Production of Biogas

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Production of biogas and performance evaluation of existing treatment

processes in palm oil mill efuent (POME)
Yunus Ahmed a,c, Zahira Yaakob a,b,n, Parul Akhtar a, Kamaruzzaman Sopian b
a
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Bangi, 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, 43600 Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Chemistry, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CUET), Chittagong-4349, Bangladesh
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.
Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278
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.
Nonetheless, several treatment methods executed in bench scales

and reprocessing POME as an ecologically sustainable bio resource.
These up-to-date processes may, nevertheless, excavate a different
eld in POME treatment and may offer the industry with a
conceivable awareness into superior development in the existing
treatment processes.
The purpose of this article is to represent a full-scale review,
which reconsiders and updates recent treatment processes for
palm oil mill efuent and adds the latest contemporary techniques
with the view to reach an understanding of standing end-ofpipe processes for POME treatment and a number of prospective
approaches to reduce the environmental difculties caused by
POME enclosed with renewable biogas generation, such as biohydrogen and biomethane.
2. Characteristics of palm oil mill efuent (POME)

Palm oil industry generated huge volume of palm oil mill
efuent (POME) by the oil extraction process. Enormous amounts
of water are required to extract the crude palm oil (CPO). It is
calculated that around 1.5 m3 of water are typically used in each
tonne of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) processing and almost half of
the water discharge as POME [7]. This POME is a combination of
wastes, which are produced and discharged from the three
principal sources such as clarication wastewater (60%), sterilizer
condensate (36%) and hydrocyclone wastewater (4%) [8]. Subsequently, around 0.9, 1.5 and 0.1 m3 of POME will be discharged
from these sources respectively for the handing out of one tonne
of CPO [9]. The characteristics of the dispersed efuent from
different sources are displayed in Table 1.
The raw POME is a thick brownish, viscous and voluminous
colloidal matters, containing 9596% of water, 45% total solids
including 24% suspended solids as well as 0.60.7% of oil and grease
which discharged at a temperature of 8090 1C. It is also acidic [10].
POME containing a vigorous amount of amino acids, inorganic
nutrients (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu, Co and Cd), short bres,
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
nitrogenous compounds, free organic acids and carbohydrates [11]. It

contains small pH value, suspended solids (SS), nitrogen content as
ammoniacal nitrogen and total nitrogen [12]. It also contains organic
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
Propenoic acid modied sawdust

Palm oil mill secondary efuent
Polyethersulfone
Polyethylene glycol
Rotating biological contactor
Reverse osmosis
Suspended closed anaerobic reactor
Sequencing batch reactor
Sludge volume indices
Solid retention time
Suspended solids
Specic gravity
total volatile solid
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Upow xed lm
Up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors
Upow anaerobic sludge-xed lm reactor
ultra-ltration
US Environmental Protection Agency
Volatile fatty acids
Volatile suspended solids
Vacuum ultraviolet
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
matters such as lignin (4700 ppm), phenolics (5800 ppm), pectin

(3400 ppm) and carotene (8 ppm) [13]. Even though it is non-toxic
with unfriendly odour, but containing biological oxygen demand and
Table 1
Characteristics of individual wastewater streams in Palm oil mill
Parameter
Sterilizer condensate
Clarication wastewater
Hydrocyclone wastewater
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L)

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD3, 30 oC) (mg/L)
Dissolved solid (DS) (mg/L)
Suspended solid (SS) (mg/L)
Total nitrogen (TN) (mg/L)
Ammoniacal nitrogen (mg/L)
Oil and grease (mg/L)
pH
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,
3. Regulatory standards for palm oil mill efuent

Fresh fruit bunches (FFB)
Type or age of fruit, different efuent treatment processing system

as well as varied batches, days and factories signicantly change the
characteristics of POME [17], factory discharge standard, climate and
condition of the processes and cropping season, activities of the palm
oil mill also effect on the quality and quantity of POME [14].
Malaysia rst introduces the efuent discharge system, specically for palm oil and rubber mills. The country's Department of
Environment announced discharge standards for BOD on palm oil
efuent in 1977. Before the introduction of the regulation, crude
oil palm was the single worst pollution source in the country. Daily
discharge alone increased by more than 300% from 1965 to 1977.
The purpose of the regulation was to reduce pollution created by
the sector without hampering its growth. In order to control the
industrial pollution in the country, regulatory control over discharges from palm oil mills is instituted through the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Crude Palm Oil) Regulations
1977, promulgated under the allowing powers of Section 51 of the
Environmental Quality Act (EQA), 1974, which are the central
regulations and contain the efuent discharge standards. The
discharge standards of POME into water sources in Malaysia [18]
are presented in Table 3.
Sterilization of FFB
(140C, 2.9 atm, 75-90 mins)
Sterilizer condensate
Stripping
0.9 T POME
Empty fruit bunches
Digestion tank
Steam, 80-90C
Fiber for boiler fuel
Pressing
Press cake
Depericarper
Crude palm oil (CPO)
Nuts
Clarification tank
(90C)
Nutcracker
Hydrocyclon
Sludge
Oil
Separator
Centrifuge
Shells for boiler fuel
0.1 T POME
Kernels
Vacuum dryer
Oil
4. Process description of palm oil mill process and sources of

water pollution
1.5 T POME
Dry oil
Storage
The most usual palm oil extracting process in Malaysia from

fresh fruit bunches (FFB) is the wet process [8]. Enormous volumes
Fig. 1. Flow diagram in a typical palm oil extraction process.
Table 2
General characteristics of POME [1416].
Parameter
Concentration range
Element
Concentration range (mg/L)

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD3, 30 oC) (mg/L)
Total solid (SS) (mg/L)
Total suspended solid (TSS) (mg/L)
Total volatile solid (TVS) (mg/L)
Total nitrogen (TN) (mg/L)
Temperature (1C)
pH
Colour (ADMI)
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

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD3, 30oC) (mg/L)
Total solids (mg/L)
Suspended solids(mg/L)
Total nitrogen (mg/L)
pH
Temperature (oC)
a
Value of ltered sample.
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
1/1/1984 and thereafter
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
and the explanations of different stages are in the subsequent

section.
4.1. Reception, transfer and storing of fresh fruit bunches
Fresh fruit bunches (FFB) are reaped in the farmsteads and
transported as soon as possible to the mills for instant processing.
Various transportation systems are used to carry the fruit bunches
to the mills. The fresh fruit bunches (FFB) are generally dropped
onto a ramp and then to sterilizer cages. Attention must be taken
in handling and transportation of fresh fruit bunches so that fruit
bunches are not damaged. The damaged palm fruits will give rise
to poor-quality palm oil because growing of free fatty acid (FFA)
content.
4.2. Sterilization of fresh fruit bunches
After loading into the sterilizer cages, the fresh fruit bunch is
exposed to the steam-heat in horizontal sterilizers for 7590 min
at around 140 1C and a pressure of 293.84 kPa. This stage prevents
free fatty acids formation of by the action of enzymes, to permit
the stripping of the fruits from spikelets, to make the fruit
mesocarp for consequent processing by coagulating the mucilaginous material which facilitates the breaking of the oil cells and
minimizes the breakage of the kernel during pressing and nut
cracking. The sterilizer discharged POME from this section, and
about 0.9 t of sterilizer condensate produced in this step to process
every tonne of oil.
4.3. Stripping, digestion and extraction of crude palm oil (CPO)
Now the sterilized fruits are fed into a stripper where the fruits
are detached from the spikelets or bunch stalks. As the drumstripper rotates, the bunches are lifted up and then dropped
constantly along the stripper. The fruits are knocked off the bunch
by this action. The separated fruits are passed into a digester
followed by a screen and a bucket conveyor. Fruits are softened or
mashed under steam heated conditions (8090 1C) by a steam
jacket in the digester or by direct live steam injection. The mashed
fruits under heating and high pressure break the oil-bearing cells
of the mesocarp and then channelled to a mechanical twin-screw
machine to press out the CPO and the addition of hot water to
increase the oil ow.
4.4. Clarication and purication of the crude palm oil
The digested crude palm oil (CPO) contains 3545% of palm oil,
4555% of water and the rest of the brous materials. It is pumped
into a clarication tank to separate the oil from CPO and temperature is retained at 90 1C to enrich the oil separation. After
parting the oil, it is constantly skimmed-off from the top of the
tank. The bottom phase of the clarication tank still contains some
oil and it is well again by passing through the sludge separator.
The recovered oil is returned to the clarication tank. Subsequently, it is passed through a high speed centrifuge and a vacuum
dryer. Finally, it sent to the storage tanks. The other stream
consisting of water and brous debris are drained off as a sludge
waste. About 1.5 t of sludge waste are generated during the
processing of each tonne of CPO.
4.5. Depericarping and nut ber separation
After pressing by screw press, press cake formed, which
involves of moisture, oily ber and nuts. After that, all the
materials are carried to a depericarper for the separation of bre
and nut. After parting, the ber is sent to a boiler house as fuel.
4.6. Separation of kernels and drying

