4.7 Review

Trend and current practices of palm oil mill effluent polishing: Application of advanced oxidation processes and their future perspectives

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 170-182

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.050

关键词

Palm oil mill effluent; Recalcitrant pollutants; Polishing technologies; Advanced oxidation processes; Fenton oxidation; Adsorption

资金

  1. University of Malaya Postgraduate Research Grant (IPPP), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia [PG086-2016A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Palm oil processing is a multi-stage operation which generates large amount of effluent. On average, palm oil mill effluent (POME) may contain up to 51, 000 mg/L COD, 25,000 mg/L BOD, 40,000 TS and 6000 mg/L oil and grease. Due to its potential to cause environmental pollution, palm oil mills are required to treat the effluent prior to discharge. Biological treatments using open ponding system are widely used for POME treatment. Although these processes are capable of reducing the pollutant concentrations, they require long hydraulic retention time and large space, with the effluent frequently failing to satisfy the discharge regulation. Due to more stringent environmental regulations, research interest has recently shifted to the development of polishing technologies for the biologically-treated POME. Various technologies such as advanced oxidation processes, membrane technology, adsorption and coagulation have been investigated. Among these, advanced oxidation processes have shown potentials as polishing technologies for POME. This paper offers an overview on the POME polishing technologies, with particularly emphasis on advanced oxidation processes and their prospects for large scale applications. Although there are some challenges in large scale applications of these technologies, this review offers some perspectives that could help in overcoming these challenges. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd, All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据