Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation

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

Treatment technologies of palm oil mill effluent (POME) and

olive mill wastewater (OMW): A brief review
Zhan Sheng Lee a , Sim Yee Chin a , Jun Wei Lim b , Thongthai Witoon c ,
∗
Chin Kui Cheng a ,
a
Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Gambang,
Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
b
Department of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

highlights

• The sources and characteristics of POME and OMW are reviewed.

• The treatment methods for both POME and OMW are compared.
• Biological treatment is common in POME but not in OMW.
• Thermochemical method especially hydrothermal treatment has great potential.
• The future prospects of are proposed.

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Attributable to the enormous population growth, tonnes of effluents are unavoid-
Received 10 February 2019 ably generated throughout the agricultural activities. The inadequate effluents disposal
Received in revised form 14 April 2019 induces perpetual contamination to the sea and river water sources, which has subse-
Accepted 15 April 2019
quently raised the public environmental concern. For that reason, the handling protocol
Available online 19 April 2019
of agricultural effluents was flagged up as an interest area for research. Despite the
Keywords: environmental hazards, agricultural effluents have the potential to be transformed from
Agricultural effluent wastes into wealth via biological, physicochemical, thermochemical or a combination
Olive mill wastewater of processes thereof. The identical characteristics of palm oil mill effluent (POME) and
Palm oil mill effluent olive mill wastewater (OMW) render the possibility of treating these wastes using the
Wastewater treatment similar treatment method. Generally, biological treatment requires a longer process
time compared to physicochemical and thermochemical technologies despite its easy
and low-cost operation. Comparatively, physicochemical and thermochemical methods
extend their potentiality in converting the agricultural effluents into higher value
products more efficiently. This paper reviews the source and characteristics of both
POME and OMW. Subsequently, a comparison of the current and alternative treatments
for both effluents was done before the future perspectives of both effluents’ treatment
are paved based on the well-being of the human, environment, and economic.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chinkui@ump.edu.my (C.K. Cheng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2019.100377
2352-1864/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

2. Agricultural effluents characteristics...................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Palm oil mill effluent (POME) .................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Olive mill wastewater (OMW) ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Comparison between POME and OMW .................................................................................................................................... 5
3. POME treatment methods ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Biological treatment .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2. Physiochemical treatment .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3. Thermochemical treatment ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.4. Integrated treatment methods ................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5. Summary of POME treatments................................................................................................................................................... 9
4. OMW Treatment Methods....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1. Biological treatment .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Physicochemical treatment......................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.3. Thermochemical treatment ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
4.4. Integrated treatment ................................................................................................................................................................... 13
4.5. Summary of OMW treatments ................................................................................................................................................... 13
5. Future work & treatment outlook .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

1. Introduction

The major vegetable oils in the world are made up from the sources of coconut, cottonseed, olive, palm, peanut,
rapeseed, soybean and sunflower seed. The edible oil refinery processes generate a substantial amount of agricultural
run-off. The wastewater varies both in quantity and characteristics not only from one oil industry to another, but also
varies from one mill to another in the same industry (Chipasa, 2001). The organic and nutrient constituents in the
direct-discharged wastewater would lead to rapid de-oxygenation of water without treatment. It will subsequently cause
irreversible threat and damage to aquatic life. Due to the rapid growth of edible oil industries, growing public awareness
and tightening of environmental regulations, these agricultural effluents need to be treated before discharge, to minimise
the pollution. The choice of effluent treatment method depends on the organic constituents in the effluent and its
discharge routine. In the past, these agricultural wastes were treated just for the sake of complying with environmental
policy and regulations. In recent years, the abundance of agricultural waste and needs for a sustainable society have urged
for waste conversion into useful products instead of plain treatment (Angenent et al., 2004).
Up-to-date, sophisticated technologies have been extensively developed to treat and to utilise the agricultural effluent,
which can be summarised into four main segments: biological, thermochemical, physiochemical and the combination of
the approaches thereof. Some of the technologies merely to solve the waste issues, while part of them intend to recover
energy from the treatment. All the treatment process routes have the unique pros and cons, which should be scrutinised
before being applied in each of these wastes. The agricultural wastewaters are potential to be utilised due to the degrad-
able organic compounds, where a net positive energy gain could be achieved with proper utilisation strategy (Angenent
et al., 2004). The common biological ways comprise of anaerobic treatment, aerobic digestion and fermentation. However,
thermochemical methods are overall better than biological treatment, due to the shorter reaction time and higher
product yields (Liu et al., 2013). Torrefaction, pyrolysis and gasification are the examples of thermochemical treatment
to improve the combustion properties of biomass wastes and its conversion to liquid biofuels or combustible gaseous
products (Kambo and Dutta, 2015). Several other physicochemical and thermochemical technologies were also proposed
in treating the common wastewaters, including but not limited to, membrane ultrafiltration, evaporation, coagulation,
electrolysis, reforming and hydrothermal oxidation.
Palm oil mill effluent (POME) and olive oil wastewater (OMW) are the common wastewaters produced from the edible
oil industries. Both wastewaters are similar from the aspects of organic loads and water content. As of our best knowledge,
a comparison between these wastewaters from the aspects of its characteristics and alternative treatment systems are
scarcely found in the open literature. This paper provides a brief review of the sources and general characteristics of POME
and OMW. The treatment technologies for both wastewaters in the past 10 years are then deliberated and compared in
detailed in this paper for their merits and demerits. The aim of this paper is to provide a guide for the future approach
and paradigm shift in treating POME and OMW.

2. Agricultural effluents characteristics

2.1. Palm oil mill effluent (POME)

The advantages of oil palm products are recognised worldwide, making oil palm one of the most expeditiously growing
equatorial agricultural plantation (Koh and Wilcove, 2008). Fig. 1 displays the global palm oil production data obtained
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 3

Fig. 1. Global palm oil production from 2009/10 to December 2018 (USDA, 2018).

Table 1
Composition of products/wastes from the production of FFB.
Products/Wastes Weight percentage to FFB
composition on dry basis (%)
Palm Oil 21
Palm kernel 7
Fibre 15
Shell 6
Empty fruit bunches (EFB) 23
POME 28

from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (USDA, 2018, 2015). An overall uptrend is observed in the global
production of palm oil. Being the top two countries in supplying palm oil to the world, Indonesia and Malaysia have
contributed 55.3% and 33.7% (27 mil MT and 16 mil MT) respectively in the global palm oil export in 2017/18 (USDA,
2018). It is undeniable that the POME generation will grow proportionally to the supply of palm oil to meet the market
demand (Yoshizaki et al., 2013).
Only 10 wt% of useful oil is extracted from oil palm fruit. The remaining 90 wt% is discarded as wastes (Awalludin et al.,
2015). POME contributes the largest portion among all the wastes generated in the fresh fruit bunches (FFB) extraction
process, which statistically supported by the composition breakdown in Table 1 (Abdullah and Sulaiman, 2013).
Around 2.5 MT of POME is generated from the production of 1 MT of crude palm oil (CPO) for a well-managed palm oil
mill with adequate housekeeping (Madaki and Lau, 2013). Meanwhile, each tonne of POME generates 28 m3 of methane
gas (CH4 ). Inappropriate control and emission of CH4 will contribute to global warming as it is the second most significant
anthropogenic greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, right after CO2 (Olivier et al., 2009).
Raw POME from mill appears to be a viscous brownish colloidal mixture of at high temperature ranging from 353 K
to 373 K. The blackish brown colour of POME is due to the humic acid and fulvic acid-like components, other than tannin
and lignin Kongnoo et al. (2012). It has an unpleasant and distinct offensive odour. POME mainly comprises of water
(95%–96%), total solids (4%–5%, included 2% suspended solid) and oil (0.6%–0.7%) (Abdullah and Sulaiman, 2013). It also
has high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD). It is acidic (pH about 4.5) due to the
content of organic acids in complex form. Table 2 shows the properties of POME generated from different process stages
in the palm oil mills (Hosseini and Wahid, 2015). Despite its non-toxic nature due to the non-chemical extraction process,
the organic content is still too high for the POME to be safely discharged without prior treatment. The dried POME contains
carbon (C) as the main elemental constituent, followed by oxygen (O), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), phosphorus
(P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), aluminium (Al), iron (Fe), silicon (Si) and chlorine (Cl) (Bukhari et al.,
2013; Baranitharan et al., 2013). On top of that, the same authors also concluded that POME did not contain poisonous
heavy metals, such as lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn) and chromium (Cr), which indicated that
POME is environmentally safe to be handled with. The amounts of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin in POME were 11%,
7% and 42% respectively in dry POME basis (O-Thong et al., 2012). It is worth noting that the lignin-to-cellulose in POME
is higher than the other agricultural fibrous residues (Wong et al., 2008).

2.2. Olive mill wastewater (OMW)

Olive oil mill is one of the conventional agricultural crops production industries. Fig. 2 shows the global olive oil
production data provided by the International Olive Council (IOC, 2018). The world olive oil production has risen to 3.2
4 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

Table 2
The properties of POME generated from different process stages in palm oil mills.
Parametersa Sterilisation condensate Separator sludge Hydrocyclone wastewater
pH 5 4.5 –
BOD3 b 23200 28700 5700
COD 47200 63800 14700
TSS 5000 23000 7800
TDS 36100 22000 400
Total Nitrogen 600 1200 90
Ammoniacal Nitrogen 22 48 –
Oil and grease 4200 6900 300
a
All parameters are in units of mg/L except for pH.
b
The sample for BOD analysis is incubated at 300 K for 3 days.

Fig. 2. The global olive oil production from 2009/10 to December 2018 (IOC, 2018).

million ton in 2015/2016, where EU contributed the most at 2.3 million ton. The inconsistency of olive oil production
was mainly due to the weather and season. Olive oil is the primary source of fat in the Mediterranean diet where
its nutritional benefits are globally recognised for its possible cardiovascular disease prevention for adequate amount
consumption (Eilat-Adar et al., 2013). Generally, the quantity of OMW produced throughout the oil extraction process is
1.2–1.8 m3 for every ton of olives, resulting over 30 mil m3 of OMW generated in only the Mediterranean basin alone
annually (Haddad et al., 2017). The conventional olive oil production yields the 20% olive oil, 30% solid residue and the
remaining as the OMW (Rodríguez-Gutiérrez et al., 2012). The production of olive mill waste appears to be much smaller
than other wastes and it has a cyclical production, yet the environmental impact caused by OMW cannot be neglected.
In terms of pollution effect, 1 m3 of OMW is reported to be equivalent to 200 m3 of domestic sewage (El-Abbassi et al.,
2012). OMW which is constituted by the aqueous liquor from mill together and the water in washing and processing the
olives contains noticeable olive pulp soft tissues and oil emulsion.
Generally, OMW composition by weight is 83%–96% water, 3.5%–15% organic constituents and 0.5%–2% mineral
compounds (Kıpçak and Akgün, 2013). OMW also contains sources of polyalcohol, polyphenols, volatile acids, nitrogen
compounds, pectin, oil and tannin that makes OMW in dark colour (Erkonak et al., 2008). Interestingly, in addition to
the reason of high organic loading, some researchers claimed that the low biodegradability of OMW could also due
to its highly toxic and ecologically noxious phenolic content that will subsequently poise the bacterial activity, plants
and aquatic organisms (Abu-Lafi et al., 2017; Mekki et al., 2013). On the other hand, other researchers found that the
phenolic compounds are potential to be recovered as it is valuable for their antioxidants, anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory,
anticancer and antihypertensive effects. This does not only provide a revenue-generating opportunity but also reduce the
environmental footprint of OMW (Caporaso et al., 2017).
It is a consensus among the researchers that the treatment of OMW is obligatory as the waste contains pollution
potential, especially in Mediterranean countries (Erkonak et al., 2008; Rahmanian et al., 2014; Jeguirim et al., 2017). The
high polluting loads of phenolic compounds and reduced sugars in OMW, that causes discolouration and dissolved oxygen
reduction in the river, making it as one of the most polluting effluents produced by the agro-food industries (Rahmanian
et al., 2014). Hence, OMW must be treated prior to discharge, otherwise, the untreated effluent would cause severe
adversity on the aquatic system. The strong foul smell from OMW would also cause an environmental problem to the
surrounding populations (Reis et al., 2018; Frascari et al., 2016; Nuno et al., 2017). In spite of the negative environmental
impact of OMW, some researchers discovered that the significant amount of organic substances in OMW has made it a
great biomass candidate for energy production with the appropriate recovery process (Kıpçak and Akgün, 2013; Kıpçak
et al., 2011).
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 5

