| Literature DB >> 26426062 |
Javier Miguel Ochando-Pulido1, Antonio Martinez-Ferez2.
Abstract
Many reclamation treatments as well as integrated processes for the purification of olive mill wastewaters (OMW) have already been proposed and developed but not led to completely satisfactory results, principally due to complexity or cost-ineffectiveness. The olive oil industry in its current status, composed of little and dispersed factories, cannot stand such high costs. Moreover, these treatments are not able to abate the high concentration of dissolved inorganic matter present in these highly polluted effluents. In the present work, a review on the actual state of the art concerning the treatment and disposal of OMW by membranes is addressed, comprising microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO), as well as membrane bioreactors (MBR) and non-conventional membrane processes such as vacuum distillation (VD), osmotic distillation (OD) and forward osmosis (FO). Membrane processes are becoming extensively used to replace many conventional processes in the purification of water and groundwater as well as in the reclamation of wastewater streams of very diverse sources, such as those generated by agro-industrial activities. Moreover, a brief insight into inhibition and control of fouling by properly-tailored pretreatment processes upstream the membrane operation and the use of the critical and threshold flux theories is provided.Entities:
Keywords: membrane bioreactors; membrane processes; microfiltration; nanofiltration; olive mill wastewater; reverse osmosis
Year: 2015 PMID: 26426062 PMCID: PMC4703997 DOI: 10.3390/membranes5040513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Olive oil production worldwide (data from International Olive Oil Council, IOOC 2014) [1].
Characteristics of the effluents of batch and continuous olive oil extraction processes [3].
| Process | Effluent | COD, | BOD5, | TSS, | pH | EC, | TPh, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olive cleaning | OWW | 0.8–2.2 | 0.3–1.5 | 8–18 | 5.5–6.6 | 2.5–3.0 | 0–0.1 |
| Batch press | OMW-P | 130–130 | 90–100 | 10–12 | 4.5–5.0 | 2.0–5.0 | 1.0–2.4 |
| Three phase | OMW-3 | 30–220 | 5–45 | 5–35 | 3.5–5.5 | 2.0–7.9 | 0.3–7.5 |
| Two phase | OMW-2 | 4–18 | 0.8–6.0 | 2–7 | 3.5–6.0 | 1.5–2.5 | 0.1–1.0 |
COD: chemical oxygen demand; BOD5: biochemical oxygen demand; TSS: total suspended solids; EC: electric conductivity; TPh: total phenolic compounds.
Effluents flowrates of continuous olive oil extraction processes [2].
| Effluent, L/kg | 3-phase extraction | 2-phase extraction |
|---|---|---|
| Washing of olives (OWW) | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Horizontal centrifuge | 0.90 | 0 |
| Vertical centrifuge | 0.20 | 0.15 |
| Cleaning | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| 1.21 | 0.25 |
Parametric standard limits for discharge of OMW in suitable terrains (data from the Guadalquivir Hydrographical Confederation, 2006–2014) [6].
| Parameter | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2006 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 | 6–9 |
| TSS, mg/L | 600 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 |
| COD, mg/L | 2,500 | 2,000 | 1,500 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| BOD5, mg/L | 2,000 | - | - | - | - |
Irrigation water quality as a function of its salinity (Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO).
| EC, dS/cm | Water quality | Risk due to salinity |
|---|---|---|
| 0–1 | Excellent to good | Low to mid |
| 1–3 | Good to marginal | High |
| > 3 | Marginal to unacceptable | Very high |