Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

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

Current status, gaps and challenges of rendering industries wastewater

Felipe Matheus Müller, Débora de Oliveira, Camila Michels *
Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina 88040-900, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The consumption of products of animal origin (PAO) has drastically increased in the last 50 years. Alongside,
Rendering industry animal by-products' residues generation increased as they were generated during PAO processing. Rendering
Rendering wastewater industries are the main route to add value to these residues, leading to a higher amount of raw material that
Wastewater treatment
increases production and residue generation, such as gaseous effluents and wastewater. Regarding rendering
Wastewater valorisation
wastewater treatment, literature is still scarce on treatments and valorisation processes. In this context, this
paper is the first review and bibliometric analysis of rendering wastewater, focusing on approaching treatment
and valorisation processes proposed in the literature, pointing out its gaps and future perspectives. Biological and
physicochemical processes are approached by literature. The majority of research papers addresses biological
process, meanwhile recent literature focus on physicochemical processes. Literature indicates that whereas
different streams of wastewater are generated in the rendering industry, the possibility of segregation plays a
major role in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) configuration. Valorisation of the rendering wastewater
can generate added value products, such as FOG-rich sludge (reprocessed as raw material), protein and biogas,
besides treated water for irrigation, hygiene and vapour generation. Therefore, combining different steps of
biological and physicochemical processes during the rendering wastewater treatment can enhance its efficiency,
enabling its valorisation.

1. Introduction odours, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy epidemic), and is usually

The rendering industry is a vital branch for value aggregation on
animal by-products residue generated on products of animal origin
(PAO) industries. Eight billion animals are processed annually by PAO
industries worldwide, leading to 340 million tons of PAO per year, three
times more when compared to 50 years ago [1]. However, this number
represents only the portion appropriated for human consumption
(52–68 %), leaving behind an unsettling amount of animal by-products
from slaughter and meat processing, which represents about 32 to 48 %
of the total weight of the processed animals [2,3]. Therefore, allocation
of this huge residue generation from PAO requires alternative disposal
strategies, such as rendering plants.
Despite having a green bias from its raw material, the rendering
activity also can generate environmental impacts, due to the waste
generated in the rendering processes. This subject is scarcely
approached by scientific literature, especially in the context of waste­
water, with most of the published papers focusing on odour mitigation
[4]. Plausible reasons for the lack of scientific material on the field can
be related to unpleasant situations reported by stakeholders (e.g., strong
located in remote regions and near to PAO industries [5–7]. Therefore,
advancements are needed to evaluate possibilities around the rendering
industry processes and its wastes.
The lack of reviews regarding the wastewater from the rendering
industry also contributes to the smaller scientific outlook, making it
difficult for researchers to get in touch with this theme's status quo and
further research lines enhancement.
Rendering industries have distinct wastewater streams, with a
slightly different compositions according to the generation point.
Overall, it is composed of fats, oils, and greases (FOG); total (TS) and
volatile suspended solids (VSS); and ammoniacal nitrogen, presenting
high total and soluble chemical oxygen demand (COD). These charac­
teristics make this type of wastewater a potential source of nutrients and
energy recovery.
Proteins and fats from animal tissues are the raw material of the
rendering plants, thus they can be found in the wastewater. Slightly
variations might occur regarding the raw material (i) freshness; (ii)
animal of origin (e.g., poultry, cattle, fish or swine) and (iii) processed
part (e.g., viscera, blood, bones) [8–10].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: debora.oliveira@ufsc.br (D. de Oliveira), camila.m@ufsc.br (C. Michels).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.103480
Received 5 October 2022; Received in revised form 9 December 2022; Accepted 29 December 2022
Available online 17 January 2023
2214-7144/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.M. Müller et al.
Rendering wastewater composition is similar to slaughterhouses and
other industries in the PAO segment [11,12], such as pet food and
frigorific industries. A comparison of applied treatments and valor­
isation processes among these industries seems possible if the differ­
ences are considered, like the greater concentration of proteins (like
collagen) and fatty products (FOG) resulting from the severe processing
of animal tissue.
The wastewater treatment usually employed by rendering industries
lacks on nutrient and energy recovery. The state-of-art of processes used
to treat this nutrient-rich wastewater includes physicochemical
approach (e.g., dissolved air flotation), requiring high operational costs
and sludge generation [13,14]; or biological processes that seek opti­
mization and procedural feasibility. However, there is a lack of research
on by-product valorisation due to high investment operationalization or
specific pre-treatments [6,13,15].
In this context, this review aims to identify the current state-of-art on
wastewater treatment, valorisation, and potential processes for the
treatment and reuse of rendering industries liquid residue. This is the
first review to evaluate literature processes regarding this theme since
no published study has ever presented this proposed strategy. The sub­
ject's recent scientific literature was pointed out and deeply discussed in
a systematic review and bibliometric analysis, leading to preponderant
aspects and future perspectives.
2. Bibliometric analysis
State-of-art was evaluated through a systematic literature search,
with hybrid structure review, framework fitting, and trend analysis
using bibliometrics [16] following the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines regarding
the systematic review step [17]. Document gathering was conducted
from March 2022 to June 2022 on the SCOPUS and Web of Science
databases, chosen accordingly to their representativeness for the pro­
posed theme, availability of document searching, and exporting tools.
The search terms were applied along Boolean Operators as follows:
(wastewater* OR effluent*) AND (rendering OR “feed industr*” OR “pet
food” OR “animal by-product*”), searched within title, abstract and
keywords. A group of words that refer to the matrix of interest was
considered as follows: wastewater; and the second group of words that
refer to the industry of interest, considering the different terms that
appear for the rendering industry in the literature. The documents were
collected in a range of 50 years (1972 to 2022).
Documents were exported to Mendeley Reference Management
Software and separated according to document type following the
database tags (i.e., articles, books and book chapters and others). Arti­
cles were grouped into a single database, duplicates were excluded, and
segregated as research and review articles according to titles and ab­
stracts. Review articles were considered for analysis and potential use in
reference to the literature. Research articles were filtered by the eligi­
bility criteria with full-text analysis and further considered over the
systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Only research articles in a
range of 16 years (from 2006 to 2022) were considered for state-of-art
frameworks and discussion to establish the latest scenario on this
branch. Articles before this date range were case studies applying bio­
logical processes, being studied later in the proposed data range.
The inclusion criteria considered: (i) articles that focused on waste­
water; (ii) articles where the origin of the wastewater was rendering
industries, attached or not to other industrial establishments; and (iii)
articles that studied PAO industries wastewater (not characterized as
rendering plants according to the authors) that did not have rendering-
related activities (considering the case of attached rendering industries
to other industrial establishments). Articles from the third criterion were
not considered in the bibliometric analysis and systematic review, being
only addressed during discussions due to the similarity of the
wastewater.
Articles were excluded if: (i) the focus was a solid waste or gaseous
2
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
effluents; (ii) the studied wastewater was mixed with streams from other
industries, affecting comparison due to wastewater composition; (iii) the
industry process only animal derivatives, like dairy products, due to the
composition of the wastewater from these industries; (iv) the article
dealt with purely theoretical studies, not proposing and presenting
practical processes evaluation; or (v) the article dealt with mathematical
modelling based on data extracted solely from the literature.
3. Systematic review
Forty-one research articles were eligible according to inclusion and
exclusion criteria after screening (Fig. 1). Papers fitted to frameworks
are shown in each section below considering the wastewater charac­
teristics, main purpose, applied processes, hypotheses, and conclusions.
Most studies unrelated to PAO industries found over the searching
process mentioned the rendering industry in their abstracts but did not
study its wastewater. Only fourteen articles that cite a direct relationship
with the rendering industry and present similar wastewater were
selected for further discussion.
Indexation issues were identified among the assessed articles, mainly
due to the misuse of terms to refer to the rendering industry, such as the
terms “pet food” and “feed industry”. These issues were the leading
reasons for full-text analysis in the inclusion step in order to include
papers that study the rendering wastewater but do not address this in­
dustry as a rendering plant, like rendering plants attached to
slaughterhouses.
The evolution of publications (Fig. S.1) presented a small number of
articles published from 1985 to 2000 (8 papers), with a gradual growth
after 2003, reaching its peak in 2006, with 8 papers solely published in
2006, totalizing 22 papers. A substantial decrease occurred until 2015
with only 07 papers published. After 2017, a slight growth appeared,
adding up to 12 papers until 2022. Altogether, 41 papers were published
in 50 years, representing a small engagement on this subject. However,
the growing publication tendency in recent years (2017–2022) suggests
an increasing interest of researchers in proposing/optimizing treatments
for rendering wastewater.
This lack of publications might be enhanced through strategies
related to publication growth, namely review articles, which are a gap in
this field. Thus, this review fills a gap in this field as it analyses what has
been studied, pointing out future perspectives.
Rendering industries have several streams (Fig. 2) and the possibility
of segregation after their generation might interfere with whether val­
orisation or treatment process will be applied. Streams that can be
separated from others seem more fittable to valorisation processes,
enabling FOG and proteins recovery due to structural upkeeping of
species and less contamination by other compounds (such as streams 2
to 7 in Fig. 2) [9,14,18,19].
The studies addressed herein were fitted to frameworks (main pur­
pose of the study, process employed, main hypothesis and conclusions),
and stated as biological and physicochemical processes. Biological
processes were the most cited, including pre-treatments and secondary
treatments. The following topics consider that all of these research pa­
pers investigated established biological processes, lacking in proposing
recent and innovative research (e.g., bioelectrochemical processes). On
the other hand, physicochemical processes represented the most recent
research, covering primary and tertiary treatments. Separation pro­
cesses were the main subjects of these papers, with economic feasibility
against current processes, operationalization, and by-products valori­
zation with a real-scale application as topics yet to be studied (e.g.,
membranes permeate and condensate, exhausted adsorbent). In both
cases, favorable processes applied to similar wastewater were cited as
potential future research in the field. A general guiding scheme is pre­
sented in Fig. 3, considering all cited treatment possibilities and stream
variation according to Fig. 2.
F.M. Müller et al.
Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram describing the papers selection process for systematic review and the amount (n) of documents related to each step.
4. Biological processes
Biological processes were the first approaches to rendering waste­
water treatment and are the most widely studied (Fig. 4). The authors
focused on optimization to remove organic material from wastewater
and applied it as a secondary treatment (Table 1). However, recent
publications are mainly focused on primary and tertiary treatments,
creating a gap around biological processes optimization and assessment
of novelty processes.
4.1. Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) (Fig. 4 (a)) is a biological process where
organic matter is broken down, producing valuable by-products (i.e.,
biogas). The mechanism of this process is composed of four steps: (i)
hydrolysis, (ii) acidogenesis, (iii) acetogenesis and (iv) methanogenesis
[20]. Anaerobic digestion is usually applied to similar wastewater, like
slaughterhouses [21].
3
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
As well as slaughterhouses wastewater, the rendering wastewater
composition presents key substrates to anaerobic digestion, namely fats
and proteins (mainly from streams 2 to 7 and 9 in Fig. 2). Woon and
Othman [22] assessed the possibility of AD in rendering raw waste­
water, as well as other solid streams in the industry (e.g., dissolved air
flotation sludge). The authors stated that the rendering wastewater has a
high potential to be valorised with AD, mainly due to biogas production.
FOG-rich wastewater is a feasible supply to biogas production as
stated by Diamantis et al. [23]. It was estimated that biogas production
could reach 1000 m3 per ton of FOG in AD. However, studies on eco­
nomic feasibility considering operational expenses compared to other
processes are yet to be covered.
Apart from solids content, removed amid primary treatment, FOG is
one of the main concerns in this case, due to low solubility through the
process, decreasing digestion efficiency and leading to foaming and pipe
clogging [23,24]. Along with rendering wastewater AD, the most un­
settling factor is inhibition. The FOG and protein content itself plays a
determining role in the process efficiency. Triglycerides and proteins,
F.M. Müller et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480

