Olive Mill Wastewater: Treatment

and Valorization Technologies

Yahia Rharrabti and Mohamed EI Yamani

Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2
OMW Characterization.....................................................................................................................4
Physicochemical Characteristics.................................................................................................4
Biological Characteristics............................................................................................................5
OMW Toxicity..................................................................................................................................5
OMW Treatment...............................................................................................................................7
Physicochemical Methods...........................................................................................................7
Biological Methods....................................................................................................................10
Oxidation and Advanced Oxidation Processes.........................................................................12
Combined Processes..................................................................................................................15
OMW Valorization..........................................................................................................................16
Land Application.......................................................................................................................16
Biogas Production......................................................................................................................17
Composting................................................................................................................................18
Extraction of Valuable Products................................................................................................19
Other Uses..................................................................................................................................20
Situation in Morocco.......................................................................................................................20
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................22
Cross-References.............................................................................................................................23
References.......................................................................................................................................23

Abstract
Olive oil production industry is an important traditional agro-industry in the
Mediterranean area, with an annual production of three million tons, which
accounted for 97% of the world production. Morocco is one of the
Mediterranean countries concerned with the attractive developing production of
olive oil, with an annual production capacity of 1.5 million tons of olives
and the sixth largest

Y. Rharrabti (*) · M. EI Yamani

Polydisciplinary Faculty of Taza, Taza, Morocco

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

C. M. Hussain (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Materials Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_91-1
2 Y. Rharrabti and M. EI
Yamani
producer of olives after Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Tunisia. Despite the
economic importance of olive mill industry, generation of huge quantities of
olive mill wastewater (OMW) and its uncontrolled disposal create a substantial
envi- ronmental problem.
OMW are characterized by its high toxicity related to its low pH, high
content of mineral salts, and high organic load. Several treatment methods have
been proposed to search the best potential solutions, including physicochemical
methods (e.g., evaporation, coagulation, flocculation, membrane processes),
biological treatment (aerobic and anaerobic digestion), and oxidation processes
(e.g., ozonation, wet air and Fenton oxidation), but the most common method
applied has been the storage of OMW in lagoons, followed by evaporation
during summer season. The complex composition of OMW and their poor
biodegrad- ability due mainly to the presence of phenolic compounds, lipids,
and organic acids make simple treatment methods not sufficient to ensure their
purification. Many biotechnological applications have been proposed for the
valorization of these liquids that significantly reduce the environmental impact
of olive mills (e.g., composting, biogas production, and recovery of valuable
compounds).

Keywords
OMW treatment · Thermal processes · Chemical processes · Membrane
processes · Anaerobic treatment · Anaerobic treatment · Oxidation
processes · Ozonation · Wet oxidation · Fenton oxidation · OMW
valorization · Land application · Composting · Biogas production ·
Morocco

Introduction

The olive oil industry is an agro-industrial sector of great economic importance.

Mediterranean countries are the main producers with 97% of the total olive oil
production. Worldwide olive oil production for the crop year 2015–2016 is
assessed at 3,159,500 tons. 2,322,000 tons comes from European Union countries.
The biggest olive oil-producing country is Spain (1,401,600 t), followed by Italy
(474,600 t), Greece (320,000 t), Turkey (143,000 t), Tunisia (140,000 t), Morocco
(130,000 t) then Portugal breaking the 100,000 t barrier with 109,100 t (Fig. 1)
(IOOC 2016).
Since ancient times, the oil was traditionally obtained by pressure. After the big
increase in production, the extraction of olive oil was obtained by the continuous
extraction system (Fig. 2) including a vertical and horizontal centrifugation which
separates the olive mixture in three-phase: oil, pomace, and a black liquid effluent
called olive mill wastewaters (OMW) or in two phases: oil and wet pomace. The
two-phase system uses a small amount of cold water and therefore a lower dissolu-
tion of phenolic compounds remain in the oil, but this also make it bitter.
Despite the economic importance of olive oil extraction industry especially in
the Mediterranean basin, this area is affected by pollution coming from the great
amounts generated by olive oil mills. This black liquid wastewater known as
Fig. 1 Olive oil producing countries (International Olive Oil Council 2016)

Fig. 2 Three-phase (a) and two-phase (b) centrifugation systems

“OMW” (which comes from the olive fruit-vegetation water, the water used for
washing and treatment and a portion of the olive pulp and residual oil) and its
uncontrolled disposal create a substantial environmental problem. The volume of
OMW varies from 40 to 60 L for pressing method, but it ranged from 80 to 100 L
for triple phase centrifugation process per 100 kg of olives (Harwood 2000).
Whereas, OMW released by dual phase decanter are of small amounts compared
to the other systems, mainly due to the addition of very low quantities of water
during the olives crushing.
 The studies conducted on the composition of OMW indicated that this effluent
contains 83–92% of water as a major part and large amounts of organic molecules,
particularly polyphenolic mixtures with different molecular weights and other
organic molecules, including nitrogen compounds, sugars, organic acids, and
pectins that increase their organic load (Amaral et al. 2008; Massadeh et al. 2008;
Danellakis et al. 2011; Ntougias et al. 2013; Bouknana et al. 2014; Mseddi et al.
2015; Alaoui et al. 2016; El Yamani et al. 2017).
The most common practice for the management of OMW includes the use of
evaporation ponds and the subsequent discharge of solids in landfills and on soil.
However, evaporation do not contribute to the reduction of OMW toxicity, which
makes the problem is always persistent. Several other treatment options have been
investigated to search the best potential solutions, and these can be divided into
four general categories: physicochemical methods (e.g., coagulation-flocculation,
adsorption, combustion, and different membranes processes), biological methods
(e.g., aerobic and anaerobic treatment), and oxidation processes (e.g., ozonation,
wet air, and Fenton oxidation). Combined processes haves also proposed to
overcome the weaknesses of each method and to increase the processing efficiency
(Adhoum and Monser 2004; Paraskeva et al. 2006; Kapellakis et al. 2008; Coskun
et al. 2010; Sampaio et al. 2011; Di Lecce et al. 2014; Amor et al. 2015; Martins et
al. 2015; Weber et al. 2015).
The complex composition of OMW and their poor biodegradability due mainly
to the presence of phenolic compounds, lipids, and organic acids make simple
treatment methods not sufficient to ensure their purification. Moreover, treatment
of OMW requires high capital and operating cost units with limited efficiency due
to high polluting loads. Recently, several research carried out on OMW had
focused on their valorization through numerous applications (e.g., composting, use
as fertilizer, biogas production, recovery of valuable compounds) (Zenjari 2000;
Capasso et al. 2002; Visioli et al. 2005; Sarris et al. 2013; Elkacmi et al. 2016; El-
Abbassi et al. 2017).
This study provides updated information on research works carried out on: (i)
the composition of the OMW and their toxicity, (ii) the options proposed for their
treatment, and (iii) the possible applications of valorization.

OMW Characterization

Physicochemical Characteristics

Several studies were conducted on OMW characterization. These effluents have

a very complex and heterogeneous physicochemical composition, which varies
depending on many factors such as the variety and maturity of the olives, period
of production, climatic conditions, farming methods, region of origin, and
especially the oil extraction technology (Ben Sassi et al. 2006; El Yamani et al.
2017), among other affecting factors such as type of olives, tillable soil, and use of
pesticides or fertilizers.
 OMW are characterized generally by an intensive dark brown to black color, an
acidic character, high pollution load due to their high organic matter content,
which mainly consists of polysaccharides, sugars, polyphenols, polyalcohols,
tannins, proteins, organic acids, and lipids. Moreover, OMW contain considerable
amounts of suspended solids (Amaral et al. 2008; Massadeh et al. 2008;
Danellakis et al. 2011; Ntougias et al. 2013; Bouknana et al. 2014; Mseddi et al.
2015; Alaoui et al. 2016; El Yamani et al. 2017). Besides its strong organic
content, OMW contain significant quantities of mineral salts in which the most
representative elements are potassium, phosphate, and sodium (Massadeh et al.
2008; Ntougias et al. 2013).
Recent literature data concerning the average concentrations of key
physicochem- ical constituents of OMW has been summarized in Table 1.

Biological Characteristics

Several studies were also carried out on different samples of OMW in order to
highlight the microbial diversity that could be developed in this type of effluent.
OMW microbiota is under many affecting factors such as soil and fresh water
environments, specific cultivar, cultivation, and harvesting practice (Kavroulakis
et al. 2011; Tsiamis et al. 2012).
Yeasts related to Geotrichum (G. candidum), Candida (C. membranifaciens,
C. michaelii, C. inconspicua, and C. tropicalis), Pichia (P. fermentans and P.
holstii), Rhodotorula (R. mucilaginosa), and Saccharomyces (S. cerevisiae) have
been isolated from Italian OMW (Sinigaglia et al. 2010; Bleve et al.
2011). Pichia (P. guilliermondii–syn. Meyerozyma guilliermondii) and Candida
(C. diddensiae and
C. ernobii) spp. were also the main yeast biota in OMW from Moroccan olive
mills (Ben Sassi et al. 2008). The fungal flora consists essentially of Aspergillus
flavius, Aspergillus candidus, Penicillium negricans, and Alternaria sp. (Aissam
2003).
Tsiamis et al. (2012) have reported that OMW bacterial diversity consisted of
members of Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria,
Gammaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes. While, bacterial flora in OMW was
dom- inated by fermentative members of Bacteria, such as lactic acid
(Lactobacillus and Oenococcus spp.) and acetic acid (Acetobacter and
Gluconacetobacter spp.) bacteria (Kavroulakis et al. 2011).
Mouncif et al. (1993b) have reported the total absence of fecal bacteria in
OMW. In contrast, the presence of this kind of bacteria was confirmed by
Kavroulakis et al. (2011) and it was related to the family Prevotellaceae and the
Ruminococcus- Eubacterium Clostridium cluster.

