09575820/04/$30.00+0.

00
# 2004 Institution of Chemical Engineers
Trans IChemE, Part B, July 2004
Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 82(B4): 291300

www.ingentaselect.com=titles=09575820.htm

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT

IN PRIMARY COFFEE PROCESSING
H. N. CHANAKYA1,* and A. A. P. DE ALWIS2
1

Centre for the Application of Science and Technology to Rural Areas (ASTRA), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
2
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

he paper examines the broader environmental issues and environmental management

aspects of primary coffee processing in general and more specifically how it is
addressed in India. Primary processing, the production of green beans from the
coffee fruits, is practised to bring out more flavour. Coffee is an important global commodity,
yet seen from a systemic view the producers and consumers of such an important commercial
commodity are far apart. Primary coffee processing, with all its attendant environment impact,
takes place at the producer end. The consumers in general are unaware of these impacts. The
various methods of processing, the processing steps and the waste discharge associated with
them are reviewed. A review of pollution and associated management methods is presented. An
anaerobic bioreactor design developed and tested in a few Indian coffee plantations as a simple
solution is also described.
Keywords: wet coffee processing; coffee wastewater; biomass immobilized bed reactor; biogas
recovery.

INTRODUCTION

competition. Trade between producing and consuming

countries consists mostly of green coffee and, to a small
extent, bulk instant coffee. Imported bulk instant coffee is
usually blended and re-packed in consuming countries. The
roasted coffee trade is almost always between consuming
countries. As much of the primary environmental impact is
related to the production of green beans, it could be stated
that the impacts, by and large, are felt by the coffeeproducing countries (generally in the developing world).
It is interesting to observe the value addition within this
commodity chain from the producer to the consumer
(Figure 1). The amount being paid to the growers and the
value addition in producing countries are low, and this
situation is therefore not conducive to endogenous environmental consciousness. Yet another characteristic of this mode
of production is the resource consumption intensity
measured either as resource used per unit area of cultivation
or per unit weight of produce. High resource use intensity
draws resources from nearby areas and leaves behind a large
environmental footprint. It is gradually being realized that
resource consumption and environmental impact in these
primary producing countries are significant, especially for
certain types of processing such as wet processing. Thus the
producing countries, in addition to the poor financial returns,
have to endure significant resource depletion and attendant
environmental impact. Typical resource consumption related
to coffee production is presented in Table 3 (adapted from
Ponte, 2002; Talbot, 1997).
More recently, coffee marketing has increasingly become
concerned with environmental and social issues (Tallontire,
2002; Damodaran, 2002). Roasters are prepared to pay a

Coffee is an important global commodity and forms a

significant fraction of the export economy of many countries. It is globally traded and at times has ranked second
only to oil among traded commodities. Today it is a US$11
billion industry employing around 25 million people worldwide. The early part of this paper contains some background
on global coffee movement in order to contextualize
the discussion on environmental management. Table 1 lists
around 55 countries in the world that are involved in
producing coffee as a primary agricultural produce (www.
ico.org).
The International Coffee Organization (ICO) covers the
global trade and movement of coffee. Most countries in Table
1 fall into the low-income category according to the World
Bank classification of economies. Table 2 presents a list of
coffee-consuming nations. Table 2 indicates the per capita
consumption, the type of roasting preferred and the main
types of coffee products preferred (i.e. roast and ground,
soluble etc.). At present, global coffee consumption patterns
are changing quickly. Tables 1 and 2 show that there are
distinct differences between coffee producing and consuming countries. Coffee is today a buyer-driven commodity.
After the collapse of the International Coffee Agreement,
coffee has been traded in a free market with significant
*Correspondence to: Dr H. N. Chanakya, Centre for the Application of
Science and Technology to Rural Areas (ASTRA), Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560012, India.
E-mail: chanakya@astra.iisc.ernet.in

291

292

CHANAKYA and DE ALWIS

Table 1. List of coffee-producing countries in the world.

Angola
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Cote dIvoire
Colombia
Congo, Republic of Congo
Democratic Republic of
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea

Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Jamaica
Kenya
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mexico
Nicaragua
Nigeria

Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and
Tobago
Uganda
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe

premium for coffee cultivated in an environmentally friendly

manner. This development encourages environment friendly
coffee production and processing. Brazil, Colombia, India,
Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are countries that
have sustained research into environmentally friendly coffee
production and processing.
Coffee Production and Processing in India
India has a 4.5% share of the global coffee market. The
overall impact of coffee on the environment takes place in
stages namely, growing, processing and consumption of
coffee (Viani, 1995).
Growing coffee
There are three common species of coffee: robusta,
arabica and liberica. Only the first two are of commercial
Table 2. List of major coffee consuming countries in the world.

Country
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
Belgium=
Luxembourg
Germany
Switzerland
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Italy
Hungary
Israel
Cyprus
Spain
Yugoslavia
Greece
UK
Australia
New Zealand
Japan
Portugal
Ireland
Hong Kong

Per
capita,
kg year
1

Roasting

Roasting and
grinding

12.4
11.45
11.03
9.71
7.7
7.26

Light
Light
Medium
Light
Light
Medium








6.42
5.69
5.67
5.67
4.8
4.34
3.7
3.2
2.58
2.49
2.46
2.25
2.23
2.19
2.06
1.78
1.48
1.25
1
0.61

Light
Medium
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Dark
Dark
Dark
Dark
Dark
Dark
Dark
Medium
Medium
Medium
Light
Dark
Medium
Medium















Soluble=
instant

Figure 1. Distribution of coffee income along the coffee chain (19891995).

importance. Robusta is a high-yielding plant, resistant

to disease, growing at lower elevation, characterized by
harsh flavours, containing about 2% caffeine and yielding
11.5 kg green coffee per plant per year. It is used in lower
grade coffee, generally not found in specialty shops, and is
often used to make soluble (instant) coffee and popular
commercial blends. Arabica grows best at altitudes of 3000
6500 feet, has a refined flavour, contains about 1% caffeine
and yields 0.50.8 kg per plant per year. It is a coffee that
specialty roasters search for and accounts for about 75% of
world production. Arabica is susceptible to disease and poor
climatic conditions such as frost and drought. It requires
careful cultivation and larger inputs.
Conversion of forest lands to coffee plantations or abandonment of existing plantations have definite environmental
impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, habitat fragmentation,
pesticide poisoning and soil degradation and erosion. The
removal of natural shade trees in the conversion of shade
coffee to sun coffee, etc. is not an area of major concern in
India.
Agricultural practices such as the use of organic herbicides,
inorganic and synthetic pesticides, efficiency of use of inorganic fertilizers, etc., determine the environmental issues
arising from them. For instance, the use of agricultural
pesticides significantly changes the toxicity characteristics of

Table 3. A summary of resource consumption statistics (www.secure.

speakeasy.net=kalanicoffee=eco.htm Babbu Reddy et al., 2001).















