Journal of Cleaner Production 26 (2012) 90e94

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Modied UASB reactor for dairy industry wastewater: performance indicators

and comparison with the traditional approach
Mauricio Passeggi, Ivn Lpez*, Liliana Borzacconi
Engineering Faculty, Universidad de la Repblica, J. Herrera y Reissig 565, Montevideo, Uruguay

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 25 April 2011
Received in revised form
16 December 2011
Accepted 22 December 2011
Available online 2 January 2012

A new system for dairy wastewater treatment that is composed of a modied UASB (Up ow Anaerobic
Sludge Bed) reactor with a scum extraction device and a lamella settler is presented in this work. The
system operates stably with a high methanisation level and achieves a granulated sludge. The new
system is compared with the traditional wastewater treatment approach, which includes a dissolved air
otation (DAF) unit, a pH conditioner, an anaerobic contact reactor and a clarier. The performance
indicators of both systems are compared. For similar methane recovery levels, the new system is simpler,
with fewer processing units and a 40% lower volume per kg of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) to be
treated compared with the traditional approach; hence the new system requires reduced investment and
operational costs.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Anaerobic reactor
Dairy wastewater
Performance indicators

1. Introduction
The dairy industry is one of the most important industries in
Uruguay with a production of 1770 million litres per year in 2009;
83% of this production is received by the process industry and 64%
of the total is processed for export (MGAP, 2010). Depending on the
type of product, equipment and unit processes entailed in the
processing of dairy-based products, efuent characteristics may
vary widely based on the industrial plant (Mndez et al., 1989;
Garca et al., 1991; Perle et al., 1995; Danalewich et al., 1998;
Vidal et al., 2000). Thus, to achieve an appropriate design of the
treatment plant, specic conditions of the dairy industry must be
considered (Demirel et al., 2005). Nonetheless, due to leakage while
processing milk or milk-based products, several constituents are
systematically found in dairy industrial wastewater: lactose, lipids,
casein and other proteins. Lipids are found mainly in emulsions
resulting from the initial processing stages of homogenisation. In
addition, efuents will be acidic or basic based on the cleaning
chemical used at any time during the process.
Considering all Uruguayan dairy industries, around 4 million of
cubic meters of wastewater are produced per year, representing
a discharge of 1.4 million kg of COD. For the most part, wastewater
treatments are extensive systems, formed by anaerobic and facultative lagoons, with low efciency and low possibility of control

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: passeggi@ng.edu.uy (M.
(I. Lpez), lilianab@ng.edu.uy (L. Borzacconi).

Passeggi),

ivanl@ng.edu.uy

0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.022

actions. This situation is similar in the neighbouring countries. In

order to improve the wastewater treatment, more intensive and
efcient systems must be introduced. Moreover, solutions with
emphasis in energy saving and operational cost reduction must be
encouraged. Greenhouse gas emission must also be prevented.
Application of the anaerobic digestion has increased over the
years as a treatment technology that is applicable to high strength
efuents without energy consumption and methane production as
a by-product (van Lier et al., 2001). Among the reports of anaerobic
treatments in dairy wastewater (Demirel et al., 2005), Up ow
Anaerobic Sludge Bed (UASB) reactors (Gavala et al., 1999; Vidal
et al., 2000; Ramasamy et al., 2004) and anaerobic lters are used
(Ozturk et al., 1993; Vidal et al., 2000). However, dairy efuents
have high lipid content and several problems were reported when
UASB reactors were used (Vidal et al., 2000). Therefore, higher
hydrolysis times are required, and the fat, oil and grease (FOG)
accumulation in the sludge can occur. Nadais et al. (2003, 2005)
proposed an intermittent operation method to avoid the FOG
accumulation. Other researchers reported dispersed sludge
growing, sludge wash out and FOG accumulation inside the reactor
as operational problems (Hwu et al., 1997; Petruy and Lettinga,
1997). Attempts have been made to operate UASB reactors with
dairy wastewater without prior FOG removal. For example, Nadais
et al. (2001, 2006) developed an intermittent method to promote
FOG degradation in a single step at the laboratory scale.
Rapid adsorption and signicantly slow degradation of dairy fat
emulsions were reported for batch studies using biomass that was
not adapted to degrading fats or a substrate load as high as 12.6 g of

