See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237152020

Evaluation of treatment options for Atlantic Canadian seafood processing plant

effluent

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · January 2010

DOI: 10.1139/L09-127

CITATIONS READS
4 308

3 authors, including:

Bryan Lee Jamieson Alex Augusto Gonçalves

5 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   
Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido - UFERSA
215 PUBLICATIONS   1,620 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Use of seafood processing residue for new by-product development View project

Seafood freshness evaluation using quality index method (QIM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Augusto Gonçalves on 11 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 167

Evaluation of treatment options for Atlantic

Canadian seafood processing plant effluent1
Bryan Lee Jamieson, Alex Augusto Gonçalves, and Graham A. Gagnon

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate different effluent treatment options for Atlantic Canadian seafood
processing plants. Bench-scale testing with a 25-mesh screen, sedimentation (SED), and dissolved air flotation (DAF) was
conducted. Treatment by SED and DAF was successful in reducing contaminant concentrations with maximum observed
percent reductions: biochemical oxygen demand, BOD5 (90%); chemical oxygen demand, COD (60%); turbidity (99%); to-
tal suspended solids, TSS (95%); and ammonia nitrogen, NH3-N (50%). Bench-scale 25-mesh screen runs for select efflu-
ent types showed poor reduction efficiencies and appeared to provide inadequate removal of contaminants. Sedimentation
and DAF using alum were effective at removing solids but less effective at removing soluble effluent components. Im-
proved performance may be possible with further treatment technology optimization on an effluent specific basis.
Key words: seafood processing, effluent, sedimentation, dissolved air flotation.
Résumé : Cette étude visait à évaluer les différentes options de traitement des effluents des usines de traitement des pro-
duits de la mer du Canada atlantique. Des essais ont été réalisés à l’échelle du laboratoire utilisant un tamis de 25 mailles
au pouce, la sédimentation et la flottation à l’air dissous (FAD). Le traitement par sédimentation et FAD a réussi à réduire
les concentrations de contaminants aux pourcentages de réduction maximale observés suivants : demande biochimique en
oxygène – DBO5 (90 %), demande chimique en oxygène – DCO (60 %), turbidité (99 %), total des solides en suspension
– TSS (95 %) et azote ammoniacal NH3-N (50 %). Les passes au tamis de 25 mailles au pouce à l’échelle du laboratoire
pour les types d’effluents choisis ont montré de faibles efficacités de réduction et semblaient mal éliminer les contami-
nants. La sédimentation et la FAD utilisant du sulfate d’aluminium ont été efficaces pour éliminer les solides, mais moins
efficaces à éliminer les composants solubles de l’effluent. Il peut être possible d’accroı̂tre le rendement par une optimisa-
tion plus poussée de la technologie de traitement selon les spécificités de l’effluent.
Mots-clés : traitement des produits de la mer, effluent, sédimentation, flottation à l’air dissous.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