 Coffee is an agricultural crop.

s the second largest agricultural crop in the world;
s the third most heavily sprayed crop in the world.
 A coffee tree produces on average 30006000 cherries per year.
Normally a cherry has two beans. One pound (0.45 kg) of coffee consists
of 4000 beans. One hundred coffee beans make one cup of coffee. This
represents one coffee tree per one pound of roasted coffee.
 A typical best quality arabica yield is 0.50.8 kg of green beans per
year.
 A typical cup of coffee (125 ml) contains approximately 12.2 g of coffee
powder.
 For average consumption of two cups per day:
s the yield from 18 coffee trees is necessary to supply the annual green
bean requirement;
s the growth and the maintenance of these 18 plants require 5 kg of
chemical fertilizer and 230 g of pesticides;
s in producing the green beans 20 kg of pulp would be stripped away as
waste;
s 1200 kg of green bean production would require 1 hectare of land.

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

COFFEE PROCESSING
the wastewater. There is little control over the use of pesticides,
as most primary producers are developing countries. In addition to complex organic products, heavy metals could also find
their way into the wastewater. Coffee wastes, for example,
contain copper, which comes from the application of copperbased fungicide used in the control of coffee diseases.
Cenicafe in Colombia has introduced the use of agricultural
biotechnology practices to coffee processing. It introduced
integrated pest management (IPM) practices by releasing tiny
wasps that eat the Broca (coffee berry borer) instead of using
insecticides. This reduces crop damage to less than 5%. This,
carried out with the International Institute of Biological
Control, had been a pioneering plant biotechnology project
(www.cabi.org). Herbicide and synthetic pesticide use in
Indian coffee is minimal.
Processing coffee
The processing steps in coffee may be grouped into primary,
secondary and tertiary steps. Primary coffee processing refers
to the processing of coffee fruit to obtain coffee beans (also
called green beans). The next stage refers to hulling, roasting
and grinding. Tertiary processing involves making of instant
coffee and=or other value addition operations.
Primary processing
Primary coffee processing is carried out within coffee
plantations. Primary processing produces green beans from
the coffee fruit. The coffee fruit consists of coloured exocarp
(skin), fleshy yellowish-white mesocarp (pulp), mucilage layers
(covering the two beans joined together along the flat sides and
made up mainly of pectin) and two coats (first a thin fibrous
textured parchment and second a fine membrane, silver skin).
Primary processing is done in two major waysthe dry
and wet methods. In the dry method, the fruits are picked
and laid out to dry in the sun for 34 weeks. A hulling
machine then strips away the outer skin and pulp. The beans
are not always consistent in quality and producing highquality coffee with the dry method is challenging because
the beans are exposed to climatic conditions during the
drying process. The product is known as the dry natural
cherry. Most robusta and very little arabica is processed in
this way. Value added is usually low. Solid wastes are
generated and they are used as fuel for thermal applications.
The wet method or washed coffee methods are used in
locations with plentiful supplies of fresh water. It is carried
out in two steps, pulping and washing. One can note the
following distribution of wet and dry processing in the
producing countries, although many countries follow both
methods and the rest aspire to change to wet processing if
possible (www.ico.org).
 wet processingBolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, East Timor,
Equador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya,
Malawi, Mexico, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea,
Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Venezuela, Vietnam,
Zambia, Zimbabwe;
 dry processingAngola, Benin, Brazil, Central African
Republic, Congo, Congo Democratic Republic, Cote
dIvoire, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar,
Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo.

293

Pulping
The coffee fruit is squeezed between two serrated metal
plates and the skin and the pulp are detached from the seed.
The mucilage-coated seeds and fruit skins (with pulp) are
separated into different streams. The skin and pulp are
carried away in a stream of flowing water. In the receiving
tank the skin with the pulp is separated out (solid waste)
from the waste water (pulp water). The pulp water most
often joins the wastewater stream. However, wherever there
is an acute shortage of fresh water (as in many plantations
today), this water is recovered and recycled for 25 days in
the pulping process. In India three main types of pulpers are
usedthe drum, disc and slotted types (Chellamuthu et al.,
2000). At a few locations, modified designs use screw
conveyers to carry the skin and pulp and therefore do not
have a significant pulp water stream. The seeds at this stage
carry a mucilage layer that is removed in the next step.
Washing (removal of mucilage)
Freshly pulped coffee seeds are covered with a highly
slippery mucilaginous layer approximately 1.5 mm thick and
translucent. There are five methods of removing this mucilage (Ranganna, 2002) namely, natural fermentation, chemical methods, warm water soaking, enzymatic fermentation
and attrition. The most popular methods combine fermentation and attrition. The beans, still enclosed in a sticky inner
mucilage and parchment wrapper, are soaked for 472 h in
fermentation tanks. This fermentation loosens the remaining
mucilage through a series of enzymatic reactions. It is then
washed away in a combination of the processes of washing
and attrition (mostly by a machine called a washer).
Fermentation time is controlled to achieve the right quality
of beans. The resultant coffee is termed parchment coffee.
Sometimes coffee fruits are washed and sorted as in the
washed method, but are not placed in fermentation tanks.
Instead they are set out to dry. This also results in parchment
coffee called semi-washed coffee. The washed coffee, with a
moisture content of 55%, is dried in the sun to a moisture
content of 15%. The dried coffee is later hulled to remove
the parchment and the silver skin. The overall sequence of
operations typical for a South Indian plantation is given in
Figure 2. Note that for robusta most Indian plantations
follow the dry processing method.
Secondary processing
Dried green beans are subjected to mechanical removal of
the parchment layer from the bean. The beans are then
graded according to size, shape, weight, colour and uniformity. The beans are then roasted to give them a dark brown
colour and the strong aroma and taste that are usually
associated with coffee. Roasting represents the largest fraction of value addition. Secondary processing has less
environmental impact and near zero impact on water
resources. The air emissions perhaps are the only aspect
that needs to be considered. Very little secondary processing
is carried out in producer countries except for internal
consumption or bulk soluble coffee.
Tertiary processing
Coffee powder may be subjected to different processes to
develop product varieties. Instant coffee manufacture and