Fig. 2. Rendering industry usual wastewater streams.

Fig. 3. General scheme representing studied and potential processes to be applied in each step of a rendering wastewater treatment plant.

naturally occurring in the wastewater, and by-products generated, such
as volatile free acids, are some of the concerns that require further
investigation [22,25].
Potential pre-treatments are proposed in order to decrease FOG in­
hibition: (i) saponification, with a simple design, but chemically costly
and potential inhibition with long-chain fatty acid (LCFA) salts
generated; (ii) emulsification, generating non-inhibition substrates yet
requiring a high amount of electricity and specific systems; (iii)
surfactant-addition, enabling other wastes valorisation as biosurfactants
(i.e., bile) and increasing FOG solubility, which also leads to foaming
issues; (iv) thermal processing, enhancing initial hydrolysis in AD but
highly electric energy consumption; and (v) enzymatic hydrolysis,

4
F.M. Müller et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480

Fig. 4. Biological processes principles representation and usual equipment configuration.

5
F.M. Müller et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480

Table 1
Framework of studies focused on biological processes assessed in the systematic review according to defined criteria.
Wastewater Main purpose Process Main Hypothesis Main Conclusions Reference

DAF wastewater Energy recovery Microbial Electrolysis Cell - Electric energy can be - Long chain fatty acids inhibited Xie et al. [33]
generated after treatment. conversion.
Raw wastewater Nitrogen removal Nitrification and anammox - Nitrogen can be removed - Stoichiometry as the main challenge. Silveira et al. [29]
after treatment. - Residual organic material led to
denitrification.
Raw wastewater Nitrogen removal Nitrification and activated - Nitrogen can be removed - Nitrification was compromised by Auterská and Novák [31]
sludge after treatment. ammonium inhibition and low carbon.
- Activated sludge bulking was controlled
with macronutrients dosage.
DAF wastewater Floc formation Activated sludge - Floc formation is influenced - Bulking and sedimentation controlled Basuvaraj et al. [28]
problems by the medium species. with aeration and substrate dosage.
Raw wastewater Wastewater Anaerobic digestion - Wastewater can be treated by - Dissolved air flotation sludges could be Woon and Othman [22]
treatment anaerobic digestion. treated along raw wastewater.
- Biogas production showed high potential
on the raw wastewater.
Raw wastewater Wastewater Enzymatic hydrolysis with - Enzymatic hydrolysis - FOG and COD removal were 33 % and 42 Jeganathan et al. [39]
treatment anaerobic digestion enhances anaerobic digestion. % higher after pre-treatment.
- Biogas production was 18 % higher than
raw wastewater.
Raw wastewater Wastewater Enzymatic hydrolysis - Enzymatic hydrolysis - FOG and COD removal above 90 %. Jeganathan et al. [40]
treatment enhances anaerobic digestion. - Higher FOG concentration led to
adsorption on beads and solubilization.
DAF wastewater Wastewater Membrane bioreactor - Wastewater can be treated by - High organic material and nutrient Acharya et al. [37]
treatment membrane bioreactors. removal.
- Nitrite formation needs to be controlled
as it can inhibit the process.
DAF wastewater Wastewater Membrane bioreactor - Wastewater can be treated by - High organic material and nutrient Acharya et al. [35]
treatment membrane bioreactors. removal.
- Anoxic zone needs to be optimized.
DAF wastewater Wastewater Membrane bioreactor - Wastewater can be treated by - High organic material and nutrient Acharya et al. [36]
treatment membrane bioreactors. removal.
- Membrane-like concerns on scale
upgrade are needed.
Raw wastewater Wastewater Membrane bioreactor - Wastewater can be treated by - Lower efficiency at higher COD Kurian et al. [38]
treatment membrane bioreactors. concentrations.
- Higher temperature enhances the
treatment.
Raw wastewater Wastewater Enzymatic hydrolysis - Pre-treatment may enhance - 50 % of FOG content was hydrolysed Jeganathan et al. [41]
treatment treatments. during pre-treatment.
- High recovery (65 %) and remaining
activity (70 %) of applied enzyme.