M. Passeggi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 26 (2012) 90e94

fat per gram of VSS (Volatile Suspended Solids) (Petruy and

Lettinga, 1997). Vidal et al. (2000) reported that the biodegradability rate of fat-rich dairy wastewater is limited by fat hydrolysis.
They performed batch assays with non-adapted biomass. However,
using moderate loads and substrate-adapted microorganisms,
hydrolysis may not limit the biodegradability rate during a total
treatment process. Thus, the total process rate may be limited by
a reduced mass transfer rate due to Long Chain Fatty Acids (LCFA)
adsorption onto sludge (Pereira et al., 2003, 2004) or by the
inhibitory effect of LCFA on acetotrophic methanogenic populations
(Perle et al., 1995; Hwu et al., 1996). According to Hwu et al. (1998),
sludge oatation in UASB reactors due to LCFA adsorption at high
LCFA levels may occur at lower LCFA concentrations than those that
produce inhibitory effects. To understand the inuence of the
adsorption stage preceding lipid- and LCFA- degradation on the
performance of UASB reactors, several studies were performed
using an intermittent feed (Sayed, 1984; Nadais et al., 2006).
Cavaleiro et al. (2008) reported that use of pulse-feeds resulted in
an increased tolerance of acetotrophic methanogens to LCFA, and
suggested that satisfactory results for continuous operation may be
obtained following a biomass acclimation stage by using pulsefeed. Several studies demonstrated that the use of occulent
sludge instead of granular sludge results in a higher LCFA removal
efciency (Nadais et al., 2003) and more effective treatment of
complex efuents (Sayed, 1987). In contrast, occulent sludge
appears to be less resistant to LCFA inhibition (Hwu et al., 1996).
In brief, the use of UASB reactors in dairy wastewater treatment
has been associated with limited success because a considerable
amount of organic material hydrolyses or degrades at an excessively low rate and normally accumulates within the sludge blanket
due to entrainment or adsorption. The results are dilution of
biomass, changes in mass transfer properties and impairment of
sludge settling capacity. Sludge activity is therefore reduced and
sludge wash out from the reactor through the outlet stream could
occur (Sayed, 1984, 1987; Rinzema, 1993; Hwu et al., 1998).
Because it is difcult to treat complex efuents in sludgeblanket reactors, pre-treatment methods are normally used, such
as fat separation using dissolved air oatation (DAF) (Campos et al.,
2004; Puget et al., 2004; Asplund, 2005; Ross and Valentine, 2008).
Otherwise, contact reactors are utilised (Asplund, 2005; Hamilton
and Archer, 2007).
In this work, anaerobic treatment for a small dairy company in
Uruguay (COLEME, Melo City) is presented. The industry had two
UASB reactors of 40 m3 each, that were previously built as the
treatment plant. Nevertheless, these UASB reactors could not be
operated properly because the FOG accumulation in the upper part
of the reactors prevented the biogas from reaching the gas chamber
device; sludge losses also occurred because of the dispersed growth
of the sludge. Based on previous experience gained from evaluations of biological performance, modications in the existing
facilities were conducted. Subsequently, the updated proposal to
treat dairy wastewater was successfully proven (Passeggi et al.,
2009).
Performance indicators can be constructed to evaluate the
business sustainability (Labuschagne et al., 2005; Chee Tahir and
Darton, 2010). In this paper, performance of the new system is
compared with a traditional wastewater plant including a DAF and
a contact anaerobic reactor. Data for the comparisons were adopted
from the work of Asplund (2005), who has analysed the performance of the wastewater treatment plant of Ume Dairy, a Swedish
dairy company. This case is selected only as an example of the
traditional approach to treating dairy wastewater because of the
extensive available data. Comparisons are made merely to validate
the new technology compared to the traditionally accepted
systems.

