You are on page 1of 153

Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder for Wastewater Treatment and Odor

Removal

A Thesis presented to the

Faculty of the College of Engineering

Cagayan State University - Carig Campus

Tuguegarao City

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering

By:

Cusipag, Jonelou A.

Lozano, John Harvey S.

Necesito, Miko Paul B.

Sia, John Patric R.

Telan, Melody Mae B.

May 2019
Table of Contents

CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................... 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 3

1.2 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Significance of the Study........................................................................................... 3

1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study ......................................................................... 4

1.5 Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 6

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................. 6

2.1 Wastewater Characterization .................................................................................. 6

2.1.1 Wastewater Quality Based from DENR Standard ..................................................... 7

2.2 Desirable Characteristics for the Selection of Raw Materials .............................. 7

2.2.1. Neutralizer Effect ..................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2. Odor Removing Effect.............................................................................................. 7

2.2.3. Coagulation Effect .................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Raw Materials ............................................................................................................ 9

2.3.1. Eggshell .................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2. Crustacean Shells .................................................................................................... 13

2.3.3. Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash ............................................................................... 15

2.3.4. Snail Shell ............................................................................................................... 19


2.3.5. Banana Peels ........................................................................................................... 21

2.3.6. Cassava Peels .......................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Commercial Product (VIGORMIN)...................................................................... 25

2.5 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................... 28

2.6 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 30

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 30

3.1 Materials .................................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Flow Chart of Activities .......................................................................................... 30

3.2.1. Compounded solid waste powder production ........................................................ 30

3.2.1.1. Collection of Solid wastes ............................................................................... 31

3.2.1.2. Preparation of Raw Materials .......................................................................... 31

3.2.1.3. Heat Treatment................................................................................................. 31

3.2.1.4. Weighing and Mixing ...................................................................................... 32

3.2.2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater treatment Procedure .............................................. 32

3.2.2.1. Collection of Wastewater ................................................................................. 33

3.2.2.2. Primary Water Analysis ................................................................................... 33

3.2.2.3. Final Water Analysis........................................................................................ 33

3.3 Statistical Analysis................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 35

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 35


4.1 Initial Wastewater Data ............................................................................................... 35

4.2 Primary Water Analysis .............................................................................................. 35

4.3 Formulation of Combinations ..................................................................................... 45

4.4 Secondary Water Analysis........................................................................................... 45

4.4.1 Odor Analysis .......................................................................................................... 45

4.4.2 Power of Hydrogen Analysis ................................................................................... 47

4.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis ....................................................................... 49

4.4.4 Turbidity Analysis ................................................................................................... 51

4.4.5 Total Suspended Solids Analysis ............................................................................ 52

4.5 Treatment Comparison with Vigormin ..................................................................... 54

4.5.1 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 54

4.5.2 Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................... 55

CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................... 67

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 67

5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 67

5.2 RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................... 68

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix A. DENR Administrative Order No. 2016-08 Effluent Standards ............... 83

Appendix B. Data Tables for Primary Water Analysis .................................................. 83

Appendix C. Secondary Water Analysis .......................................................................... 86


Appendix C.1 Data Tables for Combinations .................................................................. 86

Appendix C.2 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Odor Analysis ........................................... 87

Appendix C.3 ANOVA One-Way Factor for pH Analysis .............................................. 99

Appendix C.4 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis ..... 104

Appendix C.5 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Turbidity Analysis .................................. 115

Appendix C.6 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Total Suspended Solids Analysis ........... 126

Appendix D. Letters ......................................................................................................... 132

Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 134

List of Figures

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 28

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 29

Figure 3. Solid waste powder production ................................................................................ 30

Figure 4. Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment Procedure ................................................ 32

Figure 5. pH versus Day for different materials ...................................................................... 37

Figure 6. Chemical Oxygen Demand Levels versus Day ........................................................ 40

Figure 7. Turbidity versus Day ................................................................................................ 42

Figure 8. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) versus Day ............................................................... 44

Figure 9. Mean Odor Scale per Treatment............................................................................... 47

Figure 10. Power of Hydrogen trend per Treatment (ppm) ..................................................... 48

Figure 11 Chemical Oxygen Demand Trend per Treatment (ppm) ......................................... 50

Figure 12. Turbidity Trend per Treatment (NTU) ................................................................... 52

Figure 13. Total Suspended Solids Trend per Treatment ........................................................ 53


List of Tables

Table 1. Factors Affecting Coagulation ..................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Rice Husk ....................................................... 15

Table 3. Chemical Analysis of the Rice Husk ......................................................................... 16

Table 4. Characteristics of Rice Husk Ash .............................................................................. 16

Table 5. Initial Wastewater Data ............................................................................................. 35

Table 6. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material ............................................................ 36

Table 7. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material ............................................................ 38

Table 8. Resulting Turbidity of wastewater per raw material ................................................. 40

Table 9. Resulting TSS of wastewater per raw material .......................................................... 42

Table 10. Five Combinations of Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder ........................ 45

Table 11. Mean Value of the Odor Scale of Panels and the Percent Reduction per Treatment

.................................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 12. Comparative pH Values on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling. .... 48

Table 13. Comparative Chemical Oxygen Demand Values on Initial Sample, and on First and

Second Sampling. .................................................................................................................... 49

Table 14. Comparative Turbidity Value on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling

.................................................................................................................................................. 51

Table 15. Comparative Total Suspended Solids Value on Initial Sample, and on First and

Second Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 53

Table 16. Cost Analysis for Equipment Used .......................................................................... 55

Table 17. Cost Analysis for Expected Cost of Labor .............................................................. 56

Table 18. Cost Analysis for Other Expenses ........................................................................... 56

Table 19. Amount of Material Produced ................................................................................. 57

Table 20. Total Cost (Pesos) .................................................................................................... 57


Table 21. Cost per kilogram produced ..................................................................................... 58

Table 22. Effluent Standards (Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Administrative Order No. 2016 – 08) ...................................................................................... 83

Table 23 Scale of Panelist at initial Water Samples per Treatment ......................................... 87

Table 24 Scale of Panelist at Water Samples per Data After five Days .................................. 87

......................................................................................................................................................
CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Water pollution, which is a main problem today, is one of the most undesirable phenomena

that every living organism, especially man, is facing today. It is capable of making any

physical, chemical or biological change in the water body and has undesirable effect on living

organisms. According to Global Alliance on Health Pollution (GAHP, 2012), more than 8.4

million people died due to water, air, and land pollution. It has been reported that four billion

worldwide is presently affected by water stress which is considered as a major challenge to be

solved (Meckonnen, 2016). In the Philippines, water pollution is mostly caused by industrial,

agricultural, domestic sewages, and other sources like spills and illegal dumping in or near

water. This is mainly the reason why out of 421 rivers in the Philippines, about 50 rivers are

considered dead which means that these rivers are no longer capable of supporting the aquatic

lives (GreenPeace, 2010). According to government monitoring data, up to 58 percent of the

groundwater tested was contaminated with coliform, and approximately one third of illnesses

monitored during a five-year period were caused by water-borne sources. According to Water

Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA, 2003), water pollution’s effects cost the Philippines

approximately $1.3 billion annually. The government continues to try to clean up the problem,

implementing fines to polluters as well as environmental taxes, but many problems have not

been addressed.

One of the prominent causes of water pollution is extensive eutrophication caused by

agricultural, sewage, animal, human and industrial runoff, resulting in excessive concentrations

of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen. This results in enhanced plant and depleted

animal life due to lack of oxygen, creating a dead zone. Lakes and reservoirs, two fresh water

sources, are particularly prone to the negative impact of eutrophication due to their proximity

1
to pollutant-generating sources and the water’s relative stillness (Yadav, 2017). This

phenomenon is very common in the Philippines since the water flowing from the agricultural

lands carries the excess nutrients from fertilizers directly to different natural water system.

Domestic wastewater also contributes in eutrophication when it is directly dumped to the rivers

or other receiving water-bodies because of the lack of wastewater treatment facilities.

Only 10% of wastewater in the Philippines is treated while 58% of the groundwater is

contaminated and only 5% of the total population is connected to a sewer network. Since sludge

treatment and disposal facilities are rare, domestic wastewater is discharged without treatment.

The problem lies on how the community can have a wastewater treatment that is affordable

and doable even in their own houses (Claudio, 2015).

One wastewater treatment that is growing in popularity nowadays is the use of

organomineral on treating wastewater. This substance is a combination of different minerals

and organic compounds that have the capability to adsorb impurities in the water, remove bad

odor of the water, neutralize the pH of water and make the water clear. The goal of this research

is to make a compounded organic powder out of different solid wastes to provide solution for

the problem that the society is facing right now in relation to water pollution. Hence, a low cost

and effective way of treating wastewater can be achieved by identifying the right combination

of powdered organic solid waste materials for a quality product.

2
1.1 Statement of the Problem

Main Problem: What are the right raw materials and their right amount to achieve a quality

product?

The study aims to answer the following sub problems:

a. What is the efficiency of the product in terms of its deodorizing ability?

b. What is the efficiency of the product in terms of its neutralizing ability?

c. What is the efficiency of the product in terms of its clearing ability?

d. Is the resulting product comparable to the existing commercial one (Vigormin)?

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study is to create a powdered organic material out of different

solid waste materials for low cost wastewater treatment. With the main objective as to

determine quantitatively the right amount of raw materials to obtain quality product.

Specifically, the study aims to:

a. Determine the efficiency of the resulting products in terms of its deodorizing ability.

b. Determine the efficiency of the resulting products in terms of its neutralizing ability.

c. Determine the efficiency of the resulting products in terms of its clearing ability.

d. Compare the resulting product to the commercially available one (Vigormin) in terms

of its effectiveness and cost analysis.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The study can be considered as an innovative solution for the treatment of wastewater

especially from canteens. This will make wastewater treatment more economical than

conventional process since the application of solid waste powder itself can perform wastewater

treatment by direct application removing the need for treatment facilities.

3
The purpose of this study is to help the community promote sanitation as well as to achieve

cleaner water. It will be an advantage to the community to achieve desirable effluent water who

doesn’t have wastewater treatment facility, with low cost production and high efficiency

product. Since water is the main supporter of life forms, it implies proper treatment and proper

consumption. If this project will be implemented, more wastewater will be treated as well as

cleaner environment will be achieved.

The study will be able to add new knowledge in the application of process, environmental

and particle technology in Chemical Engineering principles. It may serve a guiding tool on

identifying other treatment alternatives in the wastewater that will give rise in the field of

Chemical Engineering.

1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study focused only on the formulation of powdered organic solid waste materials for

the treatment of domestic wastewater from Cagayan State University-Carig Campus canteens.

The process equipment design used in the production of the powdered material was not within

the scope of this study. The raw materials used in the production of powdered organic solid

waste were collected within the province of Cagayan and Isabela and the wastewater samples

were obtained from stagnant source coming from the canteens within CSU Carig campus.

4
1.5 Definition of Key Terms

Adsorption is the adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of gases, solutes, or

liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with which they are in contact.

Deodorizer is a substance used to absorb or eliminate offensive odors. The goal of

deodorization is the removal of naturally occurring substances that cause unwanted smell

and taste.

Total Suspended Solids is the measurement of all suspended solids in a liquid typically

expressed in milligram per liter (mg/L) or ppm.

Turbidity is a measure of how clear water is in Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU), invisible

to the average naked eye until readings in excess of 100 are reached, typically determined

by shining light through a sample placed in a turbidimeter.

Treatment is the process of removing solids or pollutants such as foods particles, soaps and

detergents from household greywater.

Wastewater is "used" water coming from the canteens.

5
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Wastewater Characterization

Wastewater is "used water from any combination of domestic, industrial, commercial or

agricultural activities, surface runoff or storm water, and any sewer inflow or sewer

infiltration". Therefore, wastewater is a by-product of domestic, industrial, commercial

or agricultural activities. The characteristics of wastewater vary depending on the source.

Types of wastewater include domestic wastewater from households, municipal wastewater

from communities (also called sewage) or industrial wastewater from industrial activities.

Wastewater can contain physical, chemical and biological pollutants. Households may produce

wastewater from flush toilets, sinks, dishwashers, washing machines, bathtubs, and showers.

Households that use dry toilets produce less wastewater than those that use flush toilets (Tilley

et. al., 2016).

In the Philippines, disposal of wastewater is turning to be an enormous challenge. This is

the concern of National Economic and Development Authority Board Resolution No. 5, series

of 1994 which stated the national policy for urban sewerage and sanitation. The country's rapid

population increase coupled with industrialization efforts produced pressures to the capacity of

the environment to absorb generated wastes. Untreated wastes are hazards to health and

environment. Epidemics, fish kills, floods, and other related disasters on record proved the

menace brought by poor management of wastewater which claimed several lives and

debilitated a number of people mostly affecting children. Wastewater, if not properly handled,

will further reduce the remaining limited quantity of good water to the detriment of all. Being

aware of these, the Philippine government has formulated policies and guidelines that will

ensure proper management of the country's wastewater (Magtibay, 2006).

6
2.1.1 Wastewater Quality Based from DENR Standard

In the Water Quality Guidelines and General Effluent Standards of 2016 (Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, 2016), the effluent must conform to the table shown at

Appendix A.

2.2 Desirable Characteristics for the Selection of Raw Materials

2.2.1. Neutralizer Effect

In a reaction in water, neutralization results in there being no excess hydrogen or hydroxide

ions present in the solution. It is when an acid and a base react to form water and a salt and

involves the combination of H+ ions and OH- ions to generate water. The neutralization of a

strong acid and strong base has a pH equal to 7. The neutralization of a strong acid and weak

base will have a pH of less than 7, and conversely, the resulting pH when a strong base

neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7. The pH of the neutralized solution depends on

the acid strength of the reactants. Neutralization is used in many applications. When a solution

is neutralized, it means that salts are formed from equal weights of acid and base (Petrucci et.

al., 2007). A neutralizer is a substance or material used in the neutralization of acidic water. It

is a common designation for alkaline materials such as calcite (calcium carbonate) or magnesia

(magnesium oxide) used in the neutralization of acid waters (Neutralizer, 2018).

2.2.2. Odor Removing Effect

An attempt was made to convert the agricultural waste of rice husk (RH) into an adsorbent

to remove the offensive odor released from livestock waste and compost. The ammonia gas

adsorption of the RH carbonized at 400°C was much faster than those of several commercial

deodorants as well as those of carbonized wood wastes. Acidic functional groups remaining at

400°C were useful to promote adsorption of basic ammonia gas. The actual compost was

covered with or mixed with the RH carbonized at 400°C. The covering method reduced the

7
concentration of ammonia gas emitted from the compost much faster than the mixing method,

which was connected to volatilization of ammonia gas lighter than ambient air. Wetting the

carbonized RH was also effective in reducing the ammonia gas concentration. An assorted feed

to which was added the RH carbonized at 400°C at the level of 2 mass % was given to growing

pigs. The addition of the carbonized RH reduced about 80% of the concentrations of hydrogen

sulfide and mercaptans emitted from the pig dung. The removal of acidic gases of hydrogen

sulphide and mercaptans was suggested to result from basic inorganic matter of K, Ca and P,

which were intrinsically composed in RH. The testing results showed that the RH carbonized

at 400°C was a promising material for removing the offensive odor produced by the livestock

industry (Kumagai, Sasaki, & Enda, 2009).