breaking inhibitors molecules into soluble and digestible substrates, but
presenting high operational costs due to the enzyme application
[23–26].
Being a consolidated method, AD shows potential application to
value rendering wastewater. Biomethanation of this wastewater is a
promising fact to the FOG content usually considered a problem in the
course of secondary treatment. Even though it is already a widely
studied process, biogas production efficiency is a trending topic, open­
ing doors for novelty in pre-treatments.
4.2. Aerobic digestion
Aerobic digestion (Fig. 4 (b)) is used to degrade organic material in
an aerated medium. When compared to AD, it presents smaller capital
costs but also generates a huge amount of sludge poor in dewaterability,
requires a high supply of oxygen, is usually influenced by the environ­
ment (e.g., temperature), and lacks in generating valuable by-products
[27].
A small number of papers (07) studied aerobic digestion in rendering
wastewater, usually coupled with membrane bioreactors or along
nitrification and denitrification, as discussed in the following topics
(topics 4.3 and 4.5).
An aerobic digestion process with activated sludge, solely applied
after raw wastewater screening and dissolved air flotation, was a case
study brought by Basuvaraj et al. [28]. The authors demonstrated that
the main issue related to the process was the floc formation, which was
controlled after aeration and external substrate dosage. It is also
highlighted that the solids retained within the generated sludge are
reprocessed by the industry as raw material. At this point, a potential by-
product within aerobic digestion application arises. However, studies on
composition and quality parameters (e.g., acidity and peroxide indexes)
are needed to evaluate reprocessing feasibility.
4.3. Nitrogen removal processes
The typical ammoniacal nitrogen content in rendering wastewater
(100 to 800 mg/L) leads wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) to seek
efficient nitrogen removal. Among biological processes, nitrification and
denitrification (NAD) (Fig. 4 (c)) are the most common ones. With NAD,
ammoniacal nitrogen removal occurs through aerobic and anoxic pha­
ses, where ammonium is oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate, further
reduced to molecular nitrogen, respectively [29,30].
Auterská and Novák [31] compared NAD in four rendering industries
within three years. All the systems were coupled with activated sludge,
after primary treatment. The main issues were viscous and filamentous
bulking, and ammonium and nitrate inhibition. Shortage of suspended
material and poor nutritional content (e.g., phosphorus, magnesium,
molybdenum, iron) retained in primary treatment led to these issues as
low-quality sludge formation and sedimentation performance occurred.
Sludge formation was controlled through micronutrient dosage, being
enhanced by pH control, and dosage of external carbon source. After
system stabilization, up to 95 % nitrogen and 97 % COD were removed.
However, at higher nitrogen content (> 200 ppm), as exposed by
Silveira et al. [29], typical NAD processes tend to present low efficiency.

6
F.M. Müller et al.
In this scenario, nitrification occurs partially, and a substantial amount
of ammonia is left behind. Based on this, the authors proposed nitrifi­
cation coupled with the anammox process (Fig. 4 (d)), where ammo­
nium is partially oxidized to nitrite, and then both species are converted
to diatomic nitrogen (N2) by anaerobic ammonia oxidation bacteria.
Nitrogen species stoichiometry was the main exposed challenge, being a
future topic of study around specific conditions for nitrogen species
content control, decreasing costs and labour related to external nitrogen
species dosage.
4.4. Bioelectrochemical processes
Bioelectrochemical processes (BEP) aim to generate electricity and
chemicals (e.g., H2) along wastewater treatment. This product genera­
tion occurs in reactors with different configurations, depending on their
goal, including microbial fuel cells (MFCs) and microbial electrolysis
cells (MECs) [32]. Their applicability is related to the substrate present
in the wastewater. The FOG in rendering wastewater covers this
requirement, being a precursor of LCFA, converted to small-chain fatty
acids (SCFA): a carbon source to anode-respiring bacteria [33].
Xie et al. [33] approached the first study regarding this topic. The
high-fat content led to acetate production under anaerobic conditions,
which is consumed for electric energy production. Over an 80-day batch
cycle, 34.3 % of the COD was converted into electric energy. The main
issue was LCFA inhibition to SCFA conversion. As shown by previous
studies (topic 4.6), future research may deal with this problem by
employing enzymatic pre-treatments to hydrolyse these species into
SCFA, enhancing microbial activity [25].
The novelty of BEP, mainly for rendering wastewater, enables huge
possibilities to be studied. Apart from the enzymatic pre-treatment cited
above, other gaps to be filled permeate the real-scale implementation of
BEP, cost comparison considering the generated electricity feedback,
and the optimal way to couple BEP cells in the already structured
WWTP.
4.5. Membrane bioreactors
Aerobic digestion, as other cited processes, like NAD, can be coupled
with other techniques to enhance organic material and nutrient
removal. An increasing system following this trend is membrane
bioreactor (MBR) (Fig. 4 (e)). MBR consists of an aerated bioreactor
coupled with membrane filtration at different calibres. Its application
has been widely increasing in the last 30 years [34].
In rendering wastewater, MBRs studies are still scarce. Acharya et al.
[35–37] presented high COD and nitrogen removal (98 % and 99.8 %,
respectively) with MBR coupled with NAD. COD and solids concentra­
tion, temperature and retention time influence the process, regulating
the biological process and mass transfer flux [38].
To scale up and analyse its feasibility, apart from aerobic-like con­
ditions already mentioned, lifetime and fouling on membranes need to
be inspected, as well as cheaper membrane materials, and their influ­
ence on the mass transfer. Lifetime essays may predict whether coupling
these steps may be positive, other than biological and separation pro­
cessing separately.
4.6. Enzymatic hydrolysis
Enzymatic hydrolysis (Fig. 4 (f)) is a potential biological alternative
to pre-treat wastewater which contain compounds that can be hydro­
lysed into molecules with higher biodegradability characteristics
[24,39]. Hydrolytic enzymes can be used in wide applications. One of
them is lipolytic activity when FOG-content is a major concern, as stated
on topic 4.1.
Jeganathan et al. [39–41] presented the first and only approaches to
enzymatic pre-treatment of rendering wastewater. Immobilized lipase
was applied through the process considering its recovery potential,
7
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
evaluated at 65 %, with 70 % of remaining enzyme activity after the first
cycle. FOG conversion into LCFA was 50 % in batch essays, reaching 64
% with continuous application. Along with FOG, COD removal was
similar (65 %). Pre-treating resulted in an even more efficient AD,
reaching 0.46 LCH4/gCOD, 18 % higher than the raw wastewater (0.39
LCH4/gCOD) [39]. However, as proposed by the authors, further studies
should address the optimization of the experimental condition,
including treatment of rendering wastewater with different enzymes,
reactor designs, number of cycles until enzyme activity becomes un­
feasible, active-site competition by medium inhibitors, and without
dilution (whereas the cited papers diluted it at 5 to 10 % by volume).
Within this subject, industrial enzymatic hydrolysis pre-treatment
implementation must consider (i) enzyme type, where lipases seem to
be the most applicable ones to hydrolyse the majority of FOG content;
(ii) enzyme origin, being commercial or produced; (iii) enzyme avail­
ability, to supply all the needed amount in the pre-treatment;
(iv) operationalization, whether this process will employ free or
immobilized enzymes; (v) interaction between FOG and the catalyst
beads (if immobilized); and (iv) operational costs, comparing its feasi­
bility among commonly employed processes.
4.7. Novel biological processes
Biological processes are a great alternative for rendering wastewater
processing, mainly for its valorisation. Biogas, electricity, stable organic
sludge, and chemical compounds are a few of the products with added
value), having a positive impact on the environment. Therefore, as
stated by the authors cited herein, biological treatment of rendering
wastewater is a crucial step between primary and tertiary treatments
due to its composition.
The lack of studies on novel biological processes provides opportu­
nities to be tackled with future research. In this time gap (from the 2006
peak of publication to 2022) new technologies for biological processes
were developed. However, they were not applied to rendering waste­
water. Different configurations of AD bioreactors, such as anaerobic
filters, baffled reactors, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor,
anaerobic contactor reactor, and anaerobic ponds were successfully and
largely employed in similar wastewater [42,43]. Thus, AD applied to
rendering wastewater, considering optimizing its parameters to the real-
scale application, and comparing each process, could provide en­
hancements in this field.
Aerobic systems, apart from MBRs, are also viable options for
rendering wastewater. Recently, biofilm reactors, namely moving bed
biofilm reactor, have been applied to minimize space, aeration costs and
medium influence. Intermittent sequencing batch reactor are also a
viable alternative, also presenting a high nitrogen removal. Application
of both processes in similar wastewater approaches possibilities around
its use in rendering wastewater treatment [42].
5. Physicochemical processes
Physicochemical processes are the most recent published articles on
this subject when compared to biological processes (Fig. 5). They can be
used in different steps of wastewater treatment: primary for ammoniacal
nitrogen recovery [10,44,45], fat and protein recovery [9,18,19,46,47]
and high solid content removal [48–52] and tertiary for higher removal
of stubborn components and disinfection through filtration
[47–49,51,52] or oxidation [44] (Table 2).
5.1. Flotation
Flotation (Fig. 5 (a)) is a separation technique applied as a pre­
liminary treatment step to high solid content wastewater [53]. Even
though its main idea is the removal of solids, it can be applied to recover
material of interest, as set about by Zak and Pawlak [46], who proposed
the recovery of fat and protein from a rendering industry wastewater.
F.M. Müller et al.
Fig. 5. Physicochemical processes principles representation and usual equipment configuration.
However, reprocessing the generated sludge in the rendering industry
depends on the flotation chemicals' toxicity and their impact on the
structure of the recovered nutrients.
Zak and Pawlak [46] studied the application of a double chamber
flotation system applying an air-saturated medium. This medium en­
hances the same mechanism of a dissolved air flotation system,
commonly applied in the rendering industry, which is reshaped to
enable the recovery of fat and protein in various stages [45,53]. This
restructuration led the authors to find an 85 % recovery of fat content in
the wastewater, presenting a maximum content of 2.3 % of protein.
Even though, the recovered products might present composition
8
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
unsuitable to be reprocessed as raw material, such as high acidity and
peroxide index. As shown by the authors, acidity and peroxide index
(related to the fat content), respectively, were between 9.5 and 16.3
mgKOH/g and 2.4 to 5.8 meq/kg, rising to 48.6 mgKOH/g and 23 meq/kg
during temperature varying from 25 to 30 ◦ C, and operational time
between 12 and 18 h. These situations might turn the generated product
unfeasible as raw material due to the instability of the cited parameters
which might interfere with the final product of the industry.
Along with acidity and peroxide indexes, fat constituents are essen­
tial parameters to consider in the availability of reprocessing and its
implementation, such as the storage space and maximum operation
F.M. Müller et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480