91

2. The modied UASB reactor concept

An alternative up-ow anaerobic reactor was developed to
avoid the problems caused by the FOG content of dairy wastewater.
In a standard UASB reactor, fatty scum accumulates under the
biogas device, thus preventing the biogas from releasing and
promotes biomass otation. Solids accumulation under the biogas
hood leads to reactor failure due to the following: i) clogging of the
phase separator; ii) the poor contact between the biomass and the
substrate due to oatation of part of the biomass; and iii) the loss of
viable biomass.
Another problem that is encountered is the solids loss with the
reactor efuent. This is caused by the occulent nature of the
biomass and the adsorption of fatty material. If biomass is not
retained in the reactor, wash out occurs, and the biological activity
disappears.
The rst problem (scum formation) can be solved: biogas
bubbles are used to oat the fats; then, the oily scum that accumulated under the biogas hood is sucked out periodically. This
modied reactor retains the advantages of the standard UASB and
simultaneously acts as a gas oater.
The scum extracted from the reactor has both fatty material and
biomass. The recuperation of this biomass is critical for preventing
the reactor wash out. Thus, scum is transferred to a solids digester.
Fats are degraded and the exit stream of the digester is returned to
the reactor, which recovers the biomass.
The second problem (biomass wash out) is prevented with
a lamella settler placed in the reactor discharge. The settled solids
are reintroduced into the reactor periodically. Thus, biomass
content in the reactor is preserved, which enables the continuity of
operation of the reactor.
3. Materials and methods
The alternative treatment system was implemented in a small
dairy factory in Melo City, Uruguay (COLEME, Cooperativa de
Lechera de Melo), which processes 32,000 L of milk per day.
Seventy-ve percent of the milk received is used to produce
cheese and the remaining 25% is used to produce pasteurised milk.
The efuent production is 100 m3 per day and the lipid content is
approximately 40% of COD. The system is comprised of two 40 m3
modied up-ow anaerobic sludge-blanket reactors with an
internal fat separator and external sludge recovery by settling, in
addition to a 5 m3 digester tank for oating fatty scum. A 1 m3
lamella settler was included after the reactors discharge, with the
plates tilted at 60
and spaced at 5 cm, retaining part of the sludge
carry-over from the reactors and returning it to the feed box by
using pumping equipment. The lamella settler operates at a residence time of 15 min at full-load. The liquid settling tank outlet
is discharged to a municipal sewer. Previous to the reactors,
a 50 m3 buffer tank was constructed. Fig. 1 shows the plant layout.
Sludge from a slaughterhouse treatment lagoon was used as the
inoculum.
For the reactor start up, an intermittent operation was performed. Because the factory works six days a week, one reactor was
fed during the rst three days of the week and then the feeding
stream was switched to the other reactor. In this way, while one
reactor was fed, the other was used with recirculation only, which
was employed to maintain the desirable up-ow velocity. In the
next weeks, the cycle was repeated. In a second stage, the intermittent operation was switched to a continuous operation, and
sludge granulation occurred; settlement properties of sludge
improved and the external lamella settler became less important in
the process. Although the pH values of the feed varied between 5.0
and 11.5, it was not necessary to adjust the reactor inlet pH.

92

M. Passeggi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 26 (2012) 90e94

BUFFER TANK
FAT
TRAP
R1

Influent

ate
ria
l

Re
cir
cu
lat
ion

Sludge
FEED
BOX

ec

Flo

irc

ate

dm

ul
at
io
n

ate
est
Dig

LAMELLA
SETTLER
Effluent

FAT
TRAP
DIGESTER

Floated material

R2

Fig. 1. Treatment plant layout. (___ Continuous ow; _ _ _ Intermittent ow).

