Review of Removal of Fats, Oil and

Greases from Effluents from Meat

Processing Plants

Prepared by:

Neil McPhail
CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Sciences

Date Submitted:

21 May 2014

Date Published:

March 2015

Published by:

Australian Meat Processor Corporation

Acknowledgements
The project was undertaken by CSIRO and funded by the Australian Water Recycling Centre
of Excellence under the Commonwealths National Urban Water and Desalination Plan.
Further information: www.csiro.au and www.australianwaterrecycling.com.au

Disclaimer
This publication is published by the Australian Meat Processor Corporation Ltd ABN 67 082
373 448. Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication.
However, AMPC cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the
information or opinions contained in this publication.
No part of this work may be reproduced, copied, published, communicated or adapted in any
form or by any means (electronic or otherwise) without the express written permission of
Australian Meat Processor Corporation Ltd. All rights are expressly reserved. Requests for
further authorisation should be directed to the Company Secretary, AMPC, Suite 1, Level 5,
110 Walker Street Sydney NSW.
For further information please contact AMPC on 02 8908 5500 or admin@ampc.com.au

Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 2

Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 5

1
2
3

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 6
Value of fat ................................................................................................................................ 8
Primary treatment to reduce wastewater fat levels ................................................. 9

3.1

Screening ........................................................................................................................... 9

3.4

Physico-chemical treatment.....................................................................................10

3.2
3.3

3.5
3.6

Saveall ...............................................................................................................................10
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) ...................................................................................10
Hydrocyclones ...............................................................................................................10
Electrocoagulation .......................................................................................................11

Anaerobic treatment ...........................................................................................................11

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

The anaerobic digestion of FOG ..............................................................................11

Operational issues with anaerobic digestion of FOG ......................................12

Effect of FOG level on digestion ..............................................................................13
Pre-treatment technologies......................................................................................14

4.4.1

Saponification........................................................................................................15

4.4.4

Ultrasound ..............................................................................................................16

4.4.2
4.4.3

4.4.5

Thermal hydrolysis .............................................................................................15

Enzyme hydrolysis ..............................................................................................15

Combination pre-treatments ..........................................................................17

Digester configuration ........................................................................................................18

5.1
5.2
5.3

Two-phase digestion ...................................................................................................18

Temperature-phased digestion ..............................................................................19

Inverted anaerobic sludge blanket ........................................................................19

Conclusions and recommendations ..............................................................................20

Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................22

References ........................................................................................................................................23

Figures
Figure 1: Covered anaerobic lagoon (Courtesy A.J. Bush & Sons) ................................ 7
Figure 2: First full-scale inverted anaerobic sludge blanket reactor in Portugal
(from Picavet & Alves, 2013).....................................................................................................20

Tables

Table 1: Range in concentration of contaminants in combined wastewater

streams from three Australian abattoirs ................................................................................ 6
Table 2: Potential biogas production from different classes of substrates
(adapted from Alves et al 2009) .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3: Value of 1 kg of fat recovered at different stages of the process ................. 9
Table 4: Summary of treatments to reduce fat levels ......................................................11
Table 5: Summary of pre-treatments to anaerobic digestion of oily wastewaters
...............................................................................................................................................................18

Executive Summary
The potentially high fat content of effluent from meat processing plants can
lead to treatment issues in covered anaerobic lagoons such as extended
digestion times, scum formation and inhibition of methane production. In most
cases, keeping the fat out of the water and processing it in the existing on-site
rendering plant provides the meat processor with the best return. Gross fat
particles are difficult to digest and should either be prevented from entering
the anaerobic system or removed by screening and flotation. Otherwise they
are likely to float to the surface of the lagoon and form a scum or crust.
A range of pre-treatments to anaerobic digestion to reduce the effects of fat
have been investigated by researchers. These pre-treatments which include
saponification, thermal and enzymatic hydrolysis and homogenisation by
ultrasound appear to offer limited benefit at considerable added processing
cost.
Two-stage anaerobic treatment with a separate vessel or pond for the initial
hydrolysis and acidogenesis may offer benefits for the treatment of high-fat
wastewaters and further investigation under Australian conditions is
warranted. New high-rate anaerobic systems are also being developed in
Europe to specifically handle high-fat wastewaters. The long-term
performance of the recently developed inverted anaerobic sludge blanket
(IASB) reactor should be monitored.
Laboratory trials should be undertaken to determine the effects of different fat
levels in abattoir effluent on anaerobic digestion to address a lack of basic
data on the performance of anaerobic treatment of wastewater from
Australian meat processing plants. These should be complemented by
continued investigations of the performance of existing and new covered
anaerobic lagoons.

Introduction

Liquid effluent from meat processing plants is variable in nature depending on

the processes taking place within the abattoir and can be highly contaminated
with organic material. A survey of wastewater streams in three Australian
plants processing beef and sheep by Jensen & Batstone (2012) found wide
variations in levels of contaminants between different streams within the
plants and different plants. Table 1 shows the ranges for the combined
streams for the three plants.
Table 1: Range in concentration of contaminants in combined wastewater streams from three
Australian abattoirs