1. Introduction effluents, in harbours and bays, remains a source of concern

The processing of seafood products can require significant
volumes of water, which has a direct consequence in the
generation of contaminated effluents. The resultant effluent
is typically high in organic material, suspended solids, and
ammonia-nitrogen, therefore treatment of these effluents be-
fore discharge must be proposed (Tchoukanova et al. 2003;
Islam et al. 2004; Sohsalam et al. 2008). Furthermore, efflu-
ent characteristics can be quite variable from one plant to
another because effluent quality is closely linked to the dif-
ferent types of species they process. The discharge of these
Received 14 August 2008. Revision accepted 6 August 2009.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
23 January 2010.
B.L. Jamieson, A.A. Gonçalves, and G.A. Gagnon.2
Department of Civil and Resources Engineering, Center of
Water Resources Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3J
1Z1, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 May 2010.
1A paper submitted to the Journal of Environmental Engineering
and Science.
2Corresponding author (e-mail: graham.gagnon@dal.ca).
in terms of environmental impact and public health. Their
high organic matter content frequently contributes to the
pollution and degradation of the world’s oceans and coast-
lines particularly near seafood processing plants (Morry et
al. 2003; Tchoukanova et al. 2003; Ferjani et al. 2005; Siria-
nuntapiboon and Srikul 2006; Moens et al. 2007; Sohsalam
et al. 2008).
The Canadian seafood products industry is a major world
exporter of such products. It is estimated that seafood proc-
essing plants contribute the majority of organic wastes in
coastal Atlantic Canada. Both liquid (effluent) and solid
wastes are generated by most seafood processing technolo-
gies. Untreated effluents often contain varying amounts of
solid matter including offal, skin, and bone. The almost uni-
versal screening of effluent removes most settleable solids
from the effluent, which are collected for disposal or reproc-
essed into fishmeal. The remaining suspended and dissolved
solids in the effluents are discharged in the receiving envi-
ronment (AMEC 2003; Morry et al. 2003; Adams et al.
2005; Lalonde et al. 2007; Thériault et al. 2007).
The percent composition of insoluble to soluble com-
pounds in seafood processing effluent is important as this
will dictate the effectiveness of potential wastewater treat-
ment technologies (Lim et al. 2003; Metcalf and Eddy Inc.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37: 167–178 (2010) doi:10.1139/L09-127 Published by NRC Research Press
168
2003). In addition, to ensure the quality and food safety of
the finished products, the industry uses a variety of chemi-
cals (e.g., food additives, cleaners, disinfectants) that can
also become an important source of organic pollution. These
additives may contain nutrients, such as phosphorous (P)
and nitrogen (N), which are eventually found in the efflu-
ents, and can contribute to the pollution and eutrophication
process of coastal waters (Morry et al. 2003; Tchoukanova
et al. 2003; Lalonde et al. 2009).
Insoluble components can be removed by physical waste-
water treatment technologies such as screening through a
fine mesh, or physical–chemical technologies such as coagu-
lation and flocculation followed by precipitation or sedimen-
tation (SED), dissolved air flotation (DAF), membrane
filtration or ultrafiltration (UF) (Afonso and Bórquez 2002;
Morry et al. 2003; Lalonde et al. 2007). Inevitably water
used for processing becomes contaminated to varying de-
grees by the organic materials of the fish, and once dis-
solved in the water they are difficult to remove. Screening
or even DAF treatment does not remove dissolved, also
known as soluble, contaminant components.
Soluble components are more difficult to remove as they
pass through screens and are not as readily susceptible to
coagulation and flocculation. Usually some type of biologi-
cal treatment, which employs the use of aerobic or anaerobic
microorganisms, as well as membrane bioreactor (MBR)
technology to break down compounds, is required to remove
soluble organic components (Seafish 1999; Metcalf and
Eddy Inc. 2003; Sridang et al. 2006, 2008). However, bio-
logical treatment technologies are a great deal more expen-
sive and technically more complex than a SED or DAF
system (Seafish 1999; Morry et al. 2003).
The objectives of this paper were: (i) to evaluate treat-
ment options for seafood processing effluent by conducting
25-mesh screen, SED, and DAF bench-scale treatment runs
on Atlantic Canadian seafood processing effluent samples;
and (ii) to demonstrate whether SED and DAF are potential
treatment options for the seafood processing effluents
sampled in this study. The 25-mesh screen was used in this
study as a reference point, as this represents the minimum
regulatory requirement for treatment of seafood waste
streams in Canada (Environment Canada 1975).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Collection of processing effluent
Samples were collected from Atlantic Canadian seafood
processing effluent streams using Sigma 900 Programmable
Auto-samplers over an entire processing shift. One-time
sampling events were conducted for shellfish: American lob-
ster (Homarus americanus, H. Milne-Edwards, 1837), Jonah
crab (Cancer borealis, Stimpson, 1859), snow crab (Chio-
noecetes opilio, O Fabricius, 1788); and for finfish: yellow-
tail flounder also commonly known as yellowtail flatfish
(Limanda ferruginea Storer, 1839) and Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar Linnaeus, 1758). Effluent samples were col-
lected from seafood processing plants in the Canadian prov-
inces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Exact processing
plant locations cannot be divulged due to confidentiality rea-
sons. Samples were collected through non-toxic polyvinyl
chloride tubing into a food grade plastic drum and refriger-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
ated (4 to 8 8C) until analysis was conducted. Only one sam-
ple from each plant was collected due to the geographic
remoteness of plant locations combined with the difficultly
in gaining access to plant effluent collection systems.
2.2. Effluent characterization
Effluent characterization was carried out at the Center of
Water Resources Studies Laboratory, Dalhousie University
within 24 h of sample collection. Temperature and pH were
measured using a HACH1 SensION 378TM Benchtop
Multi-Parameter Meter. Physicochemical analyses were
measured before and after each treatment run to evaluate
treatment effectiveness and enable the calculation of con-
taminant concentration percent reductions. The following
physicochemical parameters were measured using standard
methods (APHA 1995) as follows:
 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5): BOD is the amount
of oxygen demand required by microorganisms to oxidize
an organic substance to carbon dioxide and water (Met-
calf and Eddy Inc. 2003). To measure BOD5, dissolved
oxygen concentrations were measured at the beginning
and end of a 5 d period for a series of sample dilutions
prepared in standard 350 mL BOD bottles. Initial sample
dilutions ranged from 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 mL per
350 mL of de-ionized (DI) water. After initial analysis, it
was found that a 10 mL dilution would result in consis-
tent and accurate BOD5 measurements.
 Chemical oxygen demand (COD): COD is the amount of
oxygen demand required by a chemical oxidizing agent
(typically chromic acid) to oxidize both organic and inor-
ganic substances (Metcalf and Eddy Inc. 2003). COD was
measured using a HACH DR4000 Spectrophotometer
(HACH Method 8000 – Reactor Digestion Method). Sev-
eral dilutions were required for each effluent consisting
of 1:4, 1:2, and 1:1 mixtures of effluent with DI water.
Once the COD was determined a single dilution, typically
1:4, was chosen to use for further analysis.
 Total suspended solids (TSS): in the case of seafood pro-
cessing effluent the majority of the TSS is organic mate-
rial consisting of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates
(Islam et al. 2004). As such, the high organic component
makes TSS an indicator for oxygen demand. A 1:2 efflu-
ent/DI water dilution was used to facilitate filtering and
prevent plugging.
 Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N): was measured in the proces-
sing effluent to provide an indication of ammonia toxicity
using a HACH DR2010 Spectrophotometer (HACH
Method 8038 – Nessler Method). Levels of NH3-N varied
significantly among effluent samples. Several dilutions
were necessary to determine ammonia concentration and
a suitable dilution, typically a 1:5 or 1:4 effluent/DI
water solution was used.
 Turbidity (as NTU): was measured using a bench-top
HACH 2100P Turbidity Meter in nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU). This parameter correlates well with TSS
and can be used as a TSS surrogate measurement (Met-
calf and Eddy Inc. 2003). The turbidity of the effluent
samples did not require dilutions to enable a reading,
and was measured immediately after each treatment run.
Published by NRC Research Press
Jamieson et al.
2.3. Bench-scale treatment
2.3.1. Bench-scale screen treatment
Bench-scale screen treatment was conducted using an Ad-
vanTech US Standard 25-mesh screen approximately 8 cm
in diameter. The 25-mesh screen treatment runs were per-
formed for finfish samples only as this treatment type was
added to the study design well after shellfish samples had
been collected and analyzed using SED and DAF. One litre
of effluent was filtered manually through the screen. The
raw sample and filtrate were then analysed for BOD5, COD,
TSS, turbidity, and NH3-N. Treatment success was measured
as a contaminant percent reduction from the raw sample (SR)
to the filtered sample (SF): % Red = [(1–(SF/SR))  100].
2.3.2. Bench-scale sedimentation
Bench-scale sedimentation (SED) treatment involves the
addition of a coagulant to an effluent to destabilize colloidal
components resulting in the formation of larger particles
called ‘‘floc’’. These floc particles then settle out via gravity
thereby clarifying the effluent (Metcalf and Eddy Inc. 2003).
The SED treatment runs were conducted using a Phipps and
Bird PB-700 Jar Test Unit. Alum, applied by varying doses
ranging from 25 mg L–1 to 350 mg L–1 depending on the ef-
fluent type, was used as the coagulant. Jars were mixed at
10 rotations per minute (rpm) for 2 min (rapid mix) fol-
lowed by 30 rpm for 10 min (slow mix). The jars were then
allowed to settle for 30 min prior to being sampled. For the
SED runs, jar # 1 represented the control with each subse-
quent jar (total of 5 jars each with a volume of 1 L) contam-
inant concentration subtracted from jar # 1. After treatment
approximately 500 mL of clarified water was drawn off the
top of each jar. This water was analysed immediately for
BOD5, COD, Turbidity, TSS, and NH3-N. As with the
screening runs, SED treatment success was measured as a
contaminant percent reduction from a control. Contaminant
% reductions were calculated for each individual alum dose
and were not averaged.
2.3.3. Bench-scale dissolved air flotation
Bench-scale dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatmen in-
volves the use of a coagulant, as with SED treatment, to
form floc particles, but instead relies on the injection of air
saturated water and the resulting formation of micro-bubbles
to float floc particles to the surface, thereby clarifying the
effluent (Metcalf and Eddy Inc. 2003). The DAF treatment
runs were conducted using an Aztec Environmental Controls
Ltd. Flotation Jar Test Unit. Alum in varying doses ranging
from 75 mg L–1 to 200 mg L–1, depending on effluent type,
was used as the coagulant. Jars were initially mixed at
100 rpm for 2 min (rapid mix) followed by 30 rpm for
4 min (slow mix) and 10 min of flotation time prior to sam-
pling. These mixing times and speeds were later modified to
consist of 100 rpm for 1 min (rapid mix), followed by
40 rpm for 5 min (stage 1 slow mix) and 20 rpm for 5 min
(stage 2 slow mix) and 20 min of flotation time prior to
sampling. The threshold alum dosage resulting in a notice-
able and clear reduction in turbidity during the SED runs
was used as the starting alum dosage in the DAF testing. It
is recognized that a smaller floc size is preferred in DAF.
However, due to the unknown nature of the effluent, a start-
169
ing alum concentration was needed. To accommodate for
this difference, the slow mixing or flocculation stage in the
DAF runs was shortened to 4 min in an effort to keep floc
particles small. Initial DAF mixing times and speeds were
based on information presented in Metcalf and Eddy Inc.
(2003). An approximate 70/30% DI water/air mixture pres-
surized to 70 psi was used to inject air saturated water into
the jars. As mentioned previously, air saturated water was
injected to create micro-bubbles in the effluent sample,
which floc particles adhered to and were subsequently
floated to the surface. The recycle ratio (RR) (the amount
of air saturated water injected into the 1 L DAF jar ex-
pressed as a % of the jar volume), used for DAF treatment
only, was in the range of 5 to 15%. After treatment approx-
imately 700 mL of clarified water was drawn off near the
bottom of each jar and analysed immediately for BOD5,
COD, Turbidity, TSS, and NH3-N. Treatment success was
measured as a percent reduction similar to the screening
and SED runs. The DAF mixing times and speeds were
modified according to data presented by Bourgeois et al.
(2004) during the snow crab treatment runs to enhance the
coagulation and flotation process, and to obtain improved
treatment results. The DAF protocols were modified further
during the finfish treatment runs, and consisted of an addi-
tional DAF run conducted with a constant RR and multiple
alum concentrations. The purpose of this modification to the
experimental design was to experiment with alum concentra-
tions above and below the effective alum dose, as deter-
mined in the SED runs, to evaluate the impact on DAF
performance.
2.3.4. Data analysis
As stated earlier, only one sample was collected from
each plant due to the remote geographic locations of the
plants combined with the difficulty in gaining access to
plant effluent collection systems. As a consequence, statisti-
cal analysis was limited to % reductions calculated for each
individual treatment run. Statistical comparisons were per-
formed using student tests and one-way ANOVAs between
the mean SED concentrations achieved for the shellfish ef-
fluents and among treatments for the finfish effluents. Statis-
tical tests were performed at the 95% level of confidence.
3. Results
The physicochemical characteristics of the effluent, aver-
aged across shellfish and finfish results, before the treatment
were: shellfish with BOD5 243 mg L–1, COD 1 253 mg L–1,
Turbidity 56.4 NTU, TSS 63.9 mg L–1, NH3-N 8.13 mg L–1,
and pH 7.26; and finfish with BOD5 252 mg L–1, COD
1 358 mg L–1, Turbidity 67.3 NTU, TSS 101.8 mg L–1,
NH3-N 4.65 mg L–1, and pH 6.6. As noted earlier the % re-
ductions reported for bench-scale treatment runs are for indi-
vidual jars and are not averaged. As well, 25-mesh screen
runs were performed for finfish effluent only.
3.1. Bench-scale treatment — shellfish effluent
3.1.1. American lobster processing effluent treatment (SED
and DAF)
The SED results for the American lobster processing ef-
fluent are shown in Fig. 1a. An alum dose of 75 mg L–1 ap-
Published by NRC Research Press
170 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 1. American lobster processing effluent reduction curves: A Fig. 2. Jonah crab processing effluent reduction curves: A (sedi-
(sedimentation, SED) and B (dissolved air flotation, DAF). mentation, SED) and B (dissolved air flotation, DAF).
1000 30
A Sedimentation (SED) treatment 80 A Sedimentation (SED) treatment
1000
Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity (NTU)
TSS (mg.L-1) 70 25
800 TSS (mg.L-1)
NH3-N (mg.L-1) NH3-N (mg.L-1)

