Journal of Water Process Engineering 5 (2015) 112–117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

Fuzzy optimisation approach on the treatment of palm oil mill

effluent (POME) via up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket–hollow
centered packed bed (UASB–HCPB) reactor
Yi Jing Chan ∗ , Wei Jun Robson Tan, Bing Shen How, Jiun Joo Lee, Vee Yong Lau
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, The University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus, Broga Road,
43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An optimization study on the mesophilic anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) in an up-
Received 29 August 2014 flow anaerobic sludge blanket–hollow centered packed bed (UASB–HCPB) reactor was conducted for the
Received in revised form 20 January 2015 first time by using kinetics modeling. Monod model was opted for the optimization due to its capability of
Accepted 26 January 2015
describing the anaerobic digestion and the involvement of adequate amount of parameters in the kinetics
model. The best-fit kinetic constants obtained from previous work were incorporated in the optimization
Keywords:
model. Fuzzy optimization was adopted and it yielded the optimized chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Multi-objective optimisation
removal of 86.7% and volumetric methane production rate of 0.448 LCH4 /L.day at hydraulic retention time
Anaerobic
Palm oil mill effluent (POME)
(HRT) of 4.33 days, organic loading rate (OLR) of 14.75 gCOD/L.day and mixed liquor volatile suspended
Fuzzy optimisation solid (MLVSS) concentration of 19,130 mg/L. A confirmative experiment was conducted and the results
Kinetics modeling validate the legitimacy of the fuzzy optimization model. Further studies are required to improve the
reliability of this newly introduced optimization technique in the wastewater treatment industry.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction suffer from operational problems such as clogging, foaming, and

Palm oil mill effluent (POME) is one of the most significant
wastewaters encountered in Malaysia due to the palm oil industry
in this country which has thriven over the last few decades. POME
is hot, acidic, viscous, brown liquid with pH value ranges from 4 to
5 generated through the palm oil milling process at a temperature
between 80 ◦ C and 90 ◦ C. POME is a high strength wastewater char-
acterized by high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD). The most commonly adopted method for
the treatment of POME is by ponding system and 85% of palm oil
mills in Malaysia have adopted this method [3,11]. Nonetheless,
ponding system requires long detention time and large treatment
area as this system usually consists of a de-oiling tank, acidification,
anaerobic and facultative ponds with respective hydraulic reten-
tion times (HRT) of 1, 4, 45, and 16 days [12]. Also, the treated POME
using ponding systems are unable to meet the discharge standard
[16,5].
Anaerobic digestion using high-rate reactors is an effective tech-
nology for POME treatment. However, most of the high rate reactors
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 38924 8773; fax: +60 38924 8017.
E-mail address: Yi-Jing.Chan@nottingham.edu.my (Y.J. Chan).
scum formation which lead to compromising of certain param-
eters (i.e., OLR and HRT) to hinder reactor upset. A novel design
of up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket–hollow centered packed bed
(UASB–HCPB) reactor was proposed by [17] as a more viable option
for the treatment of POME. The design of UASB–HCPB reactor
resembles the design of an up-flow anaerobic sludge fixed film
(UASFF), except that a hollow cylindrical channel is constructed
vertically in the middle of the packed bed. The integration of cylin-
drical hollow center in the packed bed section serves to remedy the
clogging phenomena commonly encountered in UASFF due to pres-
ence of high concentration of suspended solids in POME. As such, it
ensures smooth flow of effluent and biogas out of the reactor with-
out compromising the immobilization of the biomass in the packed
bed. Therefore, the biogas produced will tend to flow smoothly from
the bottom of the reactor to the top of the reactor. Furthermore, the
reduction of packing material required will reduce the cost required
for the packing and less maintenance is required as the reactor is
expected to be less susceptible to clogging [17].
By controlling the optimum operating conditions obtained from
response surface methodology (RSM), excellent anaerobic treat-
ment performance with remarkable COD, BOD, and TSS removal
efficiencies of 96, 98, and 99%, respectively, is reported by Chan
et al. [3]. Thus, optimization is a powerful tool that is capable

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.01.005
2214-7144/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 5 (2015) 112–117 113

Table 1
Nomenclature Summary of biochemical analytical methods.