Parameter
Total COD
Soluble COD
Total solids
Oil & grease
N
P

Range (mg/L)
9,600 12,900
890 1,970
4,300 8,400
790 3,350
230 260
30 50

They found the rendering plant to be the major contributor of oil and grease
(O&G) in the effluent, with the rendering stickwater containing 5,500 to 6,000
mg/L O&G which contributes up to 1,900 kg per day to fat, oil and grease
(FOG) in the wastewater. This is equivalent to approximately 14.5 kg FOG per
tonne hot standard carcase weight (tHSCW).
Due to high levels of BOD and nutrients, abattoir effluent must be treated to
varying extents prior to disposal to sewer, land irrigation or waterways. Green
(1992) stated that anaerobic treatment is ideal for meatworks effluent because
it has a high BOD, nutrients and a high temperature of up to 40C. Anaerobic
systems are more cost effective than aerobic treatment as there is no aeration
cost, less sludge is produced and there is the potential to produce a
combustible fuel, methane, as a major end product (Greenfield & Johns
1992). Anaerobic ponds or lagoons have been used as the first stage of the
secondary treatment of abattoir effluent for many years in Australia and have
been preferred over high-rate anaerobic digestion systems due to simplicity of
operation, land availability, the Australian climate and their inherent stability.
Although anaerobic ponds were initially uncovered, covered anaerobic
lagoons (CALs - Figure 1) are becoming increasingly common for several
reasons. Uncovered anaerobic ponds however, have one significant problem:
they can emit considerable odour, particularly during commissioning (Green
1992). Historically, the meat industry has relied on the crust formed from
floating solids and FOG to reduce odours (White et al 2013) but this is not
generally sufficient to satisfy current environmental demands and urban
6

development that may have encroached on meat plants. For these reasons,
plus the ability to capture methane and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and the improved durability and affordability of polymeric covers, most plants
are covering existing ponds or installing new CALs.

Figure 1: Covered anaerobic lagoon (Courtesy A.J. Bush & Sons)

The practice of allowing a crust to form is not desirable for efficient and
effective operation of a CAL, since the floating crust poses a risk to the
integrity of the cover and the biogas capture system (White et al 2013). The
layering of recalcitrant fats within the digester also limits the solid-liquid
contact area required for efficient conversion to biogas. For these reasons,
and others further discussed in Section 4.2, effective primary treatment of the
wastewater is essential to break down FOG into a dispersed and useable
form or to ensure removal of excess FOG and solids.
Despite the issues that FOG can lead to with anaerobic digestion, lipids are
an ideal substrate for methane production, since their degradation produces
more biogas with higher methane content than the degradation of proteins
and carbohydrates does (Table 2).

Table 2: Potential biogas production from different classes of substrates (adapted from Alves et al
2009)

Component
Lipids
Carbohydrates
Proteins

Biogas (L/g)
1.425
0.830
0.921

Methane (%)
69.5
50.0
68.8

Jensen & Batstone (2012) also measured the biochemical methane potential
of the different streams from the abattoirs surveyed and found that the
rendering stream with the high FOG level of 6,000 mg/L provided the highest
methane potential of about 650 L/kg VS added.
This review aims to present the current knowledge on the effect of FOG
content of wastewater on the operation and performance of anaerobic
treatment systems and techniques available to optimise operation and biogas
production.

Value of fat

Waste fat from the meat processing industry is a potentially valuable byproduct and can be recovered at basically three stages of the process:
1. Collection from the processing areas and rendered to produce a highgrade tallow;
2. Recovery from the wastewater primary treatment and processed to
produce a low-grade tallow; and
3. Conversion to methane in an anaerobic digestion system.
A 1% FFA (free fatty acid) tallow produced from fresh fat was valued at $900
per tonne in January 2014 (MLA 2014). Tallow produced from fat that has had
prolonged contact with water will have a much higher FFA and hence lower
sale value. Saveall tallow produced from saveall or DAF float may have a
FFA of 10 40% and a value of about $750 per tonne (W. Spooncer pers.
comm. Feb. 2014).
If the fat in the effluent is allowed to flow to the anaerobic lagoon and is fully
converted to biogas it could have a significant value. When anaerobically
digested, one gram of fat can produce 1.425 L of biogas at 69.5% methane
(Alves et al 2009). Therefore 1 kg of fat in the wastewater could produce 0.99
m3 of CH 4 with a net heating value of 35 MJ/m3. If this is used on the plant to
replace natural gas priced at 1.5 to 2 c per MJ, the value of a kilogram of fat
could be $0.52 to $0.69 ($520 - $690 per tonne). Table 3 shows a summary of
estimated potential sale values of fat recovered at each of these stages of the
process (the cost of processing must be deducted).
8

Table 3: Value of 1 kg of fat recovered at different stages of the process

Process stage
Freshly rendered fat
Primary effluent treatment
Covered anaerobic lagoon

Form
1% FFA tallow
Saveall tallow
Methane

Value ($/kg fat)

0.90
0.75
0.52 0.69

In most cases, keeping the fat out of the water and processing it in the
existing on-site rendering plant provides the meat processor with the best
return. However, if the fat can be anaerobically digested without detrimental
effect to the process, the value of the methane produced may be greater than
the net value of a low-grade tallow.

Primary treatment to reduce wastewater fat levels

The main aim of primary treatment is to remove coarse suspended solids, oil
and grease and recover solids and fat for treatment and sale. Fat and other
recovered solids can be processed in the rendering plant to produce meat
meal and tallow. Fine fat particles and emulsified fat, oil and grease will need
to be reduced by other means. The performance of this first stage of
wastewater treatment will have an effect on the operation of the next stage
and the quality of the discharged effluent (Husband 1992). The options
available for primary treatment are discussed below.

3.1 Screening
Screening is normally the first stage and aims to remove solid material
including fat particles from the wastewater. It is desirable to separate the
fat-laden and non fat-laden streams, at least until after they have been
screened (Husband 1992) as paunch (stomach contents) and manure
recovered from the low-fat green stream will have a different disposal
route to the fat and protein solids. A range of screen types have been
developed and some that are successfully used in the meat processing
industry are (MLA 2007):

Static and vibrating screens: Static screens are normally of wedge

wire, while vibrating screens are of woven wire. Both of these
screen types are more suited to manure-laden streams as they can
be blinded by fat particles.
Rotary screens: Cylindrical rotary screens are usually of wedge wire
with the liquid entering in the centre and the solids discharged at
the other end. They are more suited to fatty effluents than other
screen types.

