J. Agric. Engng Res.

(1999) 73, 59}63

Article No. jaer.1998.0391, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Treatment of Dairy Wastewater Using an Up#ow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket

Reactor
H. N. Gavala; H. Kopsinis; I. V. Skiadas; K. Stamatelatou; G. Lyberatos
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras and Institute of Chemical Engineering and High Temperature Chemical Processes,
GR-26500 Patras, Greece; e-mail: gavala@chemeng.upatras.gr

(Received 16 March 1998; accepted in revised form 5 November 1998)

Wastewater coming from cheese-producing industries in Greece is high in organic matter (about 40}60 g/l
Chemical Oxygen Demand, COD) since it generally contains discarded cheese-whey as well. This wastewater is
rich in easily biodegradable carbohydrates and has a relatively low content in suspended solids (1}5 g/l).
Because of the high organic content of dairy wastewater, anaerobic digestion is essentially the only viable
treatment method.
An Up#ow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor is a high rate treatment system, especially feasible
for treating soluble (containing low solids) wastewaters. A well-performing UASB reactor is characterized by
highly #occulated, well-settling, compact methanogenic sludge granules, resulting in a very high biomass
content.
The aim of this work is the study of a UASB reactor treating dairy wastewater. A UASB reactor of 10 l
useful volume was constructed and inoculated with anaerobic mixed liquor from dairy wastewater and glucose
fed digesters. The digester e$ciency of treating dairy wastewater at various organic loading rates was studied
and its performance was assessed by monitoring pH, dissolved chemical oxygen demand (COD), biogas
production and composition. Operation at an organic loading rate of 6)2 g COD/l d was found to be safe
and could be increased to a maximum of 7)5 g COD/l d . A draw and "ll digester fed with non-diluted
wastewater was also studied in parallel for comparison purposes. The advantages of using a UASB
reactor versus a conventional digester become questionable for the high COD ('42 g/l), non-diluted dairy
wastewater case.
 1999 Silsoe Research Institute

1. Introduction a method for reducing the instability and low e$ciency

Dairy wastewater comes either from milk or cheese-
producing industries; in the "rst case the wastewater has
a low chemical oxygen demand (COD) of 3000 mg/l,
whereas in case of cheese-producing industries the
generated wastewater generally contains discarded
cheese whey as well, with a COD value of 50 000 mg/l.1
Aerobic processes are most suitable for the treatment
of milk-producing industries wastewater, although
there are several studies on anaerobic methods for
treating this kind of wastes as well.2,3 On the other
hand, anaerobic digestion is essentially the only viable
method for treating high organic content wastewater
coming from cheese-producing plants. The dilution
of cheese whey by mixing with other wastewater is
0021-8634/99/050059#05 $30.00/0
problems caused by its high organic content, espe-
cially for high-rate anaerobic systems, such as Up#ow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors2 or Up#ow
Anaerobic Filters.4 The two-stage anaerobic digestion
of cheese whey has been studied also by Cohen et al.5
using two pilot scale UASB reactors. The combination
of two treatment methods, biological and chemical, is
another possible option for treating cheese whey and
dairy wastewater.6,7 Co-digestion of cheese whey with
animal wastes8,9 or domestic wastewater10 has also been
studied.
The aim of this work is to study the behaviour of
a high rate system, a UASB reactor, when treating dairy
(including cheese whey) wastewater and to compare it
with the use of a conventional digester.
59  1999 Silsoe Research Institute
60 H . N . G AV AL A E A .
2. Materials and methods
Determinations of dissolved (after "ltration) chem-
ical oxygen demand (COD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) and total suspended solids (TSS) were carried out
according to standard methods.11 For total P determina-
tion the persulphate digestion method and the ascorbic
acid method (standard methods11) have been employed.
2.1. =astewater characterization
Characterization of a cheese-producing industry
wastewater gave a pH of 4)7, TSS of 2)5 g/l, dissolved
COD of 60 g/l, TKN of 830 mg/l and total P of 280 mg/l.
Di-ammonium phosphate (NH ) HPO was added to
 