In this step, nuts are again processed in hydrocyclone, where
the palm kernel is separated from shells based on the difference of
specic gravity (SG). The remaining wastewater is discharged, i.e.
hydrocyclone wastewater and about 0.1 t of hydrocyclone efuent
formed per tonne of palm oil production.
5. The treatment or digestion processes

5.1. Anaerobic digestion or treatment
Through the years, the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) has
grown rapidly due to the increasing signicant deployment of
renewable energy concerning mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and the need for sustainable industrial wastewater
treatment. Anaerobic digestion is the effective efuent treatment
method, containing a huge amount of organic substances such as
POME [19]. It is demarcated as the methanogenic anaerobic
degradation of organic and inorganic matters in the absence of
oxygen. It includes diverse species of anaerobic microbes, which
are responsible for the degradation of organic matter and requires
time to adapt to the new environment before they start to
consume on organic matters to grow. The efciency of this system
mainly depends on the structure of microbial community and
environmental factors, for example, pH and temperature [20].
It is a multi-stage (hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and
methanogenesis) degradation of organic matters and transformed
into CH4 and CO2 by the action of a group of microorganisms
[2123]. Wong also revealed that, the fresh POME was rst
changed into volatile fatty acids (VFAs) by acid-forming bacteria
then transformed into CH4 and CO2 in the anaerobic digestion
process [24]. This process produced biogas such as biomethane
and biohydrogen through the fast degradation of organic compounds [25] from POME. Moreover, it established a unique and
useful stabilization system, which is biologically active and
diminishes the sludge. Various types of an anaerobic digestion
system exist in the world. The most recommended digestion
processes for POME include anaerobic lters and anaerobic uidized bed reactors, up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors
(UASB), expanded granular sludge blanket (EGSB), anaerobic
bafed reactors (ABR), anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR),
continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and upow anaerobic
sludge-xed lm reactor (UASFF). The performances of various
anaerobic treatment processes are summarized in Table 4. The
mentioned anaerobic treatment processes for POME are explained
in the subsequent section.
5.1.1. Anaerobic ponds or lagoon system
Anaerobic pond is most useable POME treatment system in the
palm oil mills and around 85% of the mills implemented this
method owing to only its low capital and operational cost [26].
Nowadays, Harsono and his coworkers observed that about 50% of
the mill used anaerobic ponds for the treatment of POME, while
the remaining 50% mill used various anaerobic digester [5]. It
consists of a number of ponds of different functions such as
cooling pond, a mixing pond(de-oiling), acidication ponds, anaerobic ponds, facultative and algae (aerobic) pond, which are made
up of earthen structures with no lining at the bottom [12,27].
However, it needs an enormous land area to produce efuent that
complies with Federal Subsidiary Legislation, 1974 efuent discharge standards.
A typical size of an anaerobic pond in a palm oil mill which has
a processing capacity of 54 t per hour is 60.0 29.6 5.8 m3
(length width depth) [28], which is approximately equivalent
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
Cheap, simple design, stable and

reliable system.
The energy needed is minimal and has
low operating costs.
Sludge production is very little.
Nutrient requirement is very low.
Recovered sludge used as fertilizer.
Digested POME could be used for algae
culture.
Able to tolerate a high range of OLR
thus can easily handle POME discharge
during a high crop season.
Construction, operation and
maintenance costs are lower.
High biomass concentration retained
in the packing.
High removal efciency of COD, BOD
and suspended solids.
Smaller reactor volume needed.
Able to handle high volume of loads.
Sensitive to shock loading with HRT is
low.
No electrical energy required.
Producing high quality efuent.
Long service life.
Large areas of land are required.

Control and monitoring is difcult due
to their sizes and structures.
Accumulation of sludge is high.
The removal of P, N and solids are
usually unacceptable.
Biogas and emission of CH4 are low.
Methane, H2S and CO2 directly release
to the environment.
Long startup and HRT ( 450 days).
Always required post treatment to
remove remaining organic matter.
97.8
54.4
40
1.4
[28]
Deterioration of the bed structure

through a gradual accumulation of
non-biodegradable solids.
High media maintenance and support
cost.
Requires a constant source of water.
Long start up time.
Removal of pathogens and nutrients are
low.
Efuent require post treatment and/or
appropriate discharge.
Incompatible for high suspended solid
wastewater.
Clogging occurs at high OLRs.
High energy requirements
Carrier media is costly.
Highly turbulent conditions
microorganism like bacteria are
willingly adhered to the reactor bed.
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
Rates of organic loading are high at

short HRT.
Small areas are required.
Good potential for maintaining a
high biomass concentration at long
SRT.
Channelling, plugging and gas hold
up problem is minimum.
Large surface area for mass transfer
and biomass attachment.
Uniform liquid ow distribution.
Used to treat high strength
wastewater at both ambient and
elevated temperatures.
Low sludge production and ability to
tolerate shock loads.
COD removal efciency and methane
Upow
anaerobic emission rate is high.
High biomass concentration reserved
sludge
in the reactor.
blanket
(UASB)
Superior is settling characteristics of
granular sludge at higher OLRs.
Produced with high quality efuent.
High degree of waste stabilization
Nutrient requirement is minimal.
Possibility of biomass washout is more
prominent at lower HRTs.
It exhibits superior performance due
to the good maintenance of
methanogenic sludge with long
sludge retention time.
Used to treat high-strength
wastewater under mesophilic or
thermophilic conditions.
Improve substratebiomass contact in
Expanded
the system.
granular
sludge bed Efuent recirculation is possible.
Higher organic loading rate
reactor
achieved.
(EGSB)
Better performance and stability.
Removal efciency COD was
proportional to upow velocity.
Separation of dispersed sludge from
mature granules is possible.
Anaerobic
uidized
bed
reactor
Oxygen distribution system, biolm

thickness and consumption power are
high.
Inappropriate for high-suspended solid
waste-water.
Unable to capture produced biogas.
Highly dependent on the ability of sludge

settle.
Separation between treated efuent and
biomass is poor.
Foaming and sludge oatation at high
organic loading rates (OLRs).
At higher organic loading treatment,
biomass retained is unable.
Long start-up time lacking of granulated
seed sludge.
Granulation inhibited at high volume of
volatile fatty acid.
It is inactive at a higher organic loading
rate (OLR) in the presence of high
amount of suspended solids.
Elimination of particulate organic matter

is tough because of high upow velocity.
The granular bed is unable to retain the
suspended matters, thereby leave with
the efuent.
Used to treat the low-strength
wastewater, especially low to mid
temperature.
Active biomass needed for granular
anaerobic sludge.
[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
Higher methane yield and easy

degradation occurred in case of
deoiled POME.
To obtain greater upow velocity
required higher ratio of reactor
height/surface area.
Simple and economical construction.
Higher cell retention time and
effective treatment could be
obtained.
Stability to shock loading are capable
to achieve at high volumetric rates.
High degree of waste stabilization.
Comparatively low cost and energy
demand.
Produced minimum pollution.
Favourable and efcient technology
for hydrogen production.
Flexibility and simple operation
without requiring any separate
Clariers.
High biomass retaining reactor.
Rate of digestion and stability are good
No short circuit due to xed-bed
continuous systems.
Relatively cheap and simple to
construct.
Provides more contact between
wastewater and biomass through
mixing.
Easy to control temperature in each
stage.
Relatively easy to clean and
maintenances.
Increased gas production compared to
conventional method.
Lower operating cost due to low
amount of electrical energy
required.
It operates in a steady state.
It is well controllable and large heat
transfer areas can be installed
At higher organic loading treatment
able to retain biomass in the reactor.
Shorter start-up times for the sludge
granulation and higher biomass
retention.
Achieved higher organic loading
compare UASB and anaerobic
ltration.
Reduce the clogging.
COD removal efciency and
methane emission rate is higher at a
lower HRT.
Stable operating conditions
Able to tolerate shock loadings.
Disadvantages
Satisfactory recycling is wanted for

reactor stability.
Nutrient supplementation is needed.
Nutrient supplementation is needed for

relatively resistant organic wastes to
improve the treatment of wastewater.
Reactor geometry effect on process
performance.
Low performance efciency at higher
OLR.
Different reactor shapes or geometry
imposes distinct selective pressure on
the microbial components of the
biomass
Less efcient for the production of gas at
high treatment volume and short
hydraulic retention time (HRT).
Time-consuming operation with
continuous feeding because of a
degradation of microorganisms.
Less biomass retention
Reactant added to mixture which is rich
in product in this reactor will affect the
quality and yield.
Separation between treated efuent and

biomass are poor.
Stability and efciency of the reactor
depend on internal packing, efuent
recycling ratio, rate of feed ow and
up-ow velocity.
Pretreatment of efuent is required for
incomprehensible suspended solids and
reduce the treatment efciency.
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
Deoiled palm oil mill efuent (POME)
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
[26,27]. A lower depth of around 0.51.0 m is necessary for aerobic

ponds with HRT of 24 days [27]. Yacob et al. showed that above
97.8% COD reduction was achieved at HRT of 40 days and OLR of
1.4 kilogram COD per cubic meter per day (kg COD/m3 d). However, methane gas emission recorded in the anaerobic pond was
only 54.4% [28]. In addition to that, the methane composition from
anaerobic ponds was observed to be more consistent in the
gaseous mixture. Mill activities and seasonal cropping of oil palm
inuenced methane emission in anaerobic ponds [28]. However,