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

800

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

BOD5 (mg.L ) -1 60
BOD5 (mg.L-1)
20
COD (mg.L-1)
BOD5 & COD

COD (mg.L-1)

BOD5 & COD

50 600
600
40 15

400 30 400
10
200
20
200
5
10 100

0 0 0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 25 50 75 100 125

Alum Dose (mg.L-1) Alum Dose (mg.L-1)

800 30
B Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment 80 B Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment
1000
Turbidity (NTU) 700 Turbidity (NTU)
Alum Dose = 75 mg L-1 70 Alum Dose = 100 mg L-1 25
TSS (mg.L-1) TSS (mg.L -1)
NH3-N (mg.L-1) 600 NH3-N (mg.L-1)

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

800 60
BOD5 (mg.L-1) BOD5 (mg.L -1)
20
COD (mg.L-1) COD (mg.L-1)
BOD5 & COD
BOD5 & COD

500
50
600
400 15
40

400 300
30 10

20 200
200 5
10 100

0 0 0 0
Raw 5 10 15 Raw 5 10 15

Recycle ratio (%) Recycle ratio (%)

peared to be the threshold for achieving significant turbidity peared to generate the threshold reduction level. TSS and
and TSS reductions of 63 and 69%, respectively. Corre- turbidity were reduced by 100 and 87%, respectively, while
spondingly, BOD5 and COD were reduced 72 and 56%, re- BOD5 was reduced by 50%. However, little or no reduction
spectively, at the same alum concentration. Higher dosages was achieved for COD, apart from a 13% reduction ob-
of alum (125 mg L–1) gave additional reductions of 83, 96, served at 125 mg L–1 of alum. Similarly for NH3-N, the
90, and 60% for turbidity, TSS, BOD5, and COD, respec- maximum reduction was only 30% observed at 125 mg L–1.
tively. Final pH levels for each jar were within the optimum Final pH levels for each jar were maintained within the op-
range (5.5–6.3) for alum performance (Metcalf and Eddy timum range for alum performance.
Inc. 2003). The Jonah crab processing effluent DAF results are shown
An optimal alum dose of 75 mg L–1 was selected for DAF in Fig. 2b. An alum dose of 100 mg L–1 was chosen for the
testing based on SED run results. Reductions were observed DAF runs based on SED jar testing results. While reductions
for all the parameters at the three recycle ratios of 5, 10, and were observed for all parameters, they were not as dramatic
15% (Fig. 1b). At a recycle ratio of 10%, TSS and turbidity as observed with the American lobster effluent (Fig. 1b).
were reduced by 66 and 67%, respectively. BOD5 and COD This is supported by the lack of a clear trend in the reduc-
were reduced by 52 and 58% at a 10% RR. The NH3-N re- tion curve displayed in Fig. 2b. At a recycle ratio of 5%, an
duction at 10% RR was low at 22% with a maximum reduc- 88% reduction in both TSS and turbidity was achieved. The
tion of 27% observed at the 15% RR. In general, the final maximum BOD5 reduction of 41% was observed at a 5%
treated effluent quality was similar regardless of the RR ap- RR, and reduction of 23 and 38% was observed at 10 and
plied. Final pH levels for each jar were within the working 15% RR, respectively. COD was reduced only by 32% at a
range for alum performance. recycle ratio of 15%; with no reduction observed at the 5
and 10% RR. These moderate reductions in BOD5 and
3.1.2. Jonah crab processing effluent treatment (SED and COD indicate that most of the oxygen demand is soluble.
DAF) NH3-N was reduced by 25% at the 15% RR with reductions
The Jonah crab processing effluent SED results showed a of 19 and 21% at the 5 and 10% RR, respectively. Final pH
similar but less dramatic trend than the American lobster levels for each jar were within the working range for alum
(Fig. 2a). A slightly higher alum dose of 100 mg L–1 ap- performance.