Screw press: Several designs of screw press are available which

combine a screen with a screw auger to de-water solids. These are
suited to fibrous material such as manure and paunch solids.
Other screening arrangements such as the Baleen Filter have also
been successfully applied to a fatty wastewater stream.

The above screening processes will remove most of the gross fat particles.

3.2 Saveall
A saveall is the traditional settling tank which allows suspended fat to rise
to the surface to be recovered whilst the heavier solids sinks. A minimum
residence time of 30 minutes is recommended (MINTRAC 2012) but
elevated effluent temperatures will reduce efficiency (MLA 2007). A welldesigned and managed saveall will recover 85% of the fat in the effluent
stream (Husband 1992).

3.3 Dissolved air flotation (DAF)

DAF normally involves pressurisation of a portion of the wastewater
stream by air injection. The release of the pressurised stream in a circular
or rectangular tank, results in the release of micro-bubbles of air which
carry fat and lighter solid particles to the surface where they can be
recovered. A well-designed DAF can recover in excess of 90% of the fat
(Husband 1992) but removal efficiencies can be poor when the water
temperature is above 39C (MLA 2007). DAF units can also be fitted with
parallel plates to increase the separation surface and enhance
performance.

3.4 Physico-chemical treatment

The effluent stream feeding a DAF can be dosed with chemicals or
polymers to coagulate solids to improve removal efficiency. Oil and grease
removal efficiencies of 89-98% have been reported (Johns 1995). This
process results in large quantities of float which must either be further
processed or disposed of and the use of chemicals greatly increases the
operating cost (MINTRAC 2012).

3.5 Hydrocyclones
Hydrocyclones use centrifugal force to separate solids and fat from water.
Originally designed for the oil and mining industries, hydrocyclones have a
small footprint and retention time and no moving parts (MLA 2007).
Hydrocyclones remove 40-90% of oil and grease and are a capital costeffective method compared with other technologies (GHD 2003).
10

3.6 Electrocoagulation
The wastewater is passed across iron and aluminium electrode plates
supplied with a DC current which solubilises metal ions promoting
coagulation and flocculation of the organic material which is subsequently
separated in a downstream unit (Tetreault 2003). Oil and grease
separation efficiencies of 90 95% were achieved when treating rendering
stickwater.
A summary of FOG removal efficiencies for primary treatment technologies is
presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary of treatments to reduce fat levels

Process
Screens

FOG removal
Gross fat particles

Saveall

Up to 85%

DAF

~90%

Physico-chemical

89 98%

Hydrocyclones

40 90%

Electrocoagulation

90 95%

Comments
Careful screen selection
needed
for
fatty
wastewater
to
avoid
blockage.
High
temperatures
reduce efficiency.
Reduced efficiency when
temperature above 39C.
High chemical cost and
large sludge volumes.
Vulnerable to blockage
from fine solids and fat.
Unproven with dilute
high-volume streams

Anaerobic treatment
4.1 The anaerobic digestion of FOG
During anaerobic digestion, lipids are first hydrolysed to glycerol and free
long chain fatty acids (LCFAs) (Cirne et al 2007, Pittaway 2011). Glycerol
is converted to acetate by acidogenesis, while the LCFAs are degraded
anaerobically via the -oxidation pathway to acetate and hydrogen, which
are subsequently converted to methane (methanogenesis). The following
reaction expresses the degradation of LCFAs via the -oxidation pathway:
CH 3 (CH 2 ) n COOH + 2H 2 O -> CH 3 (CH 2 ) n-2 COOH + CH 3 COOH + 2H 2
(Kim et al 2004)
The greatest reduction of COD occurs when the methanogens convert
hydrogen and volatile fatty acids into methane and carbon dioxide
(Pittaway 2011).
11

Anaerobic digestion can occur in the mesophilic temperature range of 3040C or in the thermophilic range (55-75C). Li et al (2013) demonstrated
higher biogas production and degradation of organics when digesting FOG
with primary sludge at 55C than at the mesophilic temperature of 37C.
When Gannoun et al (2009) compared thermophilic digestion of abattoir
wastewater with mesophilic digestion in an anaerobic filter they achieved
higher COD removal and biogas yield under thermophilic conditions.
However supplementary heating is required to maintain thermophilic
conditions.
A study of covered and uncovered anaerobic lagoons treating abattoir
wastewater found a FOG removal rate of 94.7% and 92.8% respectively
(UNSW, 1998). A mass balance found that of the 94.7% of the FOG
removed in the CAL, 25.9% accumulated in the scum layer, 0.4% in the
sludge and the remaining 68.4% was most likely converted to biogas. In
the uncovered pond, 41.4% accumulated in the scum layer, 2.5% in the
sludge and the remaining 56.1% was converted. The scum layer was a
significant contributor to the FOG removal from the wastewater but as it
thickens, a reduction in the effective volume of the lagoon would occur
over time.

4.2 Operational issues with anaerobic digestion of FOG

Alves et al (2009) reported two main issues with anaerobic treatment of
wastewaters containing FOG: (i) sludge flotation and biomass washout
due to the adsorption of lipids/LCFA on the biomass, and (ii) inhibition of
the acetogenic bacteria and methanogenic archaea by LCFA. In a review,
Long et al (2012) reported that anaerobic digestion of high-lipid wastes
causes inhibition of acetoclastic and methanogenic bacteria, substrate and
product transport limitation, sludge flotation, digester foaming, blockages
of pipes and pumps, and clogging of gas collection and handling systems.
Other researchers also report inhibition of methane generation due to lipid
levels in the waste, but most of these studies relate to high-rate digestion
systems, such as the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB). Sayed et
al (1988) found that the protein fraction of slaughterhouse wastewater
degraded more efficiently than the fats fraction. During laboratory trials
using a slaughterhouse wastewater with 50-100 mg/L fat, at a process
temperature of 30C, 45.5 to 47% of the fat was degraded compared with
87% of the protein. They recommended that a good fat separator be
installed to prevent excessive scum layers in the reactor.
Based on tests with a model waste, Cirne et al (2007) reported inhibition of
methane production but only with lipid content over about 30% of COD.
They reported an initial lag phase of 6-10 days attributed to the rapid buildup of VFA and/or LCFA. However even with a high lipid content of 47% of
COD, the process was able to recover and produce close to 100%
methane recovery. Masse et al (2003) treated slaughterhouse waste
12

