Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

A combined activated sludge-filtration-ozonation process for abattoir T

wastewater treatment
⁎
Pello Alfonso-Muniozgurena, Judy Leea, , Madeleine Bussemakera, Ralph Chadeesingha,
⁎
Caryn Jonesb, David Oakleyc, Devendra Sarojb,
a
Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU27XH, United Kingdom
b
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU27XH, United Kingdom
c
Worldwide Industries Pte Ltd, London, United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Current industrial livestock production has one of the highest consumptions of water, producing up to ten times
Abattoir wastewater more polluted (biological oxygen demand, BOD) wastewaters compared to domestic sewage. Additionally, li-
Activated sludge vestock production grows yearly leading to an increase in the generation of wastewater that varies considerably
Advanced oxidation process in terms of organic content and microbial population. Therefore, suitable wastewater treatment methods are
Organic matter
required to ensure the wastewater quality meets EU regulations before discharge. In the present study, a com-
Disinfection
bined lab scale activated sludge-filtration-ozonation system was used to treat a pre-treated abattoir wastewater.
Ozonation
A 24-h hydraulic retention time and a 13-day solid retention time were used for the activated sludge process,
followed by filtration (4–7 μm) and using ozone as tertiary treatment. Average reductions of 93% and 98% were
achieved for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and BOD, respectively, obtaining final values of 128 mg/L COD
and 12 mg/L BOD. The total suspended solids (TSS) average reduction reached 99% in the same system, re-
ducing the final value down to 3 mg/L. Furthermore, 98% reduction in phosphorus (P) and a complete in-
activation of total coliforms (TC) was obtained after 17 min of ozonation. For total viable counts (TVC), a drastic
reduction was observed after 30 min of ozonation (6 log inactivation) at an injected ozone dose of 71 mg/L. The
reduction percentages reported in this study are higher than those previously reported in the literature. Overall,
the combined process was sufficient to meet discharge requirements without further treatment for the measured
parameters (COD, BOD, TSS, P, TC and TVC).

1. Introduction reuse legislation [3].

Water pollution is becoming a worldwide concern due to new and
tighter environmental regulations, and the increasing need for fresh
water for the exponentially growing human population. In order to
meet certain water discharge or reuse regulations, wastewater treat-
ment usually combines primary (pre-treatment), secondary (usually
biological) and tertiary (disinfection) treatments. The type and combi-
nation of processes used are governed by the wastewater quality and
regulatory limits [1]. Within the European Union (EU), standards for
discharge from urban wastewater treatment plants are subjected to 91/
271/EEC Council Directive and are as follow: biological oxygen de-
mand (BOD) 25 mg/L, chemical oxygen demand (COD) 125 mg/L, total
suspended solids (TSS) 35 mg/L, phosphorus (P) 1–2 mg/L [2]. There
are no regulations at the EU level on water reuse for agriculture irri-
gation, although steps are being taken to implement a common water
The meat industry has one of the highest consumptions of water
[4,5] with the global animal production requiring 2422 Gm3 of water
per year and the beef cattle sector alone accounting for almost one third
of this volume [6]. With the production of animal products increasing
yearly [7], so does the consumption of water. This then leads to the
increase in the generation of wastewater which can vary considerably
in terms of organic content and microbial population [8–11]. Therefore,
suitable wastewater treatment methods are required to ensure the
wastewater effluent quality meets regulations before discharge.
Activated sludge process (ASP) treatment of abattoir wastewater has
proved to be effective at reducing COD, BOD and TSS, among other
parameters, even for high organic load influent wastewaters [12–19].
Further treatment is then required to reduce the microbial content.
Disinfection includes the use of chemicals such as chlorine, peracetic
acid or hydrogen peroxide, as well as ultraviolet radiation (UV) and

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: j.y.lee@surrey.ac.uk (J. Lee), d.saroj@surrey.ac.uk (D. Saroj).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.07.009
Received 26 February 2018; Received in revised form 21 June 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018
2214-7144/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Alfonso-Muniozguren et al.
ozone [20,21]. Chemical usage is usually avoided to prevent the in-
crease in effluent toxicity and bacterial regrowth [22]. UV has also been
rarely utilised as a disinfection method for abattoir wastewater treat-
ment because its performance efficiency is compromised when treating
high turbidity and waters containing suspended solids [20,21]. UV also
demonstrates low efficiency in the removal of organic matter [23].
Ozone, however, can remove micropollutants and inactivate micro-
organisms without altering or increasing the toxicity of the treated ef-
fluent [23–27] and is also an efficient virucidal agent [20,25,28–30].
This can be achieved using ozone alone or in combination with other
advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of different wastewaters
[31,32].