OMW Toxicity

OMW toxicity is mainly related to the phenolic compounds’ action, which are
responsible for their black coloring and which have phytotoxic and antimicrobial
properties (Capasso et al. 1992; Casa et al. 2003; Ouzounidou and Asfi 2012).
 6
Table 1 Physicochemical characteristics of OMW
References
Parameters Units Amaral Mssadeh Danellakis Ntougias Bouknana Mseddi Alaoui El Yamani
et al. (2008) et al. (2008) et al. (2011) et al. (2013) et al. (2014) et al. et al. et al. (2017)
(2015) (2016)
PH – 5.10–5.80 nd 5.62 4.98–5.10 4.50–5.32 4.33 4.5–5.0 4.86–5.38
Conductivity mS/ nd nd 11.28 nd 13.00–42.00 15.56 14.00 9.48–11.70
cm
Chemical oxygen g O2/ 7.45–68.48 78.54–160.10 nd nd 52.00–120.00 64.00 64.00 nd
demand L
Biological oxygen g O2/ 0.50–9.50 23.25–63.27 nd nd 8.50–25.00 35.00 45.00 nd
demand (5 days) L
Total solids g/L 3.13–30.22 nd 64.68 41.90–54.76 nd 70.25 23.9 nd
Total suspended g/L nd 14.21–46.19 nd nd 19.00–27.40 12.8 14.8 nd
solids
Volatile solids g/L nd nd 62.18 nd nd nd nd
Ash g/L nd nd nd nd nd nd 4.96 nd
Total phenols g/L 0.027–1.051 7.739–10.432 11.00 0.20–1.80 5.00 2.10 1.31–1.78
Total sugars g/L nd nd 41.65 nd 3.52–10.48 nd
Oil and grease g/L 2.47–62.30 nd nd nd 0.80–27.40 1.12 0.6 nd
Kjeldahl nitogen g/L 0.022–0.302 0.398–1.036 0.71 0.41–1.30 nd 0.154 nd nd Y.
Phosphorus g/L 0.011–0.162 0.158–0.403 0.328 0.03–1.00 nd 20.10 nd nd Rh
Potassium g/L 0.169–2.210 2.053–5.492 0.730 0.47–3.00 nd 2.40 nd nd arr
ab
Sodium g/L nd 0.130–0.384 0.152 nd nd 1.40 nd nd
ti
Magnesium g/L nd 0.038–0.63 0.114 nd nd 0.32 nd nd an
Calcium g/L nd 0.276–0.757 0.284 nd nd 0.38 nd nd d
Chlorides g/L nd 0.486–1.111 nd nd 23.79–142.71 nd nd 0.83–1.16 M.
EI
Ya
m
Olive Mill Wastewater: Treatment and Valorization 7
Technologies
Morever, DellaGreca et al. (2001) have proven the negative effects of these wastes
on soil microbial populations, on aquatic ecosystems, and even in air quality.
OMW phenolic fraction has been reported to exhibit antimicrobial activity
against some strains, which is even greater than the respective activities induced
by the individual phenolic compounds, indicating the synergistic action of OMW
phenolics (Obied et al. 2007). Concerning plants, uncontrolled OMW application
could inhibit germination of seeds (Casa et al. 2003; Mekki et al. 2006), plant
growth, and photosynthetic pigments (Ouzounidou et al. 2008).
Even though phenols are considered as the principal cause of OMW toxicity,
long-chain fatty acids and volatile acids attributed to non-phenolic related toxicity
(Ouzounidou et al. 2010). Capasso et al. (1992) demonstrated that OMW remained
phytotoxic to vegetable marrow and tomato plants even after total extraction of the
polyphenols. In addition, Hanif and El Hadrami (2009) have suggested that the
low
pH and the osmotic stress caused by the presence of high Na+ and Cl— concentra-
tions may play a role in OMW acute toxicity. While Karaouzas et al. (2011) have
attributed the negative effect of OMW on the aquatic fauna of fluvial ecosystems
to both high organic load and fecal contamination.

OMW Treatment

Physicochemical Methods

Thermal Processes
Evaporation is the most widely used mean for OMW management. It allows
a concentration of OMW achieved either by a manmade heat source or by a
natural source of thermal energy (air, sun). The last way for OMW evaporation
(natural evaporation) is the most practical way in the Mediterranean countries.
This process consists of the storage of OMW in the large evaporation ponds of
shallow depth where OMW remain there for several weeks or even months
depending on climatic conditions. OMW is evaporated, and at the same time, a
partial biological degrada- tion of the organic matter takes place through a
series of aerobic and anaerobic fermentation processes. This simple method
avoids OMW discharging into sewers and rivers and is a relatively cheap solution.
However, it requires larger area together with production of black foul smelling
sludge difficult to remove and pollutant infiltration to ground water. Moreover,
the remaining paste needs further treatment. To overcome natural evaporation
problems, evaporator panels were used to facilitate OMW evaporation (Fiestas
Ros de Ursinos and Borja 1992). This way has reduced the area of evaporation
ponds and multiplied by 40–100 the amount of water per m3 occupied by the soil,
but odor nuisances and high-energy cost are the
main disadvantages.
Others thermal treatment methods such as combustion and pyrolysis have been
tested as a ways of OMW management and as means of recovering energy for co-
fueling the olive oil extraction plant. Combustion and pyrolysis, both are destruc-
tive techniques with high-energy requirements and expensive equipment needed.
Pretreatment of OMW and posttreatment of the emissions of toxic substances are
also required.

Chemical Processes
Several chemical treatment processes for OMW are found in the literatures.
Coagulation/flocculation is one of the most effective and used methods and
remains the least expensive compared to its performance. It consists of OMW
treatment by the use of additional chemicals in order to destabilize the suspended
and colloidal matter and form an insoluble solid that can be removed easily from
the waste. Oil, suspended solids, COD, and BOD are decreased in this way.
Several researchers tested different chemicals products; the most important are
ferric and ferrous chloride, ferric sulfate, and aluminium sulfate. Mixture of these
coagulants (flocculants) and acidify- ing of the waste with hydrochloric acid
solution are also tested (Kestioglou et al. 2005). Lime treatment of OMW was also
studied and corresponds to pH increase (at about 11–12) for optimal performance
(Paraskeva et al. 2006). COD, phenols, and suspended solid removal efficiencies
of 50–90% were obtained in chemical treat- ments. The major disadvantage of this
process is that there is in fact a simple transfer of the pollution from the soluble
state to the mud state; large quantities of sludge with high pollution load are
produced leading to serious disposal problems. In addition, most organic
compounds contained in OMW are difficult to precipitate.
Recently, the chemical method that has attracted attention for OMW treatment
is electrocoagulation. It is a technique for destabilizing suspended, emulsified, or
dissolved pollutants in an electrocoagulation cell by introducing an electric current
without adding a chemical coagulant. The coagulant is generated in the solution
from the conductive metal plates, commonly known as “sacrificial electrodes”
often made on aluminium or iron (Fig. 3) (Bani Salameh et al. 2015). Adhoum and
Monser (2004) have found a reduction of 76% COD, 91% phenols, and 95% color
after 25 min of treatment at 75 mA/cm 2. Electrocoagulation process allowed
removal of total solids and COD of about 82.5% and 47.5%, respectively at 45
mA/cm2 after 70 min by using coupled iron-aluminum electrodes (Bani Salameh
et al. 2015). The main advantages of this process are its high effectiveness in
removing contaminants, simplicity of equipment, and generation of a lower
volume of sludge compared with the classic coagulation technology (Hanafi et al.
2009).
Adsorption is another chemical process used to remove hazardous inorganics
and organic compounds, especially phenols from OMW. It is a simple and
relatively economical method widely used in the removal of pollutants. Granular
activated carbon (GAC) is the most commonly used adsorbent for removing
organic pollut- ants. Adsorption on GAC showed about 30% COD reduction and a
requirement of 50 kg carbon m3 effluent (Kestioglou et al. 2005). Adsorption of
the OMW onto activated clay reduced the COD by a further 71% and the phenol
content by a maximum of 81% (Paraskeva and Diamadopoulos 2006). Al-Malah
et al. (2000) have also used activated clay for OMW treatment, reduction of 81%
phenols and 71% COD was obtained. Other inexpensive minerals (i.e., clays,
zeolite, etc.) can be used for removal of color and phenol adsorption from OMW.
Fig. 3 Experiment set up of 1
electrocoagulation method: A V
(1) power supply, (2) pump,
(3) magnetic stirrer, (4)
wastewater reservoir tank,
(5) cathode, (6) anode, (7)
6 5
wastewater reservoir tank
(Bani Salameh et al. 2015)

