Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder for Wastewater Treatment

Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder for Wastewater Treatment and Odor
Removal
A Thesis presented to the
Faculty of the College of Engineering
Cagayan State University - Carig Campus
Tuguegarao City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering
By:
Cusipag, Jonelou A.
Lozano, John Harvey S.
Necesito, Miko Paul B.
Sia, John Patric R.
Telan, Melody Mae B.
May 2019
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................... 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Significance of the Study........................................................................................... 3
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study ......................................................................... 4
1.5 Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 6
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................. 6
2.1 Wastewater Characterization .................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Wastewater Quality Based from DENR Standard ..................................................... 7
2.2 Desirable Characteristics for the Selection of Raw Materials .............................. 7
2.2.1. Neutralizer Effect ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2. Odor Removing Effect.............................................................................................. 7
2.2.3. Coagulation Effect .................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Raw Materials ............................................................................................................ 9
2.3.1. Eggshell .................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2. Crustacean Shells .................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3. Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash ............................................................................... 15
2.3.4. Snail Shell ............................................................................................................... 19

2.3.5. Banana Peels ........................................................................................................... 21
2.3.6. Cassava Peels .......................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Commercial Product (VIGORMIN)...................................................................... 25
2.5 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................... 28
2.6 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 30
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 30
3.1 Materials .................................................................................................................. 30
3.2 Flow Chart of Activities .......................................................................................... 30
3.2.1. Compounded solid waste powder production ........................................................ 30
3.2.1.1. Collection of Solid wastes ............................................................................... 31
3.2.1.2. Preparation of Raw Materials .......................................................................... 31
3.2.1.3. Heat Treatment................................................................................................. 31
3.2.1.4. Weighing and Mixing ...................................................................................... 32
3.2.2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater treatment Procedure .............................................. 32
3.2.2.1. Collection of Wastewater ................................................................................. 33
3.2.2.2. Primary Water Analysis ................................................................................... 33
3.2.2.3. Final Water Analysis........................................................................................ 33
3.3 Statistical Analysis................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 35
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 35

4.1 Initial Wastewater Data ............................................................................................... 35
4.2 Primary Water Analysis .............................................................................................. 35
4.3 Formulation of Combinations ..................................................................................... 45
4.4 Secondary Water Analysis........................................................................................... 45
4.4.1 Odor Analysis .......................................................................................................... 45
4.4.2 Power of Hydrogen Analysis ................................................................................... 47
4.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis ....................................................................... 49
4.4.4 Turbidity Analysis ................................................................................................... 51
4.4.5 Total Suspended Solids Analysis ............................................................................ 52
4.5 Treatment Comparison with Vigormin ..................................................................... 54
4.5.1 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 54
4.5.2 Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................... 67
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 67
5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 67
5.2 RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................... 68
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 83
Appendix A. DENR Administrative Order No. 2016-08 Effluent Standards ............... 83
Appendix B. Data Tables for Primary Water Analysis .................................................. 83
Appendix C. Secondary Water Analysis .......................................................................... 86

Appendix C.1 Data Tables for Combinations .................................................................. 86
Appendix C.2 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Odor Analysis ........................................... 87
Appendix C.3 ANOVA One-Way Factor for pH Analysis .............................................. 99
Appendix C.4 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis ..... 104
Appendix C.5 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Turbidity Analysis .................................. 115
Appendix C.6 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Total Suspended Solids Analysis ........... 126
Appendix D. Letters ......................................................................................................... 132
Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 134
List of Figures
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 3. Solid waste powder production ................................................................................ 30
Figure 4. Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment Procedure ................................................ 32
Figure 5. pH versus Day for different materials ...................................................................... 37
Figure 6. Chemical Oxygen Demand Levels versus Day ........................................................ 40
Figure 7. Turbidity versus Day ................................................................................................ 42
Figure 8. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) versus Day ............................................................... 44
Figure 9. Mean Odor Scale per Treatment............................................................................... 47
Figure 10. Power of Hydrogen trend per Treatment (ppm) ..................................................... 48
Figure 11 Chemical Oxygen Demand Trend per Treatment (ppm) ......................................... 50
Figure 12. Turbidity Trend per Treatment (NTU) ................................................................... 52
Figure 13. Total Suspended Solids Trend per Treatment ........................................................ 53

List of Tables
Table 1. Factors Affecting Coagulation ..................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Rice Husk ....................................................... 15
Table 3. Chemical Analysis of the Rice Husk ......................................................................... 16
Table 4. Characteristics of Rice Husk Ash .............................................................................. 16
Table 5. Initial Wastewater Data ............................................................................................. 35
Table 6. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material ............................................................ 36
Table 7. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material ............................................................ 38
Table 8. Resulting Turbidity of wastewater per raw material ................................................. 40
Table 9. Resulting TSS of wastewater per raw material .......................................................... 42
Table 10. Five Combinations of Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder ........................ 45
Table 11. Mean Value of the Odor Scale of Panels and the Percent Reduction per Treatment
.................................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 12. Comparative pH Values on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling. .... 48
Table 13. Comparative Chemical Oxygen Demand Values on Initial Sample, and on First and
Second Sampling. .................................................................................................................... 49
Table 14. Comparative Turbidity Value on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling
.................................................................................................................................................. 51
Table 15. Comparative Total Suspended Solids Value on Initial Sample, and on First and
Second Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 53
Table 16. Cost Analysis for Equipment Used .......................................................................... 55
Table 17. Cost Analysis for Expected Cost of Labor .............................................................. 56
Table 18. Cost Analysis for Other Expenses ........................................................................... 56
Table 19. Amount of Material Produced ................................................................................. 57
Table 20. Total Cost (Pesos) .................................................................................................... 57