Table 3
General parameters and constituents’ composition between POME and OMW reported by
researchers (Madaki and Lau, 2013; Rahmanian et al., 2014; MPOB, 2014).
Parametersa POME OMW
pH 3.4–5.2 4.7–5.7
BOD5 10,250–43,750 41,300–46,000
COD 15,000–100,000 16,500–190,000
TS 11,500–79,000 32,000–300,000
SS 5000–54,000 –
Total volatile solids 9000–72,000 –
Total Nitrogen 180–1400 300–1500
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH3 -N) 4–80 –
O&G 4000 200–10,000
Phosphorus 180 3000–11,000
Potassium 2270 3000–8000
Magnesium 615 600–2200
Calcium 439 100–800
Boron 7.6 –
Iron 46.5 –
Manganese 2.0 –
Copper 0.89 –
Zinc 2.3 –
Phenol Content (g/100 g) – 2–80,000
a
Units for all values are in mg/L, except phenol content (g/100 g) and pH value.

2.3. Comparison between POME and OMW

Table 3 shows the comparison of typical parameters and constituents’ composition between POME and OMW. Both
POME and OMW are similar in the aspects of the common wastewater characteristics, namely BOD, COD, total suspended
solids (TSS) and pH. This is justifiable as both the agricultural effluents are produced from the oil extraction industries (Teh
et al., 2016).
Both COD and BOD reflect the concentration of organic pollutants in wastewater. High level of COD and BOD will
potentially cause a disastrous environmental problem for any improper discharge. Direct discharge of the wastewaters
to the land will cause water logging and clogging of the soil which will wipe out the florae in contact. Release them
directly to the river is deemed a great non-toxic method, as both POME and OMW supposed not to contain any heavy
metal or chemicals. However, the effluent will cause water depletion and subsequently aquatic pollution as there is a
significant amount of microorganisms and organic components in both the wastewater (Rupani et al., 2010). Hence, to
balance the environmental conservation, the economic value of both edible oil industries and the sustainable growth, both
palm oil and olive oil industries are responsible to overcome the pollution obstacles by figuring out the most technically
and economically effective treatment.

3. POME treatment methods

POME is claimed to be one of the most difficult waste to handle due to its massive production and ineffective treatment.
It is a waste with the least amount of fibre content among all the wastes of palm oil process (Awalludin et al., 2015).
Authorities have drafted policy and legalised standards based on own country’s legislation in treating POME prior to
discharging it into streams and rivers. It was reported that the majority failed to meet this stringent discharge limit
consistently and continuously based on the scientific survey (MPOA, 2014). The current wastewater treatment system
incapability is believed to be the tremendous hurdle to the legal compliance.
Despite the POME treatment facilities nowadays, part of the harmful organic pollutants still could not be degraded
comprehensively (Alhaji et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2014; Hasanudin and Haryanto, 2018). The conventional open ponding
system that operates based on the principle of suspended growth activated sludge is operated by more than 85% of the
mills in Malaysia, driven by the relatively cheap capital investment, operation cost and the high organic proportion of
POME (Zahrim et al., 2009). Low-cost open-type systems such as lagoon systems cause long-term environmental problem,
namely greenhouse gases emission and will cause a big loss in energy recovery (Fujihira et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010;
Gozan et al., 2018). The silting and short-circuiting of such treatment system cause failure in meeting the discharge
regulations (Abdullah and Sulaiman, 2013). The open system also produces a large amount of sludge to be further removed.
POME cannot be decolourised completely using this technology too (Tamrin and Zahrim, 2017). Besides, open ponding
system is proven to be land-intensive and needs long HRT (Ng and Cheng, 2015). A conventional anaerobic pond needs a
large land area which is estimated to be around 30–45 acres to store the POME for 3 months for satisfactory degradation
before channelling back to river sources (Omar et al., 2018). This anaerobic degradation of POME which employs bacterial
digestion will generate a huge amount of uncaptured biogas (CH4 and CO2 ) to the environment, which consequently
worsen the global warming. Almost 50% of POME treatment plants in Malaysia are incapable to retain the produced biogas
6 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

due to the weakness of implied systems. Although the implementation of CH4 capture system can reduce greenhouse
gases emission, produce renewable energy, improve soil quality, and FFB production but the system is too costly for
commercialisation (Hasanudin and Haryanto, 2018). Other technical hindrances that preventing the upgrade of the current
system include outdated technology, weak regulations enforcement, and uncertainty surrounding the biogas composition
due to the variation of POME properties seasonally (Abdullah and Sulaiman, 2013; Foong et al., 2018).

3.1. Biological treatment

Anaerobic digestion is currently the most appropriate method for the treatment of POME, which contains high
concentration of organic carbon (Wu et al., 2010). Compared to the open digesting tank system, the anaerobic pond could
produce more CH4 and achieve a higher organic conversion efficiency (Rana et al., 2017). As the anaerobic system is the
most economic biological method in treating POME waste, many pieces of research attempted to improve its shortcomings
via modification or coupling with other treatments. The anaerobic treatment of POME is a source of renewable energy, and
it holds the potential to effectively reduce the GHG emissions from palm oil production. POME can be utilised as the main
source for biogas (a mixture of CO2 and CH4 ) via anaerobic digestion due to its high level of organic contents (Raposo et al.,
2012; Rahman et al., 2018; Lam and Lee, 2011). It has been estimated to generate roughly 1750 MW by 2028 (Mekhilef
et al., 2014). The capture of the POME biogas can preserve the environment in addition to the reduction of organic solids,
microbial pathogens and toxicity (Trisakti et al., 2015). Biogas could be further utilised in generating heat while delivering
electricity via the combined heat and power (CHP) systems (Ge et al., 2016; Ojeda et al., 2017). Beyond that, the anaerobic
digestion could also keep the sum of final sludge disposal a minimum.
Emerging from the current anaerobic treatment, numerous alternative anaerobic treatment systems were developed
for POME, including anaerobic suspended growth processes, attached growth anaerobic processes (immobilised cell
bioreactors, anaerobic fluidised bed reactors and anaerobic filters), anaerobic sludge blanket processes (up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactors and anaerobic baffled reactors), membrane separation anaerobic treatment processes and hybrid
anaerobic treatment processes. The performance of Ultrasonic-assisted Membrane Anaerobic System (UMAS) for COD
removal and CH4 production from POME was evaluated. It was reported that 94.7% of COD was removed at 7 days of
HRT (Shafie et al., 2016). Another modified anaerobic system, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-hollow centred packed bed
(UASB-HCPB) reactor, was investigated under thermophilic condition. More than 90% of the BOD and COD were removed
from the raw POME and a production of biogas with roughly 60% of CH4 was recorded (Poh and Chong, 2014).
The main advantage of utilising the up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) bioreactor for POME treatment is its
capability to generate H2 . However, the long start-up period (up to 4 months), uncertainty of the up-flow velocities
and granules washout resulted by hydraulic stresses are the weaknesses to overcome. The performance of modified up-
flow anaerobic sludge blanket fixed film (UASB-FF) bioreactor on H2 production from pre-settled POME by varying the
parameters of feed flow rate (QF ) and up-flow velocity (Vup ) was studied (Mohammadi et al., 2017). The experimental
result showed that 0.31 L/g of COD was the highest H2 yield, which also resulted the highest removal percentage of
COD at 68%. This biological treatment method is complicated by the difficulty in controlling the parameters like QF , Vup ,
COD, pH, alkalinity and biomass concentration. These parameters would influence the pH, bicarbonate alkalinity and total
volatile fatty acids that subsequently affect the performance of reactor performance, despite its benefit in generating H2 .
Techno-economic analysis of biogas power plant from anaerobic degradation of POME was evaluated using SuperPro
design. The result indicated that the power plant construction is feasible but economically unlikely attractive due to the
huge capital investment required (Gozan et al., 2018). Aerobic and anaerobic technologies as parts of the conventional
biological treatments are inefficient in settling organic pollutants because of the complex molecular configuration of
atoms, high noxiousness and poor biodegradability (Alhaji et al., 2018).
Single operation of anaerobic treatment is ineffective, and complementary operations are required to enhance the
effectiveness. Aerobic processes of anaerobically digested wastes using reactors in series could handle the high organic
strength industrial wastewaters to achieve a higher treatment efficiency, lower energy consumptions and less sludge
production (Chan et al., 2010a). Aerobic post-treatment on different anaerobically digested POME using lab-scale aerobic
digesters showed a positive result of HRT up to 7.2 days (Chou et al., 2016). The TSS removal was insufficient to meet the
discharge requirement, hence tertiary treatment (polishing) was recommended in the report. Anaerobically digested POME
from the closed-type system was further treated using a lab-scale sequencing batch reactor (SBR). This study revealed
satisfactory and stable reduction efficiencies of COD (91%–96%), BOD3 (92%–99%) and TSS (94%–99%), which met the
discharge limits. The control dissolved oxygen and pH were controlled to minimise the influence on the performance of
SBR (Chan et al., 2010a). A temperature effect also plays an important role in the aerobic treatment of anaerobic digested
POME. The aerobic treatment under thermophilic condition (328 K–320 K) demonstrated lower effectiveness in COD,
BOD and TSS removal compared to the mesophilic condition that was at around 301 K. The poorest quality of effluent
was generated at 320 K in the study. This indicated that it would take a reasonably longer period and higher cost for the
POME to reach the required discharge limit in a larger cooling pond as more time was required for the cooling process.
Beyond that, the unrecovered heat loss from the cooling process also failed to maximise the energy recovery (Chan et al.,
2010).
Microbial fuel cell (MFC) is another research of interest to solve the POME waste issue. It is a customised instrument
to convert organic-rich wastewater into electrical energy with the aid of microorganisms (Baranitharan et al., 2013; Islam
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 7