During ozonation, oxidation can occur through direct reaction in-
volving molecular ozone and via an indirect pathway through hydroxyl
radicals (OH%) formed during ozone decomposition. The former selec-
tively attacks organic compounds while the latter, hydroxyl radicals,
reacts non-selectively with many dissolved compounds (organic and
inorganic contaminants) and the water matrix [20,33–36]. By oxidation
of the specific cell wall components, ozone kills bacteria and disinfects
water [36].
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are few reports in the
literature on abattoir wastewater treatment with ozone [11,37–39]. Wu
and Doan [11] used a screening system to remove particles larger than
1 mm as the only pre-treatment before ozonation, reporting a 99% in-
activation of total coliforms (TC), aerobic bacteria and Escherichia coli
after 8 min of ozonation with an applied ozone dose of 23.09 mg/min L.
They also reported a reduction in COD by 10.7% and BOD by 23.6%
after ozonation. Millamena [37] relied on coagulation and filtration
processes as a pre-treatment method reporting a COD reduction of
57.5% after applying ozone to the pre-treated samples at a rate of 1.2 L/
min and producing 0.11 g O3/h. The highest reduction in COD was
reported by Proesmans et al. [39], where they combined a biological-
ozonation system for abattoir wastewater treatment, achieving a 66%
COD reduction after the ozonation step.
With the limited literature reports on the potential of a combined
biological-ozonation system at treating abattoir wastewater, the pre-
sent study aims to bridge the literature gap by assessing the use of a
combined Activated sludge-Filtration-Ozonation (AFO) process to
treat a heavily polluted and highly variable quality effluent from an
abattoir.
Fig. 1. A schematic of the experimental setup.
158
Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Abattoir wastewater
Wastewater samples were taken directly from an abattoir located in
the county of Surrey, UK. The wastewater contained not only animal
residues (blood, fat, viscera, manure, among others), but also onsite
sewage, and traces of floor cleaning products. The wastewater collected
was partially treated on site by a grit removal system, followed by
coagulation-flocculation where ferric chloride solution was used as a
coagulant and Polygold CE662 as a flocculation agent, and processed
further by dissolved air flotation. This onsite pre-treated effluent will be
referred to as “raw wastewater”. To account for wastewater variability,
the abattoir effluent was sampled at least once per week over a two-
month period and stored at 4 °C prior to use. The variation before and
after storing the raw wastewater (maximum storing time was 5 days at
4 °C) was measured and found to be insignificant for the measured
parameters (COD, BOD and TSS).
2.2. Experimental setup
The activated sludge-filtration-ozonation system used is shown in
Fig. 1. The abattoir wastewater samples were fed at a rate of 1 L/day
into an activated sludge reactor (6 L glass reactor) in a semi-batch mode
with a solid retention time (SRT) of 13 days. The aeration (5 L/min) in
the ASP was stopped for 30 min in order to allow the sludge to settle
before removing the bio-treated effluent (from the top of the reactor),
as well as the settled sludge. Once the ASP reached steady state, the
effluent was filtered through a filter paper of pore size ranging between
4 and 7 μm (Whatman cellulose filters, grade 595). The purpose of the
filtration system was to separate any solids/sludge coming from the
ASP, and to show the possible extent of the application of a separation
process as a polishing step after the ASP. Then, 400 mL of the filtrate
was exposed to a fixed dose of 71 ± 17 mg O3/L (injected ozone dose
produced by an Okamizu Food Detoxifier V.2 at a rate of 2.3 L air/min),
which was injected into the filtrate via an air stone diffuser placed at
the bottom of a conical flask. The exhaust ozone leaving the reaction
vessel was measured with Aeroqual S-200 ozone meter. Ozonation was
carried out at room temperature (22 °C ± 1) and varying exposure
time from 1 to 60 min. To avoid airborne contamination, ozonation
experiments and subsequent sample analyses were run within a fume
cabinet. The initial hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 24 h was later
P. Alfonso-Muniozguren et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163

Table 1 3.2. Activated sludge process

Characteristics of raw wastewater collected from the abattoir. The averages
were calculated from 8 samples collected over a period of 2 months. Shown in Fig. 2 are the values for MLSS in the ASP (24 h HRT)
Parameter Present study Bustillo-Lecompte and Millamena 1991 presented as a function of time, which increase and reach a steady state
Mehrvar 2016 [11] [37] at approximately 3300 mg/L MLSS in about 40 days, with an average
dissolved oxygen value of 8.1 mg/L. Therefore, oxygen was not a lim-
COD (mg/L) 1804 ± 204 76–2166 583
iting substrate for the growth of heterotrophic and autotrophic micro-
BOD (mg/L) 651 ± 89 65–1831 404
TSS (mg/L) 250 ± 90 0.2–124 1375 organisms [43]. Comparable MLSS values were obtained in a similar
P (mg/L) 115 ± 25 0.14–31.4 – study by Chen and Lo [17], setting the best operational MLSS and SRT
pH 5.3 ± 0.1 6.8–7.0 7.0 values at 3200 mg/L and 9.94 days, respectively. Moreover, the MLSS
and SRT values herein obtained also fall within the range of operational
parameters for ASP recommended by the United States Environmental
halved (12 h) to account for COD, BOD, TSS, P, TC and total viable Protection Agency [44].