containing pork fat particles of 60 m to 450 m and found that larger fat
particles seemed to inhibit methane production.
When treating abattoir wastewater in a covered anaerobic lagoon (CAL),
fat in the effluent can lead to the development of a crust which may
damage the cover (MINTRAC 2012). In the evaluation of a CAL treating
abattoir wastewater with an influent O&G level of 1,125 mg/L, UNSW
(1998) noticed that the thickness of the scum layer fluctuated, indicating
that equilibrium may have been reached. White et al (2013) also noted the
formation of a scum layer under the cover within 2 months of
commissioning a CAL treating abattoir wastewater with 156 mg/L FOG.
After 6 months, the scum was evident under the cover for the first 9 metres
of the inlet, but had thinned towards the outlet end. It was expected to
disappear as the pond settled into normal operation.
In a New Zealand CAL operating for 7 years treating wastewater from an
abattoir and rendering plant, solid fat has accumulated under about 25% of
the area of the cover at the inlet end (A. van Oostrom, pers. comm.
February 2014). There was little or no pre-treatment to reduce fat other
than the use of a waste heat evaporator in the rendering plant for
stickwater solids recovery and the fat accumulation has raised the cover
by 100-200 mm but has possibly reached a steady state.

4.3 Effect of FOG level on digestion

Ambiguity remains as to the maximum loadings of FOG that can be
managed within anaerobic digesters. Several factors can influence the
effective levels of FOG, including temperature (mesophilic versus
thermophilic) and the specific composition of the wastewater, including the
method of pre-treatment. In a review of waste lipids to energy, Alves et al
(2009) stated that in general, hydrolysis of fats and oils to glycerol and
LCFA proceeds rapidly in anaerobic processes, resulting in accumulation
of LCFA in wastewater. If the rate of hydrolysis is higher than the rate of
methanogenesis, excess LCFAs may accumulate. This could lead to an
increase in the lag phase in methanogenic activity (Long et al (2012).
Shock loading of LCFAs may also severely retard the anaerobic digestion
process.
During laboratory tests with a UASB reactor, Hwu et al (1998) determined
that sludge flotation occurred when the LCFA concentration reached 263
mg/L which was far below the minimum concentration for inhibition of
methanogenesis of 401 mg/L reported by Yuan (1995) (cited by Hwu et al
(1998)). Therefore deterioration of the UASB process by LCFA adsorption
and subsequent sludge washout is likely to occur prior to inhibition of the
methanogenic organisms.

13

Vidal et al (2000) carried out anaerobic biodegradability tests on dairy

wastewaters with fat contents ranging from 4 mg/L to 2,890 mg/L. They
concluded that although biodegradation of fat-rich wastewaters was slower
than that of fat-poor wastewater, due to the slower rate of the fat
hydrolysis step, this avoids the accumulation of VFA and the overall
process is favoured. The intermediates of fat degradation (glycerol and
LCFA) seem not to reach concentrations high enough to affect the
anaerobic process.
During anaerobic digestion at 25C, Masse et al (2002) found that pork fat
particle size ranging from 60 to 450 m had no significant effect on the
rate of fat hydrolysis. At an average fat level of about 725 mg/L, they
concluded that hydrolysis pre-treatment should not substantially accelerate
anaerobic treatment.
In anaerobic digestion tests of wastewater from a dairy factory, Kim and
Shin (2010) used lipid concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 6.1 g COD/L.
They found that as the lipid concentration was increased, the lag-phase
time for secondary methane production increased. They suggested that
the long lag time was due to the diffusion limitations imposed by the lipid
layer surrounding the bacterial cells. However the accumulated lipids were
eventually converted to methane within 50 days, even at the highest
concentration of 6.1 g COD/L.
Cirne et al (2007) also found that a model waste with a high lipid content of
up to 47% w/w COD basis could be digested, although a lag phase of 60
days was observed before commencement of significant methane
production.
In a review of anaerobic co-digestion of FOG, Long et al (2012) noted that
most of the tests of inhibition of methane production by fatty wastes have
been performed on samples of pure free fatty acids which may not be
representative of an industrial waste. Laboratory and pilot-scale
experimental tests are needed to determine the effect a mixture of oil,
grease, fat, food solids and detergents on methane production. More data
is also needed to identify optimum reactor conditions such as percent FOG
loading, solids retention time, and reactor configuration.

4.4 Pre-treatment technologies

Researchers have studied the effects of different pre-treatments and
additives to the waste to enhance the digestibility of fat, oil and grease in
anaerobic systems. Pre-treatment technologies which aim to improve
digestion of FOG and improve biogas yield include:

