Towards sustainable system configuration for the treatment of fish processing wastewater using bioreactors

  • Mahesh Mannacharaju
  • Arivizhivendhan Kannan Villalan
  • Buvaneswari Shenbagam
  • Patchai Murugan Karmegam
  • Prabhakaran Natarajan
  • Swarnalatha Somasundaram
  • Gnanamani Arumugam
  • Sekaran GanesanEmail author
Research Article


The wastewater generated from fish processing industry contains a credible level of biodegradable proteins and low biodegradable fats, oils, and grease (FOG). The conventional biological treatment of fish processing wastewater (FPWW) containing high concentration of FOG faces the challenges of clogging, hindrance to sedimentation due to the formation of hydrophobic sludge along with lipids, flocculation of sludge with poor activity, dewatering of sludge due to the presence of lipids, and formation of aminated offensive odors. The present investigation employed baffled moving bed biofilm reactor (BMBBR), up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, fluidized immobilized cell carbon oxidation (FICCO) reactor, and chemoautotrophic activated carbon oxidation (CAACO) reactors in series to treat FPWW. Five treatment options were evaluated to elevate the correct option for the treatment of FPWW. The treatment option V had established the removal efficiency of COD, 99 ± 0.1%; protein, 99 ± 0.2%; lipids, 100%; and oil and grease, 100%.


Fish processing industry Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biological process Fat, oil, and grease 



The author M. Mahesh is thankful to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) – Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), India, for awarding Senior Research Fellowship (Grant number 31/6(429)/2017-EMR-I). The authors are grateful to Director, CSIR –CLRI, India, for granting permission to carry out this research work.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_6909_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 4189 kb)


