text no. 100
    
101.
Un UT, Koparal AS, Ogutveren UB. Hybrid processes for the treatment of cattle – Slaughter house wastewater using aluminium and iron electrodes. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2009;80:828-33.  Back to cited text no. 101
    
102.
Vanerkar AP, Sanjeev S, Shanta S. Treatment of food processing industry wastewater by a coagulation/flocculation process. Int J Chem Phys Sci 2013;2:2583-8.  Back to cited text no. 102
    
103.
Verheyen V, Cruickshank A, Wild K, Heaven MW, McGee R, Watkins M. Case study: Characterization of organic particulates present in milk factory process waters used for reuse along with aerobically digested effluent wastewater. Bioresour Technol 2011;1902:2118-25.  Back to cited text no. 103
    
104.
World Health Organization. Water Pollutants: Biological agents, Dissolved Chemicals, Non-Dissolved Chemicals, Sediments, Heat. Amman, Jordan: WHO, CEHA; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 104
    
105.
World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2003: Shaping the future. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003. p. 1211.  Back to cited text no. 105
    
106.
Xu LJ, Sheldon BW, Carawan RE, Larick DK, Chao AC. Recovery and characterization of by-products from egg processing plant wastewater using coagulants. Poult Sci 2001;80:57-65.  Back to cited text no. 106
    
107.
Yang K, Yu Y, Hwang S. Selective optimization in thermophilic acidogenesis of cheese-whey wastewater to acetic and butyric acids: Partial acidification and methanation. Water Res 2003;37:2467-77.  Back to cited text no. 107
    
108.
Zayas Pérez T, Geissler G, Hernandez F. Chemical oxygen demand reduction in coffee wastewater through chemical flocculation and advanced oxidation processes. J Environ Sci (China) 2007;19:300-5.  Back to cited text no. 108
    
109.
Zhukova V, Sabliy L, Lagod G. Biotechnology of the food industry wastewater treatment from nitrogen compounds. Proc Ecopole 2011;5:133-8.  Back to cited text no. 109
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Characterization...
Methods of Treat...
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed178    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded32    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]