International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

ISSN: 1939-7038 (Print) 1939-7046 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsue20

Review on industrial wastewater energy sources

and carbon emission reduction: towards a clean
production

Anwar Ahmad & Roomana Ghufran

To cite this article: Anwar Ahmad & Roomana Ghufran (2018): Review on industrial wastewater
energy sources and carbon emission reduction: towards a clean production, International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2018.1423647

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2018.1423647

Published online: 11 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsue20
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2018.1423647

Review on industrial wastewater energy sources and carbon emission reduction:

towards a clean production
Anwar Ahmada and Roomana Ghufranb
a
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Architecture, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Sultanate of Oman; bFaculty of
Civil Engineering and Earth Resources, University Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Gambang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This review provides an innovative approach of treating palm oil mill effluent (POME) from open pond Received 13 August 2016
and closed anaerobic sludge reactor for generation of green energy in the form of biogas containing Accepted 1 December 2017
methane. Improper techniques for the treatment and management of POME produce hazards to people
KEYWORDS
and contribute to global warming. In all over the world, the total crude oil palm production in the countries Sustainable POME treatment;
like Malaysia, Indonesia, Africa, Latin America, Asian countries, Solomons and other were around 51, 31, 7, aerobic; anaerobic reactor;
6, 3, 2 and 1% compared with soya 41.8% and coconut 3.48%, respectively. In the year 2014–15, Malaysia emission reduction; CER
generated at least 87.8 million tonnes of palm effluent per year. Various studies reveal that about 80% of
palm effluent is disposed off partially treated in open dumps. The generated certified emission reductions
(CERs) estimated and favoured the treatment of POME in anaerobic reactor by replacing open lagoon
of aerobic system for cleaner production. The clean development mechanism (CDM) encourages the
utilisation of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors for POME treatment and methane capture to earn
CER credits as a source of revenue.

Abbreviations: FFB: Fresh fruit bunch; CPO: Crude palm oil; POME: Palm oil mill effluent; CDM: Clean
development mechanism; CERs: Certified emission reductions; GHG: Green house gas; CO2: Carbon
dioxide; AF: Anaerobic film; AS: Activated sludge; ASP: Activated sludge process; BOD: Biochemical oxygen
demand (g L−1); COD: Chemical oxygen demand (g L−1); CODdiss: Dissolved chemical oxygen demand (g L−1);
CRT: Cell residence time (days); HRT: Hydraulic retention time (days); OLR: Organic loading rate (kgCOD
m−3 d−1); Q: Flow rate (L d−1); SBR: Sequencing batch reactor; SCOD: Soluble chemical oxygen demand
(g L−1); SS: Suspended solids (g L−1); T-P: Total phosphorous (g L−1); TKN: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (g L−1); T-N:
Total nitrogen (g L−1); TS: Total solids (g L−1); TSS: Total suspended solids (g L−1); UASB: Upflow Anaerobic
Sludge Blanket; TVS: Total volatile solids (g L−1); VS: Volatile solids (g L−1); Vs: Superficial velocity (m h−1); VSS:
Volatile suspended solids (g L−1); Vup: Upflow velocity (m h−1); W: width (cm); WW: Wastewater; WTE: Waste
to energy; FFB: Fresh fruit bunch; BE: Baseline emission; PE: Project emissions; PEFC: Project emissions from
fossil fuel combustion; EQA: Environmental quality act; DOE: Department of environment

Introduction as POME each day. The total palm oil production all over the
world was 44.8 (Indonesia 21.0, Malaysia 17.8, Thailand 1.3,
Global warming is a man made problem, to control global warm-
Columbia 0.8, Nigeria 0.8, other 3.1 million tonnes). Production
ing, it is necessary to achieve stabilisation of the concentration of
of palm oil in Malaysia was 17.8 million tonnes, with 85.6% of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. The clean devolve-
the biomass of oil palm contributing 45% of the income from
ment mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto
palm oil demand (Sumathi, Chai, and Mohamed 2008; Hassan
Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a GHGs reduc-
et al. 2009). In 2017, crude palm oil production (CPO) was 17.5
tion commitment to invest in projects that reduce emissions in
million tonnes, which was 29.5% more than that of 2007 (Table
developing countries as an alternative to emission reduction.
1). When we compared the fresh fruit bunch production of 98.5
Palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment by open pond system
million tonnes, 13% annual increase was from the previous year
and disposal contribute to considerable amount of GHGs in our
(MPOB 2017). In all over the world the production of palm oil
environment. During effluent treatment, considerable amount
is 3.62 tonne/ha/year, more than other vegetable oil crops. In
of energy is used generating CO2 emission from lagoon aerobic
the same year, the total oil palm planted area in the country
treatment.
increased by 6.7% from the previous year’s level to 9.98 million
Malaysia has led to an increase in the per capita income of
hectares (MPOB 2017).
people that generated millions of tons of the wastewater known

