Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com Current Opinion in
ScienceDirect
Review Article
Electrochemical treatment of slaughterhouse and
dairy wastewater: Toward making a sustainable
process
Miguel A. Sandoval1,2 and Ricardo Salazar1
Abstract
The industrial processing of meat and dairy production uses
large amounts of fresh water, therefore, generates a significant
volume of wastewaters. The treatment of these effluents has
been performed using different technologies from biological to
electrochemical advanced oxidation processes. Under the
circular economy concept, the lack of available freshwater re-
sources has increased the interest in reusing wastewater from
slaughterhouses, and even in the recovering of by-products.
This article reviews the application of electrochemical treat-
ments to slaughterhouse and dairy wastewaters. In addition,
an overview of added-value products and energy recovery
from these industrial wastewaters is also presented with future
perspectives.
Addresses
1
Universidad de Santiago de Chile USACH, Facultad de Química y
Biología, Departamento de Química de los Materiales, Laboratorio de
Electroquímica Medio Ambiental, LEQMA, Casilla 40, Correo 33,
Santiago, Chile
2
Universidad de Guanajuato, Departamento de Ingeniería Química,
Norial Alta S/N, 36050 Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
Corresponding author: Salazar, Ricardo (ricardo.salazar@usach.cl)
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
This review comes from a themed issue on Electrochemical Technol-
ogies for Wastewater Treatement
Edited by Carlos A Martínez-Huitle, Manuel Andres Rodrigo and
Ignacio Sirés
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 3 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2020.100662
2451-9103/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Slaughterhouse/dairy wastewater, Electrocoagulation, Electrochemical
advanced oxidation processes, Added-value products, Circular
economy.
Introduction
The undeniable growth of world population is causing an
expansion in the food and beverages production sector
and, consequently, an increase in the discharge of
wastewater. According to The World Bank Group [1],
the manufacturing of animal products for human
www.sciencedirect.com
Electrochemistry
consumption (meat and dairy products) uses around
25% of the total freshwater consumed by the whole food
and beverage industry. Therefore, the environmental
impact of the animal product processing industries must
be reduced. The first objective of this article is to focus
on the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater (SWW)
and dairy wastewater (DWW). The characteristics of
SWW and DWW depend on the nature of the process.
However, this type of wastewater contains high strength
of organic pollutants (reducing the amount of dissolved
oxygen), macropollutants such as phosphorous and ni-
trogen (eutrophication of water), and micropollutants
such as viruses and veterinary drugs (toxic to aquatic
life). Then, the main indicators to evaluate SWW/DWW
quality are total organic carbon (TOC), biological
oxygen demand (BOD5) chemical oxygen demand
(COD) total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen
(TN), and total phosphorous (TP). However, TOC and
COD removal efficiencies are the most widely used
parameters for wastewater monitoring. In addition, the
total coliform bacteria count is an important parameter
in the disinfection analysis. Table 1 shows the main
guideline values for water reuse (irrigation) from meat
and dairy process effluents [2e4].
To achieve the permissible limits, preliminary, primary,
secondary, and even tertiary treatment methods have
been performed. Valta et al. [5] grouped these tech-
nologies in land application, physicochemical treatment,
biological treatment, advanced oxidation process
(AOPs), and hybrid processes. Advantages and disad-
vantages of each group have been well described by
Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar [6].
In this review, we discuss the recent literature on SWW/
DWW treatment using electrochemical techniques, as
well as hybrid systems (Table 2). This article also pre-
sents an overview of the recovery of valuable by-
products and power generation under circular economy
principles [7].
Electrochemical technologies for the
treatment of SWW and DWW
Preliminary treatment is used to remove solids and large
particles generated after the slaughtering process. One
of the primary treatments used in SWW/DWW is
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
2 Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatement
precipitation by acid addition. Prazeres et al. [8] used
strong acids such as sulfuric, nitric, and hydrochloric
acids, and they observed COD and turbidity removal
efficiencies between 87e92% and 94e96%, respec-
tively. Biological SWW/DWW treatment is mainly
applied as a secondary treatment. Aerobic and anaerobic
processes are used. Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar [9]
studied a combined biological process (anaerobic baffled
reactor and aerobic activated sludge reactor) to treat
meat processing effluents. They observed TOC and TN
removal efficiencies of 85 and 72%, respectively. In
addition, the biogas generation was analyzed.
AOPs such as Fenton, electro-Fenton (EF), high-
frequency ultrasonication, photoelectro-Fenton (PEF),
solar photo-Fenton, sono-Fenton, UV/H2O2,
photocatalytic-ozonation (UV/TiO2/O3), and vacuum
UV-photolysis are becoming a post-treatment alterna-
tive in SWW/DWW [10e18], which have reached TOC/
COD removal efficiencies above 80%. However, in some
cases, a poor removal was obtained, which is attributed
to the characteristics of SWW/DWW. According to the
optimization of operating parameters, the recycle ratio is
highly significant to meet a maximum TOC removal
value (if a reactor with recirculation is used), which is
attributed to the retention time. When the SWW/DWW
contains higher organic matter concentration, a contin-
uous mode of operation is preferred at slow flow rate.
In acidic medium, the cathodic two-electron reduction
of injected air into the solution at the cathode surface
prevails (Eq. (1)). It is important to note that the use of
carbonaceous cathodes increases the electrogeneration
of H2O2. Therefore, in the case of Fenton-based pro-
cesses, where the highest TOC/COD removal effi-
ciencies are obtained due to the production of hydroxyl
radicals (
OH) (Eq. (2)) [19], pH is the most important
factor (optimal pH value of 3).
O2 þ 2H þ þ 2e /H2 O2
Fe2þ þ H2 O2 /Fe3þ þ
OH þ OH 
Over the last few years, different electrochemical
technologies such as electrochemical advanced oxida-
tion processes (EAOPs) and electrocoagulation (EC)
have been studied to treat SWW/DWW. Electrochemical
oxidation (EO), also called anodic oxidation (AO), is the
simplest EAOP. Ozturk and Yilmaz [20] assessed SWW
treatment through AO using a Ti/Pt anode. They found
removal efficiencies of 88, 92.2, 93.5, and 99.9% for
TOC, COD, TN, and color, respectively. In this type of
process, the current density (j) limits the reaction rate.
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
An increase in j increases the concentration of oxidants
(M(
OH)) (Eq. (3)).
M þ H2 O/Mð
OHÞ þ H þ þ e 3
The removal of recalcitrant organics may be improved by
coupling the AO process with hydrogen peroxide (AO-