Parameter Procedure
Symbols
B specific methane yield (L CH4 /g CODremov ) COD Sample was diluted and COD was measured using HACH
spectrophotometer (DR2800, Loveland, CO).
Bo maximum specific methane yield (L CH4 /g
BOD Sample was diluted with de-ionized water and incubated
CODremov ) for 5 days at 30◦ C and BOD5 was evaluated with a DO
KS half velocity coefficient (g/L) meter.
Kd endogenous decay coefficient (/d) TSS MLSS Diluted sample was analysed by using calorimeter.
k first order kinetics constant (s−1 ) TS ML VSS VSS Follow the standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater where the samples was filtered through a
M volumetric methane production rate (L CH4 /L.d)
glass fiber filter (Whatman grade GF/A, 1.6 m, UK) and the
Q flow rate (L/d) residue retained on the filter was dried in the oven
So influent COD (mg/L) (Memmert, Germany) at 105 ◦ C for 24 h where MLSS and
Se effluent COD (mg/L) VSS was determined by ash-ing for 3 h in muffled furnace
(Carbolite, UK) at 550 ◦ C.
V effective working volume of reactor (L)
Biogas Biogas production was measured by using water
X MLVSS concentration in the reactor (mg/L) displacement method with a 1 L inverted water-filled
Y growth yield coefficient (g/g) graduated cylinder for a collection period of 1 h, four times
a day and average value for the particular day was
Greek letters estimated.
TA 20 ml of sample was being tritrated with 0.1 N of sulphuric
m maximum specific microbial growth rate (/d)
acid. The total volume of titrant required to acidify the
uf upflow velocity (m/h) sample to pH of 4.3 and pH of 4.0 was used to calculate TA.
␪H hydraulic retention time, HRT (d) VFA Measurement of VFA concentrations was based on the
␪C solid retention time, SRT(d) HACH Method 8196 esterification for volatile acid.
 fuzzy degree of satisfaction‘

Table 2
Operating conditions of UASB–HCPB.

Parameter Values
to maximize the treatment performance at lower treatment cost. HRT (d) 4.33
Optimization of the UASB–HCPB reactor has only been conducted MLVSS (mg/L) 19,310
SRT (d) 136
by using one-at-a-time strategy [17]. Thus far, optimization of
OLR (gCOD/L.d) 14.75
bioreactor for POME treatment by using kinetics modeling has Influent Flow rate, Q (L/d) 1.15
not been performed. The conventional one-at-a-time optimization
strategy is time consuming, fails to generate insightful results and
it does not guarantee a global optimum solution. Fuzzy optimiza-
2.2. Bacteria source
tion resembles RSM, where optimization of multiple objectives can
be achieved with several predetermined constraints. However, it
The seed granules collected from Pan Century Oleo Chemi-
is more straightforward and produces more insightful results than
cals, Pasir Gudang in Johor, Malaysia were used to inoculate the
that of RSM.
UASB–HCPB bioreactor. The characteristic of the seed granule is
Besides, certain parameters are contradicting in nature. For
presented in Table 2.
instance, hydraulic retention time, (HRT) of a bioreactor is required
to be as high as possible in order to yield high COD removal. How-
ever, high HRT is not desired as it would lead to high treatment 2.3. Reactor configuration
and maintenance costs. Hence, it is worthy to mention that fuzzy
optimization has been adopted in the modeling works of [9,14] in The basic configuration of UASB–HCPB is described in Fig. 1 and
the integrated biorefinery industry where multiobjective optimiza- the operating procedure can be found elsewhere [17]. As mentioned
tions from a set of contradicting parameters in a design problem above, UASB–HCPB is a hybrid reactor which highly resembles the
have been achieved successfully. However, the application of fuzzy UASFF. The effective working volume of the reactor is 5 L with an
optimization on wastewater treatment is still in its infancy. There- internal diameter of 12 cm, height of 53 cm and the packed bed
fore, the aim of this study is to optimize the performance of the section was filled with ceramic packing materials. The reactor was
UASB–HCPB in order to strike a balance between the contradict- operated at mesophilic condition (28 ◦ C) as no external heating was
ing parameters. Fuzzy optimization coupled with kinetics modeling applied.
is presented for the first time in the optimization of reactor for
POME treatment. Fuzzy Optimization is able to identify the opti- 2.4. Biochemical analytical methods
mum operating conditions such that the satisfactory level () for
the optimization problem is maximized. The parameters that were evaluated during the entire experi-
mental period are COD, BOD, Total suspended solid (TSS), volatile
suspended solids (VSS), total alkalinity (TA), and volatile fatty acids
2. Methodology (VFA) concentrations of the effluent, as well as pH, mixed liquor
suspended solid (MLSS), and mixed liquor volatile suspended solid
2.1. Wastewater preparation (MLVSS) of the reactor together with biogas production rate.

The raw POME was obtained from Seri Ulu Langat Palm Oil Mill, 2.5. Operating conditions
Dengkil. Several characteristics of the POME were analysed so that
they can be used to design the experiments. The characteristic of The UASB–HCPB reactor was operated under the operating con-
the POME is presented in Table 1. ditions obtained from the optimization model in order to verify
114 Y.J. Chan et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 5 (2015) 112–117

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of UASB–HCPB.

the legitimacy of the model. The operating conditions are given as Bo was obtained from plotting against HRT based on Eq. (5),
Table 2. given by:
So H 1
= + (5)
2.6. Development of optimization model M Bo Bo k
Eq. (4) and non linear form of Monod equation (Eq. (6)) are used
Volumetric methane production rate, M is defined as unit vol- to form the optimization model,
ume of methane produce per unit volume of reactor per day. It is
another important parameter that has to be optimized. The devel- Q (So − Se ) Xm Se
= (6)
opment of the kinetic model was revised from Ma et al. [11] and V Y (ks + Se )
reported as below:
2.7. Fuzzy optimisation
Bo
M= (So − Se ) (1) The idea of fuzzy optimisation is to integrate the multiple objec-
H
tives into a continuous interdependence variable,  within the
From Monod Eq. (2), Se can be rearranged in terms of the SRT model. The  is a measure of the satisfactory level of the solution.
and other kinetic constants to give Eq. (3), The optimization objective of  is maximized subject to the prede-
fined upper and lower bounds of the objectives. A  value of unity
1 m Se signifies all the objective functions have attained the maximum or
= − kd (2)
c Ks + S e minimum values in the bounds. On the contrary,  value of 0 indi-
cates that the objectives that are to be maximize have attained a
ks (1 + kd × c ) minimum in the bounds and vice versa. LINGO 14.0 was used for the
Se = (3)
c × (m − kd ) − 1 optimization problem and the steps for building the optimization
model are as follow:
Substituting (3) into (1), the volumetric methane production
I. Eqs. (4) and (6) were used to form part of the optimiza-
rate equation was developed to give (4):
tion model. Then, the objective functions were defined. For Monod
  model, the four objective functions set were: (i) Maximize COD
Bo Ks (1 + kd × c )
M= So − (4) removal; (ii) Minimize HRT required; (iii) Maximize volumetric
H c × (m − kd ) − 1
methane production; (iv) Maximize MLVSS required
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 5 (2015) 112–117 115

II. kinetics constants were defined in the optimization model Table 3

Optimum values of kinetic constants in Monod model obtained from previous work.
III. In fuzzy optimization, the boundary for each objective
functions needed to be determined. However, the boundaries of Kinetics constants Values
objective (iii) and (iv) are constrained by the boundaries of objec- Ks (g/L) 1918.4443757
tive (i) and (ii). Hence, the boundaries of the optimization problem Y (g/g) 0.053027893
were determined based on objective (i) and (ii). um (/d) 0.043161234
IV. The optimization problem was solved based on the first Kd (/d) 0.004316243

objective with specific constraints.

V. Step IV was repeated by using the second objective function.
VI. The fuzzy degree of satisfaction () was defined for each vari- Table 4
able by relating it to the upper and lower bounds of each variable Optimization results for different objective functions.

(obtained from Step IV). The fuzzy equation was defined as follow Objective Function Lower bound Upper bound max 
to complete the optimization model:
Se (mg/L) 8320 8753.6 8,503
HRT (d) 4.28 4.42 4.33
P − PL
For maximizingavariable : U ≥ (7) MLVSS (mg/L) 19129.63 19475.34 19,310
P − PL M (LCH4/L.d) 0.27 0.28 0.28
COD Removal Efficiency (%) – – 86.7
PU − P SRT (d) – – 136
For minimizing a variable : ≥ (8)
PU − PL OLR (gCOD/L.d) – – 14.75
Influent Flow rate, Q (L/d) – – 1.15
Where P represents the variables, U indicates the upper bound  – – 0.52
value while L indicates the lower bound variables.
VII. The single objective function which was defined in the ini-
tial step was removed and the objective function was altered to
treatment unit [3]. The optimum OLR should fall between 12.8 and
maximize the degree of satisfactory, . The complete optimiza-
15.0 gCOD/L.d. From the authors’ experience, the HRT should be
tion problem created was solved to identify the optimum operating
greater than 3 days to avoid washout of biomass.
condition for the reactor.
SRT should be sufficient to allow sufficient growth of anaerobic
Objective function (i) is set as maximizing COD removal will
bacteria in order to compensate the biomass loss in effluent. The
lead to high treatment efficiency and thus reducing the complex-
SRT for anaerobic process must be > 20 days [13].
ity of the subsequent treatment and operating cost. On top of that,
Up-flow velocity <0.1 m/h [6], generally attainable with
treated effluent with high quality can be achieved. Besides, in objec-
HRT > 3days
tive function (ii), minimizing HRT can increase the productivity of
the reactor because larger amount of effluent can be treated for the
same amount of timeframe which reduces the operating cost. Also, 3. Results and discussion
minimum HRT reduces the reactor volume which leads to lower
capital cost. Thirdly, volumetric methane production rate is maxi- 3.1. Fuzzy optimization
mized in objective function (iii). This is owing to the facts that larger
amount of methane will increase the revenue of the treatment Monod model (Eq. (6)), and volumetric methane production
plant as the methane generated can be used by the plant itself for rate equation (Eq. (4)) had been incorporated into the optimization
power/heat generation or to be sold. On top of that, higher methane model. By using Lingo 14.0, with the use of optimum set of kinetic
production signifies high COD removal. Lastly, MLVSS is maximized constants as shown in Table 3 and appropriate fuzzy equations, the
in objective function (iv). It is because based on Monod model, the optimized value for each objective function is tabulated in Table 4.
operating parameters that can affect the COD removal efficiency are Note that the influent COD used in the model was assumed to
HRT and MLVSS. MLVSS is used as measures of the microorganism be 64,000 mg/L [2,3]. Nevertheless, by assuming different influent
concentration in the wastewater treatment system. High MLVSS COD concentration in the model, another solution can be obtained
concentrations are required to ensure the bacterial population is Table 5.
adequate to anaerobically degrade the organic matter efficiently. The value of Bo determined from Fig. 2 was 0.019 LCH4 /gCOD.
From the literatures, the values of Bo for daily manure ranges from
2.8. Constraints 0.21 to 0.27 LCH4 /gCOD [4,7]. All the constraints set in the opti-
mization model are satisfied such that the HRT is 4.33 days, MLVSS
The effluent from UASB–HCPB will be sent to aerobic treatment is 19,310 mg/L, SRT is 136 days, OLR is 14.75 gCOD/L.d and up-flow
unit to polish the treatment efficiency. Hence, it is crucial to ensure velocity is 0.004 m/h. A low value of  was obtained from the opti-
adequate but not excessive removal of organic matters in anaerobic mization model due to the highly inter-correlated variables [10].
treatment unit for effective functioning of aerobic unit. Chan, et al. The value  also signifies that each variable considered in the model
[3] recommended that the COD removal in anaerobic treatment was settled in the mid of their bounds. It is observed that the bound
should be maintained in the range of 77–87%. for each variable of interest was highly constricted. As such, the sat-
MLVSS concentration in the reactor is another important fac- isfaction value is highly sensitive and a small change in the value