2.2.3. Coagulation Effect

Various types of coagulants show potential application in treating water and wastewater. It

ranges from chemical to non-chemical coagulant. (Rajendran, et al., 2015).The coagulant also

could be synthetic material or natural coagulant with the properties of coagulant having positive

valence electrons charge, these positive charge proteins would bind to the negative valence

electrons charged particles in the solution that cause turbidity, water and wastewater treatment

is the removal of suspended and colloidal particles, untreated matter, microbes and other

substances that are deleterious to life, in search of lowest cost deployment, operation,

maintenance, and reduced environmental impacts to the contiguous. Coagulants are

characterized according to the wastewater properties that relates the efficiency of treatment

process to achieve required quality of water on standards as shown in the table below.

8
Table 1. Factors Affecting Coagulation

Coagulant Applications Effective Characteristics Natural Water Properties

Coagulants Extraction Settling time Turbulence 1. pH

Coagulants Solubility Rapid Mixing 2. Slow Alkalinity Availability of

Coagulants Dosage Charge Mixing Coagulant adds Bacteria’s

on Particles Basicity of a quantity Particles type Presence of Elements (Cl,

coagulant Na, Mn, Si, Fl, NH3, Fe)

Total dissolved solids

Suspended Solids

Temperature

Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen

2.3 Raw Materials

2.3.1. Eggshell

Eggshells are an abundant, cheap, biodegradable material with porous structure, slightly

soluble in water (0.013 g/L at 18 ºC) (Carvalho, et al., 2011) . It typically consists of ceramic

materials constituted by a three-layered structure, namely the cuticle on the outer surface, a

spongy (calcareous) layer and an inner lamellar (or mammillary) layer (Tullett, 1987). The

outer surface of the eggshell is covered with a mucin protein that acts as a soluble plug for the

pores in the shell. The cuticle is also permeable to gas transmission. The chemical composition

(by weight) of by-product eggshell has been reported as follows: calcium carbonate (94%),

magnesium carbonate (1%), calcium phosphate (1%) and organic matter (4%) (Stadelman W.

, 2000) (Hunton, 2005).Notably, the by-product eggshell generated from food processing and

manufacturing plants is inevitably composed of calcium carbonate (eggshell) and eggshell

9
membrane (ESM). The ESM resides between the egg white (albumen) and the inner surface of

the eggshell (Parsons, 1982) which possesses an intricate lattice network of stable and water-

insoluble fibers and has high surface area resulting in various applications such as adsorbent

(Suyama, 1994); (Ishikawa S. S., 1998); (Allen, McCallen, Healy, Wolki, & Ulbig, 2000);

(Gota & Suyama, 2000) (Ishikawa, Suyama, Arihara, & Itoh, 2002); (Koumanova, Peeva,

Allen, Gallagher, & Healy, 2002) and immobilization support.

The porosity of eggshell renders it as a remarkable material to be used as an adsorbent

(Koumanova, Peeva, Allen, Gallagher, & Healy, 2002). A porous structure allows the

exchange of matter between the outside and the inside of material (Guru & Dash, 2014).

Eggshells can be used as an adsorbent to remove different types of pollutants from water-based

solutions. Besides, eggshell was porous which was suitable for further modification to improve

phosphorus adsorption potential (Chen & Yuang, 2016) (Chen and Huang 2016; Markovski et

al. 2014). Such cost-efficient adsorbents are particularly useful when large quantities of water

need to be processed and when the solution is viable due to its affordability (Tsai, et al., 2006)

(Schwarz & Contescu, 1999).

Aside from exhibiting adsorptive properties, eggshell renders also that of pH neutralizing

ability. Many researches have been conducted on the capacity of the eggshell to neutralize the

pH of both the soil and water. The principle behind the pH neutralizing effect of calcium

carbonate both in soil and water lies in its nature as a base. The carbonate (CO3-2) ion reacts

with acids from the soil and water to form the bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), or carbonic acid

(H2CO3), a very weak acid that easily breaks down making the pH higher. An experiment of

countering the acid rain stream using calcium carbonate, conducted by Ken Simmons in 1989

led, to the discovery of the capacity of this material to increase the level of water pH. Currently

one of the uses of calcium carbonate is as a neutralizing agent to de-acidify lakes and rivers to

10
restore the natural balance of the eco system (CongCal, McGraths Limestone Works Ltd, Cong,

Co., 2013).

Studies about the potential of eggshell considered as one of the raw materials for this study

due to its adsorptive capacity and pH neutralizing ability onto wastewater treatment are

discussed.

Nurul Aimi binti Rohaizar, Norhafizah binti Abd. Hadi, Wong Chee Sien “Removal of

Cu(II) from Water by Adsorption on Chicken Eggshell”. The effects of different parameters

such as pH of the solution, agitation rate and contact time on the adsorption process were

studied. The optimum conditions for Cu (II) adsorption by chicken eggshell were found to be

at pH 7 with the agitation rate of 350 rpm. Equilibrium data were analyzed by Langmuir and

Freundlich isotherm models and the data were fitted well to Freundlich isotherm model.

(Rohaizar, Hadi, & Sien, 2013) showed in their work with eggshells, upon the optimization

of parameters like pH, agitation rate and contact time, that pH 7 and an optimum agitation rate

of 350 rpm were ideal for Cu (II) elimination from water. Other studies also were done by

(Putra, et al., 2014) where in their study found that for batch adsorption studies, pH 6.0, and

0.1 g biomass dosage and at 90 min equilibrium time were optimum biosorption conditions for

the elimination of Cu (II) and Zn (II) ions from aqueous solutions. (Zulfikar & Setiyanto, 2013)

in a study investigating the adsorption of Congo red dye, observed that the optimum uptake of

Congo red onto powdered eggshell took place at initial concentration of 20 mg/L, pH 2, contact

time of 20 minutes and the adsorbent dosage of 20 g. Additionally, the size of powdered

eggshell particle had no major effect on the adsorption of Congo red. (Agarwal, 2013) focused

mainly on evaluating varying concentrations (5, 10, 20, 40, 100 mg/L) of Pb and Cu; this study

demonstrated a 92% to 100% removal of Cu when 0.5 to 1.5 g of eggshells (adsorbents) was

used against 5 and 10 mg/L of Cu; and an adsorption efficiency of 80% to 100% for Pb at the

11
same solution concentration. It is of note that the study showed increased concentration of

heavy metals and the adsorption efficiency decreased.

K Kumaraswamy, BV Dhananjaneyulu, P Vijetha and Y Prasanna Kumar, “Kinetic and

Equilibrium Studies For the Removal of Chromium Using Eggshell Powder”.In this study, the

egg shell in powdered form was studied through its kinetic and equilibrium relationships for

the removal of chromium. The researchers focused on the process parameters of contact time,

initial concentration, adsorbent dose, and particle size in the adsorption of Cr+6 concluded that

a contact time of 135 minutes was sufficient to reach equilibrium. The increase in the initial

concentration of chromium decreased its adsorption. Increasing particle size of eggshell

powder decreased the adsorption of chromium and finally the amount of adsorbate adsorbed

increases with increased adsorbent dose (Kumaraswamy, Dhananjaneyulu, Vijetha, & Kumar,

2015).

Maree and P. du Plessis, “Neutralization of Acid Mine Water with Calcium Carbonate”,

the paper describes a pilot scale study to determine the technical feasibility of neutralising

sulphuric acid rich water using fluidised bed technology. Limestone was utilised completely

when testing iron (III)-rich water, but with iron (II)-rich water, coated limestone particles

accumulated in the fluidised-bed reactor. About 70% of the limestone was utilised in the case

of water containing 600 mg/L iron (II). The study found out that a contact time of 4 min was

sufficient for the neutralization of acid water containing 4 g/L free acid and 580 mg/L iron

(IID, compared to 40 min when iron (II) replaced iron (III). Also, the study concluded that

calcium carbonate should be considered as an alternative because of considerations such as

lower cost, low solubility at pH values greater than 7 and simple dosing system required (Maree

& Plessis, 1994).

12
2.3.2. Crustacean Shells

Crustacean shells constitute the traditional and current commercial source of chitin (Kim

& Rajapakse, 2005). The three main components of crustacean shells together with chitin are

minerals (mainly calcium carbonate) and proteins. These three components exist closely

associated and account for about 90% of the dry weight of the shell (Ferrer, 1996). Chitin is

the second most abundant naturally occurring biopolymer. The largest sources are the

exoskeletons of arthropods, especially crabs (Malacostraca) and insects (Insecta) as well as the

cell walls of fungi. Chitosan, a polyelectrolyte derivative of chitin. This polysaccharide,

obtained from renewable resources, is currently being explored intensively for applications in

the pharmaceutical, cosmetics, biomedical, biotechnological, agricultural and food industries,

and in non-food applications as well water treatment, paper and textile. Chitosan is an

antibacterial, biocompatible, environment-friendly, biodegradable material and has great

potential for sorption of metal ions due to amino and hydroxyl groups in its chemical structure.

The physico-chemical properties of chitosan are related to the presence of amine functions that

make it very efficient for binding cations from near neutral solutions. The sorption capacity of

chitosan is mainly controlled by its degree of deacetylation which influences the physical,

chemical and biological properties of chitosan, such as acid–base and electrostatic

characteristics, biodegradability, self-aggregation, sorption properties and the ability to interact

with metal ions.

Various investigations have demonstrated the effectiveness of chitosan and its derivatives

in the uptake of metals, such as lead, copper, cadmium, nickel and oxyanions, as well as

complexed metal ions. Various methods had been used to modify chitosan in order to improve

its sorption capacity. The large number of primary amino and hydroxyl groups at the second

and sixth positions with high reactivity enables a variety of chemical modifications. Chitosan

has been attractive because the free amino groups in this modified product contribute

13
polycationic and chelating properties and has recently been subjected to many chemical

modifications to produce advanced functional materials. This chemically modified chitosan

has greater uptake capacity for heavy metal ions such as mercury, chromium, copper, zinc, tin,

cobalt, nickel, lead, mercury and cadmium (Saha & Orvig, 2010); (Rojas, et al., 2005); (Shilpi

& Padmaja, 2011); (Gulay, Ilhami, Celik, Yilmaz, & Arica, 2006).

Studies concerning about the adsorptive properties of crustacean shells are the following:

Youzhou Zhou, Liuqin Ge, Neng Fan, Meisheng Xia. “Adsorption of Congo red from aqueous

solution onto shrimp shell powder”. Two novel adsorbents derived from shrimp shell were

prepared and their adsorption performances on Congo red were investigated. The results

suggested that treated shrimp shell powder exhibited a higher adsorption capacity than raw

shrimp shell powder. The factors of initial concentration, solution pH, adsorption time, and

temperature were investigated. The maximum adsorption capacity of treated shrimp shell

powder calculated according to the Langmuir isotherm model was 288.2 mg/g, which is much

higher than that of chitin. (Youchou Zhou, 2018)

Another study by Anita Morris and Joseph Sneddon. “Use of Crustacean Shells for Uptake

and Removal of Metal Ions in Solution”. The use of crustacean shells, in particular crab shells,

for the removal of metal ions in solution is described. Research studies found in the literature

on the ability of the shells, effect of particle size, pH, competitive studies in mixtures of metals,

application to real samples such as acid mine drainage, and use of the shells in a column are

presented. The major component of the shells that allows uptake to occur is chitin. Several

mechanisms are proposed for uptake. There are conflicting accounts in the literature on such

areas as the effect of pH, flow rate, and particle size. (Anita Morris, 2011)

14
2.3.3. Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash

Rice husk possesses a granular structure, is insoluble in water, and has chemical stability

and high mechanical strength, making it a good adsorbent material for treating various wastes

from water and wastewater. The physico-chemical properties and chemical compositions of

rice husk are shown in Table 3 whereas the properties of rice husk ash (RHA) are shown in

Table 4 respectively.

Table 2. Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Rice Husk

Proximate Analysis ( wt%) Ultimate Analysis ( wt%)

Combustibles Moisture Volatile Fixed


Ash C H O N S Cl
Matter Carbon

72.87 10.00 17.13 38.92 5.55 37.94 0.35 0.02 0.09

19.8 64.3 15.9 37.00 5.10 36.00 0.40

7.9 17.1 59.9 44.6 5.6 49.3

20.00 66.40 13.60 37.8 5.20 39.0 0.39 0.05

17.9 72.8 9.3 48.9 6.2 44.1 0.8

Note: Data taken from (Lin, Wang, Lin, & Juch, 1998); (Williams & Nugranad, 2000);

(Mansaray & Ghaly, 1998); (Janvijitsakul & Kuprianov, 2007); (Daifullah, Girgis, & Gad,

2003); (Wannapeera, Worasuwannarak, & Pipatmanomai, 2008)

The chemical components of RHA are found to be SiO2, H2O, Al2O3, Fe2O3, K2O,

Na2O, CaO, and MgO (Table 4), fluctuating upon the varieties of paddy, proportion of irrigated

area, geographical conditions, fertilizer used, climatic variation, soil chemistry, and timeliness

of crop production operations and agronomic practices in the paddy growth process

15
Table 3. Chemical Analysis of the Rice Husk

Composition (%)

Cellulose 32.24 34.4 29.20 32.24 33.47

Hemicellulose 21.34 29.3 20.10 21.34 21.03

Lignin 21.44 19.2 30.70 21.44 26.70

Extractives 1.82 1.82

Water 8.11 8.11

Mineral Ash 15.05 17.1 15.05

Data taken from (Williams & Nugranad, 2000); (Mansaray & Ghaly, 1998); (Rukzon,

Chindaprasirt, & Mahachai, 2009) and (Rahman, Ismail, & Osman, 1977)

Table 4. Characteristics of Rice Husk Ash

Parameter Value

Average particle size 412 μm

Bulk density 175.3 kg m3

Moisture content 1.1%

Volatile Matter content 7.36%

Ash Content 80.58%

Fixed Carbon content 10.96%

Heating Value 21.76 MJ/kg

BET surface area 65.36 m2/g

BJH adsorption surface area of pores 52.35 m2/g

BJH desorption surface area of pores 26.62 m2/g

Cumulative pore volume 0.039 cm3/g

16
BET pore diameter 34.66 Å

BJH adsorption average pore diameter 43.27 Å

BJH desorption average pore diameter 58.34 Å

Data taken from (Lataye, Mishra, & Mall, 2009)

The morphology of rice husk may facilitate the adsorption of metals and other pollutants,

because of the irregular surface of rice, thus making possible the adsorption of metals in

different parts of this material. The physical characterizations of rice husk and RHA have

pointed out some properties such as the presence of functional groups (carboxyl, silanol, etc.)

that make adsorption processes possible. The chemical structure of the rice husk is of vital

importance in understanding the adsorption process.

M. Ahmaruzzaman and Vinod K. Gupta, “Rice Husk and Its Ash as Low-Cost Adsorbents

in Water and Wastewater Treatment”. In this study, an overview of rice husk and rice husk ash

(RHA) as low-cost adsorbent is characterized for their removal of heavy metals, dyes, organic

compounds, surfactants, pesticides, and inorganic anions from wastewater. It also highlights

that chemically modified rice husk has enhanced adsorption capacities for heavy metals,

phenols, pesticides, dyes, and other organic compounds from wastewaters.Because of the

presence of silica, RH exhibited high performance in the adsorption of various pollutants from

wastewater. It was found that adsorption capacity of RH increased after chemical and thermal

treatment. Modification of RH using some heavy metals can also make them applicable for the

adsorption of inorganic anions via surface precipitation. (Ahmaruzzaman & Gupta, 2011)

Mor Suman, Chhoden Kalzang, Ravindra Khaiwal. “Application of agro-waste rice husk

ash for the removal of phosphate from the wastewater”. In this study, locally available agro-

waste rice husk was examined in batch mode for the removal of phosphate using synthetic

wastewater (Mor Suman, 2016). Prof. S. M. Gawande, Ms. Prachi K. Shelke, Ms. Neha A.