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

294

CHANAKYA and DE ALWIS

Figure 3. Block diagram of an Indian pulping operation.

Figure 2. Primary processing of coffee (block arrows indicate steps that

yield wastewater).

decaffeinated coffee are two main products from tertiary

treatment steps. The production of instant coffee generates
large volumes of high-strength particle-bearing wastewater.
The waste is also discharged at high temperature (70
C).
Wastewater treatment aspects of tertiary processing have
received much more attention and these activities take place
mostly in developed countries (Dinsdale et al., 1996, 1997;
Fernandez and Forster, 1994; Kostenberg and Marchaim,
1993).
Environmental Impacts of Primary
Coffee Processing
The arabica is usually subjected to wet processing. Thus
from an environmental impact review it is wet processing
which merits attention. This is schematically shown in
Figure 3. On average, 5 tons of fruits are processed to get
1 ton of parchment coffee. On a mass basis this is 3 tonnes of
organic waste load directly from the fruit and 1 tonne of
moisture left in the bean (sun-dried). The organic load
coming from the pulper and washer streams is mixed with
significant quantities of water used in the process. The fruit
skin is, however, removed as a solid waste stream. The
amount of water used varies significantly with location and
hence there is significant variation in the strength of wastewater generated. Two or three wastewater streams can be
identifiedwastewater from pulping and washing operations

(the first wash operation carries mechanically separated

mucilage fractions; the second wash is the post-fermentation
wash).
Water consumption and concomitant wastewater discharged range from 1.5 to 23 m3 per tonne of fruit processed.
No water is consumed by the process. Wet processing with its
significant quantities of liquid effluent has received much
attention, although international good practices are still well
short of optimum. Adams and Dougan (1987) reviewed the
waste products from coffee processing. Wet processing is
attractive as it yields a superior quality product and countries
that carry out dry processing of coffee are interested in
switching to wet processing to increase their incomes. The
pollution resulting from 1 tonne of clean processed coffee is
estimated at being equivalent to 273 m3 of crude domestic
sewage. This corresponds to daily sewage from a population
of approximately 2000 persons (Calzada et al., 1989).
Coulthard (1979) reported an average water consumption of
8.4 m3 per tonne of fruit processed. Water usage for coffee
processing by Indian coffee estates varies from 2.25 to 23 m3
per tonne of fruit processed (ASTRA, 2002a). Field observations suggest that low water use in most cases is due to water
shortages in the pulping season or where estates make an
effort not to discharge any wastewater. The constituents of the
three streams of effluents (pulper, washer and secondary
wash) are predominantly organic and biological in nature.
They rapidly ferment to produce organic acids, lowered pH,
eutrophication of receiving water bodies and malodours.
Currently the effluents are treated in anaerobicaerobic
lagoons. Groundwater pollution from faulty lagoons is also
a concern.
Characteristics of coffee effluents
The characteristics of wastewater derived from analysis of
several Indian estates are given in Table 4 (ASTRA 2002a).
Coffee effluent is acidic and has a high content of suspended
and dissolved organic matter. Coffee wastewater is rich in
sugars and pectins and is thus amenable to rapid biodegradation. The high BOD=COD (biological=chemical oxygen
demand) ratio is also an indication of the suitability for
biological treatment. Field studies have determined coffee
processing to discharge up to 45 kg COD per tonne of fruit
processed. Their concentration in wastewater varies inversely according to the quantity of water used in the process
(ASTRA, 2002a). Table 5 presents wastewater characteristics from Kenyan and Mexican studies and is presented for
comparison.
ASTRA studies indicate wastewaters of higher strengths.
As the processing material is essentially the same,

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

COFFEE PROCESSING
Table 4. Physico-chemical characteristics of coffee effluents (range,
ASTRA, 2002a).

Parameter

Units

Wash water
(semi-washed
coffee)

Pulp
water

Secondary
wash water

Plantations involved with partial anaerobic treatment and partial control

on water use
pH
47
46
44.5
410
1.244
5.613.4
Total
g l
1
solids (TS)
1.59
1.241.7
4.39.8
COD
g l
1
BOD=COD
0.50.86
0.50.9
0.50.7
0.86
136.7
3.97.2
Total sugars
g l
1
0.051.8
0.222.2
0.82.6
Reducing
g l
1
sugars
0.10.8
0.071.3
0.181.2
Acidity
g l
1
Plantations using
processing.
pH
Total
solids (TS)
COD
BOD=COD
Total sugars
Reducing
sugars
Acidity

bioreactors and exercising control on water use in wet

3.96.9
3.130.8

46.3
16.470

N.A.
N.A.

g l
1
g l
1

2.625.8
0.370.97
2.323
0.86

15.565
0.50.9
14.353
5.330

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

g l
1

0.11.6

0.21.9

N.A.

g l
1
g l
1

this suggests that Kenyan and Mexican situations used

significantly higher quantities of processing water, thus
diluting the waste stream.
Environmental Management in Primary
Coffee Processing
From the preceding discussions on coffee processing as a
source of environmental concerns, the following overall
processing needs emerge:
 reduction of water usage leading to reduction in the
volume of wastewater generated;
 alternative uses for by-products of coffee processing;
 appropriate methods of wastewater treatment and
resource recovery technologies.
Field observations by ASTRA suggest that primary producers of coffee carry out limited wastewater treatment.
Burdened with adverse market conditions, inadequate technology support and service providers, the plantations focus