tor that needs to be selected as a controlled operating condition.
Deficient in MLVSS concentration will lead to failure to sustain Table 5
high bioactivity in the reactor while excessive MLVSS concentra- Comparison between response surface methodology (RSM) and fuzzy optimisation.
tion will lead to a lower methane yield [17]. Therefore, the MLVSS Variable Response surface Fuzzy
concentration should be maintained between 15,000 mg/L [17] and methodology optimization
42,000 mg/L [3]. (RSM)
A low value of OLR has to be set in order to avoid unnecessary OLR (gCOD/L.day) 12.8 14.75
investment of treatment facilities. In other words, the maximum MLVSS (mg/L) 40200 19310
HRT is settled by this constraint. Conversely, high OLR will lead to COD removal efficiency (%) 85 86.7
Reference Chan et al. [3] This study
low capital cost but poorer treatment efficiency of the anaerobic
116 Y.J. Chan et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 5 (2015) 112–117
Fig. 2. Determination of Bo for Methane production.
of a variable can lead to a tremendous change in the satisfaction
value.
A confirmative experiment had been conducted to validate the
legitimacy of this optimization approach. As a result, a highly accu-
rate COD removal of 86.7% had been achieved. The experimental
result of COD removal concurs the modeled result. However, the
volumetric methane production rate, M is 0.448 LCH4 /L.d, which
is greater than the modeled results. This is probably due to three
reasons. (1) The Monod Eq. (3) derived from Eq. (2) which was
incorporated in Eq. (1) could not predict the effluent COD well
enough and it was also reported by many researchers [8,1]. This
is because the prediction is totally independent of influent con-
centration and it omits the effect of microbial concentration on
the prediction of effluent concentration [8]. (2) The estimation of
Bo was inaccurate due to the nature of the model developed [3].
The assumption on the assumed constant initial COD of wastew-
ater. However, the volumetric methane production rate obtained
in this study is higher than Poh and Chong [16] due to the higher
MLVSS applied in this study (19,310 mg/L) as compared to Poh’s
results (about 14,000 mg/L) at similar OLR and HRT. A better model
for the methane production rate of the reactor should be incor-
porated in future works, to obtain more accurate optimization
results.
3.2. Comparison between fuzzy optimization and response
surface methodology (RSM)
Since the optimization is carried out with reference to the work
of Chan et al. [3] and that the proposed approach of fuzzy opti-
mization is similar to that of RSM, it is of interest to compare the
results obtained from this study to the results obtained using RSM
by Chan et al. [3]. Based on the anaerobic compartment of the IAAB,
Chan et al. [3] optimized the OLR and the MLVSS of the anaer-
obic compartment and reported that OLR has a more profound
effect on the COD removal compared to MLVSS. The optimum value
of OLR was settled at 12.8 gCOD/L.day as contrast to this study,
which was 14.75 gCOD/L.day. The higher value in this study is due
to the nature of the optimization model, which bounds to max-
imize the OLR by minimizing the HRT. Whereas in Chan’s work,
the objective was to maintain COD removal within a predeter-
mined range. On top of that, the optimized MLVSS of the anaerobic
compartment was 40,200 mg/L for Chan’s case whereas for this
study, it was 19,310 mg/L. The reason is obvious, as Chan, et al.
[3] imposed a constraint which the MLVSS must fall in between
35,000 and 42,000 mg/L. However, it is interesting to note that the
response of COD removal efficiency obtained in both studies are
very near, at 85% for Chan’s case and 86.7% for this study. This signi-
fies that although the OLR was raised slightly from 12.8 gCOD/L.day
in Chan’s (2013) case to 14.75 gCOD/L.day in this study, and with a
much lower MLVSS in this study, the performance would be quite
similar. This is mainly due to 2 reasons. (1) This is in congruence
with the aforementioned finding reported by Chan et al. [3], where
the effect of MLVSS on the COD removal efficiency is not as great
as that of the OLR; (2) There is an extra parameter being consid-
ered in the model, which is the SRT which have a great bearing on
the COD removal efficiency of the bioreactor. Nonetheless, in the
optimization by using RSM, the SRT was not considered to affect