counts (TVC) variation. Also shown in Fig. 2 is the MLVSS, whose values also exhibit a si-
milar increase and plateau pattern as observed for the MLSS. It is
worthy to note the low values for the MLVSS and MLVSS/MLSS ratio,
2.3. Analytical methods with the latter ranging between 0.26 and 0.32 (24 h HRT). Such low
values indicate high content of inorganic matter in the raw wastewater
Concentration of organic matter was measured as 5-day BOD and is attributed to a poor abattoir pre-treatment, i.e., poor coagulation
(standard method (SM) 5210 B) and as COD (SM 5220 D) [40]. Phos- and flocculation. Lovett et al. [45] and Pabón and Suárez Gélvez [14]
phorus (Hach Spectrophotometer Method 8114, adapted from SM indicated MLVSS/MLSS ratios of 0.65 and 0.72–0.85, respectively, and
4500 P E), TSS (SM 2540 D), mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS, SM attributed the higher ratio in the latter to a better separation of in-
2540 D) and mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS, SM 2540 organic compounds before entering a biological treatment.
E) contents were also determined, as well as pH (SM 4500 H + B). Total
dissolved nitrogen (Hach method 10072), ammonia (Hach method
10031) and nitrate (Hach method 8039) were also measured. Ad- 3.3. A combined activated sludge-filtration-ozonation process
ditionally, TC (SM 9222 B) and TVC (SM 9215 C) were analysed before
and after ozonation to evaluate the disinfection efficiency of the process Once steady state was established for the ASP, the mixed liquor
[40]. Analyses for each of the measured parameters were repeated at from the ASP was filtered followed by ozonation. The COD and BOD of
least twice and the arithmetic mean of 8 samples is reported. the liquid at each treatment step are plotted in Fig. 3. It can be seen that
the AFO process (24 h HRT ASP) reduced the COD and BOD levels down
to 128 ± 41 mg/L and 12 ± 1 mg/L, respectively. This corresponds to
3. Results and discussion an average reduction of 92.9% (COD) and 98.1% (BOD), relative to the
raw wastewater. In this AFO process, the 17 min of ozonation worked as
3.1. Abattoir wastewater characterisation a polishing step to slightly reduce the COD level while not affecting the
final BOD value. In this particular case, carbon was reduced almost
The average values of physicochemical characteristics of the raw entirely during the biological process, resulting in a reduction of 90.1%
wastewater collected from the abattoir are shown in Table 1 and are (COD) and 97.4% (BOD). The filtration step had no significant effect on
similar to those found elsewhere [17,19,41,42]. The averages were COD and BOD. In addition, both the COD and BOD were measured at
calculated based on 8 samples collected over a 2-month period. The longer ozonation times (30 and 60 min), but the values were the same
variation in the COD values were relatively small and varied between as that measured at 17 min. Therefore, it is concluded that the COD and
1680 and 2047 mg/L. BOD values were approximately three times BOD values have reached a minimum at 17 min and further ozonation
lower compared to COD, and varied between 466 and 786 mg/L. TSS up to 60 min had no effect on the COD and BOD. Although ozone is
values had a slightly higher fluctuation with values ranging from 110 to showing very little effect in reducing COD and BOD after the AFO
412 mg/L. process, research has shown the potential of ozone in reducing COD and
BOD by applying it to the abattoir wastewater without previous

Fig. 2. MLSS and MLVSS progress as a function of time in the ASP, as well as MLVSS/MLSS ratio.

159
P. Alfonso-Muniozguren et al.
Fig. 3. Average COD and BOD values for every step of the AFO process at 24 h and 12 h ASP HRT with 17 min ozonation time. The average COD and BOD values for
the raw wastewater are 1804 ± 204 mg/L and 651 ± 89 mg/L, respectively.
biological treatment [11,37].
The highest reduction in COD found in the literature was reported
by Proesmans et al. [39], where they combined a biological-ozonation
system to treat abattoir wastewater. They reported a higher reduction
in COD by ozonation, from 89 mg/L (after biological treatment) to
30 mg/L (after ozonation). However, in that study an ozone con-
centration of up to 200 mg O3/L was used. This ozone dose is three
times higher than the one used in the present study. The dependence of
the applied ozone dose on the COD reduction is also stated by Tripathi
et al [24].
The reduction of the ASP HRT from 24 h to 12 h had a minimal
effect on organic load removal where similar COD values were observed
for both HRTs (Fig. 3). For the BOD values, decreasing the HRT in-
creased the BOD from 17 mg/L to 32 mg/L. This is attributed to the
bacteria having a shorter residence time in the ASP reactor for BOD
reduction (such as hard BOD or less readily biodegradable organic
matter) [46,47]. Although minimal, this led to a decrease in the final
reduction in the AFO process for BOD when the HRT was reduced from
24 h (98%) to 12 h (97%).