Table 2
Framework of studies focused on physicochemical processes assessed in the systematic review according to defined criteria.
Wastewater Main purpose Process Main Hypothesis Main Conclusions Reference

Raw general Fat and protein - Flotation. - Wastewater fat and protein - Up to 85 % fat and 2.3 % protein recover. Zak and
wastewater recovery can be recovered and - Fat acidity and peroxide indexes appliable to Pawlak [46]
reprocessed. reprocessing in certain conditions.
Raw general Fat recovery - Electrocoagulation- - Wastewater fat can be - Long chain fatty acids were preserved and Xie et al. [50]
wastewater Electroflotation. recovered and reprocessed. concentrated.
- Current density, agitation time and sedimentation
time dependant process.
Secondary treated Ammoniacal - Electrochemical - Ammoniacal nitrogen can be - Cell configuration leads to different recoveries. Xie and Popat
wastewater nitrogen recovery Stripping. recovered from wastewater. - Wastewater composition imposes operation [45]
conditions.
Aerobic digested Water recovery and - Pre-treatment: sand - Fouling can be minimized by - Pre-treatment with positive results regarding Racar et al.
wastewater wastewater filtration and wastewater pre-treatment. turbidity, COD, total carbon (TC), dissolved [51]
treatment ultrafiltration. organic carbon (DOC) and inorganic carbon (IC)
- Treatment: reverse removal, and decreased fouling.
osmosis or nanofiltration. - Permeate appliable to steam generation and
industry hygiene.
Aerobic digested Water recovery and - Pre-treatment: - Fouling can be minimized by - Pre-treatment with positive results regarding Racar et al.
wastewater wastewater coagulation. wastewater pre-treatment. turbidity and DOC removal and decreased. [52]
treatment - Treatment: - Wastewater without pre-treatment presented
nanofiltration. high fouling rate.
Aerobic digested Water recovery and - Pre-treatment: - Fouling can be minimized by - Pre-treatment with positive results regarding Racar et al.
wastewater wastewater coagulation and sand wastewater pre-treatment. turbidity and DOC removal, and decreased fouling. [49]
treatment filtration. - Wastewater without pre-treatment presented
- Treatment: high fouling rate.
ultrafiltration.
Raw and aerobic Water recovery and - Pre-treatment: sand - Fouling can be minimized by - Pre-treatment with positive results regarding Racar et al.
digested wastewater filtration and wastewater pre-treatment. fouling, being structure-type dependant. [48]
wastewater treatment ultrafiltration. - Nanofiltration presents higher mass transfer and
- Treatment: reverse smaller fouling rate.
osmosis or nanofiltration. - Reverse osmosis presents purer permeate.
Ultrafiltered Wastewater - Nanofiltration and - Membrane technology can - Direct and cross flow shows highly efficient Zhou et al.
wastewater treatment Reverse Osmosis. be applied as a secondary processes. [47]
treatment to the wastewater. - Reverse osmosis present higher purity permeates.
- Cheaper process over the existing treatment in the
studied WWTP.
Sticky water Water, protein, and - Membrane Distillation. - Fat and protein can be - Temperature and mass transfer of ionic species Muster-
fat recovery reprocessed after wastewater are directly proportional. Slawitsch
concentration. - Temperature and permeate purity are inverse et al. [9]
proportional.
- Membrane composition interferes on mass
transfer and permeate quality.
Sticky water Water, protein, and - Pre-treatment: metal - Sticky water can be treated - Pre-treatment can recover a high amount of fat Mostafa et al.
fat recovery microfiltration. through membrane and protein. [18]
- Treatment: membrane distillation. - Membrane composition interferes on mass
distillation. transfer and permeate quality.
- Long-term operation and cleaning need to be
evaluated.
Sticky water Water, protein, and - Forward and reverse - Fat and protein can be - Membrane process is cheaper than evaporation Zhou and
fat recovery osmosis. reprocessed after wastewater process. Husson [19]
concentration. - Stirring is directly proportional to mass transfer
in the beginning.
- Concentration fluctuations were contained.
Condensate Ammoniacal - Hydrophobic Membrane - Ammoniacal nitrogen can be - High amount of ammoniacal nitrogen can be Brennan et al.
wastewater nitrogen recovery Separation. recovered and repurposed as recovered. [14]
fertilizer. - Cost efficiency needs to be taken during
employment.
Raw, DAF and Prion inactivation - Ozonation. - Infectious prions can be - Presence of prions are settling dependant. Ding et al.
gravity-separated inactivated after treatment. - Pre-treated wastewater and organic material [44]
wastewater removal enhances prion inactivation.
Sticky water Protein recovery - Adsorption. - Protein can be recovered - Adsorbent dosage influences on its recovery. Verbeek et al.
from wastewater and - Recovered protein modifies adsorbent structure. [10]
repurposed. - Generated product application needs further
analysis.

time. Oxidation due to the high-pressure medium tends to occur with air
flotation processes, degrading fat and protein quality [45]. This oxida­
tion may be one of the possibilities that led the acidity and peroxide
index to rise between longer operational periods.
As shown, flotation is a viable option for the rendering industry
wastewater. High-efficiency removal of solids makes it more feasible for
wastewater to be treated on subsequent processes for organic material
and nutrient removal. The retained solids can be disposed of as sludge or
valorised for reprocessing as raw material to the rendering plant if
composition and toxicity are assessed.
5.2. Coagulation and flocculation
Coagulation and flocculation (CF) processes (Fig. 5 (b)) are
commonly applied in wastewater treatment as a primary step to
decrease the high content of suspended solids. Firstly, coagulants are
applied to the wastewater to neutralize particle charges, and further
flocculant addition enhances particles binding into flocs. Formed flocs