CONTACT Anwar Ahmad anwarak218@yahoo.co.uk, anwar.ahmed@unizwa.edu.om

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2  A. AHMAD AND R. GHUFRAN

Table 1. Production of crude palm oil (Tonnes) in (MPOB 2017). burned. The use of anaerobic process to treat POME wastewater
Latin was an interesting alternative choice compared to aerobic pro-
Month Malaysia Indonesia Nigeria America Rest Asia cess, as the sludge production and the energy consumption both
January 170,15 20149 1250 1123 7850 are lower. In all upcoming POME, closed reactor followed by
February 118,31 19019 1134 1221 7890 extended aeration is used for treatment of wastewater (Ahmad,
March 127,82 21149 1235 1232 7967
April 128,82 21139 1324 1256 7983 Ghufran, and Wahid 2011a).
May 139,25 22152 1321 1367 7990 In the present review, an attempt is made to provide a com-
June 144,96 23143 1465 1390 8128 prehensive review of POME in Malaysia compared with world
July 149,98 24048 1576 1456 8256
August 149,03 23146 1590 1489 8256 scenario, the objective of evaluating the current status and iden-
September 155,74 41419 1640 1578 8368 tifying the problems of POME sustainable sources of energy and
October 198,06 25019 1682 1489 8356 clean production. In addition, potential reduction of GHGs due
November 159,52 23145 1440 1367 8460
December 157,25 23134 1534 1390 8290 to avoidance of methane and carbon emission from open lagoon
Total 176,19 23123 1745 1439 8569 to closed tank system is also estimated. The study also aims,
through suggestions and recommendations, to encourage com-
petent authorities/researchers to work towards the improvement
During palm oil extraction, generation of POME ranges from of the present management system.
approximately 0.6 to 1.5 tonne per tonne of fresh fruit bunch
processed by the mill (Wahid et al. 2008). For every tonne of
POME digested about 28.8 m3 of biogas can be generated, but
POME and its impacts on environment
this is not a common practice at the moment. This biogas is Effluents from palm oil mills and processing plants have been
composed of 65% CH4 and 35% CO2 (Shirai et al. 2003; Yacob et identified as the major cause of the rapid deterioration of the
al. 2005; Wahid et al. 2008). Net carbon emission from POME is biosphere and the environment in the past and in recent times.
approximately 1.4 106 tonnes/year and assuming a mean annual Both sources were in fact the largest sources of water pollution
increase of 29% as experienced from 1990 to 2004, the estimated and global pollution during this period (Uyen and Hans 2009;
CH4 gas emission might be 0.502 M tonnes in the year 2020 Ahmad, Ghufran, and Wahid 2011b; Stanton, 1974). POME is
(Shirai et al. 2003; Yacob et al. 2005; Henson 2009). generated mainly from the oil extraction, washing, and cleaning
Aerobic treatment processes such as activated sludge pro- processes (steriliser, hydrocyclone and centrifuge effluent in the
cess (ASP) and sequential batch reactor (SBR), which are highly mill palm). It contains mainly cellulosic material, fat, oil, and
energy intensive and potential for generation of enormous volume grease (Schuchardt, Wulfert, and Damoko 2005). Discharging
of biosludge (Ma and Halim 1988; Latif et al. 2011). Anaerobic partially treated effluent into water streams may cause consid-
process is more advantageous than the aerobic process due to erable environmental problems (Ahmad, Ghufran, and Wahid
low energy requirement, low biomass production and simulta- 2012) due to the effluent’s high BOD (25 gL−1), COD (75 gL−1),
neously production of renewable and green energy (Zinatizadeh oil and grease (8.5 gL−1), total solids (45 gL−1), and suspended
et al. 2006). Initially the treatment scheme consisting of anaero- solids (21 gL−1) (Ma 2000). As shown in Table 2, the palm oil mill
bic lagoon followed by aerobic biological treatment in ASP was industry in Malaysia has thus been identified as one of the great-
selected due to the low operating cost. Nowadays, due to the est pollution source which discharges the largest pollution load
emission of GHGs (CH4) and odour nuisance from anaerobic into water bodies and the environment throughout the country
lagoons, it is not used. In the place of anaerobic lagoon, anaerobic (Hwang et al. 2000).
sludge blanket reactors are used for treatment of POME waste- Discharging untreated POME into streams and rivers may
water (Latif et al. 2011). Energy recovered from closed reactors is cause global environmental problems (Ahmad, Ghufran, and
used for electrical energy generation and in some places it is just Wahid 2012) because of its high levels of BOD, COD, total solids
and suspended solids (Ma 2000). The quantity of POME gener-
Table 2. Physio-Chemical Characteristics of POME (Ma 2000; Department of Envi-
ated depends on a number of factors, such as production of oil
ronment, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment, Malaysia 1991; Wu palm, degree of commercial activities, and unskilled treatment
et al. 2009]. (Hwang et al. 2000). Data on quantity variation and generation
EIA of wastewater are useful in planning for treatment and disposal
Stand- Latin systems of various types of wastewater and POME (Figure 1). It
Parame- Raw ards Indone- Thai- Amer- has also been estimated that the total POME generated by palm
ter* POME Malaysia sia Nigeria land ica
industries in Malaysia was 87.8 million tonnes/yr in 2009 and
pH 4.5 6.0–9.0 6.5–9.0 6.5–9.0 6.5–9.0 6.5–9.0
BOD 31.5 0.05 0.06 NA 0.06 0.03 more in 167.5 million tonnes/yr tonnes in 2017. Table 3 shows
COD 65.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.5 the quantity of POME generated and the per capita generation
TS 39.0 NA 40.0 NA 30.0 35.0 rates of POME (Wu et al. 2009; MPOB 2017). The production of
SS 18.9 0.1 NA 0.1 0.1 0.5
TKN 0.77 NA NA NA NA NA palm oil results in the generation of large quantities of POME.
Oil 3.97 0.01 0.01 NA NA NA One tonne of crude palm oil (CPO) production requires 5 to 7.5
&Grease tonnes of water, about 50% of which ends up as POME and about
Zn 0.002 0.002 0.003 NA NA 0.03
Br 0.007 0.004 0.004 NA 0.005 NA 2.5 to 3.0 tonnes of POME per tonne of produced crude palm oil
Fe 0.045 0.005 0.005 0.005 NA 0.05 (MPOB 2017). The different steps of CPO production processes
Mn 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 like fresh fruit bunch (FFB), fruit separation, sterilisation of FFB,
*
All parameters are in g L−1 except pH. threshing and stripping, digestion and pressing, clarification and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING  3

country. In year 2017, 178.9 million tonnes compared to year

Figure 1. Schematic representation of POME conversion in different parts by
aerobic and anaerobic system (Najafpour et al. 2004; Hulshoff Pol and Lettinga
1986).
2005, 66.8 million tonnes of POME was generated (Department
of Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and the
Environment, Malaysia 1991; Wu et al. 2009; Ahmad 2014).
Table 2 presents the characteristics and discharge limits of a typ-
ical POME and other wastewater. Current biological treatment
technologies for treating POME consist of conventional oxida-
tion ponds (anaerobic and aerobic), and open- and closed-tank
digesters with biogas recovery and land application (Khalid and
Wan Mustafa 1992; Borja and Banks 1994; Vairappan and Yen
2008; Latif et al. 2011; Ahmad and O-alJasser 2014).
Most of the palm oil mills in all over the world have adopted
the open pond system for the treatment of their effluents (Poh
2009; Singh and Prerna 2009). The system consists of a num-
ber of ponds where initially anaerobic digestion can take place,
followed by facultative ponds where degradation of the effluent
occurs under aerobic conditions. The system can produce a final
discharge with a BOD of less than 100 mg L−1 (Wu et al. 2010).
The ponding system is the most conventional method for treat-
ing POME (Poh 2009) but other processes such as aerobic and
anaerobic digestion, anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, and the
membrane technique may also provide the palm oil industries
with a possible insight into advanced technology for POME
treatment processes. According to standard limits for physico
chemical (Table 4), however, treatment that is basically based
on the physicochemical and biological treatment of anaero-
bic and aerobic systems is quite inefficient in treating POME,
which unfortunately leads to environmental pollution prob-
lems (Ahmad and Krimly 2014). This is because of high BOD
and COD loading and the low pH of POME, together with the
colloidal nature of the suspended solids. Thus, all these factors
make difficult and render the treatment by conventional methods
(Stanton 1974; Tong and Jaafer 2006).

purification for CPO production. During the process of CPO
production, fresh fruit bunch extraction need large amount of
water and as a result of that large amount of wastewater released
known as POME (MPOB 2017).
POME comprises a combination of wastewater from three
main sources, namely, clarification (60%), sterilisation (36%),
and hydrocyclone (4%). It contains various suspended compo-
nents, including cell walls, organelles, short fibres, a variety of
carbohydrates ranging from hemicellulose to simple sugars, a
range of nitrogenous compounds from proteins to amino acids,
free organic acids, and an assembly of minor organic and min-
eral constituents (Wu et al. 2009). POME has been identified as
one of the major sources of aquatic pollution in palm producing
Open pond treatment of POME
Methane, with its global warming potential, is categorised as a
greenhouse gas (GHG); it has 21 times more warming potential
than CO2. Methane fermentation offers an effective means of
pollution reduction, superior to that achieved via conventional
aerobic processes. Although anaerobic fermentation has been
practiced for decades, interest in it has only recently focused on
its use in the economic recovery of biogas from industrial and
agricultural surpluses.
At high organic loadings or at natural environment temper-
atures, the insoluble organic degradation of the effluent tends
to accumulate within the granules or sludge density region of
the ponds; this leads to the destabilisation of granules or the

Table 3. Comparison of oil yield for various oil bearing plants (Agamuthu, Sastry, and Hashim 1995; Henson 2009; Stanton 1974; Nadais, Capela, and Arroja 2006).

2009
% of current Malaysian agricul-
Oil crop Average oil yield (tonne/ha/year) Average oil yield (tonne/ha/year) 40 Yrs average growth p.a. (%) tural land areas
Oil Palm 3.62 3.67 7.8 45
Soyabean 0.4 1.2 5.5 379
Coconut 3.33 3.5 6.5 350
Sunflower 0.62 0.7 3.0 329
Olive 2.9 3.0 4.6 256
Jatropha 0.14 2.5 6.3 1084
Rapeseed 0.68 0.9 2.9 223
4  A. AHMAD AND R. GHUFRAN

Table 4. Properties of POME and various wastewaters treatment used for in reactor.