creation of scum on the surface and body be subject to build-up at
the bottom of the pond is main difculties with this system, which
lowered the efciency. So, regular desludging either using submersible pumps or excavators to continue the preferred efciency.
Ismail and co-workers analysed various parameters such as
COD, BOD, Fe, Zn and Mn and turbidity using the conventional
ponding system in mills consists of a series of seven ponds. The
POME at Pond 2 (Mixing) has the highest concentration of all
tested ponds because it is the rst receiver of POME. The activity of
desludging at Pond 4 (Anaerobic 2) and Pond 5 (Facultative), BOD
concentration in Pond 7 (Algae 1) was appeared slightly higher.
The POME at Pond 2, 4, 5 and 7 has been treated through the
adsorption process by sunlight. The adsorption process shows a
considerable reduction of the above parameter and indicates the
performance of zeolite as adsorbent is promising. The highest
removal concentration of turbidity, COD and BOD observed at
Pond 2 and removal capacity were 80.5%, 54.5% and 78.0%
respectively [30]. Chin and his co-workers also assessed the
treatment efciency of an anaerobic pond, which consists of eight
ponds in series and treating 600 m3 POME per day. The inuent
concentration ranges of COD were 45,00065,000 mg/l, BOD5
18,00048.000 mg/l and oil and grease larger than 2000 mg/l.
After treatment, the efuent containing the concentration of COD,
BOD5, ammonia-N, nitrate nitrogen, TKN and phosphate were
1725, 610, 115, 5, 200, and 60 mg/l respectively [31].
5.1.2. Anaerobic ltration

The idea of anaerobic lter (AF) was primarily expressed by
Coulter et al. [32], but the rst demonstration of this treatment
system came from Young and McCarty, who fruitfully operated an
upow anaerobic lter to treat the rum distillery wastewater [33].
This lter has been used in bench scale to treat the POME
[10,34,35]. Borja and Banks used an upow anaerobic lter to
treat the POME, achieved up to 90% COD removal efciency at
organic loads ranging from 1.2 to 11.4 kg COD/m3 d and reduced
HRT from 15 to 6 days and the production of methane varied from
20 to 165 dm3 per day, was about 60%. However, maximum 94% of
COD remove was reached at OLR of 4.5 kg COD/m3 d and HRT of 15
days [10]. Filter clogging is a major problem in the nonstop
operation of anaerobic lters [3638]. So far, clogging has been
reported at an OLR of 20 kg COD/m3 d for POME [39]. They also
showed that after adaptation, above 90% COD removals were
reached at 6 h HRT and OLR of 10 kg COD/m3 d [39]. Chaisri and
coworkers investigated the effect of organic loading rate (OLR) for
the productions of methane and volatile fatty acid in UASB and
UFAF reactors. They obtained the optimum OLR for UASB and UFAF
reactors were 15.5 and 7.5 kg COD/m3 d respectively in the
laboratory scale. They produced maximum 2.54 l/day of methane
at OLR of 7.5 kg COD/m3 d and removed 91.6% of COD at OLR of
1.1 kg COD/m3 d and HRT of 13.5 days by using UFAF [40].
Upow anaerobic lters (UAF) can be operated at either
mesophilic or thermophilic temperature ranges. Thermophilic
anaerobic lters offer an alternative treatment system for high
and medium strength wastewaters, especially for those wastewaters which released at high temperatures like POME [35].
Thermophilic POME sample gave higher yields than the mesophilic POME sample [41]. Concentration of volatile suspended solid
(VSS) increased steadily from week 5 in the lter, and it varied
from 1.8 to 6.1 kg m 3 during the start-up stage (10 weeks). The
start-up stage achieved a chronological rise of temperature of
0.51 1C per day in which seeds of bacteria were steadily adapted
to the thermophilic conditions. The Upow anaerobic lter (UAF)
indicated a satisfactory performance in organic removal efciency
(up to 97% and 94% for BOD and COD, respectively). The
1267
production rate and yield of biogas were 1.16 10 3 m3 d 1 and

0.822 m3/kg COD respectively [35]. The production of methane
from POME is the most commonly used method, but fed batch
production of hydrogen from POME has been considered by using
anaerobic microora [42]. The hydrogen generating microora has
been isolated from various sources. Vijayaraghavan and Ahmad
isolated a microora from cow dung at pH of 5 and treatment with
heat (2 h) and produced biohydrogen from POME by the used
anaerobic contact lter. The produced biogas was free from
biomethane. With the increase of HRT, increased the production
of biohydrogen content and maximum biohydrogen was 102.6 mL
and average hydrogen content of 577 2% at 7 d HRT and yield of
biogas was 0.42 m3/kg COD [34].
5.1.3. Fluidized bed reactor
The attached growth anaerobic uidized bed reactor (AFBR) is
the treatment methods for low strength wastewater, and it offers a
good mass transfer between substrate and medium. The high
upow liquid velocities give a bed growth of almost 100% and
short HRT [43]. Switzenbaum and Jewell rst assessed the treatment efciency of dilute synthetic wastewater above a range of
1030 1C and achieved COD removal efciencies ranges from about
40% at 10 1C to about 50% at 30 1C with HRT of 0.33 h [44]. There
are much evidence, which supports the ndings of POME
[29,39,45]. Fluidized bed reactor provided a greater treatment
efciency at higher loadings; even at 40 kg COD/m3 d, with 6-h
residence times and degraded about 78% COD whereas an anaerobic lter could be worked below 20 kg COD/m3 d shorn
of clogging. After adaptation, removals of COD were reached
higher than 90% in both reactors at 6 h HRT and OLR of 10 kg
COD/m3 d [39].
The efciency of the uidized bed reactor (inverse and up-ow)
depends on the nature of support material [46]. The inverse ow
uidized reactor showed outstanding stability when overload is
applied [47]. Small porous uidized media retain high biomass
concentrations in the reactor and thus decreased HRT. Smaller HRT
(6 h) and greater CH4 production showed a benet of uidized bed
over an anaerobic lter (AF) to treat the POME [29]. Granular
activated carbon (GAC) removed about 60% COD in the uidized
bed system [48] while saponite removed 94.4% of COD [39].
Mamun and Idris operated a pilot plant at ambient temperatures
with diluted POME as a substrate. It took 17 days for the start-up of
the reactor with pre-seeded sand media. The reactor was capable
to remove a large portion of organics at relatively shorter retention
time. Maximum and minimum COD removal efciency of 85% and
65% were attained at a loading rate of 4.0 and 13.8 kg COD/m3 d.
The elimination rates of BOD and TSS varied in the range of 64
91% and 6889% respectively [45]. The anaerobic uidized bed
reactor exhibited lower sludge volume indices (SVI). Low SVI
values indicated that, this reactor generated less sludge with fast
settling properties. Whereas Ahmed and Idris used a biofuel of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae for xing with sand as supporting material on a uidized bed reactor (FBR) for the treatment of POME.
After 5 days adaptation, 92% BOD, 95% COD, 85% TKN, 94% SS, 95%
VSS and 90% turbidity removal were achieved in a batch experiment with OLR of 4.7010.82 kg COD/m3 d and HRT of 12 h [49].
5.1.4. Up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor
The upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor is the
prominent expansions in anaerobic digestion system for wastewater treatment and more than 1000 such type of reactors are
used in worldwide (especially in tropical countries) [50,51].
Lettinga developed UASB reactor [52], and this process has been
effectively used to treat the wide range of industrial efuent [53].
This reactor shows a good performance for high-suspended solid
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
used in another test and highest production rate of hydrogen was

