Sustain. Environ. Res.

, 23(4), 273-278 (2013) 273

Improvement of the operation of municipal slaughterhouses, and

the technology of sustainable use of their waste and wastewater

Alfredo Ramrez-Guerrero, Carlos Muoz-Amezcua, Mario Villaln-Cornejo,

Lucila Garca-Prez, Jess Crdenas-Mijangos and Adrin Rodrguez-Garca*

Center of Research and Technological Development in Electrochemistry

Pedro Escobedo 76703, Mexico

Key Words: Integral, prototype, slaughterhouse, wastewater

ABSTRACT

In order to analyze the current process of operation of slaughterhouses and propose actions for an appropriate
control, as well as implement the reduction of water used per slaughtered animal, a study of Cleaner Production
applied to the processes in a selected municipal slaughterhouse in Quertaro, Mexico was undertaken. Also, from
treatability tests of wastewater, a mobile prototype of wastewater treatment (1.5 m3 d-1) was conceptualized, designed
and built. With this prototype, removal efficiencies organic matter up to 97% were obtained, reducing chemical
oxygen demand from 5,790 to 150 mg L-1, which will allow slaughterhouses comply with current regulations
regarding to wastewater discharge. Additionally, the production of biogas (2.5 m3 d-1) represents an opportunity for
the sustainability of this project. This prototype is operating at the slaughterhouse and demonstrates the efficiency
of treatment of those wastewaters. Along with the prototype, this project developed a technological folder with
technical specifications, comparative analysis of production units and a business plan that brings together all the
necessary information to evaluate the project and the general guidelines to implement it in other municipalities of
Quertaro. Additionally, an environmental impact study was performed to identify and interpret the environmental
impacts of a full scale project, with emphasis on environmental benefits.

INTRODUCTION composting. In Mexico, this activity is one of the most

INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, talking about environmental problems
has become a topic of interest and of great importance
in the world, due to the impact on continuity of life in a
balanced environment through sustainable development.
Fast industrial and technological developments, coupled
with increasing human population, have caused serious
pollution problems, natural resource depletion, climate
changes and imbalances in ecosystems. The livestock
sector is an industry of prime importance, and may be
defined as the breeding and exploitation of animals
(pigs, cows, sheep, etc.) to get the most out of them.
While the primary objective of this activity is to provide
food for human consumption, mainly meat and milk,
other benefits include the skin, wool, leather, bristles,
fat, bone and animal waste products for countless uses
such as shoes, blankets, brushes, soap, glue, crafts and
important agricultural sectors, representing 3.2% of
the Gross Domestic Product [1]. Meat production in
sanitary conditions is a collective need of the utmost
importance. The facility responsible for meeting this
need in our country is known as a slaughterhouse. A
slaughterhouse is any setting where the slaughter and
dressing of animals, or butchering, is carried out [2].
In addition to the above major products, various solid
and liquid wastes such as offal, hair, hooves, horns,
rejected meat, ruminal and intestinal contents, blood
and washing water are generated in slaughterhouses.
These residues by their nature are considered to be
special handling wastes, which are those generated
in production processes that have the characteristics
to be considered as hazardous waste, but they are not
considered solid waste under the General Law for the
Integral Prevention and Management of Waste [3].
The amount and composition of liquid and solid