Table 21. Cost per kilogram produced ..................................................................................... 58
Table 22. Effluent Standards (Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Administrative Order No. 2016 – 08) ...................................................................................... 83
Table 23 Scale of Panelist at initial Water Samples per Treatment ......................................... 87
Table 24 Scale of Panelist at Water Samples per Data After five Days .................................. 87
......................................................................................................................................................
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Water pollution, which is a main problem today, is one of the most undesirable phenomena
that every living organism, especially man, is facing today. It is capable of making any
physical, chemical or biological change in the water body and has undesirable effect on living
organisms. According to Global Alliance on Health Pollution (GAHP, 2012), more than 8.4
million people died due to water, air, and land pollution. It has been reported that four billion
worldwide is presently affected by water stress which is considered as a major challenge to be
solved (Meckonnen, 2016). In the Philippines, water pollution is mostly caused by industrial,
agricultural, domestic sewages, and other sources like spills and illegal dumping in or near
water. This is mainly the reason why out of 421 rivers in the Philippines, about 50 rivers are
considered dead which means that these rivers are no longer capable of supporting the aquatic
lives (GreenPeace, 2010). According to government monitoring data, up to 58 percent of the
groundwater tested was contaminated with coliform, and approximately one third of illnesses
monitored during a five-year period were caused by water-borne sources. According to Water
Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA, 2003), water pollution’s effects cost the Philippines
approximately $1.3 billion annually. The government continues to try to clean up the problem,
implementing fines to polluters as well as environmental taxes, but many problems have not
been addressed.
One of the prominent causes of water pollution is extensive eutrophication caused by
agricultural, sewage, animal, human and industrial runoff, resulting in excessive concentrations
of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen. This results in enhanced plant and depleted
animal life due to lack of oxygen, creating a dead zone. Lakes and reservoirs, two fresh water
sources, are particularly prone to the negative impact of eutrophication due to their proximity
1
to pollutant-generating sources and the water’s relative stillness (Yadav, 2017). This
phenomenon is very common in the Philippines since the water flowing from the agricultural
lands carries the excess nutrients from fertilizers directly to different natural water system.
Domestic wastewater also contributes in eutrophication when it is directly dumped to the rivers
or other receiving water-bodies because of the lack of wastewater treatment facilities.
Only 10% of wastewater in the Philippines is treated while 58% of the groundwater is
contaminated and only 5% of the total population is connected to a sewer network. Since sludge
treatment and disposal facilities are rare, domestic wastewater is discharged without treatment.
The problem lies on how the community can have a wastewater treatment that is affordable
and doable even in their own houses (Claudio, 2015).
One wastewater treatment that is growing in popularity nowadays is the use of
organomineral on treating wastewater. This substance is a combination of different minerals
and organic compounds that have the capability to adsorb impurities in the water, remove bad
odor of the water, neutralize the pH of water and make the water clear. The goal of this research
is to make a compounded organic powder out of different solid wastes to provide solution for
the problem that the society is facing right now in relation to water pollution. Hence, a low cost
and effective way of treating wastewater can be achieved by identifying the right combination
of powdered organic solid waste materials for a quality product.
2
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Main Problem: What are the right raw materials and their right amount to achieve a quality
product?
The study aims to answer the following sub problems:
a. What is the efficiency of the product in terms of its deodorizing ability?
b. What is the efficiency of the product in terms of its neutralizing ability?
c. What is the efficiency of the product in terms of its clearing ability?
d. Is the resulting product comparable to the existing commercial one (Vigormin)?
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study is to create a powdered organic material out of different
solid waste materials for low cost wastewater treatment. With the main objective as to
determine quantitatively the right amount of raw materials to obtain quality product.
Specifically, the study aims to:
a. Determine the efficiency of the resulting products in terms of its deodorizing ability.
b. Determine the efficiency of the resulting products in terms of its neutralizing ability.
c. Determine the efficiency of the resulting products in terms of its clearing ability.
d. Compare the resulting product to the commercially available one (Vigormin) in terms
of its effectiveness and cost analysis.
1.3 Significance of the Study
The study can be considered as an innovative solution for the treatment of wastewater
especially from canteens. This will make wastewater treatment more economical than
conventional process since the application of solid waste powder itself can perform wastewater
treatment by direct application removing the need for treatment facilities.
3
The purpose of this study is to help the community promote sanitation as well as to achieve
cleaner water. It will be an advantage to the community to achieve desirable effluent water who
doesn’t have wastewater treatment facility, with low cost production and high efficiency
product. Since water is the main supporter of life forms, it implies proper treatment and proper
consumption. If this project will be implemented, more wastewater will be treated as well as
cleaner environment will be achieved.
The study will be able to add new knowledge in the application of process, environmental
and particle technology in Chemical Engineering principles. It may serve a guiding tool on
identifying other treatment alternatives in the wastewater that will give rise in the field of
Chemical Engineering.
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study focused only on the formulation of powdered organic solid waste materials for
the treatment of domestic wastewater from Cagayan State University-Carig Campus canteens.
The process equipment design used in the production of the powdered material was not within
the scope of this study. The raw materials used in the production of powdered organic solid
waste were collected within the province of Cagayan and Isabela and the wastewater samples
were obtained from stagnant source coming from the canteens within CSU Carig campus.
4
1.5 Definition of Key Terms
Adsorption is the adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of gases, solutes, or
liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with which they are in contact.
Deodorizer is a substance used to absorb or eliminate offensive odors. The goal of
deodorization is the removal of naturally occurring substances that cause unwanted smell
and taste.
Total Suspended Solids is the measurement of all suspended solids in a liquid typically
expressed in milligram per liter (mg/L) or ppm.
Turbidity is a measure of how clear water is in Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU), invisible
to the average naked eye until readings in excess of 100 are reached, typically determined
by shining light through a sample placed in a turbidimeter.
Treatment is the process of removing solids or pollutants such as foods particles, soaps and
detergents from household greywater.
Wastewater is "used" water coming from the canteens.
5
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Wastewater Characterization
Wastewater is "used water from any combination of domestic, industrial, commercial or
agricultural activities, surface runoff or storm water, and any sewer inflow or sewer
infiltration". Therefore, wastewater is a by-product of domestic, industrial, commercial
or agricultural activities. The characteristics of wastewater vary depending on the source.
Types of wastewater include domestic wastewater from households, municipal wastewater
from communities (also called sewage) or industrial wastewater from industrial activities.
Wastewater can contain physical, chemical and biological pollutants. Households may produce
wastewater from flush toilets, sinks, dishwashers, washing machines, bathtubs, and showers.
Households that use dry toilets produce less wastewater than those that use flush toilets (Tilley
et. al., 2016).
In the Philippines, disposal of wastewater is turning to be an enormous challenge. This is
the concern of National Economic and Development Authority Board Resolution No. 5, series
of 1994 which stated the national policy for urban sewerage and sanitation. The country's rapid
population increase coupled with industrialization efforts produced pressures to the capacity of
the environment to absorb generated wastes. Untreated wastes are hazards to health and
environment. Epidemics, fish kills, floods, and other related disasters on record proved the
menace brought by poor management of wastewater which claimed several lives and
debilitated a number of people mostly affecting children. Wastewater, if not properly handled,
will further reduce the remaining limited quantity of good water to the detriment of all. Being
aware of these, the Philippine government has formulated policies and guidelines that will
ensure proper management of the country's wastewater (Magtibay, 2006).
6
2.1.1 Wastewater Quality Based from DENR Standard
In the Water Quality Guidelines and General Effluent Standards of 2016 (Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, 2016), the effluent must conform to the table shown at
Appendix A.
2.2 Desirable Characteristics for the Selection of Raw Materials
2.2.1. Neutralizer Effect
In a reaction in water, neutralization results in there being no excess hydrogen or hydroxide
ions present in the solution. It is when an acid and a base react to form water and a salt and
involves the combination of H+ ions and OH- ions to generate water. The neutralization of a
strong acid and strong base has a pH equal to 7. The neutralization of a strong acid and weak
base will have a pH of less than 7, and conversely, the resulting pH when a strong base
neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7. The pH of the neutralized solution depends on
the acid strength of the reactants. Neutralization is used in many applications. When a solution
is neutralized, it means that salts are formed from equal weights of acid and base (Petrucci et.
al., 2007). A neutralizer is a substance or material used in the neutralization of acidic water. It
is a common designation for alkaline materials such as calcite (calcium carbonate) or magnesia
(magnesium oxide) used in the neutralization of acid waters (Neutralizer, 2018).
2.2.2. Odor Removing Effect
An attempt was made to convert the agricultural waste of rice husk (RH) into an adsorbent
to remove the offensive odor released from livestock waste and compost. The ammonia gas
adsorption of the RH carbonized at 400°C was much faster than those of several commercial
deodorants as well as those of carbonized wood wastes. Acidic functional groups remaining at
400°C were useful to promote adsorption of basic ammonia gas. The actual compost was
covered with or mixed with the RH carbonized at 400°C. The covering method reduced the
7
concentration of ammonia gas emitted from the compost much faster than the mixing method,
which was connected to volatilization of ammonia gas lighter than ambient air. Wetting the
carbonized RH was also effective in reducing the ammonia gas concentration. An assorted feed
to which was added the RH carbonized at 400°C at the level of 2 mass % was given to growing
pigs. The addition of the carbonized RH reduced about 80% of the concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide and mercaptans emitted from the pig dung. The removal of acidic gases of hydrogen
sulphide and mercaptans was suggested to result from basic inorganic matter of K, Ca and P,
which were intrinsically composed in RH. The testing results showed that the RH carbonized
at 400°C was a promising material for removing the offensive odor produced by the livestock
industry (Kumagai, Sasaki, & Enda, 2009).
2.2.3. Coagulation Effect
Various types of coagulants show potential application in treating water and wastewater. It