et al., 2016; Jong et al., 2011; Cheng et al., 2010). It is claimed to be a more cost-effective process compared to conventional
biogas production from wastewater as no intermediate stage is required (Konovalova et al., 2018). POME was converted
into electricity using single chamber MFC, yet the removal of COD and BOD contents was not satisfying, most probably due
to the reactor design, treatment parameters and operational process (Islam et al., 2016). Both raw and diluted POME was
treated to generate electricity using a dual chamber MFC using polyacrylonitrile carbon felt, separated by a Nafion 117
membrane. Raw POME showed a lower COD removal efficiency at 45% compared to diluted POME which achieved 70%
after 15 days of operation. However, the power generation and power density increased with the increase of initial COD,
indicating that the MFC system with raw POME performed better (Baranitharan et al., 2013). An integrated system of
two-stage MFCs coupled with immobilised biological aerated filter (I-BAF) was proposed in replacing the conventional
anaerobic biological system based on its better treatment performance (Cheng et al., 2010). This integrated system
performed efficiently by removing COD up to 96.5%. However, the power density obtained from the MFC using POME
was much lower compared to the other wastes (Jong et al., 2011). Besides, the limitation of MFC in the aspects of capital
costs, upscale practicability and electrons transfer performance remains unsolved (Pham et al., 2006).
Co-composting two wastes or more to utilise the characteristics from each other is common, such as bagasse with
vinasse and cow manure (Alavi et al., 2017) horticultural waste with fruit peels, food waste and soybean residues (Choy
et al., 2015), food waste, sawdust and Chinese medicinal herbal residues (Zhou et al., 2014), and also solid olive mill
waste with its liquid effluent (Aviani et al., 2010). The co-composting output of POME and EFB can be processed into oil
palm plantation fertilisers (Yahya et al., 2010) and soil conditioner (Baharuddin et al., 2009). On top of that, the addition of
specialised microbes to EFB-POME co-compost would aid in decreasing amount of waste biomass generated from palm oil
mills (Krishnan et al., 2017). However, the co-composting method has the disadvantages in producing renewable energy
as lower-value products are generated instead (Hasanudin and Haryanto, 2018). Moreover, co-composting using EFB and
raw POME had difficulty to produce product with consistent quality as the characteristics of POME are varied from seasons
to operation mills (Yoshizaki et al., 2013).
Vermicomposting is another biological decomposition method where earthworms are employed to transform
biodegradable organic waste into humus-like vermicast (Hussain and Abbasi, 2018). It has a much higher rate of organic
degradation compared to the conventional composting process in addition to its nutrient-rich product with finer texture.
Limited research works have been conducted in applying vermicomposting in POME treatment (Rupani et al., 2010;
Hayawin, 2016; Rupani et al., 2013, 2017; Zainal, 2014). It was claimed that vermicompost has potential to replace
the chemical-synthesised fertilisers, thus supporting the sustainability of the palm oil industry (Hayawin, 2016). The
vermicompost of POME sludge by epigeic earthworm (E. eugeniae) within 60 days can be a good organic fertiliser and
recyclable to form compost (Syirat et al., 2014). The addition of cow dung and lawn clipping in the mixtures of POME
and palm press fibre accelerated the vermicomposting process, raising its effectiveness in nutrients transformation.
The authors concluded that vermicomposting product derived from POME was a relatively cheaper fertiliser for the
germination and growth of mung bean (Rupani et al., 2017). Nevertheless, this type of fertiliser should be further assessed
from the perspective of safety. Vermicomposting works more effectively with two wastes and above. Sole treatment of
POME using vermicomposting method would probably be ineffective. This might be due to the higher moisture content
and relatively lower nutrients in POME compared to the solid wastes such as EFB, decanter cakes and palm press fibre.
There were a few attempts in cultivating microalgae from POME to generate biomass as intermediate feedstock for
biodiesel production (Lam and Lee, 2011; Saidu et al., 2017). This process is a breakthrough to overcome the cost challenge
for biodiesel production. Due to the organic-rich nature, POME has been investigated for its feasibility as a platform for
microalgae cultivation. In the lipid extraction, Chlorella sp that was cultivated by using 20% POME with 40% synthetic
nutrient could optimally result in higher lipid productivity of 34 mg/L/day (Nur, 2014). The POME feed was treated to
1400 ppm of COD and filtered to further reduce TSS and impurities (Putri et al., 2011; Nwuche, 2014). POME is potential
to be utilised as an algal cultivation medium for biodiesel production, but the algae growth is time-consuming.
POME was utilised to produce bioplastics via a double-step process. POME was first anaerobically processed to
gain acetic and propionic acids before it was used in the next stage for polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) synthesis using
Rhodobacter sphaeroides (Mumtaz et al., 2010; Zubairi et al., 2016). However, it is worth mentioning that post-treatment
is necessary after the bioplastics production, which will induce a higher cost. Due to the rich content of organic and
mineral constituents, there was also an attempt in using POME as a substrate in producing citric acid under controlled
parameters. The use of POME hydrolysates as substrate was capable to reduce the production cost of citric acid and COD
level with more than 80% removal while saving POME treatment costs and minimising environmental problems (Nwuche
et al., 2013). However, the long fermentation period is its weak point to be industrially applied. Besides, pre-treatment
method is also required to enhance the conversion.
The abundance of nutrient constituents in POME makes fermentation a possible treatment method. Bioethanol
was produced from spontaneous fermentation of POME (Wakil et al., 2013). Spontaneous fermentation of POME was
studied with and without the supplements of glucose, corn steep liquor and sugar cane bagasse. The highest ethanol
content achieved without any supplement was 0.5% (3.95 g/L) while with supplementation was 2.3% (18.17 g/L). POME
fermentation for bioethanol production worked optimally at 30 g/L glucose and 30 g/L sugarcane bagasse at pH 8.5 for
12 days. However, neither the change of BOD nor the change of COD throughout the process was declared. The organic
nutrients in POME could be converted to useful bioethanol, yet the time-consuming process and complicated handling
protocol are the limitations to overcome to create a fermentation-suitable environment and feasible industrial scale-up.
8 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

Phototrophic hydrogen production by Rhodopseudomonas palustris was found to be effective and yielded 0.01 L H2 /POME
per hour. In spite of this, the COD removal only achieved 30% (Jamil et al., 2009). In another research finding, R. palustris
as photosynthetic bacteria was proven to be able to degrade POME (Phongjarus et al., 2018). Two-stage fermentation
(dark-fermentation, followed by photo-fermentation) was studied as one of the methods in POME treatment (Mishra
et al., 2016). This system acted as a dual-action technology, as it yielded H2 at a high rate for energy recovery purpose.

3.2. Physiochemical treatment

Alternative physiochemical methods such as coagulation, adsorption, photocatalysis, Fenton-oxidation, membrane

filtration and evaporation, are only capable in migrating the organic pollutants from one form into another, and hence
could not mineralised the organic pollutants thoroughly (Alhaji et al., 2018). Grease traps and dissolved air flotation system
were proposed to treat POME due to its solid/lipid-rich nature. However, these methods are costly due to chemical usage,
treatment of excess-sludge, and energy-intensive (Fujihira et al., 2018).
The effectiveness of ultrafiltration membrane treatment was analysed in reclaiming water reuse from POME (Azmi
and Yunos, 2014). The authors concluded that ultrafiltration treatment with the complement of adsorption pre-treatment
managed to reduce pollutant elements up to 90% at laboratory scale. This treatment system has the advantage of
handling ease. Although high recovery percentage of carbohydrate and protein were shown in the work, the ultrafiltration
method was impractical for POME treatment because of the membrane fouling that caused loss of productivity and
subsequently inducing high maintenance cost (Soler-Cabezas et al., 2015). Substantial water amount was required to
clean the membrane utterly to ensure minimal membrane fouling for steady continuous operation (Chew et al., 2016).
Coagulation–flocculation process is another popular physicochemical treatment technology (Teh et al., 2016; Ismail
et al., 2014; Zinatizadeh et al., 2017; Daud et al., 2014). The simplicity in design and operation, low energy consumption
and high versatility made it an outstanding pre-treatment method. This process was reported to give superior performance
in filtering suspended solids. Higher than 90% colour removal was recorded in POME decolourisation using dual-
coagulants, i.e. ferric chloride-anionic polyacrylamide (Zahrim et al., 2017). Some of the researches further validated the
ability of electrocoagulation in POME decolourisation (Aris et al., 2017; Bashir et al., 2016) in the polishing step. Despite
its advantages, coagulation–flocculation method is usually able to serve only as a complement to the other treatments,
such as biological or advanced oxidation methods, to maximise the efficiency of treatment system (Teh et al., 2016).
Another evaluation of using chitosan-based coagulant was done, showing that the removal of N and P elements was
superior but less effective in dealing with K element (Tadza et al., 2016). The performance of cationic polyacrylamide
was the best acting as a coagulant in removing lignin–tannin, low molecular mass colour compounds, COD and NH3 –N
levels (Tamrin and Zahrim, 2017). Electrocoagulation is one of the coagulant production methods which involves in-situ
process by passing the electric current through the electrodes that subsequently releases metallic ions into the solution.
Electron–Fenton system worked better in terms of COD removal in comparison to electrocoagulation, despite both are
capable in organic compounds reduction (Chairunnisak et al., 2018).
Photocatalytic reaction exhibited high efficiency in the mineralisation of organic compounds and disinfection of
pathogenic microorganisms in wastewater (Zheng et al., 2017; Chong et al., 2010b). TiO2 was the most widely studied pho-
tocatalyst owing to its low toxicity, low cost, high activity and high chemical stability (Zheng et al., 2017). Heterogenous
photocatalytic system using TiO2 nanoparticles to degrade organic pollutants have been researched intensively (Alhaji
et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2014; Ng and Cheng, 2015; Ng et al., 2014; Cheng et al., 2016). About 78% of COD reduction
was achieved from the initial value of 168 ppm in POME from settling pond (Ng and Cheng, 2015). More than 40% of
the organics in POME decomposed within 7 h of reaction using 0.83 g/L of 20 wt% Cu/TiO2 loading (Ng et al., 2014).
Final COD level of 17 mg/L and BOD level of 52 mg/L were attained using cylindrical column immobilised photoreactor
for UV/TiO2 process in the treatment of pre-treated POME with the initial COD value of 350 mg/L and BOD value of 250
mg/L. Despite its design simplicity and abundant surface area for adsorption, the photocatalytic system possesses few
severe drawbacks which consist of unavoidable catalyst separation in post-treatment of waste and low efficiency of light
incident due to the cloudiness of solution that would heavily block the light penetration (Alhaji et al., 2018). Besides, the
release of TiO2 nanoparticles from the slurry reactor has also adversely affected the environmental footprint and ecological
health (Baker et al., 2014; Barmo et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2017; Li et al., 2011). Due to the hazardous concerns of TiO2 , some
of the researchers suggested to build a carrier-support system to immobilise the TiO2 nanoparticles to prevent its release
to the environment. These systems included cylindrical column immobilised photoreactor (Alhaji et al., 2018), double-
cylindrical-shell photoreactor (Li et al., 2014), porous α -Al2 O3 disks support (Wang et al., 2012) and ZSM-5 zeolite support
with Fe3+ and Ni2+ doping (Khatamian et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the immobilised system suffered from the problems like
mass transfer limitation, catalyst deactivation, restricted reactor design due to optical obstruction of opaque support and
smaller surface area compared to the suspended system (Zangeneh et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2012; Boikanyo et al., 2018).
Hence, the commercial viability of both slurry and immobilised photoreactor in wastewater treatment, particularly in
dealing POME, will still be a challenge to be overcome despite its outstanding COD reduction percentage.
The high feasibility and workability make adsorption the most preferred method especially in oil removal, in the case
of the right sorbent is selected. The performance of sago bark (SB) was compared to that of esterified sago bark (ESB) for
the removal of emulsified oil from POME (Wahi et al., 2017). The research found that ESB performed better. The 24-h
oil adsorption tests using SB and ESB as adsorbent achieved the oil removal efficiency of 57.77% and 80.23% respectively.
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 9

However, no analysis of COD nor BOD was studied in this work. POME treatment with the coconut shell-based activated
carbon as adsorbent was studied too. This treatment was claimed to remove averagely 70% of COD, TSS and colour, which
was cleaner than the biological pathway and achieved within shorter process duration (Kaman et al., 2017). To date, no
further investigation on the POME adsorption scalability is performed.
Fenton-oxidation process is another favourable treatment researched in the past (Saeed et al., 2016). By degrading the
organic and inorganic compounds, a total of 85% COD reduction was achieved under the acidic POME at a pH closed to
3. Decolourisation and organics degradation in POME were also investigated using Fenton process (Kongnoo et al., 2012).
It was reported that the highest removal of soluble COD was up to 82% while the colour degradation was more than 90%
by using 50 mM H2 O2 with 1.0 mM Fe2+ for a 30 min POME oxidation process.