295

primarily their production activities. Wastes receive much

less attention in spite of plantation owners concerns and
conscious efforts to avoid environmental damage. In the
literature, of the two main liquid streams, pulp waste has
received more attention as it is easier to address. The wash
water, however, has a higher load of suspended and
dissolved organic matter.
Reducing Water Used and
Wastewater Generation
From data presented in Table 4 (range of concentration), it
is seen that there is potential to reduce water usefrom an
excessive 23 to just 1.5 l per kg of fruit processed. This is an
important first step in any situation. Reduction in water used
has also arisen from a few other causes. An increase in the
number of plantations carrying out wet processing has
resulted in water shortages, at least towards the end of the
pulping season (end January to early March). In addition, a
drought prevailing over the last three years, lower water
quality in streams resulting from lean-flow and high waste
discharges, etc., have aggravated the water shortage. This
reduction is an important first step in controlling investment
in treatment and has been a learning step, especially in
places where plantations had to choose between expensive
lagoons or less expensive bioreactors. The following steps,
leading to reduced water use, have been adopted by some
coffee processing units:
 reuse of pulp water for a few cycles prior to discharge;
 deployment of new machinery that use less water; and
 eliminating a few fermentation steps.
However, these voluntary efforts at water use reduction
always carry a fear that reducing water use will sacrifice
quality and sale price.
In traditional processing practices (23 l per kg of fruit
processed), about 20% of the wastewater originates from the
pulping process and the rest comes from various conveyance
and washing processes. Baseline studies on water use and
quality of waste water (ASTRA, 2002b) have suggested that,
when water has to be obtained from sources other than freeflowing natural streams, usage reduces from the above high
value to about 68 l per kg of fruit processed, and sometimes
below this level. Net water consumption has also been
reduced by reuse of water used in transportation of fruit to
the pulper machines (pulp water). Field estimates revealed
that a 66% reduction in water use was achieved in some

Table 5. Physico-chemical characteristics of coffee pulping wastewater effluents.

Kenya (Gathuo, 1995;
Gathuo et al., 1991)

Parameter

Units

pH
Total Solids
Total dissolved solids=total solids
COD
BOD
Total alkalinity

mg l
1
%
mg l
1
mg l
1
g l
1

With
recirculation

Without
recirculation

Mexico (Bello-Mendoza and

Castillo-Rivera, 1998)a

45
19504800

45
22004600

5.4 (0.74)

16502800
12003000

8501750
14003900

5090
2480 (1158)
1443 (483)
0.039 (0.027)

The standard deviation for each sample in parentheses.

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

296

CHANAKYA and DE ALWIS

estates for water used in conveying fruit. A significant

reduction was also achieved for pulper water, brought
about by reusing pulp water for a period ranging from 3
to 5 days. Field measurements have shown that it is possible
to bring down water used for pulping to about 0.5 l per kg of
fruit processed. Similarly a large reduction in wash water
has been achieved, leading to a discharge of 0.7 l wash water
per kg fruit processed (ASTRA, 2002a). This level of
overall reduction in water use translates into a nearly 20fold reduction in wastewater volume and an equivalent
increase in organic strength of the effluent (Table 4). Working with processing plant operators, it has been found that it
is possible to bring down the water use to less than 1.5 l per
kg of fruit processed with existing machinery and operating
skills (ASTRA, 2002a).

Efficient Machinery and Alternative

Uses for Effluents
So far, the need to show low concentration of organics in
the coffee effluents (non-polluting), and a fear of sacrificing parchment quality by recovering concentrated effluent
(inadequate mucilage removal), have deterred voluntary
efforts of reduction in water usage by coffee planters
(personal communication). A significant contribution from
Cenicafe is the development of a new pulper device to
reduce water usage in on-farm processing from about 8 to
<1 l per kg of fruit processed. This device (called an dry
aqua pulper) peels the fruit and removes the mucilaginous
material from the coffee beans once they are peeled. After
the process, coffee beans are subjected to drying without
fermentation. This development has not penetrated to the
Indian coffee producer. Mobile washing stations developed
by Cenicafe are able to de-pulp coffee with very little water
and can be brought right into the coffee plots. In this case,
the viscous waste along with the cut coffee bushes are put
back on the soil as compost. Alternatively, vermi-composting generated from this waste is fed to chickens and used in
aquaculture. The thick liquid has also been fed to pigs
without any processing. The term ecological washing
stations had been applied to these units, which use less
water in the de-pulping and washing. This provides a closedloop processing that protects water bodies (www.cipar.org.
co). Similarly efforts at CCRI have also been made to extract
pectin, generate potable alcohol, caffeine, etc. from coffee
wash. However, these options do not suit the greater fraction
of small and medium Indian coffee estates.
Cultivation of mushrooms on pulp and wastewater has
been tried unsuccessfully in El Salvador (www.vetiver.com).
It was expected to reduce effluent BOD and recover costs
partially through its sale (effluent) as animal feed. A pilot
plant consisted of a 23 m3 sedimentation tank, a 75 m3
equalizing tank, and two cylindrical 19 m3 fermentation
tanks (open brick masonry epoxy-coated). The wastewater
was supplemented with ammonium sulphate and phosphoric
acid and the initial pH was adjusted to 3.5 with sulphuric
acid to exert selectivity for mould growth. In a similar effort,
the Zeri foundation (Zero Emission Research Institute;
www.zeri.org) based in Geneva, has made the coffee waste
into highly fertile artificial logs suitable for growing oriental
mushrooms using instant coffee wastes. One kilo of waste
generated 0.5 kg mushroom. Different mixtures have been

identified for different mushrooms. The mushroom market is

significant ($700 million, $15=kg in the USA). To prevent
environmental pollution from the effluents of wet processing
in Latin America, Wolcott (2001) recommends bioremediation techniques (using the native oyster mushroom,
Pleurotes sp.) and provides details of a case study from
Veracruz, Mexico. A series of swells have been constructed
to minimize the quantity of water travelling through
the waste and concentrate all of the water leaving the
waste through the filtration system. Next the coffee wastes
are inoculated directly with mushroom mycelium and the
mushrooms are ready for harvest in 23 months. This
method of waste treatment has been considered for development into a sustainable agriculture practice.