Published by NRC Research Press

Jamieson et al. 171

3.1.3. Snow crab processing effluent treatment (SED and Fig. 3. Snow crab processing effluent reduction curves: A (sedi-
DAF) mentation, SED) and B (dissolved air flotation, DAF).
In contrast to the American lobster and Jonah crab results 6000 200
A Sedimentation (SED) treatment
(Figs. 1 and 2), the snow crab showed no clear reduction
Turbidity (NTU)
threshold for the alum dosages tested in SED runs. At the 5000
TSS (mg.L-1)
maximum alum dosage of 125 mg L–1, TSS and turbidity NH3-N (mg.L-1) 150

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

BOD5 (mg.L-1)
were only reduced 17 and 76%. At this dosage, BOD5 and 4000
-1

BOD5 & COD

COD (mg.L )
COD concentrations were reduced 50 and 35%, respectively.
Reduction results were also inconsistent for NH3-N at the 3000 100
maximum alum dosage of 125 mg L–1 (results at 125 mg
L–1 of alum not shown in Fig. 3). A second SED jar test 2000
was run with higher alum dosages ranging from 100 to 50
140 mg L–1. Results are presented in Fig. 3a. 1000
For this range, a clearer reduction threshold was observed
for BOD5 and COD but not for TSS, turbidity, and NH3-N. 0 0
The maximum BOD5 reduction was 67% at 120 mg L–1 0 100 110 120 130 140

while COD was reduced by 71% at 140 mg L–1. The maxi- Alum Dose (mg.L-1)
mum TSS reduction was 21% occurring at 130 mg L–1 with
1600 250
a maximum turbidity reduction of 52% observed at 140 mg B Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment
L–1. NH3-N reduction was again inconsistent and low with a Turbidity (NTU)
225
1400 Alum Dose = 125 mg L-1
maximum reduction of 28% observed at both 110 and TSS (mg.L-1)
200
NH3-N (mg.L-1)
140 mg L–1. Final pH levels were within the optimum range

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

1200 BOD5 (mg.L-1) 175
for alum performance. BOD5 & COD COD (mg.L-1)
For the snow crab processing effluent DAF jar testing, an 1000
150

alum dose of 125 mg L–1 was chosen based on both SED 125
run results described above. Inconsistent and low reductions 800
100
were observed for most parameters in this DAF run
(Fig. 3b). Therefore, a new run was carried out using modi- 400
50
fied mixing speeds and times based on a combination of the
200
original times and speeds and those put forward by Bour- 25

geois et al. (2004). The modifications consisted of a shorter 0 0

Raw 5 10 15
rapid mix stage (1 min at 100 rpm), a two stage slow mix
flocculation stage (5 min at 40 rpm followed by 5 min at Recycle ratio (%)

20 rpm), and a longer flotation stage (20 min). Previous

DAF mixing speeds and times consisted of 2 min at
100 rpm, 4 min at 30 rpm, and 10 min of flotation at
0 rpm. It was hypothesized that the shorter rapid mix time
and two stage slow mix stage would optimize floc size and
flotation. The same alum dose was used.
While not as dramatic as the American lobster processing
effluent results, Fig. 3b shows a more defined declining
trend of contaminant concentrations across RR values. Max-
imum TSS and turbidity reductions of 35 and 66% were ob-
served for the 15% RR. Maximum BOD5 and COD
reductions were 61 and 39%, respectively, and occurred at
the 15% RR. NH3-N was again difficult to reduce with a
maximum reduction of 7% also at the 15% RR. Final jar
pH levels were all within the working range for alum per-
formance.
As presented in Fig. 4, a statistical comparison between
the mean SED final concentrations achieved for the shellfish
effluents was conducted. Means, represented by columns,
were calculated using final concentrations observed at alum
doses where contaminant concentrations appeared to level
out. Specifically, for the lobster effluent, the contaminant
concentrations at 75, 100, and 125 mg L–1 of alum were
used to calculate means. Contaminant concentrations at the
same alum doses were used to calculate Jonah crab effluent
means while concentrations observed at 120, 130, and
140 mg L–1 were used to calculate means for the snow crab
SED 2 run. These final results were also used to calculate
95% confidence level represented by the error bars at the
top of each column. The results observed at these varying
alum doses are not true replicates of each other; however,
this analysis was still carried out based on the assumption
that the threshold alum dose had been achieved and that no
further contaminant reduction could be attained. The goal of
this analysis was to demonstrate significant differences in
the effectiveness of SED using alum to reduce contaminant
concentrations in each of the shellfish effluents. Overlap of
the error bars in each column represents no significant dif-
ference while no overlap represents a significant difference
(a = 0.05).
A significant difference was observed between the effec-
tiveness of SED using alum in reducing BOD5 levels in
American lobster and Jonah crab compared to snow crab.
The same was true for COD with lower American lobster
and Jonah crab final COD concentrations compared to snow
crab. There were significant differences between turbidity
results with Jonah crab achieving the lowest turbidity fol-
lowed by American lobster and then snow crab. The same
trend held true for TSS. NH3-N results for all three effluents
were also significantly different with the American lobster
showing the lowest concentration followed by Jonah crab
and then the snow crab. Overall, it appeared that SED using
alum was most effective at treating the lobster and Jonah
crab effluents. An interesting observation is the combination
of low final turbidity and TSS levels coupled with fairly

Published by NRC Research Press

172
Fig. 4. Mean (±95% CI) SED final concentration of BOD5, COD, TSS, turbidity, and NH3-N for American lobster, Jonah crab, and snow
crab effluents.
high remaining COD levels in the lobster, Jonah crab, and
snow crab effluents. This indicates that a large component
of the oxygen demand is composed of soluble compounds.
3.2. Bench-scale treatment — finfish effluent
The effectiveness of screens and DAF systems depends
upon the nature of the effluent (Seafish 1999). Several
changes from the shellfish effluent treatment were applied
to the bench-scale treatment work conducted for finfish ef-
fluent. First, while SED results were still used to determine
the initial alum dose for DAF testing an additional DAF run
was carried out with multiple alum concentrations and a
constant RR. Secondly, the modified DAF mixing times and
speeds developed during the snow crab DAF runs were ap-
plied to the finfish effluents. Third, each finfish effluent was
filtered through a 25-mesh screen to obtain data to assess
the current Fish Processing Operations Liquid Effluent
Guidelines (Environment Canada 1975). The 25-mesh
screen treatment run was added after experimentation with
the shellfish effluents had concluded.
3.3. 25-Mesh screen treatment (yellowtail flatfish and
Atlantic salmon processing effluent)
Table 1 presents the results of the 25-mesh screening of
the yellowtail flatfish and Atlantic salmon effluent samples.
Post-screening percent reductions for all of the parameters
were low. The screened yellowtail flatfish effluent BOD5 ac-
tually showed an increase of 8.8% with COD effectively not
changing with a 0.3% reduction. Slightly better results were
observed for the TSS and turbidity with 11.5 and 9.8% re-
ductions, respectively. As with COD, NH3-N did not change
significantly at a reduction of 0.3%. The pH of the effluent
did not change.
Salmon post-screen reductions were similar to those ob-
served for the yellowtail flatfish effluent. BOD5 filtrate val-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
ues showed an increase of 5.4%. COD effectively did not
change with a reduction of 0.2%. TSS and turbidity showed
smaller reductions in comparison with the yellowtail flatfish
effluent at 1.7 and 1.9%, respectively. NH3-N also showed a
small reduction of 1.1%. The pH of the effluent did not
change.
3.3.1. Yellowtail flatfish processing effluent treatment
(SED and DAF)
The initial SED run using alum doses ranging from 0 to
125 mg L–1 showed inconclusive results. A BOD5 reduction
of 39% was observed at 125 mg L–1 alum and COD reduc-
tion of 9.1% at 50 mg L–1 alum. NH3-N showed a reduction
of 31% at 125 mg L–1. Furthermore, turbidity and TSS were
not reduced at 125 mg L–1 alum. A second SED run, using
alum dosage ranging from 100 to 140 mg L–1was conducted.
Similar results were observed for this run with a BOD5 re-
duction of 44% at 100 mg L–1, with same reduction observed
at 110 mg L–1 alum, a COD reduction of 20% at 140 mg L–1
alum, and no reduction in TSS or turbidity. An NH3-N re-
duction of 55% was observed at 140 mg L–1 alum. A third
SED treatment run was carried out in an attempt to improve
reductions using a much higher alum dose range of
150 mg L–1 to 350 mg L–1. Similar results were observed for
BOD5 and COD with reductions of 40% at 350 mg L–1 and
25% at 200 mg L–1, respectively. However, much better TSS
and turbidity reductions were observed at 95 and 81% for
350 mg L–1 alum, respectively. A maximum NH3-N reduc-
tion of only 9.8% occurred at 250 mg L–1 alum. Figure 5a
shows the SED reductions curves. Final pH levels for each
jar were within the working range for alum performance.
For yellowtail flatfish processing effluent DAF, an initial
alum dose of 200 mg L–1 was selected based on SED run re-
sults. Similar reductions were observed for all the parame-
ters (Fig. 5b) at the three recycle ratios (RR) of 5, 10, and
Published by NRC Research Press
Jamieson et al. 173