7 rpm

Membrane Processes
Membrane processes is one of the most promising treatment processes for OMW.
They have gained a main role to seek for a viable process to treat OMW streams
due to their capability to eliminate almost all of the pollutants in the water without
adding solvents. These processes are based on the use of filtration membranes that
allow separation under the pressure gradient effect of dissolved substances
according to particle size and electrical charge.
Ultrafiltration is the widely considered membrane process, while
microfiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis also have been investigated and
suggested for OMW treatment both for organic matter reduction and for
polyphenols recovery. In addition, a separation of fats that are rejected by the
membrane from salts, sugars, and phenolic substances that pass to the permeate
can also be performed, enabling the economic exploitation of these substances.
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration are used mainly for primary treatment purposes
while nanofiltration and reverse osmosis are used for final treatment (Coskun et al.
2010).
Membranes fouling may occur very easily due to gelling substances contained
in OMW. It is the major technical drawback for the implementation of membrane
technologies, leading to a reduction of the membrane efficiency. In addition,
membrane processes are not suitable for the treatment of strong OMW because of
their limited efficiency and their high costs, which make their use especially
recommended as pretreatment steps in processes that aim at the recovery of
valuable,
expensive components such as polyphenols and flavoring agents from OMW. For
the reasons stated above, some measurements, pretreatment steps, and process
combinations seem absolutely necessary before the use of these processes for
OMW treatment, as reported by many studies.
Coskun et al. (2010) investigated the OMW treatment (Turkey) by membranes
techniques; OMW were previously centrifuged, then filtered via ultrafiltration
mem- branes followed by nanofiltration, and finally reverse osmosis membranes.
The maximum COD removal efficiencies obtained at 10 bars ranged from 59.4%
to 79.2% for the nanofiltration membranes, whereas about 96.2% for the reverse
osmosis membranes, respectively. Likewise, an integrated centrifugation-
ultrafiltration pro- cess was proposed by Turano et al. (2002) for the OMW
treatment in Italy, reductions of 90% COD and 80% of suspended solids
concentration were achieved.
Di Lecce et al. (2014) have studied the fractionation of OMW (Italy) using a
two steps microfiltration and nanofiltration membrane process at pilot scale.
Results revealed a rejection of the nanofiltration membrane towards COD, dry
matter, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant activity greater than 97%,
independent of the volume concentration factor.
Paraskeva et al. (2007) have tested a combination of different membrane
processes for the treatment and fractionation of OMW; ultrafiltration followed by
nanofiltration and/or reverse osmosis. The recovery ratio was fixed between 80%
and 90% of the initial OMW volume, at 15–35 ○C operating temperature and
transmembrane pressure between 1.0 and 2.25 bar. Phenols present in the OMW
were removed to an extent exceeding 95% of the initial value following the nano-
filtration step. The concentrate obtained at this stage was very rich in phenols.
Better efficiency of the OMW treatment was achieved applying reverse osmosis
after ultrafiltration.

Biological Methods

Anaerobic Treatment
Anaerobic biological process consists of microbiological digestion of OMW in
the absence of molecular oxygen driven mostly by bacteria that converts organic
compounds into biogas (methane and carbon dioxide). It involves three major
steps; hydrolysis of complex organic compounds to their monomers which are
converted to organic acids during acidogenesis and methanogenesis, the most
significant anaer- obic stage that consist of conversion of the organic acids into
biogas (methane and carbon dioxide) (Sabbah et al. 2004).
The method is widely used and particularly advisable because of their
advantages associated to the feasibility to treat wastewaters with high organic
load, low energy requirements, low production of sludge, ability to restart easily
after several months of shut down, and generation of energy in the form of biogas
(Mantzavinos and Kalogerakis 2005). However, anaerobic processes are affected
by temperature, retention time, pH, H 2 partial pressure, and the chemical
composition of the wastewater, therefore, the additions of both alkali substances
to neutralize pH and
substances that are sources of nitrogen such as urea or ammonia are necessary.
Moreover, the presence of compounds, such as phenols and organic acids, toxic to
methanogens in OMW appears to be a major limitation of the anaerobic digestion
of OMW (Hamdi 1996). Two approaches are proposed to overcome this problem:
(i) the dilution of OMW to reduce phenols and organic acids concentration, (ii) the
removal of compounds that are toxic to methanogenic consortia, with a prior
aerobic treatment. The latter appears to be the most suitable.
Numerous studies using different anaerobic reactor types have been
investigated. In a recent study, OMW were digested in its original composition
(100% v/v) in an anaerobic hybrid. High concentrations (54–55 kg COD/m3), acid
pH (5.0), and lack of alkalinity and nitrogen are some OMW adverse
characteristics. Loads of 8 kg COD/m3/day provided 3.7–3.8 m3 biogas/m3/day
(63–64% CH4) and 81–82% COD removal (Sampaio et al. 2011). Raposo et al.
(2004) have reported that when using an anaerobic reactor with bentonite as
support medium for hydraulic retention times of up to 25 days and an organic
loading rates range of 0.86–5.38 kg COD/m3/day, COD reductions were up to
88.8%, and methane production was 0.31 m3 CH4/kg COD.
Bertin et al. (2004) have tried to overcome the problem of inefficiency of
the conventional contact bioreactors to remove OMW phenolic compounds
by employing an anaerobic OMW-digesting microbial consortium passively
immobilized in column reactors packed with granular activated carbon (GAC) or
“Manville” silica beads (SB). Anaerobic reactors packed with GAC and with SB
showed a marked improvement in the removal of organic matter compared with
conventional anaerobic treatment. The GAC reactor achieved 78.4% COD
depletion, 90% phenol reduction, and 0.08 m3 CH4/kgCOD yield, while the SB
reactor achieved 48.3% COD reduction, 50.6% phenol reduction, and 0.18 m 3
CH4/kg COD yield.
Ubay and Ozturk (1997) were investigated the anaerobic treatability of OMW
using a laboratory scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASBR). CODs
were varied from 15 to 22.6 g/L while retention times ranged from 0.83 to 2 days;
soluble COD removal was around 70%. A methane conversion rate of 0.35 m 3 per
kg COD removed was achieved. Dilution, nutrient addition, and alkalinity adjust-
ment were required.

Aerobic Treatment
Aerobic treatment is the use of aerobic strains for the biodegradation of the
organic content of the waste. It is a commonly used technology in wastewater
treatment. For OMW, known for their high organic contain specifically phenolic
compound, a prior dilution and an acclimatization period for the microorganisms
are required for the method to be effective (Yesilada et al. 1998). Kapellakis et al.
(2008), have also reported that the process can operate efficiently only at the low
concentrations of the effluent; i.e., of the order of 1 g/L COD. A long hydraulic
retention time and/or with high recycle ratios are recommended in case of high
concentrations (Paraskeva and Diamadopoulos 2006). Therefore, aerobic
processes are unsuitable for direct and efficient treatment of OMWW. They are
often used as pretreatment to increase the efficiency of the anaerobic processes.
 Many microorganisms (fungi, yeast, bacteria) have been tested in aerobic treat-
ment of OMW: Pleurotus ostreatus, Bacillus pumilus, Panus tigrinus, Yarrowia
Lipolytica, Aspergillus niger, Azotobacter chroococcum, Azotobacter vinelandii,
Aspergillus terreus, Phanerochaete chrysosporium et Pleurotus ostreatus, etc.
(Hamdi et al. 1991a, b; Kissi et al. 2001; Fadil et al. 2003). The various studies
carried out on the aerobic treatment of OMW have shown a considerable rates
removal of COD and of phytotoxic compounds were achieved. Yesilada et al.
(1998) have reported a removal of 70% COD and 93% phenols using Funalia
troggi for OMW treatment, while Coriolus versicolor allowed a reduction of 63%
COD and 90% of the phenols for an initial COD of 28.20 g O2/L. A reduction of
75–66% of total organic carbon and total phenols, respectively, and a
discoloration of about 45% after 4 days of incubation, were observed using
Leutinus edodes (Vinciguerra et al. 1995). Kissi et al. (2001) have tested OMW
treatment by Phanerochaete chrysosporium; results were reduction rates of 73%
COD and 83% polyphenols with 12 days of incubation for an initial COD of 50 g
O2/L. A removal of 55%, 52.5%, and 62.8% of COD was obtained with aerobic
treatment of OMW by Geotrichum sp., Aspergillus sp., and Candida tropicalis,
respectively (Fadil et al. 2003).
Tziotzios et al. (2007) have examined the capability of olive fruit bacteria to
remove COD and phenolic compounds from OMW using flasks reactors at
different dilutions (20%, 50%, and 100%). The maximum phenolic and dissolved
COD removal reached up to 82–90% for the dilutions of 20%, 50%, and 100%, in
11, 23, and 30 days, respectively.

Oxidation and Advanced Oxidation Processes

Ozonation
Ozonation is a very interesting technology for industries as it can operates at
ambient conditions. It has been successfully employed for the OMW treatment
either alone or in conjunction with other process. The method can be seen as a part
of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) that could be used in great number of
reactions with organic and inorganic compounds given that hydroxyl radical
results from the decomposition of ozone, which is catalyzed by hydroxyl ion or
initiated by the presence of traces of other substances (Bani Salameh 2015). In
fact, Ozone is considered as a powerful oxidizing agent and effective disinfectant,
able to degrade bio-refractory organic matter by attacking selectively the double
bonds of unsatu- rated fatty acids and phenolic compounds in OMW, leading to
low-molecular-weight molecules more amenable for other treatments especially
those biological (Mantzavinos and Psillakis 2004). Ozone production requires a
large amount of electrical energy and its use can be uneconomical in wastewaters
with high organic load. Therefore, this treatment can be enhanced by the addition
of hydrogen peroxide and/or UV radiation, and even with catalysts or photo-
Fenton reaction.
Several studies were investigated in order to evaluate ozone’s efficiency in
treating OMW and especially removing toxic compounds. Siorou et al. (2015)
have reported that ozonated OMW held for 0, 60, 120, 300, 420, 540 min in
a glass bubble reactor, showed a drastic reduction of OMW total phenols (almost
50%) after 300 min of ozonation with a concomitant decrease of OMW toxicity.
Abatement of 80% of phenolic content and removal of 12% COD at the steady
state were reached by ozonation treatment of OMW in a continuous reactor at pH
9, 1 ml/min of liquid flow rate and 15 g O 3/m3. An integration schemes were also
tested, ultrafiltration followed by ozonation was able to reach 93 and 20% of total
phenols and COD depletion, respectively (Martins et al. 2015). Tsintavi et al.
(2013) have performed a batch ozonation experiments on OMW in a glass bubble
reactor. The results were a 57–76% reduction in total phenols and a 5–18%
decrease in total carbohydrates contained in OMW. The higher removal efficiency
(91% for total phenols and 19% for COD) was showing with ozone oxidation at
initial pH value of 12, in a study carried out by Bettazzi et al. (2007).