Besides removing organic matter, the AFO system also efficiently
reduced TSS. Fig. 4 depicts a final reduction of 98.8% after applying
17 min ozonation to the filtrate using a HRT of 24 h during the ASP.
Such a reduction is translated into a TSS average value of 3 ± 2 mg/L,
agreeing with reported values elsewhere [28,48]. 90.5% of the reduc-
tion was measured after the ASP, decreasing TSS value from 250 mg/L
(raw effluent) to 23.8 mg/L (mixed liquor).
As observed with the organic matter (COD and BOD), filtration by
4–7 μm pore size filter paper did not reduce TSS and no further re-
duction to the TSS was measured when the ozone exposure time was
Fig. 4. TSS content for every step of the AFO process at 24 h and 12 h ASP HRT
with 17 min ozonation time. The average TSS value for the raw wastewater is
250 ± 90 mg/L.
160
Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163
increased from 17 min to 60 min. However, from the experimental re-
sults obtained during the preliminary phase (non-steady state for the
ASP), a notable reduction in all the measured parameters (COD, BOD,
TSS and P) was obtained after filtration compared to those before the
filtration step. During this non-steady state phase, COD was reduced
from 270 ± 15 mg/L to 230 ± 10 mg/L, BOD from 31 ± 10 mg/L to
15 ± 1, TSS from 30 ± 3 mg/L to 16 ± 5 mg/L and P from
17 ± 5 mg/L to 10 ± 5 mg/L. Therefore, filtration could work as a
backup process, along with ozonation, if the ASP fails.
Analysing samples from the 12 h HRT in the ASP, TSS reduction
after the combined system falls to 90% in comparison to that of 24 h
HRT (98.8%), with a final value of 22 mg/L after the AFO process. This
value is notably higher than the value of 3 mg/L for the 24 h HRT. A
similar explanation used to address the different BOD results could be
applied to the TSS. That is, in the 12 h HRT ASP, bacteria had less time
to degrade the solids in the raw influent leading to a higher value in the
ASP effluent (24 mg/L and 60 mg/L after 24 h and 12 h HRT ASP, re-
spectively). Therefore, decreasing HRT could have adversely affected
the solubilisation of colloidal and particulate BOD, resulting in the in-
crease in the final TSS [49].
P analyses show that the ASP reduced P values down to
19.5 ± 7 mg/L (83%), further lowering P values to 13.2 ± 9 mg/L
(88.5%) with filtration. After applying ozone for 30 min, P values in the
order of 1.9 ± 1 mg/L (98.4% reduction) were measured. As observed
with TSS, increasing ozonation time up to 60 min did not further de-
crease P. The change in ASP HRT did not make a significant difference
either.
With regards to pH, raw wastewater samples had a pH of around 5.3
and the pH increased to 8.0 after the ASP. Additionally, ozonation
caused a negligible increase in the pH to a value of 8.3, agreeing with
already published data [28,48]. The increase in pH during the ASP
could be attributed to the formation of free ammonia during the ASP
(through hydrolysis) and its subsequent reaction with CO2, produced
during the aerobic process. This results in ammonium bicarbonate, in-
creasing alkalinity and generating a buffering capacity in the system
[9].
The total dissolved nitrogen content was reduced by 30% (from
224 ± 95 mg/L for raw wastewater) after the ASP (24 h HRT) and
maintained at a constant value of 160 ± 27 mg/L throughout the rest
of the process. Ammonia (NH4-N) depletion also occurred mainly in the
bioreactor, reducing NH4-N by 22% to a value of 116 ± 12 mg/L (24 h
HRT). During filtration and ozonation, no change in NH4-N was mea-
sured. Finally, nitrate was reduced by 85% (initial value of 13.6 mg/L)
during the biological step (24 h HRT), achieving a value of 2 ± 1 mg/L
after the ASP. The ASP was not designed for nitrogen removal and
therefore, the efficiency obtained in the AFO was lower than those
found in the literature for nitrogen reduction [19,42,45,50].
P. Alfonso-Muniozguren et al.
Fig. 5. TC progress as a function of ozonation exposure.
3.3.1. Microbial counts
To assess disinfection efficiency, samples were analysed for TC and
TVC. Prior to the ozonation step, the average values of TC and TVC in
the filtrate were 1.4 × 104 CFU/100 mL and 4.6 × 109 CFU/100 mL,
respectively. Similar values were reported in the literature [9,18,51].