0.336 l H2/l h at 12 h HRT and an OLR of 5.0 kg COD/m3 h. The
removal of COD and average hydrogen content in biogas were 62%
and 52% respectively [67]. Ahmed and his coworkers used concentrated butyrate for the treatment POME and production of
methane at 37 1C and pH of 6.57.5 and achieved 9799% of COD
removal efciency at OLR of 1.54.8 kg COD/m3 d by varying HRT
(117.2 days). Highest 20.17 m3/m3-day of biogas and 16.2 m3/m3day of methane were obtained at OLR of 4.8 kg COD/m3 d and HRT
of 7.2 days. The methane content in the biogas was higher about
7080% in the presence of butyrate [68].
5.1.5. Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor
Expanded granular sludge blanket (EGSB) reactor is a modied
hydrodynamics UASB reactor. Lettinga and co-workers used this
reactor for low strength and complex wastewaters [69,70]. Now it
is the second most extensively used anaerobic reactors [71]. The
upow liquid velocity (410 m/h) of this reactor, causes the sludge
bed to expand or by the efuent recirculation (or both) and offers
superior hydraulic mixing and diminishes the dead zones inside
the reactor [72]. Zhang and coworkers used this reactor to treat
the POME under mesophilic conditions. Only 46% COD of raw
POME converted into biogas in which the methane content was
about 70% (V/V). They showed that it had a good COD removal
efciency and removed 91% of COD at HRT of 48 h and OLR of
17.5 kg COD/m3 d. A 30 days discontinuous experiment quantied
that highest 56% of organic substances were transformed into
methane [73]. Frankin compared the performance efciency of
UASB and EGSB. It showed that both reactors are able to remove
COD approximately 8590%, but UASB showed better performance
at lower OLR of 10 kg COD/m3 d, while EGSB showed in average of
OLR of 20 kg COD/m3 d [74].
Fang and his coworkers used EGSB reactors to investigate the
anaerobic digestion of raw and deoiled POME both in batch and
continuous experiment and achieved higher yields of methane
from deoiled POME because it contained small amounts of bio
bres which were more recalcitrant compared the raw POME. The
deoiled POME produced more than 90% of the methane within 14
days and the methane yield was 0.555 m3-CH4/kgVS-added at
lower OLR of 2.6 kgVS/m3-day. While the raw POME, removed 90%
of COD at HRT of 5 days with OLR of 5.8 kgVS/m3-day and yields of
methane were 0.438 m3-CH4/kgVS-added [75].
5.1.6. Anaerobic bafed reactor
McCarty and coworkers developed the anaerobic bafed reactor
(ABR) by removing rotating discs from the rotating biological
contactor (RBC), where most of the suspended biomass exist [76].
The anaerobic bafed reactor (ABR) is a series of UASBs, where
granulation do not require for its operation [77]. A series of vertical
bafes forces the wastewater to ow under, and over them as it
passes from inlet to outlet. Bacteria gradually rise and settle within
the reactor due to ow characteristics and produced gas in each
compartment, but move horizontally down the reactor at a comparatively slow rate giving rise to cell retention time (CRT) of 100
days at HRT of 20 h [78]. Therefore, the wastewater comes in a close
contact with a huge amount of active biomass with short HRTs
(620 h), while the efuent remains relatively free of microbes [79].
A number of researchers used this reactor in laboratory and
pilot scales for the treatment of industrial wastewater [80],
including POME [81,82]. Setiadi and coworkers used ABR system
to treat the POME and maintaining pH upper than 6.8 in the
absence of alkalinity. The maximum 25 times recycled allowed to
remove the COD, BOD as well as oil and grease up to 84.6%, 86.04%
and 72.7% separately and maximum production of methane was
13.34 10 3 m3/day at OLR of 10.9 kg COD/m3 d and HRT of
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.
5.1.9. Up-ow anaerobic sludge xed-lm (UASFF) reactor

The upow anaerobic sludge-xed lm (UASFF) reactor is an
anaerobic hybrid reactor, which is a combination of two anaerobic
systems into a single bioreactor [97] The upow xed lm (UFF)
located on the UASB portion, which hinders the sludge washout
1270
Table 5
The summarization of aerobic treatment process.
Advantages
High biochemical oxygen demand removal

efciency and good efuent quality.
Minimum odour, when properly loaded and
maintained.
At small scale, the treatment efciency is high.
Low land area is required.
The nal discharge may contain huge amount of
oxygen, which diminishes the instant demand of
oxygen in water body.
It eliminates many pathogens from wastes. Reduces
ammonia discharged to water resources
Disadvantages
COD
removal
efciency
(%)
HRT
(days
or hrs)
OLR (kg Reference

COD
/m3 d)
Some organics cannot be efciently disintegrated aerobically because of

biologically non-reactive components, mainly composed of insoluble
materials.
Production rate of biomass is high due to active aerobic growth powered
by a sufcient oxygen supply by aeration, potentially leading to
reduction in storage capacity of lagoons and/or ponds.
High operating costs due to aeration, nutrients (N, P) and sludge
disposal.
Requires routine maintenance.
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
organic matter) and biological treatment (mostly biomass) of

wastewaters. Biodegradable organic matter is hydrolyzed and
converted into CO2, water and active biomass through the action
of heterotrophic bacteria [103]. Karim and Kamil investigated the
treatment efciency of POME by the use of Trichoderma viride
fungus and reduced more than 95% of COD of POME [104].
Najafpour and coworkers used S. cerevisiae as an initial biomass
in a rotating biological contactor (RBC) to treat the POME, which
contains high COD of about 16 kg/m3. They showed a removal
efciency of BOD5, COD, SS, TN up to 91%, 88%, 89% and 80%
respectively with the lowest 1.1 10 3 m3/h of POME volumetric
ow rate and 55 h HRT of in a batch experiment [105]. Norulaini
and coworkers estimated the efciency of a trickling lter as a
model of aerobic attached-growth system for the treatment supernatants of POME. The trickling lter removed more than 90% of
BOD and COD at hydraulic loading of below 1 m3/m2 d. The higher
removal efciencies of BOD and COD were due to two reasons.
Firstly, the sedimentation of settleable solids of POME and the
chemical coagulation reduced the organic load applied to the lter.
Secondly, these restricted the hydrolysis of non-diffusible organics
into soluble substrates [106].
Ho and Tan used pressurized activated sludge process to treat
the secondary anaerobically digested POME. The reductions of
BOD, COD, SS, oil and grease as well as TS were up to 98.4%, 97.7%,
99.2%, 93.3% and 87.5%, respectively [107]. Vijayaraghavan and
coworkers investigated the treatment efciency of anaerobically
digested and diluted raw POME by the use of aerobic oxidation
and they removed COD, BOD, residual oil and grease as well as
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) up to 98%, 93%, 0.024 kg/m3 and
0.058 kg/m3 respectively for anaerobically digested POME whereas
the values were 89%, 82%, 0.112 kg/m3 and 0.003 kg/m3 respectively for diluted raw POME at HRT of 2.5 days [108].
Nowadays, sequencing batch reactor (SBR) has been used as a
developed form of activated sludge process and cost-effective
treatment system due to its high removal activity of BOD and SS.
Chan and coworkers investigated the aerobic treatment of anaerobically digested POME by using SBR reactor. They achieved
maximum 9596% of COD, 9798% of BOD and 9899% of TSS
removal efciencies at OLR of 1.84.2 kg COD/m3 d, SLR of
2.54.6 kgTSS/m3 d and MLVSS concentration ranges of 22
25 kg/m3 [109]. They examined the practicability of aerobic
biological treatment under thermophilic conditions for anaerobically treated POME and removed up to 72% of total COD and 76% of
BOD with an OLR of 2.8 70.3 kg COD/m3 d [110]. They showed
aerobic treatment produced better efuent quality at mesophilic
conditions as against thermophilic conditions. They improved

aerobic treatment efciency under thermophilic conditions by
optimizing the concentrations of MLSS, DO, OLR and settling time
and achieved 86% of COD, 87% of BOD and 89% of TSS removal
efciency at the concentration of MLSS of 27 kg/m3, OLR of 2.5 kg
COD/m3 d and settling time of 2 h [111]. The performance of an
aerobic treatment process is summarized in Table 5.
5.3. Physicochemical treatment
Several POME treatment processes exist in the mill, which
failed to full the discharge standard even though they have used
various anaerobic and aerobic treatment systems. Consequently, a
substitute POME treatment process is required to meet the
standard discharge limits prescribed by the Department of Environment (DOE). Apart from biological treatment, several alternative
physicochemical processes could be used to treat the POME.
Physicochemical treatment of wastewater predominantly focuses
on the separation of colloidal particles. This is obtained using
various chemicals named coagulants and occulants, which
change the physical state of the colloids, allowing them to remain
in an indeterminately stable form and therefore, form into
particles or ocs. The recommended physicochemical treatment
processes for POME are explained in the subsequent sections.
5.3.1. Coagulation and occulation
The coagulationocculation process shows an important characteristic as a pretreatment process, where raw POME reduces its
suspended solids (SS) to a satisfactory level. Although the words
coagulation and occulation are frequently used interchangeably, they mention two different systems. In coagulation process,
colloidal and very ne solid suspensions are destabilized so that
they can begin to agglomerate whereas occulation refers to the
process by which destabilized particles actually conglomerate into
larger aggregates so that they can be separated from the wastewater. Before applying the physicochemical processes, the raw
POME would have to be destabilized to occulate the particulate
matter. Ferric chloride, aluminium chloride, aluminium sulphate
(alum), polyaluminum chloride (PAC), ferrous sulphate and
hydrated lime are the most commonly used coagulants due to its
recognized performance, efciency, economy and ease of use in
the wastewater treatment [112]. Karim and his coworkers investigated the reduction of pollution strength of POME by applying
nine polymers and ve inorganic salts, and showed that the
cationic polymer Magnaoc LT22 (0.080.1 kg/m3) reduced the
turbidity, TSS, COD and TS up to 96%, 9394%, 63% and 53%
respectively. Nevertheless, combined FeCl3 (0.20.3 kg/m3) and
Magnaoc LT22 (0.070.1 kg/m3) reduced higher pollution as
against Magnaoc alone, which reduced COD, TS and TSS by 47
53%, 4349% and 9294%, respectively [113]. Ng and coworkers
tested different coagulants to evaluate their destabilize ability of
POME suspensions and to occulate the particulate matter. They
found that synthetic polymers are more operative than lime or
alum [17]. Khadidi and his coworkers have prepared a new
occulant from waste Activated Bleaching Earth (wABE) for treatment of POME. The highest removals of COD, turbidity and TSS
achieved were 81.15%, 82.54% and 89.91% respectively in presence
of POME with 2%(v/v) H2SO4-occulant [114].
In POME treatment, Ahmed and his coworkers completely
replaced the inorganic coagulants with organic polymers. They
showed that the anionic polymers have only bridging attraction
but cationic polymer has both the charge neutralization and
bridging attraction. They achieved removal efciency of suspended
solids of 99.66%, 55.79% of COD, 99.74% of oil and grease and
80.78% of water recovery efciency at the optimum occulation
1271
states and proved that, direct occulation method considerably