Type of wastewater COD BOD TS TSS VSS pH Treatment techniques Reference

POME 30–70 11–30 30–65 9–25 as SS – 3.5–4.5 UASB reactor
95 22 35 12 as SS – 4.35 UASB and USAF reactor Chaisri et al. 2007;
50 25 BOD3 40.5 18 as SS 34 as TVS 4.7 USAFF reactor Gobi and Vadivelu 2013;
80 21 BOD5 70 45 37 5 UASBR Siang 2006;
Coconut effluent 9.73 8.90 21.54 4.53 3.55 6.9 UASBR Gonzalez, Lontoc, and Dimaunahan
1971;
9.63 7.6 19.24 2.05 3.2 6.6 UASBR Naksagul 2005;
15 7 9.6 3.2 3.5 4–5.5 UAFF Jayamanne 2000
Soyabean oil effluent 21.0 15.5 16 12 6.5 4.9 CSTR Han-Qing et al. 2000
21.1 12.5 15 12 3.5 4.2 USFF Han-Qing et al. 2000
16 NA 18.2 4.0 3.5 4.3 UASBR Cassini et al. 2010
10 8.5 11.5 7.4 4.3 5.5 ASBR Zhu et al. 2009
17 43.5 4.5 62.5 55 4.2 UASBR Rajkumar, Muthukumar, and Sivakumar
2010;
Sunflower effluent 15.3 11.9 47 43 37 2.6 UASSR Saatci, Arslan, and Konar 2003;
Olive effluent 2.3 1.9 9.6 12.9 23 6.5 UASBR Gharsallah 1994
3.5 2.1 NA 15.5 9.5 6.3 UASFF

All values are in g L−1 except pH.

inhibition of granule formation (Vijayaraghavan, Ahmad, and renewable energy from the anaerobic digestion in a closed tank
Abdul Aziz 2007). These conditions ultimately lead to the failure from POME can be CER credit by the CDM under the Kyoto
of open pond system as a result of increased acid concentrations. Protocol (Gerardi 2003; Tong and Jaafar 2006).
Today 85% of POME treatment in all over the world is based
on an open aerobic/anaerobic and facultative ponding system,
POME treatment for clean production
which is followed by another system consisting of an open-tank
digester coupled with extended aeration in a pond. It is reported Anaerobic closed tank treatment
that for every tonne of treated POME (Table 5), an average of
POME treatment has been found to be successful with closed
1.9 kg CH4 per litre of POME (or approximately 53% of biogas)
tank reactors with specific characteristics of various wastewa-
is emitted to our environment, coming from open digesting
ters, achieving COD removal efficiency and methane production
tanks (Yacob et al. 2005, 2006). The release of GHG, especially
with the highest operating organic loading (Borja, Alba, and
CO2 and CH4, has been recognised as one of the main causes of
Banks 1996; Ayati and Ganjidoust 2006). However, a reactor
global warming (Figure 2). Subsequently, the anaerobic/aerobic
operated under overloaded conditions with high volatile fatty
pond system emits methane and carbon dioxide gas amounting
acid content became unstable. Due to the daily discharge of high
to 1043.1 kg/day/pond (Kamarudin 2008). This methane gas as
amount of POME from the palm oil milling process, it was nec-
essary to operate the treatment system at higher organic load
Table 5. Biogas and methane production in POME and compared with various (Nadais, Capela, and Arroja 2006; Chaisri et al. 2007). For this
wastewater. purpose, a two-stage closed reactor system with the objective
Type of Average of preventing inhibition of granule formation at higher organic
wastewater Biogas (Ld−1) CH4 (Ld−1) CH4 % Reference load without the solids removal was implemented for POME
POME 11.5 6.9 60 Borja and prior to treatment (Nadais, Capela, and Arroja 2006; Nataraj et
Banks 1994;
POME 10 7 75
al., 2006; Ahmad and Ghufran 2014). This method is desirable
POME 14 7 50 Chaisri et al. because suspended solids in POME have a high potential for
2007; biogas and methane gas production while the extra costs for the
POME 15.3 8.5 65 Ahmad 2016;
Coconut WW 7.5 2.5 55 Jayamanne
sludge disposal can be avoided (Figure 2).
2000; Palm oil mill effluent treatment has been found to be successful
8.5 6.5 75.5 Naksagul with closed reactors which achieved COD removal efficiency up to
2005;
3.8 4.7 60.5 Naksagul
98.4% with the highest operating organic loading of 10.63 kgCOD
2005; m-3.d-1. However, reactor operated under overloaded conditions
with high volatile fatty acid content became unstable after 15 days.
Soyabean WW 8.6 4.5 57 Ge-Fu et al.
2008
Results from this study showed the feasibility of separating anaer-
44.5 59.03 70.2 Han-Qing et obic digestion into two-stages (acidogensis and methanogenesis)
al. 2000 using a pair of reactors. The reactor was found to adapt quickly
56.3 37.0 71.0 Han-Qing et
al. 2000
with the feed from the acidogenic reactor and also tolerated higher
6.4 1.6 70 Dong et al. organic loadings. It was suggested that the organic loading of 35 kg
2010; COD m−3d−1 could ensure an overall of 90% COD removal and
Sunflower 56.0 45.9 85 Saatci, Arslan,
and Konar
quick methane production (Kalyuzhnyi et al. 1996). Moreover,
2003; suspended and colloidal components of POME in the form of
Olive mill 3.5 0.36 45 Gharsallah fat, protein, and cellulose have an adverse impact on reactor per-
waste 1994
formance and can cause deterioration of microbial activities and

