Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utilizing Coagulation and Methane Potential Tests to Assess the Efficiency of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Hydrolysis

  • Published:
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The meat industry’s significant freshwater demand and the consequent generation of substantial wastewater require effective treatment methods. With a global increase in meat production, water consumption and wastewater generation are on the rise. Simultaneously, regulatory measures such as the “Fit for 55” package aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve water resources. In response, the meat industry must explore sustainable practices, including reduction of water consumption and biomethane production through wastewater treatment. This study focuses on assessing the impact of hydrolysis on methane potential (MP) in slaughterhouse wastewater. To gauge hydrolysis efficiency, an in-house coagulation-based method was developed, proposing a new approach by comparing coagulation and filtration. Coagulation proves superior in presenting COD values closer to actual levels with less variation. Monitoring progress at 22 °C and 35 °C, with a consistent pH of 9, tests were conducted over 1, 2, 3, and 5 days. Methane production post-hydrolysis ranged from 178.8 to 242.6 CH4 Nml/gCOD across tested cases, aligning with existing literature. Optimal conditions for increased methane potential involved a 5-day hydrolysis at 35 °C, demonstrating a 30% average boost in specific wastewater methane production. This study provides a valuable exploration of hydrolysis effects on methane potential, offering insights for sustainable wastewater management in the meat industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The obtained data are largely related to the activities of companies involved in the production of the tested wastewater, and the authors do not have permission to publish them without their approval. Data sets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Ali, M. M., & Idrus, S. (2021). Physical and biological treatment technologies of slaughterhouse wastewater: a review. Sustainability, 13(9), 4656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali, M. M., Idrus, S., Harun, M. R., Marzuki, T. F. T. M., & Wahab, A. M. A. (2020). A comparative study on biogas production from cattle slaughterhouse wastewater using conventional and modified upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, M. J., Thiele, J. H., Birch, E. J., & Cohen, A. (1998). Anaerobic batch digestion of sheep tallow. Water Research, 32(5), 1423–1428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bustillo-Lecompte, C., & Mehrvar, M. (2015). Slaughterhouse wastewater characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat processing industry: a review on trends and advances. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 287–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chollom, M. N., Rathilal, S., Swalaha, F. M., Bakare, B. F., & Tetteh, E. K. (2019). Anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater: evaluating operating conditions. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 239. https://doi.org/10.2495/WS190221

  • Cuetos, M. J., Gómez, X., & Morán, A. (2010). Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion of slaughterhouse waste (SHW): influence of heat and pressure pre-treatment in biogas yield. Waste Management, 30(10), 1780–1789.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalantai, T., Rhee, C., Kim, D. W., Yu, S. I., Shin, J., Triolo, J. M., & Shin, S. G. (2022). Complex network analysis of slaughterhouse waste anaerobic digestion: from failure to success of long-term operation. Bioresource Technology, 361, 127673.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2021). ‘Fit for 55’: Delivering the EU’s 2030 climate target on the way to climate neutrality. Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the european council, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions.

  • European Commission. (2020). Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse. Official Journal of the European Union L, 177, 32–55.

  • FAO. (2023). World food and agriculture statistical yearbook.