*Corresponding author
Email: arodriguez@cideteq.mx
274 Ramrez-Guerrero et al., Sustain. Environ. Res., 23(4), 273-278 (2013)
wastes generated in the process of butchering depend
on the type of animal that is slaughtered, the slaughter
methods and the type of equipment used. Table 1
presents the main sources of generation within a typical
slaughterhouse.
Handling and disposal of waste from the slaughter
of animals are generally conducted in an inappropriate
manner. This process generates wastewater consisting of
blood and washing water, and is poured directly into the
sewer and water bodies despite having concentrations
greater than 30,000 mg chemical oxygen demand (COD)
L-1. This causes serious problems in the receiving body,
such as eutrophication [4]. Moreover, solid waste is taken
to landfills or open dumps, which lack the necessary
measures to capture leachate or greenhouse gases
produced by the anaerobic decomposition of organic
matter, also of direct and indirect consequence to human
health. To alleviate this, waste must be treated before
disposal. Slaughterhouse waste anaerobic treatment
has not been studied in depth, with most information
about the treatment of the liquid fraction. In 2003,
Marcos et al. [5] conducted a study of slaughterhouse
solid waste slurry (with a ratio of 6% solids, 10% blood
and 84% cleaning water) in a mixed reactor where
continuous removal efficiencies of 22% organic matter
-1
and biogas yield of 7.84 L kg residue added were
obtained. In 2004, Alvarez [6] performed a codigestion
of slaughterhouse waste and debris from the market,
comparing different solids loadings and determined that
the appropriate concentration was 4% of volatile solids
-1
(VS) to obtain a productivity of 557 L of methane kg
VS fed. Subsequently, as the process was carried to
laboratory scale, the following factors were investigated
for their effect on production of biogas and reduction of
VS: temperature, composition of the mixture, retention
time and percentage of VS in the feed. From this it was
determined that the most suitable temperature was 36
C, with a proportion of 17% market waste, 67% mixed
rumen/blood and 17% manure. The yield of methane
was 634 L kg-1 VS added.
Table 1. Sources of waste generation within the slaughterhouse
Process
Stockyards
Killing (exsanguination)
Removalof skin(skinning)
Meat inspection
Channel management
Managementof viscera
General Cleaning
Tanning
Services(offices, toilets)
In the State of Queretaro Mexico, there is a
pressing need for action to reduce pollution from
municipal slaughterhouses and slaughterhouses
in general. In 2007 the Centro de Investigacin
y Desarrollo Tecnolgico en Electroqumica
(CIDETEQ), in collaboration with the Secretara de
Desarrollo Sustentable (SEDESU), conducted a census
of the main municipalities of the State of Queretaro
to identify needs in the matter of slaughterhouses and
improvements to treatment plants. It was found that the
municipalities of El Marqus, Huimilpan, Peamiller,
San Joaqun, Landa de Matamoros and Arroyo Seco
do not have slaughterhouses, requiring slaughter of
livestock in non-commercial houses or transport of
particular animals to neighboring municipalities. The
municipalities of San Juan del Rio, Tequisquiapan,
Ezequiel Montes, Coln, Tolimn, Cadereyta, Pinal
de Amoles, Jalpan, Quertaro, Pedro Escobedo and
Amealco were visited, resulting in the finding that only
San Juan del Rio has some pilot anaerobic reactors
(designed and manufactured by CIDETEQ), and that
only 10% of the 36 m3 d-1 of generated wastewater is
treated, discharging the rest to the Rio San Juan. The
slaughterhouse of Tequisquiapan has some aeration
pits, and the rest of the municipalities do not have
any wastewater treatment systems specifically for
slaughterhouse waste. Municipalities with greater
generation of slaughterhouse wastewater are Quertaro
(216 m3 d-1) and San Juan del Rio (36 m3 d-1), followed by
Amealco (9.7 m3 d-1), Colon (7.8 m3 d-1), Tequisquiapan
3 -1 3 -1
(5.8 m d ), Pedro Escobedo (5 m d ), Ezequiel Montes
3 -1 3 -1
(3.2 m d ), Tolimn (3 m d ), Cadereyta and Pinal de
Amoles (2.5 m3 d-1 each) and Jalpan (1.8 m3 d-1). The
discharges of most municipalities are directly to the
sewer system, except for Coln, which discharges to
the Solitude Dam reservoir, San Juan del Rio to Rio
San Juan, and Quertaro to an interceptor line that goes
directly to Rio el Pueblito. In CIDETEQ, studies have