decreased 3.6 times treatment cost against to the traditional
coagulationocculation method [115].
Arifn and coworkers produced a cationic polyacrylamides to
evaluate the performance as a occulant in POME and found that
the polymer charge density from 48.2 to 485C/g considerably
shakes the occulants activity. Adsorption capacity of polymer
increased with the increase of charge density. Cationic polyacrylamide had high charge density (485C/g) and was the most active
polymer and permitted to remove turbidity, suspended solids and
COD of 98%, 98.7% and 54% respectively with lower dosages of
0.032 kg/m3 at pH of 3 [116]. They also observed that the size of
occule increased with the increasing of dosages, charge density
and weight of polymer, and bigger occule improved the treatment efciency [117]. High molecular weight cationic polyacrylamide (1500 kg mol 1) is the most effective polymer and achieved
high removal efciency with a dosage as low as 60 mg L 1 at pH
3 of POME. However, over 5 million g mol 1 produced very poor
occule and do not freely dissolve but form gel lumps [118].
Chitosan is a natural organic polyelectrolyte obtained from deacetylation of chitin. Ahmad et al. [119] investigated the possibility
and efciency of chitosan against PAC and alum for the treatment
of POME and showed that chitosan was reasonably more procient
and cost-effective coagulant in contrast to alum and PAC. Chitosan
removed higher than 95% of SS and residual oil at the dosage of
0.5 kg/m3, 15 min of contact time at 100 rpm, 20 min of sedimentation time and pH of 4.0. Whereas alum and PAC achieved the
same removal efciency at the 30 min of mixing time of 100 rpm,
dosages of 8.0 and 6.0 kg/m3, 50 and 60 min of sedimentation
time, respectively and pH of 4.5. Hassan and Puteh discovered the
efciency of chitosan and alum for the treatment of POME.
Chitosan presented superior efciency with much lower dosage
(0.4 kg/m3) consumption than conventional alum (8 kg/m3) and
reduced 99.90% of turbidity, 99.15% of TSS and 60.73% of COD at pH
of 6, whereas alum reduced 99.45%, 98.60% and 49.24% of
turbidity, TSS and COD respectively at pH of 7. The effectiveness
of combined chitosan and alum exhibited very little increment
against the use of chitosan alone [120]. Saifuddin and Dinara
discovered Chitosan-magnetite particles and showed it can perform better than natural chitosan. They achieved 98.8% of turbidity, 97.6% of TSS and 62.5% of COD removal efciency at the
optimum dosage of 0.25 kg/m3and pH of 6. While chitosan
removed 97.7% of turbidity, 91.7% of TSS and 42.70% of COD at
higher dosage of 0.37 kg/m3 [121]. Malakahmad and Chuan investigated the post-treatment of anaerobically treated POME using
metal salt (alum) as a coagulant and removed 59% of COD at the
optimum conditions (dosage: 2.124 kg/m3, contact time: 20 min,
and pH 6.4). This decreases the COD level less than the POME
discharge standard enforced by DOE [122].
Nowadays, many researchers use an environmental friendly
coagulant for the treatment of POME where the technology moves
from biological treatment to chemical treatment to improve the
efuent quality. Bhatia and coworkers developed a natural coagulant (Moringa oleifera seeds) for POME [123,124]. M. oleifera seeds
reduced a signicant amount of TSS, COD and 87% of the sludge
was recovered at pH of 5, settling time of 114 min by combining
3.469 kg/m3 of M. oleifera seeds [123]. They also found the
performance of coagulationocculation of M. oleifera seeds
extract and occulant (NALCO 7751), removed 99.3% of suspended
solids and 52.5% of COD and recovered more than 87.25% of sludge
and 50.3% of water. The coagulationocculation process showed a
better performance in the removal of SS and COD at the temperature of 30 1C with comparing of 40, 55 and 70 1C. It might be due
to the strength of macrooccule, which became weaker and easily
broke with raising the temperature [124]. Oswal used tropical
marine hydrocarbon-degrading yeast, Yarrowia lipolytica (NCIM
1272
3589) for the treatment of POME and reduced 95% of chemical

oxygen demand (COD) at HRT of 2 days. They also showed a
treatment of POME with Yarrowia was consecutively treated with
ferric chloride as occulant and reduced 99% of COD from the
original [125].
5.3.2. Electrocoagulation
Electrocoagulation (EC) is becoming an effective technology for
wastewater treatment and recovered valuable chemicals from
various industries. EC not only provides a fast rate of pollutant
removal and simplicity of operation but no chemical additive is
required, therefore, would produce fewer amounts of sludge [126].
Electrocoagulation is a denitely cost-effective and sustainable
choice to meet the discharge standards limit. Numerous EC
processes have been tested as a pre-treatment step or posttreatment step of a biological process used for the treatment
of POME [126129]. Sontaya and coworkers investigated the
efciency of an electrocoagulation process to remove the colour
and COD using a 10 L batch reactor applying iron as electrodes in
POME. They revealed that the colour and COD removal efciency
improved by the increase of current voltage and reaction time and
obtained higher COD removal efciency of 89.2% at current voltage
of 12 V, reaction time quarter hours. On the other hand, highest
colour removal efciency extended 90.4% at pH of 4, reaction time
half an hours and the same current voltage (12 V) [126]. Agustin
and his coworkers used EC for the treatment of POME in a
laboratory scale applying sodium chloride electrolyte and aluminium electrodes. EC not only reduces the turbidity (opaque to
transparent), acidity (pH 4.307.63), COD (30%) and BOD (38%) but
also diminishes heavy metals (Cr, Fe and Mn) and 50% of phenolic
compounds from POME [127]. Suwannarat and coworkers examined the ability of electrocoagulation in decreasing COD and TSS
using bench scale reactor containing two aluminium or steel plates
serving as electrodes in the treatment of POME. Aluminium
showed the higher treatment efciency than the steel as an
electrode. They removed maximum 74.1% of COD and 77.0% of
TSS at 1.3 A and contact time one day [128]. Nasution and his
coworkers also used aluminium as electrode to investigate the
production rate of hydrogen gas, removal of COD and turbidity
without using any additive or pretreatment of POME. They showed
that it removed 57% of COD and 62% of turbidity and produced 42%
of hydrogen [129]. Daud and his coworkers determined the
optimum conditions for POME using aluminium pairs as electrodes. This experiment removed up to 72.75% of COD, 96.93% of SS
and 92.79% of colour at a current density of 80 A/m2, 15 min
retention time, and pH of 4 [130]. Phalakornkulea et al. compared
EC and conventional coagulation with Al2(SO4)3 to treat the POME
and removed 72% of oil, 64% of COD, 53% of suspended solids and
43% of total solids at 20 A/m2 of current for 5 min at 40 1C and pH
of 5 [131].
5.3.3. Sedimentation and centrifugation
The suspended solid cannot be completely removed by a
normal settling. Heavy particles can settle down freely, but lighter
particles settle very gently or in some cases do not settle at all
[132]. In raising the surface of the efuent, bubbles of air or oxygen
carried out suspended solids, which are adhering to the surface.
Using a centrifuge, the suspended solids are isolated from the
liquid [133]. Some researcher showed that POME hardly settled
under gravitational force. Coagulants would be practicable and
total suspended solid showed a slight reduction on stabilizing
[134]. However, a colloidal suspension of POME would simultaneously reduce oil droplets and sediment and reduce the TSS
(100%) and COD (40%) at 10,000 rpm with little temperature (5 1C)
owing to the centrifugation [135]. Ahmed and his coworkers
studied the pretreatment methods of POME using six different