9
F.M. Müller et al.
are settled and separated by gravity.
Racar et al. [49,52] assessed CF as an alternative to the high solids
content removal to decrease fouling within membrane separation. Racar
et al. [52] presented fouling decreasing from 62.5 % to 3.2 % in the
posterior membrane treatment, mainly due to the high removal of
turbidity, total carbon (56.1 %) and DOC (66.4 %) that occurred after CF
application. Racar et al. [49] obtained a 50 to 95 % fouling reduction
through the removal of solids, directly influencing the removal of
turbidity (96 %) and total carbon (75 %).
For both studies, raw wastewater without CF showed a greater ten­
dency of fouling in the subsequent filtration steps. Fouling reduction
differences are related to the studied membrane scales, with lower foul
in ultrafiltration against nanofiltration.
As well as the optimization of coagulant and flocculant dosage
studied by these papers, CF operationalization also requires extensive
training of operators due to strict dosage and pH requirements for a
stable and functioning process [50,54].
Chemical coagulants and flocculants usually lead to a large amount
of sludge generation after solid retention. Sludge filtration proposals are
present in the literature, such as the use of a sand filter by Racar et al.
[52], but the retained sludge destination is still a gap in the literature in
the case of rendering plants. Alike discussed on flotation, the retained
solids by CF might be available with natural coagulants and flocculants
application, as demonstrated by Bahrodin et al. [55]. These compounds
lead to a higher retention efficiency and lower sludge generation. Its
application is a potential study bias for the feasibility of the proposed
process, requiring an assessment of these products' availability and
optimized parameters when applied to the rendering wastewater.
Therefore, CF presents high suspended solids retention, influencing
turbidity and carbon removal. The resulting wastewater provides further
treatment approaches that usually lead to smaller efficiency with raw
wastewater. The amount of sludge generated can be decreased with
novel coagulants and flocculants, which also provides a potential rich-
nutrient material to be reprocessed along with the rendering plant.
5.3. Electrochemical processes
Literature tackles electrochemical processes as treatments for
wastewater valorisation through interest compounds recovery. The
electrochemical mechanism is based on chemical reactions caused by an
electrical current application. The applied current enhances reactions
solely caused by chemical agents on ordinary treatments, leading to
novel processes based on their principles, like electrocoagulation-
electroflotation (ECF), electrolytic metal deposition, electrochemical
precipitation, and emulsion splitting electrolysis [56–58]. Since chem­
ical agents are no longer needed, reprocessing the recovered material
might as well be an option [59].
ECF (Fig. 5 (c)) for rendering wastewater treatment was proposed by
Xie et al. [50]. Current density, stirring and sedimentation time turned
out as the main parameters for higher efficiency. The control of fatty
acids profile throughout the treatment showed feasible characteristics to
reprocess the recovered fat in the rendering plant as raw material, in line
with the discussion in topic 5.1. Reprocessing also requires further
analysis. Acidity index is a major parameter in this case, which will
dictate its dosage as a raw material; and degradability, related to shelf
life within storage time until its application.
Further feasibility studies comparing similar processes with chemical
agents (i.e., CF) might present the advantages of the electrochemical
approach, with fewer costs related to chemical agents, more favorable
sludge to be reprocessed into the rendering plant as raw material and
high performance of treatment, such as COD removal [60,61].
Electrochemical process can also be applied to recover ammoniacal
nitrogen as assessed by Xie and Popat [45] employing electrochemical
stripping (Fig. 5 (d)). Smaller energy demand occurs from the electro­
chemical perspective when compared to ordinary stripping [62]. In this
case, stripping was applied as a tertiary step after biological treatment.
10
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
Cell configuration, cathodic pH and current density played important
roles in the process, reaching up to 99 % ammoniacal nitrogen recovery
as ammonia. Apart from these parameters, the correct functioning of this
structure is dependent on the wastewater. Due to its composition,
different feeding strategies may be needed, as proposed by the authors to
prevent Cl2 formation from the high presence of Cl− in the treated
wastewater.
The cited characteristics represent the versatility of electrochemical
processes, both in primary and tertiary treatments. Low costs are
considered to be taken due to chemical agents (ECF) and energy demand
(electrochemical stripping), but the comparison between the ordinary
and proposed processes is yet to be studied in rendering wastewater.
Along with it, pilot and real-scale implementation are still needed to be
covered by these processes, evaluating its costs, applicability and
operationalization considering the high loads of wastewater generated
daily [63].
5.4. Membranes
Membrane technologies (Fig. 5 (e)) are separation processes based
on pressure, thermal, electric or concentration-driven forces. Mem­
branes are usually applied as tertiary treatment, removing recalcitrant
contaminants from previously treated wastewater [64]. Its application
in rendering wastewater treatment has been increasing in the literature
in the past 6 years, generating aggregated value products from the
condensate and water reclamation with the resulting permeate. How­
ever, its application still faces issues such as membrane pores fouling,
decreasing mass transfer and process efficiency [9,48].
Zhou et al. [47] brought up the first outlook with membranes on
nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processes. The membranes were
evaluated on direct and crossflow modes to determine whether config­
uration results as the most cost-efficient alternative. Although fitting
results occurred on both configurations, the direct flow appears to be the
less expensive and easiest of operationalization. Both processes pre­
sented high TDS e COD reduction, reaching up to 98 % and 98 % for
nanofiltration and 91 % and 95 % for reverse osmosis, respectively.
Reverse osmosis resulted in higher purity of permeate due to its
permeability. The authors also compared ultrafiltration as a primary
treatment for the high solids content removal with the existing dissolved
air flotation system, reaching a 62 % cheaper operation.
Racar et al. [48] related the problem of membrane fouling in their
studies, proposing CF [49,52] and larger-calibre membranes [48,51] as
pre-treatments to reduce the solids content responsible for the decline in
membrane efficiency. The authors propose membrane separation as a
tertiary solution after secondary treatment to remove remaining con­
taminants (e.g., nitrogen and chlorine species). All presented cases
demonstrated high removal of turbidity, total carbon and solids content,
decreasing fouling in the tertiary membrane treatment.
Among the pre-treatments proposed by the authors, CF results in an
appropriate permeate for ultrafiltration, generating effluent suitable for
soil irrigation and the own rendering plant cleaning [49,52]. While the
pre-treatment directly with ultrafiltration generates a permeate with
fewer solids, suitable for posterior nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
treatment, with permeate applicable to steam generation [48,51].
Mostafa et al. [18] and Muster-Slawitsch et al. [9] expose the gap
around physical processes focused on compounds recovery from
wastewater, valuing the condensate apart from just treating the waste­
water. The composition of the rendering wastewater was the main
considered parameter. The lower temperature achieved higher permeate
quality with a smaller mass transfer of species (e.g., volatile free fatty
acids) through the membrane. Fouling was mainly formed by proteins
and their hydrolysed products. Both researchers showed that
polyurethane-coated polytetrafluoroethylene membranes resulted in a
less fouling tendency, with a smaller mass transfer rate when compared
to the non-coated membrane. Therefore, the studies proved that mem­
brane composition is linked directly with the process efficiency, with
F.M. Müller et al.
different materials and fouling removal costs being future trending
topics.
Unlike other membrane studies, Mostafa et al. [18] and Muster-
Slawitsch et al. [9] proposed a promising strategy for the reuse of a
specific wastewater stream from the rendering plant: the condensate
from the drying process (stream 7 in Fig. 2), known as sticky water. This
stream is usually reclaimed with evaporation, an ordinary system
already applied with equipment from specialized brands in the
rendering branch [65,66]. The resulting condensate is a protein and fat-
rich liquid available for gradual reprocess by the rendering industry
directly into the drying equipment. Membrane separation of this stream
generated a higher solid content condensate than the usual generated
with the mentioned evaporation equipment. However, higher solids
concentration solids present issues with pipe encrustation and line
