Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 January 2014
Received in revised form
18 September 2014
Accepted 22 October 2014
Available online 18 November 2014
Palm oil is an important edible oil in the global fats and oil market and its industry is also one of the
prominent global agricultural industries. The production of crude palm oil reached 62.34 million tonnes
in 2014. However, enormous volumes of production has subsequently discharged large volumes of a
palm oil mill efuent (POME). POME is a remarkably contaminating efuent due to its high amount of
COD, BOD and colour concentrations, which can affect the environment, especially water resources.
However, it was recognized as a prospective source of renewable biogas such as biomethane and
biohydrogen. Nowadays, with the global emphasis on sustainability, if we simultaneously operate
wastewater treatment and produced renewable bio energy in the palm oil industry, then this industry
can be environmentally sound, with cleaner production and greater sustainability. The aim of this
review is to discuss various existing treatment processes (mainly anaerobic and aerobic digestion,
physicochemical treatment and membrane separation) and factors that inuence the treatment methods
and conversion of POME to renewable biogas such as biomethane and biohydrogen on a
commercial scale.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Renewable biogas
POME
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Physiochemical treatment
Upow anaerobic sludge-xed
lm (UASFF) reactor
Membrane separation treatment
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of palm oil mill efuent (POME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regulatory standards for palm oil mill efuent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Process description of palm oil mill process and sources of water pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Reception, transfer and storing of fresh fruit bunches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Sterilization of fresh fruit bunches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1261
1261
1263
1263
1264
1264
Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; AF, anaerobic lter; AFBR, anaerobic uidized bed reactor; ABR, anaerobic bafed reactors; ASBR, anaerobic sequencing batch
reactor; Alk, total alkalinity; AOPs, advanced oxidation processes; AT-POME, anaerobically treated palm oil mill efuent; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; BPAC, banana
peel activated carbon; BT-POME, biologically treated palm oil mill efuent; BSA, bovine serum abumine; BFR, Bio-fouling reducers; CA, cellulose acetate; CPO, crude palm oil;
CSTR, continuous stirred tank reactor; CRT, cell retention time; COD, chemical oxygen demand; CGAs, colloidal gas aphrons; CH4, methane; CO2, carbon dioxide; DoE,
Department of Environment; DAF, dissolved air otation; DMF, N,N-dimethylformamide; EQA, Environmental Quality Act; EGSB, expanded granular sludge blanket; EC,
electrocoagulation; FFB, fresh fruit bunches; FBR, uidized bed reactor; FFA, free fatty acid; GAC, granular activated carbon; GHG, greenhouse gas; H2, hydrogen; H2O2,
hydrogen peroxide; HRT, hydraulic retention time; MLVSS, mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS); MIRHA, microwave incinerated rice husk ash; MAS, membrane
anaerobic system; MF, micro-ltration; NF, nanoltration; nZVI, nano zero-valent iron; OLR, organic loading rate; O&G, oil and grease; POME, palm oil mill efuent; PAC,
powdered activated carbon; PAMS, propenoic acid modied sawdust; POMSE, palm oil mill secondary efuent; PES, polyethersulfone; PEG, polyethylene glycol; RBC, rotating
biological contactor; RO, reverse osmosis; SCAR, suspended closed anaerobic reactor; SBR, sequencing batch reactor; SVI, sludge volume indices; SRT, solid retention time; SS,
suspended solids; SG, specic gravity; TVS, total volatile solid (mg/l); TKN, total Kjeldahl nitrogen; TS, total solids; TSS, total suspended solids; UFF, upow xed lm; UASB,
up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors; UASFF, upow anaerobic sludge-xed lm reactor; UF, ultra-ltration; US-EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency; VFAs,
volatile fatty acids; VSS, volatile suspended solids; VUV, vacuum ultraviolet
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600,
Malaysia. Tel.: 60 389216420; fax: 60 389216148.
E-mail address: zahirayaakob65@gmail.com (Z. Yaakob).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.073
1364-0321/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1261
4.3.
Stripping, digestion and extraction of crude palm oil (CPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
4.4.
Clarication and purication of the crude palm oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
4.5.
Depericarping and nut ber separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
4.6.
Separation of kernels and drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
5. The treatment or digestion processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
5.1.
Anaerobic digestion or treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
5.1.1.
Anaerobic ponds or lagoon system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
5.1.2.
Anaerobic ltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267
5.1.3.
Fluidized bed reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267
5.1.4.
Up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267
5.1.5.
Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1268
5.1.6.
Anaerobic bafed reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1268
5.1.7.
Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
5.1.8.
Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
5.1.9.
Up-ow anaerobic sludge xed-lm (UASFF) reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
5.2.
Aerobic digestion or treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1270
5.3.
Physicochemical treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271
5.3.1.
Coagulation and occulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271
5.3.2.
Electrocoagulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
5.3.3.
Sedimentation and centrifugation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
5.3.4.
Flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
5.3.5.
Adsorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
5.3.6.
Other physio-chemical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1273
5.4.
Membrane separation processes (MSPs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274
6. Future development and conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275
1. Introduction
The last decade, consumption of palm oil in the world has
massively improved and is controlled by Indonesia and Malaysia. It
is calculated that the global production of palm oil is 62.34 million
tonnes in 2014, but 6.14 million or 9.85 percent from last year and
85 percent productions coming from two largest palm oilproducing countries such as Indonesia (30.5 million tonnes) and
Malaysia (19.9 million tonnes) [1]. The global production of palm oil
has been more than doubled every 10 years, and by 2020, it is
expected to increase to 78 million tonnes [2]. The world population
is predictable to grow from 7 billion in 2011 to 9 billion by 2043. So,
production of food must meet this rate increased rate of population.
By 2043, world demand of fats and oils will reach 360 million
tonnes [3]. From this statistics, we can expect that the production of
palm oil will continue to rise in quantity with the world demand of
fats and oils. It is measured that, one tonne of fresh fruit bunch
releases almost 0.50.75 t of POME [4]. Therefore, huge volume of
crude palm oil and POME will be produced within 2043.
Dumping of this wastes is now a nancial problem in societies and
industries, and therefore, researcher have been trying to generate a
demandable end-product from these wastes, which would reduce the
efuent treatment as well as production cost. It is calculated that
around 28 m3 of biogas is generated from 1 m3 of POME in the
treatment plant [5]. Solid wastes (fruit ber and kernel shell), which
are use to generate steam and power in mills. The availability of
energy sources and other valuable products from the mills helps
minimize the operation and efuent treatment cost, while presenting
an alternative to the use of fossil fuels in palm mills. Chin and
coworkers calculated that, net income in Malaysian Ringgit (RM) is
3.8 million per year that can be obtained by the generation of
electricity using biogas from POME treatment [6].
Palm oil mill efuent could become a hopeful source of
renewable energy because of its plentiful organic matters. Little
research has been attained with a view to discovering an environmental friendly solution for POME and their highlighting engaged
in the existing treatment processes in the palm oil industries.
1262
Nomenclature
AD
Anaerobic digestion
AF
Anaerobic lter
AFBR
Anaerobic uidized bed reactor
ABR
Anaerobic bafed reactor
ASBR
Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor
Alk
Total alkalinity
AOPs
Advanced Oxidation Processes
AT-POMEAnaerobically treated palm oil mill efuent
BOD
Biochemical oxygen demand
BPAC
Banana peel activated carbon
BT-POMEBiologically treated palm oil mill efuent
BSA
Bovin serum abumine
BFR
Bio-fouling reducer
CA
Cellulose acetate
CPO
Crude palm oil
CSTR
Continuous stirred tank reactor
CRT
Cell retention time
COD
Chemical oxygen demand
CGAs
Colloidal gas aphrons
CH4
Methane
CO2
Carbon dioxide
DoE
Department of Environment
DAF
Dissolved air otation
DMF
N, N-dimethylformamide
EQA
Environmental Quality Act
EGSB
Expanded granular sludge blanket
EC
Electrocoagulation
FFB
Fresh fruit bunches
FBR
Fluidized bed reactor
FFA
Free fatty acid
GAC
Granular activated carbon
GHG
Greenhouse gas
H2
Hydrogen
H2O2
Hydrogen peroxide
HRT
Hydraulic retention time
MLVSS Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)
MIRHA Microwave incinerated rice husk ash
MAS
Membrane anaerobic system
MF
Micro ltration
NF
Nanoltration
nZVI
Nano zero-valent iron
OLR
Organic loading rate
O&G
Oil and grease
POME
Palm oil mill efuent
PAC
Powdered activated carbon
PAMS
POMSE
PES
PEG
RBC
RO
SCAR
SBR
SVI
SRT
SS
SG
TVS
TKN
TS
TSS
UFF
UASB
UASFF
UF
US-EPA
VFAs
VSS
VUV
Subscripts
min
Minute
ha
Hectare
t
Tonne
m3
Cubic meter
kPa
Kilopascal
MPa
Megapascal
mg/L
Milligram per litre
m3(CH4)/ kg CODrem Cubic meter methane per kilogram COD
removed
m3(H2)/ kg CODrem Cubic meter hydrogen per kilogram COD
removed
kg COD/m3d Kilogram COD per cubic meter per day
kg COD/m3h Kilogram COD per cubic meter per hour
w/v
Weight to volume ratio
h
Hour
d
Day
V
Volt
A/m2
Ampere per square meter
RM
Malaysian Ringgit
Table 1
Characteristics of individual wastewater streams in Palm oil mill
Parameter
Sterilizer condensate
Clarication wastewater
Hydrocyclone wastewater
47,000
23,000
34,000
5000
500
20
4000
5.0
64,000
29,000
22,000
23,000
1200
40
7000
4.5
15,000
5000
100
7000
100
300
chemical oxygen demand values are high and have an adverse effect
on the environment. Table 2 shows the characteristics of raw POME
[1416].
1263
of water and steam are necessary for removing dirt and sterilizing
in different steps of the wet process. Thus, the giving raises to the
huge volume of the palm oil mill efuent simply known as POME.
Fig. 1 shows a chart for the usual extraction process of palm oil,
Sterilization of FFB
(140C, 2.9 atm, 75-90 mins)
Sterilizer condensate
Stripping
0.9 T POME
Digestion tank
Steam, 80-90C
Pressing
Press cake
Depericarper
Nuts
Clarification tank
(90C)
Nutcracker
Hydrocyclon
Sludge
Oil
Separator
Centrifuge
0.1 T POME
Kernels
Vacuum dryer
Oil
1.5 T POME
Dry oil
Storage
Table 2
General characteristics of POME [1416].
Parameter
Concentration range
Element
15,000100,000
10,25043,750
11,50079,000
500054,000
900072,000
1801400
480
13018,000
8090
3.45.2
4500
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Manganese
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Chromium
Cobalt
Cadmium
12811928
276405
254344
94131
2.14.4
75164
1.21.8
0.81.6
0.050.43
0.040.06
0.010.02
Table 3
Discharge standards of POME into water resources in Malaysia[18].
Limits of discharge according to times
Parameters
1/7/7830/6/79
1/7/7930/6/80
1/7/8030/6/81
1/7/8130/6/82
1/7/8231/12/83
10,000
5000
4000
1200
200
25
150
59
45
4000
2000
2500
800
100
15
100
59
2000
1000
2000
600
75
15
75
59
1000
500
1500
400
50
10
50
59
250
400
300a
150a
50
59
100
400
200a
150a
50
59
45
45
45
45
45
1264
1265
Table 4
The summarization of various anaerobic treatment processes.
Anaerobic
treatment
systems
Advantages
Disadvantages
COD
removal
efciency
(%)
CH4/H2
composition
(%)
Yield of
CH4/
H2 m3(CH4/
H2)/kg
CODrem.
HRT
(days
or
hrs)
OLR
(kg
COD
/m3 d)
Reference
Anaerobic
ponding
system
97.8
54.4
40
1.4
[28]
94
63
0.79
15
4.5
[10]
93
61
0.78
10
6.6
91
62
0.69
11.4
73
57 72(H2)
0.239(H2)
20.0
[34]
6094
0.822 (H2)
510
[35]
90
6h
5.8
10.9
10
91.6
80.9
78
93
50
0.482
0.42
13.5
2
6h
6h
1.1
7.5
40
10
[40]
85
12 h
4.0
65
4h
13.8
95
12 h
4.7
80
4h
10.8
8090
4560
[19]
96.798.4
54.262
121
149
4
[57]
Anaerobic
ltration
[39]
[39]
[45]
[49]
96.3
0.012
20
1.3
10.6
2.5
80.5
0.058
3.33
15
82.4
48
0.91
120
12.5
[62]
65
62
9799
95.5
92.5
65
96.5
52 (H2)
7080
66
61
58
55
0.38 (H2)
0.35 (H2)
16.2
0.361
0.448
0.438
0.265
16 h
12 h
711
5
5
5
10
30
120
1.54.8
2.9
5.8
10.4
2
[66]
[67]
[68]
[75]
94
72
0.484
1.3
91
70
17.5
[73]
8590
20
[74]
[75]
97
51
0.372
10
95
61
0.417
2.9
91.6
60
0.436
5.8
53
59
0.339
10.4
[40]
1266
Table 4 (continued )
Anaerobic
treatment
systems
Anaerobic
bafed
reactor
(ABR)
Anaerobic
sequencing batch
reactor
(ASBR)
Continuous
stirred
tank
reactor
(CSTR)
Upow
anaerobic
sludge
xed lm
(UASFF)
Advantages
Disadvantages
COD
removal
efciency
(%)
CH4/H2
composition
(%)
Yield of
CH4/
H2 m3(CH4/
H2)/kg
CODrem.
HRT
(days
or
hrs)
OLR
(kg
COD
/m3 d)
94a
70
0.409
1.3
92.3a
73
0.555
2.6
77.3
95.3
84.6
69.1
71.2
67.4
0.33
0.32
0.18
3
10
2.5
5.33
1.6
10.9
[81]
98
34
[83]
437
50 (H2)
0.34
6.6
[64]
577 2.5
60 (H2)
0.27
60
[65]
35.568.2
5861 (H2)
7090
[85]
58
60(H2)
1.62.3 Mol
H2 mol 1
hex
6.5(H2)
85
[86]
37
37.7
58(H2)
4.2(H2)
2.05(H2)
2
4
85
11.3
[96]
80
62.5
18
3.33
[88]
82.9
90.4
70.1
69.5
7
6
1.41
1.89
[90]
77
63
0.17
1.7
[91]
70
69.89
71.10
68.20
70.32
67
0.16
0.460.51
4
7
0.44
30(H2)
1.05(H2)
1.6
9.72
12.25
15.2
17.01
5060
66.09
44.8
48.05
0.532
2.16(H2)
12
4
6.9
11.3
[94]
[96]
89.597.5
6284
0.280.29
1.53
[98]
92.62
96.1
70.83
80.5
0.31
0.33
1.5
2.9
1.75
23.15
9.3
14.93
92.3
3.5
16.2
[99]
95.1
92.62
0.32
0.31
2.2
1.5
12.9
9.3
[102]
80.698.6
55.3
0.290.35
16
0.88
34.7
[100]
Reference
[82]
[92]
[93]
[101]
Most of the value indicated for methane composition and yield and the rest of signed for hydrogen value.
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) expressed as day but in few cases as hours.
a
to half the size of a soccer eld. Size of the pond depends on the
capacity of the palm oil mill as well as the area available for ponds.
Anaerobic ponds have the longest retention time in ponding
system, which is around 20200 days [29]. The depth of the pond
shows an important effect on the determination of nature of a
biological process. The optimum ranges of depth for anaerobic
ponds are 57 m with HRT of 3045 days, while the depths and
HRT are 11.5 m and 1520 days respectively for facultative ponds
1267
1268
wastewater and generates higher volume of methane [54]. Population of microorganism (acetogenic bacteria and Methanosaeta
sp.) considerably speeds up the growth of granule [55]. Formation
of granular sludge is the core distinctive feature as against of other
anaerobic processes. The removal efciency of COD depends on
the availability of granular sludge. Moreover, natural turbulence
oats the sludge, affords resourceful efuents and biomass contact. As granulation/blanketing generate in the reactor, which
could be regulated the solids and hydraulic retention times
individually and efciently, thus reduce the treatment times from
days to hours [56].
The treatment of POME has been effective with UASB reactor.
Borja and Banks used a 16L bench scale UASB reactor and controlled
OLR of 5.142.5 kg COD/m3 at 4 days HRT and achieved 98.4% COD
removal efciency with the maximum OLR of 10.63 kg COD/m3 d
[57]. Chaisri and coworkers investigated the effect of organic
loading rate (OLR) for the productions of bio-gas, methane and
volatile fatty acid in UASB and UFAF reactors. They obtained the
optimum OLR for UASB and UFAF reactors were 15.5 kg COD/m3 d
and 7.5 kg COD/m3 d respectively in the laboratory-scale. They
obtained 96.3% COD removal efciency at OLR of 2.5 kg COD/m3 d
and HRT 20 days and the maximum production of biogas, methane
and methane yield were 25.5, 0.695 and 7.01 l/day, respectively at
OLR of 15 kg COD/m3 d and HRT of 3.33 days. They also achieved
maximum 5.50 g/l of VFA accumulation at OLR of 17.5 kg COD/m3 d
and HRT of 2.86 days in UASB reactor [40]. However, at higher OLR
of 17.5 kg COD/m3 d with 23 h HRT, the method was unstable due to
higher volatile fatty acids (VFA) content and H2 accumulation,
which reduced the COD removal efciency to 62.5% as well as
inherent the methane fermentation because the growth rate of
acidogenic bacteria was faster (10-fold) than the methanogenic
bacteria [40]. Miyamoto developed two-stages fermentation system
consisting of acidogenic and methanogenic due to operate at higher
OLR [58]. Torkian and coworkers applied this system for treatment
of slaughterhouse wastewater and observed methanogenic reactor
acclimate rapidly with the feed from the acidogenic reactor and
allow higher organic loadings (highest 30 kg-COD/m3 d) and
removed about 90% COD and convert to efcient biogas. The
suspended and colloidal components such as protein, fat and
cellulose stuck the reactor performance and weakening the microbial activities and wash out active biomass [59].
Granulation process altered its activity with the change of
environmental and operational systems [60] and granules disintegrate their strength and stability due to the lack of substrate
concentration, which can be prevented to operate the reactor under
low OLR. It was possible to achieve maximum 2.42 m3/m3 of biogas
and 0.992 m3/m3 of methane production rates were at an OLR of
6.0 kg-COD/m3 d [61]. Ahmad et al. [62] used calcium oxide (CaO) to
accelerate the granulation system in UASB reactor and removed
94.9% of COD with the fed of 15.565.5 kg COD/m3 at OLR of 4.5
12.5 kg-COD/m3 d. An average 82.4% of COD removal was achieved
with the fed of 10 kg/m3 CaO at an OLR of 12.5 kg-COD/m3 d in the
mesophilic state. The average yield of methane was 0.91 Cubic
meter methane per kilogram COD removed (m3 CH4/kg-CODrem)
and the removed 88.6% of COD was reformed to biomethane.
The production of fermentative hydrogen depends on the
effects of HRT and OLR. Few researchers used POME with microora, or mixed cultures of POME sludge for the production of
hydrogen [6367]. Singh and his coworkers used polyethylene
glycol (PEG) gel to immobilize Clostridium sp. LS2 bacteria for the
production of hydrogen by using UASB reactor. 10% weight to
volume ratio (w/v) of PEG-immobilized cell packing used for the
production of hydrogen and obtained maximum 0.365 m3 H2/
m3-h of hydrogen at OLR of 30 kg COD/m3-h and 16 h HRT. The
average 68% of hydrogen contained in biogas and removed 65% of
COD. Whereas 12% of w/v of PEG-immobilized cell packing also
2.5 days [82]. Faisal and Unno have been improved the Bachmann
proposed ABR designs and produced bio-methane keeping the low
concentration of volatile fatty acid (0.608 kg/m3) at longer 10 days
HRT and showed high removal efciency of COD and grease/oil up
to 95.3% and 91.3%, respectively. Production and yield of methane
gas were in the range of 8.71 10 327.4 10 3 m3CH4/day and
0.320.42 m3-CH4/kg-COD respectively and the methane content
in the biogas was higher about 67.371.2% at HRT of 310 days
[81]. Arizwan showed that the ABR system has a high potential of
treating POME in short HRT due to the presence of bafes in the
system. The ABR system was initially operated with diluted factor
of I:25 of the samples in order to decrease the high value of COD
with four days HRT and the dilution factor was continuous
decreasing by the factor of 19, 15, 8, 5, 2 and lastly without any
dilution. The highest COD removal efciency was found at dilution
factor of 8 where 34 kg/m3 of COD inuent with 98% of COD
removed and methane gas production of 0.941 m3/day [83].
5.1.7. Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR)
Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) is an improved form
of activated sludge process and operated under non-steady state
conditions. In recent years, ASBR has been used as an effective
wastewater treatment system due to its better process control and
higher removal efciency of BOD and SS [84]. It works in a batch
style with lling, aeration, settling and decantation taking place in
the same tank. Badiei et al. used mixed microora for the production hydrogen by using ASBR reactor and achieved the highest rate
of hydrogen 6.7 m3 H2/m3 d and removed higher than 37% of COD
at 3 days HRT, an OLR of 6.6 kg COD/m3 d, a pH of 6.8 and a
temperature of 37 1C [64]. Prasertsan and coworkers produced the
highest rate of hydrogen 9.1 m3 H2/ m3 d together with removed
5772.5% of COD at HRT of 48 hours, OLR of 60 kg COD/m3 d, pH of
5.5 and a temperature of 60 1C. The hydrogen content, total
carbohydrate consumption and removal of suspended solids (SS)
were 5573.5%, 9273% and 7872%, respectively [65].
Up to now, most of the researcher produced hydrogen from
organic wastes and wastewater using mixed microora and
improved yield of hydrogen production. Microora such as T.
thermosaccharolyticum was the dominant hydrogen producing
microorganisms in the fermentation process. For example, OThong and coworkers used thermophilic microora (T. thermosaccharolyticum) as a seed into an ASBR for the production of hydrogen
from POME with nutrient supplement. Nutrient supplement
increased the bacterial diversity, strength of the system and also
increased the removal efciency COD from 35.579.8% to
68.272.8%, residual oil (from 7573% to 8071.5%) and suspended
solids (from 9173.8% to 93.671.1%). It also increased the production rate of hydrogen from 4.470.38 to 6.170.03 m3 H2/m3
POME d [85]. Presence of macronutrients and iron improved the
production of bio-hydrogen and reduction of pollution from POME.
They also investigated the production of hydrogen and COD
removal efciencies in batch cultures by Thermoanaerobacterium
rich sludge under thermophilic (60 1C) conditions and adjusting the
optimum nutrient ratio (C/P ratio from 650 to 559, C/N ratio from
95 to 74 and concentration of iron from 2 to 257 10 3 kg m 3).
The productions of hydrogen and COD removal efciency were 6.5
(m3H2/ m3 POME) and 58% respectively [86].
However, a few researchers used ASBR for the post-treatment
of anaerobically digested POME and obtained a promising result
with maximum COD and TSS removal efciency of 82% and 62%
respectively at MLSS of 25004000 mg/L and HRT of 72 h [87].
5.1.8. Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR)
Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) is a well-stirred tank
containing the immobilized biomass. The substrate is constantly
1269
pumped into the reactor, and the product stream is removed at the
same time. This reactor is categorized by mixing the contents
either continuously or periodically. In POME treatment, Keck Seng
(Malaysia) Berhad in Masai has been successfully used CSTR, and
the COD removal efciency was about 83% and the production of
biogas was minimum 62.5% of methane [88]. Another study on
POME treatment using CSTR has been investigated by Ugoji [89]
and specied that BOD and COD removal efciencies were 96.5%
and 93.6% respectively at HRT of 10 days but retention time
increased up to 30 days, it removal efciencies improved only 2%.
Poh and coworkers have been cultivated a thermophilic mixed
culture, specically for the treatment POME at thermophilic
conditions using a batch CSTR and successfully reduced minimum
90% of COD and 64% of methane produced at HRT of six days along
with 14 kg/m3 of MLSS [90]. Irvan and his coworkers studied the
emission of methane from CSTR digestion of POME at the thermophilic temperature (55 1C) on a laboratory scale. A real liquid
wastewater from palm oil mill was used as a raw material. The
results obtained maximum COD, VS decomposition rate were 77%,
63.5% respectively and generation of methane of 64% at HRT of 8
days but maximum generation of methane of 67% was obtained at
HRT of 4 days [91]. Whereas Choorit and Wisarnwan investigated
the performance CSTR under various organic loading rates (OLRs)
using POME and operated at 37 1C and 55 1C respectively. They
achieved 71.10% of COD removal efciency and production biogas
was 3.73 m3 of gas/m3 d in which 71.04% of biomethane at OLR of
12.25 kg COD/m3 d, HRT of 7 days and 37 1C. Whereas 70.32% of
COD removal efciency and production rate of bio-gas of 4.66 m3
of gas/m3 d in which 69.53% of biomethane obtained at OLR of
17.01 kg COD/m3 d, HRT of 5 days and 55 1C [92].
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) shows a signicant role to
increase the production of biohydrogen. Yusoff and his coworkers
investigated the effect of HRT and VFAs during biohydrogen
fermentation from POME in a 50 L CSTR bioreactor. They used three
different HRTs (5, 3 and 2 days) and evaluated their performance on
production of biohydrogen. They achieved maximum hydrogen
production rate and biohydrogen yield were 44 N ml/h/l-POME
and 1054 N ml/l-POME respectively at HRT of 48 h, OLR of 50
60 kg COD/m3 d, a pH of 5.5 and a temperature of 2226 1C [93].
Wong and coworkers attempted to upgrade the performance of
CSTR by incorporating microorganisms within the existing reactor
at mesophilic temperatures of 35 1C and investigated the performance of suspended growth anaerobic degradation process in
terms of pH, COD reduction, and biogas production. The result
showed that the continuous stirrer suspended closed anaerobic
reactor (SCAR) can achieve COD reduction of 66.09%, methane
composition of 48.05% and rate of production methane of
532.06 10 6 m3 CH4/d of at HRT of 12 days, and pH values lower
than 7 [94]. Biohydrogen production is usually conducted via CSTR
because it is easy to work and provide a good substratebiomass
contact by vigorous mixing [95]. Seengenyoung et al. [96] recently
compared the performance of ASBR and CSTR reactor for the
hydrogen production from POME by T. thermosaccharolyticum PSU2. They found CSTR was more stable in terms of hydrogen
production and soluble biomass concentration than ASBR under
the same OLR (11.3 kg COD/m3 d) and HRT (4 days). They also
obtained average biohydrogen production rates of 2.05 and
2.16 m3 H2/ m3 d and removal efciency of COD were 37.7% and
44.8% from ASBR and CSTR, respectively.
1270
Table 5
The summarization of aerobic treatment process.
Advantages
Disadvantages
COD
removal
efciency
(%)
HRT
(days
or hrs)
88
490
97.7
98
89
9596
72
86
95
55 h
1
0.417
2.5
2.5
2h
2
38210
5.0
0.40.65
3.91
3.93
1.84.2
2.8
2.5
7.6
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[110]
[111]
[125]
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) expressed as day, but in few cases as hours.
and holding high biomass. A number of researchers have effectively used the UASFF reactor for the treatment of POME [98102].
This hybrid reactor combines the benets of both reactors while
excluding their respective drawbacks. As such, UASFF is superior in
terms of biomass retention, operation at high OLRs and reactor
stability at shock loadings while removing the problems of clogging and biomass washout in anaerobic lter and UASB.
The internal packing effectively contributed to the performance
of the UASFF reactor by capturing the solids that oated from
sludge bed. These results allowed a high volume of efuent
recycling for the treatment of higher organic loadings in POME
[98]. The major weakness of UASB reactors is the long startup time
(24 months). Najafpour el al. [98] used the UASFF reactor to
reduce the start-up time to 26 days and developed the granular
sludge within 20 days at mesophilic temperature (38 1C). They
removed 89% and 97% of COD and methane yields were 0.346 and
0.344 m3/kg CODremoved at OLR of 23.15 and 8.74 kg COD/m3 d and
HRT of 1.5 and 3 days respectively. Borja and coworkers used same
hybrid reactor for the treatment of POME under mesophilic
conditions wherein PVC rings immersed upper one-third and
sludge blanket engaged by the remaining two-thirds. They
removed maximum 92.3% of COD and yield of methane was
0.335 m3/kg CODrem at OLR of 16.2 kg COD/m3 d and HRT of
3.5 days [99]. Zinatizadeh and coworkers used this reactor to treat
POME at mesophilic temperature (38 1C) and removed maximum
90% of COD at a very short HRT of 1.5 days and higher OLR of
23.15 kg COD/m3 d. They removed 98.6% of COD at HRT of 6 days
with an inuent COD concentration of 34.73 kg/m3 [100]. They
concluded that, it became unstable under a stressful condition
imposed by overloading of suspended solids at short HRT (24 h)
and OLR of 34.73 kg COD/m3 d. Therefore, complete digestion of
raw POME required a high HRT without pre-treatment [100].They
used chemical coagulation and occulation process for the treatment of pre-treated POME in a UASFF reactor and removed COD to
2.45 10 3 m3/d at HRT of 1.5 d and recycle ratio of 23.4:1 [101].
They also used same reactor to treat the physically and chemically
pre-treated palm oil mill efuent (POME) and achieved higher
(9094%) COD removal efciency at OLR of 16.5 kg COD/m3 d
against to the chemically pre-treated POME (8288%) [102].
5.2. Aerobic digestion or treatment
Aerobic treatment process is a process that occurs in the
presence of oxygen and stabilizes the particulate organic substances arising from primary clarication (mainly biodegradable
1271
1272
1273
1274
Table 6
The overview of membrane treatment process.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Yield of CH4/
H2 m3(CH4/H2)/kg
CODrem
OLR (kg
HRT
(days or COD
/m3 d)
hrs)
Reference
96.6
99
98.4
91.794.2
0.57
0.25
0.29
6.8
600.4
70.6
3.03
[165]
67.7
72
70.3
11.0
1.0
3.0
21.7
[167]
Most of the value indicated for methane composition and yield and the rest of signed for hydrogen value.
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) expressed as day, but in few cases as hours.
57.11%, 61.11% and 67.87% of colour, and TSS and COD separately
from POME [159]. Ngarmkam et al. [160] also used combined
magnetic separation and adsorption process to recover the oil
from POME and they used modied palm shell as an activated
carbon. The adsorption capacity of palm shell is small due to its
hydrophobic nature, surface area and pore size. For modication of
palm shell, the used carbonization, physical and chemical reactions, and prepared effective activated carbon samples by impregnation with ZnCl2 followed by combined physical/chemical
activation under carbon dioxide ow at 800 1C and it removed
90% of oil from 50 mL POME by using 4 g of sample. The iron oxide
deposited palm shell removed 85% of oil from 50 mL POME and
recovered 67% of oil by hexane extraction.
Fenton process appears to be a prospective opportunity for
POME treatment particularly at the tertiary level. However, to
improve the Fenton process, researchers had combined Fenton
with other advanced oxidation processes such as photo-Fenton,
ambient-Fenton and electro-Fenton. In addition, some researchers
also used ultrasound and nano materials to improve the efciency
of Fenton's process [161]. Taha and Ibrahim used Nano zero-valent
iron (nZVI) particle as a replacement for FeSO4 in the sonoFenton process to remove chemical oxygen demand (COD) from
POME and achieved maximum 80% of COD removal efciency
within 2 h instead of one day (24 h) [162]. They also used same
nano particle to remove the COD from anaerobically treated palm
oil mill efuent (AT-POME) via aerated heterogeneous Fenton's
process and removed 75% of COD at the optimum condition;
3.91 kg/m3 and 1.84 kg/m3 of nZVI and H2O2 dosage respectively, and 0.02384 m3/h of air ow and four hours of reaction
time [161].
5.4. Membrane separation processes (MSPs)
In recent years, membrane separation has been concerned a
great attention to eliminate the huge volume of chemicals and
microorganisms from wastewater [163]. Different membrane
separations have been effectively used for wastewater treatment
such as anaerobic membrane system, ultra-ltration (UF), reverse
osmosis (RO), microltration (MF) and nanoltration (NF) [164].
Numerous studies have been performed based on membrane
separation to treat the POME and have successfully proven its
efciency. The overview of membrane separation processes are
shown in Table 6.
For example, Abdurahman et al. [165] used membrane anaerobic system (MAS) to treat the POME and removed maximum
96.698.4% of COD at OLR from 1 to 11 kg COD/m3/d with HRT
from 600.4 to 6.8 days and yield of methane gas was 0.250.57 m3/
kg COD/d. In the anaerobic reactor, one of the major weakness is to
retain a plentiful amount of active biomass. Ultraltration (UF) can
retain soluble bioresources (carbohydrate, protein, etc.) and everything larger while passing solvent and other small soluble species;
thus able to reduce the COD and BOD from the solution. Azmi and
her coworkers used membrane technology (UF and RO) to reclaim
the crystal clear water from POME and showed that combined
technology of UF (500 kPa) and RO (3000 kPa) reduced the
turbidity and BOD5 up to 99% and 98.9%, respectively [166].
Fakhru'l-Razi and Noor used a crossow ultraftration (UF) membrane unit to retain biomass in the reactor. They removed 91.7
94.2% of COD at HRT of 72.72 h and OLR of 21.7 kg COD/m3 d. This
experiment produced a clear efuent but detected a membrane
ux deterioration rate due to membrane fouling [167]. Membrane
fouling is the major weakness in the membrane separation
processes and delayed extensive usage of membrane processes
in POME treatment. Wu and his coworkers examined the impact of
pressure on membrane fouling using ultraltration (UF) membrane and recovering the bio resources from POME. This process
enabled to reduce 97.3% of TSS, 88.2% of turbidity, 3.1% of TDS,
46.9% of COD, 45.3% of protein and 41.5% of carbohydrate, and
subsequently they used polysulphone UF membrane (20 kDa) and
showed that, the maximum applied pressure (0.8 MPa) stimulated
the development of membrane fouling up to 85.8% but recovered
up to 61.4% of protein and 76.4% of carbohydrate. The maximum
removal efciency of TSS, turbidity, COD and TDS were achieved
up to 97.7%, 88.5%, 57.0% and 6.5% respectively at 0.8 MPa [168].
Idris and Ahmed used ultraltration blended cellulose acetate (CA)
and polyethersulfone (PES) membranes in the treatment of POME.
Blending of 19% CA, 1% PES and 80% of N, N-dimethylformamide
(DMF) solvent were revealed as the best membrane formulation.
The performance of blended membranes was tested by using of
Bovine serum albumin (BSA) solution and POME. They removed
99.98%, 99.12%, 54.75% and 54.77% of turbidity, TSS, COD and BOD
respectively [169]. They also investigated the inuence of LiCl, LiBr
and LiF additives on the performance of polyethersulfone (PES)
membranes and formulated hollow bres spun to treat the POME.
They revealed that the 3 wt% LiBr showed the best performance
with MWCO at 90% rejection in the range of 2.83 kDa and high ux
range of 117.69 L m 2 h 1. They obtained 96.7% of turbidity,
53.12% of COD and 76.7% of BOD removal efciency [170].
POME is a thick brownish liquid that contains high amounts of
suspended solids and a macrosolute-like carbohydrate, protein,
lipid etc., which would ultimately fail and destroy the membrane.
Consequently, a pre-treatment is frequently used before the
membrane separation process. Many researchers used various pretreatment methods prior to treat the POME with membrane
processes. Ahmad and coworkers have conducted two stages of
treatment whereby chemical treatments (coagulation, sedimentation) and adsorption process by granular activated carbon play
their roles in the rst stage as a pretreatment process while
combined ultraltration and reverse osmosis were used for the
membrane separation treatment. This experiment showed that
97.9% of turbidity, 56% of COD and 71% of BOD removed at the rst
stage. The hopeful results from the rst stage will reduce the
membrane fouling and degradation in ux. The nal membrane
treatment reduced up to 100% of turbidity, 98.8% of COD and 99.4%
of BOD at pH of 7 [171]. They also studied membrane technology
(ultraltration and reverses osmosis) combined with coagulation/
occulation as pretreatment to reclaim drinking water from POME
and recovered 78% of water. The chemical analyses proved that the
quality of the reclaimed water from POME met most of the
specications of drinking water standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Furthermore, they removed
more than 99% of COD, nitrogen (organic), TDS and nearly 99%
ammonia nitrogen as well as this method completely removed the
turbidity, colour, odour, oil and grease at pH of 6.63 [172]. They
also recovered same volume of water from POME to optimize the
coagulationocculation processes by using response surface methodology at the optimum value of coagulant dosage (15 kg/m3),
occulent dosage (0.3 kg/m3) and pH of 6 [173].Wah and et al.
[174] used ultraltration membrane as the tertiary treatment method
to treat the POME. Before using ultraltration membrane, the
samples were pre-treated using three separate methods, namely
ltration, centrifugation and coagulation. They found that the combination of the ltrationultraltration system provided the best
overall treatment efciency, with an overall reduction of 93.4% for
TN, SS, turbidity and colour content. For the treatment combination
of centrifugationultraltration and coagulationultraltration, the
average removal efciencies were only 86.4% and 67.1% respectively.
In another experiment, they used a membrane separation process to
remove the residual suspended solids and oil from the pretreated
material and they used occulation, solvent extraction and adsorption processes as the pretreatment of POME. Finally by the used of
ultraltration (GH) and reverse osmosis membrane (CE), they not
only recovered 80% water but also removed 63% and 49% of
suspended solids and residual oil respectively at pH 9 and pressure
of 1000 kPa [175]. Mohammad and his coworkers used physical pretreatment processes to treat the POME with the hydrophobic
ultraltration (UF) membrane. They used two hydrophobic UF
membranes, namely polysulphone and polyethersulphone membranes at pressures ranges from 100 to 1000 kPa. They achieved
maximum of 98.3%, 96.2%, 82.0% and 78.0% removal efciency of TSS,
turbidity, COD and protein recovery respectively [176]. Damayanti
et al. determined the effectiveness of three different bio-fouling
reducers (BFRs) namely powdered active carbon (PAC), zeolite (Ze),
and Moringa oleifera (Mo) in hybrid membrane bioreactor (MBR) of
POME. The PAC exhibited the best efciency as compared to others
and removed 70% soluble microbial products whereas Ze and Mo
removed 42% and 56% in short-term ltration, respectively [177].
Yuniarto used powder activated carbon (PAC) and zeolite to improve
the efuent quality and reduction of bio-fouling. They compared the
performances of aerobic submerged membrane bioreactor (ASMBR)
with or without bio-fouling reducers (BFR) to treat the diluted POME.
The arrangements with and without BFR removed the average 97.5
98.5% of COD and 95.2%, respectively [178].
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a well-established technology for
producing fresh water from saline water and other wastewater
sources and it is widely used to reduce the membrane fouling
[179]. Ceramic membrane allows separation of high fouling load of
POME and extended the membrane lifespan but required a
1275
Acknowledgements
This project is nanced by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
under Grant DPP-2013-112. The authors would like to thank the
university administration for the nancial support.
References
[1] World Oil In: Oil world annual 2014 http://www.oilworld.biz; 2014.
[2] Mielke T. Global supply, demand and price outlook for palm and lauric oils.
In: 2nd palm oil Internet seminar, 2229 July 2013, or POINTERS organized
by MPOC2013.
1276
[3] Basiron Y. Malaysian supply and demand of palm oil: challenges and
opportunities untill 2020. In: Proceedings of the oil world outlook conference 2013. Hamburg, Germany; 2013.
[4] Yacob S, Shirai Y, Hassan MA, Wakisaka M, Subash S. Start-up operation of
semi-commercial closed anaerobic digester for palm oil mill efuent treatment. Process Biochem 2006;41:9624.
[5] Harsono SS, Grundmann P, Soebronto S. Anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill
efuents: potential contribution to net energy yield and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions from biodiesel production. J Clean Prod
2014;64:61927.
[6] Chin MJ, Poh PE, Tey BT, Chan ES, Chin KL. Biogas from palm oil mill efuent
(POME): opportunities and challenges from Malaysia's perspective. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:71726.
[7] Zhang Y, Yan L, Qiao X, Chi L, Niu X, Mei Z, et al. Integration of biological
method and membrane technology in treating palm oil mill efuent. J
Environ Sci 2008;20:55864.
[8] DOE. Industrial processes & the environment (Handbook No. 3). Malaysia:
Crude Palm Oil Industry, Department of Environment, Ministry of Science,
Technology and the Environment; 1999.
[9] Ma AN, Ong ASH. Treatment of palm oil steriliser condensate by an anaerobic
process. Biol Wastes 1988;23:8597.
[10] Borja R, Banks CJ. Treatment of palm oil mill efuent by upow anaerobic
ltration. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 1994;61:1039.
[11] Santosa SJ. Palm oil boom in Indonesia: from plantation to downstream
products and biodiesel. CLEAN Soil Air Water 2008;36:45365.
[12] A.N. Ma, Treatment off palm oil mill efuent. Oil palm and the environment:
Malaysian perspective. Malaysia Oil Palm Growers' Council; 1999. p. 277.
[13] Sundram K, Sambanthamurthi R, Tan YA. Palm fruit chemistry and nutrition.
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2003;12:35562.
[14] Wu TY, Mohammad AW, Jahim JM, Anuar N. Pollution control technologies
for the treatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME) through end-of-pipe
processes. J Environ Manag 2010;91:146790.
[15] Lam MK, Lee KT. Renewable and sustainable bioenergies production from
palm oil mill efuent (POME): winwin strategies toward better environmental protection. Biotechnol Adv 2011;29:12441.
[16] Bello MM, Nourouzi MM, Abdullah LC, Choong TS, Koay YS, Keshani S. POME
is treated for removal of color from biologically treated POME in xed bed
column: applying wavelet neural network (WNN). J Hazard Mater
2013;262:10613.
[17] Ng WJ, Goh ACC, Tay JH. Palm oil mill efuent (POME) treatmentan
assessment of coagulants used to aid liquidsolid separation. Biol Wastes
1987;21:23748.
[18] MPOB. Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Oil palm & the environment.
[19] Borja R, Banks CJ, Snchez E. Anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill efuent in
a two-stage up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) system. J Biotechnol
1996;45:12535.
[20] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2010;85:84960.
[21] Guerrero L, Omil F, Mndez R, Lema JM. Anaerobic hydrolysis and acidogenesis of wastewaters from food industries with high content of organic solids
and protein. Water Res 1999;33:328190.
[22] Gee PT. Current status of palm oil mill efuent by water course discharge. In:
Chua NS, editor. Proceedings of the PORIM national palm oil milling and
rening technology conference. Kuala Lumpur: PORIM; 1995.
[23] Karakashev D, Batstone DJ, Angelidaki I. Inuence of environmental conditions on methanogenic compositions in anaerobic biogas reactors. Appl
Environ Microbiol 2005;71:3318.
[24] Wong Y-S, Teng TT, Ong S-A, Norhashimah M, Rafatullah M, Lee H-C.
Anaerobic acidogenesis biodegradation of palm oil mill efuent using
suspended closed anaerobic bioreactor (SCABR) at mesophilic temperature.
Procedia Environ Sci 2013;18:43341.
[25] De Baere L. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste: state-of-the-art. Water Sci
Technol 2000;41:28390.
[26] Tong SL, Jaafar AB. Waste to energy: methane recovery from anaerobic
digestion of palm oil mill efuent. ENERGY SMART; 2004.
[27] Hassan MA, Yacob S, Shirai Y, Hung YT. Treatment of palm oil wastewaters.
Waste Treatment in the Food Processing Industry. CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group; 2005; 101.
[28] Yacob S, Ali Hassan M, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S. Baseline study of
methane emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill efuent treatment.
Sci Total Environ 2006;366:18796.
[29] Poh PE, Chong MF. Development of anaerobic digestion methods for palm oil
mill efuent (POME) treatment. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:19.
[30] Ismail MHS, Dalang S, Syam S, Izhar S. A study on zeolite performance in
waste treating ponds for treatment of palm oil mill efuent. J Water Resour
Prot 2013;5:1827.
[31] Chin K, Lee S, Mohammad H. A study of palm oil mill efuent treatment
using a pond system. Water Sci Technol 1996;34:11923.
[32] Coulter JB, Soneda S, Ettinger MB. Anaerobic contact process for sewage
disposal. Sew Ind Wastes 1957;29:46877.
[33] Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. Energy recovery from wastewaters with
high-rate anaerobic digesters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:70441.
[34] Vijayaraghavan K, Ahmad D. Biohydrogen generation from palm oil
mill efuent using anaerobic contact lter. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2006;31:128491.
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
1277
[95] Arriaga S, Rosas I, Alatriste-Mondragn F, Razo-Flores E. Continuous production of hydrogen from oat straw hydrolysate in a biotrickling lter. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:34429.
[96] Seengenyoung J, Sompong O, Prasertsan P. Comparison of ASBR and CSTR
reactor for hydrogen production from palm oil mill efuent under thermophilic condition. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 2014;5:17783.
[97] Garcia-Calderon D, Bufere P, Moletta R, Elmaleh S. Anaerobic digestion of
wine distillery wastewater in down-ow uidized bed. Water Res
1998;32:3593600.
[98] Najafpour GD, Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohamed AR, Hasnain Isa M, Nasrollahzadeh H. High-rate anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill efuent in an upow
anaerobic sludge-xed lm bioreactor. Process Biochem 2006;41:3709.
[99] Borja R, Banks CJ, Khalfaoui B, Martn A. Performance evaluation of an
anaerobic hybrid digester treating palm oil mill efuent. J Environ Sci Health
Part A Toxic/Hazard Subst Environ Eng 1996;31:137993.
[100] Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohamed AR, Najafpour GD, Hasnain Isa M, Nasrollahzadeh
H. Kinetic evaluation of palm oil mill efuent digestion in a high rate up-ow
anaerobic sludge xed lm bioreactor. Process Biochem 2006;41:103846.
[101] Zinatizadeh AA, Mohamed AR, Abdullah AZ, Mashitah MD, Hasnain Isa M,
Najafpour GD. Process modeling and analysis of palm oil mill efuent
treatment in an up-ow anaerobic sludge xed lm bioreactor using
response surface methodology (RSM). Water Res 2006;40:3193208.
[102] Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohamed AR, Mashitah MD, Abdullah AZ, Isa MH. Optimization of pre-treated palm oil mill efuent digestion in an up-ow anaerobic
sludge xed lm bioreactor: a comparative study. Biochem Eng J 2007;35:
22637.
[103] Leslie CP, Grady J, Daigger GT, Lim CH. Biological wastewater treatment. 3rd
ed. USA: CRC Press; 2011.
[104] Karim MIA, Kamil AQA. Biological treatment of palm oil mill efuent using
Trichoderma viride. Biol Wastes 1989;27:14352.
[105] Najafpour G, Yieng HA, Younesi H, Zinatizadeh A. Effect of organic loading on
performance of rotating biological contactors using Palm Oil Mill efuents.
Process Biochem 2005;40:287984.
[106] Norulaini NAN, Zuhairi AA, Hakimi IM, Omar AKM. Treatment of palm oil mill
efuent (POME) supernatants using aerobic attached-growth system: trickling lter as a case study. J Teknol 2004;40(F):7790.
[107] Ho CC, Tan YK. The treatment of anaerobically digested palm oil mill efuent
by pressurised activated sludge. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 1988;41:7584.
[108] Vijayaraghavan K, Ahmad D, Ezani Bin Abdul Aziz M. Aerobic treatment of
palm oil mill efuent. J Environ Manag 2007;82:2431.
[109] Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL. Biological treatment of anaerobically digested
palm oil mill efuent (POME) using a Lab-Scale Sequencing Batch Reactor
(SBR). J Environ Manag 2010;91:173846.
[110] Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL. Effects of temperature on aerobic treatment of
anaerobically digested palm oil mill efuent (POME). Ind Eng Chem Res
2010;49:7093101.
[111] Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL. Optimization on thermophilic aerobic treatment
of anaerobically digested palm oil mill efuent (POME). Biochem Eng J
2011;55:1938.
[112] Edzwald JK. Coagulation in drinking water treatment: particles, organics and
coagulants. Water Sci Technol 1993;27:2135.
[113] Karim MIA, Hie LL. The use of coagulating and polymeric occulating agents
in the treatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME). Biol Wastes 1987;22:
20918.
[114] Khadidi MHJ, Al-Shorgani NK, Ali E, Hamid AA, Kalil MS. A new occulant
coagulant with potential use for industrial wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Environment, Energy and
Biotechnology (ICEEB). Singapore: IACSIT Press; 2013; 13942.
[115] Ahmad AL, Chong MF, Bhatia S. Population Balance Model (PBM) for
occulation process: simulation and experimental studies of palm oil mill
efuent (POME) pretreatment. Chem Eng J 2008;140:86100.
[116] Arifn A, Shatat RSA, Nik Norulaini AR, Mohd Omar AK. Synthetic polyelectrolytes of varying charge densities but similar molar mass based on
acrylamide and their applications on palm oil mill efuent treatment.
Desalination 2005;173:2018.
[117] Arifn A, Shatat RSA, Mohd Omar AK. The effect of different charge densities
and different molecular weights cationic polyacrylamides on palm oil mill
efuent (POME) treatment. In: Proceedings environment 2003: environmental management and sustainable development for better future growth.
Malaysia; 2003. p. 40814.
[118] Arifn A, Shatat RSA, Norulaini ARN, Omar AKM. Synthetic polyelectrolytes
based on acrylamide and their application as a occulent in the treatment of
palm oil mill efuent. J Appl Sci 2004;4:3937.
[119] Ahmad AL, Sumathi S, Hameed BH. Coagulation of residue oil and suspended
solid in palm oil mill efuent by chitosan, alum and PAC. Chem Eng J
2006;118:99105.
[120] Hassan MA, Puteh MH. Pre-treatment of palm oil mill efuent (pome): a
comparison study using chitosan and alum. Malays J Civ Eng 2007;19:12841.
[121] Saifuddin N, Dinara S. Pretreatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME) using
magnetic chitosan. E-J Chem 2011;8:S6778.
[122] Malakahmad A, Chuan SY. Application of response surface methodology to
optimize coagulationocculation treatment of anaerobically digested palm
oil mill efuent using alum. Desalin Water Treat 2013;51:672935.
[123] Bhatia S, Othman Z, Ahmad AL. Coagulationocculation process for POME
treatment using Moringa oleifera seeds extract: optimization studies. Chem
Eng J 2007;133:20512.
1278
[124] Bhatia S, Othman Z, Ahmad AL. Pretreatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME)
using Moringa oleifera seeds as natural coagulant. J Hazard Mater
2007;145:1206.
[125] Oswal N, Sarma PM, Zinjarde SS, Pant A. Palm oil mill efuent treatment by a
tropical marine yeast. Bioresour Technol 2002;85:357.
[126] Sontaya K, Pitiyont B, Punsuvon V. Decolorization and COD removal of palm
oil mill wastewater by electrocoagulation. Int J Environ Sci Eng 2013;7:3704.
[127] Agustin MB, Sengpracha WP, Phutdhawong W. Electrocoagulation of palm oil
mill efuent. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2008;5:17780.
[128] Suwannarat T, Pisutpaisal N, Boonyawanich S. Treatment of palm oil mill
efuent by electrocoagulation process. Adv Mater Res 2013;610613:3637.
[129] Nasution MA, Yaakob Z, Ali E, Tasirin SM, Abdullah SRS. Electrocoagulation of
palm oil mill efuent as wastewater treatment and hydrogen production
using electrode aluminum. J Environ Qual 2011;40:13329.
[130] Daud Z, Latiff AAA, Aziz NAA, Awang H. Treatment of palm oil mill efuent by
electrocoagulation with aluminium electrodes. Aust J Basic Appl Sci
2013;7:45763.
[131] Phalakornkulea C, Mangmeemakb J, Intrachodb K, Nuntakumjorna B. Pretreatment of palm oil mill efuent by electrocoagulation and coagulation. Sci
Asia 2010;36:1429.
[132] Ahmad AL, Ibrahim N, Ismail I, Bhatia S. Coagulationsedimentationextraction pretreatment methods for the removal of suspended solids and residual
oil from palm oil mill efuent (POME). IIUM Eng J 2002;3:2533.
[133] Ng WJ, Goh ACC, Tay JH. Palm oil mill efuent treatmentliquid-solid
separation with dissolved air otation. Biol Wastes 1988;25:25768.
[134] Ho CC, Tan YK. Comparison of chemical occulation and dissolved air
otation of anaerobically treated palm oil mill efuent. Water Res
1989;23:395400.
[135] Ho CC, Tan YK. Centrifugal fractionation studies on the particulates of palm
oil mill efuent. Water Res 1983;17:6138.
[136] Chen G. Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment. Sep Purif
Technol 2004;38:1141.
[137] Ho CC, Chan CY. The application of lead dioxide-coated titanium anode in the
electrootation of palm oil mill efuent. Water Res 1986;20:15237.
[138] Hemming ML. The treatment of efuents from the production of palm oil. In:
Earp DA, Newall W, editors. International development in palm oil. Kuala
Lumpur: Incorporated Society of Planters; 1977. p. 79101.
[139] Subramaniam MB, Blakebrough N, Hashim MA. Clarication of suspensions
by colloidal gas aphrons. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 1990;48:4160.
[140] Ahmad AL, Sumathi S, Hameed BH. Residual oil and suspended solid removal
using natural adsorbents chitosan, bentonite and activated carbon: a comparative study. Chem Eng J 2005;108:17985.
[141] Shavandi MA, Haddadian Z, Ismail MHS, Abdullah N. Continuous metal and
residual oil removal from palm oil mill efuent using natural zeolite-packed
column. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2012;43:93441.
[142] Ahmad AL, Sumathi S, Hameed BH. Chitosan: a natural biopolymer for the
adsorption of residue oil from oily wastewater. Adsorpt Sci Technol
2004;22:7588.
[143] Ahmad AL, Sumathi S, Hameed BH. Adsorption of residue oil from palm oil
mill efuent using powder and ake chitosan: equilibrium and kinetic
studies. Water Res 2005;39:248394.
[144] Ahmad AL, Bhatia S, Ibrahim N, Sumathi S. Adsorption of residual oil from
palm oil mill efuent using rubber powder. Braz J Chem Eng 2005;22:3719.
[145] Shavandi MA, Haddadian Z, Ismail MHS, Abdullah N, Abidin ZZ. Removal of Fe
(III), Mn(II) and Zn(II) from palm oil mill efuent (POME) by natural zeolite. J
Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2012;43:7509.
[146] Shavandi MA, Haddadian Z, Ismail MHS, Abdullah N, Abidin ZZ. Removal of
residual oils from palm oil mill efuent by adsorption on natural zeolite.
Water Air Soil Pollut 2012;223:401727.
[147] Kutty SRM, Ngatenah SNI, Johan NA, Amat KAC. Removal of Zn(II),
Cu(II), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and colour from anaerobically treated
palm oil mill efuent (POME) using Microwave Incinerated Rice Husk
ash (MIRHA). In: Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on
environment and industrial innovation. Singapore: IACSIT Press; 2011. p.
904.
[148] Osuidea MO, Ademoroti CMA, Okojie VU, Igbinavbiere FE. Comparative
studies on the adsorption properties of powdered activated carbon and
propenoic acid modied sawdust in the treatment of secondary palm oil mill
efuent. Pakistan J Sci Ind Res 2006;49:33540.
[149] Mohammed RR, Chong MF. Treatment and decolorization of biologically
treated Palm Oil Mill Efuent (POME) using banana peel as novel biosorbent.
J Environ Manag 2014;132:23749.
[150] Hojjat M, Salleh MAM. Optimization of POME anaerobic pond. Eur J Sci Res
2009;32:4559.
[151] Hameed BH, Ahmad AL, Ng AH. Removal of residual oil from palm oil mill
efuent using solvent extraction method. J Teknol 2003;38:3342.
[152] Vijayaraghavan K, Nalini SPK. Electrolytic treatment of palm oil mill efuent.
Int J Curr Res Environ Sci 2012;1:17.
[153] Fadzil NAM, Zainal Z, Abdullah AZ. COD removal for palm oil mill secondary
efuent by using UV/ferrioxalate/TiO2/O3 system. Int J Emerg Technol Adv
Eng 2013;3:23743.
[154] Aris A, Ooi BS, Kon SK, Ujang Z. Tertiary treatment of palm oil mill efuent
using Fenton oxidation. Malays J Civil Eng 2008;20:1225.
[155] Abdullah S. Tertiary treatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME) using
hydrogen peroxide photolysis method. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty
of Civil Engineering; 2008.
[156] Ratpukdi T. Decolorization of anaerobically treated palm oil mill wastewater
using combined coagulation and vacuum ultraviolet-hydrogen peroxide. Int J
Chem Eng Appl 2012;3:3336.
[157] Siddique N, Wahid ZA. Application of chemical and biological coupled
treatment technology in POME and petroleum waste water as biodegradation
alternative. J Environ Sci Technol 2012;5:15567.
[158] Manickam S, Zainal Abidin Nb, Parthasarathy S, Alzorqi I, Ng EH, Tiong TJ,
et al. Role of H2O2 in the uctuating patterns of COD (chemical oxygen
demand) during the treatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME) using pilot
scale triple frequency ultrasound cavitation reactor. Ultrason Sonochem
2014;21:151926.
[159] Mohammed RR, Ketabchi MR, McKay G. Combined magnetic eld and
adsorption process for treatment of biologically treated palm oil mill efuent
(POME). Chem Eng J 2014;243:3142.
[160] Ngarmkam W, Sirisathitkul C, Phalakornkule C. Magnetic composite prepared from palm shell-based carbon and application for recovery of residual
oil from POME. J Environ Manag 2011;92:4729.
[161] Taha MR, Ibrahim AH. COD removal from anaerobically treated palm oil mill
efuent (AT-POME) via aerated heterogeneous Fenton process: optimization
study. J Water Process Eng 2014;1:816.
[162] Taha M, Ibrahim A. Characterization of nano zero-valent iron (nZVI) and its
application in sono-Fenton process to remove COD in palm oil mill efuent. J
Environ Chem Eng 2014;2:18.
[163] Judd S. The MBR book: principles and applications of membrane bioreactors
for water and wastewater treatment. Great Britain: Elsevier Science; 2011.
[164] Ellouze E, Tahri N, Amar RB. Enhancement of textile wastewater treatment
process using nanoltration. Desalination 2012;286:1623.
[165] Abdurahman NH, Rosli YM, Azhari NH. Development of a membrane
anaerobic system (MAS) for palm oil mill efuent (POME) treatment.
Desalination 2011;266:20812.
[166] Azmi NS, Yunos KFM, Baharuddin AS, Dom ZM. The effect of operating
parameters on ultraltration and reverse osmosis of palm oil mill efuent for
reclamation and reuse of water. BioResources 2012;8:7687.
[167] Fakhru'l-Razi A, Noor MJMM. Treatment of palm oil mill efuent (POME)
with the membrane anaerobic system (MAS). Water Sci Technol 1999;39:
15963.
[168] Wu TY, Mohammad AW, Md. Jahim J, Anuar N. Palm oil mill efuent (POME)
treatment and bioresources recovery using ultraltration membrane: effect
of pressure on membrane fouling. Biochem Eng J 2007;35:30917.
[169] Cellulose acetate-polyethersulfone (CA-PS) blend ultraltration membranes
for palm oil mill efuent treatment. In: International Conference on Environment: Survival and Sustainbility 2007, 1924 February 2007, NicoslaNorthen Cyprus.
[170] Idris A, Ahmed I, Limin MA. Inuence of lithium chloride, lithium bromide
and lithium uoride additives on performance of polyethersulfone membranes and its application in the treatment of palm oil mill efuent.
Desalination 2010;250:8059.
[171] Ahmad AL, Ismail S, Bhatia S. Water recycling from palm oil mill efuent
(POME) using membrane technology. Desalination 2003;157:8795.
[172] Ahmad AL, Chong MF, Bhatia S, Ismail S. Drinking water reclamation from
palm oil mill efuent (POME) using membrane technology. Desalination
2006;191:3544.
[173] Ahmad AL, Ismail S, Bhatia S. Optimization of coagulation occulation
process for palm oil mill efuent using response surface methodology.
Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:282834.
[174] Wah WP, Sulaiman NM, Nachiappan M, Varadaraj B. Pre-treatment and
membrane ultraltration using treated palm oil mill efuent (POME).
Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 2002;24:8918.
[175] Ahmad AL, Ismail S, Ibrahim N, Bhatia S. Removal of suspended solids and
residual oil from palm oil mill efuent. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2003;78:9718.
[176] Mohammad AW, Yap PT, Wu TY. Performance of hydrophobic ultraltration
membranes in the treatment and protein recovery from palm oil mill efuent
(POME). DesalinationWater Treat 2009;10:3328.
[177] Damayanti A, Ujang Z, Salim MR. The inuenced of PAC, zeolite, and Moringa
oleifera as biofouling reducer (BFR) on hybrid membrane bioreactor of palm
oil mill efuent (POME). Bioresour Technol 2011;102:43416.
[178] Yuniarto A, Noor ZZ, Ujang Z, Olsson G, Aris A, Hadibarata T. Bio-fouling
reducers for improving the performance of an aerobic submerged membrane
bioreactor treating palm oil mill efuent. Desalination 2013;316:14653.
[179] Malaeb L, Ayoub GM. Reverse osmosis technology for water treatment: state
of the art review. Desalination 2011;267:18.
[180] Ahmad AL, Chong MF, Bhatia S. A comparative study on the membrane based
palm oil mill efuent (POME) treatment plant. J Hazard Mater 2009;171:
16674.