Wet Air Oxidation

Wet air oxidation (WAO) consists of a direct and total oxidation of organic
compounds by molecular oxygen in a liquid aqueous phase, under relatively
elevated temperatures and pressures (220–320 ○C, 50–200 bars). This technique
was successfully applied to the treatment of different kinds of wastewaters (García
et al. 1990; Verenich et al. 2004). Nevertheless, it implies severe conditions for
operating (WAO units with high nickel content alloys, much more expensive than
common stainless steel, and large thickness, in order to support the high pressures
involved) that involved high capital costs and safety issues related to these condi-
tions. Therefore, various catalysts were introduced to mitigate the severe reaction
conditions to more amenable values (125–220 ○C, 5–50 bars) (Gomes et al. 2007).
The WAO process has been successfully performed in the OMW treatment, and
it has been demonstrated to be a feasible to effectively reduce the levels of
contam- ination of these effluents. In fact, the oxidation reactions turn phenolic
compounds into less toxic end products, such as carboxylic acids, carbon dioxide,
or other harmless small-molecular-weight products (Weber et al. 2015). García et
al. (1990) have achieved reductions of the total phenolic content of OMW close to
99% using
pure oxygen (partial pressure 35 bars) at temperatures around 250 ○C. The WAO
process catalyzed by hydrogen peroxide coupled with bioxidation for OMW was
investigated by Chakchouk et al. (1994). Oxidation was conducted between 180
○
C and 200 ○C. WAO treatment allows a complete decoloration of the solution, a
77% COD reduction; the remaining COD is mainly low–molecular-weight
carboxylic acids (chiefly acetic) easy for a biological post-treatment.
In a comparative study, the oxidation using air as the oxygen source of OMW
diluted with synthetic urban wastewater (1:10) has been carried out in the liquid
phase at high temperatures and pressures. A positive effect has shown of the
previous neutralization of the wastewater if compared to the oxidation conducted
at the original pH of the effluent (pH = 5.3). Removal of toxic phenolic-type
compounds is accomplished under relatively mild conditions of temperature and
pressure (453 K and 7.0 MPa total pressure). In terms of DCO depletion and final
biodegradability characteristics of the effluent, the use of free radical promoters,
for instance, hydrogen peroxide, resulted in a significant enhancement of the
process.
While the use of copper oxide or platinum supported catalysts has showed not
only an improvement in the COD removal rate but also a high degree of the
mineraliza- tion of the wastewater contaminant load (Rivas et al. 2001a).
Recently, Gomes et al. (2007) have studied the suitability of catalytic wet air
oxidation for the OMW treatment, in a high-pressure reactor under an oxygen
partial pressure of 6.9 bars. The complete total organic carbon and color removal
was obtained using carbon supported platinum (1 wt.% Pt) after 8 h of reaction at
200 ○C.

Fenton Advanced Oxidation

Fenton process is an advanced oxidation technology based on hydroxyl radicals
generation by the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide when reacting with iron
ions (Fe2+ and/or Fe3+) acting as homogenous catalyst at acidic pH (2–4) and
ambient conditions. The iron (III) ions generated during the oxidation stage
promote the removal of other pollutants by coagulation and sedimentation
(Bautista et al. 2008). The Fenton process has variants, such as Fenton-like,
photo-Fenton, and electro- Fenton processes for enhancement. Generated Fe3+ can
be also reduced by reaction with exceeding H2O2 to form again ferrous ion and
more radicals. This second process is called Fenton-like; it is slower than
Fenton reaction and allows Fe2+ regeneration in an effective cyclic mechanism.
Photo-Fenton’s process is an improvement of the classical Fenton’s reagent
through the addition of ultraviolet radiation or visible light. When, in electro-
Fenton process, pollutants are destroyed by oxidation at the anode surface
and/or using the Fenton’s reagent in the bulk (Amor et al. 2015; Hadjltaief et al.
2015; Madani et al. 2015; Pariente et al. 2015). The main advantage of Fenton
process is that the reagent components are safe to handle and environmentally
benign. The process presents some other advantages: the reaction takes place at
atmospheric pressure and at ambient temperature, hence no energy is required to
activate the hydrogen peroxide; the cost-saving due to the use of metal iron
compared to iron salts, the faster recycling of ferric iron at the iron surface and the
production of harmful byproducts, is too low compared with other advanced
oxidation processes. Nevertheless, the generation of large amount of iron sludge
created at the end of the reaction that needs further treatment and the strict
control of the pH (2.5–3.5) to guarantee a high catalytic performance are the major
weaknesses of this process (Bautista et al. 2008).
Fenton oxidation processes are very effective techniques in the removal of
various organic pollutants from wastewater such as OMW and can be used as an
effective pretreatment step to reduce toxicity. They have been extensively studied
for the OMW treatment. Amor et al. (2015) were investigated the pretreatment of
OMW with a classical Fenton method. They have been able to achieve reaching
reductions of 17.6 and 82.5% of COD and total polyphenols, respectively, at pH
3.5 after 8 h reaction, producing an effluent suitable for anaerobic treatment. In
another study done by Madani et al. (2015), the pH, iron-salt, and hydrogen
peroxide dosage were also found to significantly affect the efficiencies of Fenton
process, and acidic pH conditions were the most effective. The process showed
high efficiency of COD (83%), total phenols (98.6%), color (77%), and
aromaticity (67%) removal from the OMW.
Fig. 4 Flowsheet of experimental installation for intensified-Fenton catalytic runs (Pariente et al.
2015)

Different results were found in similar studies; the removal of about 65% of
COD was reached when the Fe(II) concentration is 0.5 mol/L and the reaction
time is longer than 4 h (Rivas et al. 2001b). Complete removal of phenols and
COD reductions in the range 40–60% with a 2 h reaction time at a dose of 2–3 g/L
ferrous sulfate and 3 mL of peroxide (60% w/w) (Vlyssides et al. 2004). The
removal of 40% COD after 2 h of treatment remained unchanged thereafter, at
lower Fe(II) and peroxide concentrations (0.03 and 0.25 mol/L respectively), COD
removals were 40% after 2 h of treatment and remained unchanged thereafter
(Ahmadi et al. 2005). Pariente et al. (2015) have tested an intensified Fenton
catalytic process with a Santa
Barbara Amorphous-15 silica-supported iron oxide as catalyst (Fig. 4), nearly 99%
of phenol can be removed at 160 ○C in an acidic environment.
In other researches, experiments with photo-Fenton and electro-Fenton
processes were performed. The photo-Fenton reaction was less pH dependent than
the Fenton process; the phenol removal rate was 60% at pH 2 and 70% at pH 5
(Mofrad et al. 2015). Hadjltaief et al. (2015) highlighted the role of UV
wavelength and indicated that the use of both UV-C (λ = 254 nm) and UV-A (λ =
365 nm) can reach 100% phenol degradation, but UV-C was more efficient than
UV-A. Electrochemical oxidation with a titanium-tantalum-platinum-iridium
anode has also been used for OMW treatment. It was found that the process was
able to remove almost entirely the content of phenols and the appearance of color,
while, COD removals were up to 40% (Gotsi et al. 2005).

Combined Processes

Combining ozonation and aerobic treatment, Benitez et al. (1999) reported a total
COD reduction of 82.5%, a percentage higher than either of the two technologies
could achieve alone, indicating that ozonation increased the biodegradability of
the OMW. When aerobic treatment preceded ozonation, COD reductions of up to
81% were reported. A combination of biological and UV/O 3 process for the OMW
treatment seems to be a serious alternative in the reduction of the COD. In
particular, biodegradation of UV/O3 pretreated OMW found to have the highest
removal levels; the percent of COD removal reaches about 91% (Lafi et al. 2009).
Ultrafiltration followed by ozonation was able to reach 93% and 20% of total
phenols and COD depletion, respectively. Moreover, this sequence led to an
effluent with a BOD5/ COD ratio of about 0.55 which means that it likely can be
posteriorly refined in a municipal wastewater treatment plant (Martins et al. 2015).
In a previous study, Canepa et al. (1988) have combined ultrafiltration and reverse
osmosis in a pilot plant scheme and observed 93–99% COD reduction.
Khoufi et al. (2006) have investigated an electrochemical pretreatment step of
OMW using the electro-Fenton reaction followed by an anaerobic bio-treatment.
The electro-Fenton process removed 65.8% of the total polyphenolic compounds
and subsequently decreased the OMW toxicity from 100% to 66.9%, which
resulted in improving the performance of the anaerobic digestion. The anaerobic
process applied as post-treatment reached a loading rate of 10 g COD/L/day
without any apparent toxicity. Furthermore, in the combined process, a high
overall reduction in COD, suspended solids, polyphenols, and lipid content was
achieved by the two successive stages. Amor et al. (2015) in a study of OMW
treatment applied Fenton’s reagent followed by anaerobic digestion. This
combined process has presented a significant improvement on organic load
removal, reaching COD degradations from 64% to 88%. In another research,
adsorption, biological treatment, and photo-Fenton caused decreasing phenolic
contents from OMW of 48.69%, 59.40%, and 95%, respectively. However, after
the sequential treatment of the three methods was performed, higher reduction
percentages in phenolic (total 99%) and organic con- tents (90%) were observed
(Aytar et al. 2012).
The different literature methods for OMW treatment are summarized in Fig. 5.