ranges from chemical to non-chemical coagulant. (Rajendran, et al., 2015).The coagulant also
could be synthetic material or natural coagulant with the properties of coagulant having positive
valence electrons charge, these positive charge proteins would bind to the negative valence
electrons charged particles in the solution that cause turbidity, water and wastewater treatment
is the removal of suspended and colloidal particles, untreated matter, microbes and other
substances that are deleterious to life, in search of lowest cost deployment, operation,
maintenance, and reduced environmental impacts to the contiguous. Coagulants are
characterized according to the wastewater properties that relates the efficiency of treatment
process to achieve required quality of water on standards as shown in the table below.
8
Table 1. Factors Affecting Coagulation
Coagulant Applications Effective Characteristics Natural Water Properties
Coagulants Extraction Settling time Turbulence 1. pH
Coagulants Solubility Rapid Mixing 2. Slow Alkalinity Availability of
Coagulants Dosage Charge Mixing Coagulant adds Bacteria’s
on Particles Basicity of a quantity Particles type Presence of Elements (Cl,
coagulant Na, Mn, Si, Fl, NH3, Fe)
Total dissolved solids
Suspended Solids
Temperature
Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen
2.3 Raw Materials
2.3.1. Eggshell
Eggshells are an abundant, cheap, biodegradable material with porous structure, slightly
soluble in water (0.013 g/L at 18 ºC) (Carvalho, et al., 2011) . It typically consists of ceramic
materials constituted by a three-layered structure, namely the cuticle on the outer surface, a
spongy (calcareous) layer and an inner lamellar (or mammillary) layer (Tullett, 1987). The
outer surface of the eggshell is covered with a mucin protein that acts as a soluble plug for the
pores in the shell. The cuticle is also permeable to gas transmission. The chemical composition
(by weight) of by-product eggshell has been reported as follows: calcium carbonate (94%),
magnesium carbonate (1%), calcium phosphate (1%) and organic matter (4%) (Stadelman W.
, 2000) (Hunton, 2005).Notably, the by-product eggshell generated from food processing and
manufacturing plants is inevitably composed of calcium carbonate (eggshell) and eggshell
9
membrane (ESM). The ESM resides between the egg white (albumen) and the inner surface of
the eggshell (Parsons, 1982) which possesses an intricate lattice network of stable and water-
insoluble fibers and has high surface area resulting in various applications such as adsorbent
(Suyama, 1994); (Ishikawa S. S., 1998); (Allen, McCallen, Healy, Wolki, & Ulbig, 2000);
(Gota & Suyama, 2000) (Ishikawa, Suyama, Arihara, & Itoh, 2002); (Koumanova, Peeva,
Allen, Gallagher, & Healy, 2002) and immobilization support.
The porosity of eggshell renders it as a remarkable material to be used as an adsorbent
(Koumanova, Peeva, Allen, Gallagher, & Healy, 2002). A porous structure allows the
exchange of matter between the outside and the inside of material (Guru & Dash, 2014).
Eggshells can be used as an adsorbent to remove different types of pollutants from water-based
solutions. Besides, eggshell was porous which was suitable for further modification to improve
phosphorus adsorption potential (Chen & Yuang, 2016) (Chen and Huang 2016; Markovski et
al. 2014). Such cost-efficient adsorbents are particularly useful when large quantities of water
need to be processed and when the solution is viable due to its affordability (Tsai, et al., 2006)
(Schwarz & Contescu, 1999).
Aside from exhibiting adsorptive properties, eggshell renders also that of pH neutralizing
ability. Many researches have been conducted on the capacity of the eggshell to neutralize the
pH of both the soil and water. The principle behind the pH neutralizing effect of calcium
carbonate both in soil and water lies in its nature as a base. The carbonate (CO3-2) ion reacts
with acids from the soil and water to form the bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), or carbonic acid
(H2CO3), a very weak acid that easily breaks down making the pH higher. An experiment of
countering the acid rain stream using calcium carbonate, conducted by Ken Simmons in 1989
led, to the discovery of the capacity of this material to increase the level of water pH. Currently
one of the uses of calcium carbonate is as a neutralizing agent to de-acidify lakes and rivers to
10
restore the natural balance of the eco system (CongCal, McGraths Limestone Works Ltd, Cong,
Co., 2013).
Studies about the potential of eggshell considered as one of the raw materials for this study
due to its adsorptive capacity and pH neutralizing ability onto wastewater treatment are
discussed.
Nurul Aimi binti Rohaizar, Norhafizah binti Abd. Hadi, Wong Chee Sien “Removal of
Cu(II) from Water by Adsorption on Chicken Eggshell”. The effects of different parameters
such as pH of the solution, agitation rate and contact time on the adsorption process were
studied. The optimum conditions for Cu (II) adsorption by chicken eggshell were found to be
at pH 7 with the agitation rate of 350 rpm. Equilibrium data were analyzed by Langmuir and
Freundlich isotherm models and the data were fitted well to Freundlich isotherm model.
(Rohaizar, Hadi, & Sien, 2013) showed in their work with eggshells, upon the optimization
of parameters like pH, agitation rate and contact time, that pH 7 and an optimum agitation rate
of 350 rpm were ideal for Cu (II) elimination from water. Other studies also were done by
(Putra, et al., 2014) where in their study found that for batch adsorption studies, pH 6.0, and
0.1 g biomass dosage and at 90 min equilibrium time were optimum biosorption conditions for
the elimination of Cu (II) and Zn (II) ions from aqueous solutions. (Zulfikar & Setiyanto, 2013)
in a study investigating the adsorption of Congo red dye, observed that the optimum uptake of
Congo red onto powdered eggshell took place at initial concentration of 20 mg/L, pH 2, contact
time of 20 minutes and the adsorbent dosage of 20 g. Additionally, the size of powdered
eggshell particle had no major effect on the adsorption of Congo red. (Agarwal, 2013) focused
mainly on evaluating varying concentrations (5, 10, 20, 40, 100 mg/L) of Pb and Cu; this study
demonstrated a 92% to 100% removal of Cu when 0.5 to 1.5 g of eggshells (adsorbents) was
used against 5 and 10 mg/L of Cu; and an adsorption efficiency of 80% to 100% for Pb at the
11
same solution concentration. It is of note that the study showed increased concentration of
heavy metals and the adsorption efficiency decreased.
K Kumaraswamy, BV Dhananjaneyulu, P Vijetha and Y Prasanna Kumar, “Kinetic and
Equilibrium Studies For the Removal of Chromium Using Eggshell Powder”.In this study, the
egg shell in powdered form was studied through its kinetic and equilibrium relationships for
the removal of chromium. The researchers focused on the process parameters of contact time,
initial concentration, adsorbent dose, and particle size in the adsorption of Cr+6 concluded that
a contact time of 135 minutes was sufficient to reach equilibrium. The increase in the initial
concentration of chromium decreased its adsorption. Increasing particle size of eggshell
powder decreased the adsorption of chromium and finally the amount of adsorbate adsorbed
increases with increased adsorbent dose (Kumaraswamy, Dhananjaneyulu, Vijetha, & Kumar,
2015).
Maree and P. du Plessis, “Neutralization of Acid Mine Water with Calcium Carbonate”,
the paper describes a pilot scale study to determine the technical feasibility of neutralising
sulphuric acid rich water using fluidised bed technology. Limestone was utilised completely
when testing iron (III)-rich water, but with iron (II)-rich water, coated limestone particles
accumulated in the fluidised-bed reactor. About 70% of the limestone was utilised in the case
of water containing 600 mg/L iron (II). The study found out that a contact time of 4 min was
sufficient for the neutralization of acid water containing 4 g/L free acid and 580 mg/L iron
(IID, compared to 40 min when iron (II) replaced iron (III). Also, the study concluded that
calcium carbonate should be considered as an alternative because of considerations such as
lower cost, low solubility at pH values greater than 7 and simple dosing system required (Maree
& Plessis, 1994).
12
2.3.2. Crustacean Shells
Crustacean shells constitute the traditional and current commercial source of chitin (Kim
& Rajapakse, 2005). The three main components of crustacean shells together with chitin are
minerals (mainly calcium carbonate) and proteins. These three components exist closely
associated and account for about 90% of the dry weight of the shell (Ferrer, 1996). Chitin is
the second most abundant naturally occurring biopolymer. The largest sources are the
exoskeletons of arthropods, especially crabs (Malacostraca) and insects (Insecta) as well as the
cell walls of fungi. Chitosan, a polyelectrolyte derivative of chitin. This polysaccharide,
obtained from renewable resources, is currently being explored intensively for applications in
the pharmaceutical, cosmetics, biomedical, biotechnological, agricultural and food industries,
and in non-food applications as well water treatment, paper and textile. Chitosan is an
antibacterial, biocompatible, environment-friendly, biodegradable material and has great
potential for sorption of metal ions due to amino and hydroxyl groups in its chemical structure.
The physico-chemical properties of chitosan are related to the presence of amine functions that
make it very efficient for binding cations from near neutral solutions. The sorption capacity of
chitosan is mainly controlled by its degree of deacetylation which influences the physical,
chemical and biological properties of chitosan, such as acid–base and electrostatic
characteristics, biodegradability, self-aggregation, sorption properties and the ability to interact
with metal ions.
Various investigations have demonstrated the effectiveness of chitosan and its derivatives
in the uptake of metals, such as lead, copper, cadmium, nickel and oxyanions, as well as
complexed metal ions. Various methods had been used to modify chitosan in order to improve
its sorption capacity. The large number of primary amino and hydroxyl groups at the second
and sixth positions with high reactivity enables a variety of chemical modifications. Chitosan
has been attractive because the free amino groups in this modified product contribute
13
polycationic and chelating properties and has recently been subjected to many chemical
modifications to produce advanced functional materials. This chemically modified chitosan
has greater uptake capacity for heavy metal ions such as mercury, chromium, copper, zinc, tin,
cobalt, nickel, lead, mercury and cadmium (Saha & Orvig, 2010); (Rojas, et al., 2005); (Shilpi
& Padmaja, 2011); (Gulay, Ilhami, Celik, Yilmaz, & Arica, 2006).
Studies concerning about the adsorptive properties of crustacean shells are the following:
Youzhou Zhou, Liuqin Ge, Neng Fan, Meisheng Xia. “Adsorption of Congo red from aqueous
solution onto shrimp shell powder”. Two novel adsorbents derived from shrimp shell were
prepared and their adsorption performances on Congo red were investigated. The results
suggested that treated shrimp shell powder exhibited a higher adsorption capacity than raw
shrimp shell powder. The factors of initial concentration, solution pH, adsorption time, and
temperature were investigated. The maximum adsorption capacity of treated shrimp shell
powder calculated according to the Langmuir isotherm model was 288.2 mg/g, which is much
higher than that of chitin. (Youchou Zhou, 2018)
Another study by Anita Morris and Joseph Sneddon. “Use of Crustacean Shells for Uptake
and Removal of Metal Ions in Solution”. The use of crustacean shells, in particular crab shells,
for the removal of metal ions in solution is described. Research studies found in the literature
on the ability of the shells, effect of particle size, pH, competitive studies in mixtures of metals,
application to real samples such as acid mine drainage, and use of the shells in a column are
presented. The major component of the shells that allows uptake to occur is chitin. Several
mechanisms are proposed for uptake. There are conflicting accounts in the literature on such
areas as the effect of pH, flow rate, and particle size. (Anita Morris, 2011)
14
2.3.3. Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash
Rice husk possesses a granular structure, is insoluble in water, and has chemical stability
and high mechanical strength, making it a good adsorbent material for treating various wastes
from water and wastewater. The physico-chemical properties and chemical compositions of
rice husk are shown in Table 3 whereas the properties of rice husk ash (RHA) are shown in
Table 4 respectively.
Table 2. Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Rice Husk
Proximate Analysis ( wt%) Ultimate Analysis ( wt%)
Combustibles Moisture Volatile Fixed