Figure 2. POME conventional treatment system was adopted for aerobic lagoon and anaerobic system; closed reactor system for emission reduction. Carbon flow in
aerobic/anaerobic pond of palm oil mill wastewater treatment plant (Wong et al. 2009; Carbon 2009; Poh 2009; MPOB 2017).
wash out of the active biomass. A study by (Kalyuzhnyi et al. 1996;
Vijayaraghavan, Ahmad, and Abdul Aziz 2007) has proved that
reactors seeded with granulated sludge can achieve high perfor-
mance levels within a shorter start-up period. It could also accli-
matise quickly to gradual increase of organic loadings.
Important operating parameters upheld were the hydrau-
lic retention time and flow rates. Work for POME at a maxi-
mum flow rate of 11.76 Ld−1 and 4.9 Ld-1 at 24 h HRT for two
stage closed-reactor had been carried out by (Borja, Banks, and
Sánchez 1996). The difference in flow rate at same HRT was due
to change in volume of the reactor from 12 to 5 L. In another
experiment of POME, a low HRT of 12.7 h was worked out at
recycling mode of closed reactor and maintained a flow rate of
383.26 Ld−1 (Siang 2006). This low HRT might be due to less
height (52 cm) and bigger diameter (18.5 cm) of the reactor.
The purpose of describing height/diameter combination is
that, during upflow anaerobic process if diameter will be too
big then there is a chance of liquid channelling in the reactor.
Moreover, because of channelling, the influent stream may not
be in full contact with reactor biomass which will result in low
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING  5
conversion of organic matter into fatty acids and finally biogas
production. So, bigger reactor diameter does not encourage more
biogas production except sludge wash out because of poor mix-
ing within the reactor. On the other hand, comparatively more
height may encourage substrate mixing which leads to proper
contact of influent with micro-organisms which results in more
organic matter conversion into biogas. (Chaisri et al. 2007) and
(Laubscher et al. 2001) used almost 10 L reactors with flow rates
of 3 to 4 Ld−1, respectively. The difference in flow rate is due
to the change in HRT only which might be designed accord-
ing to the type of wastewater, where, in first case POME was
used as a substrate and distillery wastewater for later one (Stryer
1995; McHugh et al. 2004; O-Thong et al. 2007; Basri et al. 2010;
Ahmad 2016).
POME emission reductions
In all over the world, the palm oil industry, particularly POME
anaerobic treatment, has been identified as an important source
of CH4 and biogas (Table 5). Due to increasing awareness of the
6  A. AHMAD AND R. GHUFRAN
risk of the environmental pollution and emissions of GHG, the
treatment of POME using biological processes in closed digesters
anaerobic reactor has gained popularity in recent years, with over
500 installations operating worldwide (Kim et al. 2003; Sulaiman
et al. 2005) POME is an ideal substrate for bio-processing because
it contains a high level of degradable organic materials, which
result in to a net positive energy or economic balance. During
the anaerobic treatment of POME, methane (Yacob et al. 2005;
Chaisri et al. 2007) and hydrogen (Neves, Oliveira, and Alves
2004) are generated, which can reduce the demand for energy
resources and the dependence on fossil fuels.
The cost–benefit analysis for POME treatment system that
utilises biogas for electricity generation and digester effluent for
land application also showed a faster payback (Nagavallemma
et al. 2004; Rupani et al. 2008). POME is discharged at tem-
peratures around 80–90°C (Rupani et al. 2008); Domingo and
Nadal 2009) which actually makes treatment at both mesophilic
and thermophilic temperatures feasible especially in tropical
countries like Malaysia. Various studies have been conducted
to investigate the feasibility of operating wastewater treatment
systems in the thermophilic temperature range such as sugar,
high-strength wastewater (Parawira et al. 2006; Albuquerque
et al. 2007; Bengtsson, Baillif, and Oksman 2007; Menon 2007;
Ahmad 2012) and POME (Hassan et al. 1996, 1997; Gobi and
Vadivelu 2013). It is reported that operation at thermophilic
temperature gives better results than mesophilic temperature
after start-up because methane producing bacteria produced at
mesophilic temperature facilitates in high methane production
at thermophilic temperature ranges (Gobi and Vadivelu, 2013;
Ahmad and Ghufran 2014).
Certified emission reductions (CERs) estimation
The use of POME as a renewable energy resource can improve
energy security while reducing the environmental burdens of
waste carbon disposal (Yacob et al. 2006; Ahmad 2014). Energy
from wastewater therefore facilitates the integration of water,
waste and energy management within a model of sustainable
development (Figure 1) (Callander 1995; USEPA 2006). Baseline
emission was estimated based on Equation 1, and project emis-
sion was estimated based on Equation 2 and emission reduction
was estimated based on Equation 3. Baseline Emissions are esti-
mated as follows:
BEy = BECH4 , y + BE EL, y + BE HG, y
Where, BEy – Baseline emission in year, tonne of carbon dioxide
equivalent per year [tCO2e/yr]; BECH4 – CH4 emissions from
baseline treatment [tCO2e/yr];
BE EL, y – CO2 emission from electricity consumption in the
absence of the project activity in year [tCO2e/yr];
BEHG, y – CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion for heat-
ing equipment that is displaced by the project in year [tCO2e/y].
Project emissions (PEs) are estimated as follows:
PEy = PE CH4 , effluent, y + PE CH4 , digest, y + PE flare, y
+ PE sludge, y + PE EC, y + PEFC, y
Where, PEy – Project emissions in year [tCO2e/yr];
PE CH4, effluent, y – Project methane emissions from effluent
from the reactor [tCO2e/yr];
PE CH4, digest, y – Project emissions related to physical leak-
age from the reactor [tCO2e/yr];
PE flare, y – Project emissions from flare [tCO2e/yr];
PE Sludge, y – Project emissions from land application of
sludge [tCO2e/yr];
PE EC, y – Project emissions from electricity consumption
[tCO2e/yr];
PEFC, y – Project emissions from fossil fuel combustion
[tCO2e/yr].
ERy = BEy - PEy (3)
Where, ERy – Emissions reductions of the project activity in year
[tCO2e/yr];
BEy – Baseline emissions in year [tCO2e/yr];
PEy – Project emissions in year [tCO2e/yr].
Presently, renewable energy represents 5% of all prime energy
use, but it is strongly predicted to reach 70% by the year 2060. In
the Malaysia, 5% of the electricity generated by renewable energy
can easily be met by renewable sources (IPCC 2000; Ishigaki et al.
2005). POME can be treated anaerobically to break down organic
matter while releasing biomethane (Hulshoff Pol and Lettinga,
1986; Metcalf 2003). Project emissions from electricity consump-
tion (PEEC, y) were estimated to be the same 723.20 tCO2e/yr
and project methane emissions from effluent from the reactor
(PECH4, effluent, y), project emissions from flare (PE, y), project
emissions from land application of sludge (PE Sludge, y), project
emissions from fossil fuel combustion (PEFC, y) are considered
as negligible quantities. Emission reduction in terms of CERs
generated due to replacement of open dumping by combined
treatment of POME using closed reactor was estimated using
equation 3 and is shown in Table 6 and Figure 2.
CER generated during POME treatment
Baseline emission of disposal in open pond dumping and treat-
ing in closed reactor using Equation 1 was estimated. Methane
emission from disposal of POME effluent in open dumping was
2464.66 tCO2e/yr. In the case of POME treatment alone in closed
reactor, baseline emission was calculated for CO2 emission.
Emission reduction in terms of CERs generated due to replace-
ment of open dumping by combined treatment of POME using
reactor was estimated using Equation 3 and are given in Table 6.
(1) CERs generated from replacement of open dumping by reactor
for treatment of POME was estimated to be 2056.17 tCO2e/yr.
According to (Chaisri et al. 2007) the aerobic/anaerobic pond
system emits methane gas in the amount of 1043.1 kg/day/pond.
Based on an investigation of the ponding treatment of POME,
total 4172.4 kg/day of methane gas was produced by four anaer-
obic ponds. It is estimated that total RM 1,027,975 per year (€
228,438.9) can be generated as revenue if methane gas emit-
ted from the ponds is captured as renewable energy (Figure 2).
Calculations are based on 300 working days and a carbon credit
price of € 10 per tonne of carbon emission reduction. (Yeoh 2004)
(2) The income period for an investment in anaerobic closed-tank
reactors can be short if carbon credit prices remain high. (Yeoh
2004; Menon 2007). Actually, with the income and sustainability
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING  7

Table 6. Total methane emission m3/kg volatile solid from POME and different wastewater: Emission reduction (Certified emission reduction from combined treatment
open-closed).

BEy PEy ERy

CH4 m /kg volatile
3
Total CH4 emission Baseline emission Project emission year Emission Reductions
Wastewater sources solid values 2009 Values year [tCO2e/yr] [tCO2e/yr] [tCO2e/yr]
POME 2.5 CPO 57.56 3239.51 1182.84 2056.67
Soyabean 0.3 Degradable organic 51 2546.45 1083.68 1462.77
component (kg COD/
m3 POME
Coconut 1.4 Wastewater produced 3 1094.96 467.84 627.12
(m3 POME/tonnes
CPO
Sunflower (Whole crop) 0.6 Total organic in waste- 2.69 765.55 286.31 479.24
water (million tonnes
COD/year)

Note: (Poh, Yong, and Chong 2010; CDM 2009; Carbon, 2008; Alley 2006).