OMW Valorization

Land Application

OMW are rich in organic content and contain a significant amount of nutrients
(sodium, phosphate and potassium) (Massadeh et al. 2008; Ntougias et al. 2013).
OMW spreading on soil can enhance its fertility and promote microbiological
activity (Sierra et al. 2007), especially for soil that have low levels of organic
matter, microbial activity, biomass, and nutrient availability.
Many researchers have applied OMW on soil. Positive effects were confirmed
and were related to high nutrients concentration, especially K, and its potential for
mobilizing soil ions (Paredes et al. 1999). Cox et al. (1997) suggested OMW use
to attenuate leaching of toxic organic chemical such as herbicides (clopyralid and
metamitron) in cultivated lands, because of its ability to reduce the mobility of
Fig. 5 Treatment options for OMW

certain organic compounds in soil. Saadi et al. (2007) have reported that in
addition to nutritional value of OMW, its potential herbicidal activity and ability to
induce suppression of soil-borne plant pathogens are of extra value. Kotsou et al.
(2004) have also confirmed the OMW suppressiveness against the plant pathogen
Rhizoctonia solani. Whereas, OMW application on soil may lead to some negative
effects, associated with its high mineral salt content, acidity, lipids accumulation,
organic acids, and the presence of phytotoxic compounds, especially polyphenols
(Cegarra et al. 1996; Paredes et al. 1999). This is the reason for a limitation of any
effective use of OMW as a fertilizer, therefore, pretreatment before spreading is of
great importance in order to avoid or reduce the negative effects on crops, soils,
and the environment.

Biogas Production

OMW are heavily polluted, because of their high organic load and phenols
content, and hence, it can be used as a renewable energy source for biogas
production through microbial treatment.
 Anaerobic digestion has been studied extensively by many researchers to produce
energy (biogas) and to purify the OMWand thus re-use it especially in irrigation
(Ergüder et al. 2000; Sarris et al. 2013). Although anaerobic digestion of OMW is
feasible for the treatment, the presence of phenolic compounds known by their high
antibacterial activity can slow down the process, hinder removal of part of the COD,
and detract from its economic viability (Hernandez and Edyvean 2008). Therefore,
pretreatment of OMW is a prerequisite and has been able to improve the performance
and behavior of the anaerobic purification of this wastewater (Mantzavinos and
Kalogerakis 2005).
Ergüder et al. (2000) have reported that treatment of 1 L of OMW by anaerobic
methods allowed production ofT57.19 ( 1.5) L of methane gas. Mouncif et al.
(1993a) also studied the production of biogas by anaerobic digestion of OMW,
the rate of biogas produced was reached 207 L/kg of digested organic matter. A
maximum ethanol concentration of 52 g/L was obtained in a batch reactor, using
media enriched with glucose, with sugar concentrations up to 115 g/L (Sarris et al.
2013). Marques (2001), studied the anaerobic digestion of OMW (83%) with
piggery effluent in an up-flow anaerobic filter. The production of biogas was 1–3
m3/m3/day (65–75% CH4).
The co-digestion of various organic wastes has also been studied. Athansoulia
et al. (2012) have investigate the use of OMW (30%) as a co-substrate with waste
activated sludge (70%) to improve biogas production (methane). The biogas pro-
duction rate reached 0.73, 0.63, 0.56 and 0.46 L biogas/L reactor/day for hydraulic
retention times of 12.3, 14, 16.4, and 19.7 day. Dareioti et al. (2009) have
examined the biodegradation of a mixture containing 55% OMW, 40% liquid cow
manure, and 5% cheese whey in a two-stage continuous stirred tank reactor
T
anaerobic process. The methane production rate at steady state conditions reached
1.35 0.11 l CH4/L reactor/day. Fezzani and Cheikh (2008) studied the mesophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of OMW with olive mill solid waste in a batch digester and
results showed an increase in biogas production and COD removal
efficiency from
11.17 T 2.5 to 30.5 T 2.5 L/L digester and from 44.5 T 3 to 83.4 T 2%,
respectively.

Composting

Various disposal approaches have been proposed for appropriate OMW manage-
ment, leading to a number of possible recycling and valorization methods
(Federici et al. 2009). Composting is one of the main technologies of OMW
recycling and it is a of particular interest for its operational simplicity and capacity
to transform OMW into a high-quality amendment, rich in stabilized organic
matter and nutrients for plants (Altieri and Esposito 2010). It has been considered
an appropriate low-cost technology for organic waste recycling and organic
fertilizer production (Ruggieri et al. 2009). Composting is an aerobic
decomposition process that degrades organic matter over a period of weeks into a
granular humus-like product which can be used as a fertilizer or soil conditioner
(Tomati et al. 1996). It proceeds through three phases: an initial activation phase,
followed by a thermophilic phase characterized by a rapid temperature increase,
and a final mesophilic phase where the organic mixture cools down to air
temperature (Ryckeboer et al. 2003).
 Piperidou et al. (2000) have developed a biofertilization system, based on the
ability of Azotobacter vinelandii to grow on OMW and hence their conversion into
an organic liquid fertilizer. Different substrates were tested with OMW to produce
stable compost rich of nutrients. Tomati et al. (1995) found that a fertilizer with a
high level of humification and no phytotoxic effects was obtained by composting
OMW with wheat straw. Zenjari (2000) has studied a composting process by
mixing OMW with cellulosic waste (straw), leading to a stable compost rich in
humic substances, with a reduction of 50% and 95% of COD and total phenols,
respec- tively. The nutritional value of OMW compost has been evaluated and
confirmed by several studies. Cegarra et al. (1996) applied OMW composts to
cultivate horticul- tural and other crops and found that yields obtained with
compost fertilization were similar to, and sometimes higher than, those obtained
with mineral fertilizers. Tomati et al. (1996) also observed an enhancement of
activities in the plant-soil system after the addition of OMW composts.

Extraction of Valuable Products

OMW, known by their highly polluting organic load, are also promising source
of bioactive compounds and substances of high value and great interest. Therefore,
the development of recovery processes for these valuable substances has great
importance and are more studied. Phenolic compounds are one of the most
valuable substances that OMW can provide.
Excellent biological properties such as antioxidant, free radical scavenging,
antimicrobial, and anticarcinogenic activities of the OMW biophenols are
documented (Obied et al. 2005). Visioli et al. (2005) have indicated that phenolic
compounds, as natural dietary antioxidants, may protect the organism against
oxida- tive damage caused by oxidant agents (active oxygen, free radical, etc)
that are involved in the etiology of chronic diseases such as cancer and
atherosclerosis. Many recovery processes of these compounds have been studied:
reverse osmosis, integrated centrifugation-ultrafiltration system, photochemical
degradation of phe- nols, electrocoagulation, Bioreactor (Turano et al. 2002;
Adhoum and Monser 2004). Another group of interesting compounds that could
be obtained from OMW is soluble sugars, including the sugar alcohol or polyol
called mannitol. Mannitol is used as an exicipient in pharmacy and as anticaking
and free-flow agent, lubricant, stabiliser and thickener, and low-calorie sweetener
in the food industry. Fernández-Bolaños
et al. (2004, 2006) were able to recover mannitol with a high degree of purity.
As another form of OMW valorization, Elkacmi et al. (2016) have used
a fractional crystallization technique, on one hand, to extract oleic fatty acid as a
product with a very important commercial value and, on the other hand, to
produce soap and glycerin.
Other compounds of great interest and benefits could be extracted from OMW:
Pectins and oligosaccharides (Fernández-Bolaños et al. 2004), Polymerin
(Capasso et al. 2002), etc.
Other Uses

Other ways of OMW valorization were investigated and proposed, which could be
less common but also of high interest. Several studies were reviewed that OMW
can be also used as a favorable medium for the enzymes production, which can
found applications in the pharmaceutical, detergent dairy, and other industries.
Lipases (Abrunhosa et al. 2013), laccases (Apohan and Yesilada 2011), Mn-
dependent peroxidases, and pectinases (Crognale et al. 2006) seem to be the main
enzymes obtained through a microbial (fungial) treatment.
OMW represent a nutrient substrate for the production of single cell proteins
thanks to their richness in organic matter. The production of single cell protein
through aerobic yeast culture was studied by many authors because of the facility
of their cultivation and the high protein content obtained (Gharsallah 1993). It has
also demonstrated the ability of different strains to produce exopolysaccharides
(Aguilera et al. 2008), rhamnolipids (Mercade et al. 1993) using OMW as sole
nutrient and energy sources. Bioplastics (polyhydroxyalkanoates) have also been
produced using OMW as a starting medium by using different Azotobacter strains
(Cerrone et al. 2010). Recently, many researchers tried to take advantage from the
phytotoxic and antimicrobial properties of OMW by using it in agriculture as
biopesticide for crops protection (El-Abbassi et al. 2017).
The different literature options of OMW valorization are summarized in Fig. 6.