3.3. Thermochemical treatment

Thermochemical treatment is one of the prominent ways to transform wet biomass into useful products, typically
syngas. Supercritical water gasification (SCWG) at 653 K and 240 bar was conducted to obtain syngas from a dual feed of
EFB and POME (Sivasangar et al., 2015). The locus of study mainly revolved at EFB, while POME only played the role as
a reaction medium. The behaviour of POME was like water source for SCWG, while it acted as a feed input owing to its
existing organic constituents that hold the ability to be gasified into valuable gaseous products such as CO, H2 , CO2 and
CH4 . In the same study, the pure POME was gasified without EFB under SCWG condition, yielded around 13 mmol/ml,
20 mmol/ml, 0.3 mmol/ml and 0.6 mmol/ml of CO2 , H2 , CH4 and CO in sequence accordance. The authors highlighted
the potential of POME to be converted to useful gases products under the process of SCWG reaction attributed to its
abundance and nature of high moisture content.
Catalytic POME steam reforming at high temperature is a novel approach in converting the wastewater into useful
syngas (Cheng et al., 2018; Ng et al., 2018b,a). A thermodynamic simulation based on minimisation of total Gibbs free
energy was done in investigating the feasibility of syngas production from POME steam reforming (Cheng et al., 2018). The
result implied that the steam reforming of all POME organic compounds is only feasible at 773 K or above. Highest H2 -rich
syngas could be produced at 1073 K within the study temperature from 573 K to 1173 K. Meanwhile, (Ng et al., 2018b)
reported that the highest BOD and COD removals were 93.7% and 93.8% respectively at 873 K with 51.44% H2 selectivity.
−1
The operating condition was under the flow of 90 mL h−1 gcat of POME and 20 mL/min of N2 as the carrier gas. This
reaction was performed over 20wt% of Ni/Al2 O3 . In another study by Ng et al. (2018b), 99.7% of COD was degraded over
the same catalyst at 1173 K. The authors further concluded that high temperature, gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) and
partial pressure of POME favour the H2 production (Ng et al., 2018a). Despite the potential of H2 gas production, the
carbon deposition on the catalyst surface adversely affect the catalytic reaction. Besides, the energy consumption and net
energy gain in reforming the POME into syngas should be further analysed to identify the scale-up feasibility.

3.4. Integrated treatment methods

A study was conducted on zero-discharge oriented pilot treatment plant with a series of integrated technologies
comprising of pre-treatment, followed by biological treatment and membrane separation (Tabassum et al., 2015).
Biological treatment that comprises of anaerobic and aerobic processes associating with membrane filtration technology
was claimed to be a high strength wastewater treatment. The result indicated that average removal of COD was recorded
94% after anaerobic treatment, and over 97% of COD was removed after Nano Air Floatation (aerobic process). Interestingly,
COD, BOD and TSS were not detected in the permeate from the ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis process at the membrane
process stage. The output appeared to be crystal clear, which met the water quality standards. Biogas was captured in
the anaerobic stage. The system basically achieved satisfactory treatment of POME, with the sacrifice of high capital costs.
Several problems were reported throughout the operation, including oil leakage, corroded pipe and uneven dispersion of
nano-bubbles. Nevertheless, these issues were solved by intensive oil skimming, replacement with stainless steel material
and installation of flow guider respectively. The entire system was reported effective in turning POME into clean water,
with a future perspective of improvement in utilising biogas for energy generation.

3.5. Summary of POME treatments

Table 4 summarises the possible alternative solutions in POME treatment and utilisation. Based on the literature works,
the conventional biological treatment is the most common yet not the best way in treating POME, owing to its long
treatment period. Taking the perspective of energy and economics into account, the ideal treatment temperature should
not be lower than the process temperature of fresh POME, which is typically in the range of 348 K–358 K (Chan et al.,
2010; How et al., 2018). This is because the heat loss could be potentially transformed into higher value product such as
energy. Biological treatment does not preserve the heat which leads to a profit loss. Physiochemical treatment methods are
insufficient to stand alone due to their process nature. However, it has great potentiality to be a complement to the main
treatment processes such as biological and thermochemical methods in an integrated plant. Thermochemical approach
is the least applied process in the POME treatment due to the energy-intensive and inevitable drying process. However,
some of the processes such as hydrothermal, SCGW and steam reforming capitalise the high water content in POME for
its conversion to useful gaseous products. The environmental concern, treatment profitability, overall effectiveness should
be considered in selecting an adequate POME treatment method.
10 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377
Table 4
Summary of selective alternative POME utilisation or treatment methods.
Treatment method/usage
Biological treatment
Anaerobic (UASB-HCPB)
Anaerobic (UASB-FF)
Aerobic (SBR)
MFC
Composting (Co-composting &
vermicomposting)
Microalgae cultivation
Bioplastics formation
Citric acid production
Fermentation
Physicochemical treatment
Grease traps and dissolved air
flotation system
Ultrafiltration membrane
separation
Coagulation–flocculation
Photocatalysis
Adsorption
Fenton-oxidation
Thermochemical treatment
SCWG
Catalytic steam reforming
Integrated treatment
Combination of biological
treatments with membrane
filtration
Findings & remarks
Reduced more than 90% of BOD and
COD with 60% CH4 in the gaseous
product.
Highest H2 yield: 0.31 L/g of initial COD,
highest COD removal rate: 68%.
High removal efficiencies of COD
(95%–96%), BOD (97%–98%) and TSS
(98%–99%), which could complement the
anaerobic treatment.
The organic-rich POME is converted into
electrical energy with the aid of
microorganisms.
An effective method involving two
combined wastes (EFB and POME).
Organic fertiliser can be produced from
POME sludge.
Intermediate feedstock for biodiesel
production via lipid extraction.
Bioplastics production via PHA synthesis
using the acetic and propionic acids
gained from anaerobic process of POME.
Reduce both COD in POME and
production cost of citric acid via POME
fermentation.
Useful renewable H2 and bioethanol
production.
Suitable to treat solid/lipid-rich POME.
Pollutant elements reduction up to 90%
with reclaimed water.
Removal of lignin–tannin, low molecular Less effective in removing potassium.
mass colour compounds, COD and
NH3 -N. Simple and less energy
consumption as a pre-treatment.
Efficient in the mineralisation of organic Difficult to be commercialised. The
compounds and disinfection of
pathogenic microorganisms.
Cleaner and less time-consuming
compared to the conventional biological scalability studies.
pathway in oil removal.
Good decolourisation ability and COD
removal rate.
POME as a reaction medium in gasifying
EFB. The potential of POME to be
hydrothermally treated was highlighted.
Useful H2 production. High COD removal
rate.
Excellent quality of water output and
achieved ‘zero discharge’ concept.
Disadvantages Reference
Cost-intensive compared to current Poh and Chong (2014),
system. Chan et al. (2015)
Multitude parameters control leads to Mohammadi et al. (2017)
operation complexity.
Time-consuming for cooling process Chan et al. (2010,a)
and large cooling pond required.
High capital costs, low upscale Baranitharan et al. (2013),
feasibility and low electrons transfer Islam et al. (2016), Jong
performance. et al. (2011), Cheng et al.
(2010), Pham et al. (2006)
Lower value output compared to Yoshizaki et al. (2013),
renewable energy. Rupani et al. (2010),
Hasanudin and Haryanto
(2018), Krishnan et al.
(2017), Hayawin (2016),
Rupani et al. (2013, 2017)
Time-consuming. Saidu et al. (2017), Nur
(2014)
Requires post-treatment Mumtaz et al. (2010),
Zubairi et al. (2016)
Long fermentation period & requires Nwuche et al. (2013)
pre-treatment
Low COD removal and Wakil et al. (2013), Jamil
time-consuming. et al. (2009), Phongjarus
et al. (2018), Mishra et al.
(2016)
Costly and energy intensive. Fujihira et al. (2018)
Membrane fouling, costly maintenance. Azmi and Yunos (2014),
Soler-Cabezas et al. (2015),
Chew et al. (2016)
Tamrin and Zahrim (2017),
Able to serve only as a complementary Zahrim et al. (2017), Aris
treatment. et al. (2017), Bashir et al.
(2016), Tadza et al. (2016)
Alhaji et al. (2018), Cheng
release of TiO2 nanoparticles leads to et al. (2014), Ng and Cheng
the adverse environmental footprint (2015), Ng et al. (2014),
and ecological health. Cheng et al. (2016)
Require further treatment. No Wahi et al. (2017), Kaman
et al. (2017)
Further treatment is required. Kongnoo et al. (2012),
Saeed et al. (2016)
Energy-intensive as the reaction is Sivasangar et al. (2015)
done at supercritical phase.
Carbon deposition on the catalyst Cheng et al. (2018), Ng
surface. Energy-consuming. et al. (2018b,a)
Costly to be commercialised at the Tabassum et al. (2015)
industrial level.
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 11

4. OMW Treatment Methods

In view of the identical characteristics of OMW and POME, the commonly used treatment technologies in treating
OMW are either chemical, biological or the integration of both (Kontos et al., 2014).
Evaporation ponds and co-generation are the conventional OMW treatment methods due to their simple construc-
tions (Alfano et al., 2009). However, the failure in the basin insulation can easily contaminate the groundwater and produce
a strong fetid smell that eventually attracts insects during the decomposition processes. Meanwhile, the co-generation
process would stimulate the nitrogen oxides production and emission of suspended ashes which would further pollute
the environment (Rincón et al., 2012).

4.1. Biological treatment

Most of the biological treatment studies of OMW focused on anaerobic digestion (Anastasiou et al., 2011). However,
prior to that, sufficient polyphenols removal or substantial multiple dilutions is required for a more effective degradation
in biological treatment (Speltini et al., 2015).
The performance of aerobic treatment in removing phytotoxic components in OMW was evaluated (El Hajjouji et al.,
2014). The genotoxicity and phytotoxicity reduction were proven but the COD and BOD level were not measured in this
study. The same authors further suggested the advantage of having this treatment before the anaerobic process to improve
treatment efficiency. However, a different opinion was claimed that the aerobic processes are incapable in dealing with
organic-rich OMW (Mantzavinos and Kalogerakis, 2005). To achieve a better treatment result, multiple dilutions (70–
100 times in common practices) are recommended to reduce the feed COD level to 1 g/L before subjected to biological
treatment. This would probably induce a higher cost implication.
Co-composting of OMW with sesame bark was also attempted to remove the polyphenols toxicity (Hachicha et al.,
2009). The total organic matter after co-composting successfully decreased 52.72% while hydrophilic phenol degradation
decreased 72%. All the polyphenolic compounds were removed after 7 months (210 days) of processing. Despite the proven
ability in phenol removal, co-composting appears to be more time-consuming than anaerobic digestion, in addition to the
loss of potential energy recovery.
The possibility of using OMW as biopesticide was reviewed elsewhere (El-Abbassi et al., 2017). The reported studies
showed that the natural occurring chemicals in OMW and its phenolic components were capable to act as a biopesticide
and contributed to crop protection against plant diseases, which eventually could abandon the application of synthetic
insecticides, and minimise the environmental problems. The bio-processed OMW has a great potentiality to inhibit the
germination of the main bacterial, fungal phytopathogens and weed species without adversely affect the crop growth.
However, the dose and timing in using OMW biopesticide should be carefully measured.