been conducted to determine whether slaughterhouse
residues can be treated through a process of biological
Generated waste
Dead animals, manure, strawand fodder
Blood
Blood,hair
Rejected meat
Cuttingwaste, pieces ofmeat, fat
Stomach orintestinalcontents
Pieces offlesh, blood clots
Wastewater withhigh salt content
Waste paper,household waste, wastewater
 Ramrez-Guerrero et al., Sustain. Environ. Res., 23(4), 273-278 (2013)
transformation, called anaerobic digestion, concluding
that this technique of treatment for solid and liquid
waste ensures the elimination of pollutants, produces a
renewable fuel (biogas) and obtains a stabilized product
capable of being used as fertilizer or soil improver. This
project presented an excellent opportunity to define a
methodology to optimize and standardize the operation
of the slaughterhouses, attacking the problem from the
standpoint of reduction of wastewater generation. The
development of the business plan and environmental
impact study allowed more emphasis on economic and
environmental benefits represented by the installation
of this system in different municipal slaughterhouses.
The business plan and environmental impact study
also helped to promote the strategy with State and
municipal governments and institutions such as
SEDESU and Secretara de medio ambiente y recursos
naturales (SEMARNAT), in which each municipal
slaughterhouse operates its wastewater treatment
system and reaps the benefits mentioned above. In
order to help to reduce the pollution generated from
slaughterhouses in the State of Queretaro, this project
proposed the following goals: (1) Conduct a study
of cleaner production for municipal slaughterhouse
operations, focused on the continuous application
of an integrated preventive environmental strategy
applied to processes, products and services to improve
eco-efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the
environment. (2) Design and construction of a prototype
wastewater treatment unit, with a capacity of 1.5 m3
-1
d , to operate at a demonstration site. (3) Develop an
Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed
prototype, identify and interpret the environmental
impacts of the project. (4) Develop a Business Plan
comparing traditional and new alternatives. And
(5) Develop a folder with technical information and
technological comparative analysis of production or
treatment units.
As mentioned before, slaughterhouses produce
a highly charged residual water soluble and insoluble
organic compounds. The preliminary treatments,
however, are not sufficient to reduce contaminant
levels below local regulations. Existing plant systems
for wastewater treatment also produce large amounts
of putrefaction and voluminous sludge, which requires
special handling and/or further treatment.
The anaerobic digestion reactor is a high rate
attractive alternative for the treatment of sewage in
the slaughter plant. Slaughterhouse wastewater is
particularly well adapted for anaerobic treatment. It
contains high concentrations of biodegradable organic
compounds, the majority of fats and protein, sufficient
and appropriate alkalinity, phosphorus, nitrogen
concentrations and micronutrients for bacterial
growth. It does not include toxic compounds, having
275
a relatively warm temperature between 20 and 30 C.
Anaerobic digestion offers high COD and suspended
solids (SS) removal while producing a source of
recoverable energy in the form of methane. It generates
a low amount of sludge and not requires aeration or
chemical pretreatment. In addition, anaerobic bacteria
can survive without food for long periods of time.
Anaerobic reactors that have the greater success in
the treatment of wastewater are those using an upflow
granular sludge [7]. This kind of reactors can resist high
organic loads reaching removal efficiencies from 70 to
95%, depending of wastewater composition [8,9]. Most
of the reactors that have been used on an industrial scale
have treated effluent with high concentrations of organic
load, presenting values of COD higher than 2,000 mg
L-1.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This paper shows the results of the treatment of
wastewater from the slaughterhouse, which constitutes
the core of this study. All the experiments in this study
were performed using the prototype, which essential
part consists in an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) reactor. The prototype was constructed of