Table 1. Finfish processing effluent 25-mesh screening results and percent re-
ductions.

Effluent type Yellowtail flatfish Atlantic salmon

Sample Units Raw Screened Raw Screened
Final pH – 6.32 6.32 6.15 6.15
BOD5 mg L–1 130.6 142.1 265.0 279.3
% Red – –8.8 – –5.4
COD mg L–1 1247 1243 547 546
% Red – 0.3 – 0.2
Turbidity NTU 47.8 42.3 105.5 103.5
% Red – 11.5 – 1.9
TSS mg L–1 98.0 88.4 137.2 134.8
% Red – 9.8 – 1.7
NH3-N mg L–1 31.5 31.4 4.4 4.5
% Red – 0.3 – –1.1

Fig. 5. Yellowtail flatfish processing effluent reduction curves: A (sedimentation, SED), B (dissolved air flotation, DAF), and C (dissolved
air flotation at 10%RR, DAF).
1400 60

1300
A Sedimentation (SED) treatment

Turbidity (NTU)
50
1200 TSS (mg·L-1)
NH3-N (mg·L-1)

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

1100
BOD5 (mg·L-1)
40
1000 COD (mg·L-1)
BOD5 & COD

900
30
800

600 20

400
10
200

0 0
0 150 200 250 300 350

Alum Dose (mg·L-1)

1400 1400 Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment 120

B Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment 120 C
110 RR = 10% Turbidity (NTU) 110
Turbidity (NTU)
1200 Alum Dose = 200 mg L-1 TSS (mg·L-1)
1200
TSS (mg·L-1) 100
100
NH3-N (mg· L-1) NH3-N (mg· L-1)

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

-1 90 -1 90
1000 BOD5 (mg· L ) 1000 BOD5 (mg· L )
80 -1 80
BOD5 & COD

-1
COD (mg·L )
BOD5 & COD

COD (mg·L )
800 70 800 70

60 60
600 50 600 50

40 40
400 400
30 30

20 20
200 200
10 10

0 0 0 0
Raw 5 10 15 Raw 100 150 200 250

Recycle ratio (%) Alum Dose (mg·L-1)

15%. At a 10% RR, TSS and turbidity were reduced by 84 TSS and turbidity were reduced by 77 and 84%, respec-
and 92%, respectively. BOD5 and COD were reduced by 51 tively. BOD5 and COD were reduced by 55 and 49% at the
and 40% at the same RR. The NH3-N reduction at 10% RR same dose. The NH3-N reduction at 150 mg L–1 was 41%.
was 27% with a maximum reduction of 33% observed at the Final pH levels for each jar were within the working range
15% RR. For the second yellowtail flatfish DAF run, the RR for alum performance.
was kept constant at 10% and the alum dosage was varied
between 100 and 250 mg L–1. The DAF reduction curves 3.3.2. Atlantic salmon processing effluent treatment (SED
presented in Fig. 5c indicate that the threshold alum dosage and DAF)
for maximum reductions is 150 mg L–1. At this alum dose, The initial SED run at alum doses ranging from 0 to