4.2. Physicochemical treatment

The employment of natural resources as adsorbent was less focused on in OMW treatment. For a claimed low-cost
treatment, three successive columns of gravel, fine sand and a mixture of acidified cotton and natural zeolite (clinoptilolite)
have been employed prior to the polishing steps using activated charcoal (AC) and lime (Aly et al., 2014). It was reported
that most of the contaminants were removed in all the three columns. Organic particles were removed using AC while
the pH was raised from 2.9 to 5.1 using lime. The physiochemical treatment was able to produce clean water for the
agricultural water source.
The adsorption performance of OMW using local natural Jordanian clay as the adsorbent was investigated (Azzam
et al., 2015). The pollutants of raw undiluted OMW were reduced, recording a total of 10%–20% of COD and phenols
reduction in a batch experiment. Continuous packed bed experiment was reported to give a better result of 50% reduction.
However, more studies are demanded to further process the wastewater to achieve acceptable discharge level. The authors
proposed to have integrated or multiple treatment stages to treat the effluent effectively, as single treatment methodology
is insufficient.
Membrane ultrafiltration process could be an adequate method in purifying OMW if the severe fouling problems could
be overcome. Operating condition set below the boundary flux enables a reduction in fouling, however, it will make the
process economically not feasible. Photocatalysis is suggested to act as pre-treatment to increase the boundary flux (Stoller
et al., 2017, 2015). However, the economic evaluation reflected high cost is required for its commercialisation.
The photocatalytic hydrogen gas evolution was investigated by using OMW as the sacrificial agent (Speltini et al., 2015).
The author highlighted that OMW is a low-cost and rewarding sacrificial agent, as a total of 30 mL OMW could produce
280 µmol H2 . Zero CO2 was generated by this process, compared to H2 production from natural gas which gave away a
large amount of CO2 . However, the overall efficiency of the photocatalytic system needs to be increased via photoreactor
features upgrade.
12 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

4.3. Thermochemical treatment

The interests of unleashing the energy potential from the biomass waste have caused an emergence of research
in hydrothermal treatment to tackle the biomass waste issue. Hydrothermal process can be further categorised into
carbonisation, liquefaction and gasification, where the main product is hydrochar, bio-oil and syngas respectively.
Hydrothermal gasification is worth an investigation to resolve the waste problem, meanwhile, to produce useful energy
and promote materials recovery from biodegradable organic compounds and biomass wastes (Kıpçak et al., 2011). Water
presents in the biomass waste acts as a reaction solvent in hydrothermal gasification, contributing to the higher thermal
and energy efficiency by eliminating the requirement of the pre-drying process (Taylor et al., 2009).
The feasibility and performance of hydrothermal supercritical gasification of OMW were investigated (Kıpçak et al.,
2011). The filtered OMW was pumped into a coiled tubular reactor system without further dilution. The hydrothermal
reaction was conducted from 673 K to 873 K, with reaction time ranging from 30 s to 150 s, at a constant pressure of 250
bar. CO formation decreased dramatically with the temperature and reaction time due to the conversion into CO2 at a
higher temperature and longer reaction time. Optimum yield of gas was obtained at 823 K with the corresponding reaction
time of 30 s. The gas product comprised of CH4 , H2 and CO2 at 34.84, 9.23 and 49.34 mol% respectively. Decreasing the
system pressure from 300 bar to 100 bar has caused a decrease of gas effluent flow rate, which was most likely due to
the carbonisation occurred and smut formed, clogging the system with time. The CH4 gas reduced but CO2 increased with
the decrease of system pressure, where such observation was in a good agreement with the thermodynamics analysis of
hydrogen production from biomass gasification under supercritical state using glucose as a model (Yan et al., 2006).
The performance of catalytic gasification of OMW under supercritical condition using commercially available catalyst
Ru/Al2 O3 was also studied (Kıpçak and Akgün, 2013). The experiment was carried out at a constant pressure of 250 bar
to investigate the effect of temperature (673 K–873 K) and reaction times (30 s–150 s) on the gasification yield, gaseous
composition and treatment efficiency of the wastewater. This catalytic reaction reported a superior yield in gas products
(9.3 L/kg OMW), comprising of H2 , CO2 , CH4 and C2 –C4 hydrocarbons. The author reported that the energy recovery could
achieve an even better result with the increase of temperature and reaction time, where the efficiency went up to 98%
under supercritical water condition.
The H2 production was gauged from the hydrothermal treatment of OMW under supercritical water condition (803 K
and 250 bar) in a sand bath preheated reactor. The commercially-ready homogenous catalysts, namely KOH, K2 CO3 , NaOH
and Na2 CO3 were employed. COD removal recorded 75%–89% in all the catalysts, especially carbonate salt. An optimum
result, 76.73 mol H2 /kg of OMWdry , was achieved in the hydrothermal treatment at 803 K and 230 bar for 20 min, using
58 wt% KOH catalyst and COD value of 23 ± 2.56 g O2 /L OMW. A higher concentration of hydroxide catalyst resulted in a
greater reduction of CO which subsequently producing more H2 . This treatment method was proven to be economically
and energetically efficient (Casademont et al., 2018).
The hydrogen production from the hydrothermal process of OMW was measured at different parameters (Casademont
et al., 2016). The best result was reported at 603 K and 150 bar with the reaction time of 30 min that gave the highest
yield of gaseous and liquid products with the lowest solid residue output. A significant rise of hydrogen production was
recorded with the utilisation of Au–Pd catalyst in treating OMW under supercritical water condition (803 K, 250 bar, less
than 3 min), in comparison to the other catalysts namely TiO2 , V2 O5 and KOH. It is worth noting that about 90% COD
removal achieved for all the experimental runs with and without catalysts. This indicates that both homogenous and
heterogeneous catalysts did not aid much in reducing the COD in OMW.
Hydrothermal carbonisation (HTC) has also been used to convert OMW to biochar material, which is commonly known
as hydrochar (Poerschmann et al., 2013b,a). HTC experiments were conducted in a 200 mL lab-scale autoclave. The
HTC experiment was conducted at 493 K for 14 h (Poerschmann et al., 2013a). 100 mg/L of citric acid was used as a
catalyst in the reaction with the temperature range from 453 K to 493 K and reaction time of 14 h, under autogenous
pressures (Poerschmann et al., 2013b). The authors did not recommend HTC to be employed in OMW treatment due to
the low yield of hydrochar. This might be related to the low carbohydrate content in the OMW.
There was an attempt to impregnate OMW on the sawdust for the production of green biofuels and biochar under
pyrolysis (Haddad et al., 2017). The biochar produced had a high amount of elements K, N and P compared to non-OMW-
loaded sawdust. The authors further confirmed the function of biochar in plant growth, proving that it helped in enlarging
the leaves dimension and overall mass yields. These nutrients have the potential in improving soils fertility which would
result in a boost in crops growth rate (Zhao et al., 2016). Although the authors reported that the evaporated water could
be recovered for irrigation purpose, the drying time was too long to prepare the feedstock for pyrolysis. The minimum
required drying time was 107 min at 333 K to remove the moisture from 20 g of raw cypress sawdust in 400 mL of OMW.
Subcritical and supercritical water oxidation using H2 O2 as the oxygen source in a tube reactor was studied (Erkonak
et al., 2008). The OMW was only filtered without undergoing any dilution. It was believed that this feedstock preparation
method would retain the organic substance in the sample for oxidation purpose. The experimental result showed that
the supercritical water oxidation process managed to reduce the total organic content (TOC) up to 99.96% at very short
residence times of 5 s to 30 s. Among the investigated parameters, temperature effect was recognised as the most
significant parameter in reducing the TOC comparing to pressure, residence time and oxygen concentration. The prolonged
reaction time and higher oxygen concentration also resulted the increase in TOC conversion. The treatment efficiency
was increased by reducing the system pressure from 300 bar to 100 bar. Nevertheless, the low-pressure system with the
increased rate of carbonisation was suffered from the formation of smut that would eventually deposit at the reactor
inner wall and cause blockage, especially in the continuous flow tubing reactor.
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 13

4.4. Integrated treatment

Effect of combined treatment of OMW using Fenton’s reagent process attached along with anaerobic digestion was
studied (Amor et al., 2015). Sole OMW treatment of using anaerobic digestion was insufficient due to the wastewater
toxicity and biodegradability. Hence, catalytic oxidation using Fenton’s reagent was suggested in degrading complex
organic acids and recalcitrant components in the wastewater. The COD removal increased in overall and higher methane
yield was obtained (306 mL of CH4 /g of COD degraded) compared to single anaerobic digestion (288 mL of CH4 /g of COD
degraded). Nevertheless, the authors stressed on the concern of the high capital and operational expenses associated with
the chemical reactor and the reactants, which would be a major restriction in scaling up the process to industrial size.
A study was performed on utilising combined chemical–biological treatment in solving OMW problem (Karahan et al.,
2016). The issue of organic complexity that led to ineffective biodegradation of OMW was highlighted. The experiment
result showed that filtration and chemical pre-treatment with Fenton and iron electrode were ineffective in COD removal.
However, the chemical treatment attempt was still capable in minimising the fine particulate matters which eventually
improved the biodegradability characteristics of OMW. It can be further deduced that the wastewater with high organic
content is difficult to be biologically treated, thus complementary methods are essential for a better treatment result.

4.5. Summary of OMW treatments

Table 5 shows the significant findings of OMW treatment. Biological treatment study is less favourable in OMW treat-
ment, probably owing to its appreciable content of phenolic compounds. The combination of different physicochemical
techniques can recover a significant amount of phenol, while biological processes are helpful in removing the phenolic
content although they are commonly employed as a pre-treatment method (Rahmanian et al., 2014). Membrane filtration
and biological treatment were recommended for larger scale production while oxidation technologies such as photo-
Fenton was suitable for the industry with lower annual production capacity (Ioannou et al., 2017). However, low efficiency
in removing phytotoxicity is the main limitation of membrane process while the inevitable pre-filtration is the weakness
for oxidation technologies. Supercritical hydrothermal gasification was proven to be efficient in converting OMW into
useful gaseous output (Casademont et al., 2018). Hydrothermal treatment could be a novel agricultural effluent treatment
strategy due to its common reaction medium and circumvented the pre-drying process. Further researches are required
to improve the treatment system in meeting the discharge requirement.