clogging, with reprocessing strategies and dosage yet to be studied [67].
The cost comparison of membranes and evaporation processes to
sticky water reclamation is brought by Zhou and Husson [19], studying
forward and reverse osmosis. The membrane-like system reaches a
higher concentration capacity (up to 45 %) than evaporation (23.1 %),
costing 5.3 % of its total value.
For sticky water recovery, protein denaturation and fat hydrolysis
are the primary factors for reprocessing feasibility [68]. Minimal non-
standard composition, such as acidity from the condensate fat oxida­
tion, may have a negative influence on the process. Therefore, studies
about its composition and existing degradation still need to be assessed.
However, the membrane's low operational temperature (75 ◦ C) is lower
than the practised-on evaporation (130 ◦ C), bringing the possibility of a
lower thermal impact on these issues Zhou and Husson [19].
Recently, Brennan et al. [14] presented membrane application to
valorise the same condensate stream (stream 7 in Fig. 2) collected after
the usual evaporation process, focusing on ammoniacal nitrogen re­
covery. Membrane composition played a key role, where PTFE mem­
brane was more fittable due to higher efficiency, and PP membrane led
to a higher wetting tendency. Up to 64 % of ammoniacal nitrogen was
recovered as ammonium sulphate, potential fertilizer that generates an
income through the wastewater to the industry, which can beat up the
costs of the processes, considered to be 45 % higher than the actual
employed aerobic digestion treatment.
The wastewater stream and its composition demonstrated the
applicability of each process. Plants with combined streams were usually
suitable for wastewater treatment and permeate reclamation for less
noble applications, including cleaning, steam generation and irrigation
(after microorganisms and remaining prions evaluation) [44]. When
more valuable streams are available, in the case of the cited sticky water,
membrane technology is usually applied to add value to the condensate.
In this case, coupling the proposed processes above can also be an
alternative to evaluate and ease the high load of wastewater to be
treated, as proposed in Fig. S.2.
Thus, the chosen method will be related according to the wastewater
stream to be treated and the availability of its segregation, as well as to
issues involving the application of the generated products (e.g., sticky
water volume and its conservation, availability of rural areas for
irrigation).
5.5. Novel physicochemical processes
According to the papers cited herein, physicochemical processes are
the most approached treatments in recent years. This contemporary
interest leads to allow the application of novel processes. Wastewater
valorisation still needs to be considered among these processes, mainly
focusing on value aggregation of by-products. Coupling these processes
in-between and to biological ones seems to be a prominent way to the
valorisation objective.
Among the separation processes, adsorption has a potential field of
study. As proposed by Verbeek et al. [10], proteins were recovered with
bentonite dosage. The high load of ammoniacal nitrogen in rendering
11
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
wastewater could also be studied for its potential recovery. One key
stream to be analysed would be the condensate generated after evapo­
ration/membrane for sticky water concentration. After exhaustion, the
nutrient-rich adsorbent could be assessed to dispose it as fertilizer or be
treated for desorption to ammoniacal nitrogen recovery and commer­
cialization [69].
In the electrochemical field, a huge number of possibilities are yet to
be studied besides ECF and electrochemical stripping, such as electro­
chemical oxidation for tertiary treatment [70] and electrolysis as a
primary step [71], both successfully applied to slaughterhouse
wastewater.
A research gap was also identified around post-treatment processes,
focusing mainly on microorganism removal and prions deactivation. As
proposed by Ding et al. [44], advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are
potential applications on this subject, as ozonation was studied by the
author. The rapid increase in AOPs studies provides a prosperous sce­
nario to assess these techniques for rendering wastewater. As stated in
similar wastewater, some trending AOPs are ultraviolet, peroxidation,
ultrasound, photo-Fenton, electro-Fenton and couplings of these. As
matter of fact, some of these processes also present TOC, COD and
turbidity removal, showing a potential replacement for tertiary pro­
cesses [70,72].
6. Future research
Rendering industry future perspectives overpass pre-treatment, pri­
mary, secondary, tertiary and post-treatment steps and their needs in
order to treat and value this wastewater.
Primary and pre-treatments studies need to elucidate the imple­
mentation and valorisation of segregated streams before the general
mixing. Solids content retained within this step must be evaluated ac­
cording to its composition for reprocessing or external applications.
Secondary treatments and future enhancements are related to valor­
isation processes, recovering compounds of interest and generating
value aggregated by-products. Tertiary and post-treatments studies need
to propose efficient and sludge-free ways to nutrient recovery, micro­
organism removal and prion inactivation.
Unsettling topics to be studied through these processes are mainly
related to (i) real scale and long-term operations; (ii) efficiency during
peaks in the wastewater composition; (iii) generated by-products
composition, degradability, and storing until reprocess (i.e., FOG
sludge, sticky water); and (iv) destination of the cited generated by-
products when not partially or entirely reprocessed (e.g., excess of
FOG sludge, high acidity index of sticky water), determining storage
conditions or subsequent treatment to avoid problems related to de­
gradability of the material.
Within nitrogen removal processes (e.g., nitrification and denitrifi­
cation), stopping inhibitors formation and parameter optimization to
decrease external feeding points are to be covered.
Valorisation of the wastewater through biological processes, such as
microbial fuel cell and anaerobic digestion, showed its potential appli­
cation, with issues yet to be studied, such as inhibitors (e.g., long-chain
fatty acids, proteins). Pre-treatment processes, like enzymatic hydroly­
sis, arise as a possibility, evaluating enzyme type, origin, dosage, com­
bination, and immobilization, as well as its impact on by-products
generated in further treatment steps (e.g., biogas).
Processes that propose fats and proteins recovery still need to cover
the generated product degradability and optimal dosage if used as raw
material. These processes also need to consider whether all the streams
of wastewater are viable for this recovery or only non-contaminated
wastewater (streams 2 to 7 in Fig. 2). The viability of the generated
products should rely on physicochemical composition (such as acidity
and peroxide index) and the current legislation from where the
rendering industry is allocated.
Previous and primary physicochemical treatments such as flotation
and C&F are studied to remove solids, also reducing other parameters,
F.M. Müller et al.
like organic load and turbidity. Its operation, however, requires the
analysis of different aspects: (i) greener bias concerning the coagulant
and flocculant applied, with the possibility of process optimization
through coagulants of natural origin that present greater efficiency and
lower sludge generation when compared to commonly used chemical
coagulants; and (ii) composition of the retained solids, including fats
and proteins, to evaluate the best parameters and coagulant/flocculant
products that capture this material without degrading and oxidizing its
structure, allowing its reprocessing.
Physical processes based on membrane separation (i.e., filtration,
reverse osmosis, distillation) presented membrane fouling as the major
obstacle. The same issue is also applicable to systems operating with
biological membrane reactors. Different aspects are emerged to be
considered: (i) the study of different compositions of membranes with
materials and layers that reduce the formation of fouling layers,
increasing the operational time until the critical decrease in mass
transfer; (ii) assessing the cleaning operation time, which may lead to
more than one equipment to supply the continuous batches of the
rendering activity; and (iii) in the case of reprocessing the concentrate,
gaps in the literature have to evaluate.
Permeate and sludge reprocessing gaps to be covered are: (i) the
ideal dosage to avoid drastic compositional changes in the main
rendered product and pipe incrustation due to the high level of solids;
(ii) the influence of this material on the existing lines and the materials
that compose them; (iii) adapting the main rendering process and
existing equipment to receive this material; (iv) and the characterization
of the compounds that compose it - mainly the proteins, which can be
denatured throughout the process and make the reprocess of condensate
unfeasible.
Overall, articles approaching the scale-up of the cited processes are a
must have for the next steps on rendering wastewater treatment.
Alongside the study of novel processes, scaling-up analysis might enrich