Appropriate and Attractive Technologies for

Coffee Wastewater Treatment
The presence of a high content of cell debris (cellulose),
pectic material and a small extent of polyphenolic material
makes it possible to precipitate a small fraction using CaO,
bleach, etc., but these methods are not practised in any of
the plantations in India. Most plantations prefer simpler
anaerobicaerobic ponds and lagoons. There appear to be
two strategies in wastewater management:
 pond=lagoon-based treatment of wastewater and discharge
into water bodies; and
 treatment of wastewater and re-use on coffee and other
crops.
The latter method is rarely followed in India. At best,
partially treated wastewater is let into paddy croplands
functioning as shallow ponds. Sporadic efforts at re-use of
partially treated coffee effluents has not provided positive
results. The use of stabilization ponds has thus emerged as
the most preferred option in many instances where direct
discharges to water bodies are not practised. However, the
use of these ponds and lagoons is still not being followed in
an acceptable scientific=best practices manner. Elsewhere,
in Kenya stabilization ponds operated improperly have
become breeding sites for disease-spreading mosquitoes,
emit unpleasant odours and cause other nuisances (Gathuo
et al., 1991). An aerobic lake system (meaning aerobic
lagoons) was reported by San Luis Beneficioa production
facility in Brazil. This method facilitated recycling of
wastewater back into production plants. Coffee pulp solid
waste was converted into compost, which was used by the
suppliers in fertilizing their coffee farms. This facility has
won the Ecological banner award for the protection of the
Tarcoles River (www.cetr.br).
Wastewater management techniques used by the coffee
pulping operators in India are based on the use of lagoons.
The current anaerobicaerobic lagoon system evolved
around 1978. The National Environmental Engineering
and Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, produced a wastewater processing solution based on the existing water usage
pattern of 16,00023,000 l water per tonne of fruit
processed. The treatment process is based on the use of
anaerobic (21 days) and aerobic (7 days) lagoons after an
initial chemical pretreatment (neutralization). The Indian
Coffee Board has suggested this process with a total
29 days hydraulic retention time (HRT) (CCRI, 2000).

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

COFFEE PROCESSING

297

Figure 4. NEERI scheme of chemical and biological and treatment.

Figure 4 provides a block diagram of this NEERI process

suggested for coffee plantations in India.
The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board web site
(www.kspcsb.karnic.in) states that the coffee estates mainly
use (unlined) Kutcha pits instead of the recommended
stone-lined, acid-proof masonry structures. Major advantages of the stabilization ponds are the low initial costs and
ease of operation. Some disadvantages include odour
problems and mosquito breeding (public health issues),
loss of cultivable area, unsatisfactory treatment, potential
for groundwater contamination and low loading rates. Under
normal ponding conditions every hectare of plantation will
need 230 m2 pond area (10 tonnes of fruit per ha, 23 m3
water per tonne of fruit, 1 m pond depth). Ponds and lagoons
also have inherent low conversion rates. For example typical
lagoons have loading rates as low as 0.050.2 kg VS m3 day
(under field conditions) (VS volatile solids). Typical cattle
dung plants in India operate at a conversion rate of 0.5 kg
VS m3 day (Rajabapaiah et al., 1979). When these rates are
corrected for low ambient temperatures (1015
C), low
N-nutrition, low methanogen recycle, etc., the conversion
rates are expected to be very low, leading to long retention
times. With increased enforcement leading to a switch to
stone-lined, acid-proof cement-based lagoon construction,
the cost advantage has also disappeared. With a gradual
increase in the cost of land, a decrease in water use (higher
effluent concentration), stricter pollution laws, the ponds
and lagoons have lost viability and alternative and appropriate technologies and processes are required. Lower value
addition at the producer level and the need for change in
technologies require alternative environment management
strategies.
Field observations and data presented in Table 4 reveal that
the organic strength of coffee wastewater is gradually rising.
As a result of this high strength, the lagoon system is subject
to significant overloading. Lagoons receive effluents at
1020 times the normal loading rates (i.e. 0.050.07 kg
COD or VS m3 day1). This inevitably leads to process
failures, low pH levels, a <40% COD removal and effluent
almost untreated on discharge even after 29 days HRT. Field
studies have revealed that the treatment received in these
lagoons vary from 10 to 60%, which is far from satisfactory
(ASTRA, 2002a). The lagoon-based systems thus suffer
from many disadvantages. They are in addition only endof-pipe treatment systems, i.e. they consume land, are expensive (Table 6) and only support wastewater treatment without
any resource-recovery options. Even though lagooning may
be the simplest option, it still needs careful start-up
(every year) and operation (with semi-skilled labour), especially the anaerobic lagoons. This has been difficult for the
planters with their estate labour and operation staff. Field

Table 6. Treatment needs and costs of a typical 1tonne fruit per day lagoon.
Values based on NEERI, 1978 design; capacity based on processing of
1.0 tonnes fruit per day; 12,000 l per tonne of fruit processed (Shanmukappa et al., 1998; US$1 Rs 50, 2002).
No.
1
2
3
4
5

Treatment
tank

Period of storage
(days)

Equalization tank
1
Anaerobic tank
21
Aerobic tank
7
Settling tank
1
Total
30
Total cost (@Rs 2.5 l
1) Rs 1 million

Volume
stored (l)
12,000
252,000
84,000
12,000
360,000

observations show that the lagoons have been operated with a

strategy of a fillforget approach that is typical for stabilization ponds. Yet anaerobicaerobic lagoons (and ponds)
continue to figure as the most popular practice to date.
However, it is quite clear that best practices in using
lagoons are not followed adequately and improvements are
possible.
Internationally a few coffee-growing estates with pulping
facilities have sought ISO14000 certification with a view
towards improving competitiveness. Ipanema Coffees,
Southern Minas (3200 ha arabica growing plantation) in
Brazil, is an example. At its Conquista estate, Ipanema is
preserving woods on the banks of the Furnas hydroelectric
dam to provide a wildlife habitat. Eucalyptus plantations
provide fuel for coffee driers. Wastewater from coffee
processing is recycled and solid deposits used as fertilizer,
as are coffee bean shells. Liquid fertilizers are formulated
on-site for quick soil absorption to avoid leaching into
streams and the lake (www.cetr.br). However, equivalent
practices to these in Indian coffee estates are not available in
detail for a serious analysis and thus cannot be evaluated.

Secondary Aerobic Treatment Systems

Initial attempts in effluent processing appear to have
followed a total aerobic treatment system. The use of biological filters to treat coffee wastewaters had been reported by
Brandon (1949). Brandons reported results indicate that,
using a filter containing 38 m3 of mineral packing and a
loading rate of approximately 0.1 kg BOD m3 per day, a
reduction in BOD of greater than 94% was possible. The
wastewater loaded on to the filter was diluted with 4 vol of
recirculated filter effluent to adjust the BOD to around
300 ppm. However, widespread adoption has not taken place
and these early trials have remained as trials. Today aerobic
systems are best used for secondary systems in tandem with

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

298

CHANAKYA and DE ALWIS

an anaerobic system (lagoon, bioreactors, UASB, etc. that

remove over 90% COD in one step). Field observations reveal
that secondary treatment by oxidative lagoons were very
rarely being operated to meet best practices and artificial
aeration was almost non-existent in these plantations.
Anaerobic Digesters (AD) with Biogas Recovery
Systems
Anaerobic digestion whereby the dissolved and
suspended organic carbon of wastewater is converted to
biogas is an extremely effective way of handling a highstrength effluent. The process has a positive energy balance
and as such is a resource recovery method of waste treatment. The earliest reported AD for coffee is from Kenya,
where the use of 150 units has been reported for batch
digestion of coffee pulp (Aagaard, 1961; Maheshwaran,
1988; Anonymous, 1967). Coffee pulp has proven to be a
good biogas producer when mixed with cattle manure to
buffer the medium against pH changes arising from the
rapid catabolism of soluble sugars. A Mexican research
group has reported similarly using a semi-continuous
process with a mixture of 84% pulp with 16% manure
with a retention time of 20 days and a loading rate of 3.6 kg
volatile solids m3 day1 (Monteverde and Olguin, 1984).
In some instances old pulp has been digested without the
use of manure. The absence of manure from animal
husbandry, especially cow dung which is a ready source
of methanogens, has surfaced as a problem (Papua New
Guinea, Calvert, 1997). In many of the coffee plantations in
South India, coffee processing water (concentrated wash
water) has been used in place of cattle dung in existing
small-scale semi-continuous cattle dung-type biogas plants
during the pulping season (personal communication). A
significant level of R&D as well as field trials has been
reported on conversion of coffee wet processing wastes to
biogas and compost. In spite of such efforts, the adoption of
such technologies has been rather slow. Thus it is seen that,
while R&D reports are many, field trials and long-term
studies have been few. Many laboratory studies with respect
to coffee pulp had been reported (Calle, 1957, Boopathy,
1987, 1988; Boopathy et al., 1986; Boopathy and Mariappan, 1984). These studies are summarized in Table 7,
although a comprehensive summary is not an objective
here. Adams and Dougan (1987) in their review consider
anaerobic digestion to be an attractive concept for the
treatment of coffee waste due to the virtues of assisting
the disposal of both pulp and wastewater with a useful yield
of gaseous fuel (potentially around 66 m3 per ton of pulp).
The unreliability of the process, the requirement for skilled
attention and the high capital costs are cited as reasons why
selection of the technology is unjustified.
Anaerobic digestion technologies seem to be driven by
three different approaches namely:
 low cost, slow and rugged technologies requiring low
skills of operation exemplified by stabilization ponds,
anaerobicaerobic lagoons, etc.;
 recourse to advanced technologies for faster and efficient
conversion to biogas exemplified by UASB, PBRs,
diphasic=two-stage digestion, etc.;
 multiple use and multi-feed reactors for year-round
operation with coffee and local wastes.

These technologies carry varying investment costs, operating skills, operating costs and environmental branding.
These also lead to different strategies in environment
management by coffee producers. For a long time in
India, anaerobicaerobic lagoons have been the only technology accepted by most stakeholders. As argued earlier in
the text, due to the poor water situation and the number of
estates involved in pulping, this technology needs to be
gradually phased out. This technology in its current form
solves only the earlier kind of environmental problems.
Further, this end-of-pipe approach is not conducive for
backward integration of best practices and environmental
consciousness. On the other hand large numbers of existing
biogas=anaerobic digester technologies are being adapted to
coffee effluents as primary feedstock. Many of them function well and would require operation and management
strategies just like those followed in industrial wastewater
treatment systems. The high initial investment costs, the
minimum economic size-based bottom-line, high skills
needed for operators, etc., are conducive for adoption by
large plantations but not small and medium size plantations
that dominate the Indian coffee cultivation scenario. This
also is an end-of-the pipe solution and is unlikely to
significantly influence the backward integration of best
practices. The majority of Indian coffee plantations fall
in the small and medium categories processing under
10 tonnes fruit per day, and the strategy must accommodate
the seasonal nature of the process.
This situation is conducive for a third kind of anaerobic
reactors that can function with multiple feed stockboth
solid and liquid wastes generated on the coffee plantation
throughout the year. A variant of downflow whole cell
immobilized reactor (Chanakya et al., 1998; currently
called the ASTRA bioreactor) has been functioning in
15 locations for periods of up to 4 years (see for example
www.ginimao.com). The reactor functions like a plug-flow
reactor using various biomass feed stocks found on the
coffee plantation. In this mode it is made to accumulate
partially digested herbaceous biomass on which high populations of methanogens remain adhered. During the pulping
season, biomass feeding is stopped and coffee effluents
(COD >25 g l1) is passed horizontally through the methanogen rich biomass bed. Over 90% COD is removed (Table
7). As this system can accept a high concentration effluent,
reactors built are small, occupying only 5% of the space
originally allocated to anaerobic lagoons, and plantations
also reduce their water needs for processing by about 90%.
The bioreactors are built as 60 m3 modules by plantations
using largely local materials and skills. It costs US$1200
per module. Each module has a peak overall loading rate
(OLR) of 2 kg BOD m3 day1 arising from pulping 12
tonnes of fruit per day when operated at 1520
C. The
resource recovery concept embodies the extraction of useful
energy, trapping of excess dissolved and suspended plant
nutrients and re-use of the wastewater on-farm for irrigation.
The digested biomass support is extracted as compost (soil
conditioner) for the plantation. The bioreactor treated effluent has 0.61.0 g l1 BOD and requires a short stay in an
aerobic lagoon before reuse on land for irrigation. In the
future, as more, of the small plantations take to wet processing, there will be need to use even more best practices
integrated resource recovery systemsavoiding environmental stresses with process modifications rather than