achieved by capturing methane gas, mills could switch to closed-
tank reactors for POME treatment (Wong et al. 2009).
CDM benefits due to methane avoidance from open dumping
and energy replacement due to methane produced from closed
reactor treating POME were estimated per annum considering
21 times GWP of methane (Poh, Yong, and Chong 2010). The
unit cost considering the CDM benefits of 2056.17 CERs gen-
erated based on project activity at the rate of US$ 5/CER and
exchange rate of RM 4.5/US$. CDM in terms of financial benefit
considering the combined treatment of POME in closed reactor
for estimated 2056.17 CERs was RM 1,027,975 per year (Table
6). Treatment of POME in closed reactor generates considerable
amount of energy and also leads to methane avoidance from
open dumping (Najafpour et al. 2004; Carbon 2009). This process
is technically feasible along with the minimum investment and
requirement of modification in the reactor. At the same time
benefits obtained by implementation of project activity in terms
of financial benefit through the CDM alone is RM 1,027,975
per year (Carbon 2008; CDM UNFCCC 2009a; CDM UNFCC
2009b; Poh and Chong 2010, Yong, and Chong 2010). This paper
clearly brings out the financial benefits obtained by implementa-
tion of CDM for the project activity, which makes this study more
sustainable for solving the problem of sludge generated from
POME (Figure 2) (Alley 2006). The topic of this review paper,
POME management by means of cleaner production, is now a
hot issue with an emerging approach for achieving industrially
Table 7. Conversion of the Ponding System to the closed tank Reactor System
[Goodwin, Finlayson, and Low 2001; Latif et al. 2011; Ayati and Ganjidoust 2006].
Closed tank advantages Disadvantages
Recovery of methane as an energy Higher capital outlay
source
GHG emission reduction convertible to Excess energy sources available in the
carbon credits palm oil mill
Valuable land-use space reduction Value of biogas realisable only from
direct off-site use
Higher waste treatment efficiency Small scale as an energy plant
Improved environmental quality
Less bio-solids waste generated
Elimination of off gas air pollution
Reduction of CO2 emissions due to low
demand for foreign (fossil) energy
and surplus energy production CH4
and H2
sustainable development methods and management (Oswal,
Sarma, and Zinjarde 2002).
POME sustainable management
The Department of Environment (Department of Environment,
Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment, Malaysia
1991) of the government of Malaysia issued POME (manage-
ment and handling) rules in the year 2000. The Department of
Environment (DOE) was to set acceptable standards for the emis-
sion and discharge or deposits of pollutants into the environment
rather than prevention, with an exception given to the necessities
on environmental impact measurements. Environmental quali-
ties (Prescribed Premises) (Crude Palm Oil) regulations 1977 were
promulgated under the Section (McHugh et al. 2004). Environment
Quality Act (EQA) 1974 for environmental control of palm oil mills
discharge. Tables 5, shows the current effluent discharge standards
ordinarily applicable to crude palm oil mills. Therefore, palm oil
millers have to encompass proper pollution control practices to
fulfil the discharge limits set by the DOE (Environmental Quality
Act and Regulations amended subsidiary legislation in 2002).
The proper management, treatment, and disposal of POME
must be ensured and existing facilities must be upgraded to arrest
discharge to rivers and streams. As per the provision, DOE 1990,
has been assigned to monitor the implementation of these rules,
and the MPOB will be required to submit annual reports regard-
ing the status of POME in their areas to the DOE. These rules are
applicable to MPOB in Malaysia, which is responsible for POME
management. The EQA also deal with environmental pollution
caused by improper disposal of POME (Tables 6 and 7).
The concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has increased
over the past 100 years (Zhang et al. 2008; Dong et al. 2010).
Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have intensively
increased, particularly as methane has proven to be very effec-
tive at trapping infrared radiation and tends to persist relatively
long in the atmosphere (Gonzalez, Lontoc, and Dimaunahan
1971; Balachandran, Arumughan, and Mathew 1985). Methane
gas is one of the most important GHGs because of its global
warming potential which is 21 times more than that of carbon
dioxide (Naksagul 2005) POME accounts directly for up to 55%
of methane emission, and this contribution may double because
of increasing POME generation in Malaysia (Han-Qing et al.
2000; Jayamanne 2000).
8  A. AHMAD AND R. GHUFRAN

Technology demands normal surface waters, but biogas production should also be kept
in account (Table 7). The cost–benefit ratio of anaerobic closed
Among the high-rate anaerobic reactors for the treatment of
reactor technology can be further decreased if more biogas is
industrial effluent, the closed reactor process (Su and Yu 2005)
produced (Neves, Oliveira, and Alves 2004).
has gained popularity in recent years, with over 200 installations
worldwide (Cassini et al. 2010). This is due mainly to the positive
energy balance of anaerobic treatment processes and the devel- Concluding remarks
opment of inexpensive and high-rate treatment systems (Zhu et
POME treatment in Malaysia is mostly done through the open
al. 2009; Rajkumar, Muthukumar, and Sivakumar 2010). In the
ponding system, with subsequent discharge into streams and
process of POME degradation into methane, carbon dioxide,
rivers and onto land in an uncontrolled manner. Such inade-
and water, a sequence of reactions take place, involving hydrol-
quate disposal practices lead to problems that impair biodiversity,
ysis, acidogenesis (including acetogenesis), and methanogene-
and human and animal health, and result in economic and envi-
sis (Nataraj, Hosamani, and Aminabhavi 2006), carried out by
ronmental losses. When the physical, chemical, and biological
different microorganisms (Kalyuzhnyi et al. 1996) to produce
treatment options are compared given the Malaysian scenario of
biogas to be used to generate electricity and to save fossil energy
becoming a developed country in 2020, the sustainable closed
(Wong et al. 2009).
reactor processing options should get priority in treating POME
In particular, the closed reactor is a reliable and simple tech-
to a satisfactory quality for discharge at lower costs (Tawfik,
nology for wastewater treatment (Saatci, Arslan, and Konar
Sobhey, and Badawy 2008).
2003). Several full-scale plants have been in operation and many
This review elucidates that treatment in closed reactor is tech-
more are presently under construction, especially under tropical
nically feasible but it requires little investment and modification,
or subtropical conditions (Gharsallah 1994). The closed reactor
whereas benefits obtained by implementation of project activity
system has become the most widely applied reactor technology
in terms of financial benefit through the CDM alone are RM.
for high rate anaerobic treatment of industrial effluents. Its rela-
1,027,975 per year. This review clearly brings about the financial
tive high treatment capacity compared to other systems permits
benefits obtained by implementation of CDM for the project
the use of compact and economic wastewater treatment plants
activity, which makes this study more sustainable for solving
(Table 7). The success of the closed reactor also relies on the
burden of CERs and cost of POME treatment along with the
establishment of a dense sludge bed in the bottom of the reactor
reduced carbon foot print in our environment (Carbon, 2008;
where all biological processes take place. This sludge bed was
CDM UNFCC 2009a; Poh, Yong, and Chong 2010). Utilisation
basically formed by accumulation of incoming suspended solids
of this biogas as an energy source also reduced green house gas
and bacterial growth. In upflow anaerobic systems, under certain
emission. GHGs emission from POME treatment plant was
conditions, it was also observed that bacteria can naturally aggre-
about 70.61 kg CO2/ton FFB. In Indonesia, the utilisation of
gate in flocks and granules (Martı́n et al. 2002; Bustamante et al.
biogas from palm oil mill wastewater as an energy source will
2005). These dense aggregates are not susceptible to wash-out
reduce CO2 emission more than 6.5 million tons per year (Shirai
from the system under practical reactor conditions. Retention
et al. 2003; Yacob et al. 2005; Wahid et al. 2008). In addition to
of active sludge, either granular or flocculent, within the reactor
the direct application and direction for, potential reduction of
enables good treatment performance at high organic loading
GHGs due to methane emission from open pond was evaluated
rates. The main reason for the success of the closed reactor is its
CERs for typical POME treatment has been estimated as per the
relatively high treatment capacity compared to other systems
guideline of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
(Ramana et al. 2002). Natural turbulence caused by the influent
Change (CDM UNFCCC 2009b) by treating closed reactor to
flow rate and biogas production provides good wastewater-bi-
avoiding methane emission from open ponds (Wong et al. 2009).
omass contact in reactor systems (Ince et al. 2005). Therefore,
less reactor volume and space is required while, at the same time,
high grade energy is produced as biogas. Several configurations Acknowledgements
can be imagined for a wastewater treatment plant including a The author would like to thank the R & D Cluster unit for technical assis-
closed reactor (Table 7). In any case, there must be a sand trap, tance during the course of this review paper. The authors wish to thanks
screens for coarse material, and drying beds for the sludge. The R&D panels of UoN for valuable discussions on industrial wastewater as
closed reactor may replace the primary settler, the anaerobic source of energy and CER.
sludge digester, the aerobic step (activated sludge, trickling filter,
etc.), and the secondary settler of a conventional aerobic treat- Notes on contributors
ment plant. However, the effluent from closed reactors usually
Anwar Ahmad is a professor in the College of Engineering and Architecture
needs further treatment, in order to remove remnant organic
and department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
matter, nutrients and pathogens. This post-treatment can be Nizwa, Oman. The main areas of his interest include industrial and haz-
accomplished in conventional aerobic systems like stabilisation ardous waste treatment techniques and sustainable energy, heavy metal
ponds, activated sludge plants, and others. The economics of ions removal by bacterial strain and bacterial biomass, municipal solid
anaerobic treatment in reactors were thoroughly discussed by waste management. He is a Manager of Quality control and Assurance of
University of Nizwa. He is organized a number of training programme and
(Hulshoff Pol and Lettinga 1986).
symposia for the benefits of practicing engineer and professionals. He is
The main focus in closed reactor treatment technology should life member of six professional bodies in International. He has published
be in terms of energy production (Table 7). The treatment of 75 international and national journals. He is guiding five PhD and 10
different POME can permit wastewaters to flow along with the Master students in the areas of industrial wastes management.