5. Future work & treatment outlook

Both agricultural effluents generation will continue its rising trend due to domestic and global demand (Madaki
and Lau, 2013; Speltini et al., 2015). Meanwhile, research studies in attempting to provide a comprehensive alternative
treatment solution in solving OMW and POME problems are rising since the past few years. Due to the high moisture
content and dispersed nature of both edible oil production, the inconsistent seasonality of wastewater quality is often a
problem to the yield of useful products and treatment of both effluents. Different alternative treatment methods were
proposed for both POME and OMW despite their similar characteristics. It is clearly showing that both agricultural
effluents are treated via either biological routes or chemical pathways, where the former one is the dominant process
in POME treatment for its distinguished advantages of non-complicated operation and high suitability in dealing organic
substances. Direct biological processing of OMW is challenging due to the presence of polyphenols which contribute
inhibitory effect on the bacterial strains (Speltini et al., 2015). The removal of phenolic compounds or a large dilution factor
for raw OMW often essential as its pre-treatment (Speltini et al., 2015). Single operations such as flocculation, chemical
treatments, ultrafiltration, or its integrated-operations, for instance centrifugation–ultrafiltration, direct discharge on lands
and compositing are some of the common treatments in handling OMW (Haddad et al., 2017).
Low cost and energy-generating wastewater treatment system are the attributes of the system superiority (Fujihira
et al., 2018). Treatment for the agricultural effluents is demanding for an industrially effective method, at the same
time the capital and operation costs could be remained at the minimum. It is possible and practical to achieve the
transformation of both POME and OMW into wealth. The cellulose and starch-containing waste such as OMW and POME
can be treated to produce H2 which has high energy density, higher conversion efficiency of useable power and minimum
generation of pollutants (Mamimin et al., 2015). A comparison of biological, physicochemical and thermochemical
treatment methods for POME and OMW has been summarised in Table 6. In general, biological treatment is too time-
consuming and land-dependent for agricultural treatment. Physiochemical alone was proven insufficient to reduce the
levels of COD and BOD to safe discharge limit as this group is basically capable only to filter the total solids, solvent-
extractable compounds, phosphates and sulphates. Thermochemical method emerges to be a potential approach in
biomass and effluent treatments. Among all the available thermochemical technologies, the hydrothermal treatment
appears to be an outstanding candidate for effluent treatment as the pre-drying is circumvented in addition to higher
value output. It is worth noting that hydrothermal treatment was widely investigated in OMW treatment, but it has
never been attempted in POME treatment. This treatment idea could be further investigated on POME treatment as POME
is also organic-rich wastewater. As of our best knowledge, the current POME treatment is still not the most efficient
method, where the potential to convert the wastewater into profitable products is worth to be explored. An assessment
14 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

Table 5
Literature findings of OMW treatment.
Treatment method/usage
Biological treatment
Anaerobic digestion
Aerobic digestion
Co-composting
Biopesticide
Physicochemical treatment
Adsorption (gravel, fine sand
and a mixture of acidified
cotton and natural zeolite)
Adsorption (Jordanian clay)
Membrane ultrafiltration
Photocatalysis
Thermochemical treatment
Hydrothermal supercritical
gasification
Catalytic hydrothermal
supercritical gasification using
Ru/Al2 O3
Catalytic hydrothermal
supercritical gasification using
homogenous catalysts
Catalytic hydrothermal reaction
HTC
Pyrolysis
Subcritical and supercritical
water oxidation using H2 O2
Integrated treatment
Fenton’s reagent process with
anaerobic digestion
Chemical–biological method
Findings & remarks Disadvantages Reference
A common agricultural wastewater treatment Multiple OMW dilutions or proper Anastasiou et al.
method. polyphenols removal are necessary. (2011), Speltini
et al. (2015)
Genotoxicity and phytotoxicity of raw OMW High-cost implication. El Hajjouji et al.
were reduced. (2014)
The polyphenols toxicity of OMW was Time-consuming and low energy Hachicha et al.
reduced via co-compositing with sesame recovery. (2009)
bark.
OMW was bio-processed to be an organic Dosage and timing of the usage of OMW El-Abbassi et al.
pesticide. biopesticide need to be well measured. (2017)
Most of the contaminants were removed. Difficult to be scaled-up. Aly et al. (2014)
Water for agricultural purpose was produced.
50% reduction of COD and polyphenols Sole adsorption method is insufficient. Azzam et al.
recorded in the continuous packed bed (2015)
adsorption.
Clean wastewater treatment output could be Membrane fouling. Costly. Stoller et al.
produced with the aid of photocatalytic (2017, 2015)
pre-treatment.
H2 output with no CO2 emission. Overall photocatalytic system feature Speltini et al.
upgrade is demanded. (2015)
Optimum result of CH4 (34.84 mol%), H2 Severe operating condition as Kıpçak et al.
(9.23 mol%) and CO2 (49.34 mol%) obtained supercritical phase was involved. (2011)
at 823 K and 30 s.
High gaseous output (9.3 L/kg OMW), Severe operating condition as Kıpçak and Akgün
comprising of H2 , CO2 , CH4 and C2 -C4 supercritical phase was involved. (2013)
hydrocarbons. The increase of temperature
and reaction time led to the increase of
efficiency up to 98%.
COD removal recorded 75%–89% in all the Severe operating condition as Casademont et al.
catalysts such as KOH, K2 CO3 , NaOH and supercritical phase was involved. (2018)
Na2 CO3 . Optimum result was achieved at 803
K and 230 bar for 20 min, with 58 wt% KOH
catalyst.
Highest gaseous output with minimum solid Costly noble metal catalyst and Casademont et al.
residue was achieved using Au–Pd catalyst at energy-intensive (2016)
803 K and 250 bar for less than 3 min. 90%
COD removal achieved for both catalytic and
non-catalytic runs.
Production of useful biochar with the Low yield of biochar output. Poerschmann et al.
minimal degradation of simple biophenols. (2013b,a)
Impregnated OMW on the sawdust produced Drying time was too long. Haddad et al.
biochar with higher amount of elements K, N (2017)
and P compared to non-OMW-loaded
sawdust.
TOC reduction up to 99.96% at short Smut deposit at the reactor inner wall Erkonak et al.
residence times of 5–30 s. and cause blockage. (2008)
The degradation of COD and yield of CH4 High capital and operational expenses to Amor et al. (2015)
were higher compared to single anaerobic be applied at the industry.
digestion.
The chemical treatment minimised the fine High cost. Karahan et al.
particulate matters and improved the OMW (2016)
biodegradability.

in the context of energy usage and economic analysis is recommended in the future work to measure the profitability of
the current and alternative wastewater treatment systems.
An adequate treatment technology selection is highly relying on the demand and supply of inhabitants, geograph-
ical condition, meteorological situation, economic profitability, industrialisation, development rate and the regulatory
discharge limit of that country. These factors require a ‘scenario-based’ decision-making computation to decide the
most suitable treatment based on the factors revolving social, environmental and economic clusters (Kalbar et al.,
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 15

Table 6
Comparison of treatment methods for OMW and POME.
Method Description Superiority Drawbacks
Biological Use of microbes in POME to Tackle on the biodegradable Time-consuming.
degrade the organics. compounds. Large area is needed.
Low cost in overall.
Physicochemical Use of physical separation Simple and less Ineffective treatment output.
time-consuming compared to Costly.
biological method.
Thermochemical Use of heat and chemical Able to valorise organic-rich Energy-intensive.
wastewater. Costly.

2016; Molinos-Senante et al., 2015). Besides, the expensive materials and long term stable operation are the concerns
in commercialising the treatment research from lab-scale to the industrial level (Krishnan et al., 2019). In the future
perspective, both the wastewater treatment systems should consume the least time and be able to meet the discharge
standard at the end-of-pipe of the treatment process. Beyond that, the conversion of these wastes into value-added
products, such as syngas, activated carbon solid and organic compounds like residual oil is highly appreciated. The cost
of materials and operation stability should be taken into consideration in designing the alternative POME and OMW
treatment systems. The utilisation of safer, more convenient and profitable system could be the favoured treatment option
in the future.

6. Conclusion

The inexperience of agricultural operators and absence of sophisticated treatment technology are the major causes of
the improper disposal of the agricultural effluents. The environmental concern and stringent waste discharge guidelines
have pressured both the edible oil industries to design a more effective wastewater treatment system. On the other
hand, the insufficient effort from the legislative bodies in providing incentives to optimise the agricultural practice, and
vague regulations enforcement have discouraged the proper treatment of effluents. Energy recovery from the wastewater
treatment is the latest ultimate target from the viewpoint of the sustainability agenda. Both agricultural effluents exhibit
similar composition and characteristics. Owing to the abundant organic constituents both POME and OMW, more effort
should be paid in recovering them from POME using economically profitable and environmental-benign tactics. Majority
of the biological treatment methods such as anaerobic digestion, co-composting and vermicomposting are claimed to
be ineffective in harnessing energy. Despite that, biological treatment especially anaerobic digestion method is still the
common treatment for POME due to the simplicity and effectiveness in biodegradation. Meanwhile, more studies on
thermochemical and physicochemical methods were done in OMW treatment, owing to the high recalcitrant polyphenols
content. Thermochemical treatment especially hydrothermal gasification under supercritical state was widely discussed
in handling OMW but not POME. However, the limitation of energy-intensive reaction owing to its process condition
should be overcome. This novel approach is recommended to be carefully studied for its potentiality in converting POME
into value-added products.

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by Universiti Malaysia Pahang via UMP Internal Grant (RDU170325) and UMP Flagship Strategic
Leap 3 Grant (RDU172202).

References

Abdullah, N., Sulaiman, F., 2013. The oil palm wastes in malaysia. In: Matovic, M.D. (Ed.), Biomass Now - Sustainable Growth and Use. InTech, Rijeka,
Ch. 03.
Abu-Lafi, S., et al., 2017. Enrichment of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater and in vitro evaluation of their antimicrobial activities.
Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 9.
Alavi, N., et al., 2017. Investigating the efficiency of co-composting and vermicomposting of vinasse with the mixture of cow manure wastes, bagasse,
and natural zeolite. Waste Manage. 69, 117–126.
Alfano, G., et al., 2009. Present and future perspectives of olive residues composting in the mediterranean basin (CompMed). In: Dynamic Soil,
Dynamic Plant. Global Science Books, Isleworth, UK, pp. 39–56.
Alhaji, M.H., et al., 2018. Photo-oxidation of pre-treated palm oil mill effluent using cylindrical column immobilized photoreactor. In: Process Safety
and Environmental Protection.
Aly, A.A., Hasan, Y.N.Y., Al-Farraj, A.S., 2014. Olive mill wastewater treatment using a simple zeolite-based low-cost method. J. Environ. Manag. 145,
341–348.
Amor, C., et al., 2015. Combined treatment of olive mill wastewater by Fenton’s reagent and anaerobic biological process. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part
A 50 (2), 161–168.
Anastasiou, C.C., et al., 2011. Approaches to olive mill wastewater treatment and disposal in Cyprus. Environ. Res. J. 5 (2), 49–58.
Angenent, L.T., et al., 2004. Production of bioenergy and biochemicals from industrial and agricultural wastewater. Trends. Biotechnol. 22 (9), 477–485.
16 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