17
Dhoke, Ms. Madhura D. Lengre, Ms. Diksha A. Dere. “Analysis and Removal of Phosphate

from Wastewater by Using Rice Husk”. This study carry out a quality assessment and analysis

of phosphate on behalf of wastewater of river in a locale. Parameters like Biological Oxygen

Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, pH (Power of Hydrogen), and Dissolved Oxygen are

Tested and found that concentration is higher than permissible limit and it is factor to blame

eutrophication. The researchers concluded that adsorption with Activated rice husk ash

(ARAH) is one of the most effective and economical method for removal of phosphate. The

study revealed that the optimum conditions for the removal of phosphate compounds were

achieved with percentage of 70%- 80% by activating rice husk with HCL. (S. M. Gawande,

2017)

Aside from being an adsorbent, a study conducted by S. Kumagi, Y. Enda, K. Sasaki,

“Carbonization of rice husk to remove offensive odor from livestock waste and compost” made

an attempt was made to convert the agricultural waste of rice husk (RH) into an adsorbent to

remove the offensive odor released from livestock waste and compost. From the study, the

removal of acidic gases of hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans was suggested to result from

basic inorganic matter of K, Ca and P, which were intrinsically composed in RH. The testing

results showed that the RH carbonized at400°C was a promising material for removing the

offensive odor produced by the livestock industry (Kumagai, Sasaki, & Enda, 2009).

For the odor removing effect, activated charcoal derived from wide range of carbon-rich

materials like wood, coal, bones, coconut shells, nut shells, peat and agricultural residues

(ScienceStruck, 2018). Ever since, charcoal has been used as a natural way of removing odors

instead of other chemical which only mask the bad smell.. Through adsorption the particles

bind to the surface of the activated charcoal—which is why it is imperative that activated

charcoal actually be activated; the greater the available surface, the better the grade it gets for

trapping (aCarbons, 2015).

18
2.3.4. Snail Shell

The use of snail shell has been found efficient as an adsorbent, especially in the removal of

heavy metals like lead, based on its adsorption capacity, available surface area, distribution

ratio and percentage sorption (Asia & Akpohonor, 2007). The activation of these low cost

precursors is done physically or chemically using various kinds of activating agents, depending

on the end use of the adsorbent. Moreover, the chemical activation has some important

advantages to that of the physical activation such as lower carbonization temperature and

shorter time of activation (O & Evbuomwan, The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent

For The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As Activating

Agent, 2014).

Udeozor S. O And Evbuomwan B. O, “The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For

The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3PO4 as Activating Agent”.

The researchers investigated the effectiveness of Snail Shell as adsorbent for the treatment of

wastewater from beverage industries, using Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) as activating agent.

Some of the important wastewater parameters analyzed include: Biological oxygen Demand

(BOD); Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD); Turbidity; Dissolved oxygen (DO); and Phosphate.

The results obtained from the characterization of the snail shell adsorbent samples are: for

sample A (Porosity, 48%; Surface area, 2567.32m2; Organic content, 12.5%; Moisture content,

0.32%; pH, 8.76); and for sample B (Porosity 72%; Surface area, 2987.69m2; Organic content,

7.3%; Moisture content, 0.27%; pH, 7.04). Also, the results of some of the physicochemical

parameters of the waste water before and after treatment respectively, at a maximum time of

40mins are: 48mg/l and 16mg/l for BOD, 146mg/l and 37mg/l for COD, 41FAU and 1 FAU

for turbidity, 1.8mg/l and 4.98mg/l for dissolved oxygen, 0.066mg/l and 0.0001mg/l for

phosphate. This study has shown that activated carbon produced from snail shells can compete

favorably with the conventional activated carbons in treating wastewater from beverage

19
industry, using H3PO4 as an effective activating agent (O & Evbuomwan, The Effectiveness

of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries

Using H3 Po4 As Activating Agent, 2014).

E.O Jatto, I.O Asia, E.E Egbon , J.O Otutu , M.E Chukwuedo , C.J Ewansiha, “Treatment

Of Waste Water From Food Industry Using Snail Shell”. The aim of this study is to determine

the suitability of snail shell as an adsorbent or coagulant in waste water treatment wherein the

stability of the snail shell at different pH was studied, followed by the optimum dosage of the

shell using turbidity and COD as the parameter and treating waste water from food industry.

According to this study, as a coagulant, the snail shell, helps to neutralize fine particles of

suspended and dissolve matter in a water supply or sample to form flocs that settles and can be

filtered out. The choice and dose rate of the coagulant will depend on the characteristics of the

waste water to be treated. The researchers concluded that snail shell as a coagulant is very

effective in the treatment of waste water at any pH. A high level of success was achieved in

reducing the dissolved solids, Nitrates, sulphate, and of removal phosphate completely from

the waste water. There was a reduction in COD, BOD, conductivity, turbidity values and

increase in DO values after treatment, an indication that the snail shell is an effective coagulant

and is economic viable in the treatment of waste water (Jatto, et al., 2010).

Udeozor S. O And Evbuomwan B. O, “The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For

The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As Activating Agent”.

The researchers investigated the effectiveness of Snail Shell as adsorbent for the treatment of

wastewater from beverage industries, using Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) as activating agent.

Some of the important wastewater parameters analyzed include: Biological oxygen Demand

(BOD); Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD); Turbidity; Dissolved oxygen (DO); and Phosphate.

The results obtained from the characterization of the snail shell adsorbent samples are: for

sample A (Porosity, 48%; Surface area, 2567.32m2; Organic content, 12.5%; Moisture content,

20
0.32%; pH, 8.76); and for sample B (Porosity 72%; Surface area, 2987.69m2; Organic content,

7.3%; Moisture content, 0.27%; pH, 7.04). Also, the results of some of the physicochemical

parameters of the waste water before and after treatment respectively, at a maximum time of

40mins are: 48mg/l and 16mg/l for BOD, 146mg/l and 37mg/l for COD, 41FAU and 1 FAU

for turbidity, 1.8mg/l and 4.98mg/l for dissolved oxygen, 0.066mg/l and 0.0001mg/l for

phosphate. This study has shown that activated carbon produced from snail shells can compete

favorably with the conventional activated carbons in treating wastewater from beverage

industry, using H3PO4 as an effective activating agent (O & Evbuomwan, The Effectiveness

of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries

Using H3 Po4 As Activating Agent, 2014).

2.3.5. Banana Peels

Banana peel is an agricultural waste that is being discarded all over the world as a useless

material. However, banana peels have adsorbent potentiality and can be used as coagulant in

water treatment. It is very useful for purification and refining processes. It has adsorption

capacities to remove chromium from wastewater, copper (Ndabigengesere A, 1995) and also

some dyes. Banana peels are selected to be prepared as a bio-adsorbent and contain high

organic carbon (41.37%) and composed of polymeric substances such as fiber (11.04%) and

protein (10.14%). The chemical composition of peels was investigated (Vieira AMS, 2013)

and revealed that the treatment of water using the banana peel is most effective for removal of

hydrogen sulfide from sulfur spring water. Studies about the potential of banana peel as a

potential coagulant and also an adsorbent are presented as follows.

A study by Sandhya Maurya and Achlesh Daverey on “Evaluation of plant-based natural

coagulants for municipal wastewater treatment” was conducted by four plant-based natural

coagulants (banana peel powder, banana stem juice, papaya seed powder and neem leaf

powder) were evaluated for the removal of turbidity, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total

21
suspended solids (TSS) from municipal wastewater. From the results of their study, the

maximum turbidity removal was observed with banana peel powder (59.6%) at 0.4 g/L of

dosage. Significant linear relationships between turbidity and TSS (R2 = 0.67–0.88) and

turbidity removals and COD removals (R2 = 0.68–0.8) were observed. Interestingly, all the

natural coagulants tested in the study did not change the pH of the wastewater, which is an

added advantage. FTIR analysis of banana peels revealed that functional groups such as

carboxylic acid, hydroxyl and aliphatic amines might be responsible for promoting the

coagulation–flocculation by neutralizing the charge on impurities in water. Overall, the results

suggest the potential of low-cost natural coagulants in municipal wastewater treatment (Maurya

& Daverey, 2018).

“Effectiveness of Banana Peel and Moringa oleifera Seed Powders for the Treatment of

Wastewater from an Institutional Kitchen” by Mini Mathew, Anju Mathew , Jyothis G ,

Anjalathu V N , Christina S Alexander. In this study, the researchers used banana peel in

conjunction Moringa olifera as a coagulant-flocculant to treat wastewater from kitchen are

analyzed. The treatment process is a two stage processes: in the first stage Moringa oleifera

extract was used as the coagulant or banana peel powder was used as the adsorbent and in the

second stage coagulated water was filtered using constructed filter. The jar test was used to

determine the optimum coagulant dosage of banana peel powder and Moringa oleifera seed

extract. It was observed that for both Moringa oleifera extract and Banana peel powder, there

was 14 % increase in pH after coagulation and flocculation and pH increased to 100% after

filtration, as well as 65% of turbidity, 58% of chlorides was removed during first stage , and

followed by filtration has a percentage reduction of 95% and 93% respectively. The value of

hardness showed an increase. Also first stage treatment led to 21% decrease in COD and 54%

decrease in BOD and filtration led to 79 % removal of COD and 99% removal of BOD. The

DO increased from 0 to 4.33 mg/l using Banana peel powder and 5.12 mg/l using Moringa

22
extract. TDS of the sample remained stable and the TSS value of the sample decreased by 91%.

The colour and odour of the wastewater was also completely removed (Mini, Mathew, G, N,

& Alexander, 2015).

“Potential of Banana Peels as Bio-Flocculant for Water Clarification” by Chong Kian-

Hen, Kiew Peck-Loo. In this study, the coagulation-flocculation activities between

conventional chemical coagulants (alum) with banana peel bio-flocculant were investigated

using JAR test analysis under different process conditions. It was found that the performances

of bio-flocculant under different process conditions were almost comparable to alum. The

highest turbidity removal percentage could be achieved at solution pH of 4 and 12,

150ml/400ml of bio-flocculant to turbid water dosage, temperature of 40oC and very high-level

initial wastewater turbidity (>500NTU). In order to minimize dependency on conventional

chemical coagulant, ratio of 50/50 of banana peels bio-flocculant to alum was used to achieve

the best turbidity removal percentage in comparison to other ratio combinations (Chong Kian-

Hen, 2017).

2.3.6. Cassava Peels

Cassava peels can represent 5 to 15% of the root (Aro, Aletor, Tewe, & Agbede, 2010);

(Nwokoro, D., & Ikhinmwin A. F., 2005). They are obtained after the tubers have been water-

cleansed and peeled mechanically.They may contain high amounts of cyanogenic glycosides

and have a higher protein content than other tuber parts (Tewe, 2004).

In the production of crackers from cassava, the cassava tuber are usually peeled off to

remove the outer layer that consist of the periderm, thin inner layer of cortex and some thin

portion of the cortex. The peels are normally discarded and allowed to rot. Since the peels could

make up 20-35% of the total weight of the cassava tuber, the conversion of these by-products

into effective coagulant aid driven by intensive research study would increase their market

23
value and ultimately benefits the producers. Kongkiattikajorn and Sornvoraweat

(Kongkiattikajorn & Sornvoraweatn, 2011) reported that cassava peels contain polysaccharides

such as starch, pectin and holocellulose. It is well known that pectin, starch and cellulose

containing abundant of carboxyl, hydroxyl and amino groups which has significant potential

for metal sequestering (Crini, 2005). Additionally, the functional groups bear effective charge

to help alum forming larger flocs in coagulation and flocculation process.

N. Othman, N-S Abd- Rahim, S-N-F Tuan-Besar, S. Mohd-Asharuddin, and Kumar, V, “A

Potential Agriculture Waste Material as Coagulant Aid: Cassava Peel “. In this study Cassava

peel is among non-exploited waste to be selected as a coagulant aid. Cassava with high protein

and carbohydrate is among the criteria to be selected as coagulant aid. This study investigated

the characteristics of cassava peel as a coagulant aid material and optimization process using

the cassava peel was explored through coagulation and flocculation. This research had

highlighted that the Cassava peels contain sugars in the form of polysaccharides such as starch

and holocellulose. The FTIR results revealed that amino acids containing abundant of carboxyl,

hydroxyl and amino groups which has significant capabilities in removing pollutants. Whereas

analysis by XRF spectrometry indicated that the CP samples contain Fe2O3 and Al2O3 which

might contribute to its coagulation ability. The optimum condition allowed Cassava peel and

alum removed high turbidity up to 90. This natural coagulant from cassava peel is found to be

an alternative coagulant aid to reduce the usage of chemical coagulants (Othman, N-S Abd-

Rahim, & Kumar, 2018)

Another study done by Syazwani Mohd-Asharuddin, Norzila Othman, Nur Shaylinda

Mohd Zin and Husnul Azan Tajarudin, “A Chemical and Morphological Study of Cassava

Peel: A Potential Waste as Coagulant Aid” study investigates the chemical and morphological

characteristics of cassava peel (CP) biomass as a potential coagulant aid for turbidity, heavy

metals and microbial removal. The characterization of CP samples which were accomplished

24
through the analysis of FESEM, FTIR and XRF show the potential of CP1 sample which

composed of the whole cassava peel waste comprises of the periderm, cortex and flesh to be

developed as coagulant aid. The presence of starch granules, functional groups such as

hydroxyl, carboxyl and amines as well as Al2O3 and Fe2O3 are important properties which

accredited to the coagulating agents. Modification and optimization studies will be conducted

in the future to further evaluate the performance of CP as coagulant aid for turbidity, heavy

metals and microbial removal. (Mohd-Asharuddin, Othman, Zin, & Tajarudin, 2017)

2.4 Commercial Product (VIGORMIN)

Vigormin or Organo-Mineral (OM) technology is a white organic powder developed

through the research conducted by Adamson University’s Dr. Merlinda Palencia in which its

purpose is to address the problem in septic tanks or waste water (Negros Chronicle, 2018).

Vigormin is a mixture of local and natural organo minerals that boost the removal rate of

organic pollutants, adsorb heavy metals, coagulate suspended solids in wastewater. Organo

mineral is a combination of different minerals and organic compounds that have the capability

to adsorb impurities in the water.It can neutralize pH and significantly improve wastewater

quality even without mechanical aeration and is effective in neutralizing strong wastewater or

septic odour, and strong decomposing or rotten odour in landfills or material recovery facilities.

Its application significantly improves water quality based on the effluents standards set by

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Notably, its efficacy was

tested and proven in Palo, Leyte, one of the Yolanda-stricken areas, wherein several temporary

shelters had untreated septic water treatment facilities. Due to its success, DOST has been

attempting to replicate Vigormin application especially to the hottest tourist destinations in the

country including the municipalities of Coron and El Nido, where wastewater issues are most

likely prevalent (Baguyo & Sariego, 2018).

25
Vigormin’s success in Palo, Leyte led to the DOST’s attempt at replicating the same on

Boracay Island, one of the country’s top tourism destinations. For the pilot test conducted on

Boracay Island, DOST donated a total of 12 tons of Vigormin. According to DOST

Undersecretary for Scientific and Technological Services Dr. Rowena Guevara, Vigormin is a

low-cost solution to the noxious odor becoming prevalent in Boracay, which is a direct result

of the problem on wastewater, drainage systems, and residual solid waste. Last May, the

organo-mineral was used to treat septic and drainage water in a number of hotels that were

chosen to host the APEC delegates. Vigormin was also used in the Cagban and Caticlan jetty

ports, in the water reservoir of the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority, and

in a few households (The Boracay Beach, 2015).

