A Critical Review on Processes and Energy Profile of the Australian Meat Processing Industry

Abstract

This review article addresses wastewater treatment methods in the red meat processing industry. The focus is on conventional chemicals currently in use for abattoir wastewater treatment and energy related aspects. In addition, this article discusses the use of cleaning and sanitizing agents at the meat processing facilities and their effect on decision making in regard to selecting the treatment methods. This study shows that cleaning chemicals are currently used at a concentration of 2% to 3% which will further be diluted with the bulk wastewater. For example, for an abattoir that produces 3500 m 3 /day wastewater and uses around 200 L (3%) acid and alkaline chemicals, the final concentration of these chemical will be around 0.00017%. For this reason, the effects of these chemicals on the treatment method and the environment are very limited. Chemical treatment is highly efficient in removing soluble and colloidal particles from the red meat processing industry wastewater. Actually, it is shown that, if chemical treatment has been applied, then biological treatment can only be included for the treatment of the solid waste by-product and/or for production of bioenergy. Chemical treatment is recommended in all cases and especially when the wastewater is required to be reused or released to water streams. This study also shows that energy consumption for chemical treatment units is insignificant while efficient compared to other physical or biological units. A combination of a main (ferric chloride) and an aid coagulant has shown to be efficient and cost-effective in treating abattoir wastewater. The cost of using this combination per cubic meter wastewater treated is 0.055 USD/m 3 compared to 0.11 USD/m 3 for alum and the amount of sludge produced is 77% less than that produced by alum. In addition, the residues of these chemicals in the wastewater and the sludge have a positive or no impact on biological processes. Energy consumption from a small wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) installed to recycle wastewater for a meet facility can be around $500,000.

Integration of LCC and LCA results to higher system levels : The German meat and EU tomato cases

“…Finally, further cost savings and/or income sources could then be generated through intervention on wastewater management, which represent another source of resource consumption of meat processing facilities (Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar, 2017; Hamawand et al, 2017a;Mancl et al, 2018).…”

Effect of Organic Loading Rate on Anaerobic Digestion Performance of Mesophilic (UASB) Reactor Using Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater as Substrate

“…Wastewater produced from meat processing activities is highly concentrated in terms of COD, BOD, and FOG. Also, treatment of CSWW can be as energy intensive as municipal wastewater [ 21 ]. Therefore, the goal of this work is to evaluate the efficiency of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor for treatment of CSWW and biogas production at different organic loading rates.…”

Green Carbon Composite-Derived Polymer Resin and Waste Cotton Fibers for the Removal of Alizarin Red S Dye

“…Adsorption tests were performed using a shaking thermostat water bath at a constant agitation speed of 200 rpm. The effect of the experimental conditions on the removal of ARS was studied by varying the pH of solution (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8), the dye initial concentration (5-200 mg·L −1 ), the temperature of solution • C) and the contact time (5-1440 min). The ARS concentration was measured with a double beam UV-visible spectrophotometer.…”

“…This pollution is currently a major threat, negatively affecting human life and the environment [3]. Wastewater constitutes a major part of industrial waste [4,5] and textile effluents are considered some of the major polluting aqueous effluents due to their content of significant amounts of toxic dyes and auxiliary chemicals [6]. The water consumption for dyeing one kg of textile is around 70 L with 40% yield [7,8].…”

“…Classical techniques were used to improve the specific surface area and the porosity of carbon materials derived from cotton fibers. Duan et al [16] used a mix of chemical and physical activation with H 3 PO 4 and microwave treatment to develop the surface area of activated carbon fibers (ACF). Zheng et al [17] employed an acidic pretreatment of waste cotton woven as precursor of ACF which was chemically activated.…”