Saponification
Hydrolysis

14

Enzymatic hydrolysis
Ultrasound disintegration
Combination pre-treatments

4.4.1 Saponification
Saponification is the hydrolysis reaction between a lipid and an alkali,
resulting in LCFA salts and the release of glycerol. The conversion of the
lipids into soluble soaps and free LCFA should improve the contact
between the substrate and the micro-organisms, thereby enhancing their
anaerobic biodegradability (Battimelli et al 2009). When a DAF float and
carcass fats from a slaughterhouse were saponified with 60C sodium
hydroxide at pH 12 and then fed to an anaerobic digester in a batch
process, there was little increase in the total volume of biogas (Battimelli et
al 2009). Pre-treatment did provide improved initial reaction kinetics,
indicating better initial bio-availability.
Affes et al (2013) applied similar saponification to fatty slaughterhouse
wastes which were fed to an anaerobic digestion vessel in which the
digestate solid fraction could be recirculated. An improved biogas yield
was obtained with pre-treatment and solids recirculation. In this case,
saponification promoted emulsification and bioavailability of solid fatty
residues and reactors with solids recirculation were able to rapidly adapt to
an increase in organic loading rate compared with the normal reactor
which exhibited a slow transition.
4.4.2 Thermal hydrolysis
As discussed earlier, hydrolysis is the first stage of anaerobic digestion
where the FOG is converted to LCFAs and glycerol. Bouchy et al (2012)
trialled thermal hydrolysis as a pre-treatment to digestion of a mixture of
DAF float (0.15-1.0% fat) and primary and secondary sewage sludge. The
mixture was treated with steam at 8 bar for 30 min resulting in 51.8%
increase in biogas yield with better treated sludge characteristics such as
solids/liquid separation during centrifuging. There is a large body of work
on the use of thermal hydrolysis as a pre-treatment for anaerobic digestion
of sewage sludge demonstrating significant improvements in biogas yield.
The Cambi thermal hydrolysis process has been widely applied to
sewage sludge, but not to industrial wastewaters.
4.4.3 Enzyme hydrolysis
Enzyme pre-treatment of high-fat wastewaters has been extensively
researched (Masse et al 2003, Pereira et al 2006, Leal et al 2006,
Valladao et al 2011, Bouchy et al 2012, Zawadzki et al 2013, DonosoBravo & Fdz-Polanco 2013). Commercially available lipase enzymes were
utilised in the hydrolysis of FOG in slaughterhouse wastewater by Masse
15

et al (2003) and Pereira et al (2006). Masse et al (2003) found little

improvement in methane yield when the enzyme PL-250 was added (at
250 mg/L) to slaughterhouse effluent containing 500 mg/L fat particles and
hydrolysed for 5.5 h at 25C. Cirne et al (2007) also found little benefit
from the addition of lipase although it enhanced hydrolysis due to the
accumulation of LCFAs. On the other hand, Pereira et al (2006) obtained
about 4 times more biogas from slaughterhouse effluent after treatment
with 0.4% lipase compared with anaerobic digestion of untreated
wastewater. Bouchy et al (2012) also achieved an increase in methane
yield when a commercial lipase enzyme was used to hydrolyse DAF fat
mixed with sewage sludge. Donoso-Bravo & Fdz-Polanco (2013)
assessed the effect of the addition of a commercial enzyme (Biolipase L)
to a mixture of grease trap waste and sewage sludge prior to anaerobic
digestion. An enzyme dosage of 0.33% more than doubled the methane
yield with 5% grease trap waste. The cost of the enzyme addition could be
offset by the reduction in retention time and increased yield.
Unfortunately, the use of commercial enzymes for the hydrolysis of fats is
very expensive. Several investigators (Leal et al 2006) have used solidstate fermentation of the fungus Penicillium restrictum as a source of
enzyme for the hydrolysis of wastewater in an attempt to reduce the cost.
The solid enzymatic preparation (0.1%) was added to dairy wastewater
containing up to 1,000 mg/L fat followed by hydrolysis at 35C for 24 h
prior to anaerobic digestion. There was little benefit at 600 mg/L fat, but
significant improvement in performance was found when the fat level in the
effluent was 1,000 mg/L. Valladao et al (2010) treated poultry abattoir
wastewater at 800 mg/L fat with 0.1% of the same enzyme for 4 h at 30C
prior to digestion in a UASB digester. The hydrolysis pre-treatment
resulted in slightly higher COD removal and methane yield.
Zawadzki et al (2013) developed a continuous enzymatic pre-hydrolysis
treatment in a packed-bed reactor for high-fat wastewaters from a meat
factory. The reactor was packed with a solid-state fermentation of
Rhizopus microspores on a mixture of sugarcane bagasse and sunflower
seed meal and used to treat the wastewater containing approximately 600
mg/L oil and grease. After a hydraulic retention time of 24 h, the O&G
content was reduced by 96% and the biodegradability of the wastewater
improved such that it would be more suited to anaerobic digestion or
activated sludge treatment.
4.4.4 Ultrasound
Ultrasound refers to sound waves at frequency higher than the threshold
of human hearing (>18 kHz). Low frequency (20 kHz to 1,000 kHz), high
power ultrasound is used for improving the efficiency of physical and
biochemical processes. In general, the process of cavitation is the basis
for the effects of ultrasound on anaerobic digestion and other physical and
16