“LOW COST ORGANOMINERALS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ODOR

NEUTRALIZER” by Palencia, Merlinda, A. and Dural, Clifford, A. The invention describes a

composition and method for biochemical and mechanical remediation of wastewater or river

in which the biomineral is an oxygen releasing material that increases dissolved oxygen,

decreases biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand and neutralized strong

odor through the use of organo-minerals. The claimed composition comprises of dolostone,

organic limestone, rocks, petrified wood, clay minerals and zeolites. The claimed composition

is utilized either in powder form and applied through dispersion. For the odor removal

characteristic of the product, the remediation is effective in reducing the odor or wastewater to

TON ranging from 1 - 6 only. Higher concentrations of bio-mineral showed higher % odor

reduction. 0.5 - 1.0 kg/m 3 concentration can reduce odor by 95% while 1.5 kg/m 3

concentration can reduce odor by as much as 98% after 10 days. In another embodiment, the

powder dispersion method at 1.0 kg/ m3 organo-mineral concentration at day 14 resulted in a

77% reduction in TS content as shown in the TS drop from 18126 mg/L to 4142 mg/L.

Concentration of 1.0 kg/m3 at 14 days after wastewater treatment show that turbidity decreased

26
from 78 - 13 NTU or 83%. The organo-mineral is effective in obtaining the dissolved oxygen

content. In another aspect, pH of wastewater before treatment was 6.6 which increased to 9.6 -

9.7 after dispersion of organo-minerals. Higher concentrations of organo-minerals resulted to

higher pH value making the water more alkaline. After wastewater treatment, alkalinity of was

established. the lesser dosage of 1.0 kg/m3 concentration is preferred as a desirable decrease

in biochemical oxygen demand are reached without affecting other factors such as total solids

and turbidity. Dosage found to be effective is a 0.05 kg/m concentration which results in lower

level of chemical oxygen demand. In another embodiment, the organomineral is capable of

odor neutralization of wastewater and septic wastewater system (Philippines Patent No.

000006, 2016).

27
2.5 Theoretical Framework

The design for the wastewater treatment was made by the application of a formulated

powdered formula from different solid waste. A primary water analysis on the collected

wastewater was conducted and served as a basis for the computation of the percent reduction

of the applied powdered formula, from which the values of COD, pH, odor, total suspended

solids and turbidity were determined. It served as a basis for the formulation of combinations

of treatment consisting of different proportions of raw materials. Application of the powdered

formula in the treating system was done on a laboratory scale in which a secondary analysis

was performed on the water to see if it complies with the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Administrative Order (DAO) 2016-08 effluent standard.

Collection of Wastewater

Primary Water Analysis

Application of Treating
System

Secondary Analysis

Treated Water

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework

28
2.6 Conceptual Framework

The discharged wastewater from most canteens does not have a proper wastewater

treatment due to lack of facilities, so the researchers developed a product as a substitute to

wastewater treatment equipment/facility which can cater the wastewater coming from the

canteens as presented in Figure 2. A conceptual framework of the wastewater using

compounded organic solid waste powder was shown below.

The figure illustrated the collection of wastewater and organic solid waste as an input. The

process started with the production of powdered solid wastes and undergone laboratory

experimentation to determine the quality of the treated water. After the initial result, the data

were used to generate an assumption of the composition to determine the most optimal ratio of

the powdered solid waste materials. Consequently, the results generated were compliant to the

DAO 2016-08 wastewater effluent standard for disposal.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

29
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Materials

For the laboratory scale of wastewater treatment as well as in the collection of wastewater

effluent from school stagnant water and for treated water analysis, the materials and equipment

to be used were beakers, Erlenmeyer flasks, graduated cylinder, funnel, pipette, plastic bottles

with caps and stirring rod.

The raw materials used for the production of organic solid waste powder were the

following: eggshells, crab shells, snail shells, rice husk ash, cassava peels and banana peels.

In addition, equipment and apparatus used for the preparation of the treating media were

analytical balance, tray oven, grinder, sieve and tray.

3.2 Flow Chart of Activities

3.2.1. Compounded solid waste powder production

Collection of Solid
wastes

Preparation of Raw
Materials

Heat treatment

Mixing

Figure 3. Solid waste powder production

30
3.2.1.1. Collection of Solid wastes

The collection of solid wastes were done daily. The raw materials were obtained from

domestic sources (e.g. households, local restaurants, canteens and etc.) only. The collected

materials were immediately subjected to the preparation step to prevent further degradation of

raw materials.

3.2.1.2. Preparation of Raw Materials

Eggshells, crab shells, snail shells, rice husk ash, cassava peel, and banana peel were first

washed and then sun dried. When the material was visually dried and had its moisture lessen,

it proceeded grinding and powdering process. During the grinding and powdering process, two

units of household blenders were used. The first blender was used to grind and reduce the size

of the material, and the second was used for further size reduction or powdering the material.

After the materials were powdered, the materials were then screened using a 100 mesh sieve

with tray. This process of grinding, powdering and screening were repeated until almost all

amount of materials were powdered and screened.

3.2.1.3. Heat Treatment

In heat treatment process, the powdered materials were subjected to a tray oven in a slow

thermal treatment mode with temperatures maintained at 140 - 160 degrees Celsius for one and

a half hours. Materials undergone phase transition increasing the porosity of the powdered

materials for adsorption and odor removal. Also, through this process excess water was

removed, removing the chance of re-agglomeration of the mixture. The product of this process

was not exposed in the atmosphere as it may absorb moisture in the environment promoting

agglomeration that can affect the particle sizing of the mixture. The resulting powdered solid

waste material after final heat treatment was then placed into separate polybags.

31
3.2.1.4. Weighing and Mixing

In this section the prepared materials after heat treatment were weighed in an analytical

balance then mixed in a non-reactive container. The mixing of the materials was done

manually. The mixture was weighed again, and the mixtures composition was determined using

the pre-determined weight of materials and the total weight of the mixture.

3.2.2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater treatment Procedure

The study has conducted two laboratory scale wastewater treatment. First, the effect of the

individual raw materials to the physicochemical properties of wastewater for the duration of 5

days were determined. Second, the effectiveness of the combinations of the powdered materials

formulated based on the data of the first laboratory scale wastewater treatment in terms of odor,

pH, COD, TSS and turbidity were determined for a length of seven days. The general procedure

was shown in Figure 4.

Collection of Wastewater

Primary Water Analysis

Final Water Analysis

Figure 4. Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment Procedure

32
3.2.2.1. Collection of Wastewater

In this process, wastewater coming from the canteens of Cagayan State University-Carig

campus was collected in the stagnant water source. The samples were then stored in clean

polyvinyl chloride containers.

3.2.2.2. Primary Water Analysis

Five gallons of wastewater collected were labelled from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Before starting

the analysis, composite mixtures of wastewater were made by obtaining 200 milliliters (mL)

from each of the labelled gallons and then mixed, which totaled to a 1 L wastewater composite.

Then, seven sets of 1 liter (L) composite mixtures were transferred to 1.5 L plastic bottles and

then labelled properly according to the powdered solid waste material used (“treatment” for the

second laboratory wastewater treatment). The initial analysis of physicochemical properties of

the composite wastewater (primarily in terms of turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS) and

odor and its chemical properties in terms of pH and chemical oxygen demand (COD) was done.

After that, 10 grams (g) from each of the solid waste powder (or the compounded powder)

were poured with their designated composite wastewater mixtures as a treating media. The

treating media would evenly disperse on the wastewater surface in the container. The

composites containing the treating media were placed in undisturbed area to minimize possible

factors that may affect the wastewater treatment process.

3.2.2.3. Final Water Analysis

The effect of the treating media on wastewater were determined by analyzing the

characteristics of the treated wastewater samples in terms of its physical properties primarily

in terms of turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS) and odor and its chemical properties in terms

of pH and chemical oxygen demand (COD).

33
In determining the odor removing capacity of the product through sensory analysis, odor

was determined by five (5) panelist with a keen sense of smell and were determined to be free

from cold and allergies. The odor of wastewater were analyzed before the application of the

treating media. The panel was then asked to scale the odor of the wastewater from 1 being the

most favourable smell and 10 being the worst. The panelist ratings per treatment were averaged

and analyzed statistically.

3.3 Statistical Analysis

Using SPSS v16 software, the results for the evaluation of odor, pH, turbidity, total

suspended solids, and chemical oxygen demand test were analyzed through Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) and POS HOC Test statistical analysis which determined the effect

treatment with different raw material proportions on the wastewater of Cagayan State

University – Carig Campus canteens (Parameter vs. Day). Using these statistical analyses, the

results were used to compare the effect of the compounded solid waste powder on the water to

the results of the commercially available organomineral (Vigormin) (Parameter vs. Treatment).

Qualitative analysis was conducted to determine the odor removing capacity of the product at

different treatments. After determining the effectiveness of the different combinations to

Vigormin for the different physicochemical properties, a cost analysis was done to compare

the product to Vigormin.

34
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Initial Wastewater Data

Table 5 showed the initial data of the wastewater with values of the different parameters

considered. It was noticed that some of the parameters exceeded the standard value of DENR

Administrative Order 2016-08 wastewater effluent standards. However, pH was already in the

acceptable range of 6-9 standard pH.

Table 5. Initial Wastewater Data

Physicochemical Properties Value

pH 8.13

COD 242.94

Turbidity 84.3

TSS 260

4.2 Primary Water Analysis

Parameters Monitored

The effect of different solid waste materials to different parameters such as pH, Chemical

Oxygen Demand (COD), Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were compared. The

data gathering were limited as the level of water affects the data. The water should remain

stagnant as the materials should settle below the container and daily sampling affects the

settling characteristics of the material.

35
a) pH

Based from DENR effluent standards, the range of pH values were shown at Appendix A.

From the generated results in Table 6, pH value range conformed to all of the powdered solid

waste materials and the commercial Vigormin. The ones that significantly affected the pH level

of wastewater was the banana peel and cassava peel which lowered the pH of initial wastewater

from 8.13 to 6.52 and 5.43 respectively

Table 6. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material

pH
Raw Material (in powdered form) Formulation
Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 10g/L 8.13 8.68

Banana Peel 10g/L 8.13 6.52

Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 8.13 8.57

Cassava Peel 10g/L 8.13 5.43

Snail Shell 10g/L 8.13 8.57

Egg shell 10g/L 8.13 8.41

Vigormin 10g/L 8.13 8.22

36
10

6
pH

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Day

Crab Shell Banana Peel Rice Husk Ash Cassava Peel


Snail Shell Eggshell Vigormin

Figure 5. pH versus Day for different materials

Figure 5 showed the performance of the different materials for the parameter of pH and

their corresponding trend from the initial pH of the control to the pH values for the 4th day upon

application. From the figure shown, an increasing trend was observed for materials except for

the peels.

b) Chemical Oxygen Demand

Table 7 showed the effect of different materials on the chemical oxygen demand (COD) of

the wastewater for the whole duration of 3 days. Initially, the COD of the wastewater without

application of different materials is 242.94 mg/L (ppm). After the application of the different

materials, notable high values of COD were generated for cassava peel and banana peel.

37
Table 7. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD),


Raw Material (in powdered
Formulation ppm
form)
Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 10g/L 242.94 240.096

Banana Peel 10g/L 242.94 1483.84

Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 242.94 137.76

Cassava Peel 10g/L 242.94 1476

Snail Shell 10g/L 242.94 310.94

Egg shell 10g/L 242.94 184.99

Vigormin 10g/L 242.94 141.7

Figure 6 showed the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) levels with the application of the

different materials. From the figure generated, the ones that exhibited high COD values were

the banana peel and cassava peel. High chemical oxygen demand levels for the cassava and

banana peel contributed to a greater amount of oxidizable organic material in the wastewater

sample, which reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. Vigormin, eggshell, and rice husk, crab

shell exhibited the closest COD value to DENR standard up to the 4th day which was on a

decreasing trend. If this continues, COD values would conform to the DENR wastewater

effluent standards.

38
Crab Shell Banana Peel
243.5 1600
243 1400
242.5 1200
242 1000
COD

COD
241.5 800
241 600
240.5
400
240
200
239.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

a) Crab Shell b) Banana Peel

Rice Husk Cassava Peel


300
1600
250 1400
1200
200
1000
COD

COD

150 800
100 600
400
50 200
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

c) Rice Husk Ash d) Cassava Peel

Snail Shell Eggshell


350 300
300 250
250
200
COD

200
COD

150 150
100 100
50 50
0
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

e) Snail Shell f) Eggshell

39
Vigormin
300
250
200

COD
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Day

g) Vigormin

Figure 6. Chemical Oxygen Demand Levels versus Day

c) Turbidity

Table 8 showed the effect of different materials on the turbidity of the wastewater. Initially,

the value of the turbidity of the untreated wastewater was 84.3 NTU. Based from the initial

data gathered, it was found that the materials rice husk, banana peel, eggshell, cassava peel and

Vigormin have the capabilities in removing turbidity-causing particles. It was shown in Figure

7 that the materials rice husk, banana peel, eggshell, cassava peel and Vigormin decreases

gradually. On the other hand, the materials crab shell and snail shell do not have the capabilities

in reducing the turbidity of the wastewater.

Table 8. Resulting Turbidity of wastewater per raw material

Turbidity, NTU
Raw Material (in powdered form) Formulation
Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 10g/L 84.3 95.6

Banana Peel 10g/L 84.3 73.5

Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 84.3 45.3

40
Cassava Peel 10g/L 84.3 75.5

Snail Shell 10g/L 84.3 86.8

Egg shell 10g/L 84.3 78.9

Vigormin 10g/L 84.3 23.3

Crab Shell Banana Peel


98 86
96 84
Turbidity, NTU

Turbidity, NTU
94 82
92
80
90
88 78
86 76
84 74
82 72
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

a) Crab Shell b) Banana Peel

Rice Husk Cassava Peel


100 86

80 84
Turbidity, NTU

Turbidity, NTU

82
60
80
40
78
20
76
0 74
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

c) Rice Husk Ash d) Cassava Peel

41
Snail Shell Eggshell
87 85
86.5 84
Turbidity, NTU

Turbidity, NTU
86 83
82
85.5
81
85 80
84.5 79
84 78
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

e) Snail Shell f) Eggshell

Vigormin
100
Turbidity, NTU

80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4
Day

g) Vigormin

Figure 7. Turbidity versus Day

d) Total Suspended Solids

From the generated results in Table 9, only the eggshell and Vigormin conformed to the

DENR wastewater effluent standards up to the 4th day. Based from Figure 8, all of the materials

effect on the total suspended parameter decreased gradually. Hence, it could attain the

acceptable standard as the treatment progressed.

Table 9. Resulting TSS of wastewater per raw material

42
Total Suspended Solid (mg/L)
Raw Material (in powdered form) Formulation
Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 10g/L 260 170

Banana Peel 10g/L 260 240

Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 260 200

Cassava Peel 10g/L 260 145

Snail Shell 10g/L 260 205

Egg shell 10g/L 260 80

Vigormin 10g/L 260 10

Crab Shell Banana Peel


300 265
250 260
TSS, mg/L
TSS, mg/L

200 255
150 250
100 245
50 240
0 235
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

a) Crab Shell b) Banana Peel

43
Rice Husk Cassava Peel
300 300
250 250

TSS, mg/L
TSS, mg/L

200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

c) Rice Husk Ash d) Cassava Peel

Snail Shell Eggshell


300 300
250 250
TSS, mg/L

TSS, mg/L
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

e) Snail Shell f) Eggshell

Vigormin
300
250
TSS, mg/L

200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Day

g) Vigormin

Figure 8. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) versus Day

44
4.3 Formulation of Combinations

Based from the results generated from the primary water analysis, five combinations

consisting of different proportion of materials were formulated amounting to 10 grams in total

of powdered solid waste. The formulation of the different combinations was presented in Table

10.