organic solvents. The results showed a signicant reduction in
turbidity from 14,080 NTU to 984 NTU and suspended solids
content effectively reduced to 0.268 kg/m3 at pH of 4, sedimentation time of 100 min and 1.5 h mixing time with 150 rpm. They
also removed residual oil from 1.089 kg/m3 to 0.054 kg/m3 at
20 min mixing time with 200 rpm and pH of 4 [132].
5.3.4. Flotation
POME is a relatively high viscous organic waste and after
prolonged standing, the thick gel-like barely settles under gravity.
Flotation methods show a favourable separation of the solids from
liquid fraction. Generally, this process removes colloids, emulsions,
suspended particles, soluble organics and even some ions from a
medium and oating to the surface with gas bubbles, discharging a
claried solution. The gas bubbles could be produced electrolytically as in electro-otation, and it has proven a cost-effective and
efcient treatment method for various industrial wastewaters
[136]. Ho and Chan used lead dioxidetitanium and stainless steel
as anode and cathode respectively for the treatment of POME
through the electro-otation process and achieved about 40% of
COD and 86% of suspended solid removal efciency at higher pH
[137]. Ng and coworkers used dissolved air otation (DAF) for the
separation of liquidsolid from POME and removed 90% of TSS and
80% of BOD at pressure of 560 kPa (81.22 psi) [133]. The DAF
process is the most commonly used otation system so far for the
treatment of industrial efuents. However, some dissimilarity
occurs to remove the TSS from POME. Ho and Tan compared the
efciency of chemical occulation and DAF process for further
treatment of anaerobically treated POME and observed DAF
process was more competent to remove the pollutants than
chemical occulation [134]. Hemming also observed that 90% of
BOD could be removed from POME by the combination of
chemical occulation and DAF [138]. Ho and Tan explained,
efciency of COD removed increased in presence of chemical
occulation before the use of DAF process and possible to remove
97% of suspended solids by these two methods [134]. Subramaniam and coworkers used colloidal gas aphrons (CGAs) to clarify
the POME and 95% of the suspended solids removed in both the
cases of POME (diluted or undiluted) [139].
5.3.5. Adsorption
POME contains a huge amount of oil and grease. The major
difculty in POME treatment is disposing the oily droplets.
Numerous physicochemical processes have been used to reduce
the residual oil from wastewater [140]. Among several physicochemical processes, adsorption is one of the unique and widely
used environmental friendly treatment method for wastewater.
Various natural and synthetic adsorbent such as chitosan, zeolite,
barley waste, coconut shell carbon, activated carbon, citrus peel,
bentonite/organo-clay and y ash have been used to remove the
heavy metals as well as oil and grease from wastewater [141].
Ahmed and his coworkers used chitosan in their various POME
experiments to remove the residual oil. In one experiment, they
removed 9799% of residual oil using chitosan dosage of 0.5 kg/
m3; 15 min mixing time with 100 rpm and pH of 5.0 [142]. Powder
chitosan showed a higher adsorption efciency than the ake and
removed about 99% of residual oil in the same condition [143].
They also compared the adsorption capacity of chitosan wth
commercial adsorbents such as bentonite and activated carbon.
Both bentonite and activated carbon showed 99% of residual oil
removal efciency, but both the adsorbents reduced up to 70 and
35 mg/l of suspended solids individually at a contact time of
30 min at 150 rpm at pH of 4.05.0 and optimum dosages of
10.0 kg/m3 and 8.0 kg/m3, settling time of 80 and 60 min
correspondingly. Whereas chitosan removes the same amount of

residual oil but reduces a minor amount of suspended solid
(0.025 kg/m3) as compared to others from POME at a lower dosage
of 0.5 g, 30 min of mixing time at 100 rpm, settling time of 30 min
and the same pH ranges [140]. They also used a synthetic
powdered rubber as a seldom adsorbent in the treatment of POME
and achieved 88% of residual oil removal efciency at the dosage of
0.0030 kg/m3 and 3 h mixing with 150 rpm at pH of 7 [144]. Both
chitosan and powdered rubber tted very well with the Freundlich
model instead of Langmuir model. Whereas Langmuir isotherm
models best tted with Shavandi experiment. Shavandi and coworkers studied the adsorption ability of natural zeolite for the
removal of heavy-metal ions, Zn (II), Mn (II) and Fe (III) from
POME. They attained maximum absorption by HCl in 69.638%,
58.575% and 61.516% of Fe, Zn and Mn, respectively [145]. They
also investigated the applicability of natural zeolite by changing
ow rate and bed height to treat the POME. The highest adsorption
of Fe, Zn and Mn were 1.466, 0.203 and 0.019 mg/g in a xed bed
column at pH of 6, 15 cm of bed height and 3 ml/min of ow rate,
while residual oil was 100 mg/g at pH of 3 and same bed height
and ow rate [141]. In another research, they used natural zeolite
to extract residue oil from POME in batch mode and achieved 70%
of residue oil removal efciency with 50 min mixing time at pH of
3.0 [146]. Kutty and coworkers used microwave incinerated rice
husk ash (MIRHA) as an adsorbent for the treatment of POME. The
highest 88% of Cu(II), 74% of Zn(II), and 88% of colour removal were
achieved at the same dosage of MIRHA (50 kg/m3) with the
contact time of 12 h, 18 h and 6 h respectively. While only 41% of
COD removal was achieved at the dosage of MIRHA (40 kg/m3) at
6 h contact time [147]. Propenoic acid modied sawdust (PAMS)
used by Osuidea in the post treatment of POME and compared the
adsorption efciency with powdered activated carbon (PAC),
before treatment with ferric chloride plus lime. They found that
PAC had a better adsorption efciency than PAMS and achieved
28.6%/g of COD, 19.1%/g of SS and 19.3%/g of colour were removed
at optimum adsorption conditions [148]. Recently, Mohammed
and Chong have evaluated the potential of natural, chemically
and thermally modied banana peel as sorbent for the treatment
of biologically treated POME. Maximum percentage removals
of colour, TSS, COD, BOD, and tannin and lignin were up to
95.96%, 100%, 100%, 97.41%, and 76.74% respectively on banana
peel activated carbon (BPAC) were obtained at optimized pH
of 2, contact time of 30 h and adsorbent dosage of 30 g/100 ml
[149].
5.3.6. Other physio-chemical methods

Hojjat and Salleh combined two processes namely acidication
pond and occulation to measure the efciency of physiochemical
and biological treatment on upstream of an anaerobic pond in
POME and showed both methods gave better pretreatment quality
to remove the total solid (TS) from POME than the ltration
method [150]. Hameed et al. [151] removed the residual oil from
POME by the used solvent extraction method and informed that oil
extraction increased with the increase of extraction time, solvent/
feed ratio and mixing rate. The percentage of oil extracted of
n-pentane, n-hexane and n-heptane were 58%, 63% and 65%
respectively for a single-stage extraction at 10 min of extraction
time, 1:1 solvent:feed ratio, 200 rpm of mixing rate while multistage systems pressed out more than 97% of residual oil and about
91%, 93% and 99% of residual oil extracted at the 4th stage using
n-pentane, n-hexane and n-heptane respectively.
Vijayaraghavan and Nalini developed an innovative POME
treatment method based on the electrochemical oxidation process.
They generated hypochlorous acid used to terminate the organic
wastes existing in the POME. The results indicated that at 2%, and
1273
3% sodium chloride content removed 90% COD and found an

energy requirement to be 32 and 17 W h/l respectively [152].
Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) could be another alternative physicalchemical treatments for POME. The common AOPs
used are UV/TiO2, UV/H2O2, UV/ Fe3 /H2O2 and O3 [153]. Fadzil
and coworkers showed the feasibility of UV/Ferrioxalate/TiO2/O3
to treat the palm oil mill secondary efuent (POMSE) and achieved
complete COD removal by two stages treatment of UV/Ferrioxalate/TiO2 system for two hours followed by UV/O3 for the next
two hours, and the physical appearance of POMSE was colourless,
while (photoferrioxalate/TiO2/O3 system) removed only 54% of
COD [153]. The Fenton oxidation process is other AOPs. Aris and
coauthors conducted a research to evaluate the feasibility of two
types of Fenton's oxidation process (Ambient-Fenton and solarFenton) in biologically treated palm oil mill efuent (BT-POME).
They showed that, the ambient-Fenton process removed 75.2% of
COD and 92.4% of colour, whereas solar-Fenton removed 82.4% of
COD and 95.1% of colour [154]. Abdullah and his coworkers used
hydrogen peroxide photolysis (UV/H2O2) process to remove the
colour and COD in the tertiary treatment of biologically treated
POME (BT-POME). They obtained maximum 61.3% of colour and
61.1% of COD removal efciency at 0.25 kg/m3 of H2O2 dosage and
pH of 7.5 [155]. Thunyalux Ratpukdi investigated the removal of
colour in anaerobically treated POME by two processes, namely,
coagulation and advanced oxidation processes. Alum coagulation
used as a pretreatment in rst process and the second process was
vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). For the
coagulation process, it reduced colour (ADMI unit) by 94.88% at
the optimum dose of alum and pH were 5 g/L and 5.67, respectively. At the end of the experiment (180 min) vacuum ultraviolet
with H2O2 could remove 95.5% of colour in ADMI unit [156].
Hydrogen peroxide shows a remarkable removal efciency of COD
from POME. Siddique and Abdul Wahid [157] observed acceleration in the removal of COD from POME in presence of hydrogen
peroxide. They showed that 1% H2O2 dose (1.0 mM Fe3 ) for 5 min
contact time was found most effective for the reduction of 98.60%,
92.61%, 70.13% 85% of COD, TOC, TN, VSS respectively from POME.
Hydrogen peroxide not only produces hydroxyl radicals in Fenton's
reaction, but also generates hydroxyl radicals upon sonication
in the absence of Fenton reagents, which further oxidizes the
organic components existing in the wastewater. Manickam et al.
[158] investigated the role of H2O2 in the uctuating patterns of
COD during the treatment of POME using triple frequency ultrasound cavitation reactor. They used two different ultrasound
systems, i.e. ultrasonic bath (37 kHz) and a hexagonal triple
frequency ultrasonic reactor (28, 40 and 70 kHz) of 15 l. They
were unable to observe clear decreasing pattern of COD by using
ultrasonic bath alone, but they observed a clear decreasing or a
non-uctuating pattern of COD for ultrasound/H2O2 combination,
and they used two different concentrations of H2O2 to distinguish
the role of ultrasound. They showed, ultrasound/H2O2 (30% w/v)
had better COD removal efciency as compared to ultrasound/
H2O2 (6% w/v) combination. They also showed that, the combination of triple frequency (28 40 70 kHz) reduced sono-chemical
COD of 0.04098 mg/l/W, which was ve times higher as compared
to without using hydrogen peroxide.
Magnetic eld-exposed techniques have increasingly drawn
attention to improving the adsorption and separation. A few of
researchers used static magnetic eld for the treatment of wastewater and most of them used this magnetic eld only for the
separation of solids or attached microorganisms from wastewater.
Mohammed and his coworkers used magnetic eld and adsorption
process to treat the biologically treated POME. They showed that,
the combined process removed 79.303%, 98.455% and 98.99% of
colour along with, TSS and COD individually. However, by applying
only adsorption process without magnetic eld, they removed
1274
Table 6
The overview of membrane treatment process.
Advantages
Excellent pollution removal