Total and soluble amounts of COD, Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA),

alkalinity, FOG and suspended solids were measured at the inlet and
the outlet according to Standard Methods (APHA, 1995). Temperature, pH and biogas production were measured daily. More details of
the reactor behaviour are presented in Passeggi et al. (2009).
On the other hand, Ume Dairy is a Swedish dairy industry
belonging to the Norrmejerier group. Norrmejerier is an economic
association owned by almost 700 milk farmers in the Norrbotten
and Vsterbotten provinces in the north of Sweden. The Ume
Dairy wastewater treatment plant was chosen as representative of
the traditional approach and because the abundance of data presented by Asplund (2005). The wastewater treatment plant treats
1400 m3 d1 of efuent that include a mixture of whey permeate
and some residual milk. The treatment plant has the following
components: a buffer tank of 800 m3, a DAF unit, a pH conditioner,
two anaerobic contactor reactors of 2500 m3 each, one clarier and
a FOG digester of 125 m3 for the material oated in the DAF
(Asplund, 2005).
4. Results and discussion
In both studied systems, the problems associated with low rate
hydrolysis and/or FOG accumulation are solved. In the traditional
approach, the DAF unit physically removes the FOG and the
remaining organic material is treated in the anaerobic reactor
without problems. In the new system, using the UASB modied
reactor, FOG is oated inside the reactor and transferred to the
digester. The anaerobic reactor also degrades a fraction of FOG and
the carbonaceous material.
Moreover, viable biomass retention in the system is performed
in the clarier after going through the reactors in the traditional
approach and in the lamella settler in the new system. Then, in both
systems, sludge wash out is prevented.
First, the new system involves only four process units: the buffer
tank, the anaerobic reactor, the clarier and the FOG digester. On
the contrary, the traditional approach involves also the DAF and the
pH conditioner, for a total of six process units. This fact, besides
increasing investment cost, adds to operational complexity and
probably human resource needs. Table 1 summarises the main data
from both systems. Some values, such as ows, concentrations,
loads or efciencies, are mean values or representative values.
The comparison was made with real scale plants. Then, it was
virtually impossible to nd identical conditions. However, from the
treatment point of view, the most important parameter is the load:
high concentrations but high hydraulic retention times can lead to
the same load than systems with lower concentration and lower

hydraulic retention times. The anaerobic reactor in the COLEME

system receives more organic load per reactor volume because no
pre-treatment stage is provided. On the contrary, an important
fraction of the organic load is removed in the DAF system in the
Ume treatment plant, prior to the anaerobic contactor. On the
other hand, the composition of the waste is important; COLEME
wastewater has greater proportion of FOG than Ume Dairy
wastewater and for this reason may be more difcult to degrade.
The utilisation of a DAF unit implies the use of chemicals and
energy consumption. The pH of the DAF outlet must be adjusted
prior to biological treatment, and this adjustment requires
increased consumption of chemicals. Typically, these are the most
important operational costs involved in the wastewater treatment
plant. However, the new system avoids chemical consumption for
otation and does not require pH adjustment prior to biological
treatment. In addition, the nal disposal of sludge oated in the
DAF unit involves signicant costs. Therefore, a signicant saving is
achieved, which dramatically reduces the operative costs.
Due to the size differences between the plants, for comparison
purposes, it is necessary to state the indicators as a ratio to the ow
or the organic load to be treated. Then, for example, comparison
between buffer tanks is not based on volumes but is based on
hydraulic retention times (HRT). No signicant differences are
observed in this case.
Table 1
Main data of both systems: the Coleme system is composed of a buffer tank,
a modied UASB reactor, a lamella settler and a FOG digester; the Ume system is
composed of a buffer tank, a DAF system, a pH conditioner, an anaerobic reactor,
a clarier and a FOG digester. Mean values of ows, HRT, concentrations and removal
efciencies are presented.