biochemical processes. Cavitation is the formation, growth and collapse of

tiny gas bubbles during the propagation of soundwaves in a liquid media.
There is a large body of work on the effects of ultrasound pre-treatment of
sewage sludge for anaerobic digestion (Carrere et al 2010) but limited
information on use with fat-laden industrial wastewaters.
Bouchy et al (2012) reported an increased of almost 90% in methane yield
from an ultrasound homogeniser cavitation pre-treatment of a DAF float
and sewage sludge mixture prior to anaerobic digestion. However no
details of ultrasound parameters and treatment time were provided. Peng
et al (2014) treated 1 L of oily wastewater for 10 min with ultrasound
apparatus operating at a frequency of 28 kHz and a supplied power of 700
W. Subsequent anaerobic digestion resulted in 23% increase in methane
yield compared with the untreated control.
Ultrasound was installed to treat the effluent containing in excess of 2,000
mg/L fat from a rendering plant in Queensland prior to entering a CAL.
However, the use of ultrasonic treatment was discontinuted due to the
additional operating costs and an already satisfactory performance of the
CAL without ultrasonic treatment (S. Boyers pers comm. February 2014).
4.4.5 Combination pre-treatments
The synergistic effect of combining different pre-treatments on the
effectiveness of anaerobic digestion of high-fat wastewaters has also been
investigated (Damasceno et al 2012, Peng et al 2014). Damasceno et al
(2012) used a combination of a rhamnolipid biosurfactant produced by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and an enzyme pool produced by solid-state
fermentation with Penicillium simplicissimum in the anaerobic treatment of
poultry processing plant wastewater with a fat content of 2,400 mg/L. A
combination of 0.19% (w/v) enzyme pool and 114 mg/L biosurfactant at
33C yielded the highest specific methane production. The claimed
advantage of this treatment was that the effluent could be anaerobically
digested without using the fat flotation stage to reduce the fat level.
A combination of an oil-degrading bacteria (Bacillus), ultrasound and citric
acid was used by Peng et al (2014) to pre-treat an oily wastewater
containing 6 g-VS waste oil per litre of water. Pre-mixing Bacillus at 9%
(w/w) for 24 h, then combined with ultrasound (28 kHz, 700 W) for 10 min
and a citric acid concentration of 500 mg/L provided the optimum
conditions, which resulted in methane yield of 280% greater than the
untreated control. The ultrasound promoted homogenisation and the citric
acid maintained the homogenisation throughout the digestion.
The benefits and disadvantages of the various wastewater pre-treatments
are summarised in Table 5.
17

Table 5: Summary of pre-treatments to anaerobic digestion of oily wastewaters

Pre-treatment
Saponification

Thermal hydrolysis

Enzyme hydrolysis

Ultrasound

Combined treatments

Benefits
Disadvantages
Improves bioavailability More suited to fatty
of fat and biogas yield.
wastes that can be
handled separately and
increase in pH may affect
digester operation.
Likely 50% increase in Would be expensive for
biogas
yield
and dilute wastes such as
improved sludge settling meat plant effluent.
properties.
Relatively
easy
to High cost of enzymes
implement and some and variable results.
researchers
report
improved CH 4 yield.
Relatively
simple
to High power cost and
implement in an existing sonotrode replacement
system. Increased CH 4 cost.
yield.
Increased CH 4 yield Unproven
outside
from oily wastewaters by laboratory and potentially
pre-treatment in one high operating costs.
vessel.

Digester configuration
5.1 Two-phase digestion
The complete digestion process for both lagoon and high-rate anaerobic
systems normally take place in the one vessel, but a separate vessel is
utilised for the acidogenesis phase in some processes. In laboratory trials,
Kim & Shin (2010) utilised a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR)
followed by a UASB reactor to treat fatty wastewater (1,000 2,500 mg/L
total lipids) from a dairy factory. The two-phase system showed enhanced
COD removal, lipid removal and methane production as the organic
loading rate increased above 2.5 g COD/L/d compared to a single UASB.
Gannoun et al (2009) developed a process where abattoir wastewater
containing 40-410 mg/L fat was hydrolysed in a CSTR at 30C for 2 days,
then the solids settled out and the liquid fraction fed to an upflow
anaerobic filter (UAF). The stirred aerobic conditions stimulated the growth
of Bacillus spp. to become the dominant microflora. They hypothesised
that stirring improved degradation efficiency by hydrolytic enzymes such
as proteases and lipases produced by the Bacillus strains. The UAF
achieved COD removal efficiencies of 90 to 92%.
18

A treatment system handling a high-fat (>2,000 mg/L) wastewater from a

rendering plant in Queensland employs an initial vessel with a retention
time of approximately 2 days prior to a covered lagoon with a retention
time of 50 days (S. Boyers pers comm. February 2014). During the initial
acidogenesis stage, pH reduces from 7.0 to about 6.4. No problems of fat
accumulation under the cover have been reported but the fat is finely
emulsified and the high wastewater temperature of 38-40C may assist in
maintaining it in that state where it can be more easily digested.

5.2 Temperature-phased digestion

Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion is a relatively new technology
first reported in the 1990s and consists of an initial thermophilic digester
(operating at ~55C) followed by a mesophilic digester operating at ~35C
(Lv et al. 2012). Although systems have not been widely applied
industrially, researchers have demonstrated enhanced methane yield,
process stability, shorter hydraulic retention time and decreased foaming.
The thermophilic digester normally has a shorter retention time of 1 to 2
days, with the mesophilic phase being 4 to 5 time longer. The system has
mainly been applied to sludge digestion with no applications to fatcontaining wastewaters.

5.3 Inverted anaerobic sludge blanket

Almost all anaerobic digestion of meat processing plant wastewater in
Australia takes place in open anaerobic ponds or CALs. These
arrangements are not used in the colder climate of Europe and Asia where
most of the research on anaerobic digestion has been undertaken. Hence
most research is focused on high-rate anaerobic systems controlled at
mesophilic (~35C) or thermophilic (~55C) temperatures.
As existing reactor configurations are not robust when applied to industrial
effluents with a high lipid content, Alves et al (2009) proposed a new
concept. This reactor has the primary biomass retained by flotation and
the secondary biomass retention through settling. This is now termed an
inverted anaerobic sludge blanket (IASB) digester and the first full-scale
reactor of 100 m3 capacity (Figure 2) has been installed in a fish factory in
Portugal (Picavet & Alves 2013) but no performance data is yet available.