make up for N and P de"ciencies; NaOH was used for
pH adjustment of the feed.
2.2. Reactor design and operation
A 10 l (useful volume) UASB reactor was constructed
of Plexiglas (total height of 113 cm with inner diameter of
11 cm), inoculated with anaerobic mixed liquor from
dairy wastewater and glucose fed digesters and fed with
dairy wastewater. The objective was to determine the
maximum possible organic loading rate (OLR) as well as
the maximum in#uent COD concentration that allows
satisfactory COD removal. The digester was initially fed
with diluted dairy wastewater (2500 mg/l COD); sub-
sequently the in#uent COD concentration was increased
gradually (by reducing the dilution) while at the same
time the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of the system
Fig. 1. Inyuent and e{uent chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration and system ezciency (based on COD removal) versus time
for an Upyow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactor treating dairy wastewater
was changed so as to allow a satisfactory COD removal.
A recirculation rate of approximately 52 ml/min was
used throughout. Although long-term population shifts
could be observed upon changing the HRT or the OLR,
changes were e!ected whenever it was felt that a quasi-
steady state was reached (typically two residence times).
For comparison purposes, an 8 l (useful volume) draw
and "ll digester was inoculated with anaerobic mixed
liquor from dairy wastewater and glucose fed digesters
and was fed with non-diluted dairy wastewater (COD of
60 g/l) at progressively lower hydraulic retention time.
The two reactors were operated at the mesophilic
temperature range (353C) throughout the period of the
experiments. Wastewater was continuously fed into the
UASB reactor using a variable-speed peristaltic pump,
whereas the draw and "ll digester was fed manually on
a daily basis.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. ;p-ow anaerobic sludge blanket experiment
with dairy wastewater
Figure 1 shows the digester in#uent and e%uent COD
concentration as well as the system e$ciency (based on
%COD removal) versus time while Fig. 2 shows the
hydraulic retention time (HRT) changes, the organic
loading rate (OLR) changes and pH values over time.
The maximum digester COD removal e$ciency of
98% was reached at an HRT of 6 d with an in#uent COD
concentration of 37 g/l (OLR"6)2 g COD/l d). When
increasing the in#uent COD concentration to 42 g/l
(OLR"7)5 g COD/l d), the COD removal e$ciency
 TRE AT M EN T O F DA IRY W AS T EW A TE R 61

Fig. 2. (a) For an Upyow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactor treating dairy wastewater: hydraulic retention time (HRT) and organic
loading rate (OLR) changes versus time; (b) biogas production and organic loading rate (OLR) changes versus time; (c) pH values
versus time

was reduced to 85}90% with a mean COD e%uent
concentration of 5 g/l. After this point, the increase of
in#uent COD resulted in even lower e$ciencies accom-
panied by a sharp decrease in biogas production and pH
values as well. Consequently, the total experiment may
be divided into three periods (Fig. 1): period I, with al-
most complete COD removal; period II, with constant
in#uent COD concentration but with a progressive in-
crease in HRT from 6 d to approximately 20 d in order to
maintain satisfactory COD removal (80}90%); and
period III during which the in#uent COD concentration
was increased to the undiluted value. In this period, the
HRT had to increase above 30 d in order to sustain
reasonable reactor performance.
Thus, an organic loading rate for a UASB reactor
treating dairy wastewater of 6)2 g COD/l d (diluted to
37 g COD/l, with an HRT to 6 d) may be safely used and
could be increased up to 7)5 g COD/l d. Above that
OLR, reduced performance is observed; while for non-
diluted dairy wastewater, an HRT in excess of 30 d is
required.
3.2. Suspended growth experiment
For comparison purposes, an 8 l (useful volume) draw
and "ll digester was fed with non-diluted dairy waste-
water (COD of 60 g/l) at progressively lower hydraulic
retention times as shown in Fig. 3. The highest possible
OLR was found to be 2)3 g COD/l d at a hydraulic
retention time of 26 d.
Table 1 presents typical values for the performance
of each reactor during the di!erent phases of the
experiments.
In general, it is di$cult and risky to compare systems
operated in di!erent laboratories, meaning that the an-
aerobic sludge history and characteristics might be quite
di!erent. However, in Yan et al.12 the removal e$ciency
of a UASB reactor has been reported to be about
81}86% at HRT 5}6 days with an in#uent COD concen-
tration of 41 g/l (OLR"7)9}8)2 g COD/l d) and 97}99%
at an HRT of 5 d with an in#uent COD concentration of
5}29 g/l (OLR"0)91}6 g COD/l d). In Yan et al.,13 it
was stated also that the UASB reactor could treat cheese
62 H . N . G AV AL A E A .