Roomana Ghufran is an Environmental Engineer and currently assis-
tant professor in the Faculty of Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang,
Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia. The main areas of his interest include indus-
trial and hazardous waste treatment techniques and sustainable energy,
heavy metal ions removal by bacterial strain and bacterial biomass, munic-
ipal. She is organized a number of training programme and symposia for
the benefits of practicing engineer and professionals. He is life member of
six Professional bodies in International.
References
Agamuthu, P., C. A. Sastry, and M. A. Hashim. 1995. “Palm Oil Mill
Effluent Treatment and Utilization.” Waste Treatment Plant 338–360.
New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House.
Ahmad, A. 2012. “Calcium Oxide Cement Kiln Dust for Granulation of
Palm Oil Mill Effluent.” US Patent-US2012/0285884 A1.
Ahmad, A. 2014. “A Novel Application of Red Mud-Iron on Granulation
and Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent Using Upflow Sludge
Blanket Reactor.” Environmental Technology 35: 2718–2726. doi:
10.1080/09593330.2014.919034.
Ahmad, A. 2016. “Immobilized Cement Kiln Dust Enhances Biomass
and Neutralizing of Palm Oil Mill Effluent for Biogas Production.”
Environmental Progress 34: 736–743. doi: 10.1002/ep.
Ahmad, A., and R. Ghufran. 2014. “Evaluation of the Bio-Kinetics of
Cement Kiln Dust in an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor
for Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent as a Function of Hydraulic
Retention Time.” Separation and Purification Technology 133: 129–137.
Ahmad, A., and M. Z. Krimly. 2014. “Evaluation of Palm oil mill effluent
(POME) treatment plant and fate of selected biogas in an open and
closed digestion system.” Current World Environment 9 (2): 321–330.
Ahmad, A., and A. A. O-alJasser. 2014. “Anaerobic Nitrogen, Sulfide and
Carbon Removal in Anaerobic Granular Bed Reactor.” Environmental
Progress 33 (4): 1096–1104. doi: 10.1002/ep.11882.
Ahmad, A., R. Ghufran, and Z. A. Wahid. 2011a. “Bioenergy from
anaerobic degradation of lipids in palm oil mill effluent.” Biomass and
Bioenergy, Review Environmental Science Biotechnology 10: 353–376.
Ahmad, A., R. Ghufran, and Z. A. Wahid. 2011b. “Role of Calcium Oxide
in Sludge Granulation and Methanogenesis for the Treatment of Palm
Oil Mill Effluent Using UASB Reactor.” Journal of Hazardous Materials
198: 40–48.
Ahmad, A., R. Ghufran, and Z. A. Wahid. 2012. “Effect of COD
loading rate on an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor during
anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent with butyrate.” Journal of
Environmental Engineering Landscape Management 20: 256–264.
Albuquerque, M. G. E., M. Eiroa, C. Torres, B. R. Nunes, and M. A. M.
Reis. 2007. “Strategies for the Development of a Side Stream Process for
Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Production from Sugar Cane Molasses.”
Journal of Biotechnology 130: 411–421.
Alley, R. E. 2006. “Water Quality Control Handbook, 2nd ed.; McGraw-
Hill.” New York, 2006.
Ayati, B., and H. Ganjidoust. 2006. “Comparing the Efficiency of UAFF
and UASB with Hybrid Reactor in Treating Wood Fiber Wastewater.”
Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering 3: 39–44.
Balachandran, C., C. Arumughan, and A. G. Mathew. 1985. “Distribution
of Major Chemical Constituents and Fatty Acids in Different Regions of
Coconut Endosperm.” Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 62
(11): 1583–1586.
Basri, M. F., S. Yacob, M. A. Hassan, Y. Shirai, M. Wakisaka, M. R. Zakaria,
and L. Y. Phang. 2010. “Improved Biogas Production from Palm Oil
Mill Effluent by a Scaled-down Anaerobic Treatment Process.” World
Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 26: 505–514.
Bengtsson, M., M. L. Baillif, and K. Oksman. 2007. “Extrusion and
Mechanical Properties of Highly Filled Cellulose Fibre-Polypropylene
Composites.” Composites Part a: Applied Science and Manufacturing 38:
1922–1931.
Borja, R., and C. J. Banks. 1994. “Anaerobic Digestion of Palm Oil Mill
Effluent Using an up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor.” Biomass
and Bioenergy 6: 381–389.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING  9
Borja, R., J. Alba, and C. J. Banks. 1996. “Anaerobic Digestion of Wash
Waters Derived from the Purification of Virgin Olive Oil Using a Hybrid
Reactor Combining a Filter and a Sludge Blanket.” Process Biochemistry
31: 219–224.
Borja, R., C. J. Banks, and E. Sánchez. 1996. “Anaerobic Treatment of Palm
Oil Mill Effluent in a Two-Stage up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) System.” Journal of Biotechnology 45: 125–135.
Borja, R., C. J. Banks, B. Khalfaoui, and A. Martin. 1996. “Performance
Evaluation of an Anaerobic Hybrid Digester Treating Palm Oil Mill
Effluent.” Journal Environmental Science Health A31 (6): 1379–1393.
Bustamante, M. A., C. Paredes, R. Moral, J. Moreno-Casalles, A. Pérez-
Espinosa, and M. D. Pérez-Murcia. 2005. “Uses of Winery and Distillery
Effluents in Agriculture: Characterization of Nutrient and Hazardous
Components.” Water Science Technology 51 (1): 145–151.
Callander, B. 1995. “Scientific Aspects of the Framework Convention
on Climate Change and National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.”
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 38-38: 129–140.
Carbon. 2008. Post-2012 is Now. Edited by K. Røine, E. Tvinnereim, and H.
Hasselknippe. Oslo: Point Carbon.
Carbon. 2009. Emission Trading Coming Home. Edited by E. Tvinnereim,
K. Røine, and C. Heimdal. Oslo: Point Carbon.
Cassini, A. S., I. C. Tessaro, L. D. F. Marczak, and C. Pertile. 2010.
“Ultrafiltration of Wastewater from Isolated Soy Protein Production: A
Comparison of Three UF Membranes.” Journal of Cleaner Production
18: 260–265.
CDM UNFCCC. CDM. 2009a. “Project Activities.” Accessed 20 November
2009. http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html
CDM UNFCCC. CDM. 2009b. “ Issuance.” Accessed 21 October 2009. http://
cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/Issuance/CERsRequestedIssuedBarChart.
html
Chaisri, R., P. Boonsawang, P. Prasertsan, and S. Chaiprapat. 2007. “Effect of
Organic Loading Rate on Methane and Volatile Fatty Acids Productions
from Anaerobic Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent in UASB and UFAF
Reactors.” Songklanakarin Journal Science Technology 2: 311–323.
Department of Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and the
Environment, Malaysia. 1991, 4–8.
DOE. 1990. “Progress in Malaysia towards Environmentally Sound and
Sustainable Development 1976–1990. Flow Anaerobic Sludge Fixed
Film Bioreactor Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM).” Water
Research 40: 3193–3208.
Domingo, J. L., and M. Nadal. 2009. “Domestic Waste Composting
Facilities: A Review of Human Health Risks.” Environment International
35: 382–389.
Dong, F., Q. B. Zhao, J. B. Zhao, G. P. Sheng, Y. Tang, Z. H. Tong, H. Q.
Yu, Y. Y. Li, and H. Harada. 2010. “Monitoring the Restart-up of an
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor for the Treatment
of a Soybean Processing Wastewater.” Bioresource Technology 101 (6):
1722–1726.
Ge-Fu, Z., L. Jian-Zheng, W. Peng, J. Hui-Zheng, and W. Zheng. 2008.
“The Performance and Phase Separated Characteristics of an Anaerobic
Baffled Reactor Treating Soybean Protein Processing Wastewater.”
Bioresource Technology 99: 8027–8033.
Gerardi, M. H. 2003. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Gharsallah, N. 1994. “Influence of Dilution and Phase-Separation on the
Anaerobic-Digestion of Olive Mill Wastewaters.” Bioprocess Engineering
10: 29–34.
Gobi, K., and V. M. Vadivelu. 2013. “By-Products of Palm Oil Mill Effluent
Treatment Plant – A Step towards Sustainability.” Renewable Sustainable
Energy Review 28: 788–803.
Gonzalez, O. N., A. V. Lontoc, and L. V. Dimaunahan. 1971. “A Process
of Preparing a Stabilized and Homogenized Coconut Milk. Cited
by Benzon, J. a. Coconut as a Food. Phillipines. Phillipines Coconut
Research and Development Foundation.”
Goodwin, J. A. S., J. M. Finlayson, and E. W. Low. 2001. “A Further Study of
the Anaerobic Biotreatment of Malt Whisky Distillery Pot Ale Using an
UASB System.” Bioresource Technology 78: 155–160.
Han-Qing, Y., H. Zhen-Hu, H. Tian-Qiu, and G. Guo-Wei. 2000.
“Performance of an Anaerobic Filter Treating Soybean Processing