3 -1
stainless steel with a capacity of 1.5 m d . The inoculum
was previously acclimated using diluted slaughterhouse
residual water and a temperature of 30 C for 30 d, during
which time the reactor was operated in intermittent
state. Subsequently, the reactor was charged with
slaughterhouse wastewater and it was refluxed for 5 d to
facilitate the formation of granules. Continuous feeding
of the reactor was started at a rate of 17 g COD L-1 d-1
and pH in a range between 7.1 and 8.2. The treatment
system was operated at room temperature. The evaluated
characteristics of the inlet and outlet wastewater of the
prototype at day 50 of operation are shown in Table
2. The analysis of the wastewater parameters was
performed according to Standard Methods [10].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The profiles for influent and effluent COD are shown
in Fig. 1a. The efficiency of an anaerobic process is related
to the reactor start-up, according to the recommendations
of others [7,11]. In view of that, during the first 5 d of the
process the reactor was fed with organic loads of 3 to 4
g COD L-1 d-1. During this time, the treatment efficiency
was only 32% (Fig. 1b). Increasing the feed rate of the
organic load showed a linear increase in the efficiency of
the treatment on the fifth day. From day 10, the reactor
reached 77% efficiency of treatment, which decreased
slightly from day 15 for the loss of the buffering capacity
276 Ramrez-Guerrero et al., Sustain. Environ. Res., 23(4), 273-278 (2013)
Table 2. Comparison of the composition of slaughterhouse
wastewater before and after the treatment
Parameter Influent Effluent
COD (mg L-1) 5,790 150
pH 8.0 7.77
Total phosphorus (mg L-1) 47.4 2.8
TSS (mg L-1) 2,390 109
TDS (mg L-1) 2,170 589
Settleable solids (mg L-1) 29 2.5
Fats and oils (mg L-1) 409 8.6
Sulfates (mg L-1) 311 6.4
Total nitrogen (mg L-1) 122 60
of the influent due to excessive production of volatile
fatty acids. The hydraulic retention time in the anaerobic
treatment course was gradually decreased to 10 h. The
organic loading rate did not exceed 17 g COD L-1 d-1
corresponding to an inlet COD of 5,790 mg L-1, and a
flow rate of 1.5 m3 d-1. After 50 d of operation, the outlet
COD obtained was only 150 mg L-1 (Fig. 1a), which
corresponds to a removal efficiency of 97% (Fig. 1b).
The high efficiency of the treatment and the
successful startup of the reactor were related to the
adaptation and the source of the inoculum, since it came
from the treatment of wastewater with high organic
matter content [12]. The hydraulic retention time to
which it was obtained 97% removal efficiency was less
than 5 d considering other study of anaerobic digestion
[13]. During the 50 d of operation of the reactor, foaming,
flotation sludge, acidification reactor (the pH of the
effluent was stabilized along the time from day 30 with
values about 7.7 (Fig. 1c) or nutrient limitation, were not
observed; these factors are indicative of the development
of a balanced microbial community within the reactor
[14]. After 20 d of operation sludge granular aggregates
from 1 to 2 mm in diameter and the accumulation of
white aggregates distributed in the bed of sludge were
observed, seemingly, their presence did not affect the
treatment efficiency of the reactor.
There are many factors involved in the granulation
process during startup of a UASB reactor [15-18],
among which we can consider the pressure caused by the
concentration of hydrogen, removal of finely dispersed
material of inoculum, pressure originated from the
surface speed of upflow and gas production rate. These
factors made it possible for the first 15 d achieving 75%
efficiency of treatment and 97% obtained at 50 d (Fig.
1b).
Sayed et al. [19] reported a methanation process from
the COD removed in the range of 45 to 75% with similar
organic loads and hydraulic retention times between 20
and 40 h in a UASB reactor. In our case better removal
efficiencies were obtained because the analysis were
made at the outlet of the entire treatment system,
which apart of the UASB reactors includes an anoxic
phase and a polishing filtration systems consisting of
sand, and activated carbon filters. Polprasert et al. [20]
reported methanation of removed COD in the range
of 44 to 78%, working with slaughterhouse effluent
at less concentration and hydraulic retention time of
between 25 and 26 h. It is known that a low acetate