Ash C H O N S Cl
Matter Carbon
72.87 10.00 17.13 38.92 5.55 37.94 0.35 0.02 0.09
19.8 64.3 15.9 37.00 5.10 36.00 0.40
7.9 17.1 59.9 44.6 5.6 49.3
20.00 66.40 13.60 37.8 5.20 39.0 0.39 0.05
17.9 72.8 9.3 48.9 6.2 44.1 0.8
Note: Data taken from (Lin, Wang, Lin, & Juch, 1998); (Williams & Nugranad, 2000);
(Mansaray & Ghaly, 1998); (Janvijitsakul & Kuprianov, 2007); (Daifullah, Girgis, & Gad,
2003); (Wannapeera, Worasuwannarak, & Pipatmanomai, 2008)
The chemical components of RHA are found to be SiO2, H2O, Al2O3, Fe2O3, K2O,
Na2O, CaO, and MgO (Table 4), fluctuating upon the varieties of paddy, proportion of irrigated
area, geographical conditions, fertilizer used, climatic variation, soil chemistry, and timeliness
of crop production operations and agronomic practices in the paddy growth process
15
Table 3. Chemical Analysis of the Rice Husk
Composition (%)
Cellulose 32.24 34.4 29.20 32.24 33.47
Hemicellulose 21.34 29.3 20.10 21.34 21.03
Lignin 21.44 19.2 30.70 21.44 26.70
Extractives 1.82 1.82
Water 8.11 8.11
Mineral Ash 15.05 17.1 15.05
Data taken from (Williams & Nugranad, 2000); (Mansaray & Ghaly, 1998); (Rukzon,
Chindaprasirt, & Mahachai, 2009) and (Rahman, Ismail, & Osman, 1977)
Table 4. Characteristics of Rice Husk Ash
Parameter Value
Average particle size 412 μm
Bulk density 175.3 kg m3
Moisture content 1.1%
Volatile Matter content 7.36%
Ash Content 80.58%
Fixed Carbon content 10.96%
Heating Value 21.76 MJ/kg
BET surface area 65.36 m2/g
BJH adsorption surface area of pores 52.35 m2/g
BJH desorption surface area of pores 26.62 m2/g
Cumulative pore volume 0.039 cm3/g
16
BET pore diameter 34.66 Å
BJH adsorption average pore diameter 43.27 Å
BJH desorption average pore diameter 58.34 Å
Data taken from (Lataye, Mishra, & Mall, 2009)
The morphology of rice husk may facilitate the adsorption of metals and other pollutants,
because of the irregular surface of rice, thus making possible the adsorption of metals in
different parts of this material. The physical characterizations of rice husk and RHA have
pointed out some properties such as the presence of functional groups (carboxyl, silanol, etc.)
that make adsorption processes possible. The chemical structure of the rice husk is of vital
importance in understanding the adsorption process.
M. Ahmaruzzaman and Vinod K. Gupta, “Rice Husk and Its Ash as Low-Cost Adsorbents
in Water and Wastewater Treatment”. In this study, an overview of rice husk and rice husk ash
(RHA) as low-cost adsorbent is characterized for their removal of heavy metals, dyes, organic
compounds, surfactants, pesticides, and inorganic anions from wastewater. It also highlights
that chemically modified rice husk has enhanced adsorption capacities for heavy metals,
phenols, pesticides, dyes, and other organic compounds from wastewaters.Because of the
presence of silica, RH exhibited high performance in the adsorption of various pollutants from
wastewater. It was found that adsorption capacity of RH increased after chemical and thermal
treatment. Modification of RH using some heavy metals can also make them applicable for the
adsorption of inorganic anions via surface precipitation. (Ahmaruzzaman & Gupta, 2011)
Mor Suman, Chhoden Kalzang, Ravindra Khaiwal. “Application of agro-waste rice husk
ash for the removal of phosphate from the wastewater”. In this study, locally available agro-
waste rice husk was examined in batch mode for the removal of phosphate using synthetic
wastewater (Mor Suman, 2016). Prof. S. M. Gawande, Ms. Prachi K. Shelke, Ms. Neha A.
17
Dhoke, Ms. Madhura D. Lengre, Ms. Diksha A. Dere. “Analysis and Removal of Phosphate
from Wastewater by Using Rice Husk”. This study carry out a quality assessment and analysis
of phosphate on behalf of wastewater of river in a locale. Parameters like Biological Oxygen
Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, pH (Power of Hydrogen), and Dissolved Oxygen are
Tested and found that concentration is higher than permissible limit and it is factor to blame
eutrophication. The researchers concluded that adsorption with Activated rice husk ash
(ARAH) is one of the most effective and economical method for removal of phosphate. The
study revealed that the optimum conditions for the removal of phosphate compounds were
achieved with percentage of 70%- 80% by activating rice husk with HCL. (S. M. Gawande,
2017)
Aside from being an adsorbent, a study conducted by S. Kumagi, Y. Enda, K. Sasaki,
“Carbonization of rice husk to remove offensive odor from livestock waste and compost” made
an attempt was made to convert the agricultural waste of rice husk (RH) into an adsorbent to
remove the offensive odor released from livestock waste and compost. From the study, the
removal of acidic gases of hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans was suggested to result from
basic inorganic matter of K, Ca and P, which were intrinsically composed in RH. The testing
results showed that the RH carbonized at400°C was a promising material for removing the
offensive odor produced by the livestock industry (Kumagai, Sasaki, & Enda, 2009).
For the odor removing effect, activated charcoal derived from wide range of carbon-rich
materials like wood, coal, bones, coconut shells, nut shells, peat and agricultural residues
(ScienceStruck, 2018). Ever since, charcoal has been used as a natural way of removing odors
instead of other chemical which only mask the bad smell.. Through adsorption the particles
bind to the surface of the activated charcoal—which is why it is imperative that activated
charcoal actually be activated; the greater the available surface, the better the grade it gets for
trapping (aCarbons, 2015).
18
2.3.4. Snail Shell
The use of snail shell has been found efficient as an adsorbent, especially in the removal of
heavy metals like lead, based on its adsorption capacity, available surface area, distribution
ratio and percentage sorption (Asia & Akpohonor, 2007). The activation of these low cost
precursors is done physically or chemically using various kinds of activating agents, depending
on the end use of the adsorbent. Moreover, the chemical activation has some important
advantages to that of the physical activation such as lower carbonization temperature and
shorter time of activation (O & Evbuomwan, The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent
For The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As Activating
Agent, 2014).
Udeozor S. O And Evbuomwan B. O, “The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For
The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3PO4 as Activating Agent”.
The researchers investigated the effectiveness of Snail Shell as adsorbent for the treatment of
wastewater from beverage industries, using Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) as activating agent.
Some of the important wastewater parameters analyzed include: Biological oxygen Demand
(BOD); Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD); Turbidity; Dissolved oxygen (DO); and Phosphate.
The results obtained from the characterization of the snail shell adsorbent samples are: for
sample A (Porosity, 48%; Surface area, 2567.32m2; Organic content, 12.5%; Moisture content,
0.32%; pH, 8.76); and for sample B (Porosity 72%; Surface area, 2987.69m2; Organic content,
7.3%; Moisture content, 0.27%; pH, 7.04). Also, the results of some of the physicochemical
parameters of the waste water before and after treatment respectively, at a maximum time of
40mins are: 48mg/l and 16mg/l for BOD, 146mg/l and 37mg/l for COD, 41FAU and 1 FAU
for turbidity, 1.8mg/l and 4.98mg/l for dissolved oxygen, 0.066mg/l and 0.0001mg/l for
phosphate. This study has shown that activated carbon produced from snail shells can compete
favorably with the conventional activated carbons in treating wastewater from beverage
19
industry, using H3PO4 as an effective activating agent (O & Evbuomwan, The Effectiveness
of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries
Using H3 Po4 As Activating Agent, 2014).
E.O Jatto, I.O Asia, E.E Egbon , J.O Otutu , M.E Chukwuedo , C.J Ewansiha, “Treatment
Of Waste Water From Food Industry Using Snail Shell”. The aim of this study is to determine
the suitability of snail shell as an adsorbent or coagulant in waste water treatment wherein the
stability of the snail shell at different pH was studied, followed by the optimum dosage of the
shell using turbidity and COD as the parameter and treating waste water from food industry.
According to this study, as a coagulant, the snail shell, helps to neutralize fine particles of
suspended and dissolve matter in a water supply or sample to form flocs that settles and can be
filtered out. The choice and dose rate of the coagulant will depend on the characteristics of the
waste water to be treated. The researchers concluded that snail shell as a coagulant is very
effective in the treatment of waste water at any pH. A high level of success was achieved in
reducing the dissolved solids, Nitrates, sulphate, and of removal phosphate completely from
the waste water. There was a reduction in COD, BOD, conductivity, turbidity values and
increase in DO values after treatment, an indication that the snail shell is an effective coagulant
and is economic viable in the treatment of waste water (Jatto, et al., 2010).
Udeozor S. O And Evbuomwan B. O, “The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For
The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As Activating Agent”.
The researchers investigated the effectiveness of Snail Shell as adsorbent for the treatment of
wastewater from beverage industries, using Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) as activating agent.
Some of the important wastewater parameters analyzed include: Biological oxygen Demand
(BOD); Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD); Turbidity; Dissolved oxygen (DO); and Phosphate.
The results obtained from the characterization of the snail shell adsorbent samples are: for
sample A (Porosity, 48%; Surface area, 2567.32m2; Organic content, 12.5%; Moisture content,
20
0.32%; pH, 8.76); and for sample B (Porosity 72%; Surface area, 2987.69m2; Organic content,
7.3%; Moisture content, 0.27%; pH, 7.04). Also, the results of some of the physicochemical
parameters of the waste water before and after treatment respectively, at a maximum time of
40mins are: 48mg/l and 16mg/l for BOD, 146mg/l and 37mg/l for COD, 41FAU and 1 FAU
for turbidity, 1.8mg/l and 4.98mg/l for dissolved oxygen, 0.066mg/l and 0.0001mg/l for
phosphate. This study has shown that activated carbon produced from snail shells can compete
favorably with the conventional activated carbons in treating wastewater from beverage
industry, using H3PO4 as an effective activating agent (O & Evbuomwan, The Effectiveness
of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries
Using H3 Po4 As Activating Agent, 2014).
2.3.5. Banana Peels
Banana peel is an agricultural waste that is being discarded all over the world as a useless
material. However, banana peels have adsorbent potentiality and can be used as coagulant in
water treatment. It is very useful for purification and refining processes. It has adsorption
capacities to remove chromium from wastewater, copper (Ndabigengesere A, 1995) and also
some dyes. Banana peels are selected to be prepared as a bio-adsorbent and contain high
organic carbon (41.37%) and composed of polymeric substances such as fiber (11.04%) and
protein (10.14%). The chemical composition of peels was investigated (Vieira AMS, 2013)
and revealed that the treatment of water using the banana peel is most effective for removal of
hydrogen sulfide from sulfur spring water. Studies about the potential of banana peel as a
potential coagulant and also an adsorbent are presented as follows.
A study by Sandhya Maurya and Achlesh Daverey on “Evaluation of plant-based natural
coagulants for municipal wastewater treatment” was conducted by four plant-based natural
coagulants (banana peel powder, banana stem juice, papaya seed powder and neem leaf
powder) were evaluated for the removal of turbidity, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total
21
suspended solids (TSS) from municipal wastewater. From the results of their study, the
maximum turbidity removal was observed with banana peel powder (59.6%) at 0.4 g/L of
dosage. Significant linear relationships between turbidity and TSS (R2 = 0.67–0.88) and
turbidity removals and COD removals (R2 = 0.68–0.8) were observed. Interestingly, all the
natural coagulants tested in the study did not change the pH of the wastewater, which is an
added advantage. FTIR analysis of banana peels revealed that functional groups such as
carboxylic acid, hydroxyl and aliphatic amines might be responsible for promoting the
coagulation–flocculation by neutralizing the charge on impurities in water. Overall, the results
suggest the potential of low-cost natural coagulants in municipal wastewater treatment (Maurya
& Daverey, 2018).
“Effectiveness of Banana Peel and Moringa oleifera Seed Powders for the Treatment of
Wastewater from an Institutional Kitchen” by Mini Mathew, Anju Mathew , Jyothis G ,
Anjalathu V N , Christina S Alexander. In this study, the researchers used banana peel in
conjunction Moringa olifera as a coagulant-flocculant to treat wastewater from kitchen are
analyzed. The treatment process is a two stage processes: in the first stage Moringa oleifera
extract was used as the coagulant or banana peel powder was used as the adsorbent and in the
second stage coagulated water was filtered using constructed filter. The jar test was used to
determine the optimum coagulant dosage of banana peel powder and Moringa oleifera seed
extract. It was observed that for both Moringa oleifera extract and Banana peel powder, there
was 14 % increase in pH after coagulation and flocculation and pH increased to 100% after
filtration, as well as 65% of turbidity, 58% of chlorides was removed during first stage , and
followed by filtration has a percentage reduction of 95% and 93% respectively. The value of
hardness showed an increase. Also first stage treatment led to 21% decrease in COD and 54%
decrease in BOD and filtration led to 79 % removal of COD and 99% removal of BOD. The
DO increased from 0 to 4.33 mg/l using Banana peel powder and 5.12 mg/l using Moringa
22
extract. TDS of the sample remained stable and the TSS value of the sample decreased by 91%.
The colour and odour of the wastewater was also completely removed (Mini, Mathew, G, N,
& Alexander, 2015).
“Potential of Banana Peels as Bio-Flocculant for Water Clarification” by Chong Kian-
Hen, Kiew Peck-Loo. In this study, the coagulation-flocculation activities between
conventional chemical coagulants (alum) with banana peel bio-flocculant were investigated
using JAR test analysis under different process conditions. It was found that the performances
of bio-flocculant under different process conditions were almost comparable to alum. The
highest turbidity removal percentage could be achieved at solution pH of 4 and 12,
150ml/400ml of bio-flocculant to turbid water dosage, temperature of 40oC and very high-level
initial wastewater turbidity (>500NTU). In order to minimize dependency on conventional
chemical coagulant, ratio of 50/50 of banana peels bio-flocculant to alum was used to achieve
the best turbidity removal percentage in comparison to other ratio combinations (Chong Kian-
Hen, 2017).
2.3.6. Cassava Peels
Cassava peels can represent 5 to 15% of the root (Aro, Aletor, Tewe, & Agbede, 2010);
(Nwokoro, D., & Ikhinmwin A. F., 2005). They are obtained after the tubers have been water-
cleansed and peeled mechanically.They may contain high amounts of cyanogenic glycosides
and have a higher protein content than other tuber parts (Tewe, 2004).
In the production of crackers from cassava, the cassava tuber are usually peeled off to
remove the outer layer that consist of the periderm, thin inner layer of cortex and some thin
portion of the cortex. The peels are normally discarded and allowed to rot. Since the peels could
make up 20-35% of the total weight of the cassava tuber, the conversion of these by-products
into effective coagulant aid driven by intensive research study would increase their market
23
value and ultimately benefits the producers. Kongkiattikajorn and Sornvoraweat
(Kongkiattikajorn & Sornvoraweatn, 2011) reported that cassava peels contain polysaccharides
such as starch, pectin and holocellulose. It is well known that pectin, starch and cellulose
containing abundant of carboxyl, hydroxyl and amino groups which has significant potential
for metal sequestering (Crini, 2005). Additionally, the functional groups bear effective charge
to help alum forming larger flocs in coagulation and flocculation process.
N. Othman, N-S Abd- Rahim, S-N-F Tuan-Besar, S. Mohd-Asharuddin, and Kumar, V, “A
Potential Agriculture Waste Material as Coagulant Aid: Cassava Peel “. In this study Cassava
peel is among non-exploited waste to be selected as a coagulant aid. Cassava with high protein
and carbohydrate is among the criteria to be selected as coagulant aid. This study investigated
the characteristics of cassava peel as a coagulant aid material and optimization process using