Table 10. Five Combinations of Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder

Solid Waste Material, g

Rice TOTAL,
Combination Crab Banana Cassava Snail
Husk Eggshell g
Shell Peel Peel Shell
Ash

T1 0.5 0.5 6 0.5 0.5 2 10

T2 1 0.25 6 0.25 1 1.5 10

T3 1 0.5 5 0.5 1 2 10

T4 1 0.5 4 0.5 1 3 10

T5 2.11 0.26 3.68 0.26 0.53 3.16 10

4.4 Secondary Water Analysis

The physicochemical analysis on the wastewater after treatment with the five different

combination of organic solid waste powder were evaluated to determine their effectivity. The

odor, pH, COD, turbidity, and TSS were discussed respectively in this chapter.

4.4.1 Odor Analysis

Before subjection of the water sample to the different treatment, the odor of the samples

per treatment were assessed by 5 credible panelist and scaled from 1 to 10, as 1 being the most

favorable and 10 as the most unfavorable smell. The mean ratings of the panelists for treatment

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the initial wastewater odor were 8.4, 7.4, 8.2, 7.2 and 8 respectively. After

45
five days, the panelist again scaled the odor of the treated water and the values for treatment 1,

2, 3, 4 and 5 were found as 3.6, 5.2, 5.2, 5.6 and 4, respectively.

The correlations of the data of different treatment were shown in figure 9 that showed a

downward trend in the scale of odor of the water. Treatment 1 had the lowest mean of odor

with a percent reduction of 57.14% followed by Treatment 5 and 3 with a percent reduction of

50% and 36.59% respectively. The treatment that had the least percent reduction among the

other treatments were treatment 2 and 4 having a value of 29.73 % and 22.22 % respectively.

Table 11. Mean Value of the Odor Scale of Panels and the Percent Reduction per Treatment

Day T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

0 8.4 7.4 8.2 7.2 8

5 3.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4

% Reduction 57.1428571 29.72973 36.58537 22.22222 50

46
10

6
Odor (TON)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Day

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Figure 9. Mean Odor Scale per Treatment

Using SPSSv16, the effect of the treatment to the odor of the water per day were analyzed

by One-Way ANOVA statistical test. The results found that the treatment had a significant

effect on the odor of the water as it progressed in time as shown in Appendix C.2. The removal

of odor in the wastewater was an expected by-product of its treatment.

4.4.2 Power of Hydrogen Analysis

The water analysis results were tabulated in Table 12 for power of Hydrogen (pH) from its

initial concentration, 5th day and 7th day. Initial pH of the wastewater was at 7.45 and still

passed the standard of DENR DAO 2016-08 wastewater effluent standards. Five days after the

application of the treatments, the gathered data ranged from 7.69 up to 8.15 and 8 to 8.28 during

7th day. Treatment 1 and 3 (T1 and T3) gave the highest increase of the said parameter during

the first 5 days upon application. However, upon reaching its maximum point, the trend of the

5 treatment gradually decreased for samples T1 and T3 and showed positive results by

47
stabilizing its power of hydrogen (pH) level. Based from the data, Treatment 2, 4 and 5 can

also be applied in a more acidic wastewater.

Table 12. Comparative pH Values on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling.

Day T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin

0 7.45 7.45 7.45 7.45 7.45 7.45

5 8.15 7.82 8.01 7.69 7.72 8.15

7 8 8.19 8.05 8.09 8.28 7.95

8.4

8.3

8.2

8.1

8 T1
T2
pH

7.9
T3
7.8 T4
T5
7.7 VIGORMIN

7.6

7.5

7.4
0 2 4 6 8
DAY

Figure 10. Power of Hydrogen trend per Treatment (ppm)

Based on the data gathered using One-Way ANOVA method shown in the Appendix C.3,

it can be concluded that there was a significant difference in the initial pH of wastewater

48
compared to the pH value of the treated water. From the table of POS HOC it was found that

the significant difference were between the initial and the day 5 after the application of the

treating media having a significance of 00.0. However, the pH value from day 5 to day 7 found

to have no significant difference with 0.121 significance.

4.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis

The water analysis results for COD test showed the initial data and the data gathered at day

five and at day seven. The initial COD of the water was analyzed to be 227.964 ppm, this value

violated the standard set by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Administrative Order No. 2016-8 for effluents. After five days, the COD of the water from

Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Vigormin were analyzed to have 167.676, 263.76, 318.396, 346.656,

350.242 and 256.224 ppm respectively. On the seventh day upon subjection of the mixed

powdered solid waste material to the water, the COD of the water from Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

and Vigormin were analyzed to have 150.72, 233.616, 259.992, 271.296, 286.368 and 449.44

ppm respectively. The trend of the COD slightly increased in the first sampling (day five)

except for Treatment 1 which continuously had a decreased COD value until second sampling

(day seven). The COD then gradually decreased on the second sampling except for Vigormin.

The continuous decrease in COD value of the Treatment 1 showed its effectiveness in treating

water with the said parameter compared to the other combination.

Table 13. Comparative Chemical Oxygen Demand Values on Initial Sample, and on First and

Second Sampling.

Day T1 (ppm) T2 (ppm) T3 (ppm) T4 (ppm) T5 (ppm) Vigormin (ppm)

0 227.964 227.964 227.964 227.964 227.964 227.964

5 167.676 263.76 318.396 346.656 350.424 256.224

7 150.72 233.616 259.992 271.296 286.368 449.44

49
500

450

400

350

300
COD

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Day

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin

Figure 11 Chemical Oxygen Demand Trend per Treatment (ppm)

Based on the result generated by the Green Future Innovation, Inc. (GFII – Sta. Filomena,

San Mariano Isabela), Treatment 1 was the most effective combination for reducing COD in

the wastewater to which 33.88 % reduction resulted. Based on the Effluent standards

(Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 2016-

08), the effluent was categorized under class D and could be applied for navigation purpose.

However, as the graph showed a decreasing trend, it was possible for the effluent of Treatment

1 to meet the standards for higher effluent quality through time.

50
4.4.4 Turbidity Analysis

Figure 12 showed a decrease of turbidity value of water at the first and second sampling

(day five and seven, respectively). However, the turbidity values of Treatment 2, 3, 5 and

Vigormin suddenly increased at the second sampling. One of the reasons of fluctuation was

that the turbidity of the test had influenced by the way of sampling in every treatment. Since

the materials were settling, the water needed to be stagnant even on sampling.

The initial data gathered for the turbidity of water was found to be 109 Nephelometric

Turbidity Unit (NTU). After five days, the turbidity of the water from Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

and Vigormin were analyzed to have 37.7, 43.2, 29, 26, 34.7, and 16 NTU respectively. On the

seventh day upon subjection of the mixed powdered solid waste material to the water, the

Turbidity of the water from Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Vigormin were analyzed to have 26.3,

60.1, 53.1, 23, 93.9, and 20.3 NTU respectively. There was a significant decrease in the

turbidity of water in the first sampling (day five) with a mean percent reduction of 71.47 %

from the initial value of the turbidity of water. The Vigormin had the highest percent of

reduction (from the two sampling) of 81.38 % followed by Treatment 4 with 78.90 % and

Treatment 1 with 75.87 %. Treatment 3 has a mean percentage reduction of 51.28 % while

Treatment 2 and 5 has 44.86 % and 13.85 % reduction respectively.

Table 14. Comparative Turbidity Value on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling

Day T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin

0 109 109 109 109 109 109

5 37.7 43.2 29 26 34.7 16

7 26.3 60.1 53.1 23 93.9 20.3

51
120

100

80
Turbidity (NTU)

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Day

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin

Figure 12. Turbidity Trend per Treatment (NTU)

Using SPSSv16, the effect of the treatment and Vigormin to the turbidity per day were

analyzed by One-Way ANOVA statistical test. The results found that the treatments had a

significant effect on the turbidity of the water as it progressed in time as shown in Appendix

C.5. The water did not pass the maximum allowable turbidity for effluents with a value of 5

Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU). However, with the trend from Figure 10, the turbidity of

the water could meet the standards as time progressed.

4.4.5 Total Suspended Solids Analysis

Water analysis of the samples for the total suspended solid was shown below. The initial

total suspended solid (TSS) was analyzed and the resulted data was 75 ppm. Day 5 and day 7

results of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and Vigormin were listed in Table 15. During the first five days,

all treatments except T2 showed an increase in TSS then gradually decreased after 5 days.

Because the materials used in the treatment were in powdered form, it initially contributed to
52
the increase of TSS level. Treatment 2 (T2) showed its effectiveness by continuous decrease in

trend as shown in the Figure 13 compared to other treatments. However, after 5 days, other

treatment showed positive results with the decrease in the TSS trend. With this, as time

progressed, the TSS of the water will eventually meet the DENR effluent standard.

Table 15. Comparative Total Suspended Solids Value on Initial Sample, and on First and

Second Sampling

Day T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin

0 75 75 75 75 75 75

5 220 75 235 100 150 95

7 145 25 205 85 105 55

250

200

150
TSS

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DAY

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 VIGORMIN

Figure 13. Total Suspended Solids Trend per Treatment

53
Among the treatments, treatment 2 demonstrated the highest potential in terms of TSS

reduction with percentage reduction of 66.67% compared to Vigormin percentage reduction

amounting only to 26.67%.

4.5 Treatment Comparison with Vigormin

4.5.1 Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the treatments were statistically compared to Vigormin based on the

data collected on the monitored parameter using SPSSv16 One-Way ANOVA statistical test.

On pH value, the statistical tool computed a significance of 0.999 which was higher than set

value of alpha which is 0.05 (See Appendix C.3). This meant that there is no significant

difference on the effect of treatments to that of Vigormin in terms on their neutralizing

characteristic.

On comparing the effect of the treatments with that of Vigormin on COD of the wastewater,

the statistical tool showed a significance of 0.282 which showed that there was no significant

difference between the treatments and Vigormin on reducing COD of the wastewater (See

Appendix C.4). However, based on the results of the test, Treatment 1 surpassed Vigormin in

reducing the COD of wastewater.

One-Way ANOVA showed no significant difference between the treatments and Vigormin

on their effect on reducing the turbidity of water. The statistical tool showed 0.953 significance

on its ANOVA table which was higher than the set value of alpha which was 0.05 (Appendix

C.5). Based on the POS HOC test table, Treatment 1 and Treatment 4 were the most

comparable to Vigormin on turbidity reduction having significance equal to 1.

The effect of the treatments found to have no significant difference to that of Vigormin in

reducing the total suspended solid of the wastewater with significance of 0.116. Treatment 2

and 4 had the most comparable effect to Vigormin in terms TSS reduction having a significance

54
of 0.998 and 1 respectively (Appendix C.6). Treatment 2 surpassed Vigormin in reducing TSS

of the wastewater.

4.5.2 Cost Analysis

Cost analysis on the production of the compounded organic solid waste powder was done

to compare the cost of the product to that of the Vigormin. Since the acquisition of the organic

solid waste materials were free, they did not contributed much to the costing analysis. Table

16 shows the cost generated for using equipment. The Total cost generated were calculated by

determining the rate of electricity in Tuguegarao City per kilowatt hour (P10.1523) multiplying

it to the wattage used and the time were the equipment used. The total cost of the equipment

used were P326.497.

Table 16. Cost Analysis for Equipment Used

Cost
Equipment Power (W) Time Used
(Pesos)

Weighing Scale 10 2 0.203046

Oven 2000 16 324.8736

Grinder 35 4 1.421322

Total Cost 326.497968

*Basis of P 10.1523/ KWh rate of Cagelco 1

Table 17 showed the cost of labor for producing the product assuming the wage (P 350.00)

based on the minimum wage in Tuguegarao City. Four workers were assumed for the

production, which finished the work for a day (8 hours working hour per day). The total cost

of labor was P 1400.00.

55
Table 17. Cost Analysis for Expected Cost of Labor

Labor Rate/Day Number of Worker Cost (Pesos)

Worker 350 4 1400

Other expenses like the purchasing of packaging materials, containers used for the

production, and the transportation were accounted and found to have a total cost of P 350.00.

The data for these costs were found in Table 18.

Table 18. Cost Analysis for Other Expenses

Other expenses Cost (Pesos)

Packaging Materials 100

Materials Used for production 50

Transportation of Raw Material 200

Total 350

The total amount of materials produced were calculated for costing purpose. The mass of

product were added together in account that the possible excess materials can be used in the

next production. The total powdered materials were 17.198 Kg.

56
Table 19. Amount of Material Produced

Material Mass (Kg)

Crab Shell 2.625

Banana Peel 3.74

Rice Husk Ash 3.63

Cassava Peel 1.43

Snail Shell 2.423

Egg Shell 3.35

Total 17.198

The total cost of production was found to be P 2076.497968 diving the total mass of the

product produced, it was found that the product cost P 120.7406657. This was lower than the

market price of the Vigormin which was valued at P 202.00. The cost of the product was

expected to be lower when the product were produce in a large scale of production.

Table 20. Total Cost (Pesos)

Equipment 326.497968

Labour 1400

Other Expenses 350

P 2076.497968

57
Table 21. Cost per kilogram produced

Cost per Kg Produced

Total Cost of Production 2076.497968

Total Mass of Product Produced (Kg) 17.198

120.7406657 Pesos/Kg

58
Summary of Results:

Percent Remark
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard
reduction s

7.45 8 -7.38 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED

pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

227.964 150.72 33.88 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED

Class B (60 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED

T1 COD Class D (200 ppm) PASSED

Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (200 ppm) PASSED

Class SD (300 ppm) PASSED

75 145 -93.33 Class A (70 ppm) FAILED

Class B (85 ppm) FAILED

Total Class C (100 ppm) FAILED

Suspended Class D (150 ppm) PASSED

Solid Class SB (70 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (100 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (150 ppm) PASSED

59
Turbidity, 109 26.3 75.87 Maximum permissible (5 NTU) FAILED

NTU Drinking Standard (<1 NTU) FAILED

Odor 8.4 3.6 57.14 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED

Percent
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard Remarks
reduction

7.45 8.19 -9.93 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED

pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

227.964 233.616 -2.48 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED

Class B (60 ppm) FAILED

T2 Class C (100 ppm) FAILED

COD Class D (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (300 ppm) PASSED

75 25 66.67 Class A (70 ppm) PASSED

Total Suspended Class B (85 ppm) PASSED

Solid Class C (100 ppm) PASSED

Class D (150 ppm) PASSED

60
Class SB (70 ppm) PASSED

Class SC (100 ppm) PASSED

Class SD (150 ppm) PASSED

Maximum permissible (5
109 60.1 44.86 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
Drinking Standard (<1
FAILED
NTU)

Odor 7.4 5.2 29.73 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED

Percent
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard Remarks
reduction

7.45 8.05 -8.05 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED

pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

T3 Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

227.964 259.992 -14.05 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED

Class B (60 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED


COD
Class D (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (200 ppm) FAILED

61
Class SD (300 ppm) PASSED

75 205 -173.33 Class A (70 ppm) FAILED

Class B (85 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED


Total Suspended
Class D (150 ppm) FAILED
Solid
Class SB (70 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (100 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (150 ppm) FAILED

Maximum permissible (5
109 53.1 51.28 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
Drinking Standard (<1
FAILED
NTU)

Odor 8.2 5.2 36.59 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED

Percent
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard Remarks
reduction

7.45 8.09 -8.59 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED

pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED


T4
Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

COD 227.964 271.296 -19.01 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED

62
Class B (60 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED

Class D (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (300 ppm) PASSED

75 85 -13.33 Class A (70 ppm) FAILED

Class B (85 ppm) PASSED

Class C (100 ppm) PASSED


Total Suspended
Class D (150 ppm) PASSED
Solid
Class SB (70 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (100 ppm) PASSED

Class SD (150 ppm) PASSED

Maximum permissible (5
109 23 78.90 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
Drinking Standard (<1
FAILED
NTU)

Odor 7.2 5.6 22.22 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED

63
Percent
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard Remarks
reduction

7.45 8.28 -11.14 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED

pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

227.964 286.368 -25.62 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED

Class B (60 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED

T5 COD Class D (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (300 ppm) PASSED

75 105 -40.00 Class A (70 ppm) FAILED

Class B (85 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED


Total Suspended
Class D (150 ppm) PASSED
Solid
Class SB (70 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (100 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (150 ppm) PASSED

64
Maximum permissible (5
109 93.9 13.85 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
Drinking Standard (<1
FAILED
NTU)

Odor 8 4 50.00 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED

Percent
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard Remarks
reduction

7.45 7.95 -6.71 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED

pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

227.964 449.44 -97.15 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED


Vigormin
Class B (60 ppm) FAILED

Class C (100 ppm) FAILED

COD Class D (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED

Class SC (200 ppm) FAILED

Class SD (300 ppm) FAILED

Total Suspended 75 55 26.67 Class A (70 ppm) PASSED

Solid Class B (85 ppm) PASSED

65
Class C (100 ppm) PASSED

Class D (150 ppm) PASSED

Class SB (70 ppm) PASSED

Class SC (100 ppm) PASSED

Class SD (150 ppm) PASSED

Maximum permissible (5
109 20.3 81.38 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
Drinking Standard (<1
FAILED
NTU)

Odor N/A N/A N/A Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) N/A

66
CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

As one of the densely populated state university campus in the Region II, Cagayan State

University (CSU) Carig Campus at Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City has also been recognized to

the waste it generates every day, one is the kitchen wastewater generation. With this fact comes

the realization of the need of wastewater treatment in the campus in accordance to Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order (DAO) – PD 1069

including its adherence to DENR DAO No. 2016 -08 wastewater effluent standards.