efciency.
Less costly than other separation
processes.
Smaller spaces are required. Low
energy requirements for
maintenance.
Faster start-up and plant
automation.
Treated water quality is uniform in
spite of the inuent variations.
Disadvantages
COD removal CH4/H2

efciency
compo(%)
sition (%)
Yield of CH4/
H2 m3(CH4/H2)/kg
CODrem
OLR (kg
HRT
(days or COD
/m3 d)
hrs)
Reference
Needs high maintenance.

High pressure is required in the case of reverse
osmosis (up to 6 MPa) and nanoltration (up to
2 MPa).
The wastewaters need to be pre-treated before
using membrane separation procesess.
Occurrence of membrane fouling at long solid
retention time (SRT).
Unable to treat high-suspended solids wastewater.
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
complex membrane cleaning procedure with huge volume of

cleaning reagent. In addition, the UF ceramic membrane is
expensive (10 times higher) as compared to the UF polymeric
membrane. Ahmed and his co-workers examined three designs
and evaluated their performance and cost for the treatment of
POME. Their chosen reverse osmosis (RO) polymeric membranes
(Design C) was the best design for POME treatment on the basis
treatment cost. They showed that all the designs met the efuent
discharge standards prescribed by the DOE and achieved 70%
water recovered efciency. The concentrations of total nitrogen
(TN), ammoniacal nitrogen, suspended solids (SS), oil and grease in
the recovered water for all the designs were well below the
maximum permissible limit set by DOE but the concentration of
BOD was well below the maximum standard discharge limit for
Design C with the other designs. [180].
6. Future development and conclusion

Palm oil industry is an unquestionable birthplace of pollution
in the palm oil processing country. The anaerobic pond is the
common method to treat the POME due to its low cost. It is not
only wasting enormous amounts of valuable end products, but
also triggering hostile effects to the environment owing to
uncontrolled releases of CH4 and CO2 gas to cause global warming.
Numerous physicochemical treatment processes have been used in
bench or pilot scale to treat the POME, but no one process could be
used alone on a commercial scale because of the huge volume of
adsorbents and coagulants necessary. As a result, the entire
treatment is impractical and uneconomic. Generating bio-gas is
tough, whereas the upow anaerobic sludge-xed lm (UASFF)
reactor is a protable system for the treatment of POME as it
produces higher amounts of bio-gas such as biomethane and
biohydrogen as well as valuable end products compared to other
available anaerobic, aerobic and physiochemical treatment methods. However, it is unable to discharge crystal clear efuent.
For discharging a higher quality efuent, we will assume an
integrated system for POME treatment, anaerobic UASFF reactor, as
the rst stage and membrane separation processes as the next stage.
In rst biological stage, not only will organic wastes be changed into
bio-gas, but also produces high strength efuent through the
handling of a wider range of OLR at short HRT. This stage would
also improve the membrane fouling and extending the membrane
life time. In the membrane treatment unit, the ultraltration (UF)
membrane could reduce most of the suspended solid materials from
the rst biological stage. However, it removes dissolved solids or
inorganic salts, which will be segregated by the reverse osmosis (RO)
membrane. After the entire treatment procedures, we will be able to
get a crystal clear efuent, and to recover higher percentages of
water that could be used as boiler feedwater and utilize the
recovered bio-gas for the creation of heat or electricity in the mill
to reduce operating costs and global warming. In such a way, the
efuent will be environmentally sustainable.
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.
[35] Mustapha S, Ashhuby B, Rashid M, Azni I. Start-up strategy of a thermophilic

upow anaerobic lter for treating palm oil mill efuent. Process Saf Environ
Prot: Trans Inst Chem Eng Part B 2003;81:2626.
[36] Bodkhe S. Development of an improved anaerobic lter for municipal
wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:2226.
[37] Parawira W, Murto M, Zvauya R, Mattiasson B. Comparative performance of a
UASB reactor and an anaerobic packed-bed reactor when treating potato
waste leachate. Renew Energy. 2006;31:893903.
[38] Jawed M, Tare V. Post-mortem examination and analysis of anaerobic lters.
Bioresour Technol 2000;72:7584.
[39] Borja R, Banks CJ. Comparison of an anaerobic lter and an anaerobic
uidized bed reactor treating palm oil mill efuent. Process Biochem
1995;30:51121.
[40] Chaisri R, Boonsawang P, Prasertsan P, Chaiprapat S. Effect of organic loading
rate on methane and volatile fatty acids productions from anaerobic
treatment of palm oil mill efuent in UASB and UFAF reactors. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 2007;29:31123.
[41] Quarmby J, Forster CF. A comparative study of the structure of thermophilic
and mesophilic anaerobic granules. Enzyme Microb Technol 1995;17:4938.
[42] Atif AAY, Fakhru'l-Razi A, Ngan MA, Morimoto M, Iyuke SE, Veziroglu NT. Fed
batch production of hydrogen from palm oil mill efuent using anaerobic
microora. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:13937.
[43] Rittman BE, McCarty PL. Environmental biotechnology: principles & applications. USA: McGrawHill, Inc.; 2001.
[44] Switzenbaum MS, Jewell WJ. Anaerobic attached-lm expanded-bed reactor
treatment. J (Water Pollut Control Fed) 1980;52:195365.
[45] Mamun AA, Idris A. Treatment of POME by pilot plant anaerobic uidised
bed reactor. IIUM Eng J 2009:9.
[46] Sowmeyan R, Swaminathan G. Evaluation of inverse anaerobic uidized bed
reactor for treating high strength organic wastewater. Bioresour Technol
2008;99:387780.
[47] Alvarado-Lassman A, Rustrin E, Garca-Alvarado MA, Rodrguez-Jimnez GC,
Houbron E. Brewery wastewater treatment using anaerobic inverse uidized
bed reactors. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:300915.
[48] Hawkes FR, Donnelly T, Anderson GK. Comparative performance of anaerobic
digesters operating on ice-cream wastewater. Water Res 1995;29:52533.
[49] Ahmed M, Idris A. Effects of organic loading on performance of aerobic
uidized using diluted palm oil mill efuent. Suranaree J Sci Technol
2006;13:299306.
[50] Tiwari M, Guha S, Harendranath CS, Tripathi S. Inuence of extrinsic factors
on granulation in UASB reactor. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2006;71:14554.
[51] Chong S, Sen TK, Kayaalp A, Ang HM. The performance enhancements of
upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge
treatment a state-of-the-art review. Water Res 2012;46:343470.
[52] Lettinga G, van Velsen AFM, Hobma SW, de Zeeuw W, Klapwijk A. Use of the
upow sludge blanket (USB) reactor concept for biological wastewater treatment,
especially for anaerobic treatment. Biotechnol Bioeng 1980;22:699734.
[53] Lettinga G, Hulshoff Pol LW. USAB-process design for various types of
wastewaters. Water Sci Technol 1991;24:87107.
[54] Beccari M, Bonemazzi F, Majone M, Riccardi C. Interaction between acidogenesis and methanogenesis in the anaerobic treatment of olive oil mill
efuents. Water Res 1996;30:1839.
[55] El-Mamouni R, Leduc R, Guiot SR. Inuence of the starting microbial nucleus
type on the anaerobic granulation dynamics. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
1997;47:18994.
[56] Hickey RF, Wu WM, Veiga MC, Jones R. Start-up, operation, monitoring and
control of high-rate anaerobic treatment systems. Water Sci Technol
1991;24:20755.
[57] Borja R, Banks CJ. Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill efuent using an upow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biomass Bioenergy 1994;6:3819.
[58] Miyamoto K. Renewable biological systems for alternative sustainable
energy production FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations; 1997.
[59] Torkian A, Eqbali A, Hashemian SJ. The effect of organic loading rate on the
performance of UASB reactor treating slaughterhouse efuent. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2003;40:111.
[60] Shin H-S, Bae B-U, Oh S-E. Preservation characteristics of anaerobic granular
sludge. Biotechnol Lett 1993;15:53742.
[61] Basri MF, Yacob S, Hassan MA, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Zakaria MR, et al.
Improved biogas production from palm oil mill efuent by a scaled-down
anaerobic treatment process. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;26:50514.
[62] Ahmad A, Ghufran R, Abd Wahid Z. Role of calcium oxide in sludge
granulation and methanogenesis for the treatment of palm oil mill efuent
using UASB reactor. J Hazard Mater 2011;198:408.
[63] Ismail I, Hassan MA, Abdul Rahman NA, Soon CS. Thermophilic biohydrogen
production from palm oil mill efuent (POME) using suspended mixed
culture. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:427.
[64] Badiei M, Jahim JM, Anuar N, Sheikh Abdullah SR. Effect of hydraulic
retention time on biohydrogen production from palm oil mill efuent in
anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:59129.
[65] Prasertsan P, O-Thong S, Birkeland NK. Optimization and microbial community analysis for production of biohydrogen from palm oil mill efuent by
thermophilic fermentative process. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:744859.
[66] Singh L, Siddiqui MF, Ahmad A, Rahim MHA, Sakinah M, Wahid ZA.
Application of polyethylene glycol immobilized Clostridium sp. LS2 for
[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]
continuous hydrogen production from palm oil mill efuent in upow

anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biochem Eng J 2013;70:15865.
Singh L, Wahid ZA, Siddiqui MF, Ahmad A, Ab. Rahim MH, Sakinah M.
Application of immobilized upow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor using
Clostridium LS2 for enhanced biohydrogen production and treatment
efciency of palm oil mill efuent. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:
22219.
Ahmad A, Ghufran R, Abd. Wahid Z. Effect of cod loading rate on an upow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor during anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill
efuent with butyrate. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 2012;20:25664.
Zoutberg GR, de Been P. The Biobeds EGSB (Expanded Granular Sludge Bed)
system covers shortcomings of the upow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
in the chemical industry. Water Sci Technol 1997;35:1837.
Yang Z, Wu D, Tian G, Sheng Q. A review on the application of expanded
granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor. Technol Water Treat 2011;37:510.
Van Lier JB. High-rate anaerobic wastewater treatment: diversifying from
end-of-the-pipe treatment to resource-oriented conversion techniques.
Water Sci Technol 2008;57:113748.
Chou HH, Huang JS, Jheng JH, Ohara R. Inuencing effect of intra-granule
mass transfer in expanded granular sludge-bed reactors treating an inhibitory substrate. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:340310.
Zhang Y, Yan L, Chi L, Long X, Mei Z, Zhang Z. Startup and operation of
anaerobic EGSB reactor treating palm oil mill efuent. J Environ Sci
2008;20:65863.
Frankin RJ. Full-scale experiences with anaerobic treatment of industrial
wastewater. Water Sci Technol 2001;44:16.
Fang C, O-Thong S, Boe K, Angelidaki I. Comparison of UASB and EGSB
reactors performance, for treatment of raw and deoiled palm oil mill efuent
(POME). J Hazard Mater 2011;189:22934.
McCarty PL. In: Anaerobic Digestion, Hughes DE, Stafford DA, Wheatley BI,
Baader W, Lettinga G, Nyns EJ, Verstraete W, Wentworth RL, editors. One
hundred years of anaerobic treatment. B.V., Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical
Press; 1982. p. 321.
Barber WP, Stuckey DC. The use of the anaerobic bafed reactor (ABR) for
wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res 1999;33:155978.
Grobicki A, Stuckey DC. Performance of the anaerobic bafed reactor under
steady-state and shock loading conditions. Biotechnol Bioeng 1991;37:
34455.
Wang J, Huang Y, Zhao X. Performance and characteristics of an anaerobic
bafed reactor. Bioresour Technol 2004;93:2058.
Bachmann A, Beard VL, McCarty PL. Performance characteristics of the
anaerobic bafed reactor. Water Res 1985;19:99106.
Faisal M, Unno H. Kinetic analysis of palm oil mill wastewater treatment by a
modied anaerobic bafed reactor. Biochem Eng J 2001;9:2531.
Setiadi T, Husaini, Djajadiningrat A. Palm oil mill efuent treatment by
anaerobic bafed reactors: recycle effects and biokinetic parameters. Water
Sci Technol 1996;34:5966.
Arizwan AA. Application of anaerobic bafed reactor (abr) for treatment of
raw palm oil mill efuent (POME). Universiti Teknologi Petronas; 2011.
Mahvi AH. Sequencing batch reactor: a promising technology in wastewater
treatment. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 2008;5:7990.
O-Thong S, Prasertsan P, Intrasungkha N, Dhamwichukorn S, Birkeland N-K.
Improvement of biohydrogen production and treatment efciency on palm
oil mill efuent with nutrient supplementation at thermophilic condition
using an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Enzyme Microb Technol
2007;41:58390.
O-Thong S, Prasertsan P, Intrasungkha N, Dhamwichukorn S, Birkeland N-K.
Optimization of simultaneous thermophilic fermentative hydrogen production
and COD reduction from palm oil mill efuent by Thermoanaerobacterium-rich
sludge. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:122131.
Fun CW, Haq MRU, Kutty SRM. Treatment of palm oil mill efuent using
biological sequencing batch reactor system. In: Proceedings of the 4th
international conference on river basin management, 2325 May 2007.
Kos; Greece. Code 71372: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment; 2007.
Tong SL, Jaafar AB. POME Biogas capture, upgrading and utilization. Palm Oil
Eng Bull 2006;78:117.
Ugoji EO. Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill efuent and its utilization as
fertilizer for environmental protection. Renew Energy 1997;10:2914.
Poh PE, Chong MF. Biomethanation of Palm Oil Mill Efuent (POME) with a
thermophilic mixed culture cultivated using POME as a substrate. Chem Eng
J 2010;164:14654.
Irvan I, Trisakti B, Wongistani V, Tomiuchi Y. Methane emission from
digestion of palm oil mill efuent (POME) in a thermophilic anaerobic
reactor. Int J Sci Eng 2012;3:325.
Choorit W, Wisarnwan P. Effect of temperature on the anaerobic digestion of
palm oil mill efuent. Electron J Biotechnol 2007:10 ([online] Available from
Internet).
Yusoff MZM, Abdul Rahman N, Abd-Aziz S, Ling CM, Hassan MA, Shirai Y. The
effect of hydraulic retention time and volatile fatty acids on biohydrogen
production from palm oil mill efuent under non-sterile condition. Aust J
Basic Appl Sci 2010;4:57787.
Wong Y-S, Teng T-T, Ong S-A, Norhashimah M, Rafatullah M, Leong J-Y.
Methane gas production from palm oil wastewateran anaerobic methanogenic degradation process in continuous stirrer suspended closed anaerobic
reactor. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2014:45.
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.
[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.
[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.

Production of Biogas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Production of Biogas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Production of biogas and performance evaluation of existing treatment

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

Nonetheless, several treatment methods executed in bench scales

2. Characteristics of palm oil mill efuent (POME)

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

nitrogenous compounds, free organic acids and carbohydrates [11]. It

Propenoic acid modied sawdust

matters such as lignin (4700 ppm), phenolics (5800 ppm), pectin

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L)

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

3. Regulatory standards for palm oil mill efuent

Type or age of fruit, different efuent treatment processing system

Empty fruit bunches

Fiber for boiler fuel

Crude palm oil (CPO)

Shells for boiler fuel

4. Process description of palm oil mill process and sources of

The most usual palm oil extracting process in Malaysia from

Fig. 1. Flow diagram in a typical palm oil extraction process.

Concentration range (mg/L)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L)

Value of ltered sample.

1/1/1984 and thereafter

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

and the explanations of different stages are in the subsequent

4.6. Separation of kernels and drying

5. The treatment or digestion processes

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

Cheap, simple design, stable and

Large areas of land are required.

Deterioration of the bed structure

Rates of organic loading are high at

Oxygen distribution system, biolm

Highly dependent on the ability of sludge

Elimination of particulate organic matter

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

Higher methane yield and easy

Satisfactory recycling is wanted for

Nutrient supplementation is needed for

Separation between treated efuent and

Deoiled palm oil mill efuent (POME)

[26,27]. A lower depth of around 0.51.0 m is necessary for aerobic

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

inuenced methane emission in anaerobic ponds [28]. However,

5.1.2. Anaerobic ltration

production rate and yield of biogas were 1.16 10 3 m3 d 1 and

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

used in another test and highest production rate of hydrogen was

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

5.1.9. Up-ow anaerobic sludge xed-lm (UASFF) reactor

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

High biochemical oxygen demand removal

OLR (kg Reference

Some organics cannot be efciently disintegrated aerobically because of

organic matter) and biological treatment (mostly biomass) of

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

conditions as against thermophilic conditions. They improved

states and proved that, direct occulation method considerably

Y. Ahmed et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 12601278

3589) for the treatment of POME and reduced 95% of chemical