the cassava peel was explored through coagulation and flocculation. This research had
highlighted that the Cassava peels contain sugars in the form of polysaccharides such as starch
and holocellulose. The FTIR results revealed that amino acids containing abundant of carboxyl,
hydroxyl and amino groups which has significant capabilities in removing pollutants. Whereas
analysis by XRF spectrometry indicated that the CP samples contain Fe2O3 and Al2O3 which
might contribute to its coagulation ability. The optimum condition allowed Cassava peel and
alum removed high turbidity up to 90. This natural coagulant from cassava peel is found to be
an alternative coagulant aid to reduce the usage of chemical coagulants (Othman, N-S Abd-
Rahim, & Kumar, 2018)
Another study done by Syazwani Mohd-Asharuddin, Norzila Othman, Nur Shaylinda
Mohd Zin and Husnul Azan Tajarudin, “A Chemical and Morphological Study of Cassava
Peel: A Potential Waste as Coagulant Aid” study investigates the chemical and morphological
characteristics of cassava peel (CP) biomass as a potential coagulant aid for turbidity, heavy
metals and microbial removal. The characterization of CP samples which were accomplished
24
through the analysis of FESEM, FTIR and XRF show the potential of CP1 sample which
composed of the whole cassava peel waste comprises of the periderm, cortex and flesh to be
developed as coagulant aid. The presence of starch granules, functional groups such as
hydroxyl, carboxyl and amines as well as Al2O3 and Fe2O3 are important properties which
accredited to the coagulating agents. Modification and optimization studies will be conducted
in the future to further evaluate the performance of CP as coagulant aid for turbidity, heavy
metals and microbial removal. (Mohd-Asharuddin, Othman, Zin, & Tajarudin, 2017)
2.4 Commercial Product (VIGORMIN)
Vigormin or Organo-Mineral (OM) technology is a white organic powder developed
through the research conducted by Adamson University’s Dr. Merlinda Palencia in which its
purpose is to address the problem in septic tanks or waste water (Negros Chronicle, 2018).
Vigormin is a mixture of local and natural organo minerals that boost the removal rate of
organic pollutants, adsorb heavy metals, coagulate suspended solids in wastewater. Organo
mineral is a combination of different minerals and organic compounds that have the capability
to adsorb impurities in the water.It can neutralize pH and significantly improve wastewater
quality even without mechanical aeration and is effective in neutralizing strong wastewater or
septic odour, and strong decomposing or rotten odour in landfills or material recovery facilities.
Its application significantly improves water quality based on the effluents standards set by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Notably, its efficacy was
tested and proven in Palo, Leyte, one of the Yolanda-stricken areas, wherein several temporary
shelters had untreated septic water treatment facilities. Due to its success, DOST has been
attempting to replicate Vigormin application especially to the hottest tourist destinations in the
country including the municipalities of Coron and El Nido, where wastewater issues are most
likely prevalent (Baguyo & Sariego, 2018).
25
Vigormin’s success in Palo, Leyte led to the DOST’s attempt at replicating the same on
Boracay Island, one of the country’s top tourism destinations. For the pilot test conducted on
Boracay Island, DOST donated a total of 12 tons of Vigormin. According to DOST
Undersecretary for Scientific and Technological Services Dr. Rowena Guevara, Vigormin is a
low-cost solution to the noxious odor becoming prevalent in Boracay, which is a direct result
of the problem on wastewater, drainage systems, and residual solid waste. Last May, the
organo-mineral was used to treat septic and drainage water in a number of hotels that were
chosen to host the APEC delegates. Vigormin was also used in the Cagban and Caticlan jetty
ports, in the water reservoir of the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority, and
in a few households (The Boracay Beach, 2015).
“LOW COST ORGANOMINERALS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ODOR
NEUTRALIZER” by Palencia, Merlinda, A. and Dural, Clifford, A. The invention describes a
composition and method for biochemical and mechanical remediation of wastewater or river
in which the biomineral is an oxygen releasing material that increases dissolved oxygen,
decreases biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand and neutralized strong
odor through the use of organo-minerals. The claimed composition comprises of dolostone,
organic limestone, rocks, petrified wood, clay minerals and zeolites. The claimed composition
is utilized either in powder form and applied through dispersion. For the odor removal
characteristic of the product, the remediation is effective in reducing the odor or wastewater to
TON ranging from 1 - 6 only. Higher concentrations of bio-mineral showed higher % odor
reduction. 0.5 - 1.0 kg/m 3 concentration can reduce odor by 95% while 1.5 kg/m 3
concentration can reduce odor by as much as 98% after 10 days. In another embodiment, the
powder dispersion method at 1.0 kg/ m3 organo-mineral concentration at day 14 resulted in a
77% reduction in TS content as shown in the TS drop from 18126 mg/L to 4142 mg/L.
Concentration of 1.0 kg/m3 at 14 days after wastewater treatment show that turbidity decreased
26
from 78 - 13 NTU or 83%. The organo-mineral is effective in obtaining the dissolved oxygen
content. In another aspect, pH of wastewater before treatment was 6.6 which increased to 9.6 -
9.7 after dispersion of organo-minerals. Higher concentrations of organo-minerals resulted to
higher pH value making the water more alkaline. After wastewater treatment, alkalinity of was
established. the lesser dosage of 1.0 kg/m3 concentration is preferred as a desirable decrease
in biochemical oxygen demand are reached without affecting other factors such as total solids
and turbidity. Dosage found to be effective is a 0.05 kg/m concentration which results in lower
level of chemical oxygen demand. In another embodiment, the organomineral is capable of
odor neutralization of wastewater and septic wastewater system (Philippines Patent No.
000006, 2016).
27
2.5 Theoretical Framework
The design for the wastewater treatment was made by the application of a formulated
powdered formula from different solid waste. A primary water analysis on the collected
wastewater was conducted and served as a basis for the computation of the percent reduction
of the applied powdered formula, from which the values of COD, pH, odor, total suspended
solids and turbidity were determined. It served as a basis for the formulation of combinations
of treatment consisting of different proportions of raw materials. Application of the powdered
formula in the treating system was done on a laboratory scale in which a secondary analysis
was performed on the water to see if it complies with the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Administrative Order (DAO) 2016-08 effluent standard.
Collection of Wastewater
Primary Water Analysis
Application of Treating
System
Secondary Analysis
Treated Water
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework
28
2.6 Conceptual Framework
The discharged wastewater from most canteens does not have a proper wastewater
treatment due to lack of facilities, so the researchers developed a product as a substitute to
wastewater treatment equipment/facility which can cater the wastewater coming from the
canteens as presented in Figure 2. A conceptual framework of the wastewater using
compounded organic solid waste powder was shown below.
The figure illustrated the collection of wastewater and organic solid waste as an input. The
process started with the production of powdered solid wastes and undergone laboratory
experimentation to determine the quality of the treated water. After the initial result, the data
were used to generate an assumption of the composition to determine the most optimal ratio of
the powdered solid waste materials. Consequently, the results generated were compliant to the
DAO 2016-08 wastewater effluent standard for disposal.
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework
29
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Materials
For the laboratory scale of wastewater treatment as well as in the collection of wastewater
effluent from school stagnant water and for treated water analysis, the materials and equipment
to be used were beakers, Erlenmeyer flasks, graduated cylinder, funnel, pipette, plastic bottles
with caps and stirring rod.
The raw materials used for the production of organic solid waste powder were the
following: eggshells, crab shells, snail shells, rice husk ash, cassava peels and banana peels.
In addition, equipment and apparatus used for the preparation of the treating media were
analytical balance, tray oven, grinder, sieve and tray.
3.2 Flow Chart of Activities
3.2.1. Compounded solid waste powder production
Collection of Solid
wastes
Preparation of Raw
Materials
Heat treatment
Mixing
Figure 3. Solid waste powder production
30
3.2.1.1. Collection of Solid wastes
The collection of solid wastes were done daily. The raw materials were obtained from
domestic sources (e.g. households, local restaurants, canteens and etc.) only. The collected
materials were immediately subjected to the preparation step to prevent further degradation of
raw materials.
3.2.1.2. Preparation of Raw Materials
Eggshells, crab shells, snail shells, rice husk ash, cassava peel, and banana peel were first
washed and then sun dried. When the material was visually dried and had its moisture lessen,
it proceeded grinding and powdering process. During the grinding and powdering process, two
units of household blenders were used. The first blender was used to grind and reduce the size
of the material, and the second was used for further size reduction or powdering the material.
After the materials were powdered, the materials were then screened using a 100 mesh sieve
with tray. This process of grinding, powdering and screening were repeated until almost all
amount of materials were powdered and screened.
3.2.1.3. Heat Treatment
In heat treatment process, the powdered materials were subjected to a tray oven in a slow
thermal treatment mode with temperatures maintained at 140 - 160 degrees Celsius for one and
a half hours. Materials undergone phase transition increasing the porosity of the powdered
materials for adsorption and odor removal. Also, through this process excess water was
removed, removing the chance of re-agglomeration of the mixture. The product of this process
was not exposed in the atmosphere as it may absorb moisture in the environment promoting
agglomeration that can affect the particle sizing of the mixture. The resulting powdered solid
waste material after final heat treatment was then placed into separate polybags.
31
3.2.1.4. Weighing and Mixing
In this section the prepared materials after heat treatment were weighed in an analytical
balance then mixed in a non-reactive container. The mixing of the materials was done
manually. The mixture was weighed again, and the mixtures composition was determined using
the pre-determined weight of materials and the total weight of the mixture.
3.2.2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater treatment Procedure
The study has conducted two laboratory scale wastewater treatment. First, the effect of the
individual raw materials to the physicochemical properties of wastewater for the duration of 5
days were determined. Second, the effectiveness of the combinations of the powdered materials
formulated based on the data of the first laboratory scale wastewater treatment in terms of odor,
pH, COD, TSS and turbidity were determined for a length of seven days. The general procedure
was shown in Figure 4.
Collection of Wastewater
Primary Water Analysis
Final Water Analysis
Figure 4. Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment Procedure
32
3.2.2.1. Collection of Wastewater
In this process, wastewater coming from the canteens of Cagayan State University-Carig
campus was collected in the stagnant water source. The samples were then stored in clean
polyvinyl chloride containers.
3.2.2.2. Primary Water Analysis
Five gallons of wastewater collected were labelled from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Before starting
the analysis, composite mixtures of wastewater were made by obtaining 200 milliliters (mL)
from each of the labelled gallons and then mixed, which totaled to a 1 L wastewater composite.
Then, seven sets of 1 liter (L) composite mixtures were transferred to 1.5 L plastic bottles and
then labelled properly according to the powdered solid waste material used (“treatment” for the
second laboratory wastewater treatment). The initial analysis of physicochemical properties of
the composite wastewater (primarily in terms of turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS) and
odor and its chemical properties in terms of pH and chemical oxygen demand (COD) was done.
After that, 10 grams (g) from each of the solid waste powder (or the compounded powder)
were poured with their designated composite wastewater mixtures as a treating media. The
treating media would evenly disperse on the wastewater surface in the container. The
composites containing the treating media were placed in undisturbed area to minimize possible
factors that may affect the wastewater treatment process.
3.2.2.3. Final Water Analysis
The effect of the treating media on wastewater were determined by analyzing the
characteristics of the treated wastewater samples in terms of its physical properties primarily
in terms of turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS) and odor and its chemical properties in terms
of pH and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
33
In determining the odor removing capacity of the product through sensory analysis, odor
was determined by five (5) panelist with a keen sense of smell and were determined to be free
from cold and allergies. The odor of wastewater were analyzed before the application of the
treating media. The panel was then asked to scale the odor of the wastewater from 1 being the
most favourable smell and 10 being the worst. The panelist ratings per treatment were averaged
and analyzed statistically.
3.3 Statistical Analysis
Using SPSS v16 software, the results for the evaluation of odor, pH, turbidity, total
suspended solids, and chemical oxygen demand test were analyzed through Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) and POS HOC Test statistical analysis which determined the effect
treatment with different raw material proportions on the wastewater of Cagayan State
University – Carig Campus canteens (Parameter vs. Day). Using these statistical analyses, the
results were used to compare the effect of the compounded solid waste powder on the water to
the results of the commercially available organomineral (Vigormin) (Parameter vs. Treatment).
Qualitative analysis was conducted to determine the odor removing capacity of the product at
different treatments. After determining the effectiveness of the different combinations to
Vigormin for the different physicochemical properties, a cost analysis was done to compare
the product to Vigormin.
34
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Initial Wastewater Data
Table 5 showed the initial data of the wastewater with values of the different parameters
considered. It was noticed that some of the parameters exceeded the standard value of DENR
Administrative Order 2016-08 wastewater effluent standards. However, pH was already in the
acceptable range of 6-9 standard pH.
Table 5. Initial Wastewater Data
Physicochemical Properties Value
pH 8.13
COD 242.94
Turbidity 84.3
TSS 260
4.2 Primary Water Analysis
Parameters Monitored
The effect of different solid waste materials to different parameters such as pH, Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD), Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were compared. The
data gathering were limited as the level of water affects the data. The water should remain
stagnant as the materials should settle below the container and daily sampling affects the
settling characteristics of the material.
35
a) pH
Based from DENR effluent standards, the range of pH values were shown at Appendix A.
From the generated results in Table 6, pH value range conformed to all of the powdered solid
waste materials and the commercial Vigormin. The ones that significantly affected the pH level
of wastewater was the banana peel and cassava peel which lowered the pH of initial wastewater
from 8.13 to 6.52 and 5.43 respectively
Table 6. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material
pH
Raw Material (in powdered form) Formulation
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 10g/L 8.13 8.68
Banana Peel 10g/L 8.13 6.52
Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 8.13 8.57
Cassava Peel 10g/L 8.13 5.43
Snail Shell 10g/L 8.13 8.57
Egg shell 10g/L 8.13 8.41
Vigormin 10g/L 8.13 8.22
36
10
6
pH
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Day
Crab Shell Banana Peel Rice Husk Ash Cassava Peel

Snail Shell Eggshell Vigormin
Figure 5. pH versus Day for different materials
Figure 5 showed the performance of the different materials for the parameter of pH and
their corresponding trend from the initial pH of the control to the pH values for the 4th day upon
application. From the figure shown, an increasing trend was observed for materials except for
the peels.
b) Chemical Oxygen Demand
Table 7 showed the effect of different materials on the chemical oxygen demand (COD) of
the wastewater for the whole duration of 3 days. Initially, the COD of the wastewater without
application of different materials is 242.94 mg/L (ppm). After the application of the different
materials, notable high values of COD were generated for cassava peel and banana peel.
37
Table 7. Resulting pH of wastewater per raw material
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD),

Raw Material (in powdered
Formulation ppm
form)
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 10g/L 242.94 240.096
Banana Peel 10g/L 242.94 1483.84
Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 242.94 137.76
Cassava Peel 10g/L 242.94 1476
Snail Shell 10g/L 242.94 310.94
Egg shell 10g/L 242.94 184.99
Vigormin 10g/L 242.94 141.7
Figure 6 showed the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) levels with the application of the
different materials. From the figure generated, the ones that exhibited high COD values were
the banana peel and cassava peel. High chemical oxygen demand levels for the cassava and
banana peel contributed to a greater amount of oxidizable organic material in the wastewater
sample, which reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. Vigormin, eggshell, and rice husk, crab
shell exhibited the closest COD value to DENR standard up to the 4th day which was on a
decreasing trend. If this continues, COD values would conform to the DENR wastewater
effluent standards.
38
Crab Shell Banana Peel
243.5 1600
243 1400
242.5 1200
242 1000
COD
COD
241.5 800
241 600
240.5
400
240
200
239.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
a) Crab Shell b) Banana Peel
Rice Husk Cassava Peel

300
1600
250 1400
1200
200
1000
COD
COD
150 800
100 600
400
50 200
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
c) Rice Husk Ash d) Cassava Peel
Snail Shell Eggshell

350 300
300 250
250
200
COD
200
COD
150 150
100 100
50 50
0
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
e) Snail Shell f) Eggshell
39
Vigormin
300
250
200
COD
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Day
g) Vigormin
Figure 6. Chemical Oxygen Demand Levels versus Day
c) Turbidity
Table 8 showed the effect of different materials on the turbidity of the wastewater. Initially,
the value of the turbidity of the untreated wastewater was 84.3 NTU. Based from the initial
data gathered, it was found that the materials rice husk, banana peel, eggshell, cassava peel and
Vigormin have the capabilities in removing turbidity-causing particles. It was shown in Figure
7 that the materials rice husk, banana peel, eggshell, cassava peel and Vigormin decreases
gradually. On the other hand, the materials crab shell and snail shell do not have the capabilities
in reducing the turbidity of the wastewater.
Table 8. Resulting Turbidity of wastewater per raw material
Turbidity, NTU
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 10g/L 84.3 95.6
Banana Peel 10g/L 84.3 73.5
Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 84.3 45.3
40
Cassava Peel 10g/L 84.3 75.5
Snail Shell 10g/L 84.3 86.8
Egg shell 10g/L 84.3 78.9
Vigormin 10g/L 84.3 23.3

98 86
96 84
Turbidity, NTU
Turbidity, NTU
94 82
92
80
90
88 78
86 76
84 74
82 72
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

100 86
80 84
Turbidity, NTU
Turbidity, NTU
82
60
80
40
78
20
76
0 74
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
41
87 85
86.5 84
Turbidity, NTU
Turbidity, NTU
86 83
82
85.5
81
85 80
84.5 79
84 78
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
Vigormin
100
Turbidity, NTU
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4
Day
g) Vigormin
Figure 7. Turbidity versus Day
d) Total Suspended Solids
From the generated results in Table 9, only the eggshell and Vigormin conformed to the
DENR wastewater effluent standards up to the 4th day. Based from Figure 8, all of the materials
effect on the total suspended parameter decreased gradually. Hence, it could attain the
acceptable standard as the treatment progressed.
Table 9. Resulting TSS of wastewater per raw material
42
Total Suspended Solid (mg/L)
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 10g/L 260 170
Banana Peel 10g/L 260 240
Rice Husk Ash 10g/L 260 200
Cassava Peel 10g/L 260 145
Snail Shell 10g/L 260 205
Egg shell 10g/L 260 80
Vigormin 10g/L 260 10

300 265
250 260
TSS, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
200 255
150 250
100 245
50 240
0 235
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
43
300 300
250 250
TSS, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day

300 300
250 250
TSS, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Day Day
Vigormin
300
250
TSS, mg/L
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Day
g) Vigormin
Figure 8. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) versus Day
44
4.3 Formulation of Combinations
Based from the results generated from the primary water analysis, five combinations
consisting of different proportion of materials were formulated amounting to 10 grams in total
of powdered solid waste. The formulation of the different combinations was presented in Table
10.
Table 10. Five Combinations of Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder
Solid Waste Material, g
Rice TOTAL,
Combination Crab Banana Cassava Snail
Husk Eggshell g
Shell Peel Peel Shell
Ash
T1 0.5 0.5 6 0.5 0.5 2 10
T2 1 0.25 6 0.25 1 1.5 10
T3 1 0.5 5 0.5 1 2 10
T4 1 0.5 4 0.5 1 3 10
T5 2.11 0.26 3.68 0.26 0.53 3.16 10
4.4 Secondary Water Analysis
The physicochemical analysis on the wastewater after treatment with the five different
combination of organic solid waste powder were evaluated to determine their effectivity. The
odor, pH, COD, turbidity, and TSS were discussed respectively in this chapter.
4.4.1 Odor Analysis
Before subjection of the water sample to the different treatment, the odor of the samples
per treatment were assessed by 5 credible panelist and scaled from 1 to 10, as 1 being the most
favorable and 10 as the most unfavorable smell. The mean ratings of the panelists for treatment
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the initial wastewater odor were 8.4, 7.4, 8.2, 7.2 and 8 respectively. After
45
five days, the panelist again scaled the odor of the treated water and the values for treatment 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5 were found as 3.6, 5.2, 5.2, 5.6 and 4, respectively.
The correlations of the data of different treatment were shown in figure 9 that showed a
downward trend in the scale of odor of the water. Treatment 1 had the lowest mean of odor
with a percent reduction of 57.14% followed by Treatment 5 and 3 with a percent reduction of
50% and 36.59% respectively. The treatment that had the least percent reduction among the
other treatments were treatment 2 and 4 having a value of 29.73 % and 22.22 % respectively.
Table 11. Mean Value of the Odor Scale of Panels and the Percent Reduction per Treatment
Day T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
0 8.4 7.4 8.2 7.2 8
5 3.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4
% Reduction 57.1428571 29.72973 36.58537 22.22222 50
46
10
6
Odor (TON)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Day
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Figure 9. Mean Odor Scale per Treatment
Using SPSSv16, the effect of the treatment to the odor of the water per day were analyzed
by One-Way ANOVA statistical test. The results found that the treatment had a significant
effect on the odor of the water as it progressed in time as shown in Appendix C.2. The removal
of odor in the wastewater was an expected by-product of its treatment.
4.4.2 Power of Hydrogen Analysis
The water analysis results were tabulated in Table 12 for power of Hydrogen (pH) from its
initial concentration, 5th day and 7th day. Initial pH of the wastewater was at 7.45 and still
passed the standard of DENR DAO 2016-08 wastewater effluent standards. Five days after the
application of the treatments, the gathered data ranged from 7.69 up to 8.15 and 8 to 8.28 during
7th day. Treatment 1 and 3 (T1 and T3) gave the highest increase of the said parameter during
the first 5 days upon application. However, upon reaching its maximum point, the trend of the
5 treatment gradually decreased for samples T1 and T3 and showed positive results by
47
stabilizing its power of hydrogen (pH) level. Based from the data, Treatment 2, 4 and 5 can
also be applied in a more acidic wastewater.
Table 12. Comparative pH Values on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling.
Day T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin
0 7.45 7.45 7.45 7.45 7.45 7.45
5 8.15 7.82 8.01 7.69 7.72 8.15
7 8 8.19 8.05 8.09 8.28 7.95
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.1
8 T1
T2
pH
7.9
T3
7.8 T4
T5
7.7 VIGORMIN
7.6
7.5
7.4
0 2 4 6 8
DAY
Figure 10. Power of Hydrogen trend per Treatment (ppm)
Based on the data gathered using One-Way ANOVA method shown in the Appendix C.3,
it can be concluded that there was a significant difference in the initial pH of wastewater
48
compared to the pH value of the treated water. From the table of POS HOC it was found that
the significant difference were between the initial and the day 5 after the application of the
treating media having a significance of 00.0. However, the pH value from day 5 to day 7 found
to have no significant difference with 0.121 significance.
4.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis
The water analysis results for COD test showed the initial data and the data gathered at day
five and at day seven. The initial COD of the water was analyzed to be 227.964 ppm, this value
violated the standard set by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Administrative Order No. 2016-8 for effluents. After five days, the COD of the water from
Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Vigormin were analyzed to have 167.676, 263.76, 318.396, 346.656,
350.242 and 256.224 ppm respectively. On the seventh day upon subjection of the mixed
powdered solid waste material to the water, the COD of the water from Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and Vigormin were analyzed to have 150.72, 233.616, 259.992, 271.296, 286.368 and 449.44
ppm respectively. The trend of the COD slightly increased in the first sampling (day five)
except for Treatment 1 which continuously had a decreased COD value until second sampling
(day seven). The COD then gradually decreased on the second sampling except for Vigormin.
The continuous decrease in COD value of the Treatment 1 showed its effectiveness in treating
water with the said parameter compared to the other combination.
Table 13. Comparative Chemical Oxygen Demand Values on Initial Sample, and on First and
Second Sampling.
Day T1 (ppm) T2 (ppm) T3 (ppm) T4 (ppm) T5 (ppm) Vigormin (ppm)
0 227.964 227.964 227.964 227.964 227.964 227.964
5 167.676 263.76 318.396 346.656 350.424 256.224
7 150.72 233.616 259.992 271.296 286.368 449.44
49
500
450
400
350
300
COD
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Day
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin
Figure 11 Chemical Oxygen Demand Trend per Treatment (ppm)
Based on the result generated by the Green Future Innovation, Inc. (GFII – Sta. Filomena,
San Mariano Isabela), Treatment 1 was the most effective combination for reducing COD in
the wastewater to which 33.88 % reduction resulted. Based on the Effluent standards
(Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 2016-
08), the effluent was categorized under class D and could be applied for navigation purpose.
However, as the graph showed a decreasing trend, it was possible for the effluent of Treatment
1 to meet the standards for higher effluent quality through time.
50
4.4.4 Turbidity Analysis
Figure 12 showed a decrease of turbidity value of water at the first and second sampling
(day five and seven, respectively). However, the turbidity values of Treatment 2, 3, 5 and
Vigormin suddenly increased at the second sampling. One of the reasons of fluctuation was
that the turbidity of the test had influenced by the way of sampling in every treatment. Since
the materials were settling, the water needed to be stagnant even on sampling.
The initial data gathered for the turbidity of water was found to be 109 Nephelometric
Turbidity Unit (NTU). After five days, the turbidity of the water from Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and Vigormin were analyzed to have 37.7, 43.2, 29, 26, 34.7, and 16 NTU respectively. On the
seventh day upon subjection of the mixed powdered solid waste material to the water, the
Turbidity of the water from Treatment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Vigormin were analyzed to have 26.3,
60.1, 53.1, 23, 93.9, and 20.3 NTU respectively. There was a significant decrease in the
turbidity of water in the first sampling (day five) with a mean percent reduction of 71.47 %
from the initial value of the turbidity of water. The Vigormin had the highest percent of
reduction (from the two sampling) of 81.38 % followed by Treatment 4 with 78.90 % and
Treatment 1 with 75.87 %. Treatment 3 has a mean percentage reduction of 51.28 % while
Treatment 2 and 5 has 44.86 % and 13.85 % reduction respectively.
Table 14. Comparative Turbidity Value on Initial Sample, and on First and Second Sampling
0 109 109 109 109 109 109
5 37.7 43.2 29 26 34.7 16
7 26.3 60.1 53.1 23 93.9 20.3
51
120
100
80
Turbidity (NTU)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Day
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Vigormin
Figure 12. Turbidity Trend per Treatment (NTU)
Using SPSSv16, the effect of the treatment and Vigormin to the turbidity per day were
analyzed by One-Way ANOVA statistical test. The results found that the treatments had a
significant effect on the turbidity of the water as it progressed in time as shown in Appendix
C.5. The water did not pass the maximum allowable turbidity for effluents with a value of 5
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU). However, with the trend from Figure 10, the turbidity of
the water could meet the standards as time progressed.
4.4.5 Total Suspended Solids Analysis
Water analysis of the samples for the total suspended solid was shown below. The initial
total suspended solid (TSS) was analyzed and the resulted data was 75 ppm. Day 5 and day 7
results of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and Vigormin were listed in Table 15. During the first five days,
all treatments except T2 showed an increase in TSS then gradually decreased after 5 days.
Because the materials used in the treatment were in powdered form, it initially contributed to
52
the increase of TSS level. Treatment 2 (T2) showed its effectiveness by continuous decrease in
trend as shown in the Figure 13 compared to other treatments. However, after 5 days, other
treatment showed positive results with the decrease in the TSS trend. With this, as time
progressed, the TSS of the water will eventually meet the DENR effluent standard.
Table 15. Comparative Total Suspended Solids Value on Initial Sample, and on First and
Second Sampling
0 75 75 75 75 75 75
5 220 75 235 100 150 95
7 145 25 205 85 105 55
250
200
150
TSS
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DAY
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 VIGORMIN
Figure 13. Total Suspended Solids Trend per Treatment
53
Among the treatments, treatment 2 demonstrated the highest potential in terms of TSS
reduction with percentage reduction of 66.67% compared to Vigormin percentage reduction
amounting only to 26.67%.
4.5 Treatment Comparison with Vigormin
4.5.1 Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the treatments were statistically compared to Vigormin based on the
data collected on the monitored parameter using SPSSv16 One-Way ANOVA statistical test.
On pH value, the statistical tool computed a significance of 0.999 which was higher than set
value of alpha which is 0.05 (See Appendix C.3). This meant that there is no significant
difference on the effect of treatments to that of Vigormin in terms on their neutralizing
characteristic.
On comparing the effect of the treatments with that of Vigormin on COD of the wastewater,
the statistical tool showed a significance of 0.282 which showed that there was no significant
difference between the treatments and Vigormin on reducing COD of the wastewater (See
Appendix C.4). However, based on the results of the test, Treatment 1 surpassed Vigormin in
reducing the COD of wastewater.
One-Way ANOVA showed no significant difference between the treatments and Vigormin
on their effect on reducing the turbidity of water. The statistical tool showed 0.953 significance
on its ANOVA table which was higher than the set value of alpha which was 0.05 (Appendix
C.5). Based on the POS HOC test table, Treatment 1 and Treatment 4 were the most
comparable to Vigormin on turbidity reduction having significance equal to 1.
The effect of the treatments found to have no significant difference to that of Vigormin in
reducing the total suspended solid of the wastewater with significance of 0.116. Treatment 2
and 4 had the most comparable effect to Vigormin in terms TSS reduction having a significance
54
of 0.998 and 1 respectively (Appendix C.6). Treatment 2 surpassed Vigormin in reducing TSS
of the wastewater.
4.5.2 Cost Analysis
Cost analysis on the production of the compounded organic solid waste powder was done
to compare the cost of the product to that of the Vigormin. Since the acquisition of the organic
solid waste materials were free, they did not contributed much to the costing analysis. Table
16 shows the cost generated for using equipment. The Total cost generated were calculated by
determining the rate of electricity in Tuguegarao City per kilowatt hour (P10.1523) multiplying
it to the wattage used and the time were the equipment used. The total cost of the equipment
used were P326.497.
Table 16. Cost Analysis for Equipment Used
Cost
Equipment Power (W) Time Used
(Pesos)
Weighing Scale 10 2 0.203046
Oven 2000 16 324.8736
Grinder 35 4 1.421322
Total Cost 326.497968
*Basis of P 10.1523/ KWh rate of Cagelco 1
Table 17 showed the cost of labor for producing the product assuming the wage (P 350.00)
based on the minimum wage in Tuguegarao City. Four workers were assumed for the
production, which finished the work for a day (8 hours working hour per day). The total cost
of labor was P 1400.00.
55
Table 17. Cost Analysis for Expected Cost of Labor
Labor Rate/Day Number of Worker Cost (Pesos)
Worker 350 4 1400
Other expenses like the purchasing of packaging materials, containers used for the
production, and the transportation were accounted and found to have a total cost of P 350.00.
The data for these costs were found in Table 18.
Table 18. Cost Analysis for Other Expenses
Other expenses Cost (Pesos)
Packaging Materials 100
Materials Used for production 50
Transportation of Raw Material 200
Total 350
The total amount of materials produced were calculated for costing purpose. The mass of
product were added together in account that the possible excess materials can be used in the
next production. The total powdered materials were 17.198 Kg.
56
Table 19. Amount of Material Produced
Material Mass (Kg)
Crab Shell 2.625
Banana Peel 3.74
Rice Husk Ash 3.63
Cassava Peel 1.43
Snail Shell 2.423
Egg Shell 3.35
Total 17.198
The total cost of production was found to be P 2076.497968 diving the total mass of the
product produced, it was found that the product cost P 120.7406657. This was lower than the
market price of the Vigormin which was valued at P 202.00. The cost of the product was
expected to be lower when the product were produce in a large scale of production.
Table 20. Total Cost (Pesos)
Equipment 326.497968
Labour 1400
Other Expenses 350
P 2076.497968
57
Table 21. Cost per kilogram produced
Cost per Kg Produced
Total Cost of Production 2076.497968
Total Mass of Product Produced (Kg) 17.198
120.7406657 Pesos/Kg
58
Summary of Results:
Percent Remark
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard
reduction s
7.45 8 -7.38 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED
Class B (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED
Class C (6.0 - 9.5) PASSED
pH Class D (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED
Class SB (6.5 - 9.0) PASSED
Class SC (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED
Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED
227.964 150.72 33.88 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED
Class B (60 ppm) FAILED
Class C (100 ppm) FAILED
T1 COD Class D (200 ppm) PASSED
Class SB (60 ppm) FAILED
Class SC (200 ppm) PASSED
Class SD (300 ppm) PASSED
75 145 -93.33 Class A (70 ppm) FAILED
Total Class C (100 ppm) FAILED
Suspended Class D (150 ppm) PASSED
Solid Class SB (70 ppm) FAILED
Class SC (100 ppm) FAILED
59
Turbidity, 109 26.3 75.87 Maximum permissible (5 NTU) FAILED
NTU Drinking Standard (<1 NTU) FAILED
Odor 8.4 3.6 57.14 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED
Percent
Mixtures Parameters Initial Final Standard Remarks
reduction
7.45 8.19 -9.93 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED
227.964 233.616 -2.48 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED
T2 Class C (100 ppm) FAILED
COD Class D (200 ppm) FAILED
75 25 66.67 Class A (70 ppm) PASSED
Total Suspended Class B (85 ppm) PASSED
Solid Class C (100 ppm) PASSED
Class D (150 ppm) PASSED
60
Class SB (70 ppm) PASSED
Maximum permissible (5
109 60.1 44.86 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
Drinking Standard (<1
FAILED
NTU)
Percent
reduction
7.45 8.05 -8.05 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED
T3 Class SD (5.5 - 9.5) PASSED