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

Gas m3 kg
1
COD or fruit

Remarks,
limitations etc.

Authors

Year

Country

Scale of
operation

Type of
reactor

Feed rate
kg m
3 d
1

Calle

1957

Spain

Laboratory

Batch

Maheswaran

1988

Kenya

Calzada et al.
(diphasic)

1984

Guatemala

Laboratory

Acid phase and

methane phase

Calzada et al.
(packed bed
reactor)
Gathuo (pulp)
Gathuo et al.
(wastewater)
BTG
(www.btgworld.com)

1984

Guatemala

Laboratory

PBR (PUF)

1995
1991

Kenya
Kenya

Bench
Bench

NA
NA

NA
60
350 l
Coffee pulp with cow
60 kg of pulp and
5 kg of cow dung
dung Mixed
in 182 l of water
conditions
Review of work in Kenyathe only successful biogas installation reported uses 50=50 mixture of cow dung and
coffee pulp (uses a masticated mixture)
22 kg COD
5771 % COD
2
4 v=v
Neutralized to pH 7
reduction
This high-rate
system has shown
HRT reduction from
10 to 2 days
4047% conversion
15
3 v=v
Coffee pulp as
922 kg VS
of sugars
substrate Isothermal
m
3 day 7 1
conditions at 35 C
7.2 kg DM
90
410
0.25d
6.5 kg COD
90
410
0.30c

1999

Costa Rica=
Netherlands

Demonstration
and 250 m3

UASB

20003000 kg COD

7580% COD

Calvert

1997

PNG

Bench

UASB

Inlet feed810 g BOD

80% BOD
removal

Bello-Mendoza
and Castillo-Rivera
Boopathy et al.
(1986)
Boopathy

1988

Mexico

Pilot

UASB-filter

1.89 kg COD

77%

1986

India

Laboratory

Bottle

C:N ration study for satisfactory AD of coffee pulp30:1 with 25% TS found to be the optimum condition

1988

India=Italy

Laboratory

2.5 l batch

Boopathy

1987

India=UK

Laboratory

Metabolism of protein, carbohydrates and lipid of coffee pulp during AD process. Enzyme activity of coffee pulp
was found to be higher compared with a cow dung digester
Cow dung was identified as the best innoculum material for the start-up of anaerobic digestion using coffee pulp as
substrate

Boopathy
Boopathy and
Mariappan
Chanakya et al.
ASTRA

1987
1984

India
India

Laboratory
Laboratory

CSTR
CSTR

Coffee pulp at 25% total solids concentration produced maximum gas

1998
2002b

India
India

Laboratory
Field

BIBR
BIBR

810 kg TS
23 kg COD

Batch

Conversion
(% or kg m3 day
1

85%
90%

HRT (day)

12.5

0.9

0.7
710

Financed by the AIJ

mechanism
10001500 m3 day
biogas (80% CH4)
Innoculum availability
problem. Gas
production 1 l for
each litre of input
at 50% recycle

COFFEE PROCESSING

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300

Table 7. Summary of R&D and field trials on anaerobic digestion of coffee waste water.

0.026c

0.5d
0.5d

Down-flow mode
Horizontal flow mode

CSTR, completely strirred tank reactor (often unstirred); PBR, packed bed reactor; UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; PUF, polyurethane foam; BIBR, biomass immobilized-bed reactor; c, COD basis; d, dry matter
basis; DM, dry matter; VS, volatile solids.

299

300

CHANAKYA and DE ALWIS

attempting end-of-pipe treatment. Large quantities of biogas

produced are used on-farm for running machinery, domestic
cooking, yard lighting, etc., saving wood and fossil fuels
and thereby significantly reducing the environmental footprint.

CONCLUSIONS
The review shows that there are significant problems
facing the producer countries and the situation is steadily
deteriorating further. The additional environmental burden is
perceived to be high. There is no one solution, although a
solution which will bring in environmental protection
with resource-recovery will help significantly. Cenicafes
pulping system, ASTRAs plug flow type bioreactor
system, composting and vermi-composting methods appear
to significantly benefit in impact reduction in primary processing. ASTRAs design overcomes the limitations listed by the
review of Adams and Dougan. The significance is that it can
handle both the solid and liquid waste streams together in
addition to being a system of lower operating and maintenance cost. Financing appears to be a major hurdle in
implementing wastewater treatment in primary producing
countries. In India external subsidy via an international donor
programme has sparked the ASTRA implementation of a
technology that had been pursued for a while. In Costa Rica it
appears that climate change convention had found a partner
in implementing a government directive on pollution control.