3.3.1.1. Total coliforms. In this study, a complete inactivation of TC (4
log reduction) was achieved after dosing the filtrate samples with ozone
at 71 ± 17 mg O3/L for 10 min (Fig. 5). In the literature [1,52], up to 6
log of bacterial inactivation (faecal coliforms, TC and E. coli mainly)
were achieved after having ozonised industrial or municipal
wastewater. Additionally, Fig. 5 shows that within the first two
minutes of ozonation the number of TC remained constant. This
behaviour is attributed to the presence of a high amount of organic
matter as Arayan et al. [53] reported. They found no bacterial
inactivation in the first minute of ozone exposure time when using
0.01% and 0.001% fetal bovine serum (FBS) as organic matter.
However, when the FBS concentration was decreased to 0.0001%,
bacterial inactivation was observed within the first minute of
ozonation. In the same way, Liberti et al. [54] showed a sudden
bacterial disinfection within the first 0.1 min with a total dissolved
organic carbon value of 7 mg/L, which is much lower in comparison to
the carbon values reported in this study. Xu et al. [30] also reported the
importance of organic matter on ozone demand and inactivation time.
Neither filtration nor ASP HRT reduction significantly affected the
final disinfection efficiency (a complete inactivation of TC was achieved
with and without filtration for both 12 h and 24 h ASP HRT after ap-
plying ozone for 10 min).
The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends less than 1000
geometric mean number of faecal coliforms per 100 mL for unrestricted
irrigation for edible crops, sports fields and public parks [55]. When it
comes to drinking water standards, the maximum acceptable con-
centration of TC is zero per 100 mL, noting that for water put into
bottles or containers the limit is set at zero per 250 mL [56]. Both limits
were met after an ozone contact time of 10 min in the AFO system.
3.3.1.2. Total viable counts. In contrast to TC, ozone could not
completely remove TVC organisms, even after increasing the ozone
exposure time up to 1 h (Fig. 6). However, 6 log of inactivation was
obtained when subjecting the filtrate to 30 min of ozonation. The
161
Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163
average TVC after ozonation was 6 × 103 CFU/100 mL. Increasing
ozone contact time to 1 h did not further inactivate TVC. Similar
observations [25,30,54] were made where there were no further
changes in the faecal coliform inactivation when the ozone exposure
time was increased from 2 to 10 min and from 5 to 15 min. Increasing
ozonation time from 10 to 40 min also did not result in further bacterial
reduction [57,58].
The few TVC organisms that remained alive after 30 min of ozone
exposure could be resistant to ozone. These TVC organisms could have
developed defence mechanisms against ozone and be resistant to its
oxidation [59,60], producing ozone resistant coatings [61] or the for-
mation of ozone resistant pigments and biofilms [58]. Microbes could
also have remained within the suspended solids left in wastewater
where the solids acted as a barrier against ozone oxidation [57,59]. The
setup of the ozonation chamber may have also played a role in the
mixing and transfer efficiency of ozone in wastewater [62], resulting in
a lower TVC removal. It is important to mention that after 30 min
contact time with ozone, all the TVC values in the wastewater were
below the drinking water limit, set by the European Commission at 100
CFU/mL [56].
Paper filtration had a negligible effect on TC and TVC, which could
be due to the specific type of filtration used in this study. For example,
Liberti et al. [54] had reported bacterial inactivation using a multilayer
pressure filter (deep bed sand filter) filled with high purity silica sand
and gravel. The better solid and microbial removal efficiency of the
deep bed sand filter compared to the filter paper used in the present
study could be explained by the biofilm formation which can improve
microbial adsorption. In addition, despite the differences in the TSS
from 24 h ASP HRT (24 mg/L) and 12 h ASP HRT (60 mg/L), no dif-
ference in the final TVC was measured after ozonation of these feeds.
This could be explained by the low COD achieved in the ASP, resulting
in a negligible difference in COD between filtered (178 mg/L) and non-
filtered (179 mg/L) feeds. This is supported by Venosa et al. [62] where
it was concluded that filtration before ozonation is unnecessary if total
COD values are already low enough. A substantial improvement in
coliform (total and faecal) inactivation by filtration is observed only if
the secondary effluent is of poor quality [62]. In addition the high
ozone dose used in this study would lead to the inactivation of almost
all the microorganisms (< 100 CFU/mL).
P. Alfonso-Muniozguren et al.
Fig. 6. TVC progress as a function of ozonation exposure.
3.4. Process analysis and assessment
In the combined AFO system, filtration had no significant effect on
organic matter and TSS removal, while ozonation worked as a polishing
step on the reduction of COD, BOD and TSS. Filtration, however,
showed the potential to reduce the aforementioned parameters for the
non-steady state ASP effluent and therefore, it could work as a backup
process, along with ozone, if the ASP fails. At the same time, the ASP
HRT could be further reduced with a minimal effect on substrate (BOD)
removal efficiency, increasing the overall efficiency of the process.
On the other hand, ozone was highly effective in microorganisms
inactivation, reducing TC and TVC values below drinking water stan-
dards [56]. Considering the high disinfection potential of ozone and the
applied dose, neither filtration nor ASP HRT variation made any sig-
nificant difference in the final disinfection efficiency.