  • Gannoun, H., Bouallagui, H., Okbi, A., Sayadi, S., & Hamdi, M. (2009). Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of biologically pretreated abattoir wastewater in upflow anaerobic filter. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 170(1), 263–271.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. W., & McCabe, B. K. (2015). Review of pre-treatments used in anaerobic digestion and their potential application in high-fat cattle slaughterhouse wastewater. Applied Energy, 155, 560–575.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. W., & McCabe, B. K. (2020). Process optimisation of anaeroic digestion treating high-strength wastewater in the Australian red meat processing industry. Applied Sciences, 10(21), 7947.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, H., Angelidaki, I., & Ahring, B. K. (2006). Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in full scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Water Science and Technology, 41, 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatamoto, M., Imachi, H., Yashiro, Y., Ohashi, A., & Harada, H. (2007). Diversity of anaerobic microorganisms involved in LCFA degradation in methanogenic sludges revealed by RNA-based stable isotope probing. Environmental Microbiology, 73, 4119–4127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Fydrych, V. C., Benítez-Olivares, G., Meraz-Rodríguez, M. A., Salazar-Peláez, M. L., & Fajardo-Ortiz, M. C. (2019). Methane production kinetics of pretreated slaughterhouse wastewater. Biomass and Bioenergy, 130, 105385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensena, P. D., Yapa, S. D., Boyle-Gotlaa, A., Janoschkaa, J., Carneya, C., Pidoua, M., & Batstone, D. J. (2015). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors enable high rate treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 97, 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, M. R. (1995). Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing industry: Review. Bioresource Technology, 54, 203–216.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, T. (1989). Analiza chemicznych i biochemicznych właściwości zanieczyszczeń występujących w ściekach. Ochrona Środowiska, 1(38), 1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtomäki, A., Huttunen, S., & Rintala, S. (2007). Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51(3), 591–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loganath, R., & Senophiyah-Mary, J. (2020). Critical review on the necessity of bioelectricity generation from slaughterhouse industry waste and wastewater using different anaerobic digestion reactors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 134, 110360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Massé, L., Kennedy, K. J., & Chou, S. (2001). Testing of alkaline and enzymatic hydrolysis pretreatments for fat particles in slaughterhouse wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 77, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, G. S. (2006). Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application – a review. Bioresource Technology, 97, 1119–1135.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mori, T. (1995). Treatment of highly concentrated organic wastewaters by thermophilic aerobic digestion. Journal of Water and Wastewater, 42, 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunez, L. A., Fuente, E., Martinez, B., & Garcia, P. A. (1999). Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment using ferric and aluminium salts and organic polyelectrolites. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 34(3), 721–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V., Desai, M., & Madamwar, D. (1993). Thermochemical pretreatment of water hyacinth for improved biomethanation. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 42, 67–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, M. A., Cavaleiro, A. J., & Alves, M. M. (2003). Accumulation of long chain fatty acids onto anaerobic sludge under steady state and shock loading conditions: Effect on acetogenic and methanogenic activity. Water Science and Technology, 48(6), 33–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • San, J. T. (2004). Bird slaughterhouse: Generation and purification of their water. Tecnologia del Agua, 24(251), 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satyanarayan, S., & Ramakant, V. A. P. (2005). Conventional approach for abattoir wastewater treatment. Environmental Technology, 26(4), 441–447.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Torkian, A., Eqbali, A., & Hashemian, S. J. (2003). The effect of organic loading rate on the performance of UASB reactor treating slaughterhouse effluent. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 40(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsegaye, D., Khan, M. M., & Leta, S. (2023). Optimization of operating parameters for two-phase anaerobic digestion treating slaughterhouse wastewater for biogas production: Focus on hydrolytic-acidogenic phase. Sustainability, 15, 5544.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vavilin, V. A., Fernandez, B., Palatsi, J., & Flotats, X. (2008). Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic material: An overview. Waste Management, 28, 939–951.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Research carried out within the framework of the program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education titled Implementation doctoral II program, and supported by Silesian University of Technology grant no.: 08/070/BK_23/0024

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EMI Sp. z o.o., Rolnicza 14, 43–426, Dębowiec, Poland

    Adam Sztefek

  2. Environmental Biotechnology Department, Silesian University of Technology, Akademicka 2, 44–100, Gliwice, Poland

    Adam Sztefek, Grzegorz Cema & Joanna Surmacz-Górska

Authors
  1. Adam Sztefek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grzegorz Cema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna Surmacz-Górska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Adam Sztefek and Grzegorz Cema. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Adam Sztefek and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conceptualization: Adam Sztefek, Grzegorz Cema, and Joanna Surmacz-Górska. Methodology: Adam Sztefek, Grzegorz Cema. Formal analysis and investigation: Adam Sztefek, Grzegorz Cema. Writing—original draft preparation: Adam Sztefek, Grzegorz Cema. Writing—review and editing: Adam Sztefek, Grzegorz Cema, and Joanna Surmacz-Górska;

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grzegorz Cema.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sztefek, A., Cema, G. & Surmacz-Górska, J. Utilizing Coagulation and Methane Potential Tests to Assess the Efficiency of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Hydrolysis. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 265 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-024-07053-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-024-07053-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation