CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND STUDY

Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater is one of the sources of environmental pollution. This

slaughterhouse industry operates by slaughtering live chicken and processes them into carcass
which is prepared for our consumption. The production of the wastewater is either from the
washing equipment and facilities or from the process itself. Besides that, a large amount of
wastewater generated by poultry slaughterhouse which has a high amount of biodegradable
organic matter, suspended and colloidal matter such fats, cellulose and proteins (Sugito et al.,
2016). Apart from that, Sugito et al., (2016), also mentioned that there are chemical-physical
waste and microbes contained in the chicken slaughterhouse wastewater. The microbes are such
as Bacillussubtilis, Bacillusthuringiensis, and Lysinibacillusfusiform. Poultry slaughterhouse and
chicken processing plants are one of the widest spread plants in Malaysia. These plants produce
relatively high amount of wastewater between 8 and 15 L per bird slaughtered (200–700
m3/day). Blood, feathers, offal (remnants of intestine and cloaca pieces), bones and dead
chickens are some of the main types of waste produced by chicken slaughterhouse. From the
measurement results, it is estimated that the waste in the form intestinal waste is 5%, 3.5% blood,
and dead chickens of 0.5% out of the number of slaughtered chicken per day. However, most of
these types of waste such as bones, skin, liver and gizzard are still valuable and required by
particular consumers. Furthermore, the characteristics of the wastewater generated from these
plants are classified as a high-strength wastewater , where the contaminants’ concentrations have
relatively high COD (3102 ± 688 mg/L), suspended solids (SS) (872 ± 178 mg/L), oil & grease
(O&G) (375 ± 151 mg/L), nitrogen measured as total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) (186 ± 27 mg
(N)/L), and total phosphate (PO4 3-P) (76 ± 36 mg/L). Hence, the discharge of this wastewater
without a proper treatment will have realistic damage on the environment and municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
 Recent studies show that the conventional biological treatment is not capable of removing
all compounds to make the discharged water acceptable according to the standards.
Consequently, extensive and additional pretreatment often constitutes a basic requirement for
final biological purification (Malik L. Hami et al., 2007). Apart from that, the large amount of
generated sludge and high demand of energy for aeration will increase the operating cost of the
treatment system itself, hence, limiting the potential functions of aerobic technology as the main
biological treatment of high-strength slaughterhouse effluents. Some of the main biological
treatments such as activated sludge, stabilization ponds and anaerobic reactors are used in
poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment systems. However, the reduction of mitigating
activities of the sludge excess disposal as well as energy saving are some of the benefits offered
by anaerobic digestion process to treat slaughterhouse effluents (V. Del Nery et al., 2006).
Besides that, Ki Yong Lee et al., (2011) stated that gravitational sedimentation has commonly
been utilized to separate activated sludge solids from the treated water. Gravitational
sedimentation is considerably cost effective and simple, but due to the low floc density makes
this conventional technology’s efficiency an unsatisfactory. In addition, a comprehensive study
has proven that wastewater treatment plant suffer from a severe deterioration in their effluent
quality due to many problems in terms of sludge rising, pin floc, and gravity clarification (Ki
Yong Lee et al., 2011).
On the other hand, poultry slaughterhouse wastewater is high in organic matter
concentration which consists of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). In such cases like the removal
of P and N is done simultaneously in a same reactor, the denitrifiers will compete with P
accumulating organisms (PAOs) for rbCOD to release anaerobic P. The competition will result
instability of the removal of biological P if the wastewater have insufficient rbCOD. Hence,
those phosphorus and nitrogen must be treated separately to prevent the competition. As for
nitrogen removal, Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) technology can treat these effluents under
fill-aerobic-anoxic-settle-discharge sequences in a single reactor basin. The sources of nitrogen
are blood, urine and feces while the sources of phosphorus are residual blood, manure, cleaning
and sanitizing compounds. SBR also enables both nitrification process under operating
conditions (long detention time, sufficient dissolved oxygen concentration and low organic
matter concentration) and denitrification process under proper carbon source and anoxic
conditions (I.R. de Nardi et al., 2010). In Ireland, the European Commission recommends the on-
site biological treatment to remove organic carbon and nutrients before the wastewater is
discharged. Hence, SBR is recommended by The European Commision as the best available
techniques (BATs) for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment since SBR is able to remove organic
carbon organic carbon and suspended solids from wastewater and have low capital and
operational cost. Typical COD, TN and TP removals from slaughterhouse wastewater achieved
in SBRs are 95%, 60–80% and 40%, respectively. However, SBRs are not able to remove
nitrogen (N) as efficiently as to remove COD because slaughterhouse wastewater contains very
high TN, with a typical biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) to TN ratio of 7–9:1 (J.P. Li et al.,
2008).
Phosphorus removal from slaughterhouse wastewater can be achieved by chemical–
dissolved-air flotation (DAF) system. An efficient metal use and good process stability can
contribute in high quality effluent although the removal of phosphorus can be done by adding
chemicals at different stages of wastewater treatment. Moreover, DAF systems have the
advantages of high separation efficiency, high operational flexibility and high rate units (I.R. de
Nardi et al., 2010). According to the results made by N. T. Manjunath et al., (1999), the float and
subnatent from DAF are found to have higher BMP (Biochemical Methane Potential) than that of
the raw wastewater which indicates that DAF renders both float and sub-natant with better
anaerobic degradability. DAF also reduces waste strength by about 50% (the COD of the float
and the sub-natant together is about half the COD of the raw wastewater). On the other hand, by
comparing both DAF-UASB and UASB-UASB systems, the DAF-UASB system performs better
than the UASB-UASB system. The DAF-UASB system removes more COD of the effluent
compared to the UASB-UASB system. The result shows that the DAF system is an effective
technology in treating wastewater. However, the DAF itself has its own disadvantages. The
instability of DAF system performance is attributed to the variability of the industrial effluent
quality characteristics, the inadequacy of the chemical additions, and the full-influent
pressurization in the DAF system. Therefore, the improvement on the DAF-effluent quality can
be achieved by managing the chemical pretreatment and the DAF operating conditions (Del Nery
et al. 2007). Besides that, DAF for secondary clarification has not been widely applied due to the
relatively high operating costs for micro-bubble generation. One way to reduce the cost of DAF
is applying a flotation tank coupled with a deep aeration tank (Ki Yong Lee et al., 2011)
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Poultry slaughterhouse is classified as a high-strength wastewater , where the contaminants’

concentrations have relatively high COD (3102 ± 688 mg/L), suspended solids (SS) (872 ± 178
mg/L), oil & grease (O&G) (375 ± 151 mg/L), nitrogen measured as total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) (186 ± 27 mg (N)/L), and total phosphate (PO4 3-P) (76 ± 36 mg/L). These contaminants
are there due to the presence of high organic materials such as blood, fat from skin, protein, oil
from boiling chickens for feather removal and it will be discharged directly into the water body
or drainage system that could lead to environmental pollution. Besides that, animal fats and oils
with high 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) can reduce the dissolved oxygen status of
receiving waters and impact aquatic biota. In addition, if a film of oil and grease forms on the
surface in receiving waters, it is unsightly and reduces the natural re-aeration process. Soluble
and emulsified FOG can inhibit oxygen and other gas transport processes that are necessary for
plants and animals and ultimately result in aquatic ecosystem disruption. Hence, the discharge of
this wastewater without a proper treatment will have realistic damage on the environment and
municipal wastewater treatment plants. According to the “Study on the Current Issues and Needs
for Water Supply and Wastewater Management in Malaysia”, Volume 2 (2015), sewerage
treatment systems in the form of individual septic tanks and pour flush systems is introduced and
applied in Malaysia during the 1960s. The reduction of direct discharge of sewage pollution can
be done by this method. Later, Imhoff tanks were used for treatment as community sewerage
systems. During 1970s, biological oxidation ponds were introduced due to the evolution of more
expanded treatment. This was to cater for the development of more towns into cities and
increased environmental concern. In the late 1970s, due to the increasing population, aerated
lagoons were introduced to serve a larger population within a limited land area reserved for
oxidation ponds. In the late 1980s and the 1990s saw the accelerated development of fully
mechanized systems in the form of biological filters and activated sludge systems. The use of
trickling filters and bio filter ponds proved that the biological treatment is able to remove 65% to
85% of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Suspended Solids (SS). In Ireland, the European
Commission recommends the on-site biological treatment to remove organic carbon and
nutrients before the wastewater is discharged. If the treated effluent is discharged to water body,
it must satisfy other water quality standards. Therefore, SBR is recommended by the EC to be
the best available techniques for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment since SBR is able to
remove organic carbon organic carbon and suspended solids from wastewater and have low
capital and operational cost. Typical COD, TN and TP removals from slaughterhouse wastewater
achieved in SBRs are 95%, 60–80% and 40%, respectively. However, SBRs are not able to
remove nitrogen (N) as efficiently as to remove COD because slaughterhouse wastewater
contains very high TN, with a typical biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) to TN ratio of 7–9:1
(J.P. Li et al., 2008). Despite of the advantages that DAF can offer in treating poultry
wastewater, there are still some flaws regarding DAF. The instability of DAF system
performance is attributed to the variability of the industrial effluent quality characteristics, the
inadequacy of the chemical additions, and the full-influent pressurization in the DAF system (Del
Nery et al. 2007). Besides that, DAF for secondary clarification has not been widely applied due

to the relatively high operating costs for micro-bubble generation (Ki Yong Lee et al., 2011).

However, most of the studies are conducted separately between the integrated DAF and aerated
SBR instead of combining them together. Moreover, there is still no report on that focus on the
removal of solids and carbonaceous organic by integrated DAF and aerated SBR in order to
determine the efficiency for both technologies.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

Objectives of this study are :

1. To determine the physio-chemical characteristic of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater

2. To compare the effluent quality with the Standard B: Industrial effluent, 2009
3. To assess the performance of integrated DAF and aerated SBR in terms of solid and
organic removal.
1.4 IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH

The importance of this research is for analyzing the efficiency and performance of integrated
DAF and aerated SBR as the alternatives and additional methods to control as well as decrease
the amount of contaminants before discharging the effluent into the water body. DAF and SBR
are potentially can increase the rate of organic and carbonaceous solid removal. If DAF and SBR
show good results on removing those organic and carbonaceous solid, it can be installed at any
poultry slaughterhouse to reduce the amount of contaminants and produce a high quality effluent
without making any further damages to the environment.

1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY

The scope of this study mainly focuses on the characterization of influent and effluent sample
from the existing poultry slaughterhouse plant and the characteristics to be determined are total
suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD). The characterization of influent and effluent sample will be obtained from the existing
poultry slaughterhouse plant and it will be compared with the Standard B: Industrial Effluent
2009. The values obtained will be compared and it will show the performance of SBR and DAF
on the removal of organic and carbonaceous solids.

1.6 LOCATION OF STUDY

 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Water Supply and Wastewater Coverage in Malaysia

According to the “Study on the Current Issues and Needs for Water Supply and Wastewater
Management in Malaysia”, Volume 2 (2015, treated water in Malaysia is supplied to more than
95% of the population. Water is supplied for 24 hours per day. In Malaysia, water is a state
matter, thus the role of the Federal Government is limited. The shortcomings in the provision for
safe and affordable water supply services has led the federal government to seek solutions in
sharing the responsibility with the state governments in reforming the water services to be self-
sustainable. In the year 2005, the Federal Constitution was amended to allow for joint
responsibility in water services between the state states in Peninsular Malaysia and Labuan, the
Federal Government. Malaysia currently has no single agency in the country entrusted with the
overall responsibility for holistic planning and management of water services, wastewater and
water resources. However, it has many agencies with overlapping responsibilities at the state and
federal levels.
Table : Statistic of Water Supply and Wastewater Coverage in Malaysia
2.2 Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater (PSW) characteristics

According to Sugito et al., (2016), wastewater produced from a chicken slaughterhouse is one of
the sources of environmental pollution. This slaughterhouse industry operates by slaughtering
live chicken and processes them into carcass which is prepared for our consumption. The
production of the wastewater is either from the washing equipment and facilities or from the
process itself. Besides that, a large amount of wastewater generated by poultry slaughterhouse
which has a high amount of biodegradable organic matter, suspended and colloidal matter such
fats, cellulose and proteins. Apart from that, Sugito et al., (2016), also mentioned that there are
chemical-physical waste and microbes contained in the chicken slaughterhouse wastewater. The
microbes are such as Bacillussubtilis, Bacillusthuringiensis, and Lysinibacillusfusiform. Blood,
feathers, offal (remnants of intestine and cloaca pieces), bones and dead chickens are some of the
main types of waste produced by chicken slaughterhouse. From the measurement results, it is
estimated that the waste in the form intestinal waste is 5%, 3.5% blood, and dead chickens of
0.5% out of the number of slaughtered chicken per day. However, most of these types of waste
such as bones, skin, liver and gizzard are still valuable and required by particular consumers.
According to I.R. de Nardi et al., (2010), it is characterized by high concentrations of suspended
solids (SS) and organic matter. Some of the principal sources of organic matter are residual
blood, chicken fat and feces. Nitrogen content that comes from the blood, urine and feces is
mainly as organic nitrogen. Besides that, phosphorus comes from the residual blood, manure,
and cleaning and sanitizing compounds is mainly as organic and inorganic phosphates.
Based on the research conducted by Ahmed Rahomi Rajab et al, (2016), the PSW was collected
from selected poultry slaughterhouse located in Johor (Southern state of Malaysia Peninsular)
called AYAMAS Food corporation Sdn. Bhd. This corporation is one of the biggest poultry
slaughterhouses in the state and has a production rate of 30,000–45,000 birds/day with average
wastewater flow rate of 800 m-3 d-1. All samples used in this study were collected from the flow
coming from the fixed strainer instrument which is located after feathers removal equipment.
Table 2.1 shows the characterization of PSW
 Table 2.1 : The PSW characteristics

2.3 Wastewater treatment in Malaysia

Before the country’s independence in 1957, there were no proper sewage systems in Malaysia. In
fact, the need for proper sewerage treatment never was a concern to the people during that time
due to the low population density and also the very limited urbanized developments. Sewage
treatment was mainly by primitive methods such as pit and bucket latrines and over-hanging
latrines beside direct discharge into rivers or seas. This was recognized as the most successful
model by the World Health Organization, with a minimum of 90% coverage in 1995 (compared
to 2.6% in 1970) (Sewerage Services Department 1998). However, for the urban areas, the usage
of conventional sewerage approaches had been adopted. The method of treatment during that
time could only provide basic primary treatment through the method of sedimentation and
digestion. As the world advanced in technology, innovation on the treatment systems and
increased involvement from the Government by establishment of Sewerage Service Act 1993,
the sewerage systems in Malaysia were gradually improved and developed (“Study on the
Current Issues and Needs for Water Supply and Wastewater Management in Malaysia”, Volume
2, 2015)
2.3.1 Septic tank

During 1960s, sewerage treatment systems in the form of individual septic tanks (ISTs) and pour
flush systems is introduced and applied in Malaysia. This method helped to reduce the direct
discharge of sewage pollution to the environment. As more towns were established, the use of
communal septic tanks (CSTs) was introduced to provide for community based sanitation. These
CSTs gave similar performance to ISTs but by way of a series of pipes connecting to a row of
tanks. CST is clarified as a primary treatment and consisted of two chambers. The effluent enters
into the first chamber where solids settle and partially clarified effluent overflows into the second
chamber. The sludge then accumulates in the first chamber and requires regular desludging.
Additional settlement occurs in the second chamber before the effluent is discharged to the drain.

Figure 1 : Typical Septic Tank

2.3.2 Imhoff tank

Imhoff Tanks were later used for treatment as community sewerage systems. Imhoff tanks
constitute 24% or 800 numbers of all sewerage treatment plants in Malaysia and are the second
most common form of treatment plant. Imhoff tanks are normally used to service small
communities up to a population equivalent of 1,000. They are relatively cheap to install, operate
and maintain. However, the Imhoff tanks only partially treat sewage. The effluent from the tank
does not meet the environmental requirements of the Department of Environment.

Figure 2 : A typical Imhoff tank

2.3.3 Oxidation pond/ Oxidation Ditch

In the 1970s, the sewerage technology in Malaysia evolved to more expanded treatment in the
form of biological oxidation ditch systems. This was to cater for the development of more towns
into cities and increased environmental concern which then led to the enactment of the
Environmental Quality Act in 1974. The treatment proved to reduce BOD from 200-400 mg/l to
20-100 mg/l. Normally, oxidation ponds consist of at least two constructed ponds. The first pond
is used to reduce the organic material using aerobic digestion while the second pond filters the
effluent and reduces the pathogens present. Oxidation ponds require large land areas. The degree
of treatment was weather dependent thus causing them to be incapable of achieving a good
standard of effluent consistently. A typical plan layout of the oxidation pond as illustrated in
Figure below.

Figure : A typical oxidation ditch

2.3.4 Aerated Lagoon

The increased population then caused the introduction of aerated lagoons in the late 1970s in
order to serve a larger population within a limited land area reserved for oxidation ponds. The
technological advancement allows for enhancement of oxidation pond capacities up to more than
five times the original capacities as illustrated in Figure 4 below.
 Figure : A typical aerated lagoon

2.3.5 Biological Filters

The late 1980s and the 1990s saw the accelerated development of fully mechanized systems in
the form of biological filters and activated sludge systems due to enactment of Environmental
Quality Regulations, 1979. The use of trickling filters and bio filter ponds proved that the
biological treatment is able to remove 65% to 85% of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and
Suspended Solids (SS).
 Figure : A typical trickling filter

2.4 Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) System

According to I.R. de Nardi, T.P. Fuzi and V. Del Nery (2007), despite of the high concentrations
of SS and organic matter, the slaughterhouse wastewater’s characteristics make it applicable for
biological treatment applications. However, since slaughterhouse wastewater consists of high SS
and organic matter rates, as well as oil and grease (O&G), an efficient separator is necessary
prior to the use of biological process in order to prevent process instability. Due to separation
problem, environmental engineers have come up with an innovation called the Dissolved Air
Flotation (DAF) system. The DAF system has been widely applied in the primary treatment of
food industry wastewater to separate suspended or fatty particles from the liquid. In order to
control the DAF system, there are some process variables that should be considered. The process
variables are the effluent quality requirements, hydraulic structure load, and saturation pressure,
recycle rate, air/solid (A/S) ratio, pretreatment process and influent characteristics. According to
I.R. de Nardi et al., (2010), chemical DAF system can achieve phosphorus removal from
slaughterhouse wastewater. Although the chemical can added at different stages of wastewater
treatment for instance, primary clarifier effluent, raw wastewater, biological units or after the
biological treatment effluent, an efficient metal use and a good process stability will produced a
high quality effluent. The advantages of using chemical DAF system are high operational
flexibility, high separation efficiency and high-rate units. According to V. Del Nery et al.,
(2006), the air saturator and the floatation tank operating parameters in DAF are stated as in
Table 2.2 and 2.3

Table 2.2 : The air saturator operating parameters

Air Saturator
Volume (m3) 4.8
Saturation pressure (kPa) 200-400
A/S ratio 0.013

Table 2.3 : The air saturator operating parameters

Floatation tank
Depth (m) 2.5
Diameter (m) 6.4
Surface area (m2) 32
Volume (m3) 80
DAF-effluent recycling None
 Figure : The conventional DAF unit with water recycle to the saturator

2.5 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) System

According to W. J. Ng et al., (1993), an SBR system may consist of one or more reactors. Every
reactor will be filled in turn for a discrete period of time and operated in a batch treatment mode.
Then, allow the mixed liquor to settle and the clarified supernatant is drawn. After the remaining
reactors in SBR system have been filled, the reactor will be refilled again. Usually, every reactor
in an SBR system will undergoes one or more cycles per day. A typical cycle consists of five
periods that are namely as fill, react, settle, decant and idle. These time sequential operations
have been made easy with the advances made in valves, timing and switching technology.
Reactors operated in the SBR may give gradual equalization, idle sedimentation, marked
reductions in system volume and potentially allowing much better control over the effluent
quality. Besides that, J.P. Li et al., (2008) stated that SBR is recommended by The European
Commision to be amongst the best available techniques (BATs) for slaughterhouse wastewater
treatment since it potentially can remove organic carbon, nutrients and SS from wastewater as
well as having a low capital and operational costs. According to I.R. de Nardi et al., (2010),
effluents with high ammonia and low organic matter concentration will enable the use of
biological nitrogen removal process. Hence, SBR technology can treat these effluents under fill-
aerobic-anoxic-settle-discharge sequences in a single reactor basin. Both nitrification process
under operating conditions such as low organic matter concentrations, sufficient dissolved
oxygen concentrations and long sludge retention time, and the denitrification process under
suitable anoxic conditions and carbon source. The Table below shows the SBR operating
conditions according to I.R. de Nardi et al., (2010)

Table 2.4 : SBR operating conditions

2.6 Fundamentals process of Sequencing Batch Reactor

According to W. J. Ng et al., (1993), every reactor in an SBR system will undergoes one or more

cycles per day. A typical cycle consists of five periods that are namely as fill, react, settle, decant
and idle.
2.6.1 Fill period

According to New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (2005), the basin
receives influent wastewater during this phase. The influent provides food for the microbes in the
activated sludge thus creating an environment for biochemical reaction to take place. During the
fill phase, mixing and aeration can be varied to create the following three different scenarios:

Static Fill – Influent wastewater is entering the tank and there will be no mixing or aeration
during this static fill. Static fill is used during the initial start-up phase of a facility, at plants that
do not need to nitrify or denitrify, and during low flow periods to save power. Because the
mixers and aerators remain off, this scenario has an energy-savings component.

Mixed Fill – Under a mixed-fill scenario, mechanical mixers are active, but the aerators remain
off. The mixing action produces a uniform blend of influent wastewater and biomass. Because
there is no aeration, an anoxic condition is present, which promotes denitrification. Anaerobic
conditions can also be achieved during the mixed-fill phase. Under anaerobic conditions the
biomass undergoes a release of phosphorous. This release is reabsorbed by the biomass once
aerobic conditions are reestablished. This phosphorous release will not happen with anoxic
conditions.
Aerated Fill – Under an aerated-fill scenario, both the aerators and the mechanical mixing unit
are activated. The contents of the basin are aerated to convert the anoxic or anaerobic zone over
to an aerobic zone. No adjustments to the aerated-fill cycle are needed to reduce organics and
achieve nitrification. However, to achieve denitrification, it is necessary to switch the oxygen off
to promote anoxic conditions for denitrification. By switching the oxygen on and off during this
phase with the blowers, oxic and anoxic conditions are created, allowing for nitrification and
denitrification. Dissolved oxygen (DO) should be monitored during this phase so it does not go
over 0.2 mg/L. This ensures that an anoxic condition will occur during the idle phase.

2.6.2 React period

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (2005), stated that this phase
allows for further reduction of wastewater parameters. During this phase, no wastewater enters
the basin and the mechanical mixing and aeration units are on. Because there are no additional
volume and organic loadings, the rate of organic removal increases dramatically. Most of the
carbonaceous BOD removal occurs in the react phase. Further nitrification occurs by allowing
the mixing and aeration to continue the majority of de-nitrification takes place in the mixed-fill
phase. The phosphorus released during mixed fill, plus some additional phosphorus, is taken up
during the react phase.

2.6.3 Settle period

During the settle period, activated sludge is allowed to settle under quiescent conditions which
are no flow enters the basin and no aeration or mixing will take place. The activated sludge will
settle as a flocculent mass thus forming a distinctive interface with the clear supernatant. If the
solids are not settle rapidly, some sludge will be drawn off during the subsequent decant phase.
Hence, it will degrade the effluent quality. (New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission., 2005)
2.6.4 Decant period

During this phase, a decanter is used to remove the clear supernatant effluent. Once the settle
phase is complete, a signal is sent to the decanter to initiate the opening of an effluent-discharge
valve. There are floating and fixed-arm decanters. Floating decanters maintain the inlet orifice
slightly below the water surface to minimize the removal of solids in the effluent removed during
the decant phase. Floating decanters offer the operator flexibility to vary fill and draw volumes.
Fixed-arm decanters are less expensive and can be designed to allow the operator to lower or
raise the level of the decanter. It is optimal that the decanted volume is the same as the volume
that enters the basin during the fill phase. It is also important that no surface foam or scum is
decanted. The vertical distance from the decanter to the bottom of the tank should be maximized
to avoid disturbing the settled biomass (New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission., 2005).

2.6.5 Idle period

The idle period occurs between decant and fill phases. The time may vary depending on the
influent flow rate and the operating strategy. A small amount of activated sludge at the bottom of
SBR will be pumped out during this period. (New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission., 2005).
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sampling

According to Sugito et al., (2016), the sample used is the slaughterhouse waste water after the
feather plucking process is completed. The wastewater is taken as the results from the second
rinsing process to drain the blood. However, the wastewater from the first washing was not taken
since it was considered as a shot waste and chicken feathers have not been plucked yet which
means that the chicken are still being soaked in hot water. From the settling tank, wastewater
samples are collected and filled in the plastic container which volumetric size of 20 L. The
objective of sampling is to collect a portion of material small enough in volume to be transported
conveniently and yet large enough for analytical purposes while still accurately representing the
material being sampled. This objective implies that the relative proportions or concentrations of
all pertinent components will be the same in the samples as in the material being sampled, and
that the sample will be handled in such a way that no significant changes in composition occur
before the tests are made.

3.2 Analytical Methods

In terms of monitoring, D.P. Cassidy and E. Belia (2005) stated that, the samples taken are
analyzed using the methods in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
According to Seswoya, R et al., (2012), the wastewater characteristics were done for pH,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) and Total Solids (TS). All parameters are analyzed in accordance with the
Standard Methods of the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The automatic meter (YSI
6600) was used to measure pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature. For COD measurement, Hach
DR/4000 Spectrophotometer, is used according to Method 8000 (Digestion Method). The TS
measurement is following the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water
using the Method 2540A-E. The measurement of BOD is done by using Partition-Gravitimetric
Method according to Method 2540 A-E.

Parameter Method Reference

BOD apparatus : APHA 5520B (Partition- Roslinda Bt Seswoya et al., 2006

BOD5 Gravitimetric Method)

COD apparatus : Hach DR/4000 Seswoya, R et al., 2012

COD Spectrophotometer, Method 8000
(Digestion Method)
TS TS apparatus : Method 2540A-E Seswoya, R et al., 2012

3.2.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

According to Roslinda Bt Seswoya et al., (2006), the BOD measurement is done according to
Method 5220 B (Partition-Gravitimetric Method) by Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater.

Firstly, mark the sample bottle at the water meniscus or weigh the bottle when the sample is
brought into the laboratory, for later determination of sample volume. Acidify the sample with
either 1:1 HCl or 1:1 H2SO4 to pH 2 or lower (5 mL is enough for 1L sample) if the samples are
not acidified previously. Next, transfer sample to a separator funnel by using a liquid funnel.
Rinse the sample bottle carefully with 30 mL extracting solvent and solvent washings is added to
the separator funnel. Vigorously shake for 2 minutes and let the layers to separate. An aqueous
layer and a small amount of organic layer are drained into original sample container. Then, drain
the solvent layer through a funnel containing a filter paper and 10 grams of Na2SO4 (both which
have solvent-rinsed) into a clean, tared distilling flask. If an emulsion of more than about 5 mL
exists and a clear solvent layer cannot be obtained, the emulsion and solvent layers are drained
into a glass centrifuge tube. The tube is centrifuged for 5 minutes at approximately 2400 rpm.
The centrifuged material is transferred into an appropriate separator funnel. Drain the solvent
layer through a funnel with a filter paper and 10 grams of Na2SO4 (both have been pre-rinsed,
into a clean, tared distilling flask). Recombine aqueous layers and any remaining emulsion or
solids in separator funnel. For samples with <5 mL of emulsion, drain only the clear solvent
through a funnel with pre-moistened filter paper and 10 g Na2SO4. Recombine aqueous layers
and any remaining emulsion or solids in separator funnel. Extract twice more with 30 mL solvent
each time, but first rinse sample container with each solvent portion. Repeat centrifugation step if
emulsion persists in subsequent extraction steps. Combine extracts in tared distilling flask, and
include in flask a final rinsing of filter and Na2SO4 with an additional 10 to 20 mL solvent.
Distill solvent from flask in a water bath at 85°C for either solvent system. To maximize solvent
recovery, fit distillation flask with a distillation adapter equipped with a drip tip and collect
solvent in an ice-bath-cooled receiver. When visible solvent condensation stops, remove flask
from water bath. Cover water bath and dry flasks on top of cover, with water bath still at 85°C,
for 15 min. Draw air through flask with an applied vacuum for the final 1 min. Cool in desiccator
for at least 30 min and weigh. To determine initial sample volume, either fill sample bottle to
mark with water and then pour water into a 1-L graduated cylinder, or weigh empty container
and cap and calculate the sample volume by difference from the initial weight (assuming a
sample density of 1.00).

3.2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

The COD measurement is done by using COD vial (TNT plus 822- range: 20-1500 mg/L COD)
Hach DR/4000 Spectrophotometer according to Method 8000 (Digestion Method) (Seswoya, R
et al., 2012)
Put 100 mL of sample in a blender. The sample is blended for 30 seconds or until
homogenized. For samples with large amounts of solids, increase the homogenization time. If the
sample does not contain suspended solids, go to step 3. For the 200-15,000 mg/L range or to
improve accuracy and reproducibility of the other ranges, pour the homogenized sample into a

250‑mL beaker and gently stir with a magnetic stir plate. Set the DRB200 Reactor power to on.

Preheat to 150 °C. Refer to the DRB200 User Manual for selecting preprogrammed temperature
applications.
 For the preparation of sample, remove the cap from a vial for the selected range. Hold the
vial at an angle of 45 degrees. Use a clean pipet to add 2.00 mL of sample to the vial. For 250–
15,000 mg/L vials: Use a TenSette Pipet to add 0.20 mL of sample to the vial.
For the preparation of the blank, remove the cap from a second vial for the selected range.
Hold the vial at an angle of 45 degrees. Use a clean pipet to add 2.00 mL of deionized water to
the vial. For 250–15,000 mg/L vials: Use a TenSette Pipet to add 0.20 mL of deionized water to
the vial. Close the vials tightly. Rinse the vials with water and wipe with a clean paper towel.
Hold the vials by the cap, over a sink. Invert gently several times to mix. The vials are tend to be
very hot hence, precaution steps must be taken. Hold the vials by the cap, over a sink. Invert
gently several times to mix. Heat the vials for 2 hours. Set the reactor power to off. Let the vials
cool in the reactor for approximately 20 minutes to 120 °C or less. Invert each vial several times
while it is still warm. Put the vials in a tube rack to cool to room temperature. At last,
spectrophotometer DR 6000 is used to take COD reading.

3.2.3 TS (Total Solid)

The Total Solid (TS) were measured according to Method 2540A-E (Seswoya, R et al., 2012).

3.3 Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for graphical analyses of the data to obtain the
interaction between the independent variables and the responses. The quality of the fit
polynomial model was expressed by R2 and Radj 2 (coefficient of determination). The statistical
significance of models was checked by the F-test. Normal probability plot of studentized
residuals, predicted vs. actual values plots and three dimensional plots were obtained for color
removal, BOD removal, COD removal, and pH. Furthermore, the optimum region was identified
based on the process parameters in the overlay plot.