concentration promotes the growth of predominantly
Methanotrix instead of Methanosarcina, which
brings good granule formation [21]. It is important
to emphasize that to maintain a stable operation of
the reactor, it must satisfy two conditions: the bed of
sludge should be kept well mixed and must maintain
the efficiency of operation in the higher level. In the
UASB reactor, the sludge washing was not noticeable
to organic feed rate slightly higher than 16 g COD L-1
d-1.
Figure 1d shows the production of biogas through
the 50 d of operation. At the end of the experiment, it
has a cumulative volume of 130 m3, with an average
production of 2.5 m3 d-1.
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the wastewater treatment, we can
conclude that booting the reactor, and the adaptation
and revitalization of inoculum were successful. The
granulation is achieved quickly due to the applied
range during the 2 d reflux and probably the fact that
the inoculum was taken from a reactor which was
working with wastewater with high organic load.
During the investigation, the UASB process did not
show any foaming phenomenon, flotation of sludge
and conversely, it showed a good operation of the
bioreactor. The amount of biogas produced was an
indication of the proper functioning of the bioreactor,
reaching more than 2.5 m3 d-1 when the organic load
ranged between 16 and 17 g COD L-1 d-1, and methane
content was higher than 60%. The problem posed by
slaughterhouses due to their increasing abundance
and the implications on environmental pollution
problems and depletion of natural resources makes
it essential to seek ways to improve management
from the standpoint of environmental and social
aspects. The results obtained with the prototype for
the wastewater treatment allow slaughterhouses
to reduce pollution from their operation and the
indiscriminate discharge of wastewater. The results
of this project contribute to increased knowledge
and information of the alternatives for wastewater
recovery and improve operating practices in the
municipal slaughterhouses. The community and the
 Ramrez-Guerrero et al., Sustain. Environ. Res., 23(4), 273-278 (2013)
(a)
Influent COD
Effluent COD
(c)
Inlet pH
Outlet pH
Time (d)
Fig. 1. Parameter evolution as a function of time (a) COD, (b) COD removal efficiency, (c) pH, (d) Biogas production.
Fig. 1. Parameter evolution as a function of time (a) COD, (b) COD removal efficiency, (c) pH, (d) Biogas
production.
markets are demanding the establishment of processes
and practices that preserve natural resources and the
environment, ensuring a supply of clean consumer
goods for present and future generations. That is why
the implementation of comprehensive projects for the
operation of slaughterhouses and the installation and
operation of self-sustainable and environmentally
friendly waste treatment are now not only a necessity,
but also an imminent opportunity. This project will not
only contribute to solving the problems caused by the
mishandling and improper disposal of organic waste
generated within the slaughterhouses, but also lead to
the generation of a renewable energy source, which
can be used in the same process. This will reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in
addition to greatly decreasing the damage to soil and
aquatic systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Tania Penlope Salomn-Lpez and
Ren Prez-Martnez for their valuable collaboration
in the development of this work.
REFERENCES
1. INEGI, Gross Domestic Product in Mexico during
the Fourth Quarter of 2008. National Institute of
277
(b)
(d)
Time (d)
Statistics and Geography, Aguascalientes, Mexico.
www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/
prensa/Boletines/Boletin/Comunicados/PIB a
precios constantes/2009/febrero/comunica.doc
(2009) (in Spanish).
2. Mexican Official Standard NOM-194-SSA1-2004,
Products and Services. Sanitary Specifications in
Establishments for the Slaughter and Dressing of
Animals for Slaughter, Storage, Transportation and
Sale. Sanitary Specifications of Products. Ministry
of Health, Cuauhtmoc, Mexico. http://www.salud.
gob.mx/unidades/cdi/nom/194ssa104.html (2004)
(in Spanish).
3. SEMARNAT, General Law for the Integral
Prevention and Management of Waste. Title III.
Article 9. Secretariat of Environment and Natural
Resources, Mexico City, Mexico. http://biblioteca.
semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/
agenda/DOFsr/263.pdf (2012) (in Spanish).