Published by NRC Research Press

174
125 mg L–1 showed good results for the Atlantic salmon. A
BOD5 reduction of 62% was observed at 125 mg L–1 alum
with a COD reduction of 57% at the same alum dose. TSS
and turbidity showed excellent reductions at 86 and 96%, re-
spectively, also at an alum dose of 125 mg L–1. NH3-N was
effectively not reduced with a reduction of 2% at
100 mg L–1. In an effort to further pinpoint the optimum
alum dose, a second jar SED test was carried out at alum
doses ranging from 0 to 140 mg L–1. The BOD5 and COD
reductions were 60 and 59%, respectively, at an alum dose
of 120 mg L–1. Maximum TSS and turbidity reductions of
95 and 76% occurred at 140 mg L–1, respectively. TSS and
turbidity reductions at 120 mg L–1 alum were also good at
92 and 73%, respectively. An unexpected result was the
consistent reduction of NH3-N, ranging from 47.3 to
53.1 mg L–1, across all of the alum doses for this run
(Fig. 6a).
In the Atlantic salmon processing effluent DAF run, an
alum dose of 125 mg L–1 was selected based on SED run re-
sults. At a 10% RR, TSS and turbidity were reduced by 87
and 96%, respectively. BOD5 and COD were reduced by 29
and 52% at the same RR. The NH3-N reduction at 10% RR
was 6% with a maximum reduction of 12% observed at the
15% RR (Fig. 6b). In general, the final treated effluent qual-
ity was similar regardless of the RR applied. The new DAF
run with a constant RR of 10% was carried out with alum
dosage varying between 75 and 150 mg L–1. Results are
shown in Fig. 6c and indicate that the threshold alum dosage
for maximum reductions is 100 mg L–1. At this alum dose,
TSS and turbidity were reduced by 87 and 96%, respec-
tively. BOD5 and COD were reduced by 24 and 54% at the
same dose. The maximum NH3-N reduction at 100 mg L–1
was only 9.7%. Final pH levels for each jar were within the
working range for alum performance.
A statistical comparison between the mean SED final con-
taminant concentrations achieved for the yellowtail flatfish
and Atlantic salmon effluents was presented in Fig. 7.
Means, represented by columns, were calculated using final
concentrations observed at alum doses where contaminant
concentrations appeared to level out. To clarify, for the flat-
fish effluent SED 3 run, contaminant concentrations attained
at 200, 250, 300, and 350 mg L–1 of alum were used to cal-
culate means. For the salmon effluent SED 2 run, final con-
taminant concentrations observed at 110, 120, 130, and
140 mg L–1 were used to calculate means. These results
were also used to calculate 95% confidence intervals as rep-
resented by the error bars at the top of each column. As with
the shellfish effluents, these results are not true replicates of
each other, however, this analysis was still carried out based
on the assumption that the threshold alum dose had been
achieved and that no further contaminant reduction could be
attained. The goal of this analysis was to demonstrate signif-
icant differences of the effectiveness of SED using alum to
reduce contaminant levels in each effluent. Overlap of the
error bars in each column represents no significant differ-
ence while no overlap represents a significant difference.
A significant difference in the mean SED final BOD5,
COD, TSS, turbidity, and NH3-N was observed between the
Atlantic salmon and the yellowtail flatfish effluent. Final At-
lantic salmon effluent oxygen demand (i.e., BOD and COD),
turbidity, and NH3-N levels were all lower than those ob-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
served for the yellowtail flatfish effluent. The only excep-
tion was the higher Atlantic salmon TSS level. This
observation conflicts with the turbidity results. However, it
should be noted that low turbidity and TSS values were
achieved in both effluents and the difference between the
two species is relatively small for turbidity but larger for
TSS. Overall, SED runs using alum obtained lower contami-
nant concentrations in the salmon processing effluent than
the yellowtail flatfish effluent. However, as with the shell-
fish effluents, the remaining high oxygen demand coupled
with low solids indicates that soluble components are
present in both finfish effluents.
Figure 8 shows a statistical comparison between the mean
final contaminant concentrations achieved during the second
DAF run for the finfish effluents. In these treatment runs,
RR was held constant at 10% and alum dosage was varied.
Once again, means, represented by columns, were calculated
using final results observed at alum doses where contami-
nant concentrations appeared to level out. To clarify, for the
flatfish effluent, percent reductions attained at 150, 200,
250 mg L–1 of alum were used to calculate a final concentra-
tion mean. For the salmon effluent, percent reductions ob-
served at 100, 125, 150 mg L–1 were used to calculate
means. These results were also used to calculate 95% confi-
dence intervals as represented by the error bars at the top of
each column. Once again, these results are not true repli-
cates of each other; however, this analysis was still carried
out based on the assumption that the threshold alum dose
had been achieved and that no further contaminant reduction
could be attained. The goal of this analysis was to demon-
strate significant differences between the effectiveness of
DAF using alum at a 10% RR to reduce contaminant levels
in each effluent. Overlap of the error bars in each column
represents no significant difference while no overlap repre-
sents a significant difference. This analysis was not con-
ducted for shellfish DAF results as DAF treatment runs
with a constant RR were added after the shellfish experi-
ments were complete.
A significant difference in the mean DAF final BOD5,
COD, turbidity, and NH3-N was observed between the At-
lantic salmon and the yellowtail flatfish effluent. Overlap of
the error bars for the mean TSS concentration for both efflu-
ents demonstrated no significant difference in DAF effec-
tiveness. Overall, as with SED, DAF using alum obtained
lower contaminant concentrations in the Atlantic salmon
processing effluent than the yellowtail flatfish with the ex-
ception of BOD5. Once again, the remaining high oxygen
demand in BOD and COD coupled with lower solids indi-
cates a significant soluble component in both finfish efflu-
ents.
4. Discussion
4.1. Bench-scale treatment
Screens are prone to ‘‘blinding’’ or blockage by seafood
effluent and their effectiveness depends upon the type of
species being processed. In Seafish (1999) trials, a 0.25 mm
(60-mesh) gap rotary wedge wire screen was found effective
for treating herring effluent but blinded with white fish ef-
fluent. A 1 mm (18-mesh) gap screen was found effective
for white fish. Reductions in effluent strength of up to 40%
Published by NRC Research Press
Jamieson et al. 175

Fig. 6. Atlantic salmon processing effluent reduction curves: A (sedimentation, SED), B (dissolved air flotation, DAF), and C (dissolved air
flotation at 10%RR, DAF).
300 70
A Sedimentation (SED) treatment

Turbidity (NTU) 60
250 -1
TSS (mg.L )
NH3-N (mg.L-1)

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

BOD5 (mg.L-1) 50
200
COD (mg.L-1)

BOD5 & COD

40
150
30

100
20

50
10

0 0
0 100 110 120 130 140

Alum Dose (mg.L-1)

700 160 700 160

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment Dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment
650 B 150 650 C 150
-1 RR = 10% 140
600 Alum Dose = 125 mg L Turbidity (NTU) 140 600 Turbidity (NTU)
TSS (mg.L-1) 130 TSS (mg.L-1) 130
550 550
NH3-N (mg.L-1) 120 NH3-N (mg.L-1) 120

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

TSS, NH3-N & Turbidity

500 500
BOD5 (mg.L-1) 110 BOD5 (mg.L-1) 110
450 COD (mg.L-1)
BOD5 & COD 450 COD (mg.L-1)
BOD5 & COD

100 100
400 90 400 90
350 80 350 80
300 70 300 70
60 60
250 250
50 50
200 200
40 40
150 150
30 30
100 20 100 20
50 10 50 10
0 0 0 0
Raw 5 10 15 Raw 75 100 125 150

Recycle ratio (%) Alum Dose (mg.L-1)

Fig. 7. Mean (±95% CI) SED final concentration of BOD5, COD, TSS, turbidity, and NH3-N for yellowtail flounder and Atlantic salmon
effluents.
JAR 1 [ n=4] JAR 1 [ n=4] JAR 1 [ n=4] JAR 1 [ n=4] JAR 1 [ n=4]
YF= 154.0 YF= 1042 YF= 26.0 YF= 23.6 YF= 10.7
AS = 137.6 AS = 272.0 AS = 41.5 AS = 54.4 AS = 5.7
1000 1000 30 30 30

900 900 F
25 25 25
800 800
Final Mean Turbidity (NTU)

A
Final Mean NH3-N (mg/L)
Final Mean BOD5 (mg/L)

700 700
Final Mean COD (mg/L)

Final Mean TSS (mg/L)

20 20 20
600 600

500 500 15 15 15

400 400
F
10 10 10
300 300
F
200 200
5 5 5 A
100 100

0 0 0 0 0

Yellowtail flounder Atlantic salmon

Published by NRC Research Press

176 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 8. Mean (±95% CI) DAF final concentration of BOD5, COD, TSS, turbidity, and NH3-N for yellowtail founder and Atlantic salmon
effluents.
JAR 1 [ n=3] JAR 1 [ n=3] JAR 1 [ n=3] JAR 1 [ n=3] JAR 1 [ n=3]
YF= 226.1 YF= 1282 YF= 102 YF= 55.4 YF= 22.3
AS = 265.0 AS = 547 AS = 137.2 AS = 106.5 AS = 4.4
1000 1000 30 30 30

800 25 25 25
800

Final Mean Turbidity (NTU)

Final Mean NH3-N (mg/L)

Final Mean BOD5 (mg/L)

Final Mean COD (mg/L)

Final Mean TSS (mg/L)