Situation in Morocco

Morocco is one of the Mediterranean countries concerned with the attractive

developing production of olive oil. The olive oil sector contributes 5% to the
national agricultural GDP. Covering an area of 922,000 hectares, the national
farms have a total production of around 1,500,000 tons of olives. The country also
produces 130,000 tons of olive oil, and ranked the sixth largest producer of olives
after Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Tunisia. In terms of exports, 17,000 tons of
olive oil can be found on international markets (IOOC 2016). The main regions of
production cover almost the entire country, except for the Atlantic coastal strip.
The main variety produced is the “Moroccan Picholine” up to 96% of plantations.
The olive oil processing sector is formed from both traditional, semi, and
modern units. The traditional segment comprises 16,000 olive oil mills with the
capacity to crush some 170,000 t of olives per year. Oil extraction rates are low,
barely exceeding 14%. The modern and semi-modern segment is made up of 334
facilities equipped with an aggregate capacity of roughly 530,000 t of olives per
year, and with substantial room for increase (IOOC 2012). Olive oil extraction
using the traditional press and semi and modern methods (three phases and two-
phase decanter) results in the production of large amount of highly contaminated
OMW. The annual production of olive mill wastewater (OMW) in Morocco
exceeds 250,000 m3 (Hanafi et al. 2010).
Fig. 6 Valorization options of OMW

Fig. 7 Evaporation pond of

OMW (Taza province,
Morocco)

Many researches are also carried out on Moroccan OMW. They confirmed the
founding in studies performed in other countries. OMW is one of the strongest
industrial effluents, characterized by a low pH, high organic load (explained by
high values of DCO and DBO), great amount of total solids and a strong
concentration of recalcitrant compounds such as phenols (the most toxic
compounds), lignins and tannins which give it a characteristic dark colour (Ben
Sassi et al. 2006; Bouknana et al. 2014; El Yamani et al. 2017). Concerning the
microbial diversity in Moroccan OMW, Yeast and fungi populations appear to be
high in OMW than bacteria. These microorganisms support the high salinity and
acidic pH and are more resistant than bacteria to phenolic substances. The fungal
flora consists essentially of Aspergillus flavius, Aspergillus candidus, Penicillium
negricans, and Alternaria sp., while, no fecal bacteria was highlighted (Mouncif et
al. 1993b; Aissam 2003).
Thermal treatment, through evaporation in ponds (lagoons), represents the most
practiced treatment of OMW in Morocco (Fig. 7), although several methods have
been tested, but their application is limited. The options of valorization remain
also at laboratory scale. Hanafi et al. (2009) have the electrocoagulation
method for
OMW treatment. A removal capacity of 80–85% COD, 75–80% phenolic com-
pounds, 96–99% color, 7–8 kg/m3 suspended solids, and a reduction of more than
70% for orthophosphates, ammonium, zinc, and iron after 15 min of electrolysis at
250 A/m2 were reported. Electrocoagulation was also tested as pretreatment to
enhance the fungal treatment. The electrocoagulation was able to decrease the
COD and phenol content of the 25% OMW by more than 80% and the color by
more than 90%. The strain Aspergillus niger van Tieghem was more efficient to
reduce COD, phenol content, and color when the OMW was prior diluted or
pretreated (Hanafi et al. 2010). Ben Sassi et al. (2010) have also studied the
biological process using yeast isolated from OMW. Result was a reduction of
about 50% of phenolic compounds. Achak et al. (2014) have used the absorption
onto wheat bran for the removal of phenolic compounds from OMW in another
study. The finding was a phenolic compounds adsorption rate of 67% at 50 g/L of
absorbent dose with an increase of adsorption capacity at high alkanity.
Valorization options of OMW were also studied by several authors. El-Abbasi
et al. (2012) have revealed the considerable antioxidant capacity of the OMW,
which can be considered as an inexpensive potential source of high added value
powerful natural antioxidants comparable to some synthetic antioxidants
commonly used in the food industry. El Yamani et al. (2017) also reported a high
antibacterial activity of phenolic compounds extracted from OMW. Belaqziz et al.
(2016) have investi- gated the effect of direct amendment of OMW on the fertility
of soil, described as poor in the area of Marrakech (semi-arid region) in Morocco.
Results of amendment with untreated OMW for two consecutive years (10
L/m2/year) were increase of nutritive elements by 81% for nitrogen, 66% for
phosphorus and 88% for potassium in soil. The accumulation of phenolic
compounds and the increase of total peroxi- dase activity in plants have provided
evidence of their protective role against the physiological stress induced by OMW.
Recently, El-Abbassi et al. (2017) have reported that the OMW can be used to
suppress the growth of the main bacterial, fungal phytopathogens, and weed
species without any negative effects on crop growth. Nevertheless, some measures
should be respected when using OMW as biopesticide especially in regards of
dose and timing of use.

Conclusion

Technologically, the problem of OMW could be more or less solved after many
successful attempts at treatment and valorization. While realistically, it is still far
from being solved, mainly because of practical and economic reasons related to
nature of OMW, dispersion of the olive mills, and the seasonality of the process
(Paraskeva and Diamadopoulos 2006). Hence, the olive oil industry needs even
more studies on the development of olive oil extraction techniques or on the
options for removal of OMW toxicity and their valuation.
Cross-References

▶ Adsorption Isotherm of Heavy Metal Ions from Palm Oil Mill Effluents
▶ Biofilm-based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment
▶ Effective Management of Slaughterhouse Waste with Special Reference to
Design of Effluent Treatment Plant
▶ Electrocoagulation (EC) Technology: For Wastewater Treatment & Pollutants
Removal
▶ Major Environmental Issues and Problems
▶ Major Environmental Issues and Problems of South Asia, Particularly
Bangladesh
▶ New Techniques for Treatment and Recovery of Valuable Products from Olive
Mill Wastewater
▶ Principles and Mechanism of Adsorption for the Effective Treatment of Palm
Oil Mill Effluent
▶ Removal of Total Organic Carbon Using Commercial Activated Carbon as
Adsorbent
▶ Technologies for Treatment of Colored Waste Water from Different Industries
▶ Wastewater Management to Environmental Materials Management