Mean ow (m3/d)
Buffer tank

Volume (m3)
HRT (h)

Inlet COD (mg/L)

FOG (mg/L)
Load to be treated (kg COD/d)
Removal otation (%)
Fat recovered (%)
Anaerobic reactor
Volume (m3)
HRT (d)
Load (kg COD/m3.d)
COD removal eff. (%)
Methane ow (m3/d)
pH conditioner
Clarier
Volume (m3)
FOG digester
Volume (m3)
HRT (d)

COLEME

UME

100
50
12
2500
495
250
12
17
80
0.8
3.1
90
53
NO
1
5
34

1400
800
14
6800
200
9520
20
40
5000
3.6
1.5
90
2300
YES
400
125
22

M. Passeggi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 26 (2012) 90e94

93

Fig. 2. Volume (m3) per kg COD to be treated in the biological system, total 0.34 m3 for
the new system and 0.58 m3 for the traditional approach.
Fig. 4. Volume of sludge wash out (L/d) per m3 of wastewater to be treated, 1.1 L d1
for the new system and 34 L d1 for the traditional approach.

The volume is one of the main parameters to be optimised

because of its direct relationship to the investment costs. Fig. 2
presents the volume needed to treat 1 kg of COD. It shows that
the new system is signicantly more efcient that the traditional
approach. Total volume used by the new system (i.e., anaerobic
reactor, clarier and FOG digester) is 40% lower than the traditional
approach. The main volume differences originate from the anaerobic reactor type because the UASB modied reactor is more
compact that the anaerobic contact reactors. The volume required
to treat 1 kg of COD per day is 0.32 m3 for the new system and
0.53 m3 for the traditional approach. The HRT of the new system is
only 22% of the HRT of the traditional approach. However, great
differences are also observed in the clarier volume. The lamella
settler is signicantly more compact that the clariers that use
simple decantation. As the FOG digester in COLEME case was
adapted from a previous tank, its volume was not optimised.
Total methane recovery per kg of COD to be treated is presented
in Fig. 3. Total methane includes biogas from the anaerobic reactor
and from the FOG digester, assuming that the removal efciency is
70% in the latter. The new system presents a slight difference with
respect to the traditional approach, 13% lower, probably due to the
relative higher importance of gas losses. More than 90% of the
methane is generated in the anaerobic reactor in both systems.

Sludge wash out minimisation is an important feature to guarantee long term operation. The lamella settler is a compact device
that signicantly improves the solids retention, as shown in Fig. 4.
From the environmental impacts point of view, both systems are
similar in order to decontaminate the wastewater enabling the
reuse. However, the traditional approach request more energy and
chemicals. Then, environmental impacts associated to energy and
chemicals production are more signicant in the traditional
approach.
The maintenance requirements associated to compressor for the
DAF system are suppressed in the new system. Also, manpower
requirements for the operation and maintenance of the treatment
plant are diminished in the new system because the minor number
of units and operation steps.
The quantitative comparison of cost is very difcult to make due
the differences in the involved countries. Moreover, Asplund (2005)
does not include economical aspects in its report. But observations
made above indicate that investment and operation costs in the
new system are lesser than in the traditional approach. In order to
make an approximation to investment cost of the new system, it
can be referred to the cost of a 100 m3 reactor made for other
industry with the same technology. A local enterprise who provides
the reactor constructed in reinforced berglass and fully instrumented was quoted U$S 115.000, tax included.
5. Conclusions

Fig. 3. Methane recovery (m3 per kg COD to be treated) for both systems: 0.22 m3 for
the new system and 0.25 for the traditional approach.