Aris, N.S.M., et al., 2017. Effect of operating parameters on decolourisation of palm oil mill effluent (POME) using electrocoagulation process. Pertan.
J. Sci. Technol. 25, 197–206.
Aviani, I., et al., 2010. Co-composting of solid and liquid olive mill wastes: Management aspects and the horticultural value of the resulting composts.
Bioresour. Technol. 101 (17), 6699–6706.
Awalludin, M.F., et al., 2015. An overview of the oil palm industry in malaysia and its waste utilization through thermochemical conversion, specifically
via liquefaction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1469–1484.
Azmi, N.S., Yunos, K.F.M., 2014. Wastewater treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) by ultrafiltration membrane separation technique coupled
with adsorption treatment as pre-treatment. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2, 257–264.
Azzam, M.O.J., Al-Gharabli, S.I., Al-Harahsheh, M.S., 2015. Olive mills wastewater treatment using local natural Jordanian clay. Desalin. Water Treat.
53 (3), 627–636.
Baharuddin, A., et al., 2009. Co-composting of empty fruit bunches and partially treated palm oil mill effluents in pilot scale. Int. J. Agric. Res. 4 (2),
69–78.
Baker, T.J., Tyler, C.R., Galloway, T.S., 2014. Impacts of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on marine organisms. Environ. Pollut. 186, 257–271.
Baranitharan, E., et al., 2013. Bioelectricity generation from palm oil mill effluent in microbial fuel cell using polacrylonitrile carbon felt as electrode.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 224 (5), 1533.
Barmo, C., et al., 2013. In vivo effects of n-TiO2 on digestive gland and immune function of the marine bivalve Mytilus galloprovincialis. Aquat. Toxicol.
132–133, 9–18.
Bashir, M.J.K., et al., 2016. Polishing of treated palm oil mill effluent (POME) from ponding system by electrocoagulation process. Water Sci. Technol.
73 (11), 2704–2712.
Boikanyo, D., et al., 2018. Biopolymers: A natural support for photocatalysts applied to pollution remediation. Nanotechnol. Environ. Sci..
Bukhari, N.A., et al., 2013. Characteristics of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) in an Anaerobic Biogas Digester. Vol. 16. pp. 225–231.
Caporaso, N., Formisano, D., Genovese, A., 2017. Use of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater as valuable ingredients for functional foods.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1–13.
Casademont, P., et al., 2016. Energy production by hydrothermal treatment of liquid and solid waste from industrial olive oil production. J. Appl.
Solut. Chem. Model. 5, 103–116.
Casademont, P., et al., 2018. Hydrogen production by catalytic conversion of olive mill wastewater in supercritical water. J. Supercrit. Fluids 141,
224–229.
Chairunnisak, A., et al., 2018. Comparative study on the removal of COD from POME by electrocoagulation and electro-Fenton methods: Process
optimization. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 334 (1), 012026.
Chan, Y.J., Chong, M.F., Law, C.L., 2010. Effects of temperature on aerobic treatment of anaerobically digested palm oil mill effluent (POME). Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 49 (15), 7093–7101.
Chan, Y.J., Chong, M.F., Law, C.L., 2010a. Biological treatment of anaerobically digested palm oil mill effluent (POME) using a lab-scale sequencing
batch reactor (SBR). J. Environ. Manag. 91 (8), 1738–1746.
Chan, Y.J., et al., 2015. 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. J. Water Process Eng. 5, 112–117.
Cheng, C.K., Deraman, M.R., Khan, M.R., 2014. Evaluation of The Photocatalytic Degradation of Pre-Treated Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) over Pt-loaded
Titania. Vol. 3.
Cheng, J., et al., 2010. Palm oil mill effluent treatment using a two-stage microbial fuel cells system integrated with immobilized biological aerated
filters. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (8), 2729–2734.
Cheng, C.K., et al., 2016. Preparation of titania doped argentum photocatalyst and its photoactivity towards palm oil mill effluent degradation. J.
Cleaner Prod. 112, 1128–1135.
Cheng, Y.W., et al., 2018. Hydrogen-rich syngas production via steam reforming of palm oil mill effluent (POME) – A thermodynamics analysis. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy.
Chew, C.M., et al., 2016. Evaluation of ultrafiltration and conventional water treatment systems for sustainable development: an industrial scale case
study. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 3152–3163.
Chipasa, K., 2001. Limits of Physicochemical Treatment of Wastewater in the Vegetable Oil Refining Industry. Vol. 10. pp. 141–147.
Chong, M.N., et al., 2010b. Recent developments in photocatalytic water treatment technology: A review. Water Res. 44 (10), 2997–3027.
Chou, K.W., et al., 2016. Aerobic post-treatment of different anaerobically digested palm oil mill effluent (POME). Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 7 (7), 511.
Choy, S.Y., et al., 2015. Co-composting of horticultural waste with fruit peels, food waste, and soybean residues. Environ. Technol. 36 (11), 1448–1456.
Daud, N.S., Ghazi, T.I.M., Ahamad, I.S., 2014. Wheat germ as natural coagulant for treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME). Int. J. 5 (2).
Eilat-Adar, S., et al., 2013. Nutritional recommendations for cardiovascular disease prevention. Nutrients 5 (9), 3646–3683.
El-Abbassi, A., Kiai, H., Hafidi, A., 2012. Phenolic profile and antioxidant activities of olive mill wastewater. Food Chem. 132 (1), 406–412.
El-Abbassi, A., et al., 2017. Potential applications of olive mill wastewater as biopesticide for crops protection. Sci. Total Environ. 576, 10–21.
El Hajjouji, H., et al., 2014. Evaluation of an aerobic treatment for olive mill wastewater detoxification. Environ. Technol. 35 (24), 3052–3059.
Erkonak, H., Söğüt, O.Ö., Akgün, M., 2008. Treatment of olive mill wastewater by supercritical water oxidation. J. Supercrit. Fluids 46 (2), 142–148.
Foong, S.Z.Y., et al., 2018. A systematic approach for the synthesis and optimization of palm oil milling processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (8),
2945–2955.
Frascari, D., et al., 2016. Olive mill wastewater valorisation through phenolic compounds adsorption in a continuous flow column. Chem. Eng. J. 283,
293–303.
Fujihira, T., et al., 2018. High-rate anaerobic treatment system for solid/lipid-rich wastewater using anaerobic baffled reactor with scum recovery.
Bioresour. Technol. 263, 145–152.
Ge, X., Xu, F., Li, Y., 2016. Solid-state anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: Recent progress and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 205,
239–249.
Gozan, M., et al., 2018. Techno-economic analysis of biogas power plant from POME (palm oil mill effluent). Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 13 (8), 6151–6157.
Hachicha, S., et al., 2009. Elimination of polyphenols toxicity from olive mill wastewater sludge by its co-composting with sesame bark. J. Hazard.
Mater. 161 (2), 1131–1139.
Haddad, K., et al., 2017. Olive Mill Wastewater: From a Pollutant to Green Fuels, Agricultural Water Source and Biofertilizer. Vol. 5.
Hasanudin, U., Haryanto, A., 2018. Palm oil mill effluent recycling system for sustainable palm oil industries. Asian J. Environ. Biotechnol. 2 (1),
52–62.
Hayawin, Z., 2016. Influence of frond, stem and roots of oil palm seedlings in vermicompost from oil palm biomass. J. Oil Palm Res. 28, 479–484.
Hosseini, S.E., Wahid, M.A., 2015. Pollutant in palm oil production process. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 65 (7), 773–781.
How, B.S., et al., 2018. Debottlenecking of sustainability performance for integrated biomass supply chain: P-graph approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 193,
720–733.
Hussain, N., Abbasi, S., 2018. Efficacy of the vermicomposts of different organic wastes as ‘‘clean’’ fertilizers: State-of-the-art. Sustainability 10 (4),
1205.
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 17

Ioannou, L., et al., 2017. Treatment Efficiency and Economic Feasibility of Biological Oxidation, Membrane Filtration and Separation Processes, and
Advanced Oxidation for the Purification and Valorization of Olive Mill Wastewater. Vol. 114.
IOC, 2018. World Olive Oil Figures. Available from: http://www.internationaloliveoil.org/estaticos/view/131-world-olive-oil-figures.
Islam, M.A., et al., 2016. Performance of Klebsiella oxytoca to generate electricity from POME in microbial fuel cell. In: MATEC Web of Conferences,
vol. 38, p. 03004.
Ismail, S., et al., 2014. Coagulation of palm oil mill effluent (POME) at high temperature. J. Appl. Sci. 14, 1351–1354.
Jamil, Z., et al., 2009. Optimization of phototrophic hydrogen production by Rhodopseudomonas palustris PBUM001 via statistical experimental design.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (17), 7502–7512.
Jeguirim, M., et al., 2017. Olive mill wastewater: From a pollutant to green fuels, agricultural water source and bio-fertilizer—Part 1. The drying
kinetics. Energies 10 (9), 1423.
Jong, B., et al., 2011. Performance and microbial diversity of palm oil mill effluent microbial fuel cell. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 53 (6), 660–667.
Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2016. Life cycle-based decision support tool for selection of wastewater treatment alternatives. J. Cleaner
Prod. 117, 64–72.
Kaman, S.P.D., Tan, I.A.W., Lim, L.L.P., 2017. Palm oil mill effluent treatment using coconut shell – based activated carbon: Adsorption equilibrium
and isotherm. In: MATEC Web Conf., vol. 87, p. 03009.
Kambo, H.S., Dutta, A., 2015. A comparative review of biochar and hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties and applications.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 359–378.
Karahan, Ö.Ö., et al., 2016. Characteristics and biodegradability of olive mill wastewaters. Environ. Technol. 37 (10), 1240–1248.
Khatamian, M., et al., 2012. Preparation of metal ion (Fe3+ and Ni2+) doped TiO2 nanoparticles supported on ZSM-5 zeolite and investigation of
its photocatalytic activity. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 177 (18), 1623–1627.
Kıpçak, E., Akgün, M., 2013. Catalytic gasification of olive mill wastewater as a biomass source under supercritical conditions. Int. J. Chem. Mater.
Sci. Eng. 7 (9).
Kıpçak, E., Söğüt, O.Ö., Akgün, M., 2011. Hydrothermal gasification of olive mill wastewater as a biomass source in supercritical water. J. Supercrit.
Fluids 57 (1), 50–57.
Koh, L.P., Wilcove, D.S., 2008. Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conserv. Lett. 1 (2), 60–64.
Kongnoo, A., et al., 2012. Decolorization and organic removal from palm oil mill effluent by Fenton’s process. Environ. Eng. Sci. 29 (9), 855–859.
Konovalova, E.Y., et al., 2018. The microorganisms used for working in microbial fuel cells. AIP Conf. Proc. 1952 (1), 020017.
Kontos, S.S., Koutsoukos, P.G., Paraskeva, C.A., 2014. Removal and recovery of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater by cooling
crystallization. Chem. Eng. J. 251, 319–328.
Krishnan, Y., et al., 2017. Co-composting of palm empty fruit bunch and palm oil mill effluent: Microbial diversity and potential mitigation of
greenhouse gas emission. J. Cleaner Prod. 146, 94–100.
Krishnan, S., et al., 2019. Process constraints in sustainable bio-hythane production from wastewater: Technical note. Bioresource Technol. Rep. 5,
359–363.
Lam, M.K., Lee, K.T., 2011. Renewable and sustainable bioenergies production from palm oil mill effluent (POME): Win–win strategies toward better
environmental protection. Biotech. Adv. 29 (1), 124–141.
Li, M., Czymmek, K.J., Huang, C.P., 2011. Responses of Ceriodaphnia dubia to TiO2 and Al2O3 nanoparticles: A dynamic nano-toxicity assessment of
energy budget distribution. J. Hazard. Mater. 187 (1), 502–508.
Li, D., et al., 2014. A novel double-cylindrical-shell photoreactor immobilized with monolayer TiO2-coated silica gel beads for photocatalytic
degradation of Rhodamine B and Methyl Orange in aqueous solution. Sep. Purif. Technol. 123, 130–138.
Liu, Z., et al., 2013. Production of solid biochar fuel from waste biomass by hydrothermal carbonization. Fuel 103, 943–949.
Madaki, Y.S., Lau, S., 2013. Palm oil mill effluent (POME) from Malaysia palm oil mills: Waste or resource Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. (ISSN: 2278-3687)
2 (6), 1138–1155.
Mamimin, C., et al., 2015. Two-stage thermophilic fermentation and mesophilic methanogen process for biohythane production from palm oil mill
effluent. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (19), 6319–6328.
Mantzavinos, D., Kalogerakis, N., 2005. Treatment of olive mill effluents: Part I. Organic matter degradation by chemical and biological processes—an
overview. Environ. Int. 31 (2), 289–295.
Mekhilef, S., et al., 2014. Malaysia’s renewable energy policies and programs with green aspects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40, 497–504.
Mekki, A., Dhouib, A., Sayadi, S., 2013. Review: effects of olive mill wastewater application on soil properties and plants growth. Int. J. Recycl. Org.
Waste Agric. 2 (1), 15.
Mishra, P., et al., 2016. Enhanced hydrogen production from palm oil mill effluent using two stage sequential dark and photo fermentation. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 41 (41), 18431–18440.
Mohammadi, P., et al., 2017. Optimization of fermentative hydrogen production from palm oil mill effluent in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
fixed film bioreactor. Sustain. Environ. Res. 27 (5), 238–244.
Molinos-Senante, M., et al., 2015. Assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives for small communities: An analytic network process approach.
Sci. Total Environ. 532, 676–687.
MPOA, 2014. BOD level and POME tertiary treatment technologies. In: MPOA News. MPOA.
MPOB, 2014. Oil Palm & The Environment. Available from: http://www.mpob.gov.my/palm-info/environment/520-achievements#Mill.
Mumtaz, T., et al., 2010. Turning waste to wealth-biodegradable plastics polyhydroxyalkanoates from palm oil mill effluent – a Malaysian perspective.
J. Cleaner Prod. 18 (14), 1393–1402.
Ng, K.H., Cheng, C.K., 2015. A novel photomineralization of POME over UV-responsive TiO2 photocatalyst: kinetics of POME degradation and gaseous
product formations. RSC Adv. 5 (65), 53100–53110.
Ng, K.H., et al., 2014 Phototreatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) over Cu/TiO2 photocatalyst. BCREC. Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. 9 (2), (SCOPUS
Indexed, 2014).
Ng, K.H., et al., 2018a. Experimental evaluation and empirical modelling of palm oil mill effluent steam reforming. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy.
Ng, K.H., et al., 2018b. A study into syngas production from catalytic steam reforming of palm oil mill effluent (POME): A new treatment approach.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy.
Nuno, A.S., et al., 2017. From a lab test to industrial application: scale-up of fenton process for real olive mill wastewater treatment. J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 92 (6), 1336–1344.
Nur, M., 2014. Lipid extraction of microalga Chlorella sp. cultivated in palm oil mill effluent (POME) medium. World Appl. Sci. J. 31 (5), 959–967.
Nwuche, C., 2014. Use of Palm Oil Mill Effluent as Medium for Cultivation of Chlorella sorokiniana. Vol. 4. pp. 305–316.
Nwuche, C.O., Aoyagi, H., Ogbonna, J.C., 2013. Citric acid production from cellulase-digested palm oil mill effluent. Asian J. Biotechnol. 5 (2), 51–60.
O-Thong, S., Boe, K., Angelidaki, I., 2012. Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of oil palm empty fruit bunches with palm oil mill effluent for efficient
biogas production. Appl. Energy 93, 648–654.
Ojeda, F., Bakonyi, P., Buitrón, G., 2017. Improvement of methane content in a hydrogenotrophic anaerobic digester via the proper operation of
membrane module integrated into an external-loop. Bioresour. Technol. 245, 1294–1298.
18 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377