Based on the results presented in the study and considering the
possible improvements for the ASP (e.g. SRT and HRT adjustment, ni-
trogen reduction, etc.) and the ozonation chamber (e.g. increase ozone
transfer efficiency), it is reasonable to say that the combined AFO
system has the potential to reach water reuse levels.
4. Conclusions
The experimental results obtained in the AFO system proved the
process is effective in reducing organic load, as well as TSS, P and
microbial content:
• COD and BOD reduction by 93% (128 mg/L) and 98% (12 mg/L),
respectively.
• TSS and P reduction by 99% (3 mg/L) and 98% (1.9 mg/L), re-
spectively.
• A complete inactivation (100%) of TC after 10 min of ozonation.
• 6 log reduction of TVC after 30 min of ozonation.
Additionally, no appreciable difference was observed between fil-
tered and non-filtered systems once the ASP reached the steady state.
For the two ASP HRTs under investigation, 24 h and 12 h, and ex-
cluding TSS values, no difference was found. Increasing ozonation ex-
posure from 30 min to 1 h did not improve the overall efficiency of the
process.
162
Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163
Overall, the combined process was sufficient to meet discharge re-
quirements without further treatment for the measured parameters
(COD, BOD, TSS, P, TC and TVC).
Acknowledgements
We thank Worldwide Industries Pte Ltd for financial support. We
also acknowledge Mr C. Burt and Mr. B. Gibbons for their help, as well
as Dr D. Herrera for his comments and feedback.
References
[1] M.L. Janex, P. Xu, P. Savoye, J.M. Laine, V. Lazarova, Ozonation as a wastewater
disinfection process to meet reuse regulations, Proceedings of the Ozone World
Congress, 1999; International Ozone Association, (1999), pp. 81–92.
[2] H. Strathmann, K. Kock, P. Amar, The formation mechanism of asymmetric mem-
branes, Desalination 16 (1975) 179–203.
[3] Amec Foster Wheeler Environment, Infrastructure UK Ltd, I, ACTeon, IMDEA,
NTUA, EU-level Instruments on Water Reuse, European Comission. In Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2016.
[4] P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, The water footprint of
poultry, pork and beef: a comparative study in different countries and production
systems, Water Resour. Ind. 1-2 (2013) 25–36.
[5] Z. Rami, Water and Energy Use and Wastewater Production in a Beef Packing Plant.
MSc Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2015.
[6] M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops
and derived crop products, Value of Water, Research Report Series, UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, The Netherlands, 2010.
[7] M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, A global assessment of the water fooprint of farm
animal products, Ecosystems 15 (2012) 401–415.
[8] I.S. Arvanitoyannis, D. Ladas, Meat waste treatment methods and potential uses,
Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 43 (3) (2008) 543–559.
[9] E. Padilla-Gasca, A. Lopez-Lopez, J. Gallardo-Valdez, Evaluation of stability factors
in the anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater, J. Bioremediat.
Biodegrad. 02 (01) (2011).
[10] C.F. Bustillo-Lecompte, M. Mehrvar, Treatment of an actual slaughterhouse was-
tewater by integration of biological and advanced oxidation processes: modeling,
optimization, and cost-effectiveness analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 182 (2016)
651–666.
[11] J. Wu, H. Doan, Disinfection of recycled red-meat-processing wastewater by ozone,
J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 80 (7) (2005) 828–833.
[12] S.M. Travers, D.A. Lovett, Activated sludge treatment of abattoir wastewater-II:
influence of dissolved oxygen concentration, Water Res. 18 (4) (1984) 435–439.
[13] N.Z. Al-Mutairi, F.A. Al-Sharifi, S.B. Al-Shammari, Evaluation study of a slaugh-
terhouse wastewater treatment plant including contact-assisted activated sludge
and DAF, Desalination 225 (1–3) (2008) 167–175.
[14] S.L. Pabón, J.H. Suárez Gélvez, Starting-up operating a full-scale activated sludge
system for slaughterhouse wastewater, Revista Ingeniería e Investigación 29 (2)
(2009) 53–58.
P. Alfonso-Muniozguren et al.
[15] M.R. Johns, Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing in-
dustry: a review, Bioresour. Technol. 54 (3) (1995) 203–216.
[16] T.H. Hsiao, J.S. Huang, Y.I. Huang, Process kinetics of an activated-sludge reactor
system treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater, Environ. Technol. 33 (7–9)
(2012) 829–835.
[17] C.K. Chen, S.L. Lo, Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater using an activated
sludge/contact aeration process, Water Sci. Technol. 47 (12) (2003) 285–292.
[18] M.M. Um, O. Barraud, M. Kerouredan, M. Gaschet, T. Stalder, E. Oswald, C. Dagot,
M.C. Ploy, H. Brugere, D. Bibbal, Comparison of the incidence of pathogenic and
antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli strains in adult cattle and veal calf slaughter-
house effluents highlighted different risks for public health, Water Res. 88 (2016)
30–38.