10  A. AHMAD AND R. GHUFRAN
Wastewater with and without Effluent Recycle.” Process Biochemistry 38:
507–513.
Hassan, M. A., Y. Shirai, N. Kusubayashi, M. I. A. Karim, K. Nakanishi,
and K. Hashimoto. 1996. “Effect of Organic Acid Profiles during
Anaerobic Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent on the Production
of Polyhydroxyalkanoates by Rhodobacter Sphaeroides.” Journal of
Fermentation and Bioengineering 82: 151–156.
Hassan, M. A., Y. Shirai, N. Kusubayashi, M. I. A. Karim, K. Nakanishi,
and K. Hashimoto. 1997. “The Production of Polyhydroxyalkanoate
from Anaerobically Treated Palm Oil Mill Effluent by Rhodobacter
Sphaeroides.” Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering 83: 485–488.
Hassan, M. A., A. Sulaiman, Y. Shirai, and S. Abd-Aziz. 2009. “Methane
Capture and Clean Development Mechanism Project for the
Sustainability of Palm Oil Industry in Malaysia.” Journal Applied Science
Research 5: 1568–1581.
Henson, I. E. 2009. “Modelling Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Associated with Oil Palm Cultivation and Land-Use
Change in Malaysia-a Re-Evaluation and a Computer Model.” MPOB
Technology 31: 1151–7804.
Hulshoff Pol, L. W., and G. Lettinga. 1986. “New Technologies for Anaerobic
Wastewater Treatment.” Water Science Technology 18 (12): 41–53.
Hwang, T. K., S. M. Ong, C. C. Seow, and H. K. Tan. 2000. “Chemical
Composition of Palm Oil Mill Effluents.” Planter 54: 749–755.
Ince, O., M. Kolukirik, N. A. Oz, and B. K. Ince. 2005. “Comparative
Evaluation of Full-Scale UASB Reactors Treating Alcohol Distillery
Wastewaters in Terms of Performance and Methanogenic Activity.”
Journal of Chemical Technology Biotechnology 80: 138–144.
IPCC. 2000 “Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme,
Montreal,” IPCC-XVI/DOC. 10 (1.IV.2000) May 1-8, 2008.
Ishigaki, T., Y. M. Nagamori, Y. Ono, and Y. Inoue. 2005. “Estimation of
Methane Emission from Whole Waste Landfill Site Using Correlation
between Flux and Ground Temperature.” Environmental Geology 48:
845–853.
Jayamanne, M. D. A. A. 2000. Anaerobic– Granular Bacterial Treatment
System for Coconut waste water via High Rate Biogas Digester Technology
SMI news letter 1999 SMI news letter. School of environment, Resources
and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang,
Thailand.
Kalyuzhnyi, S. V., V. I. Sklyar, M. A. Davlyatshina, S. N. Parshina, M. W.
Simankova, N. A. Kostrikina, and A. N. Nozhevnikova. 1996. “Organic
Removal and Microbiological Features of UASB-Reactor under Various
Organic Loading Rates.” Bioresource Technology 55: 47–54.
Kamarudin, W. N. B. 2008. “The CDM/Sustainable Energy Market in
Malaysia, Malaysian Energy Center (PTM).” Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.
Khalid, A. R., and W. A. Wan Mustafa. 1992. “External Benefits of
Environmental Regulation: Resource Recovery and the Utilisation of
Effluents.” The Environmentalist 12: 277–285.
Kim, M., C. Y. Gomec, Y. Ahn, and R. E. Speece. 2003. “Hydrolysis and
Acidogenesis of Particulate Organic Material in Mesophilic and
Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion.” Environmental Technology 24:
1183–1190.
Latif M. A., R. Ghufran, Z. A. Wahid, and A. Ahmad. 2011. “Effect
of Temperature and Organic Loading Rate on Upflow Anaerobic
Sludge Blanket Reactor (USBR) by Treating Liquidized Food Waste.”
Environmental Progress 31:114–121.
Laubscher, A. C. J., M. C. Wentzel, J. M. W. Le Roux, and G. A. Ekama. 2001.
“Treatment of Grain Distillation Wastewater in an Upflow Anaerobic
Sludge Bed (UASB) System.” Water SA 27 (4): 433–444.
Ma, A. N. 2000. “Environmental Management for the Palm Oil Industry.”
Palm Oil Development 30: 1–10.
Ma, A. N., and H. A. Halim. 1988. Management of Palm Oil Industrial
Wastes in Malaysia, Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM).
Malaysia: Ministry of Primary Industries.
Martı́n, M. A., F. Raposo, R. Borja, and A. Martı́n. 2002. “Kinetic Study of
the Anaerobic Digestion of Vinasse Pretreated with Ozone, Ozone plus
Ultraviolet Light, and Ozone plus Ultraviolet Light in the Presence of
Titanium Dioxide.” Process Biochemistry 37: 699–706.
McHugh, S., M. Carton, G. O. Collins, and V. Flaherty. 2004. “Reactor
Performance and Microbial Community Dynamics during Anaerobic
Biological Treatment of Wastewater at 16–37°C.” Journal FEMS
Microbiology Ecology 48: 369–378.
Menon, R. N. 2007. “Dialogue Session with the Palm Oil Industry and
Stakeholders.” Palm Oil Engineering Bulletin 83: 11–14.
Metcalf E. 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th ed.
New York: McGraw Hill, Inc..
MPOB. 2017. Summary of Industry Performance: 2017. Accessed January,
2010. http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/EID_web.htm
Nadais, H., I. Capela, and L. Arroja. 2006. “Intermittent Vs Continuous
Operation of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed Reactors for Dairy
Wastewater and Related Microbial Changes.” Water Science Technology
54 (2): 103–109.
Nagavallemma, K. P., S. P. Wani, P. V. V. Stephane, C. Lacroix, M. Vineela, R.
Babu, and K. L. Sahrawat. 2004. “Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes
into Valuable Organic Fertilizer.” Global Theme on Agrecosystems
Report.
Najafpour, G. D., A. A. L. Zinatizadeh, A. R. Mohamed, M. Hasnain Isa,
and H. Nasrollahzadeh. 2004. “High-Rate Anaerobic Digestion of Palm
Oil Mill Effluent in an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge-Fixed Film Bioreactor.”
Process Biochemistry 41: 370–379.
Naksagul, N. 2005. Performance of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
Treatment of Coconut Milk Wastewater with Hydraulic Retention times.
ISBN 974-04-6495-5.
Nataraj, S. K., K. M. Hosamani, and T. M. Aminabhavi. 2006. “Distillery
Wastewater Treatment by the Membrane-Based Nanofiltration and
Reverse Osmosis Processes.” Water Research. 40: 2349–2356.
Neves, L., R. Oliveira, and M. M. Alves. 2004. “Influence of Inoculum
Activity on the Bio-Methanization of a Kitchen Waste under Different
Waste/Inoculum Ratios.” Process Biochemistry 39: 2019–2024.
Oswal, N., P. M. Sarma, S. S. Zinjarde, and A. Pant. 2002. “Palm Oil Mill
Effluent Treatment by a Tropical Marine Yeast.” Bioresource Technology
85: 35–37.
O-Thong, S., P. Prasertsan, N. Intrasungkha, S. Dhamwichukorn, and
N. Birkeland. 2007. “Improvement of Biohydrogen Production
and Treatment Efficiency on Palm Oil Mill Effluent with Nutrient
Supplementation at Thermophilic Condition Using an Anaerobic
Sequencing Batch Reactor.” Enzyme and Microbial Technology 41: 583–
590.
Parawira, W., M. Murto, R. Zvauya, and B. Mattiasson. 2006. “Comparative
Performance of a UASB Reactor and an Anaerobic Packed-Bed Reactor
When Treating Potato Waste Leachate.” Renewable Energy 31 (893): 903.
Poh, P. E. 2009. “Development of Anaerobic Digestion Methods for Palm
Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Treatment.” Bioresource Technology 100: 1–9.
Poh, P. E., and M. F. Chong. 2010. “Thermophilic Palm Oil Mill Effluent
(POME) Treatment Using a Mixed Culture Cultivated from POME.”
13th Conference on Process Integration, Modelling and optimisation
for Energy Saving and Pollution Reduction, Prague: Paper 1469.
Poh, P. E., W. J. Yong, and M. F. Chong. 2010. “Palm Oil Mill Effluent
(POME) Characteristic in High Crop Season and the Applicability
of High-Rate Anaerobic Bioreactors for the Treatment of POME.”
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 49 (22): 11732–11740.
Rajkumar, K., M. Muthukumar, and R. Sivakumar. 2010. “Novel Approach
for the Treatment and Recycle of Wastewater from Soya Edible Oil
Refinery Industry-an Economic Perspective.” Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 54: 752–758.
Ramana, S., A. K. Biswas, S. Kundu, J. K. Saha, and R. B. R. Yadava. 2002.
“Effect of Distillery Effluent on Seed Germination in Some Vegetable
Crops.” Bioresource Technology 82: 273–275.
Rupani, P. F., R. P. Singh, M. H. Ibrahim, and N. Esa. 2008. “Review
of Current Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Treatment Methods:
Vermicomposting as a Sustainable Practice.” World Applied Sciences
Journal 11 (1): 70–81.
Saatci, Y., E. I. Arslan, and V. Konar. 2003. “Removal of Total Lipids and
Fatty Acids from Sunflower Oil Factory Effluent by UASB Reactor.”
Bioresource Technology 87: 269–272.
Schuchardt, F., K. Wulfert, and D. Damoko. 2005. “Newprocess for
Combined Treatment Ofwaste (EFB) and Wastewater (POME) from