Olivier, B., et al., 2009. The indirect global warming potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation. Environ. Res. Lett.
4 (4), 044007.
Omar, A.K.M., et al., 2018. Implementation of the supercritical carbon dioxide technology in oil palm fresh fruits bunch sterilization: A review. J.
CO2 Util. 25, 205–215.
Pham, T.H., et al., 2006. Microbial fuel cells in relation to conventional anaerobic digestion technology. Eng. Life Sci. 6 (3), 285–292.
Phongjarus, N., et al., 2018. Photoheterotrophy of photosynthetic bacteria (Rhodopseudomonas palustris) growing on oil palm and soybean cooking
oils. Environ. Technol. Innov. 10, 290–304.
Poerschmann, J., Weiner, B., Baskyr, I., 2013a. Organic compounds in olive mill wastewater and in solutions resulting from hydrothermal carbonization
of the wastewater. Chemosphere 92 (11), 1472–1482.
Poerschmann, J., et al., 2013b. Hydrothermal carbonization of olive mill wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 133, 581–588.
Poh, P.E., Chong, M.F., 2014. Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-hollow centered packed bed (UASB-HCPB) reactor for thermophilic palm oil mill effluent
(POME) treatment. Biomass Bioenergy 67, 231–242.
Putri, E.V., et al., 2011. Investigation of microalgae for high lipid content using palm oil mill effluent (POME) as carbon source. In: International
Conference on Environment and Industrial Innovation. IPCBEE.
Rahman, M.M., et al., 2018. Anaerobic digestion of food waste. In: Horan, N., Yaser, A.Z., Wid, N. (Eds.), Anaerobic Digestion Processes: Applications
and Effluent Treatment. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 105–122.
Rahmanian, N., Jafari, S.M., Galanakis, C.M., 2014. Recovery and removal of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc.
91 (1), 1–18.
Rana, S., et al., 2017. A recent overview of palm oil mill effluent management via bioreactor configurations. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 3 (4), 254–267.
Raposo, F., et al., 2012. Anaerobic digestion of solid organic substrates in batch mode: An overview relating to methane yields and experimental
procedures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (1), 861–877.
Reis, P.M., et al., 2018. Integrating Fenton’s process and ion exchange for olive mill wastewater treatment and iron recovery. Environ. Technol. 39
(3), 308–316.
Rincón, B., et al., 2012. Olive oil mill waste treatment: improving the sustainability of the olive oil industry with anaerobic digestion technology. In:
Olive Oil - Constituents, Quality, Health Properties and Bioconversions. pp. 275–292.
Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, G., et al., 2012. New Olive-Pomace Oil Improved by Hydrothermal Pre-Treatments. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
Rupani, P.F., Ibrahim, M.H., Ismail, S.A., 2013. Vermicomposting biotechnology: recycling of palm oil mill wastes into valuable products. Int. J. Recycl.
Org. Waste Agric. 2 (1), 10.
Rupani, P.F., et al., 2010. Review of current palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment methods: vermicomposting as a sustainable practice. World
Appl. Sci. J. 11 (1), 70–81.
Rupani, P.F., et al., 2017. Bioremediation of palm industry wastes using vermicomposting technology: its environmental application as green fertilizer.
3 Biotech 7 (3), 155.
Saeed, M.O., et al., 2016. Treatment of POME using Fenton oxidation process: removal efficiency, optimization, and acidity condition. Desalin. Water
Treat. 57 (50), 23750–23759.
Saidu, H., et al., 2017. Low-cost biodiesel production. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 10 (2), 57–65.
Shafie, N.F.A., et al., 2016. The performance study of Ultrasonic-assisted Membrane Anaerobic System (UMAS) for Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
removal efficiency and methane gas production in Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) treatment. In: 4th IET Clean Energy and Technology Conference,
CEAT 2016.
Shah, S.N.A., et al., 2017. Hazardous effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in ecosystem. Bioinorganic Chem. Appl. 2017, 4101735.
Silva, F., Lansarin, M., Moro, C., 2012. A comparison of slurry and inmobilized TiO2 in the photocatalytic degradation of phenol. Lat. Am. Appl. Res.
42 (3), 275–280.
Sivasangar, S., et al., 2015. Supercritical water gasification of empty fruit bunches from oil palm for hydrogen production. Fuel 143, 563–569.
Soler-Cabezas, J.L., et al., 2015. Ultrafiltration of municipal wastewater: study on fouling models and fouling mechanisms. Desalin. Water Treat. 56
(13), 3427–3437.
Speltini, A., et al., 2015. Evaluation of UV-A and solar light photocatalytic hydrogen gas evolution from olive mill wastewater. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
40 (12), 4303–4310.
Stoller, M., et al., 2015. Membrane process enhancement of 2-phase and 3-phase olive mill wastewater treatment plants by photocatalysis with
magnetic-core titanium dioxide nanoparticles. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 30, 147–152.
Stoller, M., et al., 2017. Technical and economic impact of photocatalysis as a pretreatment process step in olive mill wastewater treatment by
membranes. Chem. Eng. 57.
Syirat, Z.B., et al., 2014. Changes in characteristics and physicochemical through vermicomposting of Pome Sludge by epigeic earthworm E. eugeniae.
Adv. Mate. Res. 970, 304–307.
Tabassum, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., 2015. An integrated method for palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment for achieving zero liquid discharge – A
pilot study. J. Cleaner Prod. 95, 148–155.
Tadza, M.Y.M., Ghani, N.A.F., Sobani, H.H.M., 2016. Evaluation of sludge from coagulation of palm oil mill effluent with chitosan based coagulant. J.
Teknologi. 78 (5–4), 19–22.
Tamrin, K.F., Zahrim, A.Y., 2017. Determination of optimum polymeric coagulant in palm oil mill effluent coagulation using multiple-objective
optimisation on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (19), 15863–15869.
Taylor, A.D., DiLeo, G.J., Sun, K., 2009. Hydrogen production and performance of nickel based catalysts synthesized using supercritical fluids for the
gasification of biomass. Appl. Catal. B 93 (1), 126–133.
Teh, C.Y., et al., 2016. Recent advancement of coagulation–flocculation and its application in wastewater treatment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55 (16),
4363–4389.
Trisakti, B., et al., 2015. Acidogenesis of palm oil mill effluent to produce biogas: Effect of hydraulic retention time and pH. Procedia - Soc. Behav.
Sci. 195, 2466–2474.
USDA, 2015. Oilseeds: World Market and Trade.
USDA, 2018. Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of Agriculture.
Wahi, R., et al., 2017. Utilization of esterified sago bark fibre waste for removal of oil from palm oil mill effluent. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 5 (1),
170–177.
Wakil, S., et al., 2013. Production of Bioethanol from Spontaneous Fermentation of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). Vol. 5. pp. 28–35.
Wang, X., et al., 2012. Synthesis of high quality TiO2 membranes on alumina supports and their photocatalytic activity. Thin Solid Films 520 (7),
2488–2492.
Wong, K.M., et al., 2008. Enzymatic hydrolysis of palm oil mill effluent solid using mixed cellulases from locally isolated fungi. Res. J. Microbiol. 3,
474–481.
Wu, T.Y., et al., 2010. Pollution control technologies for the treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) through end-of-pipe processes. J. Environ.
Manag. 91 (7), 1467–1490.
 Z.S. Lee, S.Y. Chin, J.W. Lim et al. / Environmental Technology & Innovation 15 (2019) 100377 19

Yahya, A., et al., 2010. Effect of adding palm oil mill decanter cake slurry with regular turning operation on the composting process and quality of
compost from oil palm empty fruit bunches. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (22), 8736–8741.
Yan, Q., Guo, L., Lu, Y., 2006. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification in supercritical water. Energy Convers.
Manage. 47 (11), 1515–1528.
Yoshizaki, T., et al., 2013. Improved economic viability of integrated biogas energy and compost production for sustainable palm oil mill management.
J. Cleaner Prod. 44, 1–7.
Zahrim, A.Y., et al., 2009. Decolourisation of anaerobic palm oil mill effluent via activated sludge granular activated carbon. World Appl. Sci. 5,
126–129.
Zahrim, A.Y., et al., 2017. Effective coagulation-flocculation treatment of highly polluted palm oil mill biogas plant wastewater using dual coagulants:
Decolourisation, kinetics and phytotoxicity studies. J. Water Process Eng. 16, 258–269.
Zainal, B.S., 2014. Vermicomposting of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Sludge and Effects of Vermicompost on Oil Palm Seedling Growth. Universiti
Sains Malaysia.
Zangeneh, H., et al., 2015. Photocatalytic oxidation of organic dyes and pollutants in wastewater using different modified titanium dioxides: A
comparative review. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 26, 1–36.
Zhao, L., et al., 2016. Copyrolysis of biomass with phosphate fertilizers to improve biochar carbon retention, slow nutrient release, and stabilize
heavy metals in soil. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4 (3), 1630–1636.
Zheng, X., et al., 2017. Photocatalytic Membrane Reactors (PMRs) in Water Treatment: Configurations and Influencing Factors. Vol. 7. p. 224.
Zhou, Y., Selvam, A., Wong, J.W., 2014. Evaluation of humic substances during co-composting of food waste, sawdust and Chinese medicinal herbal
residues. Bioresour. Technol. 168, 229–234.
Zinatizadeh, A.A., et al., 2017. Polyacrylamide-induced coagulation process removing suspended solids from palm oil mill effluent. Sep. Sci. Technol.
52 (3), 520–527.
Zubairi, S.I., et al., 2016. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) for tissue engineering applications: biotransformation of palm oil mill effluent (POME) to
value-added polymers. J. Teknol. 78, 13–29.