H2O2) and ultraviolet C light (AO-UVC-H2O2) [21].
The presence of chloride ions in SWW/DWW partici-
pates in the indirect oxidation.
Vidal et al. assessed the degradation of the organic
matter contained in real [22] and synthetic SWW [23]
using a combined biological (anaerobic digestion)/EAOP
(solar PEF) process. COD removal efficiency above 91%
was achieved. Moreover, an uncolored solution was
observed. The solar PEF is considered a clean, renew-
able, and cheap alternative. The highest removal effi-
ciency is based on the regeneration of ferrous ion with
additional generation of
OH (Eq. (4)) and the photo-
decarboxylation of complexes of ferric ion (Eq. (5)).
FeðOHÞ2þ þ hv/Fe2þ þ
OH 4
FeðOOCRÞ2þ þ hv/Fe2þ þ CO2 þ R
5
EC is an electrochemical technique that aims to remove
existing contaminants from SWW. Once the electrodes
are connected to an external power supply, the oxidation
process starts at the anode, generating metallic cations.
Concurrently, water is reduced to form hydrogen gas
bubbles and hydroxide ions at the cathode.
n
MðsÞ þ nH2 O/MðOHÞn þ H2 6
2
1
A charge neutralization of pollutants present in SWW/
DWW is induced when an isoelectric point is reached by
2 the coagulating agents (M(OH)n) (Eq. (6)) [24]. These
species collide resulting in fast-growing, larger, and
adsorbent flocs that induce the removal of pollutants. At
subsequent stages, flocs are removed from water by
physical separation processes.
EC has been performed alone or in combination with
other processes such as electroflotation, EO/reduction
(EOR), peroxi-EC, and phytoremediation [25e34]. In
EC tests, COD removal is more notorious at the
beginning of the treatment of SWW/DWW because both
organic pollutants and generated iron/aluminum hy-
droxides are available in sufficiently large quantities,
www.sciencedirect.com
 Electrochemical meat/dairy wastewater treatments Sandoval and Salazar
Table 1
Main standard effluent criteria for water reuse.
Parameter Standard
Color Colorless
Odor Odorless
pH 6–9
Conductivity (dS m−1) <0.7
Total organic carbon (mg L−1) 2
Chemical oxygen demand (mg L−1) 250
Biological oxygen demand (mg L−1) 50
Turbidity (NTU) 5–10
Total phosphorus (mg L−1) 2 EAOPs, they observed that sludge produced can retain
Total nitrogen (mg L−1) 8–10
Oil and grease (mg L−1) 10
Total suspended solids (mg L−1) 10–30
Total coliform bacteria (MPN/100 mL) 100
*MPN, most probable number.
which allow a rapid removal of contaminants [27e
29,34,34]. Subsequently, as the EC process continues,
COD concentrations decrease because of more coagu-
lant species inside the electrochemical cell are stored;
thereby, a stable stage is reached. Current density and
pH are the most important operating parameters to
supervise. The quantity of dissolved metal ions pro-
duced at the anode depends on the applied current
density and electrolysis time. Therefore, the organic
matter removal increases as current density rises
[25,27,28,31,32,34]. However, higher j values produce
gas bubbling (hydrogen and oxygen production at the
cathode and anode, respectively), which may decrease
the organic compounds removal efficiency [26,31].
During the EC process, constant changes in the pH are
observed due to the production of hydroxyl ions. The
type and quantity of coagulant species present in the
solution are relevant because they may interact in
distinct ways with organic matter affecting the removal
efficiency. COD removal efficiencies above 95% have
been found at neutral pH together with the formation of
where insoluble metal hydroxides [28,29,32]. SWW/
DWW usually displays high electrical conductivity.
However, in some cases, the addition of a supporting
electrolyte to enhance electrolytic conductance is
necessary. This helps to prevent the formation of oxide
layer, dwindling the ohmic drop and consequently, the
energy consumption and process cost is diminished.
NaCl, Na2SO4, and CaCl2 have been used in agri-food
wastewater treatments [25,28,33,34]. Finally, the elec-
trode material, the electrode configuration, and the
mode of operation influence the EC process efficiency. A
combination of aluminum/iron electrodes showed better
performance by obtaining a lower residual concentration
of COD [32,34]. In addition, monopolar and bipolar
configurations have been assessed [25,27,29,32]. The
easy installation, operation, and change of the opera-
tional variables (if necessary), as well as the sampling
www.sciencedirect.com
3
during the electrolysis, have made the batch mode of
operation the most used [26,31,32,34]. However, based
on the characteristics of SWW/DWW, the continuous
operation mode is recommended because it saves elec-
trolysis time, operating costs, and energy consumption,
as well as reducing sludge generation [27,28]. Analyses
of the obtained flocs have shown the presence of several
elements such as carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, and ni-
trogen, which corroborate their organic content (poly-
saccharides and phosphodiesters) [27,34]. Moreover,
Bruguera-Casamada et al. [35] analyzed the pathogen
inactivation of different bacteria using EC process and
active bacteria.
In this context, the disinfection of SWW/DWW (water
microbial quality) is critical when treated water is
reused for irrigation purposes. Solar photolysis and
photocatalysis, cold plasma, EF, PEF, and EC processes
have shown high deactivation efficiency (>99%) of
heterotrophic, staphylococcus aureus, lactic acid,
Escherichia coli, and enterococci bacteria in SWW/DWW
[35e39]. In the same vein, blood and the integumentary
system components present in agri-food wastewaters
contribute to odor pollution as well. Through the UV/
TiO2/O3 process, Buyukada [40] degraded the hazard-
ous and non-hazardous odor compounds contained in
turkey SWW, such as dimethylsilanediol, diisobutyl
phthalate, acetic acid, 2-(isobutoxycarbonyl) benzoic
acid, and acetamide, among others.
Meat/dairy processing, from animal husbandry to
intensive slaughtering activities, uses high quantity of
pharmaceuticals (Phs) and steroid hormones of envi-
ronmental concern. Therefore, the SWW/DWW treat-
ment must consider the occurrence of typical Phs, such
as antibiotics [41]. Mondal et al. [42] investigated the
use of different AOPs to eliminate ciprofloxacin from
synthetic water in semibatch reactors. A complete
removal of this antibiotic was observed during 25 min by
modified photo-Fenton process (combining nano zero
valent iron particles). Rahmani et al. [43] degraded
more than 90% through different pathways when a
combined electrooxidation-ozonation process was used.
Bueno et al. [44] abated ciprofloxacin (>80%) using an
EC-peroxidation process that consisted in stainless steel
electrodes. The electrochemical sludge produced
(Fe3O4) after the EC process has been efficiently used
to remove ciprofloxacin [45]. The removal of cyper-
methrin (pesticide) from livestock wastewater was
assessed by Pinedo-Hernández et al. [46] using the EC
process. They observed removal efficiencies of COD
and cypermethrin of 93 and 96%, respectively, at pH 5,
29.5 V, and electrolysis time of 30 min. Ultraviolet light-
emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) has showed high removal
efficiencies in the degradation of erythromycin and
metoprolol. The effect of chlorine dosage and TiO2
nanotubes on the photolytic degradation was studied by
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662

4 Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatement

Table 2

Comparison of different technologies and their combination for slaughterhouse and dairy wastewater treatment.

Influent Technology Optimal operating Pollutant Added-value products Reference

conditions removal (%)

Raw Precipitation with acid addition pH 6, magnetic stirring from Absorbance at 410 nm e [8]
SWW (H2SO4, HCl, HNO3). 1200e1400 to (51.9e80.8%), COD
300e400 rpm, T = 25  C, (87e92.2%), turbidity
treatment time 24 h. (93.7e96.4%), TSS
(98.4e99.4%), nitrates
(49.7e87.8%), TP
(5.6e14.1%), BOD5
(83.6e100%).
Raw Oxidation process pH 6.9, concentration Absorbance at 410 nm e [8]
SWW (Ca(ClO)2, of 1, 2, and (21.1e53.3%), COD
H2O2, CaO2). 1 g Le1, respectively. (83.9e92.9%), turbidity
89.5e94.7%), TSS
(95e99.6%), nitrates
(81.6e89.4%), TP
(21.8e75.1%), BOD5
(79.8e90.4%).
Raw Anaerobic–aerobic process pH 6.84, influent TOC TOC (84.9%), TN Methane production 2.2 L KgTOC [9]
e1
SWW (continuous mode. concentration 343 (70.6%), TSS (97.4%). (daily generation
mg Le1, flow rate 63 mL min 0.48 kW h)
e1
.
Raw UV/H2O2 Influent TOC concentration TOC (81%), H2O2 residual e [10]
SWW (photoreactor with recycle). 23.9 mg Le1, influent H2O2 (1.3%).
concentration 861.5 mg Le1,
flow rate 15.2 mL mine1,
recycle ratio 0.18,
treatment time 120 min.
Raw Anaerobic–aerobic–UV/H2O2 pH 6.6, influent TOC TOC (91.3%), TN (86.1%), Methane production 2.5 mL mgTOC [11]
e1
SWW processes concentration H2O2 residual (1.5%). (daily generation
(continuous operation mode). 626 mg Le1, influent H2O2 0.05 kW h)
concentration 350 mg Le1
, flow rate
45 mL mine1, treatment
time 6.8, 2.4, and 0.78 h,
respectively.
Raw Photoelectro-Fenton, pH 3, Ti-RuO2 anode, carbon TOC 92, 92, and 95%, e [12]
SWW solar photo-Fenton, felt cathode, current density respectively.
and Fenton/solar 2.5 mA cme2, initial H2O2
concentration 200 mg Le1,
www.sciencedirect.com

photo-Fenton processes
(batch operation mode). initial Fe2+
concentration 111.6, 55.8,
and 27.9
and 111.6 mg Le1,
respectively,
influent treatment time 60, 60,
and 80 min, respectively.
www.sciencedirect.com
Raw UV-C/H2O2/VUV process
SWW (batch recirculation
operation mode).
Raw Electro-Fenton process
SWW (poultry) (batch operation mode).
Industrial wastewater Galvanic, galvanic Fenton,
(include SWW) and H2O2 processes
(batch operation mode).
Raw Combined high-frequency
SWW (poultry) ultrasound/H2O2 process
(continuous operation mode).
Raw Combined anaerobic digestion/
SWW (sheep and lamb) photocatalysis process
(batch and
continuous operation
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
mode with recirculation).
Raw Electrochemical oxidation
SWW (cattle) process
(batch operation mode).
Raw Electrochemical oxidation
SWW (pig) related
process (semicontinuous
operation mode).
Raw Combined aerobic digestion/
SWW (pig and cattle) solar
photoelectro-Fenton process
Influent TOC concentration TOC (45.7%), H2O2 e [13]
213 mg Le1, residual (1%).
influent H2O2 concentration
450 mg Le1, irradiation time
9 min,
treatment time 2.4 h
Iron electrodes, interelectrode COD (92.4%), color removal e [14]
gap 3 cm pH 4.38 and 3.4, (88.1% at 340 nm).
current density 74.1 and
67.9 mA cme2, molar ratio
(H2O2/Fe2+) 3.7 and 3.6,
H2O2/SWW ratio 1.6 and 1.4
mL Le1, treatment time
55.6 49.2 min for COD
and color removal,
respectively.
Iron anodes and copper Using galvanic-Fenton process: e [15]
cathodes, TOC (79%), COD (71%),
electrodes, interelectrode color (76%), nitrates (48%),
gap 2 mm pH 2.8, initial BOD5 (43%).
H2O2 concentration
7840 mg Le1,
initial Fe2+
Electrochemical meat/dairy wastewater treatments Sandoval and Salazar
concentration 408 mg Le1,
treatment time 4, 2,
and 2 h, respectively.
pH 7, frequency 578 kHz, power COD (49%). e [17]
density 480 W Le1.
pH 7, titanium dioxide TOC (92%), COD (92%), Electricity recover (4.4 W h L [18]
e1
as photocatalyst, total UV color (100%), ), heat produced (6 W h L
e1
output p-cresol (90%), ).
625 W me2, temperature dibutyl phthalate (83%).
37  C, recirculation rate
6.4 cm mine1
pH 7, Ti/Pt mesh type anode, Ti TOC (88%), COD e [20]
mesh (92.2%),
type cathodes, TN (93.5%),
interelectrode gap 3 mm, color (99.9%),
supporting electrolyte 0.025 TSS (99.5%).
M NaCl, current density
4.73 mA cme2,
treatment time 4 h.
pH 7.5, BDD anode, platinum COD (48.3e95.9%), e [21]
cathode, interelectrode color (100%),
gap 3.7 mm, specific TSS (61.5%).
charge 7.3 A h Le1,
treatment time 8 h.
pH 3, Si/BDD anode, TOC (99.2%), COD Methane production 90 mL after [22]
carbon-PTFE air (99.3%), color 30 days.
diffusion cathode, (at 409 nm 100%),
(continued on next page)
5
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
Table 2. (continued )
Influent Technology
(semicontinuous operation
mode).
Synthetic SWW Combined aerobic digestion/
solar
photoelectro-Fenton process
(semicontinuous operation
mode).
Synthetic DWW Electrocoagulation
(recirculation
operation mode).
Raw SWW (poultry) Electrocoagulation/
electroflotation
(batch operation
mode).
Raw SWW (poultry) Electrocoagulation
(continuous operation
www.sciencedirect.com
mode).
6 Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatement
Optimal operating Pollutant Added-value products Reference
conditions removal (%)
interelectrode gap 0.5 cm, BOD5(99.1%),
current density 50 mA cme2, TSS (100%),
temperature 35  C, turbidity (99.6%).
supporting
electrolyte 0.05 M Na2SO4,
initial H2O2 concentration
11.62 mM,
treatment time 180 min.
pH 2.8, DSA (Ti/Ru0$3Ti0$7O2) COD (91%), e [23]
anode, TSS (100%),
carbon-PTFE air diffusion turbidity (80%).
cathode, interelectrode gap
0.5 cm,
current density 25 mA cme2,
temperature 35  C,
supporting
electrolyte 0.05 M Na2SO4,
initial Fe2+ concentration
1 mM,
solar UVA radiation 37 W m
e2
,
treatment time 180 min.
Aluminum electrodes, bipolar COD (80%), e [25]
configuration, flow rate phosphate (98%),
28.3 L mine1, TSS (100%),
supporting electrolyte 0.1 turbidity (100%).
M NaCl, current density 0.65
A me2,
charge loading 0.59 F me3,
pH 6, treatment time 180 min.
Aluminum anode and graphite COD (76e85%), e [26]
cathode color (93e99%),
(current reversal), TSS (95e99%), turbidity
interelectrode (95e99%).
gap 0.5 cm, current density
3 mA cme2,
pH 6.4, treatment time
75 min.
Iron electrodes (horizontal and COD (88.5 and 96.26 for e [27]
vertical arrangements), horizontal and vertical
interelectrode gap arrangements, respectively.
2.1 cm, bipolar configuration, BOD5 (97%), f
flow rate ecal coliforms (100%),
0.5 L mine1, current density TSS (85%).
4 mA cme2, pH 7.9e8.2,
treatment time
12 and 16 min for horizontal
and vertical arrangements,
respectively.
www.sciencedirect.com
Raw SWW (poultry) Electrocoagulation and
peroxy-electrocoagulation
(continuous operation mode).
Raw SWW/DWW Combined system
electrooxidation
and electrocoagulation
(semicontinuous
operation mode).
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
Raw DWW Combined system
electrocoagulation
and electrooxidation
(batch operation mode).
Iron electrodes, monopolar
configuration,
treatment time 90 min.
Electrocoagulation: current
density
40 mA cme2, pH 7.1, flow
rate 0.05 L mine1.
Peroxy-electrocoagulation:
current
density 50 mA cme2, pH 3,
flow rate 0.03 L mine1, initial
H2O2
concentration 0.2 M, initial
polyaluminum chloride
0.5 g Le1.
Electro-oxidation: pH 6.3 and
2.7 for
SWW and DWW,
respectively,
Si/BDD electrodes,
monopolar and
bipolar configuration,
inter-electrode space 1 mm,
current
density 35.7 mA cme2,
treatment time 3 h.
Electrocoagulation: pH 6.3
and 7 for
SWW and DWW,
respectively, mild steel
electrodes,
monopolar configuration,
inter-electrode space 3 mm,
current density 5 mA cme2,
treatment time 3 h.
For coupled system,
treatment time 4 h.
In monopolar configuration: pH
4,
titanium oxide and aluminum
electrodes, interelectrode
space
7.5 mm, current intensity 2 A,
treatment time 60 min.
In bipolar configuration: pH 4,
titanium oxide and aluminum
electrodes, interelectrode
space
7.5 mm, current intensity 3 A,
treatment time 100 min.
Electrocoagulation: e [28]
COD (89.4%).
Peroxy-electrocoagulation:
COD (95.5%).
Electro-oxidation: e [29]
COD (97% and 88% for
SWW and DWW,
respectively).
Electrocoagulation:
COD (89% and 74% for
SWW and DWW,
respectively).
Electrochemical meat/dairy wastewater treatments Sandoval and Salazar
Coupled system
electrooxidation/
electrocoagulation:
COD (97% and 92% for
SWW and DWW,
respectively).
Coupled system
electrocoagulation/electro-
oxidation: COD (98.7%
and 96.6% for SWW
and DWW, respectively).
In monopolar configuration: e [31]
COD (57.5%) and
turbidity (98.72%).
In bipolar configuration:
COD (78.2%) and t
urbidity (94.5%).
(continued on next page)
7
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
Table 2. (continued )
Influent
Raw DWW
Synthetic DWW
Raw DWW
Raw SWW (cattle)
Synthetic and raw SWW (cattle)
Synthetic and raw SWW (cattle)
Raw municipal wastewater
www.sciencedirect.com
Raw SWW (cattle)
Technology
Combined system
electrocoagulation
-phytoremediation.
(batch operation mode).
Electrocoagulation
(batch operation mode).
Electrocoagulation
(batch operation mode).
Electrocoagulation
(continuous operation mode).
Aerobic –anoxic process
(continuous operation mode).
Aerobic –anoxic process
(batch operation mode).
Electrohydrolysis process
(batch operation mode).
8 Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatement
Optimal operating Pollutant Added-value products Reference
conditions removal (%)
pH 7, iron and aluminum Electrocoagulation e [32]
electrodes, COD (86.4%).
interelectrode space 1 cm, Combined system
monopolar series electrocoagulation-
configuration, phytoremediation,
applied voltage 5 V, COD (97.9%).
treatment time 2 h.
pH 7, aluminum electrodes, COD (63.8%), e [33]
interelectrode phosphates
space 2 cm, current (94.9%), and
intensity 0.2 A, supporting turbidity (99%).
electrolyte 0.25 g Le1 CaCl2,
treatment time 10 min.
pH 7.7, iron and aluminum COD (55%), e [34]
electrodes, interelectrode TOC (60%),
space TN (90%),
1 cm, current intensity 1 A, turbidity (100%).
supporting electrolyte 2 g L
e1
,
treatment time 1 h.
pH 5, iron and aluminum COD (92.8%). e [46]
electrodes,
applied voltage 29.5 V,
supporting electrolyte 2 g L
e1
,
treatment time 30 min.
pH 6.7, graphite rod and In synthetic SWW: Nitrogen recovery (100%), [60]
granules COD (98%), power generation 135.2 W m
e2
as anode and cathode, NH+4 (99.9%),
respectively, treatment time nitrates (100%).
120 days. In real SWW:
COD (99%),
NH+4 (99.3%),
nitrates (100%).
Temperature 37  C, treatment COD (48e70%), Biohydrogen 378e390 mL H2 (g [69]
time Nitrogen (>95%), volatile solids)e1
6 and 1 day, respectively, phosphorous
Scenedesmus obliquus (63e99%).
bacteria, pH 6.8.
pH 8.3, aluminum and COD (84%), BOD5 (75%), color Hydrogen production 475 mL [70]
copper electrodes, (86%), TSS (86%), turbidity
monopolar (82%), total coliform (40%).
configuration,
voltage 8 V,
treatment time 4 h.
pH 6.8e7, Temperature 38  C, Biogas produced 322 mL (g [71]
treatment time 100 days. COD)e1
 Electrochemical meat/dairy wastewater treatments Sandoval and Salazar 9

Tae-Kyoung [47] and Ye [48]. Finally, norfloxacin and

ofloxacin removal has been widely researched. EO, Eþ-
[72]

ozonation, Fenton-like, photo-catalytic, photo-electro-

chemical, and hybrid processes have highly shown
removal efficiencies in several aqueous matrices [49e
57]. Table 2 shows the different technologies, alone or
Methane gas production rate

hybrid, to treat SWW/DWW as well as the value-added

products after the processes.

Circular economy. The recovery of valuable

61.5 L daye1

by-products
TOC, total organic carbon; BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; TSSs, total suspended solids; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorous.

To achieve the goals of circular economy (CEcon) and

sustainability of water reuse, energy, and resource re-
covery, the management of SWW/DWW is crucial. The
evaluation of the technological advances must consider
the target operational principles of CEcon: reuse, recy-
TOC (96%), TSS (98%), TN
(78%) in continuous mode.

cling, and recovery (3Rs) [7]. Gallego-Schmid and

TOC (89%) in batch mode.

Zepon-Tarpani [58] reviewed 43 research articles that

deal with the managing of wastewater treatments in
Volatile solids (66%)

developing countries through the life cycle assessment.

and fat, oil and
grease (85%).

They found that an increase of these studies is needed

to minimize the environmental impact because SWW/
DWW contains high valued resources. The nitrogen re-
covery from these effluents through bioelectrochemical
systems (based on the ammonia/ammonium recovery)
may contribute to diminish the energy consumption of
the polluted water treatment [59]. Mohammed and
Ismail [60] reported recovery efficiency of nitrogen of
100% at nitrate loading rate of 0.0106 kg-N m3 day1
after 39 days of continuous operation using a microbial
fuel cell/aerobic/anoxic reactor. Shahzad et al. [61]
developed a detailed economic analysis using the
time 10 h.
pH 6.9e7.1,

retention
hydraulic

slaughtering waste streams as raw material for poly-

hydroxyalkanoate, a biopolymer with plastic-like prop-
erties. The recovery of nutrients as nitrogen,
phosphorous, and potassium, present in SWW/DWW
could contribute to minimize the quantities of fertil-
izers and to prevent the environmental damage. In the
(semicontinuous operation
Anaerobic digestion process

Anaerobic digestion process

same context, the sludge produced after the SWW

(batch andcontinuous

treatment can be used as starting material in the pro-

operation mode).

duction of ceramic tiles [62]. Figure 1 shows the overall

SWW/DWW treatment considering the circular econ-
omy concept. If products or by-products of SWW/DWW
are difficult to reuse, then the clean renewable power/
mode).

energy generation should be the essential purpose. Fat,

oil, and grease (FOG) from SWW/DWW may be
converted to biodiesel which is an eco-friendly alterna-
tive fuel [63e65]. Moreover, electricity generation from
slaughterhouse residues and animal manure [66e68],
biohydrogen, and hydrogen gas production from SWW
Synthetic and raw SWW

(poultry, swine, and cattle), and municipal wastewaters

[69,70] had been investigated.

The anaerobic digestion process transforms organic

(buffalos)

matter into carbon dioxide and methane, which makes it

the most used technology to produce energy from
wastewaters [71e74].

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662

10 Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatement
Figure 1
Electrochemical treatment of SWW/DWW considering the concept of circular economy: decontamination of wastewater, use of renewable energies and
electricity generation, and added-value products recovery/generation.
Conclusions and perspectives
In this article, we have presented a short review of the
recent literature of the treatment of meat and dairy
processing industries effluents, which contain high
organic matter concentration. The work has been
focused on the application of electrochemical technol-
ogies of industrial wastewater for removing TOC, COD,
and the main contaminants considering the 3Rs as a
priority. We discussed that the reuse, recycling, and re-
covery of water, energy, and nutrients is important today
to minimize environmental impact, to enhance the
sustainability of the process, and to close the water cycle
in the meat industrial and slaughtering sector. We have
highlighted the environmental impact of electrochemi-
cally treated water in: (i) that pollutant-free SWW/
DWW can be recycled/reused at an affordable price for
irrigation; (ii) electricity consumption in continuous
operation mode is a key parameter that can be reduced
by producing energy from SWW/DWW, which has good
potential for biogas production; (iii) take advantage of
some nutrients present in SWW/DWW as nitrogen (in
form of urea, ammonium, and nitrate), phosphorous (in
the form of phosphate and phosphoric acid), and po-
tassium (in the form of potassium chloride, potassium
sulfate, potassium phosphate, and potassium nitrate) to
irrigate crop fields (fertigation). Further socio-economic
studies are needed to better understand the effect of
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
the recovery of value-added products and electricity
generation after electrochemical treatment of waste-
water from the meat/dairy industry.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this
article.
Acknowledgements
Miguel A. Sandoval is grateful to Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a,
México (CONACYT) for granting the postdoctoral scholarship, No.
386022. Ricardo Salazar thanks Dirección de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas y
Tecnológicas (DICYT, Universidad de Santiago de Chile for supporting the
project 021942SG_POSDOC.
References
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
* of special interest
* * of outstanding interest
1. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY: The water
footprint of poultry, pork, and beef: a comparative study in
different countries and production systems. Water Resour Ind
2013, 1e2:25e36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.001.
2. World Bank Group: Environmental, Health and safety (EHS)
guidelines for meat processing. General EHS guidelines: envi-
ronmental wastewater and ambient water quality; 2007.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Electrochemical meat/dairy wastewater treatments Sandoval and Salazar
3. US EPA: Effluent limitations guidelines and new source per-
formance standards for the meat and poultry products point
source category. U. S. Environ. Prot. Agency (US EPA) Fed.
Regist. 2004, 69:173.
4. CEC: Urban wastewater treatment directive 91/271/EEC,
Council of the European Communities (CEC). Off. J. Eur.
Communities L 1991, 135:40e52.
5. Valta K, Kosanovic T, Malamis D, Moustakas K, Loizidou M:
Overview of water usage and wastewater management in the
food and beverage industry. Desalin Water Treat 2015, 53:
3335–3347, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.934100.
6. Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M: Slaughterhouse wastewater
characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat
processing industry: a review on trends and advances.
J Environ Manag 2015, 161:287–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2015.07.008.
7. Suarez-Eiroa B, Fernandez E, Mendez-Martínez G, Soto-
Onate D: Operational principles of circular economy for
sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean
Prod 2019, 214:952–961, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.12.271.
8. Prazeres AR, Fernandes F, Madeira L, Luz S, Albuquerque A,
Simões R, Beltrán F, Jerónimo E, Rivas J: Treatment of
slaughterhouse wastewater by acid precipitation (H2SO4, HCl
and HNO3) and oxidation (Ca(ClO)2, H2O2 and CaO2). J Environ
Manag 2019, 250:109558, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2019.109558.
9. Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M: Treatment of actual slaugh-
terhouse wastewater by combined anaerobic-aerobic pro-
cesses for biogas generation and removal of organics and
nutrients: an optimization study towards a cleaner
production in the meat processing industry. J Clean Prod
2017, 141:278–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.09.060.
10. Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Ghafoori S, Mehrvar M: Photochemical
degradation of an actual slaughterhouse wastewater by
continuous UV/H2O2 photoreactor with recycle. J Environ
Chem Eng 2016, 4:719–732, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jece.2015.12.009.
11. Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M: Treatment of an actual
slaughterhouse wastewater by integration of biological and
advanced oxidation processes: modeling, optimization, and
cost-effectiveness analysis. J Environ Manag 2016, 182:
651–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.044.
12. Páramo-Vargas J, Gutiérrez Granados S, Maldonado-Rubio MI,
Peralta-Hernández JM: Up to 95 % reduction of chemical
oxygen demand of slaughterhouse effluents using Fenton
and photo-Fenton oxidation. Environ Chem Lett 2016, 14:
149–154, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-015-0534-2.
13. Naderi KV, Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M, Abdekhodaie MJ:
Combined UV-C/H2O2-VUV processes for the treatment of an
actual slaughterhouse wastewater. J Environ Sci Heal B 2017,
52:314–325, https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2017.1281650.
14. Davarnejad R, Nasiri S: Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment
using an advanced oxidation process: optimization study.
Environ Pollut 2017, 223:1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2016.11.008.
15. Alcalá-Delgado AG, Lugo-Lugo V, Linares-Hernández I, Martínez-
Miranda V, Fuentes-Rivas RM, Ureña-Nuñez F: Industrial
wastewater treated by galvanic, galvanic Fenton, and
hydrogen peroxide systems. J Water Process Eng 2018, 22:
1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.01.001.
16. Reza-Rahmani A, Mousavi-Tashar A, Masoumi Z, Azariana G:
Integrated advanced oxidation process, sono-Fenton treat-
ment, for mineralization and volume reduction of activated
sludge. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 2019, 168:120–126, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.10.069.
17. Abdelhay A, Othman AA, Albsoul A: Treatment of
slaughterhouse wastewater using high-frequency ultra-
sound: optimization of operating conditions by RSM. Environ
Technol 2020, 30:1–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2020.1746409.
www.sciencedirect.com
11
18. Brooms T, Apollo S, Otieno B, Onyango MS, Kabuba J,
Ochieng A: Integrated anaerobic digestion and photo-
degradation of slaughterhouse wastewater: energy analysis
and degradation of aromatic compounds. J Mater Cycles
Waste 2020, 22:1227–1236, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-
01019-0.
19. Brillas E: A review on the photoelectro-Fenton process as
efficient electrochemical advanced oxidation for wastewater
remediation. Treatment with UV light, sunlight, and coupling
with conventional and other photo-assisted advanced tech-
nologies. Chemosphere 2020, 250:126198, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126198 0045-6535.
20. Ozturk D, Yilmaz AE: Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater
with the electrochemical oxidation process: role of operating
parameters on treatment efficiency and energy consumption.
J Water Process Eng 2019, 31:100834, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jwpe.2019.100834.
21. Alfonso-Muniozguren P, Cotillas S, Boaventura RAR, Moreira FC,
Lee J, Vilar VJP: Single and combined electrochemical
oxidation driven processes for the treatment of slaughter-
house wastewater. J Clean Prod 2020, 270:121858, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121858.
22. Vidal J, Huiliñir C, Salazar R: Removal of organic matter
contained in slaughterhouse wastewater using a combina-
tion of anaerobic digestion and solar photoelectro-Fenton
processes. Electrochim Acta 2016, 210:163–170, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.electacta.2016.05.064.
23. Vidal J, Carvajal A, Huiliñir C, Salazar R: Slaughterhouse
* * wastewater treatment by a combined anaerobic digestion/
solar photoelectro-Fenton process performed in semi-
continuous operation. Chem Eng J 2019, 378:122097, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122097.
A combined semicontinuous anaerobic digestion/SPEF process to
remove COD from synthetic slaughterhouse wastewater.
24. Garcia-Segura S, Eiband MMSG, de Melo JV, Martínez-
Huitle CA: Electrocoagulation and advanced electro-
coagulation processes: a general review about the funda-
mentals, emerging applications, and its association with
other technologies. J Electroanal Chem 2017, 801:267–299,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.07.047.
25. Bassala HD, Dedzo GK, Njine-Bememba CB, Tchekwagep-
Seumo PM, Dazie JD, Nanseu-Njiki CP, Ngameni E: Investiga-
tion of the efficiency of a designed electrocoagulation
reactor: application for dairy effluent treatment. Process Saf
Environ 2017, 111:122–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.psep.2017.07.002.
26. Paulista LO, Presumido PH, Peruço-Theodoro JD, Novaes-
Pinheiro AL: Efficiency analysis of the electrocoagulation and
electroflotation treatment of poultry slaughterhouse waste-
water using aluminum and graphite anodes. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 2018, 25:19790–19800, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-
2184-y.
27. Gomes AJG, Atambo DO, Das KK, Cocke DL, Das KP: Elec-
* trochemical remediation of chicken processing plant waste-
water. J Environ Chem Eng 2018, 6:6028–6036, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jece.2018.09.039.
Horizontal and vertical EC reactor configurations to treat chicken SWW
using iron electrodes.
28. Eryuruk K, Un UT, Ogutveren UB: Electrochemical treatment of
* wastewaters from poultry slaughtering and processing by
using iron electrodes. J Clean Prod 2018, 172:1089–1095,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.254.
EC in a continuous flow reactor to treat poultry SWW using iron
electrodes.
29. Ghazouani M, Akrout H, Jellali S, Bousselmi L: Comparative
* * study of electrochemical hybrid systems for the treatment of
real wastewaters from agri-food activities. Sci Total Environ
2019, 647:1651–1664, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.08.023.
COD removal efficiency analysis of EOR, EC, and EOR/EC process
from poultry SWW and DWW.
30. Reilly M, Cooley AP, Tito D, Tassou SA, Theodorou MK: Elec-
trocoagulation treatment of dairy processing and
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
12 Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatement
slaughterhouse wastewaters. Energy Procedia 2019, 161:
343–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.106.
31. Turan NB: The application of hybrid
electrocoagulation–electrooxidation system for the treat-
ment of dairy wastewater using different electrode connec-
tions. Separ Sci Technol 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01496395.2020.1788596.
32. Akansha J, Nidheesh PV, Gopinath A, Anupama KV, Kumar MS:
* Treatment of dairy industry wastewater by combined aerated
electrocoagulation and phytoremediation process. Chemo-
sphere 2020, 253:126652, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2020.126652.
33. Tchamango SR, Ngayo KW, Belibi Belibi PD, Nkouam F,
Ngassoum MB: Treatment of a dairy effluent by classical
electrocoagulation and indirect electrocoagulation with
aluminum electrodes. Separ Sci Technol 2020, https://doi.org/
10.1080/01496395.2020.1748889.
34. Chezeau B, Boudriche L, Vial C, Boudjema A: Treatment of
dairy wastewater by electrocoagulation process: advantages
of combined iron/aluminum electrodes. Separ Sci Technol
2020, 55:2510–2527, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01496395.2019.1638935.
35. Bruguera-Casamada C, Araujo RM, Brillas E, Sires I: Advan-
tages of electro-Fenton over electrocoagulation for disinfec-
tion of dairy wastewater. Chem Eng J 2019, 376:119975,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.09.136.
36. Afsharnia M, Kianmehr M, Biglari H, Dargahi A, Karimi A: Disin-
fection of dairy wastewater effluent through solar photo-
catalysis processes. Water Sci Eng 2018, 11:214–219, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2018.10.001.
37. Hee-Jun K, Chan-Hee W, Hyun-Woo K: Pathogen deactivation
of glow discharge cold plasma while treating organic and
inorganic pollutants of slaughterhouse wastewater. Water Air
Soil Pollut 2018, 229:237, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-
3895-x.
38. Simas A, Mores R, Steffens J, Dallago RM, Kunz A, Michelon W,
Fongaro G, Viancelli A: Electrodisinfection of real swine
wastewater for water reuse. Environ Chem Lett 2019, 17:
495–499, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0782-z.
39. Cotillas S, Llanos J, Moraleda I, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA:
* Scaling-up an integrated electrodisinfection-
electrocoagulation process for wastewater reclamation.
Chem Eng J 2020, 380:122415, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2019.122415.
Bipolar hybrid EC reactor to disinfect urban wastewater.
40. Buyukada M: Removal, potential reaction pathways, and
* * overall cost analysis of various pollution parameters and
toxic odor compounds from the effluents of Turkey
processing plant using TiO2 –assisted UV/O3 process.
J Environ Manag 2019, 248:109298, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2019.109298.
Removal and possible reaction pathways of hazardous odor com-
pounds contained in a turkey SWW using photocatalytic-ozonation
process.
41. Shao B, Chen D, Zhang J, Wu Y, Sun C: Determination of 76
pharmaceutical drugs by liquid chromatography–tandem
mass spectrometry in slaughterhouse wastewater.
J Chromatogr A 2009, 1216:8312–8318, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chroma.2009.08.038.
42. Mondal SK, Saha AK, Sinha A: Removal of ciprofloxacin using
modified advanced oxidation processes: kinetics, pathways
and process optimization. J Clean Prod 2018, 171:1203–1214,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.091.
43. Rahmani AR, Nematollahi D, Samarghandi MR, Samadi MT,
Azarian G: A combined advanced oxidation process:
electrooxidation-ozonation for antibiotic
ciprofloxacin removal from aqueous solution. J Electroanal
Chem 2018, 808:82–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jelechem.2017.11.067.
44. Bueno F, Borba FH, Pellenz L, Schmitz M, Godoi B, Espinoza-
Quiñones FR, de Pauli AR, Módenes AN: Degradation of cip-
rofloxacin by the Electrochemical Peroxidation process
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662
using stainless steel electrodes. J Environ Chem Eng 2018, 6:
2855–2864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.04.033.
45. Ghanbari F, Zirrahi F, Olfati D, Gohari F, Hassani A: TiO2
nanoparticles removal by electrocoagulation using iron
electrodes: catalytic activity of electrochemical sludge for the
degradation of emerging pollutant. J Mol Liq 2020, 310:
113217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.113217.
46. Pinedo-Hernández J, Marrugo-Negrete J, Dõéz S: Removal of
cypermethrin and chemical oxygen demand from livestock
wastewater by electrocoagulation. Chem Eng Technol 2020,
43–2:211–217, https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800742.
47. Tae-Kyoung K, Taeyeon K, Youngho C, Kyung-Duk Z: Energy-
efficient erythromycin degradation using UV-LED (275 nm)/
chlorine process: radical contribution, transformation prod-
ucts, and toxicity evaluation. Water Res 2020, 185:116159,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116159.
48. Ye Y, Feng Y, Bruning H, Yntema D, Rijnaarts HHM: Photo-
catalytic degradation of metoprolol by TiO2 nanotube arrays
and UV-LED: effects of catalyst properties, operational pa-
rameters, commonly present water constituents, and photo-
induced reactive species. Appl Catal B Environ 2018, 220:
171–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.08.040.
49. Jojoa-Sierra SD, Silva-Agredo J, Herrera-Calderon E, Torres-
Palma RA: Elimination of the antibiotic norfloxacin in
municipal wastewater, urine and seawater by electro-
chemical oxidation on IrO2 anodes. Sci Total Environ 2017,
575:1228–1238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.201.
50. da Silva SW, Navarro EMO, Rodrigues MAS, Bernardes AM,
Pérez-Herranz V: The role of the anode material and water
matrix in the electrochemical oxidation of norfloxacin.
Chemosphere 2018, 210:615–623, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2018.07.057.
51. Mora-Gomez J, Ortega E, Mestre S, Pérez-Herranz V, García-
Gabaldón M: Electrochemical degradation of norfloxacin
using BDD and new Sb-doped SnO2 ceramic anodes in an
electrochemical reactor in the presence and absence of a
cation-exchange membrane. Separ Purif Technol 2019, 208:
68–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.05.017.
52. Yu H, Dou D, Zhang X, Zhang L, Dong H, Yu H: Degradation of
Norfloxacin in saline water by synergistic effect of anode and
cathode in a novel photo-electrochemical system. J Clean
Prod 2020, 242:118548, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.118548.
53. Wang H, Cheng Z, Zhu N, Yuan H, Lou Z, Otieno P, Li W: pH-
dependent norfloxacin degradation by E+-ozonation:
radical reactivities and intermediates identification. J Clean
Prod 2020, 265:121722, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.121722.
54. Kaur R, Kushwaha JP, Singh N: Electro-oxidation of ofloxacin
antibiotic by dimensionally stable Ti/RuO2 anode: evaluation
and mechanistic approach. Chemosphere 2018, 193:685–694,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.065.
55. Gupta G, Umar A, Kaur A, Sood S, Dhir A, Kansal SK: Solar light
driven photocatalytic degradation of ofloxacin based on ul-
trathin bismuth molybdenum oxide nanosheets. Mater Res
Bull 2018, 99:359–366, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.materresbull.2017.11.033.
56. Liu J, Wu X, Liu J, Zhang C, Hu Q, Hou X: Ofloxacin degrada-
tion by Fe3O4-CeO2/AC Fenton-like system: optimization, ki-
netics, and degradation pathways. Mol Catal 2019, 465:61–67,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcat.2018.12.020.
57. Patidar R, Srivastava SV: Mechanistic and kinetic insights of
synergistic mineralization of ofloxacin using a sono-photo
hybrid process. Chem Eng J 2021, 403:125736, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2020.125736.
58. Gallego-Schmid A, Zepon-Tarpani RR: Life cycle assessment of
wastewater treatment in developing countries: a review.
Water Res 2019, 153:63–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2019.01.010.
59. Rahimi S, Modin O, Mijakovic I: Technologies for biological
removal and recovery of nitrogen from wastewater. Biotechnol
www.sciencedirect.com
 Electrochemical meat/dairy wastewater treatments Sandoval and Salazar
Adv 2020, 43:107570, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biotechadv.2020.107570.
60. Mohammed AJ, Ismail ZZ: Slaughterhouse wastewater bio-
* * treatment associated with bioelectricity generation and ni-
trogen recovery in hybrid system of microbial fuel cell with
aerobic and anoxic bioreactors. Ecol Eng 2018, 125:119–130,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.10.010.
Bioelectrochemical integrated system to recover nitrogen.
61. Shahzad K, Narodoslawsky M, Sagir M, Ali N, Ali S,
Rashid MI, Ibrahim-Ismail IM, Koller M: Techno-economic
feasibility of waste biorefinery: using slaughtering
waste streams as starting material for biopolyester
production. Waste Manag 2017, 67:73 – 85, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.047.
62. Ferreira A, Fagnani KC, Alves HJ, Colpini LMS, Kunh SS,
* Nastri S, Conserva LRS, Melchiades FG: Effect of incorporating
sludge from poultry slaughterhouse wastewater
treatment system in ceramic mass for tile production. Environ
Technol Inno 2018, 9:294–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eti.2017.11.010.
Elaboration of bricks using the sludge produced from poultry
slaughtering.
63. Dimian AC, Kiss AA: Eco-efficient processes for biodiesel
production from waste lipids. J Clean Prod 2019, 239:118073,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118073.
64. Riazi B, Mosby JM, Millet B, Spatari S: Renewable diesel from
* oils and animal fat waste: implications of feedstock, tech-
nology, co-products and ILUC on life cycle GWP. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2020, 161:104944, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2020.104944.
Renewable diesel from poultry fat, beef tallow, and soybean oil.
65. Ndiaye A, Arhaliass J, Legrand G, Roelens A, Kerihuel A: Reuse
* * of waste animal fat in biodiesel: biorefining heavily-degraded
contaminant-rich waste animal fat and formulation as diesel
fuel additive. Renew Energy 2020, 145:1073–1079, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.030.
A waste fat (free fatty acids and triglycerides) biorefining strategy for
use as a diesel fuel additive.
66. Santagata R, Ripa M, Ulgiati S: An environmental assessment
* of electricity production from slaughterhouse residues.
Linking urban, industrial, and waste management systems.
Appl Energy 2017, 186:175–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2016.07.073M.
www.sciencedirect.com
13
Analyze of the impacts related to the production of electricity from
slaughterhouse residues.
67. El-Nahhal YZ, Al-Agha MR, El-Nahhal IY, El-Aila NA, El-Nahal FI,
Alhalabi RA: Electricity generation from animal manure.
Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 136:105531, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2020.105531.
68. Santagata R, Viglia S, Fiorentino G, Liu G, Ripa M: Power gen-
eration from slaughterhouse waste materials. An emergy
accounting assessment. J Clean Prod 2019, 223:536–552,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.148.
69. Ferreira A, Marques P, Ribeiro B, Assemany P, de Mendonça HV,
* * Barata A, Oliveira AC, Reis A, Pinheiro HM, Gouveia L:
Combining biotechnology with circular bioeconomy: from
poultry, swine, cattle, brewery, dairy and urban wastewaters
to biohydrogen. Environ Res 2018, 164:32–38, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envres.2018.02.007.
Analysis of the biomass produced from different wastewaters and
biohydrogen production
70. Yarõmtepe CC, Türen B, Oz NA: Hydrogen production from
municipal wastewaters via electrohydrolysis process.
Chemosphere 2019, 231:168–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2019.04.220.
71. Schmidt T, McCabe BK, Harris PW, Lee S: Effect of trace
element addition and increasing organic loading rates on the
anaerobic digestion of cattle slaughterhouse wastewater.
Biores Technol 2018, 264:51–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2018.05.050.
72. Loganath R, Mazumder D: Performance study on organic
carbon, total nitrogen, suspended solids removal and biogas
production in hybrid UASB reactor treating real slaughter-
house wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 2018, 6:3474–3484,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.05.031.
73. Hernández-Fydrych VC, Benítez-Olivares G, Meraz-
Rodríguez MA, Salazar-Peláez ML, Fajardo-Ortiz MC: Methane
production kinetics of pretreated slaughterhouse waste-
water. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 130:105385, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105385.
74. Vilvert AJ, Saldeira-Junior JC, Bautitz IR, Zenatti DC,
Andrade MG, Hermes E: Minimization of energy demand in
slaughterhouses: estimated production of biogas
generated from the effluent. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020,
120:109613, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109613.
Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2021, 26:100662