A modied UASB reactor, including a scum extraction device and

an external lamella settler, is an effective alternative for treating
dairy industry wastewater. A stable operation is reached while
retaining biomass and achieving a high methanisation level; sludge
granulation also occurs.
The new system is simpler, with fewer processing units and
reduced operational costs. In particular, the investment and operational costs associated with the DAF unit and the pH conditioner
can be avoided.
Performance indicators, expressed in terms of the ow or the
load to be treated, allow the evaluation of the new system and the
comparison with the traditional approach, which includes a DAF
and an anaerobic contact reactor.
The volume efciency of the new biological system is signicantly greater than that of the traditional approach. Only 60% of the

94

M. Passeggi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 26 (2012) 90e94

traditional approach volume is required per kg of COD to be treated

in the new system. The investment cost associated with the reactor
volume can be minimised. Moreover, methane recovery is very
similar in both systems.
The retention of biomass is crucial for long term operation. The
lamella settler is much more efcient and smaller than the traditional continuous clarier and sludge wash out is prevented.
The application of the new system is promising in Uruguay and
in the neighbouring countries because most of wastewater treatment plants are based on lagoon systems and can be replaced as
they do not carry important investment costs. Also in developed
countries investment and operation cost will be lower than traditional options.
Environmental impacts associated to the energy consumption
for otation and for chemicals manufacturing are avoided in the
new system.

References
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, nineteenth ed., ISBN 0-87553-223-3.
Asplund, Stina, 2005. The Biogas Production Plant at Ume Dairy Evaluation of
Design and Start-up, Degree thesis, Linkping University, Sweden, http://urn.
kb.se/resolve?urnurn:nbn:se:liu:diva-5509, accessed 19.10.10.
Campos, C.M.M., de Luiz, F.A.R., Botelho, C.G., Damasceno, L.H.S., 2004. Avaliao da
ecincia do reator UASB tratando euente de laticnio sob diferentes cargas
orgnicas. Cincia e Agrotenologia 28 (6), 1376e1384.
Cavaleiro, A.J., Pereira, M.A., Alvez, M., 2008. Enhancement of methane production from
long chain fatty acid based efuents. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (10), 4086e4095.
Chee Tahir, A., Darton, R.C., 2010. The process analysis method of selecting indicators to quantify the sustainability performance of a business operation.
J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1598e1607.
Danalewich, J.R., Papagiannis, T.G., Belyea, R.L., Tumbleson, M.E., Raskin, L., 1998.
Characterization of dairy waste streams, current treatment practices, and
potential for biological nutrient removal. Water Res. 32 (12), 3555e3568.
Demirel, B., Yenigun, O., Onay, T., 2005. Anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewaters:
a review. Process Biochem. 40, 2583e2595.
Garca, P., Rico, J.L., Fdz-Polanco, F., 1991. Anaerobic treatment of cheese whey in
a two-phase UASB reactor. Environ. Tech. 12, 355e362.
Gavala, H., Kopsinis, H., Skiadas, I., Stamatelatou, K., Liberatos, G., 1999. Treatment of
dairy wastewater using an upow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 73, 59e63.
Hamilton, R., Archer, H., 2007. Anaerobic Contact Process for Dairy Factory Wastewater Treatment at Fonterra Tirau, New Zealand e 22 years successful Experience, 11th IWA World Congress on Anaerobic Digestion, 23e27 September
2007 Brisbane, Australia.
Hwu, C.-S., Donlon, B., Lettinga, G., 1996. Comparative toxicity of long-chain fatty
acids to anaerobic sludge from various origins. Water Sci. Technol. 34 (5e6),
351e358.
Hwu, C.S., van Lier, J.B., Lettinga, G., 1997. Physicochemical and biological performance of expanded granular sludge bed reactors treating long-chain fatty acids.
Process Biochem. 33 (1), 75e81.