Based on the results of the test on the effect of the treatments and Vigormin to the

wastewater physicochemical properties, it was found out that the treatments have no significant

effect on the pH of the water but can be said that it is effective in acidic water application as

seen an increase in pH values. Among the combinations, Treatment 1 had the most significant

reduction on water odor and COD with percent reduction of 57.14% and 33.88 % respectively.

While TSS had the highest significant reduction in treatment 2 with 66.67% reduction.

Treatment 4 had the highest reduction in turbidity among the treatments having 78.90%

reduction. It can be concluded that the compounded organic solid waste powder was effective

for the treatment of wastewater coming from the canteens of the Cagayan State University-

Carig Campus.

Vigormin is very famous today as it was recently used by the government and successfully

treat the water of Boracay and Manila bay. It is also widely used in the municipal wastewater

facilities. Using SPSSv16: one-way ANOVA, it was found that the study’s compacted organic

solid waste powder is comparable to the said commercial product based on the data of the

67
parameters observed. With this finding the product has a potential in the market given the raw

materials are abundant and of very low cost as it categorized to solid waste.

5.2 RECOMMENDATION

The following were highly recommended for future studies on the use and production of

the compacted organic solid waste powder for wastewater treatment:

1. Further optimization of the combination using statistical modelling. This is to guarantee the

optimal effectiveness of the product for wastewater treatment.

2. Design of vessel for the treatment to take place. This will reduce the factors that may affect

the treatment of water.

3. Design of plant for the production of the compacted organic solid waste powder. As a

potential market product for low cost wastewater treatment, the design of pilot plant is

recommended.

4. Determination of treatment time through statistical modelling. This will forecast the time

needed for the treated water to conform to the DENR effluent standards.

68
REFERENCES

aCarbons. (2015, December 15). Activated Charcoal As A Deodorizer. Retrieved from

WordPress: http://www.acarbons.com/activated-charcoal-as-a-deodorizer/

Agarwal, A. (2013). Removal of Cu and Pb from aqueous solution by using eggshell as an

adsorbent. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3, pp.198-202.

Ahmaruzzaman, M., & Gupta, V. K. (2011, October 28). Rice Husk and Its Ash as Low-Cost

Adsorbents in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Industrial and Engineering

Chemistry Research, 50, pp. 13589–13613.

Akpor, O. B. (2011). Wastewater Effluent Discharge: Effects and Treatment Processes.

IPCBEE. 20, pp. 85-91. Singapore: IACSIT Press. Retrieved from Lenntech Website.

Allen, S., McCallen, M., Healy, M., Wolki, M., & Ulbig, P. (2000). The use of egg shell

membrane as an adsorbent for the treatment of coloured waste effluents. In: Do, D.D.

(Ed.). Adsorption Science and Technology, 46-50.

Anita Morris, J. S. (2011). Use of Crustacean Shells for Uptake and Removal of Metal Ions in

Solutions. 242-250.

Aro, S. O., Aletor, V. A., Tewe, O. O., & Agbede, J. O. (2010). Nutritional potentials of

cassava tuber wastes: A case study of a cassava starch processing factory in south-

western Nigeria. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 22(11), 57-62. Retrieved from

http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/11/aro22213.htm

Asia, I., & Akpohonor, E. (2007). Characterization and Physicochemical Treatment of Waste

Water from Rubber Processing Industry. International Journal of Physical Science,,

61-67.

69
Baguyo, P. A., & Sariego, P. (2018, October 1). CORON, EL NIDO COUNTER PERILS OF

TOURIST BOOM WITH VIGORMIN. Retrieved from Department of Science and

Technology-MIMAROPA: http://region4b.dost.gov.ph/coron-el-nido-counter-perils-

of-tourist-boom-with-vigormin/

Carvalho, J., Ribeiro, A., Graca, J., Araujo, J., Vilarinho, C., & Castro, F. (2011). Adsorption

process onto an innovative eggshell-derived low-cost adsorbent in simulated effluent

and real industrial effluents. Book of Proceedings of the 1st International Conference,

(pp. 166-172). Guimarães, Portugal.

Chen, J., & Yuang, Y. (2016). Efficient adsorption of copper ion from aqueous solution by

amino-functioned porous eggshell membrane. Desalin Water Treat 57, 12178–12191.

Chincholi, e. a. (2013). Removal of dye by adsorption on various adsorbents: a review.

Chong Kian-Hen, K. P.-L. (2017). Potential of Banana Peels as Bio-Flocculant for Water

Clarification. Progress in Energy and Environment, 47-56. Retrieved from

http://www.akademiabaru.com/ProgEE.html

Choy, S., Murthy, K., Prasad, N., Wu, T., Raghunandan, M., & Ramanan, R. (2014).

Utilization of plant-based natural coagulants as future alternatives towards sustainable

water clarification. J. Environ.Sci., 26(11), 2178-2189.

Claudio, L. E. (2015). Wastewater Management in The Philippines. Environmental

Management Bureau Region 3.

CongCal, McGraths Limestone Works Ltd, Cong, Co. (2013, august 5). Environmental USes

for Calcium Carbonate. Retrieved from CongCal:

https://www.congcal.com/markets/environmental/

70
Crini, G. (2005, January). Recent Developments in Polysaccharide-Based Materials Used as

Adsorbents in Wastewater Treatment. Progress in Polymer Science, 30(1), 38-70.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2004.11.002

Daifullah, A. A., Girgis, B. S., & Gad, H. M. (2003). Utilization of agro-residues (rice husk)

in small waste water treatment plants. Mater. Lett., 57, 1723.

Dange, P., & Lad, R. (2016, November). Vascular Bundle of Wasted Leaf Stalk of Coconut

Tree as a Natural Coagulant to Treat Sewage Water. Indian Journal of Science and

Technology, 9(44), 1-6. doi:DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i44/101449, November 2016

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (2016, May 24). WATER QUALITY

GUIDELINES AND GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS OF 2016. Retrieved from

Department of Environment and Natural Resources:

https://server2.denr.gov.ph/uploads/rmdd/dao-2016-08.pdf

Diaz A, R. N. (1999). A preliminary evaluation of turbidity removal by natural coagulants

indigenous to Venezuela. ProcBiochem, 35(3-4), 391-395.

Feedwater. (n.d.). Coagulation. Coagulation and Flocculation Process Fundamentals.

Feedwater. (n.d.). Floculation. Coagulation and Flocculation Process Fundamentals.

Ferrer, J. P. (1996). Acid hydrolysis of shrimp-shell wastes and the production of single cell

protein from the hydrolysate. Bioresource Technology, 57(1), 55-60.

Fu, Y., Lu, N.-n., & Jian, H.-l. (n.d.). STUDY on STABILITY of a MODIFIED BANANA

PEEL COAGULANT. University of Jinan, Jinan, School of Civil Engineering and

Architecture. China: Shandong 250022.

GAHP. (2012). Pollution the silent killer of millios of in Poor Countries. Pollution the silent

killer of millios of in Poor Countries.

71
George, D., & Chandrn, A. (2018). Coagulation Performance Evaluation of Papaya Seed for

Purification of River Water. International Journal of Latest Technology in

Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS), 7(1).

Gota, M., & Suyama, K. (2000). Occlusion of transition ions by new adsorbents synthesized

from plant polyphenols and animal fibrous proteins. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol, 84-

86,1021-1038.

GreenPeace. (2010). The Problem. Retrieved from GREENPEACE Philippines:

www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/what-we-do/toxics/water-patrol/the-problem/

Gulay, B., Ilhami, T., Celik, G., Yilmaz, M. B., & Arica, M. Y. (2006). Biosorption of

mercury(II), cadmium(II) and lead(II) ions from aqueous system by microalgae

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii immobilized in alginate beads. Int. J. Miner. Process, 81,

35-43.

Guru, P., & Dash, S. (2014). Sorption on eggshell waste ‒ A review on ultrastructure,

biomineralization and other applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 209, 49-67.

Hefni, E., & Sari, R. D. (2015). Moringa oleifera as coagulant for batik effluent treatment.

(International Association for Impact Assessment) conference, 20, p. 6. Florence,

Italy.

Hong, e. a. (2002). Hapten synthesis and influence of coating ligands on enzyme -linked

immune reaction of ddt. Bulletin-Korean Chemical society.

Hunton, P. (2005, June). Research on Eggshell Structure and Quality: an Historical

Overview. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 7(2), 67-71. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2005000200001

72
Idris, J. e. (2012, September 13). Dragon Fruit Foliage Plant-Based Coagulant for Treatment

of Concentrated Latex Effluent: Comparison of Treatment with Ferric Sulfate. (D.

Sun, Ed.) Journal of Chemistry, 2013, 7. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/230860

Innofresh. (2017, March 17). "How Does Activated Carbon Works?". Retrieved from

Innofresh Website: https://innofresh.com/activated-charcoal/how-does-activated-

charcoal-work/

Ishikawa, S. S. (1998). Recovery and refining of Au by gold-cyanide ion biosorption using

animal fibrous proteins. Appl.Biochem. Biotechnol., 70(72), 719-728.

Ishikawa, S., Suyama, K., Arihara, K., & Itoh, M. (2002). Uptake and recovery of gold ions

from electroplating wastes using eggshell membrane. Bioresour. Technol., 81,210-

206.

Ismail, S. N., Mahiddin, N. A., & Praveena, S. M. (2018, February 28). The used of dragon

fruit peels as eco-friendly wastewater coagulants. Asian J Agri & Biol. 2018(Special

Issue), 66-71.

Janvijitsakul, K., & Kuprianov, V. I. (2007). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocar Hydrocarbons of

Thai Rice Husk. Asian J. Energy Environ., 8(4), 654.

Jatto, E., Asia, I., Egbon, E., Otutu, J., Chukwuedo, M., & Ewansiha, C. (2010). Treatment

Of Waste Water From Food Industry Using Snail Shell. Academia Arena, 2(1), 32-36.

Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242412669

Kim, S. K., & Rajapakse, N. (2005). Enzymatic production and biological activities of

chitosan oligosaccharides (COS): A review. Carbohydrate Polymers, 62(4), 357-368.

73
Kongkiattikajorn, J., & Sornvoraweatn, B. (2011, March). Comparative study of bioethanol

production from cassava peels by monoculture and co-culture of yeast jirasak.

Kasetsart Journal - Natural Science, 45(2), 268-274.

Koumanova, B., Peeva, P., Allen, S., Gallagher, K., & Healy, M. (2002). Biosorption from

aqueous solutions by eggshell membranes and Rhizopus oryzae: equilibrium and

kinetic studies. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 77(5), pp.539-

545.

Kumagai, S., Sasaki, K., & Enda, Y. (2009). Carbonization of rice husk to remove offensive

odor from livestock waste and compost. Article in Agricultural Wastes, 109-127.

Kumaraswamy, K., Dhananjaneyulu, B., Vijetha, P., & Kumar, Y. (2015). Kinetic and

equilibrium studies for the removal of chromium using eggshell powder. Research

Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences, 6(1), pp.529-532.

L Muruganandam, M. P. (2006). Treatment of waste water by coagulation and flocculation

using.

Lataye, D. H., Mishra, I. M., & Mall, I. D. (2009). Adsorption of α-picoline onto rice husk

ash and granular activated carbon from aqueous solution: Equilibrium and

thermodynamic study. Chem. Eng. J., 147, 139-149.

Lin, C.-C., Lee, M.-K., & Huang, H.-L. (2018). Effects of Chalk Use on Dust Exposure and

Classroom Air Quality. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15, 2596–2608. doi:doi:

10.4209/aaqr.2015.04.0216

Lin, K. S., Wang, H. P., Lin, C. J., & Juch, C. I. (1998). A process development for

gasification of rice husk. Fuel Process. Technol., 55, 185.

74
Madrona, G. B., Seolin, I., Filho, V., Klen, B., M.R.F., & Bergamasco, R. (2012). Evaluation

of extracts of Moringa oleifera Lam seeds obtained with NaCl and their effects on

water treatment. Acta Scientiarum, 34(3), 289-293.

Magtibay, B. (2006). Philippine Regulations on Sanitation and Wasteater Systems

(INTERNATIONAL EDITION ed.). Philippines.

Mansaray, K. G., & Ghaly, A. E. (1998). Thermal degradation of rice husks in nitrogen

atmosphere. Bioresour. Technol., 65, 13.

Maree, P., & Plessis, P. d. (1994). Neutralization of Acid Mine Water with Calcium

Carbonate. Division of Water Tech.

Maurya, S., & Daverey, A. (2018). Evaluation of plant-based natural coagulants for

municipal wastewater treatment. 3 Biotech, 8(77), 4.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1103-8

Meckonnen, M. M. (2016). Four Billion Facing Water Scarcity. Science Advances.

Mini, M., Mathew, A., G, J., N, A. V., & Alexander, C. S. (2015). Effectiveness of Banana

Peel and Moringa oleifera Seed Powders for the Treatment of Wastewater from an

Institutional Kitchen. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research

Development, 96-104.

Mizrahi, Y. a. (1999). Climbing and columnar cacti: New arid land fruit crops. In: J. Janick

(ed.), Perspectives on new crops and new uses (pp. 358-366). Alexandria, VA.: ASHS

Press,.