Palm Oil Mills-Technical, Economical and Ecological Aspects.”
Landbauforsch Volkenrode 55: 47–60.
Shirai, Y., M. Wakisaka, S. Yacob, M. A. Ali Hassan, and S. Suzuki. 2003.
“Reduction of Methane Released from Palm Oil Mill Lagoon in Malaysia
and Its Countermeasures.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 237–252.
Siang, L. C. 2006. “Biodegradation of Oil and Grease in Upflow Anaerobic
Sludge Blanket Reactor for Palm Oil Mill Effluent Treatment.” Masters
degree thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
Singh, S. P., and P. Prerna. 2009. “Review of Recent Advances in Anaerobic
Packed-Bed Biogas Reactors.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 13 (6-7): 1569–1575.
Stanton, W. R. 1974. “Treatment of Effluent from Palm Oil Factories.” The
Planter 50: 382–387.
Stryer, L. 1995. “Fatty Acid Metabolism.” 4th ed.. New York: Biochemistry
and Co.. 603–628.
Su, K. Z., and H. Q. Yu. 2005. “Formation and Characterization of
Aerobic Granules in a Sequencing Batch Reactor Treating Soybean-
Processing Wastewater.” Environmental Science Technology 39: 2818–
2827.
Sulaiman, A., Z. Busu, M. Tabatabaei, S. Yacob, S. Abd-Aziz, M. A. Hassan,
and Y. Shirai. 2005. “The Effect of Higher Sludge Recycling Rate on
Anaerobic Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent in a Semi-Commercial
Closed Digester for Renewable Energy.” American Journal Biochemistry
Biotechnology 5: 1–6.
Sumathi, S., S. P. Chai, and A. R. Mohamed. 2008. “Utilization of Oil
Palm as a Source of Renewable Energy in Malaysia.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 12 (9): 2404–2421.
Tawfik, A., M. Sobhey, and M. Badawy. 2008. “Treatment of a Combined
Dairy and Domestic Wastewater in an up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket (UASB) Reactor Followed by Activated Sludge (aS System).”
Desalination 227: 167–177.
Tong, S. L., and A. B. Jaafar. 2006. “POME Biogas Capture, Upgrading and
Utilization.” Palm Oil Engineering Bulletin. 78: 11–17.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Global Mitigation
of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. EPA 430-R-06-005. Washington, DC.
Uyen, N. N., and S. Hans. 2009. “Institute for Process Engineering (IPE),
Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 21a, A8010 Graz, Austria.”
Waste Management 29: 1982–1995.
Vairappan C. S. and A. M. Yen. 2008. “Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME)
Cultured Marine Microalgae as Supplementary Diet for Rotifer
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING  11
Culture.” Journal of Applied Phycology 20 (5): 603–608. doi: 10.1007/
s10811-007-9305-1.
Vijayaraghavan, K., D. Ahmad, and M. E. Abdul Aziz. 2007. “Aerobic
Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent.” Journal of Environmental
Management 82: 24–31.
Wahid, M. B., C. K. Weng, C. Y. May, and C. M. Chin. 2008. “The Need
to Reduce National Greenhouse Gases Emissions: Oil Palm Industry’s
Role.” Journal of Oil Palm Research (Special Issue) 1–23.
Wong, B. T., K. T. Show, D. J. Lee, and J. Y. Lai. 2009. “Carbon Balance of
Anaerobic Granulation Process: Carbon Credit.” Bioresource Technology
100: 1734–1739.
Wu, T. Y., A. W. Mohammad, J. M. Jahim, and N. A. Anuar. 2009. “Holistic
Approach to Managing Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME): Biotechnological
Advances in the Sustainable Reuse of POME.” Biotechnology Advances
27: 40–52.
Wu, T. Y., A. W. Mohammad, J. M. Jahim, and N. Anuar. 2010. “Pollution
Control Technologies for the Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent
(POME) through End-of-Pipe Processes.” Journal of Environmental
Management 91: 1467–1490.
Yacob, S., M. A. Hassan, Y. Shirai, M. Wakisaka, and S. Subash. 2005.
“Baseline Study of Methane Emission from Open Digesting Tanks of
Palm Oil Mill Effluent Treatment.” Chemosphere 59: 1575–1581.
Yacob, S., M. A. Hassan, Y. Shirai, M. Wakisaka, and S. Subash. 2006. “Baseline
Study of Methane Emission from Anaerobic Ponds of Palm Oil Mill
Effluent Treatment.” Science of the Total Environment 366: 187–196.
Yeoh, B. G. 2004. “A Technical and Economic Analysis of Heat and Power
Generation from Biomethanation of Palm Oil Mill Effluent.” Electricity
Supply Industry in Transition: Issues and Prospect for Asia 14–16
January, 2004.
Zhang, Y., L. Yan, X. Qiao, L. Chi, X. Niu, Z. Mei, and Z. Zhang. 2008.
“Integration of Biological Method and Membrane Technology in
Treating Palm Oil Mill Effluent.” Journal of Environmental Sciences 20:
558–564.
Zhu, J., Y. Li, X. Wu, C. Miller, P. Chen, and R. Ruan. 2009. “Swine Manure
Fermentation for Hydrogen Production.” Bioresource Technology 100:
5472–5477.
Zinatizadeh, A. A. L., A. R. Mohamed, A. Z. Abdullah, M. D. Mashitah,
M. I. Hasnain, and G. D. Najafpour. 2006. “Process Modeling and
Analysis of Palm Oil Mill Effluent Treatment in an up-an Up-Flow
Anaerobic Sludge Fixed Film Bioreactor Using Response Surface
Methodology (RSM).”Water Research 40: 3193–3208.