20 20 20
600 600

15 15 15
400 400
10 10 10

200 200
5 5 5

0 0 0 0 0

Yellowtail flounder Atlantic salmon

were achieved when treating high strength herring effluent langer (1984). They looked at salmon effluent at the jar test
that had not been minimized at source. However, much level using 500 mg L–1 of ferric sulphate (Fe2(SO4)3) and
smaller reductions could be expected in most circumstances 30 mg L–1 of chitosan. This treatment scenario achieved
and particularly if following waste minimization at source. greater then 97% removal of TSS and turbidity. In our
Screening through a 25-mesh screen or equivalent is the study, the removal efficiencies achieved by SED using alum
requirement contained in the fish processing liquid effluent on salmon effluent showed maximum removal efficiencies
guideline of Canada (Environment Canada 1975). Previous of 95% for TSS and 76% for turbidity at 140 mg L–1 alum.
work by Riddle and Shikaze (1973) states that solids re- These percent reductions are slightly lower than those re-
moval of 10% is possible with a 25-mesh tangential screen ported by Johnson and Gallanger (1984). The same salmon
applied to groundfish processing effluent. Even higher re- effluent SED jar test in our study using an alum dose of
movals were stated for salmon canning and herring effluent 140 mg L–1 also showed BOD5, COD, and NH3-N maximum
of 43 and 50%, respectively, when using similar screening. removals of 62, 60, and 53%, respectively. Flatfish SED
The data generated by bench-scale 25-mesh screening of runs showed a maximum reduction of 95% for TSS and
flatfish effluent in this study resulted in a 9.8% removal of 81% for turbidity at a much higher alum dose of 350 mg
TSS and 11.5% for turbidity. The same results for the sal- L–1. Maximum BOD5, COD, and NH3-N removals for the
mon effluent were much lower at 1.7 and 1.9%, respec- same test were 40, 25, and 9.8%. No instances of SED ap-
tively. No data for 25-mesh screen removals could be found plied to flatfish or any other type of groundfish could be
in the literature regarding BOD5, COD, or NH3-N. found in the literature.
An interesting point is that post screen BOD5 levels for In Atlantic Canada, DAF systems are already used by a
both finfish effluents appeared to increase slightly. Possible few fish processors, which are relatively compact. A large
explanations may be that screening concentrated the most balancing tank, a chemical flocculation unit and sludge stor-
potent BOD5 effluent components or that the increases can age tank are required. A sludge de-watering system may
be accounted for in the precision error associated with the also be beneficial. Preliminary screening is usually carried
25-mesh screen itself. As this was a one-time sampling out prior to DAF treatment (Seafish 1999). The effectiveness
event, it is likely that these increases indicate that there was of DAF systems will again depend upon the nature of the
no significant change in BOD5 levels between the raw and effluent. The strength of the effluent produced depends not
screened samples. Screening removals for COD and NH3-N only on the amount of pieces of fish or crustaceans mixed
were virtually zero. These results are not surprising given with the water but also on the parts of the species involved,
the soluble nature of both of these parameters. Clearly, the types of species and crucially on the size to which the
while screening removal efficiencies are dependent on efflu- pieces of fish or crustaceans are cut or ground and the pe-
ent type, particle size, particle shape, and soluble compo- riod for which they are left to soak in the water. In Seafish
nents, the removals found in this study show that screening (1999), pilot-scale trials treating pelagic and white fish ef-
by itself will not provide adequate treatment. fluent which had not been minimized at source and using a
The only instance found of SED applied to salmon proc- chemically flocculated DAF system, when operated in opti-
essing effluent was work carried out by Johnson and Gal- mum conditions, reduced the strength of the effluent by