Mohd-Asharuddin, S., Othman, N., Zin, N. S., & Tajarudin, H. A. (2017, April 5). A

Chemical and Morphological Study of Cassava Peel: A Potential Waste as Coagulant

75
Aid. MATEC Web of Conferences. 103, p. 8. EDP Sciences.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710306012

Mor Suman, C. K. (2016, August 15). Application of agro-waste rice husk ash for the

removal of phosphate from the wastewater. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 673-

680.

Morton, J. (1987). Papaya. In: Fruits of Warm Climates, 336-346.

Natural Resources and Environment Board. (2001). Determination of Odour COncentration

in Water. Danish Cooperation For Environment and Development.

Ndabigengesere A, N. K. (1995). Active agents and mechanis m of coagulation of turbid

waters usingMoringa oleifera. Water Res, 703-710.

Negros Chronicle. (2018, February 17). Eco-friendly solutions to garbage woes. Retrieved

from The Negros Chronicle: https://negroschronicle.com/eco-friendly-solutions-to-

garbage-woes/

Nerd A and Mizrahi Y. (1997). Reproductive biology of cactus fruit crops. Horticultural Rev,

18, 321-346.

Neutralizer. (2018). Retrieved from Corrosionpedia:

https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/810/neutralizer

Nwadiogbu, J. (2015). Removal of crude oil from aqueous medium by sorption on

hydrophobic corncobs: Equilibrium and Kinetic studies. Journal of Taibah University

for Science.

Nwokoro, S. O., D., A. H., & Ikhinmwin A. F. (2005). Nutritional composition of garri

sievates collected from some locations in Southern Nigeria. Pakistan J. Nutr., 4(4),

257-261.

76
O, U. S., & Evbuomwan, B. (2014). The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For The

Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As Activating

Agent. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 37-41.

O, U. S., & Evbuomwan, B. O. (2014). The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For

The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As

Activating Agent. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 37-41.

Othman, N., N-S Abd- Rahim, S.-N.-F. T.-B.-A., & Kumar, V. (2018). A Pontential

Agriculture Waste Material as Coagulant Aid: Cassava Peel. IOP Conference Series:

Materials Science and Engineering. 311, p. 5. Johor, Malaysia: IOP Publishing.

doi:doi:10.1088/1757-899X/311/1/012022

Palencia, M. A., & Dural, C. A. (2016, September 7). Philippines Patent No. 000006.

Parsons, A. (1982). Structure of the eggshell. Poult. Sci., 61, 2013-2021.

Petrucci et. al., R. (2007). General Chemistry: Principles & Modern Applications (9th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Puckett, L. (1995). Identifying the major sources of nutrient water pollution. Environ. Sci.

Technol., 29(9), 408-414.

Putra, W., Kamari, A., Yusoff, S., Ishak, C., Mohamed, A., Hashim, N., & Isa, I. (2014).

Biosorption of Cu (II), Pb (II) and Zn (II) ions from aqueous solutions using selected

waste materials: Adsorption and characterisation studies. Journal of Encapsulation

and Adsorption Sciences.

Rahman, I. A., Ismail, J., & Osman, H. (1977). Effect of nitric acid digestion on

organicmaterials and silica in rice husks. J. Mater. Chem., 7, 1505.

77
Rajendran, R., Abirami, M., Prabhavathi, P., Premasudha, P., Kanimozhi, B., & Manikandan,

A. (2015). Biological treatment of drinking water by chitosan based nanocomposites.

African J. of Biotechnology, 14(11), 930-936.

Reference. (2018). What Is the Chemical Composition of Chalk? Retrieved from Reference

Website: https://www.reference.com/science/chemical-composition-chalk-

77236e4f4cdea582

Ridley, B., Neill, M., & Mohnen, D. (2001). Pectins:structure, biosynthesis, and

oligogalacturonide-related signaling. Phytochem., 57, 929-967.

Rohaizar, N., Hadi, N., & Sien, W. (2013). Removal of Cu (II) from water by adsorption on

chicken eggshell. Environmental Pollution, 117(2), 50-57.

Rojas, G., Rojasa, Silvaa, J., Floresb, J. A., Rodriguezb, A., Lyc, M., & Maldonadob, H.

(2005). Adsorption of chromium onto cross-linked chitosan. Separation and

Purification Technology, 44, 31-36.

Rowe, N. R. (2012, March 19). Odor Control with Activated Charcoal. Journal of the Air

Pollution Control Association, 13(4), 150-153. doi:DOI:

10.1080/00022470.1963.10468157

Rukzon, S., Chindaprasirt, P., & Mahachai, R. (2009). Effect of grinding on chemical and

physical properties of rice husk ash. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 16, 242.

S. M. Gawande, P. K. (2017, March). Analysis and Removal of Phosphate from Wastewater

by using Rice Husk. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology

(IRJET), 4(3), 2395-0056. Retrieved from www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

S.C. Smith, F. A. (2014).

78
Saduzaman, M., Sharmila, S., & Jeyanthi, R. (2013). Efficacy of leaf extract of Moringa

oleifera in treating domestic effluent. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical

Research, 5(2), 139-143.

Saha, B., & Orvig, C. (2010). Biosorbents for hexavalent chromium elimination from

industrial and municipal effluents. Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 254, 2959-2972.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2010.06.005

Santos, A. P., Teixeiraa, J., Britoa, A., Coelhob, L., & Nogueiraa, R. (2012). Coagulant

properties of Moringa oleifera protein preparations: application to humic acid

removal. Environmental Technology, 33, 69-75.

Schwarz, J., & Contescu, C. e. (1999). Surfaces of Nanoparticles and Porous Materials

(Vol.78). CRC Press.

ScienceStruck. (2018, January 29). How to Make Activated Charcoal. Retrieved from

ScienceStruck Website: https://sciencestruck.com/how-to-make-activated-charcoal

Shafad MR, A. I. (2013). A Preliminary Study on Dragon Fruit Foliage as Natural Coagulant

for Water Treatment. International J Eng Res Tech., 2(12), 1057-1063.

Shilpi, K., & Padmaja, S. (2011). Adsorption of mercury (II), methyl mercury (II) and phenyl

mercury (II) on chitosan cross-linked with a barbital derivative. Carbohydrate

Polymers, 86, 1055-1062. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.06.028

Sindhu, M., Begum, K., & Sugashini, S. (2012). A comparative study of surface modification

in carbonized ricehusk by acid treatment. Desalin. Water Treat, 45, 170-176.

79
Som, A. M., & Wahab, A. F. (2018). Performance Study of Dragon Fruit Foilage as a Plant-

Based Coagulant for Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent from Three Phase

Decanters. BioResources, 13(2), 4290-4300.

Sotheeswaran, S. N., V. Matakite, M., & Kanayathu, K. (2011). Moringa oleifera and other

local seeds in water purification in developing countries. Research Journal of

Chemistry and Environment, 15(2), 135-138.

Stadelman, W. (2000). Egg and egg products. In F. FJ, Encyclopedia of food Science and

technology (pp. 593-599). New York.

Stadelman, W. (2000). Eggs and egg products. In: Francis, F.J. (Ed.),second ed. New York,

United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.

Stuartxchange. (2018). Papaya: Carica Papaya Linn. Philippine Medicinal Plants.

Susheela, P., Sri, R., & Radha, R. (2014). Effectiveness of Moringa oleifera seeds in the

phytoremediation of pond water. Scrutiny International Research Journal of

Agriculture, Plant Biotechnology and Bio Products, 1(2), 34-42.

Suyama, K. F. (1994). A new biomaterial,hen egg shell membrane, to eliminate heavy metal

ion from their dilute waste solution. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 45(46), 871-879.

Tewe, O. O. (2004). Cassava for livestock feed in sub-Saharan Africa. Rome:

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT;.

The Boracay Beach. (2015, August 14). Vigormin: Boracay’s Eco-friendly Solution to Waste

Problems. Retrieved from The Boracay Beach Real Estate:

https://www.boracaybeachrealestate.com/mag/vigormin-boracays-eco-friendly-

solution-waste-problems/

80
Tilley et. al., E. (2016). Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies – (2nd Revised

Edition). Duebendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and

Technology.

Torres LG, 2. (2012). Use of Prosopis laevigata Seed Gum and Opuntia ficus-indica

Mucilage for the Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters by Coagulation-Flocculation.

Nat Res., 3, 35-41.

Tsai, W., Yang, J., Lai, C., Cheng, Y., Lin, C., & Yeh, C. (2006). Characterization and

adsorption properties of eggshells and eggshell membrane. Bioresour. Technol. 97(3),

488-493.

Tullett, S. (1987). Egg shell formation and quality. In: Wells, R.G.,Belyavin, C.G. (Eds.),.

Egg Quality—Current Problems and Recent Advances, pp. 123–146.

Unnisa, S. A., & Bi, S. Z. (2018). Carica papaya seeds effectiveness as coagulant and solar

disinfection in removal of turbidity and coliforms. Journal of Applied Water Science,

148-149.

Vieira AMS, V. M.-K. (2013). Use ofMoringa for refinery wastewater treatment in Warri,

Delta State, Nigeria. Int J Adv Biol Res, 17-20.

Wannapeera, J., Worasuwannarak, N., & Pipatmanomai, S. (2008). Product yields and

characteristics of rice husk, rice straw and corncob during fast pyrolysis in a drop-

tube/fixed-bed reactor. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., 30(3), 393.

WEPA. (2003). Philippines: Environment Monitor.

Williams, P. T., & Nugranad, N. (2000). Comparison of products from the pyrolysis and

catalytic pyrolysis of rice husks. Energy, 25, 493.

Yadav, P. (2017). Water Pollution Facts. The Borgen Project.

81
Yang, F., Liu, H., Qu, J., & J., P. C. (2011). Preparation and Characterization of chitosan

encapsulated sargassum sp. biosorbent for nickel ions sorption. Bioresource

Technology, 102, 2821-2828. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.038

Youchou Zhou, L. G. (2018). Adsorption of Congo red from aqueous solution onto shrimp

shell powder.

Zouboulis, & Tzoupanos. (2008).

ZOUBOULIS, N. D. (2008). COAGULATION-FLOCCULATION PROCESSES IN

WATER/WASTEWATER TREATMENT: THE APPLICATION OF NEW

GENERATION OF CHEMICAL REAGENTS .

Zulfikar, M., & Setiyanto, H. (2013). Adsorption of Congo red from aqueous solution using

powdered eggshell. Adsorption, 5(4), pp.1532-1540.

82
APPENDIX

Appendix A. DENR Administrative Order No. 2016-08 Effluent Standards

Table 22. Effluent Standards (Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Administrative Order No. 2016 – 08)

Water Body Classification


Parameter Units
AA A B C D SA SB SC SD

COD mg/L NDA 60 60 100 200 NDA 2 20 80

pH(Range) 6.0- 6.0- 6.0- 5.5- 6.5- 6.0- 5.5-


NDA NDA
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.0 9.0 9.5

Total Suspended
mg/L NDA 70 85 100 150 NDA 70 100 150
Solid

Appendix B. Data Tables for Primary Water Analysis

a) Power of Hydrogen

Raw Materials pH

Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 8.13 8.68

Banana Peel 8.13 6.52

Rice Husk 8.13 8.57

Cassava Peel 8.13 5.43

Snail Shell 8.13 8.57

Eggshell 8.13 8.41

Vigormin 8.13 8.22

83
b) Chemical Oxygen Demand

Raw Materials Chemical Oxygen Demand

Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 242.94 240.096

Banana Peel 242.94 1483.84

Rice Husk 242.94 137.76

Cassava Peel 242.94 1476

Snail Shell 242.94 310.94

Eggshell 242.94 184.99

Vigormin 242.94 141.7

c) Turbidity

Raw Materials Turbidity

Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 84.3 95.6

Banana Peel 84.3 73.5

Rice Husk 84.3 45.3

Cassava Peel 84.3 75.5

Snail Shell 84.3 86.8

Eggshell 84.3 78.9

Vigormin 84.3 23.3

84
d) Total Suspended Solids

Total Suspended Solids


Raw Materials
Initial Day 4

Crab Shell 260 170

Banana Peel 260 240

Rice Husk 260 200

Cassava Peel 260 145

Snail Shell 260 205

Eggshell 260 80

Vigormin 260 10

85
Appendix C. Secondary Water Analysis

Appendix C.1 Data Tables for Combinations

Day 5 Parameter

Total
Total
Turbidity Total Dissolved
pH COD Suspended
(NTU) Solids Solids
Solids

Control 7.45 227.964 109 600 525 75

Vigormin 8.15 256.224 16 605 510 95

T1 7.82 167.676 37.7 1160 940 220

T2 8.01 263.76 43.2 870 795 75

T3 7.69 318.396 29 1250 1015 235

T4 7.72 346.656 26 1205 1105 100

T5 8.15 350.424 34.7 1175 1025 150

Day 7 Parameter

Total Total

Turbidity Total Dissolved Suspended


pH COD
(NTU) Solids Solids Solids

86
Control 7.45 227.964 109 600 525 75

Vigormin 7.95 449.44 20.3 675 620 55

T1 8 150.72 26.3 1290 1145 145

T2 8.19 233.616 60.1 1065 1040 25

T3 8.05 259.992 53.1 1190 985 205

T4 8.09 271.296 23 1070 985 85

T5 8.28 286.368 93.9 1095 990 105

Appendix C.2 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Odor Analysis

Table 23 Scale of Panelist at initial Water Samples per Treatment

Day 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Panel 1 9 8 8 7 7

Panel 2 9 7 9 6 8

Panel 3 8 7 7 7 9

Panel 4 8 7 8 7 7

Panel 5 8 8 9 9 9

X0 8.40 7.40 8.20 7.20 8.00

Table 24 Scale of Panelist at Water Samples per Data After five Days

Day 5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Panel 1 1 4 5 6 1

Panel 2 4 6 5 5 6

87
Panel 3 3 4 5 5 4

Panel 4 5 5 6 5 4

Panel 5 5 7 5 7 5

X5 3.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4

ONEWAY MeanOdor BY Day

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS.

Oneway

Descriptives

Mean

Odor

95% Confidence Interval for


Std. Std.
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound

0 5 7.840 .5177 .2315 7.197 8.483 7.2 8.4

1 5 4.720 .8672 .3878 3.643 5.797 3.6 5.6

Total 10 6.280 1.7769 .5619 5.009 7.551 3.6 8.4

88
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Mean Odor

Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic

4.216 1 8 .074

ANOVA

Mean Odor

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 24.336 1 24.336 47.718 .000

Within Groups 4.080 8 .510

Total 28.416 9

89
Robust Tests of Equality of Means

Mean Odor

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 47.718 1 6.530 .000

Brown-
47.718 1 6.530 .000
Forsythe

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Means Plots

90
ONEWAY MeanOdor BY Treatment

91
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

Mean

Odor

95% Confidence Interval for


Std. Std.
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 6.000 3.3941 2.4000 -24.495 36.495 3.6 8.4

2 2 6.300 1.5556 1.1000 -7.677 20.277 5.2 7.4

3 2 6.700 2.1213 1.5000 -12.359 25.759 5.2 8.2

4 2 6.400 1.1314 .8000 -3.765 16.565 5.6 7.2

5 2 6.000 2.8284 2.0000 -19.412 31.412 4.0 8.0

Total 10 6.280 1.7769 .5619 5.009 7.551 3.6 8.4

92
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Mean Odor

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

4.853E15 4 5 .000

ANOVA

Mean Odor

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .696 4 .174 .031 .997

Within Groups 27.720 5 5.544

Total 28.416 9

93
Robust Tests of Equality of Means

Mean Odor

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch .015 4 2.408 .999

Brown-Forsythe .031 4 3.423 .997

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Means Plots

94
Post Hoc Tests

95
Multiple Comparisons

Mean Odor

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound

2 -.3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.745 9.145

3 -.7000 2.3546 .998 -10.145 8.745


1
4 -.4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.845 9.045

5 .0000 2.3546 1.000 -9.445 9.445

1 .3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.145 9.745

3 -.4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.845 9.045


2
4 -.1000 2.3546 1.000 -9.545 9.345

5 .3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.145 9.745

1 .7000 2.3546 .998 -8.745 10.145

2 .4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.045 9.845


3
4 .3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.145 9.745

5 .7000 2.3546 .998 -8.745 10.145

96
Multiple Comparisons

Mean Odor

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound

1 .4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.045 9.845

2 .1000 2.3546 1.000 -9.345 9.545


4
3 -.3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.745 9.145

5 .4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.045 9.845

1 .0000 2.3546 1.000 -9.445 9.445

2 -.3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.745 9.145


5
3 -.7000 2.3546 .998 -10.145 8.745

4 -.4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.845 9.045

97
Homogeneous Subsets

Mean Odor

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05


Treatment N
1

1 2 6.000

5 2 6.000

2 2 6.300

4 2 6.400

3 2 6.700

Sig. .998

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

98
Appendix C.3 ANOVA One-Way Factor for pH Analysis

ONEWAY pH BY Day

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

pH

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
Std. Std.