4. Alvarez-Chavez, C.R., A.A. Flores-Soto and R.
Perez-Rios, Life cycle analysis for cow beef in
Sonora: Slaughtering stage. 3rd International
Workshop: Advances in Cleaner Production.
Sao Pablo, Brazil, May 18-20. http://www.
advancesincleanerproduction.net/third/files/
sessoes/5A/6/Alvarez-Chavez_CR%20-%20
Paper%20-%205A6.pdf (2001) (in Spanish).
5. Marcos, A. and F. Carrasco, Anaerobic digestion of
zootechnical effluents and slaughterhouse waste:
Approach to spatial planning of Extremadura. VII
278 Ramrez-Guerrero et al., Sustain. Environ. Res., 23(4), 273-278 (2013)
International Congress of Project Engineering.
Pamplona, Spain, Oct. 8-10 (2003) (in Spanish).
6. Alvarez, R., Anaerobic Biogas Production-
Exploitation of Anaerobic Process Waste.
Monograph. Research Institute of Chemical
Process. Universidad Mayor de San Andres, Bolivia
(2004) (in Spanish).
7. Lettinga, G. and L.W. Hulshoff Pol, First and
secondary start-up of anaerobic reactor systems,
particularly of UASB systems. In: Anaerobic
Reactor Technology, International Course on
Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment. Agricultural
University, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 50-63
(1992).
8. de Main, A.W.A., A.R.M. van der Last and G.
Lettinga, The use of EGSB and UASB anaerobic
systems for low strength soluble and complex
wastewaters at temperatures ranging from 8 to 30
C. Fifth International Symposium on Anaerobic
Digestion, Bologna, Italy, May 22-26 (1988).
9. van der Last, A.R.M. and G. Lettinga, Anaerobic
treatment of domestic sewage under moderate
climatic (dutch) conditions using upflow reactors at
increased superficial velocities. Water Sci. Technol.,
25(7), 167-178 (1992).
10. APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 19th Ed., American Public
Health Association, Washington, DC (1995).
11. Lettinga, G., Anaerobic reactor technology:
reactor and process design. In: Anaerobic Reactor
Technology, International Course on Anaerobic
Wastewater Treatment. Agricultural University,
Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 50-51 (1992).
12. Kalyuzhnyi, S.V., E. Perez-Martinez and J.
Rodriguez-Martinez, Anaerobic treatment of high
strength cheese whey wastewaters in laboratory and
pilot UASB-reactors. Bioresource Technol., 60(1),
59-65 (1997).
13. Yan, J.Q., K.V. Lo and K.L. Pinder, Instability
caused by high strength of cheese whey in a UASB
reactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 41(7), 700-706 (1993).
14. Archer, D.B. and B.H. Kirsop, The microbiology
and control of anaerobic digestion. In:A. Wheatley
(Ed.). Anaerobic Digestion: A Waste Treatment
Technology. Elsevier Applied Science, London,
UK, pp. 43-91 (1990).
15. Morvai, L., P. Mihltz and L. Czak, The kinetic
basis of a new start-up method to ensure the
rapid granulation of anaerobic sludge. Water Sci.
Technol., 25(7), 113-122 (1992).
16. Guiot, S.R., A. Pauss and J.W. Costerton, A
structured model of the anaerobic granule
consortium. Water Sci. Technol., 25(7), 1-10
(1992).
17. Farrah, S.R. and G. Bitton, Bacterial survival and
association with sludge flocs during aerobic and
anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludge under
laboratory conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.,
45(1), 174-181 (1983).
18. Cail, R.G. and J.P. Barford, The development
of granulation in an upflow floc digester and an
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digester treating
cane juice stillage. Biotechnol. Lett., 7(7), 493-
498 (1985).
19. Sayed, S., W. de Zeeuw and G. Lettinga,
Anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse waste
using a flocculant sludge UASB reactor. Agr.
Wastes, 11(3), 197-226 (1984).
20. Polprasert, C., P. Kemmadamrong and F.T. Tran,
Anaerobic baffle reactor (ABR) process for
treating a slaughterhouse wastewater. Environ.
Technol., 13(9), 857-865 (1992).
21. Kalyuzhnyi, S.V., V.I. Sklyar, M.A. Davlyatshina,
S.N. Parshina, M.V. Simankova, N.A. Kostrikina
and A.N. Nozhevnikova, Organic removal and
microbiological features of UASB-reactor under
various organic loading rates. Bioresource
Technol., 55(1), 47-54 (1996).
Discussions of this paper may appear in the discussion
section of a future issue. All discussions should be
submitted to the Editor-in-Chief within six months of
publication.
Manuscript Received: August 11, 2012
Revision Received: December 14, 2012
and Accepted: January 29, 2013