Published by NRC Research Press

Jamieson et al.
about 90%. There is considerable expertise involved in
maintaining the optimum ‘‘balance’’ of DAF systems includ-
ing the correct chemical mix. Without chemical injection,
i.e., the addition of a coagulant, for creating flocs, the per-
formance in the trials was greatly reduced. In commercial
operation by the pelagic fish processor, the DAF system can
achieve reductions in TSS of about 70%–90% and in soluble
COD of about 50%–70% (Seafish 1999).
Dissolved air flotation units installed in seafood plants are
typically used as an effluent treatment to reduce organic
loading to the environment. DAF units are known to signifi-
cantly reduce organic loads such as BOD, TSS, oil and
grease when used in conjunction with flocculants or coagu-
lants, but do little to reduce levels of ammonia and nitrates,
and other nutrients that can lead to oxygen depletion in the
receiving environment (Morry et al. 2003; Lalonde et al.
2007). In our results, DAF systems reduce BOD5, TSS, and
COD from seafood effluents and the alum coagulation im-
proved overall treatment efficiency.
The large difference in effective alum doses between the
salmon (i.e., 125 mg L–1) and flatfish effluents (200 mg L–1)
is an important observation. The quantity of alum required
to achieve effective coagulation will impact the feasibility
of treatment technology implementation and the potential
for by-product recovery. A possible reason for the variation
in effective alum doses may be the difference in effluent
characteristics between the two species. For example, lipids,
oil, greases and proteins were not analysed as part of this
study. It is hypothesized in this study that the flatfish efflu-
ent contained organic compounds, inherent in the biological
makeup of the fish and not determined in this study, of a na-
ture requiring a higher coagulant dose to initiate coagulation
and flocculation.
Another reason may be the difference in water source.
Seawater was used in the flatfish processing while brack-
ish–fresh water was used in the salmon processing. There-
fore, the difference in effective coagulant dose may be due
to the cation effect. This effect was studied by Higgins and
Novak (1997) who looked at the impacts of monovalent and
divalent cation ratios on the settling and dewatering of acti-
vated sludge. They found that the addition of sodium (Na+)
to wastewater resulted in poor flocculation and settling.
However, the addition of divalent cations, for example cal-
cium (Ca2+), greatly improved flocculation and settling.
Although the actual mechanism responsible for this observa-
tion has been disputed, one explanation is that the stronger
charge of a divalent or multivalent cation is more effective
at destabilizing negatively charged colloidal material and
aggregating particles together into flocs.
This effect may be responsible for the difference in effec-
tive alum dosages between the yellowtail flatfish and the At-
lantic salmon effluents. A large component of the flatfish
effluent is seawater, which is largely made up of Na+.
Therefore to achieve effective flocculation in this effluent, a
sufficient number of divalent or trivalent cations, in this case
alum (Al3+), must be added to displace the Na+ and other
monovalent cations. However, in brackish–fresh water, the
monovalent cation concentration is much lower and their
displacement can likely be achieved with a lower dose of
alum. The result of this effect is that much higher dosages
of alum may be required for high salinity seafood processing
177
effluent. Additional scientific investigation should be con-
ducted into this aspect of seafood processing effluent treat-
ment.
Riddle and Shikaze (1973) used an alum coagulant plus
an unidentified synthetic polymer to treat salmon processing
effluent with DAF. They achieved removal efficiencies of
84% for BOD5 and 92% for TS. Similar work by Clagget
(1972) with alum and DAF treatment in a salmon canning
operation achieved a COD reduction of 84% and a turbidity
reduction of 92%. Riddle and Shikaze (1973) also carried
out work with a combination of alum and an unspecified
polymer on groundfish effluent using the DAF technology.
Percent reductions of 77% for BOD5 and 86% for total sol-
ids (TS) were achieved with this latter treatment scenario.
For the salmon effluent, the DAF trial maximum removal
efficiencies using 100 mg L–1 of alum consisted of reduc-
tions for BOD5, COD, turbidity, TSS, and NH3-N of 25.1,
52.0, 95.9, 87.2, and 9.7%, respectively. For flatfish efflu-
ent, DAF treatment using 250 mg L–1 of alum achieved
BOD5, COD, turbidity, TSS, and NH3-N reductions of 57,
44, 90, 84, and 40%, respectively, with similar results ob-
served at a 150 mg L–1 alum dose. For both effluents, the
difference between RR levels of 5, 10, and 15% was negli-
gible. The much lower effective alum doses observed in the
DAF runs when compared to the SED runs is likely due to
the smaller floc size desired for effective flotation.
5. Conclusion
The current seafood processing liquid effluent treatment
guideline of solids removal equivalent to screening through
25-mesh was not shown to result in significant reductions
of contaminants in this study. This indicates that the require-
ments may not effectively protect the receiving water body
environments. A reason for poor removal of organics with
the 25-mesh screen is most likely related to the soluble
BOD5 and COD fractions of the effluent.
Sedimentation and DAF using alum achieved high sus-
pended solids removal but only moderate oxygen demand
and NH3-N reductions. A limiting factor in the effectiveness
of these treatment technologies appears to be the soluble
component of seafood processing effluent.
Additional bench-scale 25-mesh screen, SED, DAF, and
other treatment (ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, UV light,
oxidants: O3 and H2O2, etc.) runs should be conducted with
various effluent types, to further evaluate their effectiveness
on processing effluents. Focus should also be placed on
understanding the impacts of the cation effect in the treat-
ment of high salinity effluents.
The results of these studies should be scaled up to the pi-
lot plant level to optimize treatment for specific effluent
types. As well, experimentation with the use of other coagu-
lants and polymers, particular food grade polymers, may en-
able the recovery of processing by-products for alternate
uses thereby improving the feasibility of full-scale treatment
technology implementation.
Acknowledgements
The authors kindly acknowledge research funding pro-
vided by Environment Canada, Atlantic Region and the De-
partment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. John’s, NL to
Published by NRC Research Press
178
conduct this work. As well, the authors kindly acknowledge
the participation of the seafood processors that contributed
to this study.
References
Adams, S., Bose, N., Hawboldt, K., and Husain, T. 2005. Environ-
mental monitoring of fish plant effluent in coastal Newfound-
land. Oceans 2005 – Europe, 2: 1062–1067.
Afonso, M.D., and Bórquez, R. 2002. Review of the treatment of
seafood processing wastewaters and recovery of proteins therein
by membrane separation processes - prospects of the ultrafiltra-
tion of wastewaters from the fish meal industry. Desalination,
142(1): 29–45. doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00423-4.
AMEC. 2003. Management of wastes from Atlantic Canadian sea-
food processing operations. AMEC Earth and Environmental
(2003). Submitted to the National Programme Action - Atlantic
Regional Team.
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard
methods for examination of water and wastewater. 19th ed. Wa-
shington, DC.
Bourgeois, J.C., Walsh, M.E., and Gagnon, G.A. 2004. Comparison
of process options for treatment of water treatment residual
streams. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science,
3(6): 477–484. doi:10.1139/s04-017.
Clagget, F.G. 1972. The use of chemical treatment and air flotation
for the clarification of fish processing plant wastewater. In Pro-
ceedings of 3rd National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes, Washington, DC.
Environment Canada (EC). 1975. Fish processing operations liquid
effluent guidelines. regulations, codes and protocols. Report EPS
1-WP-75-1, Water Pollution Control Directorate. June 1975. La
Gazette du Canada. Partie, 1: 2213–2218.
Ferjani, E., Ellouze, E., and Ben Amar, R. 2005. Treatment of sea-
food processing wastewaters by ultrafiltration-nanofiltration cel-
lulose acetate membranes. Desalination, 177(1–3): 43–49.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.015.
Higgins, M.J., and Novak, J.T. 1997. The effect of cations on the
settling and dewatering of activated sludges: laboratory results.
Water Environment Research, 69(2): 215–224. doi:10.2175/
106143097X125371.
Islam, M.S., Khan, S., and Tanaka, M. 2004. Waste loading in
shrimp and fish processing effluents: potential source of hazards
to the coastal and nearshore environments. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 49(1-2): 103–110. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.
018. PMID:15234879.
Johnson, R.A., and Gallanger, S.M. 1984. Use of coagulants to
treat seafood processing wastewater. Water Pollution Control,
56(8): 907–976.
Lalonde, B., Garron, C.A., and Ernst, W. 2007. Characterization
and toxicity testing of fish processing plant effluent in the Ca-
nada. Surveillance Report EPS-5-AR-07-03. Environmental Pro-
tection Report Series. Environmental Protection Operations
Directorate, Environment Canada Atlantic Region, 75 p.
View publication stats
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
Lalonde, B.A., Jackman, P., Doe, K., Garron, C., and Aubé, J.
2009. Toxicity testing of sediment collected in the vicinity of ef-
fluent discharges from seafood processing plants in the mari-
times. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 56(3): 389–396. doi:10.1007/s00244-008-9214-6.
PMID:18752017.
Lim, J., Kim, T., and Hwang, S. 2003. Treatment of fish-processing
wastewater by co-culture of Candida rugopelliculosa and Bra-
chionus plicatilis. Water Research, 37(9): 2228–2232. doi:10.
1016/S0043-1354(02)00586-9. PMID:12691909.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. 2003. Wastewater engineering: treatment
and reuse. 4th ed. Published by McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Moens, L.N., Smolders, R., van der Ven, K., van Remortel, P., Del-
Favero, J., and De Coen, W.M. 2007. Effluent impact assess-
ment using microarray-based analysis in common carp: a sys-
tems toxicology approach. Chemosphere, 67(11): 2293–2304.
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.092. PMID:17267021.
Morry, C.J., Chadwick, M., Courtenay, S., and Mallet, P. 2003.
Fish plant effluents: A workshop on sustainability. Canadian In-
dustry Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 271(8): 106 p.
Riddle, M.J., and Shikaze, K. 1973. Characterization and treatment
of fish processing plant effluent in Canada. Environmental Pro-
tection Economic and Technical Review. EPS 3-WP-74-1.
Seafish. 1999. Fish processing: Guidance for fish processors on
water and effluent minimisation. 1st ed. Seafish. p. 52.
Sirianuntapiboon, S., and Srikul, M. 2006. Reducing red color in-
tensity of seafood wastewater in facultative pond. Bioresource
Technology, 97(14): 1612–1617. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.07.
022. PMID:16154743.
Sohsalam, P., Englande, A.J., and Sirianuntapiboon, S. 2008. Sea-
food wastewater treatment in constructed wetland: tropical case.
Bioresource Technology, 99(5): 1218–1224. doi:10.1016/j.
biortech.2007.02.014. PMID:17383179.
Sridang, P.C., Kaiman, J., Pottier, A., and Wisniewski, C. 2006.
Benefits of MBR in seafood wastewater treatment and water re-
use: study case in Southern part of Thailand. Desalination,
200(1–3): 712–714.
Sridang, P.C., Pottier, A., Wisniewski, C., and Grasmick, A. 2008.
Performance and microbial surveying in submerged membrane
bioreactor for seafood processing wastewater treatment. Journal
of Membrane Science, 317(1–2): 43–49. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.
2007.11.011.
Tchoukanova, N., Gonzalez, M., and Poirier, S. 2003. Best man-
agement practices: marine products processing. Fisheries and
Marine Products Division, Coastal Zones Research Institute
Inc., Shippagan, NB, Canada. p. 38.
Thériault, M.H., Courtenay, S.C., Munkittrick, K.R., and Chiasson,
A.G. 2007. The effect of seafood processing plant effluent on
sentinel fish species in coastal waters of the Southern Gulf of
St. Lawrence, New Brunswick. Water Quality Research Journal
of Canada, 42(3): 172–183.
Published by NRC Research Press