REFERENCES
Aagaard, B.M., 1961, Recirculation of water in a coffee factory, Kenya
Coffee, April.
Adams, M.R. and Dougan, J., 1987, Waste Products in Coffee, Vol 2,
Clarke, R.J. and Macrae, R. (eds) (Elsevier Applied Science, London,
UK).
Anonymous, Coffee research notesmethane plants, Kenya Coffee, 32:
113114.
ASTRA, 2002a, A baseline study of wastewater treatment practices during
coffee processinga case study of four plantations, ASTRA Coffee
Series Technical Report no. 3 (ASTRA, IISc, Bangalore, India).
ASTRA, 2002b, Performance of bioreactors for coffee effluents in
Chikkamagalur Area: a case study of two estates, Coffee Series Technical
Report no. 4 (ASTRA, IISc, Bangalore, India).
Babbu Reddy, D.R., Shivaprasad, P. and Naidu, R., 2001, Cost of production
of robusta coffee in major growing regions of India, J Coffee Res, 29(12):
4149.
Bello-Mendoza, R. and Castillo-Rivera, M.F., 1998, Start-up of an anaerobic
hybrid (USAB=filter) reactor treating wastewater from a coffee processing
plant, Anaerobe, 4(5): 219225.
Boopathy, R., 1987, Inoculum source for anaerobic fermentation of coffee
pulp, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 26: 588594.
Boopathy, R., 1988, Metabolism of protein, carbohydrates and lipid during
anaerobic fermentation of coffee pulp, J Coffee Res, 18(1): 122.
Bhoopathy, R. and Mariappan, M., 1984, Coffee pulpa potential source of
energy, J Coffee Res, 3: 108116.
Bhoopathy, R., Mariappan, M. and Sunderasan, B.B., 1986, The C:N ratio
and methane production of coffee pulp, J Coffee Res, 16(34): 4766.
Brandon, T.W.E., 1949, Treatment and disposal of wastewater from processing coffee, E Afr Agric J, 17: 3945.
Calle, H., 1957, Combustible methane gas from coffee pulp, Indian Coffee,
21: 208209.
Calvert, K.C., 1997, The treatment of coffee processing wastewaters: the
biogas option, Coffee Research Report no. 50 (Coffee Research Institute,
Papua New Guinea).

Calzada, J.F., de Leon, O.R., de Arriola, M.C., de Miches, F., Rolz, C., de
Leon, R. and Menchu, J.F., 1981, Biogas from coffee pulp, Biotechnol
Lett, 3(12): 713716.
Calzada, J.F., de Arriola, M.C., Castaneda, H.O., Godoy, J.E. and Rolz, C.,
1984, Methane from coffee pulp juice: Experiments using polyurethane
foam reactors, Biotechnol Lett, 6(6): 385388.
Calzada, J.F., Garcia, R.A., Porres, C.A. and Rodz, C.E., 1989, Integrated
utilization of coffee processing by products and wastes, in International
Biosystems, Vol II, Wise, D.L. (ed) (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA),
pp 4151.
CCRI, 2000, Treatment of coffee effluent emanating from coffee processing
unit, extension folder 19=2000 (Central Coffee Research Institute,
Karnataka, India).
Chanakya, H.N., Srivastava, A.K. and Amita, A., 1998, High rate biomethanation using digested biomass as bacterial support, Curr Sci, 74: 7781.
Chellamuthu, T., Madaswamy, M. and Gayathri, P., 2000, A note on
performance evaluation of four-disc pulper for coffee, J Coffee Res, 28:
8591.
Coulthard, J.L., 1979, Bioconversion systems for Papua New Guinea, Report
1-79 (Energy Planning Unit, DME, Papua New Guinea).
Damodaran, A., 2002, Conflict of trade-facilitating environmental regulations with biodiversity concerns: The case of coffee farming units in India,
World Dev, 30(7): 11231135.
Dinsdale, R.M., Hawkes, F.R. and Hawkes, D.L., 1996, The mesophilic and
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of coffee waste containing coffee
grounds, Water Res, 30: 371377.
Dinsdale, R.M., Hawkes, F.R. and Hawkes, D.L., 1997, Comparison of
mesophilic and thermophilic upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors
treating instant coffee production wastewater, Water Res, 31: 163169.
Fernandez, N. and Forster, C.F., 1994, Anaerobic digestion of a simulated
coffee waste using thermophilic and mesophilic upflow filters, Process
Safety Environ Prot, Trans IChemE, Pt B, 72(1): 1520.
Gathuo, B., 1995, Anaerobic treatment of coffee wastes in Kenya, PhD
thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
Gathuo, B., Rantala, P. and Maatta, R., 1991, Coffee industry wastes, Water
Sci Technol, 17(1): 5360.
Kostenberg, D. and Marchaim, U., 1993, Anaerobic digestion and horticultural value of solid waste from manufacture of instant coffee, Environ
Technol, 14: 973980.
Maheswaran, A., 1988, WHO Report on the treatment of coffee and oil
palm wastes in PNG, Report to the Bureau of Water Resources,
March.
Monteverde, F. and Olguin, E.J., 1984, in Anaerobic Digestion and Carbohydrate Hydrolysis of Waste, Serriero, G.L., Feranti, M.P. and Naveau,
H.E. (eds) (Elsevier, London, UK), pp 359368.
Ponte, S., 2002, The Latte Revolution? Regulation, markets and
consumption in the global coffee chain, World Dev, 30(7):
10991122.
Rajabapaiah, P., Ramanayya, R., Mohan, S.R. and Reddy, A.K.N., 1979,
Studies in biogas technology. 1. Performance of a conventional biogas
digester, Proc Ind Acad Sci, C2: 357369.
Ranganna, B., 2002, Simple ways to obtain quality beans, Coffee Week
(Special Issue Indian International Coffee Festival): 2426.
Shanmukhappa, R., Alvar, A.R.P. and Srinivasan, C.S., 1998, Water pollution by coffee processing units and its abatement, Indian Coffee, 62(10):
39.
Talbot, J.M., 1997, Where does your coffee dollar go? The division of
income and surplus along the coffee commodity chain, Stud Comp Int
Dev, 32(1): 5691.
Tallontire, A., 2002, Challenges facing fair trade: which way now?, Small
Enterprise Dev, 13(3): 1224.
Viani, R., 1995, Coffee, in Uhlmanns Encyclopeadia of Industrial Chemistry, Vol A7, pp 315339 (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany).
Wolcott, E.L., 2001, Coffee for a Better World (www.kspcsb.karnic.in).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Indo-Norwegian
Environment Program (INEP) for the financial support, which provided the
foundation for this work.
The manuscript was received 23 July 2003 and accepted for publication
22 March 2004.

Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004, 82(B4): 291300