the COD removal efficiency. Hence, decreased in MLVSS level is off-
set by the large value of SRT being considered in this optimization
model, which allows the predicted COD removals in both studies
to be similar.
4. Conclusion
In this study the Monod model is chosen for the optimization of
the UASB–HCPB reactor. It is because Monod model is more pow-
erful as it involves larger number of variables and hence it is more
capable of affecting the COD removal efficiency and the volumet-
ric methane production rate significantly. Whereas other kinetics
model such as Grau second order model involves only one variable
and it is less likely that it can affect the COD removal efficiency
and volumetric methane production rate to a significant extent, as
desired by the scope of this optimization exercise. Kinetic constants
from Monod model were used to optimize the bioreactor with the
aid of LINGO 14.0. Fuzzy degree of satisfaction of the inequali-
ties,  achieved was only 0.52 due to the involvement of highly
constricted parameters. For instance, minimize HRT and maximize
COD removal at the same time. The result of optimization shows
COD removal efficiency and biogas production rate of 86.7% and
0.28 l.CH4 /L.day, respectively. These values have been verified by
running the laboratory scale UASB–HCPB bioreactor using opti-
mized operating conditions as modeled. As a result, COD removal
efficiency of 86% and biogas production rate of 0.45 l.CH4/L.day
were obtained from experiments. Future works will be focused
on the modification of the model development for the volumet-
ric methane production rate in order to enhance the strength of
this approach.
References
[1] P. Bhunia, M. Ghangrekar, Analysis, evaluation, and optimization of kinetic
parameters for performance appraisal and design of UASB reactors, Bioresour.
Technol. 99 (2008) 2132–2140.
[2] Y.J. Chan, M.F. Chong, C.L. Law, Start-up, steady state performance and kinetic
evaluation of a thermophilic integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor (IAAB),
Bioresour. Technol. 125 (2012) 145–157.
[3] Y.J. Chan, M.F. Chong, C.L. Law, Optimization of palm oil mill effluent
treatment in an integrated anaerobic-aerobic bioreactor, Sustain Environ. Res.
23 (3) (2013) 153–170.
[4] Y. Chen, A. Hashimoto, Kinetics of methane fermentation, Biotechnol. Bioeng.
Symp. 8 (1978) 269–282.
[5] K. Chin, K. Wong, Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent,
Water Res. 17 (1983) 993–995.
[6] L.K. Wang, J. Tay, S.T.L. Tay, Y. Hung, Environmental bioengineering, Springer
Sci. Bus. Media 11 (2010) 653–654.
[7] A. Husain, Mathematical models of the kinetics of anaerobic digestion – a
selected review, Biomass Bioenergy 14 (1998) 561–571.
[8] W. Hu, K. Thayanithy, C. Forster, A kinetic study of the anaerobic digestion of
ice-cream wastewater, Process Biochem. 37 (2002) 965–971.
[9] H. Kasivisvanathan, T.L. Ng, H.S. Tay, K.S. Ng, Fuzzy optimisation for
retrofitting a palm oil mill into a sustainable palm oil-based integrated
biorefinery, Chem. Eng. J. vol. 200–202 (2012) 694–709.
[10] W.A. Lodwick, J. Kacprzyk, Fuzzy Optimization: Recent Advances and
Application, 1 ed., Springer, 2010.
[11] A. Ma, S. Cheah, M. Chow, Current status of palm oil processing wastes
management, in: B.G. Yeoh, K.S. Chee, S.M. Phang, Z. Isa, A. Idris, M. Mohamed
(Eds.), Waste Management in Malaysia: Current Status and Prospects for
Bioremediation, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment,
Malaysia, 1993, pp. 111–136.
[12] A. Ma, A. Ong, Pollution control in palm oil mills in Malaysia, J. Am. Oil Chem.
62 (1985) 261–266.
[13] Metcalf, Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004, pp. 996–1004.
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 5 (2015) 112–117 117

[14] T.L. Ng, M.H. Hassim, K.S. Ng, Process synthesis and optimization of a
sustainable integrated biorefinery via fuzzy optimization, Am. Inst. Chem.
Eng. J. 59 (2013) 4212–4217.
[16] P. Poh, M. Chong, Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-hollow centered packed
bed (UASB–HCPB) reactor for thermophilic palm oil mill effluent (POME)
treatment, Biomass Energy 67 (2014) 231–242.
[17] P.E. Poh, Treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) under thermophilic
condition using upflow anaerobic sludge blanket–hollow centered packed
bed (UASB–HCPB) reactor. Ph.D Thesis, University of Nottingham Malaysia
Campus, Selangor, 2012.