References
Abrunhosa L, Oliveira F, Dantas D et al (2013) Lipase production by Aspergillus ibericus using
olive mill wastewater. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 36:285–291
Achak M, Hafidi A, Mandi L et al (2014) Removal of phenolic compounds from olive mill
wastewater by adsorption onto wheat bran. Dasalin Water Treat 52:2875–2885
Adhoum N, Monser L (2004) Decolourisation and removal of phenolic compounds from olive
mill wastewater by electrocoagulation. Chem Eng Process 43:1281–1287
Aguilera M, Quesada MT, Guerra del Aguila V et al (2008) Characterisation of Paenibacillus
jamilae strains that produce exopolysaccharide during growth on and detoxification of olive
mill wastewaters. Bioresour Technol 99:5640–5644
Ahmadi M, Vahabzadeh F, Bonakdarpour B et al (2005) Application of the central composite
design and response surface methodology to the advanced treatment of olive oil processing
wastewater using Fenton’s peroxidation. J Hazard Mater 123:187–195
Aissam H (2003) Etude de la biodégradation des effluents des huileries (margines) et leur
valorisation par production de l’enzyme tannase. Thèse de Doctorat. Univérsité Sidi
Mohamed Ben Abdullah. Fès, Maroc
Alaoui SN, El Laghdach A, Stitou M et al (2016) Treatment and valorization of olive mill
wastewaters. Med J Chem 5:458–464
Al-Malah K, Azzam MOJ, Abu-Lail NI (2000) Olive mills effluent (OME) wastewater post-
treatment using activated clay. Sep Purif Technol 20:225–234
Altieri R, Esposito A (2010) Evaluation of the fertilizing effect of olive mill waste compost in
short- term crops. Int Biodeter Biodegr 64:124–128
Amaral C, Lucas MS, Coutinho J et al (2008) Microbiological and physicochemical characteriza-
tion of olive mill wastewaters from a continuous olive mill in northeastern Portugal.
Bioresour Technol 9:7215–7223
Amor C, Lucas MS, García J et al (2015) Combined treatment of olive mill wastewater by
Fenton’s reagent and anaerobic biological process. J Environ Sci Health 50:161–168
Apohan E, Yesilada O (2011) Enhancement of laccase production of pre-grown fungal pellets in
wastewater of olive oil mills. Fresenius Environ Bull 5:1216–1224
Athanasoulia E, Melidis P, Aivasidis A (2012) Anaerobic waste activated sludge co-digestion
with olive mill wastewater. Water Sci Technol 65:2251–2258
Aytar P, Gedikli S, Sam M et al (2012) Sequential treatment of olive oil mill wastewater with
adsorption and biological and photo-Fenton oxidation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:3060–3067
Bani Salameh WK (2015) Treatment of olive mill wastewater by ozonation and
electrocoagulation processes. Glob Adv Res J Eng Technol Innov 4:69–78
Bani Salameh WK, Ahmad H, Al-Shannag M (2015) Treatment of olive mill wastewater by
electrocoagulation processes and water resources management. Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol
Geophys Eng 9:296–300
Bautista P, Mohedano A, Casas J et al (2008) An overview of the application of Fenton oxidation
to industrial wastewaters treatment. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 83:1323–1338
Belaqziz M, El-Abbassi A, Lakhal EK et al (2016) Agronomic application of olive mill
wastewater: effects on maize production and soil properties. J Environ Manag 171:158–165
Ben Sassi A, Boularbah A, Jaouad A et al (2006) A comparison of olive oil mill wastewaters
(OMW) from three different processes in Morocco. Process Biochem 41:74–78
Ben Sassi A, Ouazzani N, Walker GM et al (2008) Detoxifcation of olive mill wastewaters by
Moroccan yeast isolates. Biodegradation 19:337–346
Ben Sassi A, Benlemlih M, Ibnsouda Kouraichi S et al (2010) Suitability of yeast for the
treatment of olive mill wastewater. Terr Aquat Environ Toxicol 4:113–117
Benitez FJ, Beltran-Heredia J, Torregrosa J et al (1999) Treatment of olive mill wastewaters by
ozonation, aerobic degradation and the combination of both treatments. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 74:639–646
Bertin L, Berselli S, Fava F, Pentrangeli-Papini M et al (2004) Anaerobic digestion of olive mill
wastewaters in biofilm reactors packed with granular activated carbon and ‘Manville’ silica
beads. Water Res 38:3167–3178
Bettazzi E, Caretti C, Caffaz S et al (2007) Oxidative processes for olive mill wastewater
treatment.
Water Sci Technol 55:79–87
Bleve G, Lezzi C, Chiriatti MA et al (2011) Selection of nonconventional yeasts and their use in
immobilized form for the bioremediation of olive oil mill wastewaters. Bioresour Technol
102:982–989
Bouknana D, Hammouti B, Salghi R et al (2014) Physicochemical characterization of olive oil
mill wastewaters in the eastern region of Morocco. J Mater Environ Sci 5:1039–1058
Canepa P, Marignetti N, Rognini U et al (1988) Olive mills wastewater treatment by combined
membrane processes. Water Res 22:1491–1494
Capasso R, Cristinzio G, Evidente A et al (1992) Isolation, spectroscopy and selective phytotoxic
effects of polyphenols from vegetable wastewater. Phytochemistry 3:4125–4128
Capasso R, De Martino A, Cristinzio G (2002) Production, characterization, and effects on
tomato of humic acidlike polymerin metal derivatives from olive oil mill waste waters. J
Agric Food Chem 50:4018–4024
Casa R, D’Annibale A, Stazi SR et al (2003) Reduction of the phenolic components in olive-mill
wastewater by an enzymatic treatment and its impact on durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.)
germinability. Chemosphere 50:959–966
Cegarra J, Paredes C, Roig A et al (1996) Use of olive mill wastewater compost for crop
production.
Int Biodeter Biodegr 38:193–203
Cerrone F, Sánchez-Peinado M, Juárez-Jimenez B et al (2010) Biological treatment of two-phase
olive mill wastewater (TPOMW, alpeorujo): polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) production by
azotobacter strains. J Microbiol Biotechnol 20:594–601
Chakchouk M, Hamdi M, Foussard JN et al (1994) Complete treatment of olive mill wastewaters
by a wet air oxidation process coupled with a biological step. Environ Technol 15:323–332
Coskun T, Debik E, Demir NM (2010) Treatment of olive mill wastewaters by nanofiltration and
reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 259:65–70
Cox L, Celis R, Hermosin MC et al (1997) Porosity and herbicide leaching in soils amended with
olive-mill wastewater. Agric Ecosyst Environ 65:151–161
Crognale S, D’Annibale A, Federici F et al (2006) Olive-mill waste water valorization by fungi.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 81:1547–1555
Danellakis D, Ntaikou I, Kornaros M et al (2011) Olive oil mill wastewater toxicity in the marine
environment: alterations of stress indices in tissues of mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis.
Aquat Toxicol 101:358–366
Dareioti MA, Dokianakis SN, Stamatelatou K et al (2009) Biogas production from anaerobic
codigestion of agroindustrial wastewaters under mesophilic conditions in a two-stage process.
Desalination 248:891–906
DellaGreca M, Monaco P, Pinto G et al (2001) Phytotoxicity of low-molecular-weight phenols
from olive mill waste waters. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 67:352–359
Di Lecce G, Cassano A, Bendini A et al (2014) Characterization of olive mill wastewater
fractions treatment by integrated membrane process. J Sci Food Agric 94:2935–2942
El Yamani M, Ghabbour N, Sakar EH et al (2017) Olive oil wastewaters from northern Morocco:
physicochemical characterization and antibacterial activity of polyphenols. J Mater Environ
Sci 8:2667–2378
El-Abbassi A, Kiai H, Hafidi A (2012) Phenolic profile and antioxidant activities of olive mill
wastewater. Food Chem 132:406–412
El-Abbassi A, Saadaoui N, Kiai H et al (2017) Potential applications of olive mill wastewater as
biopesticide for crops protection. Sci Total Environ 576:10–21
Elkacmi R, Kamil N, Bennajah M et al (2016) Extraction of oleic acid from Moroccan olive mill
wastewater. Biomed Res Int 2016. 9 pages
Ergüder TH, Guven E, Demirer GN (2000) Anaerobic treatment of olive mill wastes in batch
reactors. Process Biochem 36:243–248
Fadil K, Chahlaoui A, Ouahbi A et al (2003) Aerobic biodegradation and detoxification of
wastewaters from the olive oil industry. Int Biodeter Biodegr 51:37–41
Federici F, Fava F, Kalogerakis N et al (2009) Valorisation of agroindustrial by-products,
effluents and wastes: concept, opportunities and the case of olive oil sector. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 84:895–900
Fernández-Bolaños J, Rodríguez G, Gómez E et al (2004) Total recovery of the waste of two-
phase olive oil processing: isolation of added-value compounds. J Agric Food Chem
52:5849–5855
Fernández-Bolaños J, Rodríguez G, Rodríguez R et al (2006) Extraction of interesting organic
compounds from olive oil waste. Grasas Aceites 57:95–106
Fezzani B, Cheikh RB et al (2008) Optimisation of the mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of
olive mill wastewater with olive mill solid waste in a batch digester. Desalination 228:159–
167
Fiestas Ros de Ursinos JA, Borja R (1992) Use and traetement of olive mill wastewater: current
situation and prospects in Spain. Grasas Aceites 2:101–106
García GP, Fernandez AG, Chakman A et al (1990) Aplicacion de la tecnología jet-reactor a la
oxidacion hurneda de las aguas residuales de las industrias derivadas del olivo. Grasas
Aceites 41:158–162
Gharsallah N (1993) Production of single cell protein from olive mill wastewater by yeasts.
Environ Technol 14:391–395
Gomes HT, Figueiredo JL, Faria JL (2007) Catalytic wet air oxidation of olive mill wastewater.
Catal Today 124:254–259
Gotsi M, Kalogerakis N, Psillakis E et al (2005) Electrochemical oxidation of olive oil mill
wastewaters. Water Res 39:4177–4187
Hadjltaief HB, Zina MB, Galvez ME et al (2015) Photo-Fenton oxidation of phenol over a Cu-
doped Fe-pillared clay. C R Chim 18:1161–1169
Hamdi M (1996) Anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewaters. Process Biochem 31:105–110
Hamdi M, Bouhamed H, Ellouz R (1991a) Optimisation of Aspergillus niger growth on olive
mill
wastewaters. Appl Microbiol Biothecnol 36:285–288
Hamdi M, Khadir A, Garcia JL (1991b) The use of Aspergillus niger for the bioconversion of
olive mill waste-waters. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 34:828–831
Hanafi F, Sadif N, Assobhei O et al (2009) Traitement des margines par électrocoagulation avec
des électrodes plates en aluminium. J Water Sci 22:473–485
Hanafi F, Assobhei O, Mountadar M (2010) Detoxification and discoloration of Moroccan olive
mill wastewater by electrocoagulation. J Hazard Mater 174:807–812
Hanif S, El Hadrami I (2009) Olive mill wastewaters: diversity of the fatal product in olive oil