19

Figure 2: First full-scale inverted anaerobic sludge blanket reactor in Portugal (from Picavet & Alves,
2013)

Conclusions and recommendations

Fat in meat plant wastewater that is to be treated by anaerobic digestion is

potentially a valuable resource provided it does not inhibit the process by
forming a scum on the surface and can be completely digested. There is
ample evidence to show that, although slower to digest, a higher fat level can
improve the methane yield when digesting wastewater or sludge which could
improve the economics of installing covered anaerobic lagoons. Finely
emulsified fat particles appear to be more readily digested, especially if the
temperature can be maintained in the upper mesophilic range (>35C).
However, abattoir CALs operate at closer to 25C and the larger fat particles
are more difficult to digest and more readily float to the surface. The level of
FOG in normal abattoir wastewater could be up to 3,000 mg/L and should not
be detrimental to the operation of a CAL provided it is available for digestion.
20

Practical evidence, however, suggests that scum formation will occur at these
levels.
Many CALs appear to be operating satisfactorily in Australia and New
Zealand treating meat processing plant effluent but much is still to be learned
regarding optimisation of their operation. Long-term evaluation of CALs
treating fatty abattoir wastewater is required to determine whether the
development of a fatty layer on the surface under the cover increases over
time or reaches a state of equilibrium and whether a surface fat layer inhibits
biogas generation.
At this stage, pre-treatments appear to offer limited benefits when evaluated
against an increase in operating costs, however, ongoing efforts to minimise
scum formation and maximise biogas production will lead to advances in
digester operation and reduce the frequency of maintenance issues.
Two-stage treatment, where the acidogenesis step takes place in a separate
vessel prior to the main digestion tank or CAL, appears to offer potential
benefits for fatty waste waters and warrants further investigation under
Australian conditions. There is also potential to optimise the design and
configuration of typical Australian CALs by evaluating parameters such as
hydraulic retention time, length to breadth ratio, method of introducing
effluent, sludge removal and sludge recirculation rate.
There is a paucity of fundamental information on the anaerobic digestion of
real Australian abattoir wastewater. It is recommended that data be gathered
from laboratory trials with effluent of different fat levels to determine the
limiting level of FOG in the wastewater. The results of these trials along with
results from existing full-scale CALs may indicate that:
1. fat must be removed from the effluent to a specific level; or
2. pre-treatment of fatty effluent is required; or
3. a different configuration of the process is needed to reap the full
benefit of the digestion of fat.

21

Abbreviations
BOD
CALs
COD
CSTR
DAF
FFA
FOG
IASB
MINTRAC

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

Covered anaerobic lagoons
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Continuous stirred tank reactor
Dissolved air floatation
Free fatty acid
Fat, oil and grease
Inverted anaerobic sludge blanket
National Meat Industry Training Advisory
Council Limited
Meat & Livestock Australia
Oil and grease
tonne hot standard carcass weight
Long chain fatty acids
Upflow anaerobic filter
Up flow anaerobic sludge blanket
University of New South Wales
Volatile fatty acid

MLA
O&G
tHSCW
LCFAs
UAF
UASB
UNSW
VFA

22

References
Affes, R., Palatsi, J., Flotats, X., Carrere, H., Steyer, J.P. & Battimelli, A.
(2013). Saponification pretreatment and solids recirculation as a new
anaerobic process for the treatment of slaughterhouse waste. Bioresource
Technology 131, 460-467.
Alves, M.M., Pereira, M.A., Sousa, D.Z., Cavaleiro, A.J., Picavet, M. Smidt, H
& Stams, A.J.M. (2009). Waste lipids to energy: how to optimize methane
production from long-chain fatty acids (LCFA). Microbial Biotechnology 2 (5),
538-550.
Bouchy, L., Perez, A., Camacho, P., Rubio, P., Silvestre, G., Fernandez, B.,
Cano, R., Polanco, M. & Diaz, N. (2012). Optimization of municipal sludge
and grease co-digestion using disintegration technologies. Water Science &
Technology 65, 214-220.
Boyers, S. (A. J Bush & Sons). Telephone conversation 12 February 2014.
Battimelli, A., Carrere, H. & Delgenes, J-P. (2009). Saponification of fatty
slaughterhouse wastes for enhancing biodegradability. Bioresource
Technology 100, 3695-3700.
Carrere, H., Dumas, C., Battimelli, A., Batstone, D.J., Delgenes, J.P., Steyer,
J.P. & Ferrer, I. (2010). Pretreatment methods to improve sludge anaerobic
degradability: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 183, 1-15.
Cirne, D.G., Paloumet, X., Bjornsson, L., Alves, M.M. & Mattiasson, B. (2007).
Anaerobic digestion of lipid-rich waste effects of lipid concentration.
Renewable Energy 32, 965-975.
Damesceno, F.R.C., Cammarota, M.C. & Freire, D.M.G. (2012). The
combined use of a biosurfactant and an enzyme preparation to treat effluent
with a high fat content. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 95, 241-246.
Donoso-Bravo, A. & Fdz-Polanco, M. (2013). Anaerobic co-digestion of
sewage sludge and grease trap: Assessment of enzyme addition. Process
Biochemistry 48, 936-940.
GHD (2003). Assessment of hydrocyclones for fat removal from meat
processing wastewater streams. Report to Meat & Livestock Australia on
Project PRENV.022.
Gannoun, H., Bouallagui, H., Okbi,A., Sayadi, S. & Hamdi, M. (2009).
Mesophilic and thermophilic digestion of biologically pretreated abattoir
wastewaters in an upflow anaerobic filter. Journal of Hazardous Materials
170, 263-271.
23