the literature on the topic by enabling more reliable modelling and cost
analysis.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.103480.
Funding
This work was supported by the Coordination of Superior Level Staff
Improvement of Brazil (CAPES) under the grant number 88887.693879/
2022-00.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] H. Ritchie, M. Roser, Meat and dairy production - our world in data.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#citation, 2019. (Accessed 18 June
2022).
[2] K. Valta, P. Damala, E. Orli, C. Papadaskalopoulou, K. Moustakas, D. Malamis,
M. Loizidou, Valorisation opportunities related to wastewater and animal by-
products exploitation by the Greek slaughtering industry: current status and future
potentials, Waste Biomass Valorization 6 (2015) 927–945. https://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s12649-015-9368-1. (Accessed 9 May 2022).
[3] D. Jȩdrejek, J. Levic, J. Wallace, W. Oleszek, Animal by-products for feed:
characteristics, European regulatory framework, and potential impacts on human
and animal health and the environment, J. Anim. Feed Sci. 25 (2016) 189–202,
https://doi.org/10.22358/JAFS/65548/2016.
12
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
[4] E. Sazakli, A. Fidaki, M. Leotsinidis, VOCs in ambient air and community odour
assessment before and after the closure of an animal rendering plant, Environ.
Process. 9 (2022) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40710-022-00579-7, 2022 9:2.
[5] C. Álvarez, L. Drummond, A.M. Mullen, Novel “gel demineralizing” method for
protein recovery from fat rendering waste stream based on its gelling properties,
Food Hydrocoll. 84 (2018) 529–536, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODHYD.2018.06.033.
[6] R. Bedoić, A. Špehar, J. Puljko, L. Čuček, B. Ćosić, T. Pukšec, N. Duić, Opportunities
and challenges: experimental and kinetic analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and rendering industry streams for biogas production, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 130 (2020), 109951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109951.
[7] S.L. Woodgate, R.G. Wilkinson, The role of rendering in relation to the bovine
spongiform encephalopathy epidemic, the development of EU animal by-product
legislation and the reintroduction of rendered products into animal feeds, Ann.
Appl. Biol. 178 (2021) 430–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/AAB.12676.
[8] B. Brennan, B. Gunes, M.R. Jacobs, J. Lawler, F. Regan, Potential viable products
identified from characterisation of agricultural slaughterhouse rendering
wastewater, Water (Basel) 13 (2021) 352, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030352.
[9] B. Muster-Slawitsch, N. Dow, D. Desai, D. Pinches, C. Brunner, M. Duke, Membrane
distillation for concentration of protein-rich waste water from meat processing,
J. Water Process Eng. 44 (2021), 102285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwpe.2021.102285.
[10] C.J.R. Verbeek, M.C. Lay, C. Higham, Protein intercalated bentonite recovered
using adsorption from stickwater, Waste Biomass Valorization 3 (2012) 109–115,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-011-9092-4.
[11] M.N. Bingo, M. Njoya, M. Basitere, S.K.O. Ntwampe, E. Kaskote, Performance
evaluation of an integrated multi-stage poultry slaughterhouse wastewater
treatment system, J. Water Process Eng. 43 (2021), 102309, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102309.
[12] A.D. Shende, S. Dhenkula, N.N. Rao, G.R. Pophali, An improved primary
wastewater treatment system for a slaughterhouse industry: a full-scale experience,
Water Sci. Technol. 85 (2022) 1688–1700, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2022.041.
[13] S. Bayr, M. Ojanperä, P. Kaparaju, J. Rintala, Long-term thermophilic mono-
digestion of rendering wastes and co-digestion with potato pulp, Waste Manag. 34
(2014) 1853–1859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.005.
[14] B. Brennan, C. Briciu-Burghina, S. Hickey, T. Abadie, Y. Delaure, J. Durkan,
L. Holland, B. Quilty, M. Tajparast, C. Pulit, L. Fitzsimons, K. Nolan, F. Regan,
J. Lawler, Pilot scale study: first demonstration of hydrophobic membranes for the
removal of ammonia molecules from rendering condensate wastewater, Int. J. Mol.
Sci. 21 (2020) 3914, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21113914.
[15] C. Gurd, R. Villa, B. Jefferson, Understanding why fat, oil and grease (FOG)
bioremediation can be unsuccessful, J. Environ. Manag. 267 (2020), 110647,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2020.110647.
[16] J. Paul, A.R. Criado, The art of writing literature review: what do we know and
what do we need to know? Int. Bus. Rev. 29 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ibusrev.2020.101717.
[17] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Res. Methods
Reporting 339 (2009).
[18] M.G. Mostafa, B. Zhu, M. Cran, N. Dow, N. Milne, D. Desai, M. Duke, Membrane
distillation of meat industry effluent with hydrophilic polyurethane coated
polytetrafluoroethylene membranes, Membranes (Basel) 7 (2017), https://doi.org/
10.3390/membranes7040055.
[19] J. Zhou, S.M. Husson, Low-energy membrane process for concentration of stick
water, Membranes (Basel) 8 (2018) 25, https://doi.org/10.3390/
membranes8020025.
[20] J.N. Meegoda, B. Li, K. Patel, L.B. Wang, A review of the processes, parameters, and
optimization of anaerobic digestion, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15 (2018)
2224, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH15102224.
[21] I. Moukazis, F.M. Pellera, E. Gidarakos, Slaughterhouse by-products treatment
using anaerobic digestion, Waste Manag. 71 (2018) 652–662, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.WASMAN.2017.07.009.
[22] S. Woon, M. Othman, The feasibility of anaerobic digestion of meat rendering
waste, Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 7 (2011) 213–223, https://doi.org/
10.18848/1832-2077/cgp/v07i03/54945.
[23] V. Diamantis, A. Eftaxias, K. Stamatelatou, C. Noutsopoulos, C. Vlachokostas,
A. Aivasidis, Bioenergy in the era of circular economy: anaerobic digestion
technological solutions to produce biogas from lipid-rich wastes, Renew Energy
168 (2021) 438–447, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2020.12.034.
[24] P.W. Harris, B.K. McCabe, Review of pre-treatments used in anaerobic digestion
and their potential application in high-fat cattle slaughterhouse wastewater, Appl.
Energy 155 (2015) 560–575, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.06.026.
[25] A. Baena, A. Orjuela, S.K. Rakshit, J.H. Clark, Enzymatic hydrolysis of waste fats,
oils and greases (FOGs): status, prospective, and process intensification
alternatives, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 175 (2022), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cep.2022.108930.
[26] P.W. Harris, T. Schmidt, B.K. McCabe, Bovine bile as a bio-surfactant pre-treatment
option for anaerobic digestion of high-fat cattle slaughterhouse waste, J. Environ.
Chem. Eng. 6 (2018) 444–450, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECE.2017.12.034.
[27] N.K. Shammas, L.K. Wang, in: Aerobic Digestion, Biosolids Treatment Processes,
2007, pp. 177–205, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-996-7_6.
[28] M. Basuvaraj, J. Fein, S.N. Liss, Protein and polysaccharide content of tightly and
loosely bound extracellular polymeric substances and the development of a
granular activated sludge floc, Water Res. 82 (2015) 104–117, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.014.
F.M. Müller et al.
[29] N.C. Silveira, G.H.D. Oliveira, M.H.R.Z. Damianovic, E. Foresti, Two-stage partial
nitrification-anammox process for nitrogen removal from slaughterhouse
wastewater: evaluation of the nitrogen loading rate and microbial community
analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 296 (2021), 113214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2021.113214.
[30] I.S. Thakur, K. Medhi, Nitrification and denitrification processes for mitigation of
nitrous oxide from waste water treatment plants for biovalorization: challenges
and opportunities, Bioresour. Technol. 282 (2019) 502–513, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2019.03.069.
[31] P. Auterská, L. Novák, Successful solution for high nitrogen content wastewater
treatment from rendering plants, Water Sci. Technol. 54 (2006) 23–30, https://doi.
org/10.2166/wst.2006.887.
[32] V.G. Gude, Integrating bioelectrochemical systems for sustainable wastewater
treatment, Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 20 (2018) 911–924, https://doi.org/
10.1007/S10098-018-1536-0/FIGURES/8.
[33] A. Xie, J.A. Deaver, E. Miller, S.C. Popat, Evaluation of electrical current
production in microbial electrolysis cells fed with animal rendering wastewater,
Chemosphere 285 (2021), 131547, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2021.131547.
[34] K. Xiao, S. Liang, X. Wang, C. Chen, X. Huang, Current state and challenges of full-
scale membrane bioreactor applications: a critical review, Bioresour. Technol. 271
(2019) 473–481, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2018.09.061.
[35] C. Acharya, G. Nakhla, A. Bassi, R. Kurian, Treatment of high-strength pet food
wastewater using two-stage membrane bioreactors, Water Environ. Res. 78 (2006)
661–670, https://doi.org/10.2175/106143006X99812.
[36] C. Acharya, G. Nakhla, A. Bassi, A novel two-stage MBR denitrification process for