[19] J.F. Heddle, Activated sludge treatment of slaughterhouse wastes with protein re-
covery, Water Res. 13 (1979) 581–584.
[20] R. Gehr, M. Wagner, P. Veerasubramanian, P. Payment, Disinfection efficiency of
peracetic acid, UV and ozone after enhanced primary treatment of municipal
wastewater, Water Res. 37 (19) (2003) 4573–4586.
[21] R. Gehr, H. Wright, UV disinfection of wastewater coagulated with ferric chloride:
recalcitrance and fouling problems, Water Sci. Technol. 38 (3) (1998) 15–23.
[22] V. Lazarova, M.L. Janex, L. Fiksdal, C. Oberg, I. Barcina, M. Pommepuy, Advanced
wastewater disinfection technologies: short and long term efficiency, Water Sci.
Technol. 38 (12) (1998) 109–117.
[23] P. Paraskeva, N.J.D. Graham, Treatment of a secondary municipal effluent by
ozone, UV and microfiltration: microbial reduction and effect on effluent quality,
Desalination 186 (1–3) (2005) 47–56.
[24] S. Tripathi, V. Pathak, D.M. Tripathi, B.D. Tripathi, Application of ozone based
treatments of secondary effluents, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (3) (2011) 2481–2486.
[25] V. Lazarova, P.-A. Liechti, P. Savoye, R. Hausler, Ozone disinfection: main para-
meters for process design in wastewater treatment and reuse, J. Water Reuse
Desalin. 3 (4) (2013) 337.
[26] F. Absi, F. Gamache, R. Gehr, P. Liechti, J. Nicell, Pilot plant investigation of ozone
disinfection of physico-chemically treatedmunicipal wastewater, Ozone Water
Wastewater Treat. 1 (7) (1993) 33–42.
[27] B. Langlais, B. Legube, H. Beuffe, M. Dore, Study of the nature of the by-products
formed and the risks of toxicity when disinfecting a secondary effluent with ozone,
Water Sci. Technol. 25 (12) (1992) 135–143.
[28] C. Nebel, D. Gottschling, R.L. Hutchinson, T.J. McBride, D.M. Taylor, J.L. Pavoni,
M.E. Tittlebaum, H.E. Spencer, M. Fleischman, Ozone disinfection of industrial
municipal secondary effluents, Water Pollut. Control Federation 45 (12) (1974)
2493–2507.
[29] J.L. Pavoni, M.E. Tittlebaum, H.E. Spencer, M. Fleischman, C. Nebel, D. Gottschling,
Virus removal from wastewater using ozone, Water Sew. Works 119 (12) (1972)
59–67.
[30] P. Xu, M.-L. Janex, P. Savoye, A. Cockx, V. Lazarova, Wastewater disinfection by
ozone: main parameters for process design, Water Res. 36 (4) (2002) 1043–1055.
[31] J. Gomes, R. Costa, R.M. Quinta-Ferreira, R.C. Martins, Application of ozonation for
pharmaceuticals and personal care products removal from water, Sci. Total
Environ. 586 (2017) 265–283.
[32] I. Oller, S. Malato, J.A. Sanchez-Perez, Combination of advanced oxidation pro-
cesses and biological treatments for wastewater decontamination–a review, Sci.
Total Environ. 409 (20) (2011) 4141–4166.
[33] U. von Gunten, Ozonation of drinking water: part I. Oxidation kinetics and product
formation, Water Res. 37 (7) (2003) 1443–1467.
[34] X. Jin, S. Peldszus, P.M. Huck, Reaction kinetics of selected micropollutants in
ozonation and advanced oxidation processes, Water Res. 46 (19) (2012)
6519–6530.
[35] S.J. Masten, S.H.R. Davies, The use of ozonation to degrade organic contaminants in
wastewaters, Environ. Sci. Technol. 28 (4) (1994) 180–185.
[36] N.F. Gray, Ozone disinfection, Microbiology of Waterborne Diseases, Elsevier/
Academic Press, 2014, pp. 599–615.
[37] O.M. Millamena, Ozone treatment of slaughterhouse and laboratory wastewaters,
Aquac. Eng. 11 (1991) 23–31.
[38] A. Roux, Renovation of Wastewater for Direct Re-use in an Abattoir. MSc Thesis,
University of Pretoria, 1996.
[39] P. Proesmans, R. De Vil, R. Gerards, L. Vriends, Advanced treatment of industrial
wastewaters: combination of biological treatment and ozonation, Mededelingen-
163
Journal of Water Process Engineering 25 (2018) 157–163
faculteit landbouwkundige en toegepaste biologische wetenschappen 62 (4) (1997)
1729–1736.
[40] APHA, American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 20 ed., APHA, American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, 1998.