Hwu, C.-S., Tseng, S.-K., Yuan, C.-Y., Kulik, Z., Lettinga, G., 1998. Biosorption of longchain fatty acids in UASB treatment process. Water Res. 32 (5), 1571e1579.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., van Erck, R.P.G., 2005. Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 373e385.
Mndez, R., Blzquez, R., Lorenzo, F., Lema, J.M., 1989. Anaerobic treatment of
cheese whey: start-up and operation. Water Sci. Technol. 21, 1857e1860.
MGAP (Ministerio de Ganadera, Agricultura y Pesca), 2010. Estadsticas del Sector
Lcteo 2009. http://www.mgap.gub.uy/portal/hgxpp001.aspx?7,5,118 O, S,0,
MNU;E;43;3;MNU, accessed 18.10.10.
Nadais, M.H., Capela, M.I., Aroja, L.M., Duarte, A.C., 2001. Effects of organic, hydraulic
and fat shocks on the performance of UASB reactors with intermittent operation. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (4), 45e46.
Nadais, M.H., Capela, M.I., Aroja, L.M., Duarte, A.C., 2003. Biosorption of milk
substrates onto anaerobic occulent and granular sludge. Biotechnol. Prog. 19,
1053e1055.
Nadais, M.H., Capela, M.I., Aroja, L.M., Duarte, A.C., 2005. Treatment of dairy
wastewater in UASB reactors inoculated with occulent biomass. Water SA 31,
603e608.
Nadais, M.H., Capela, M.I., Aroja, L.M., 2006. Intermittent vs continuous operation of
upow anaerobic sludge bed reactors for dairy wastewater and related
microbial changes. Water Sci. Technol. 54 (2), 103e109.
Ozturk, I., Eroglu, V., Ubay, G., Demir, I., 1993. Hybrid upow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor (HUASBR) treatment of dairy efuents. Water Sci. Technol. 28,
77e85.
Passeggi, M., Lpez, I., Borzacconi, L., 2009. Integrated anaerobic treatment of dairy
industrial wastewater and sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 59 (3), 501e506.
Pereira, M., Cavaleiro, A., Mota, M., Alves, M., 2003. Accumulation of long chain fatty
acids onto anaerobic sludge under steady state and shock loading conditions:
effect on acetogenic and metanogenic activity. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (6),
33e40.
Pereira, M., Mota, M., Alvez, M., 2004. The Important Role of Mass Transfer Limitations Caused by Long Chain Fatty Acids Accumulation onto the Anaerobic
Sludge. Proceedings of the 10th IWA Congress on Anaerobic Digestion. Montreal, Canada.
Perle, M., Kimchie, S., Shelef, G., 1995. Some biochemical aspects of the anaerobic
degradation of dairy wastewater. Water Res. 29 (6), 1549e1554.
Petruy, R., Lettinga, G., 1997. Digestion of a milk-fat emulsion. Bioresource Technol.
61, 141e149.
Puget, F.P., Melo, M.V., Massarani, G., 2004. Modelling of the dispersed air otation
process applied to dairy wastewater treatment. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 21 (02),
229e237.
Ramasamy, E.V., Gajalakshmi, S., Sanjeevi, R., Jithesh, M.N., Abbasi, S.A., 2004.
Feasibility studies on the treatment of dairy wastewaters with upow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactors. Bioresource Technol. 93, 209e212.
Rinzema, A., 1993. Anaerobic digestion of long-chain fatty acids in UASB and
expanded granular sludge bed reactors. Process Biochem. 28, 527e537.
Ross, C.C., Valentine, G.E, Jr., 2008. Use of Coupled Biological/Dissolved air otation
processes for treatment of Food and dairy processing wastewaters, North Carolina AWWA-WEA Annual Conference.
Sayed, S., 1984. Anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater using a occulent sludge UASB reactor. Agric. Wastes 11, 197e226.
Sayed, S., 1987. Anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater using a granular
sludge UASB reactor. Biol. Wastes 21, 11e28.
van Lier, J., Tilche, A., Ahring, B.K., Macarie, H., Moletta, R., Dohanyos, M., Hulshoff
Pol, L.W., Lens, P., Verstraete, W., 2001. New perspectives in anaerobic digestion.
Water Sci. Technol. 43 (1), 1e18.
Vidal, G., Carvalho, A., Mndez, R., Lema, J.M., 2000. Inuence of the content in fats
and proteins on the anaerobic biodegradability of dairy wastewaters. Bioresource Technol. 74, 231e239.