the treatment of high strength pet food wastewater, J. Hazard. Mater. 129 (2006)
194–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.039.
[37] C. Acharya, G. Nakhla, A. Bassi, Operational optimization and mass balances in a
two-stage MBR treating high strength pet food wastewater, J. Environ. Eng. 132
(2006) 810–817, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:7(810).
[38] R. Kurian, G. Nakhla, A. Bassi, Biodegradation kinetics of high strength oily pet
food wastewater in a membrane-coupled bioreactor (MBR), Chemosphere 65
(2006) 1204–1211, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.03.050.
[39] J. Jeganathan, G. Nakhla, A. Bassi, Hydrolytic pretreatment of oily wastewater by
immobilized lipase, J. Hazard. Mater. 145 (2007) 127–135, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.11.004.
[40] J. Jeganathan, G. Nakhla, A. Bassi, Oily wastewater treatment using a novel hybrid
PBR-UASB system, Chemosphere 67 (2007) 1492–1501, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2006.12.047.
[41] J. Jeganathan, A. Bassi, G. Nakhla, Pre-treatment of high oil and grease pet food
industrial wastewaters using immobilized lipase hydrolyzation, J. Hazard. Mater.
137 (2006) 121–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.11.106.
[42] A. Aziz, F. Basheer, A. Sengar, Irfanullah, S.U. Khan, I.H. Farooqi, Biological
wastewater treatment (anaerobic-aerobic) technologies for safe discharge of
treated slaughterhouse and meat processing wastewater, Sci. Total Environ. 686
(2019) 681–708, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.05.295.
[43] M.A. Musa, S. Idrus, Physical and biological treatment technologies of
slaughterhouse wastewater: a review, Sustainability 13 (2021) 4656, https://doi.
org/10.3390/SU13094656, 2021, Vol. 13, Page 4656.
[44] N. Ding, N.F. Neumann, L.M. Price, S.L. Braithwaite, A. Balachandran,
M. Belosevic, M. Gamal El-Din, Ozone inactivation of infectious prions in rendering
plant and municipal wastewaters, Sci. Total Environ. 470–471 (2014) 717–725,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.099.
[45] A. Xie, S.C. Popat, Electrochemical ammonia stripping from non-nitrified animal
rendering wastewater, Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 3 (2020), 100020, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ceja.2020.100020.
[46] S. Zak, Z. Pawlak, The use of flotation in fat recovery and the pretreatment of
wastewaters from animal fat production, Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 15 (2006) 507–515.
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33745699455&partnerI
D=40&md5=904fd91dd499a9754b76eac5b81a6bff.
[47] J. Zhou, B.O. Baker, C.T. Grimsley, S.M. Husson, Polishing step purification of
high-strength wastewaters by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, Membranes
(Basel) 6 (2016), https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes6010019.
[48] M. Racar, K. Obajdin, D. Dolar, K. Košutić, Pretreatment for the reclamation of
rendering plant secondary effluent with NF/RO: UF flat sheet versus UF hollow
fiber membranes, Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 22 (2020) 399–408, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10098-019-01789-8.
[49] M. Racar, D. Dolar, M. Farkaš, N. Milčić, A. Špehar, K. Košutić, Rendering plant,
Chemosphere 227 (2019) 207–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2019.04.045.
[50] A. Xie, D.A. Ladner, S.C. Popat, Electrocoagulation-electroflotation for primary
treatment of animal rendering wastewater to enable recovery of fats, Chem. Eng. J.
431 (2022), 133910, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.133910.
[51] M. Racar, D. Dolar, A. Špehar, K. Košutić, Application of UF/NF/RO membranes for
treatment and reuse of rendering plant wastewater, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 105
(2017) 386–392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.11.015.
13
Journal of Water Process Engineering 52 (2023) 103480
[52] M. Racar, D. Dolar, A. Špehar, A. Kraš, K. Košutić, Optimization of coagulation with
ferric chloride as a pretreatment for fouling reduction during nanofiltration of
rendering plant secondary effluent, Chemosphere 181 (2017) 485–491, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.04.108.
[53] F.C.P. Rocha e Silva, J.M. Luna, R.D. Rufino, V.A. Santos, L.A. Sarubbo, Dissolved
air flotation combined to biosurfactants: a clean and efficient alternative to treat
industrial oily water, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 17 (2018) 591–602, https://
doi.org/10.1007/S11157-018-9477-Y/FIGURES/5.
[54] E. Alekseev, S. Shambina, Coagulation of waste water from the point of view of
physic-chemical interactions, E3S Web Conf. 263 (2021) 6, https://doi.org/
10.1051/e3sconf/202126304011.
[55] M.B. Bahrodin, N.S. Zaidi, N. Hussein, M. Sillanpää, D.D. Prasetyo, A. Syafiuddin,
Recent advances on coagulation-based treatment of wastewater: transition from
chemical to natural coagulant, Curr. Pollut. Rep. 7 (2021) 379–391, https://doi.
org/10.1007/S40726-021-00191-7, 2021 7:3.
[56] T. Muddemann, D. Haupt, M. Sievers, U. Kunz, Electrochemical reactors for
wastewater treatment, ChemBioEng Rev. 6 (2019) 142–156, https://doi.org/
10.1002/CBEN.201900021.
[57] Z. Al-Qodah, Y. Al-Qudah, E. Assirey, in: Combined Biological Wastewater
Treatment With Electrocoagulation as a Post-polishing Process: A Review 55, 2019,
pp. 2334–2352, https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2019.1626891, doi:10.1080/
01496395.2019.1626891.
[58] Z. Al-Qodah, Y. Al-Qudah, W. Omar, On the performance of electrocoagulation-
assisted biological treatment processes: a review on the state of the art, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (2019) 28689–28713, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-
06053-6.
[59] Y. Liu, Y.Y. Deng, Q. Zhang, H. Liu, Overview of recent developments of resource
recovery from wastewater via electrochemistry-based technologies, Sci. Total
Environ. 757 (2021), 143901, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2020.143901.
[60] M. Mousazadeh, E.K. Niaragh, M. Usman, S.U. Khan, M.A. Sandoval, Z. Al-Qodah,
Z.Bin Khalid, V. Gilhotra, M.M. Emamjomeh, A critical review of state-of-the-art
electrocoagulation technique applied to COD-rich industrial wastewaters, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 28 (2021) 43143–43172, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-
021-14631-W.
[61] M. Mousazadeh, Z. Naghdali, Z. Al-Qodah, S.M. Alizadeh, E. Karamati Niaragh,
S. Malekmohammadi, P.V. Nidheesh, E.P.L. Roberts, M. Sillanpää, M. Mahdi
Emamjomeh, A systematic diagnosis of state of the art in the use of
electrocoagulation as a sustainable technology for pollutant treatment: an updated
review, Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 47 (2021), 101353, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SETA.2021.101353.
[62] P. Kuntke, T.H.J.A. Sleutels, M. Rodríguez Arredondo, S. Georg, S.G. Barbosa,
A. ter Heijne, H.V.M. Hamelers, C.J.N. Buisman, (Bio)electrochemical ammonia
recovery: progress and perspectives, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 102 (2018)
3865–3878, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00253-018-8888-6/TABLES/3.
[63] C.A. Martínez-Huitle, M. Panizza, Electrochemical oxidation of organic pollutants
for wastewater treatment, Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 11 (2018) 62–71, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.COELEC.2018.07.010.
[64] E.O. Ezugbe, S. Rathilal, Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: a
review, Membranes 10 (2020) 89, https://doi.org/10.3390/
MEMBRANES10050089, 2020, Vol. 10, Page 89.
[65] Haarslev, Falling film evaporator, in: Falling Film Evaporator, 2016, p. 4.
[66] Kontinuer, Planta evaporadora, in: Planta Evaporadora, 2020, p. 2.
[67] K.R. Morison, Reduction of fouling in falling-film evaporators by design, Food
Bioprod. Process. 93 (2015) 211–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FBP.2014.10.009.
[68] H. Ockerman, L. Basu, Edible rendering-rendered products for human use, in:
Essential Rendering, 2006.
[69] W.G. Djonga, E. Noubissié, G.B. Noumi, Removal of nitrogen, phosphate and
carbon loads from slaughterhouse effluent by adsorption on an adsorbent based on
ayous sawdust (Triplochyton scleroxylon), Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 4
(2021), 100120, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSCEE.2021.100120.
[70] D. Ozturk, A.E. Yilmaz, Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater with the
electrochemical oxidation process: role of operating parameters on treatment
efficiency and energy consumption, J. Water Process Eng. 31 (2019), 100834,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWPE.2019.100834.
[71] K. Meiramkulova, T. Mkilima, A. Kydyrbekova, Y. Nikitin, A. Zandybay,
M. Khussainov, T. Uryumtseva, Contribution of electrolysis within an integrated
system for a poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment, Sustainability 13
(2021) 12430, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU132212430, 2021, Vol. 13, Page
12430.
[72] M.A. Sandoval, R. Salazar, Electrochemical treatment of slaughterhouse and dairy
wastewater: toward making a sustainable process, Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 26
(2021), 100662, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COELEC.2020.100662.