industry and its valorization as agronomical amendment of poor soils: a review. J Agron 8:1–13
Harwood J, Aparicio R (2000) Handbook of olive oil-analysis and properties. An Aspen
Publication, Gaithersburg
Hernandez EJ, Edyvean RGJ (2008) Inhibition of biogas production and biodegradability by
substituted phenolic compounds in anaerobic sludge. J Hazard Mater 160:20–28
IOOC (2012) Market newsletter of international olive oil council. http://www.internationaloliveoil.org
IOOC (2016) Market newsletter of international olive oil council. http://www.internationaloliveoil.org
Kapellakis IE, Tsagarakis KP, Crowther JC (2008) Olive oil history, production and by-product
management. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 7:1–26
Karaouzas I, Skoulikidis NT, Giannakou U et al (2011) Spatial and temporal effects of olive mill
wastewaters to stream macroinvertebrates and aquatic ecosystems status. Water Res
45:6334–6346
Kavroulakis N, Ntougias S (2011) Bacterial and B-proteobacterial diversity in Olea europaea
var. mastoidis and O. europaea var. koroneiki generated olive mill wastewaters: influence of
cultivation and harvesting practice on bacterial community structure. World J Microbiol
Biotechnol 27:57–66
Kestioglou K, Yonar T, Azbar N (2005) Feasibility of physicochemical treatment and advanced
oxidation processes (AOPs) as a means of pretreatment of olive mill effluent (OME). Process
Biochem 40:2409–2416
Khoufi S, Aloui F, Sayad S (2006) Treatment of olive oil mill wastewater by combined process
electro-Fenton reaction and anaerobic digestion. Water Res 40:2007–2016
Kissi M, Mountadar M, Assobhei O et al (2001) Roles of two white-rot basidiomycete fungi in
decolorisation and detoxification of olive mill waste water. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
57:221–226
Kotsou M, Mari I, Lasaridi K et al (2004) The effect of olive oil mill wastewater (OMW) on soil
microbial communities and suppressiveness against Rhizoctonia solani. Appl Soil Ecol
26:113–121
Lafi WK, Shannak B, Al-Shannag M et al (2009) Treatment of olive mill wastewater by
combined advanced oxidation and biodegradation. Sep Purif Technol 70:141–146
Madani M, Aliabadi M, Nasernejad B et al (2015) Treatment of olive mill wastewater using
physico-chemical and Fenton processes. Desalin Water Treat 53:2031–2040
Mantzavinos D, Psillakis E (2004) Enhancement of biodegradability of industrial wastewaters by
chemical oxidation pre-treatment. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 79:431–454
Mantzavinos D, Kalogerakis N (2005) Treatment of olive mill effluents. Part I. Organic matter
degradation by chemical and biological processes – an overview. Environ Int 31:289–295
Marques IP (2001) Anaerobic digestion treatment of olive mill wastewater for effluent re-use in
irrigation. Desalination 137:233–239
Martins RC, Ferreira AM, Gando-Ferreira LM et al (2015) Ozonation and ultrafiltration for the
treatment of olive mill wastewaters: effect of key operating conditions and integration
schemes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:15587–15597
Massadeh MI, Modallal N (2008) Ethanol production from olive mill wastewater (OMW)
pretreated with pleurotus sajor-caju. Energy Fuel 22:150–154
Mekki A, Dhouib A, Sayadi S (2006) Changes in microbial and soil properties following amend-
ment with treated and untreated olive mill wastewater. Microbiol Res 161:93–101
Mercade ME, Manresa MA, Robert M et al (1993) Olive oil mill effluent. New substrate for
biosurfactant production. Bioresour Technol 43:1–6
Mofrad MR, Nezhad ME, Akbari H et al (2015) Evaluation of efficacy of advanced oxidation
processes Fenton, Fenton-like and photo-Fenton for removal of phenol from aqueous
solutions. J Chem Soc Pak 37:266–271
Mouncif M, Achkari-Begdouri A, Faid M (1993a) Traitement des margines par digestion
anaérobique. Actes Inst Agron Vet Maroc 13:13–19
Mouncif M, Tamoh S, Faid M et al (1993b) A study of chemical and microbiological
characteristics of olive mill waste water in Morocco. Grasas Aceites 44:335–338
Mseddi S, Chaari L, Belaid C et al (2015) Valorization of treated olive mill wastewater in
fertigation practice. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:15792–15800
Ntougias S, Gaitis F, Katsaris P et al (2013) The effects of olives harvest period and production
year on olive mill wastewater properties – evaluation of Pleurotus strains as bioindicators of
the effluent’s toxicity. Chemosphere 92:399–405
Obied HK, Allen MS, Bedgood DR et al (2005) Bioactivity and analysis of biophenols recovered
from olive mill waste. J Agric Food Chem 53:823–837
Obied HK, Bedgood DR Jr, Prenzler PD et al (2007) Bioscreening of Australian olive mill waste
extracts: biophenol content, antioxidant, antimicrobial and molluscicidal activities. Food
Chem Toxicol 45:1238–1248
Ouzounidou G, Asfi M (2012) Determination of olive mill wastewater toxic effects on three mint
species grown in hydroponic culture. J Plant Nutr 35:726–738
Ouzounidou G, Asfi M, Sotirakis N et al (2008) Olive mill wastewater triggered changes in
physiology and nutritional quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) depending on
growth substrate. J Hazard Mater 158:523–530
Ouzounidou G, Zervakis G, Gaitis F (2010) Raw and microbiologically detoxified olive mill
waste and their impact on plant growth. Terr Aquat Environ Toxicol 4:21–38
Paraskeva P, Diamadopoulos E (2006) Technologies for olive mill wastewater (OMW)
treatment: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 81:1475–1485
Paraskeva CA, Papadakis VG, Tsarouchi E et al (2007) Membrane processing for olive mill
wastewater fractionation. Desalination 213:218–229
Paredes C, Cegarra J, Roig A et al (1999) Characterization of olive-mill wastewater (alpechin)
and its sludge for agricultural purposes. Bioresour Technol 67:111–115
Pariente MI, Molina R, Melero JA et al (2015) Intensified-Fenton process for the treatment of
phenol aqueous solutions. Water Sci Technol 71:359–365
Piperidou CI, Chaidou CI, Stalikas CD et al (2000) Bioremediation of olive oil mill wastewater:
chemical alterations induced by Azotobacter vinelandii. J Agric Food Chem 48:1941–1948
Raposo F, Borja R, Sanchez E et al (2004) Performance and kinetic evaluation of the anaerobic
digestion of two phase olive mill effluents in reactors with suspended and immobilized
biomass. Water Res 38:2017–2026
Rivas FJ, Beltran FJ, Gimeno O et al (2001a) Wet air oxidation of wastewater from olive oil mills.
Chem Eng Technol 24:415–421
Rivas JF, Beltran FJ, Gimeno O et al (2001b) Treatment of olive oil mills wastewater by Fenton’s
reagent. J Agric Food Chem 49:1873–1880
Ruggieri L, Cadena E, Martínez-Blanco J et al (2009) Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanish
wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the composting process.
J Clean Prod 17:830–838
Ryckeboer J, Mergaert J, Vaes K et al (2003) A survey of bacteria and fungi occurring during
composting and self-heating processes. Ann Microbiol 53:349–410
Saadi I, Laor Y, Raviv Medina S (2007) Land spreading of olive mill wastewater: effects on soil
microbial activity and potential phytotoxicity. Chemosphere 66:75–83
Sabbah I, Marsook T, Basheer S (2004) The effect of pretreatment on anaerobic activity of olive
mill wastewater using batch and continuous systems. Process Biochem 39:1947–1951
Sampaio MA, Gonçalves MR, Marques IP (2011) Anaerobic digestion challenge of raw olive
mill wastewater. Bioresour Technol 102:10810–10818
Sarris D, Giannakis M, Philippoussis A et al (2013) Conversions of olive mill wastewater-based
media by Saccharomyces cerevisiae through sterile and non-sterile bioprocesses. J Chem
Technol Biotechnol 88:958–969
Sierra J, Marti E, Garau MA et al (2007) Effects of the agronomic use of olive oil mill wastewater:
field experiment. Sci Total Environ 378:90–94
Sinigaglia M, Di Benedetto N, Bevilacqua A et al (2010) Yeasts isolated from olive mill
wastewa- ters from southern Italy: technological characterization and potential use for phenol
removal. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87:2345–2354
Siorou S, Vgenis TT, Dareioti MA et al (2015) Investigation of olive mill wastewater (OMW)
ozonation efficiency with the use of a battery of selected ecotoxicity and human toxicity
assays. Aquat Toxicol 164:135–144
Tomati U, Galli E, Pasetti L et al (1995) Bioremediation of olive mill waste waters by composting.
Waste Manage Res 13:509–518
Tomati U, Galli E, Fiorelli F et al (1996) Fertilizers from composting of olive-mill wastewaters.
Int Biodeter Biodegr 44:155–162
Tsiamis G, Tzagkaraki G, Chamalaki A et al (2012) Olive-mill wastewater bacterial communities
display a cultivar specifc profile. Curr Microbiol 64:197–203
Tsintavi E, Pontillo N, Dareioti MA et al (2013) Ozone pretreatment of olive mill wastewaters
(OMW) and its effect on OMW biochemical methane potential (BMP). Water Sci Technol
68:2712–2717
Turano E, Curcio S, De Paola MG et al (2002) An integrated centrifugation-ultrafiltration system
in the treatment of olive mill wastewater. J Membr Sci 206:519–531
Tziotzios G, Michailakis S, Vayenas DV (2007) Aerobic biological treatment of olive mill waste-
water by olive pulp bacteria. Int Biodeter Biodegr 60:209–214
Ubay G, Ozturk I (1997) Anaerobic treatment of olive mill effluents. Water Sci Technol 26:287–
294 Verenich S, Molina VG, Kallas J (2004) Lipophilic wood extractives abatement from TMP
circulation waters by wet oxidation. Adv Environ Res 8:293–301
Vinciguerra V, D’Annibale A, Delle Monache G et al (1995) Correlated effects during the
bioconversion of waste olive waters by lentinus edodes. Bioresource Technol 51:221–226
Visioli F, Caruso D, Grande S, Bosisio R et al (2005) Virgin olive oil study (VOLOS):
vasoprotective potential of extra virgin olive oil in mildly dyslipidemic patients. Eur J Nutr
44:121–127
Vlyssides AG, Loukakis HN, Karlis PK et al (2004) Olive mill wastewater detoxification by
applying pH related Fenton’s oxidation process. Fresenius Environ Bull 13:501–504
Weber B, Chavez A, Mejia JM et al (2015) Wet air oxidation of resorcinol as a model treatment
for refractory organics in wastewaters from the wood processing industry. J Environ Manag
161:137–143
Yesilada O, Sik S, Sam M (1998) Biodegradation of olive oil mill wastewater by Coriolus
versicolor and Funalia trogii: effects of agitation, initial COD concentration, inoculum size
and immobilization. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 14:37–42
Zenjari B (2000) Etude ecotoxicologique des effluents liquides des huileries de la ville de Marra-
kech: Impact sur les milieux récepteurs et détoxication. Thèse de doctorat. Université Cdi
Ayyad. Marrakech