Fig. 3. E{uent chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration, percentage COD removal and hydraulic retention time (HRT) versus
time for a draw and xll digester treating dairy wastewater

whey of strength up to 28)8 g COD/l. From this study, it
was concluded that the maximum digester COD removal
e$ciency of 98% was reached at an HRT of 6 d with
an in#uent COD concentration of 37 g/l (OLR"
6)2 g COD/l d). When increasing the in#uent COD
concentration to 42 g/l (OLR"7)5 g COD/l d), the
COD removal e$ciency was reduced to 85}90%. Addi-
tionally, the removal e$ciency of a continuous stirred
tank reactor was reported12 to be about 18}58% for
HRT values of 14}70 d with an in#uent COD concentra-
tion of 69 g/l. The present experiments showed that the
removal e$ciency of the draw and "ll digester lay be-
tween 83 and 92% for HRT values of 26}40 d with an
in#uent COD concentration of 60 g/l. In each case, the
treatment e$ciencies were similar and/or better than
those reported by Yan et al.12,13 The organic loadings
were reported12 to be much higher (up to 27 g COD/l d)
than those in this paper only with systems other than
UASB or suspended growth reactors (mostly with sys-
tems based on attached microorganism growth). Indeed,
this fact is not surprising. The present paper focused on
the comparison of a UASB and a draw and "ll reactor
that were inoculated with similar anaerobic sludge and
treated the same wastewater.
4. Conclusions
An Up#ow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) re-
actor was used successfully for treating dairy waste-
water containing large amounts of cheese whey, while
a draw and "ll digester fed with non-diluted waste-
water was also studied in parallel for comparison pur-
poses. Operation of the UASB reactor at an organic
loading rate of 6)2 g COD/l d was found to be safe
and could be increased to a maximum of 7)5 g COD/l d.

Table 1
Typical values for the performance of each reactor during the di4erent phases of the experiments

Duration, pH Mean inyuent Hydraulic Organic Removal, %

d COD, g/l retention loading rate, (mean vlaue)
time, d g COD/l d

UASB experiment
1st period 76 7)0}7)3 12}44 6 2)0}7)3 85}99
2nd period 111 6)6}7)2 45 10}20 2)3}4)5 79}91
3rd period 77 6)6 57}60 30}40 1)5}1)9 81

Draw & Fill experiment

1st period 41 7)0 60 35}40 1)5 94
2nd period 12 7)0 60 29}32 2)1}1)9 94
3rd period 12 (6)5 60 26 2)3 (83

COD, chemical oxygen demand.

 TRE AT M EN T O F DA IRY W AS T EW A TE R
The high retention times required for non-diluted waste-
water, however, do not justify the use of a UASB reactor,
as a less expensive conventional reactor, such as a Con-
tinuous Stirred Tank reactor could equally well be em-
ployed for such a high COD wastewater ('40 g/l).
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Commission of the
European Communities for the "nancial support of this
work under grant No BRE2-CT92-0355.
References
1
Nemerow N L Dairy wastes. In: Industrial Water Pollution
Malabar, FL: R E Krieger, 1987, 378}391
2 11
Oztu3 rk I; Eroglu V; Ubay G; Demir I Hybrid up#ow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (HUASBR) treatment of
dairy e%uents. Water Science and Technology, 1993,
28(2), 77}85
3 12
Viraraghavan T; Kikkeri S R Dairy wastewater treatment
using anaerobic "lters. Canadian Agricultural Engineer-
ing, 1990, 33, 143}149
4
Mendez R; Blazquez R; Lorenzo F; Lema J M Anaerobic
treatment of cheese whey: start-up and operation. Water
Science and Technology, 1989, 21(12), 1857}1860
63
5
Cohen A; Thiele J H; Zeikus J G Pilot-scale anaerobic
treatment of cheese whey by the substrate shuttle
process. Water Science and Technology, 1994, 30(12),
433}442
6
Barford J P; Cail R G; Callander I J; Floyd E J Anaerobic
digestion of high-strength cheese whey utilizing semicon-
tinuous digesters and chemical #occulant addition. Bio-
technology and Bioengineering, 1986, 28(11), 1601}1607
7
Fang H H P Treatment of wastewater from a whey process-
ing plant using activated sludge and anaerobic processes.
Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74, 2015}2019
8
Lo K V; Liao P H; Chiu C Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of
a mixture of cheese whey and dairy manure. Biomass,
1988, 15(1), 45}50
9
Gavala H N; Skiadas I V; Bozinis N A; Lyberatos G Anaer-
obic codigestion of agricultural industries wastewaters.
Water Science and Technology, 1996, 34(11), 67}75
10
Guiot S R; Sa5 B; Frigon J C; Mercier P; Mulligan C;
Tremblay R; Samson R Performances of a full-scale novel
multiplate anaerobic reactor treating cheese whey e%uent.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1995, 45(5), 398}405
American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, Water Pollution Control Federation Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
17th edition, Washington, 1989
Yan J Q; Liao P H; Lo K V Methane production from cheese
whey. Biomass, 1988, 17(3), 185}202
13
Yan J Q; Lo K V; Liao P H Anaerobic digestion of cheese
whey using an Up#ow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactor:
III. Sludge and substrate pro"les. Biomass, 1990, 21(4),
257}271