[41] N.Z. Al-Mutairi, M.F. Hamoda, I.A. Al-Ghusain, Performance-based characterization
of a contact stabilization process for slaughterhouse wastewater, J. Environ. Sci.
Health Part A 38 (10) (2003) 2287–2300.
[42] P. Fongsatitkul, D.G. Wareham, P. Elefsiniotis, P. Charoensuk, Treatment of a
slaughterhouse wastewater: effect of internal recycle rate on chemical oxygen de-
mand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and total phosphorus removal, Environ. Technol. 32
(15) (2011) 1755–1759.
[43] M. Henze, M.C.M. van Loosdrecht, G.A. Ekama, D. Brdjanovic, Biological
Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Dessign, 2008.
[44] Environmental Protection Agency, Wastewater Treatment Manuals. Primary,
Secondary and Tertiary Treatment, Ardcavan, Wexford, Ireland, 1997.
[45] D.A. Lovett, S.M. Travers, K.R. Davey, Activated sludge treatment of abattoir
wastewater-I: influence of sludge age and feeding pattern, Water Res. 18 (4) (1984)
429–434.
[46] H. Abbas, H. Seif, A. Moursy, Effect of hydraulic retention time on the activated
sludge system, Sixth International Water Technology Conference, Alexandria,
Egypt, 2001, pp. 277–284.
[47] Y. Zhang, X. Wang, M. Hu, P. Li, Effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the
biodegradation of trichloroethylene wastewater and anaerobic bacterial community
in the UASB reactor, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99 (4) (2015) 1977–1987.
[48] S.B. Martínez, J. Pérez-Parra, R. Suay, Use of ozone in wastewater treatment to
produce water suitable for irrigation, Water Resour. Manag. 25 (9) (2011)
2109–2124.
[49] M. Gerardi, Settleability Problems and Loss of Solids in the Activated Sludge Process
Vol. 179 John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, USA, 2002 2002.
[50] C.F. Bustillo-Lecompte, M. Mehrvar, E. Quinones-Bolanos, Combined anaerobic-
aerobic and UV/H2O2 processes for the treatment of synthetic slaughterhouse
wastewater, Environ. Sci. Health Part A Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 48 (9)
(2013) 1122–1135.
[51] P.F. Wu, G.S. Mittal, Characterization of provincial inspected slaughterhouse was-
tewater in Ontario, Canada, Can. Biosyst. Eng. 53 (6) (2001) 9–18.
[52] G.R. Finch, D.W. Smith, Ozone dose-response of Escherichia coli in activated sludge
effluent, Water Res. 23 (8) (1989) 1017–1025.
[53] L. Arayan, Alisha W.B. Reyes, Huynh T. Hop, Huy T. Xuan, Eun J. Baek, Han
S. Yang, Hong H. Chang, Suk Kim, Antimicrobial effect of different concentrations
of ozonate water in the sanitation of water experimentally inoculated with
Escherichia coli, Prev. Vet. Med. 41 (2) (2017) 84–87.
[54] L. Liberti, M. Notarnicola, A. Lopez, Advanced treatment for municipal wastewater
reuse in agriculture. iii - ozone disinfection, Ozone Sci. Eng. 22 (2) (2000) 151–166.
[55] D. Mara, S. Cairncross, Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in
Agriculture and Aquaculture, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1989.
[56] Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human con-
sumption, O., European Union, In 1998; p 42.
[57] J.P. Dietrich, F.J. Loge, T.R. Ginn, H. Basagaoglu, Inactivation of particle-associated
microorganisms in wastewater disinfection: modeling of ozone and chlorine re-
active diffusive transport in polydispersed suspensions, Water Res. 41 (10) (2007)
2189–2201.
[58] S. Hess, C. Gallert, Sensitivity of antibiotic resistant and antibiotic susceptible
Escherichia coli, Enterococcus and Staphylococcus strains against ozone, Water
Health 13 (4) (2015) 1020–1028.
[59] S. Patil, P. Bourke, J.M. Frias, B.K. Tiwari, P.J. Cullen, Inactivation of Escherichia
coli in orange juice using ozone, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 10 (4) (2009)
551–557.
[60] N. Czekalski, S. Imminger, E. Salhi, M. Veljkovic, K. Kleffel, D. Drissner, F. Hammes,
H. Burgmann, U. von Gunten, Inactivation of antibiotic resistant Bacteria and re-
sistance genes by ozone: from laboratory experiments to full-scale wastewater
treatment, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (21) (2016) 11862–11871.
[61] S.B. Young, P. Setlow, Mechanisms of Bacillus subtilis spore resistance to and killing
by aqueous ozone, Appl. Microbiol. 96 (5) (2004) 1133–1142.
[62] A.D. Venosa, M.C. Meckes, E.J. Opatken, Disinfection of filtered and unfiltered
secondary effluent in two ozone contactors, Environ. Int. 4 (1981) 299–311.