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

0 6 7.45 .000 .000 7.45 7.45 7 7

5 6 7.92 .208 .085 7.70 8.14 8 8

7 6 8.09 .123 .050 7.96 8.22 8 8

Total 18 7.82 .309 .073 7.67 7.98 7 8

99
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

pH

Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic

16.526 2 15 .000

ANOVA

pH

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.334 2 .667 34.247 .000

Within Groups .292 15 .019

Total 1.626 17

100
Robust Tests of Equality of Means

pH

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 89.014 2 6.667 .000

Brown-Forsythe 34.247 2 8.101 .000

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Means Plots

101
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

pH

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) Day (J) Day Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound

5 -.473* .081 .000 -.68 -.26


0
7 -.643* .081 .000 -.85 -.43

0 .473* .081 .000 .26 .68


5
7 -.170 .081 .121 -.38 .04

0 .643* .081 .000 .43 .85


7
5 .170 .081 .121 -.04 .38

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

102
Homogeneous Subsets

pH

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Day N 1 2

0 6 7.45

5 6 7.92

7 6 8.09

Sig. 1.000 .121

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

103
Appendix C.4 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis

ONEWAY COD BY Day

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

COD

95% Confidence Interval

for Mean

Std. Lower Upper

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum

0 6 2.27964E2 .000000 .000000 227.96400 227.96400 227.964 227.964

1 6 2.83856E2 69.617985 2.842142E1 210.79641 356.91559 167.676 350.424

2 6 2.75239E2 97.933974 3.998138E1 172.46326 378.01407 150.720 449.440

Total 18 2.62353E2 69.896887 1.647485E1 227.59398 297.11179 150.720 449.440

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

COD

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

3.276 2 15 .066

104
ANOVA

COD

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10866.136 2 5433.068 1.129 .349

Within Groups 72188.636 15 4812.576

Total 83054.772 17

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

COD

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 2.393 2 6.667 .165

Brown-Forsythe 1.129 2 9.025 .365

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

105
Means Plots

106
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

COD

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) Day (J) Day Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 -55.892000 4.005236E1 .368 -159.92683 48.14283


0
2 -47.274667 4.005236E1 .482 -151.30949 56.76016

0 55.892000 4.005236E1 .368 -48.14283 159.92683


1
2 8.617333 4.005236E1 .975 -95.41749 112.65216

0 47.274667 4.005236E1 .482 -56.76016 151.30949


2
1 -8.617333 4.005236E1 .975 -112.65216 95.41749

107
Homogeneous Subsets

COD

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05


Day N
1

0 6 227.96400

2 6 275.23867

1 6 283.85600

Sig. .368

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

108
ONEWAY COD BY Treatment

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

COD

95% Confidence Interval

Std. for Mean


N Mean Std. Error Minimum Maximum
Deviation Lower Upper

Bound Bound

0 3 3.11209E2 120.542295 6.959513E1 11.76567 610.65299 227.964 449.440

1 3 1.82120E2 40.597176 2.343879E1 81.27102 282.96898 150.720 227.964

2 3 2.41780E2 19.243871 1.111045E1 193.97557 289.58443 227.964 263.760

3 3 2.68784E2 45.852602 2.647301E1 154.87982 382.68818 227.964 318.396

4 3 2.81972E2 60.061888 3.467675E1 132.77000 431.17400 227.964 346.656

5 3 2.88252E2 61.251735 3.536371E1 136.09426 440.40974 227.964 350.424

Total 18 2.62353E2 69.896887 1.647485E1 227.59398 297.11179 150.720 449.440

109
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

COD

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

2.753 5 12 .070

ANOVA

COD

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 31033.635 5 6206.727 1.432 .282

Within Groups 52021.137 12 4335.095

Total 83054.772 17

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

COD

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 1.538 5 5.284 .318

Brown-Forsythe 1.432 5 5.512 .342

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

110
Means Plots

111
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

COD

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I-
Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J)
Bound Bound

1 129.089333 5.375931E1 .230 -51.48393 309.66259

2 69.429333 5.375931E1 .784 -111.14393 250.00259

0 3 42.425333 5.375931E1 .964 -138.14793 222.99859

4 29.237333 5.375931E1 .993 -151.33593 209.81059

5 22.957333 5.375931E1 .998 -157.61593 203.53059

0 -129.089333 5.375931E1 .230 -309.66259 51.48393

2 -59.660000 5.375931E1 .868 -240.23326 120.91326

1 3 -86.664000 5.375931E1 .606 -267.23726 93.90926

4 -99.852000 5.375931E1 .469 -280.42526 80.72126

5 -106.132000 5.375931E1 .408 -286.70526 74.44126

0 -69.429333 5.375931E1 .784 -250.00259 111.14393

1 59.660000 5.375931E1 .868 -120.91326 240.23326

2 3 -27.004000 5.375931E1 .995 -207.57726 153.56926

4 -40.192000 5.375931E1 .971 -220.76526 140.38126

5 -46.472000 5.375931E1 .948 -227.04526 134.10126

112
Multiple Comparisons

COD

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference
Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment (I-J)
Bound Bound

0 -42.425333 5.375931E1 .964 -222.99859 138.14793

1 86.664000 5.375931E1 .606 -93.90926 267.23726

3 2 27.004000 5.375931E1 .995 -153.56926 207.57726

4 -13.188000 5.375931E1 1.000 -193.76126 167.38526

5 -19.468000 5.375931E1 .999 -200.04126 161.10526

0 -29.237333 5.375931E1 .993 -209.81059 151.33593

1 99.852000 5.375931E1 .469 -80.72126 280.42526

4 2 40.192000 5.375931E1 .971 -140.38126 220.76526

3 13.188000 5.375931E1 1.000 -167.38526 193.76126

5 -6.280000 5.375931E1 1.000 -186.85326 174.29326

0 -22.957333 5.375931E1 .998 -203.53059 157.61593

1 106.132000 5.375931E1 .408 -74.44126 286.70526

5 2 46.472000 5.375931E1 .948 -134.10126 227.04526

3 19.468000 5.375931E1 .999 -161.10526 200.04126

4 6.280000 5.375931E1 1.000 -174.29326 186.85326

113
Homogeneous Subsets

COD

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Treatment N 1

1 3 182.12000

2 3 241.78000

3 3 268.78400

4 3 281.97200

5 3 288.25200

0 3 311.20933

Sig. .230

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

114
Appendix C.5 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Turbidity Analysis

ONEWAY Turbidity BY Day

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

Turbidity

95% Confidence Interval for


Std. Std.
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound

0 6 109.00 .000 .000 109.00 109.00 109 109

1 6 31.10 9.606 3.922 21.02 41.18 16 43

2 6 46.12 28.709 11.721 15.99 76.25 20 94

Total 18 62.07 38.409 9.053 42.97 81.17 16 109

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Turbidity

Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic

11.185 2 15 .001

115
ANOVA

Turbidity

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 20496.448 2 10248.224 33.546 .000

Within Groups 4582.488 15 305.499

Total 25078.936 17

Robust Tests of Equality of Meansb

Turbidity

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch . . . .

Brown-
. . . .
Forsythe

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

b. Robust tests of equality of means cannot be performed

for Turbidity because at least one group has 0 variance.

116
Means Plots

117
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Turbidity

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) Day (J) Day Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 77.900* 10.091 .000 51.69 104.11


0
2 62.883* 10.091 .000 36.67 89.10

0 -77.900* 10.091 .000 -104.11 -51.69


1
2 -15.017 10.091 .324 -41.23 11.20

0 -62.883* 10.091 .000 -89.10 -36.67


2
1 15.017 10.091 .324 -11.20 41.23

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

118
Homogeneous Subsets

Turbidity

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05


Day N
1 2

1 6 31.10

2 6 46.12

0 6 109.00

Sig. .324 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

119
ONEWAY Turbidity BY Treatment

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

Turbidity

95% Confidence Interval for


Std. Std.
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound

0 3 48.43 52.496 30.309 -81.97 178.84 16 109

1 3 57.67 44.820 25.877 -53.67 169.01 26 109

2 3 70.77 34.172 19.729 -14.12 155.66 43 109

3 3 63.70 41.040 23.694 -38.25 165.65 29 109

4 3 52.67 48.809 28.180 -68.58 173.92 23 109

5 3 79.20 39.271 22.673 -18.35 176.75 35 109

Total 18 62.07 38.409 9.053 42.97 81.17 16 109

120
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Turbidity

Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic

.351 5 12 .872

ANOVA

Turbidity

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Between Groups 1996.489 5 399.298 .208 .953

Within Groups 23082.447 12 1923.537

Total 25078.936 17

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

Turbidity

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch .142 5 5.581 .975

Brown-
.208 5 11.154 .952
Forsythe

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

121
Means Plot

122
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Turbidity

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound

1 -9.233 35.810 1.000 -129.52 111.05

2 -22.333 35.810 .987 -142.62 97.95

0 3 -15.267 35.810 .998 -135.55 105.02

4 -4.233 35.810 1.000 -124.52 116.05

5 -30.767 35.810 .949 -151.05 89.52

0 9.233 35.810 1.000 -111.05 129.52

2 -13.100 35.810 .999 -133.38 107.18

1 3 -6.033 35.810 1.000 -126.32 114.25

4 5.000 35.810 1.000 -115.28 125.28

5 -21.533 35.810 .989 -141.82 98.75

0 22.333 35.810 .987 -97.95 142.62

1 13.100 35.810 .999 -107.18 133.38

2 3 7.067 35.810 1.000 -113.22 127.35

4 18.100 35.810 .995 -102.18 138.38

5 -8.433 35.810 1.000 -128.72 111.85

123
Multiple Comparisons

Turbidity

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound

0 15.267 35.810 .998 -105.02 135.55

1 6.033 35.810 1.000 -114.25 126.32

3 2 -7.067 35.810 1.000 -127.35 113.22

4 11.033 35.810 1.000 -109.25 131.32

5 -15.500 35.810 .998 -135.78 104.78

0 4.233 35.810 1.000 -116.05 124.52

1 -5.000 35.810 1.000 -125.28 115.28

4 2 -18.100 35.810 .995 -138.38 102.18

3 -11.033 35.810 1.000 -131.32 109.25

5 -26.533 35.810 .972 -146.82 93.75

0 30.767 35.810 .949 -89.52 151.05

1 21.533 35.810 .989 -98.75 141.82

5 2 8.433 35.810 1.000 -111.85 128.72

3 15.500 35.810 .998 -104.78 135.78

4 26.533 35.810 .972 -93.75 146.82

124
Homogeneous Subsets

Turbidity

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Treatment N 1

0 3 48.43

4 3 52.67

1 3 57.67

3 3 63.70

2 3 70.77

5 3 79.20

Sig. .949

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

125
Appendix C.6 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Total Suspended Solids Analysis

ONEWAY TSS BY Treatment

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH

/PLOT MEANS

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Oneway

Descriptives

TSS

95% Confidence Interval for


Std. Std.
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound

0 3 75.00 20.000 11.547 25.32 124.68 55 95

1 3 146.67 72.514 41.866 -33.47 326.80 75 220

2 3 58.33 28.868 16.667 -13.38 130.04 25 75

3 3 171.67 85.049 49.103 -39.61 382.94 75 235

4 3 86.67 12.583 7.265 55.41 117.92 75 100

5 3 110.00 37.749 21.794 16.23 203.77 75 150

Total 18 108.06 59.065 13.922 78.68 137.43 25 235

126
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

TSS

Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic

2.547 5 12 .086

ANOVA

TSS

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 28690.278 5 5738.056 2.249 .116

Within Groups 30616.667 12 2551.389

Total 59306.944 17

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

TSS

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 1.325 5 5.310 .377

Brown-
2.249 5 5.655 .183
Forsythe

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

127
Means Plots

128
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

TSS

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound

1 -71.667 41.242 .535 -210.20 66.86

2 16.667 41.242 .998 -121.86 155.20

0 3 -96.667 41.242 .249 -235.20 41.86

4 -11.667 41.242 1.000 -150.20 126.86

5 -35.000 41.242 .952 -173.53 103.53

0 71.667 41.242 .535 -66.86 210.20

2 88.333 41.242 .330 -50.20 226.86

1 3 -25.000 41.242 .989 -163.53 113.53

4 60.000 41.242 .696 -78.53 198.53

5 36.667 41.242 .942 -101.86 175.20

0 -16.667 41.242 .998 -155.20 121.86

1 -88.333 41.242 .330 -226.86 50.20

2 3 -113.333 41.242 .136 -251.86 25.20

4 -28.333 41.242 .980 -166.86 110.20

5 -51.667 41.242 .804 -190.20 86.86

129
Multiple Comparisons

TSS

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval


(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound

0 96.667 41.242 .249 -41.86 235.20

1 25.000 41.242 .989 -113.53 163.53

3 2 113.333 41.242 .136 -25.20 251.86

4 85.000 41.242 .366 -53.53 223.53

5 61.667 41.242 .673 -76.86 200.20

0 11.667 41.242 1.000 -126.86 150.20

1 -60.000 41.242 .696 -198.53 78.53

4 2 28.333 41.242 .980 -110.20 166.86

3 -85.000 41.242 .366 -223.53 53.53

5 -23.333 41.242 .992 -161.86 115.20

0 35.000 41.242 .952 -103.53 173.53

1 -36.667 41.242 .942 -175.20 101.86

5 2 51.667 41.242 .804 -86.86 190.20

3 -61.667 41.242 .673 -200.20 76.86

4 23.333 41.242 .992 -115.20 161.86

130
Homogeneous Subsets

TSS

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05


Treatment N
1

2 3 58.33

0 3 75.00

4 3 86.67

5 3 110.00

1 3 146.67

3 3 171.67

Sig. .136

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

131
Appendix D. Letters

132
133
Documentation

1. Solid Waste Powder Production

a. Collection of Raw Materials

Banana Peels Eggshells

Crab Shells Snail Shells

134
Cassava Peels Rice Husk Ash

b. Preparation and Weighing of Raw Materials

Weighing of the different Raw Materials

135
c. Heat Treatment

136
d. Grinding and Particle Sizing

137
2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment Procedure

a. Collection Of Wastewater

138
b. Laboratory Material Preparation

139
140
141
Combinations

c. Testing

142
Equipment used for TSS Testing

143
Equipment used for COD Testing

144
Before and after Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment
145
146