Green, J. (1992). Effluent treatment ponds. In Abattoir Waste Water & Odour
Management. (ed) B McDonald, CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory, Cannon
Hill, Qld, Australia pp 55-68.
Greenfield, P.F. & Johns, M.R. (1992). High-rate anaerobic treatment of
abattoir effluents. In Abattoir Waste Water & Odour Management. (ed) B
McDonald, CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory, Cannon Hill, Qld, Australia pp
69-93.
Husband, P. (1992). Primary effluent treatment. In Abattoir Waste Water &
Odour Management. (ed) B McDonald, CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory,
Cannon Hill, Qld, Australia pp 27-38.
Hwu, C-S, Tseng, S-K, Yuan, C-Y, Kulik, Z & Lettinga, G. (1998). Biosorption
of long-chain fatty acids in UASB treatment process. Water Research 32,
1571-1579.
Jensen, P. & Batstone, D. (2012). Energy and nutrient analysis on individual
waste streams. Report to Meat & Livestock Australia on Project A.ENV.0131.
Johns, M.R. (1995). Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat
processing industry: a review. Bioresource Technology 54, 203-216.
Kim, S-H., Han, S-K. & Shin, H-S. (2004). Kinetics of LCFA inhibition on
acetoclastic methanogenesis, propionate degradation and beta-oxidation.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances
and Environmental Engineering 39, 1025-1037.
Kim, S-H. & Shin, H-S. (1010). Enhanced lipid degradation in an upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor by integration with an acidogenic reactor.
Water Environment Research 82, 267-272.
Li, C., Champagne, P. & Anderson,B.C. (2013). Biogas production
performance of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion with fat,
oil and grease in semi-continuous flow digesters: effects of temperature,
hydraulic retention time and organic loading rate. Environmental Technology
34, 2125-2133.
Leal, M.C.M.R., Freire, D.M.G., Magali, C.C. & SantAnna, G.L. (2006) Effect
of enzymatic hydrolysis on anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewater. Process
Biochemistry 41, 1173-1178.
Long, J.H., Aziz, T.N., de los Reyes, F.L. & Ducoste, J.J. (2012). Anaerobic
co-digestion of fat, oil, and grease (FOG): a review of gas production and
process limitations. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 90, 231245.

24

Lv, W., Schanbacher, F.L, & Yu, Z. (2010). Putting microbes to work in
sequence: Recent advances in temperature-phased anaerobic digestion
processes. Bioresource Technology 101, 9409-9414.
Masse, L., Masse, D.I., Kennedy, K.J. & Chou, S.P. (2002) Neutral fat
hydrolysis and long-chain fatty acid oxidation during anaerobic digestion of
slaughterhouse wastewater. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 79, 43-52.
Masse, L., Masse, D.I. & Kennedy, K.J. (2003). Effect of hydrolysis
pretreatment on fat degradation during anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse
wastewater. Process Biochemistry 38, 1365-1372.
MINTRAC (2012). Wastewater management in the Australian red meat
processing industry. Prepared for Australian Meat Processor Corporation,
Sydney, Australia.
MLA (2007). Wastewater. In Environmental Best Practice Guidelines for the
Red Meat Processing Industry. (eds) M. Johns, S. McGlashan & A. Rowlands
for Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
MLA (2014). January 2014 co-products monitor summary.
http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-and-analysis/Beef/Coproducts. Accessed 16 Feb 2014.
Peng, L, Bao, M., Wang, Q., Wang, F. & Su, H. (2014). The anaerobic
digestion of biologically and physicochemically pretreated oily wastewater.
Bioresource Technology 151, 236-243.
Pereira, E.B., Castro, H.F., Spiller, V.R.& Furigo, A. (2006). Degradation of fat
and grease in slaughterhouse wastewater by a commercial microbial lipase.
Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 49, 21-28.
Picavet, M.A. & Alves, M.M. (2013). IASB-Inverted anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor: background, history and development. Proc. of 13th World Congress
on Anaerobic Digestion, Santaigo de Compostela, Spain 25-28 June 2013
p.1-4. http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/26329, accessed 12
Feb 2014.
Pittaway, P. (2011). Using covered anaerobic ponds to treat abattoir
wastewater, reduce greenhouse gases and generate bio energy. Report to
Meat & Livestock Australia for Project A.ENV.0107.
Sayed, S., van der Zanden, J., Wijffels, R. & Lettinga, G. (1988). Anaerobic
degradation of various fractions of slaughterhouse wastewater. Biological
Wastes 23, 117-142.
Spooncer, W.F. (Kurrajong Meat Technology). Telephone conversation 16
February 2014.
25

Tetreault, A. (2003). Electrocoagulation process for wastewater treatment.

Report to Meat & Livestock Australia for project PRENV.011.
UNSW CRC for Waste Management & Pollution Control (1998). Treatment
of abattoir wastewater using a covered anaerobic lagoon. Report to Meat &
Livestock Australia for Project M.665.
Li, C., Champagne, P. & Anderson,B.C. (2013). Biogas production
performance of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion with fat,
oil and grease in semi-continuous flow digesters: effects of temperature,
hydraulic retention time and organic loading rate. Environmental Technology
34, 2125-2133.
Valladao, A.B.G., Cammarota, M.C. & Freire, D.M.G. (2010). Performance of
an anaerobic reactor treating poultry abattoir wastewater with high fat content
after enzymatic hydrolysis. Environmental Engineering Science 28, 299-307.
Van Oostrom, A. (Albert van Oostrom & Associates), email 12 February 2014.
Vidal, G., Carvalho, A., Mendez. R. & Lema, J.M. (2000). Influence of the
content in fats and proteins on the anaerobic biodegradability of dairy
wastewaters. Bioresource Technology 74, 231-239.
White, T., Johns, M. & Butler, B. (2013). Methane recovery and use at a meat
processing facility. RIRDC Publication 13/027. RIRDC Project No. PRJ005673.
Yuan, C-Y. (1995). Treatment of lipid ingredients in slaughterhouse
wastewater by upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor. M.Sc. Thesis, Graduate
Institute of Environmental Engineering, national Taiwan University, Taipei,
Taiwan, R.O.C. (in Chinese).
Zawadzki, R.A.F., Prado, M.R., Mitchell, D.A. & Krieger, N. (2013).
Continuous enzymatic prehydrolysis treatment of high-fat wastewater. Food,
Technology and Biotechnology 51, 293-300.

26