  1. Alexandre VMF, Valente AM, Cammarota MC, Freire DM (2011) Performance of anaerobic bioreactor treating fish-processing plant wastewater pre-hydrolyzed with a solid enzyme pool. Renew Energ 36(12):3439–3444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association (APHA) (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22th edn. American PublicHealth Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Cammarota MC, Freire DMG (2006) A review on hydrolytic enzymes in the treatment of wastewater with high oil and grease content. Bioresour Technol 97(17):2195–2210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresour Technol 99(10):4044–4064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chowdhury P, Viraraghavan T, Srinivasan A (2010) Biological treatment processes for fish processing wastewater–a review. Bioresour Technol 101(2):439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Domingues RF, Sanches T, Silva GS, Bueno BE, Ribeiro R, Kamimura ES, Tommaso G (2015) Effect of enzymatic pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of milk fat for biogas production. Food Res Int 73:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felsenstein J (1993) {PHYLIP}:Phylogenetic inference package, version 3.51c. J Appl Bacteriol 98:756–766Google Scholar
  8. Fuzzato MC, Adorno MAT, de Pinho SC, Ribeiro R, Tommaso G (2009) Simplified mathematical model for an anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor treating lipid-rich wastewater subject to rising organic loading rates. Environ Eng Sci 26(7):1197–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomes DRS, Papa LG, Cichello GCV, Belançon D, Pozzi EG, Balieiro JCC, Tommaso G (2011) Effect of enzymatic pretreatment and increasing the organic loading rate of lipid-rich wastewater treated in a hybrid UASB reactor. Desalination 279(1):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gómez MT, Iglesias AM, López RT, Bugallo PB (2016) Towards sustainable systems configurations: application to an existing fish and seafood canning industry. J Clean Prod 129:374–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Güler G, Džafić E, Vorob’ev MM, Vogel V, Mäntele W (2011) Real time observation of proteolysis with Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and UV-circular dichroism spectroscopy: Watching a protease eat a protein.Spectro chim. Acta A 79(1):104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Güler G, Vorob'ev MM, Vogel V, Mäntele W (2016) Proteolytically-induced changes of secondary structural protein conformation of bovine serum albumin monitored by Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and UV-circular dichroism spectroscopy. Spectro chim Acta A 161:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeganathan J, Nakhla G, Bassi A (2007) Oily wastewater treatment using a novel hybrid PBR–UASB system. Chemosphere 67(8):1492–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jemli M, Karray F, Feki F, Loukil S, Mhiri N, Aloui F, Sayadi S (2015) Biological treatment of fish processing wastewater: a case study from Sfax City (Southeastern Tunisia). J Environ Sci 30:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karthikeyan S, JudiaMagthalin C, Mahesh M, Anandan C, Sekaran G (2015) Synthesis of reactive iron impregnated nanoporous activated carbon and its application in anaerobic biological treatment to enhance biodegradability of ortho-phenylenediamine. J Chem Technol Biot 90(6):1013–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelly SM, JessTJ, Price NC (2005) How to study proteins by circular dichroism. BBA-Proteins Proteom 1751(2):119-139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kong J, Yu S (2007) Fourier trans form infrared spectroscopic analysis of protein secondary structures. Acta Bioch Bioph Sin 39(8):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li C, Champagne P, Anderson BC (2013) Effects of ultrasonic and thermo-chemical pre-treatments on methane production from fat, oil and grease (FOG) and synthetic kitchen waste (KW) in anaerobic co-digestion. Bioresour Technol 130:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim J, Kim T, Hwang S (2003) Treatment of fish-processing wastewater by co-culture of Candida rugopelliculosa and Brachionus plicatilis. Water Res 37(9):2228–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Long JH, Aziz TN, Francis L, Ducoste JJ (2012) Anaerobic co-digestion of fat, oil, and grease (FOG): a review of gas production and process limitations. Process Saf Environ 90(3):231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mahesh M, Arivizhivendhan KV, Maharaja P, Boopathy R, Hamsavathani V, Sekaran G (2016) Production, purification and immobilization of pectinase from Aspergillusibericus onto functionalized nanoporous activated carbon (FNAC) and its application on treatment of pectin containing wastewater. J Mol Catal B-Enzym 133:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahesh M, Arivizhivendhan KV, Nivetha K, Swarnalatha S, Sekaran G (2018) Anaerobic digestion of sulphate-rich post-tanning wastewater at different COD/sulphate and F/M ratios. 3. Biotech 8(2):130Google Scholar
  23. Mendez R, Omil F, Soto M, Lema JM (1992) Pilot plant studies on the anaerobic treatment of different wastewaters from a fish-canning factory. Water Sci Technol 25(1):37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meng Y, Luan F, Yuan H, Chen X, Li X (2016) Enhancing anaerobic digestion performance of crude lipid in food waste by enzymatic pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 224:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petruy R, Lettinga G (1997) Digestion of a milk-fat emulsion. Bioresour Technol 61(2):141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramani K, Kennedy LJ, Vidya C, Boopathy R, Sekaran G (2010) Immobilization of acidic lipase derived from Pseudomonas gessardii onto mesoporous activated carbon for the hydrolysis of olive oil. J Mol Catal B-Enzym 62(1):58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rinzema A, Alphenaar A, Lettinga G (1993) Anaerobic digestion of long-chain fatty acids in UASB and expanded granular sludge bed reactors. Process Biochem 28(8):527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sankpal ST, Naikwade PV (2012) Physicochemical analysis of effluent discharge of fish processing industries in Ratnagiri India. Bioscience Discovery 3(1):107–111Google Scholar
  29. Su C, Zhao L, Liao L, Qin J, Lu Y, Chen M, Huang M, Huang Z (2018) Performance and microbial community of CIC anaerobic reactor treating food waste under different grease contents and inner circulation ratio. Environ Sci Pollut R 25(22):21623–21634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Valente AM, Alexandre VM, Cammarota MC, Freire DMG (2010) Enzymatic hydrolysis of fat from fish industry effluents aimed at increasing methane production. Food Sci Technol 30(2):483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang R, Zhang G, Li S, Moazeni F, Li Y, Wu Y, Zhang W, Chen T, Liu G, Zhang B, Wu X (2019) Degradation of crude oil by mixed cultures of bacteria isolated from the Qinghai-Tibet plateau and comparative analysis of metabolic mechanisms. Environ Sci Pollut R 26(2):1834–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yau YH, Rudolph V, Lo CCM, Wu KC (2018) Restaurant oil and grease management in Hong Kong. Environ Sci Pollut R:1–11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahesh Mannacharaju
    • 1
  • Arivizhivendhan Kannan Villalan
    • 1
  • Buvaneswari Shenbagam
    • 1
  • Patchai Murugan Karmegam
    • 1
  • Prabhakaran Natarajan
    • 1
  • Swarnalatha Somasundaram
    • 1
  • Gnanamani Arumugam
    • 2
  • Sekaran Ganesan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Environmental Science and Engineering DivisionCSIR – Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI)Chennai-600020India
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology (Biological Material Laboratory)CSIR – Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI)Chennai-600020India

Personalised recommendations