TY - JOUR
T1 - Holistic process evaluation of non-conventional palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment technologies
T2 - A conceptual and comparative review
AU - Cheng, Yoke Wang
AU - Chong, Chi Cheng
AU - Lam, Man Kee
AU - Ayoub, Muhammad
AU - Cheng, Chin Kui
AU - Lim, Jun Wei
AU - Yusup, Suzana
AU - Tang, Yuanyuan
AU - Bai, Jiaming
N1 - Funding Information:
Support from Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia through Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE) award (Cost centre: 015MA0–052 ) to Centre for Biofuel and Biochemical Research (CBBR) is duly acknowledged. Chi Cheng Chong sincerely acknowledged financial support from Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS via YUTP grant ( 0153LCO-144 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/5/5
Y1 - 2021/5/5
N2 - Thriving oil palm agroindustry comes at a price of voluminous waste generation, with palm oil mill effluent (POME) as the most cumbersome waste due to its liquid state, high strength, and great discharge volume. In view of incompetent conventional ponding treatment, a voluminous number of publications on non-conventional POME treatments is filed in the Scopus database, mainly working on alternative or polishing POME treatments. In dearth of such comprehensive review, all the non-conventional POME treatments are rigorously reviewed in a conceptual and comparative manner. Herein, non-conventional POME treatments are sorted into the five major routes, viz. biological (bioconversions – aerobic/anaerobic biodegradation), physical (flotation & membrane filtration), chemical (Fenton oxidation), physicochemical (photooxidation, steam reforming, coagulation-flocculation, adsorption, & ultrasonication), and bioelectrochemical (microbial fuel cell) pathways. For aforementioned treatments, the constraints, pros, and cons are qualitatively and quantitatively (with compiled performance data) detailed to indicate their process maturity. Authors recommended (i) bioconversions, adsorption, and steam reforming as primary treatments, (ii) flotation and ultrasonication as pretreatments, (iii) Fenton oxidation, photooxidation, and membrane filtration as polishing treatments, and (iv) microbial fuel cell and coagulation-flocculation as pretreatment or polishing treatment. Life cycle assessments are required to evaluate the environmental, economic, and energy aspects of each process.
AB - Thriving oil palm agroindustry comes at a price of voluminous waste generation, with palm oil mill effluent (POME) as the most cumbersome waste due to its liquid state, high strength, and great discharge volume. In view of incompetent conventional ponding treatment, a voluminous number of publications on non-conventional POME treatments is filed in the Scopus database, mainly working on alternative or polishing POME treatments. In dearth of such comprehensive review, all the non-conventional POME treatments are rigorously reviewed in a conceptual and comparative manner. Herein, non-conventional POME treatments are sorted into the five major routes, viz. biological (bioconversions – aerobic/anaerobic biodegradation), physical (flotation & membrane filtration), chemical (Fenton oxidation), physicochemical (photooxidation, steam reforming, coagulation-flocculation, adsorption, & ultrasonication), and bioelectrochemical (microbial fuel cell) pathways. For aforementioned treatments, the constraints, pros, and cons are qualitatively and quantitatively (with compiled performance data) detailed to indicate their process maturity. Authors recommended (i) bioconversions, adsorption, and steam reforming as primary treatments, (ii) flotation and ultrasonication as pretreatments, (iii) Fenton oxidation, photooxidation, and membrane filtration as polishing treatments, and (iv) microbial fuel cell and coagulation-flocculation as pretreatment or polishing treatment. Life cycle assessments are required to evaluate the environmental, economic, and energy aspects of each process.
KW - Industrial effluent
KW - Oil palm waste
KW - Pollution control
KW - Process maturity
KW - Wastewater treatment
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85098989270
U2 - 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124964
DO - 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124964
M3 - Article
C2 - 33418292
AN - SCOPUS:85098989270
SN - 0304-3894
VL - 409
JO - Journal of Hazardous Materials
JF - Journal of Hazardous Materials
M1 - 124964
ER -