COD
Class D (200 ppm) FAILED
61

Total Suspended
Solid
Class SD (150 ppm) FAILED
109 53.1 51.28 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
FAILED
NTU)
Percent
reduction
7.45 8.09 -8.59 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

T4
COD 227.964 271.296 -19.01 Class A (60 ppm) FAILED
62
Class B (85 ppm) PASSED
Class C (100 ppm) PASSED

Total Suspended
Solid
109 23 78.90 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
FAILED
NTU)
63
Percent
reduction
7.45 8.28 -11.14 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED
T5 COD Class D (200 ppm) FAILED

Total Suspended
Solid
64
109 93.9 13.85 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
FAILED
NTU)
Odor 8 4 50.00 Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) PASSED
Percent
reduction
7.45 7.95 -6.71 Class A (6.0 - 9.0) PASSED

Vigormin
COD Class D (200 ppm) FAILED
Class SD (300 ppm) FAILED
Total Suspended 75 55 26.67 Class A (70 ppm) PASSED
Solid Class B (85 ppm) PASSED
65
Class C (100 ppm) PASSED
Class SB (70 ppm) PASSED
109 20.3 81.38 FAILED
NTU)
Turbidity, NTU
FAILED
NTU)
Odor N/A N/A N/A Acceptable Scale (1 - 6) N/A
66
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
As one of the densely populated state university campus in the Region II, Cagayan State
University (CSU) Carig Campus at Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City has also been recognized to
the waste it generates every day, one is the kitchen wastewater generation. With this fact comes
the realization of the need of wastewater treatment in the campus in accordance to Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order (DAO) – PD 1069
including its adherence to DENR DAO No. 2016 -08 wastewater effluent standards.
Based on the results of the test on the effect of the treatments and Vigormin to the
wastewater physicochemical properties, it was found out that the treatments have no significant
effect on the pH of the water but can be said that it is effective in acidic water application as
seen an increase in pH values. Among the combinations, Treatment 1 had the most significant
reduction on water odor and COD with percent reduction of 57.14% and 33.88 % respectively.
While TSS had the highest significant reduction in treatment 2 with 66.67% reduction.
Treatment 4 had the highest reduction in turbidity among the treatments having 78.90%
reduction. It can be concluded that the compounded organic solid waste powder was effective
for the treatment of wastewater coming from the canteens of the Cagayan State University-
Carig Campus.
Vigormin is very famous today as it was recently used by the government and successfully
treat the water of Boracay and Manila bay. It is also widely used in the municipal wastewater
facilities. Using SPSSv16: one-way ANOVA, it was found that the study’s compacted organic
solid waste powder is comparable to the said commercial product based on the data of the
67
parameters observed. With this finding the product has a potential in the market given the raw
materials are abundant and of very low cost as it categorized to solid waste.
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
The following were highly recommended for future studies on the use and production of
the compacted organic solid waste powder for wastewater treatment:
1. Further optimization of the combination using statistical modelling. This is to guarantee the
optimal effectiveness of the product for wastewater treatment.
2. Design of vessel for the treatment to take place. This will reduce the factors that may affect
the treatment of water.
3. Design of plant for the production of the compacted organic solid waste powder. As a
potential market product for low cost wastewater treatment, the design of pilot plant is
recommended.
4. Determination of treatment time through statistical modelling. This will forecast the time
needed for the treated water to conform to the DENR effluent standards.
68
REFERENCES
aCarbons. (2015, December 15). Activated Charcoal As A Deodorizer. Retrieved from
WordPress: http://www.acarbons.com/activated-charcoal-as-a-deodorizer/
Agarwal, A. (2013). Removal of Cu and Pb from aqueous solution by using eggshell as an
adsorbent. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3, pp.198-202.
Ahmaruzzaman, M., & Gupta, V. K. (2011, October 28). Rice Husk and Its Ash as Low-Cost
Adsorbents in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research, 50, pp. 13589–13613.
Akpor, O. B. (2011). Wastewater Effluent Discharge: Effects and Treatment Processes.
IPCBEE. 20, pp. 85-91. Singapore: IACSIT Press. Retrieved from Lenntech Website.
Allen, S., McCallen, M., Healy, M., Wolki, M., & Ulbig, P. (2000). The use of egg shell
membrane as an adsorbent for the treatment of coloured waste effluents. In: Do, D.D.
(Ed.). Adsorption Science and Technology, 46-50.
Anita Morris, J. S. (2011). Use of Crustacean Shells for Uptake and Removal of Metal Ions in
Solutions. 242-250.
Aro, S. O., Aletor, V. A., Tewe, O. O., & Agbede, J. O. (2010). Nutritional potentials of
cassava tuber wastes: A case study of a cassava starch processing factory in south-
western Nigeria. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 22(11), 57-62. Retrieved from
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/11/aro22213.htm
Asia, I., & Akpohonor, E. (2007). Characterization and Physicochemical Treatment of Waste
Water from Rubber Processing Industry. International Journal of Physical Science,,
61-67.
69
Baguyo, P. A., & Sariego, P. (2018, October 1). CORON, EL NIDO COUNTER PERILS OF
TOURIST BOOM WITH VIGORMIN. Retrieved from Department of Science and
Technology-MIMAROPA: http://region4b.dost.gov.ph/coron-el-nido-counter-perils-
of-tourist-boom-with-vigormin/
Carvalho, J., Ribeiro, A., Graca, J., Araujo, J., Vilarinho, C., & Castro, F. (2011). Adsorption
process onto an innovative eggshell-derived low-cost adsorbent in simulated effluent
and real industrial effluents. Book of Proceedings of the 1st International Conference,
(pp. 166-172). Guimarães, Portugal.
Chen, J., & Yuang, Y. (2016). Efficient adsorption of copper ion from aqueous solution by
amino-functioned porous eggshell membrane. Desalin Water Treat 57, 12178–12191.
Chincholi, e. a. (2013). Removal of dye by adsorption on various adsorbents: a review.
Chong Kian-Hen, K. P.-L. (2017). Potential of Banana Peels as Bio-Flocculant for Water
Clarification. Progress in Energy and Environment, 47-56. Retrieved from
http://www.akademiabaru.com/ProgEE.html
Choy, S., Murthy, K., Prasad, N., Wu, T., Raghunandan, M., & Ramanan, R. (2014).
Utilization of plant-based natural coagulants as future alternatives towards sustainable
water clarification. J. Environ.Sci., 26(11), 2178-2189.
Claudio, L. E. (2015). Wastewater Management in The Philippines. Environmental
Management Bureau Region 3.
CongCal, McGraths Limestone Works Ltd, Cong, Co. (2013, august 5). Environmental USes
for Calcium Carbonate. Retrieved from CongCal:
https://www.congcal.com/markets/environmental/
70
Crini, G. (2005, January). Recent Developments in Polysaccharide-Based Materials Used as
Adsorbents in Wastewater Treatment. Progress in Polymer Science, 30(1), 38-70.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2004.11.002
Daifullah, A. A., Girgis, B. S., & Gad, H. M. (2003). Utilization of agro-residues (rice husk)
in small waste water treatment plants. Mater. Lett., 57, 1723.
Dange, P., & Lad, R. (2016, November). Vascular Bundle of Wasted Leaf Stalk of Coconut
Tree as a Natural Coagulant to Treat Sewage Water. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 9(44), 1-6. doi:DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i44/101449, November 2016
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (2016, May 24). WATER QUALITY
GUIDELINES AND GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS OF 2016. Retrieved from
Department of Environment and Natural Resources:
https://server2.denr.gov.ph/uploads/rmdd/dao-2016-08.pdf
Diaz A, R. N. (1999). A preliminary evaluation of turbidity removal by natural coagulants
indigenous to Venezuela. ProcBiochem, 35(3-4), 391-395.
Feedwater. (n.d.). Coagulation. Coagulation and Flocculation Process Fundamentals.
Feedwater. (n.d.). Floculation. Coagulation and Flocculation Process Fundamentals.
Ferrer, J. P. (1996). Acid hydrolysis of shrimp-shell wastes and the production of single cell
protein from the hydrolysate. Bioresource Technology, 57(1), 55-60.
Fu, Y., Lu, N.-n., & Jian, H.-l. (n.d.). STUDY on STABILITY of a MODIFIED BANANA
PEEL COAGULANT. University of Jinan, Jinan, School of Civil Engineering and
Architecture. China: Shandong 250022.
GAHP. (2012). Pollution the silent killer of millios of in Poor Countries. Pollution the silent
killer of millios of in Poor Countries.
71
George, D., & Chandrn, A. (2018). Coagulation Performance Evaluation of Papaya Seed for
Purification of River Water. International Journal of Latest Technology in
Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS), 7(1).
Gota, M., & Suyama, K. (2000). Occlusion of transition ions by new adsorbents synthesized
from plant polyphenols and animal fibrous proteins. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol, 84-
86,1021-1038.
GreenPeace. (2010). The Problem. Retrieved from GREENPEACE Philippines:
www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/what-we-do/toxics/water-patrol/the-problem/
Gulay, B., Ilhami, T., Celik, G., Yilmaz, M. B., & Arica, M. Y. (2006). Biosorption of
mercury(II), cadmium(II) and lead(II) ions from aqueous system by microalgae
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii immobilized in alginate beads. Int. J. Miner. Process, 81,
35-43.
Guru, P., & Dash, S. (2014). Sorption on eggshell waste ‒ A review on ultrastructure,
biomineralization and other applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 209, 49-67.
Hefni, E., & Sari, R. D. (2015). Moringa oleifera as coagulant for batik effluent treatment.
(International Association for Impact Assessment) conference, 20, p. 6. Florence,
Italy.
Hong, e. a. (2002). Hapten synthesis and influence of coating ligands on enzyme -linked
immune reaction of ddt. Bulletin-Korean Chemical society.
Hunton, P. (2005, June). Research on Eggshell Structure and Quality: an Historical
Overview. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 7(2), 67-71. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2005000200001
72
Idris, J. e. (2012, September 13). Dragon Fruit Foliage Plant-Based Coagulant for Treatment
of Concentrated Latex Effluent: Comparison of Treatment with Ferric Sulfate. (D.
Sun, Ed.) Journal of Chemistry, 2013, 7. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/230860
Innofresh. (2017, March 17). "How Does Activated Carbon Works?". Retrieved from
Innofresh Website: https://innofresh.com/activated-charcoal/how-does-activated-
charcoal-work/
Ishikawa, S. S. (1998). Recovery and refining of Au by gold-cyanide ion biosorption using
animal fibrous proteins. Appl.Biochem. Biotechnol., 70(72), 719-728.
Ishikawa, S., Suyama, K., Arihara, K., & Itoh, M. (2002). Uptake and recovery of gold ions
from electroplating wastes using eggshell membrane. Bioresour. Technol., 81,210-
206.
Ismail, S. N., Mahiddin, N. A., & Praveena, S. M. (2018, February 28). The used of dragon
fruit peels as eco-friendly wastewater coagulants. Asian J Agri & Biol. 2018(Special
Issue), 66-71.
Janvijitsakul, K., & Kuprianov, V. I. (2007). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocar Hydrocarbons of
Thai Rice Husk. Asian J. Energy Environ., 8(4), 654.
Jatto, E., Asia, I., Egbon, E., Otutu, J., Chukwuedo, M., & Ewansiha, C. (2010). Treatment
Of Waste Water From Food Industry Using Snail Shell. Academia Arena, 2(1), 32-36.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242412669
Kim, S. K., & Rajapakse, N. (2005). Enzymatic production and biological activities of
chitosan oligosaccharides (COS): A review. Carbohydrate Polymers, 62(4), 357-368.
73
Kongkiattikajorn, J., & Sornvoraweatn, B. (2011, March). Comparative study of bioethanol
production from cassava peels by monoculture and co-culture of yeast jirasak.
Kasetsart Journal - Natural Science, 45(2), 268-274.
Koumanova, B., Peeva, P., Allen, S., Gallagher, K., & Healy, M. (2002). Biosorption from
aqueous solutions by eggshell membranes and Rhizopus oryzae: equilibrium and
kinetic studies. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 77(5), pp.539-
545.
Kumagai, S., Sasaki, K., & Enda, Y. (2009). Carbonization of rice husk to remove offensive
odor from livestock waste and compost. Article in Agricultural Wastes, 109-127.
Kumaraswamy, K., Dhananjaneyulu, B., Vijetha, P., & Kumar, Y. (2015). Kinetic and
equilibrium studies for the removal of chromium using eggshell powder. Research
Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences, 6(1), pp.529-532.
L Muruganandam, M. P. (2006). Treatment of waste water by coagulation and flocculation
using.
Lataye, D. H., Mishra, I. M., & Mall, I. D. (2009). Adsorption of α-picoline onto rice husk
ash and granular activated carbon from aqueous solution: Equilibrium and
thermodynamic study. Chem. Eng. J., 147, 139-149.
Lin, C.-C., Lee, M.-K., & Huang, H.-L. (2018). Effects of Chalk Use on Dust Exposure and
Classroom Air Quality. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15, 2596–2608. doi:doi:
10.4209/aaqr.2015.04.0216
Lin, K. S., Wang, H. P., Lin, C. J., & Juch, C. I. (1998). A process development for
gasification of rice husk. Fuel Process. Technol., 55, 185.
74
Madrona, G. B., Seolin, I., Filho, V., Klen, B., M.R.F., & Bergamasco, R. (2012). Evaluation
of extracts of Moringa oleifera Lam seeds obtained with NaCl and their effects on
water treatment. Acta Scientiarum, 34(3), 289-293.
Magtibay, B. (2006). Philippine Regulations on Sanitation and Wasteater Systems
(INTERNATIONAL EDITION ed.). Philippines.
Mansaray, K. G., & Ghaly, A. E. (1998). Thermal degradation of rice husks in nitrogen
atmosphere. Bioresour. Technol., 65, 13.
Maree, P., & Plessis, P. d. (1994). Neutralization of Acid Mine Water with Calcium
Carbonate. Division of Water Tech.
Maurya, S., & Daverey, A. (2018). Evaluation of plant-based natural coagulants for
municipal wastewater treatment. 3 Biotech, 8(77), 4.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1103-8
Meckonnen, M. M. (2016). Four Billion Facing Water Scarcity. Science Advances.
Mini, M., Mathew, A., G, J., N, A. V., & Alexander, C. S. (2015). Effectiveness of Banana
Peel and Moringa oleifera Seed Powders for the Treatment of Wastewater from an
Institutional Kitchen. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research
Development, 96-104.
Mizrahi, Y. a. (1999). Climbing and columnar cacti: New arid land fruit crops. In: J. Janick
(ed.), Perspectives on new crops and new uses (pp. 358-366). Alexandria, VA.: ASHS
Press,.
Mohd-Asharuddin, S., Othman, N., Zin, N. S., & Tajarudin, H. A. (2017, April 5). A
Chemical and Morphological Study of Cassava Peel: A Potential Waste as Coagulant
75
Aid. MATEC Web of Conferences. 103, p. 8. EDP Sciences.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710306012
Mor Suman, C. K. (2016, August 15). Application of agro-waste rice husk ash for the
removal of phosphate from the wastewater. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 673-
680.
Morton, J. (1987). Papaya. In: Fruits of Warm Climates, 336-346.
Natural Resources and Environment Board. (2001). Determination of Odour COncentration
in Water. Danish Cooperation For Environment and Development.
Ndabigengesere A, N. K. (1995). Active agents and mechanis m of coagulation of turbid
waters usingMoringa oleifera. Water Res, 703-710.
Negros Chronicle. (2018, February 17). Eco-friendly solutions to garbage woes. Retrieved
from The Negros Chronicle: https://negroschronicle.com/eco-friendly-solutions-to-
garbage-woes/
Nerd A and Mizrahi Y. (1997). Reproductive biology of cactus fruit crops. Horticultural Rev,
18, 321-346.
Neutralizer. (2018). Retrieved from Corrosionpedia:
https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/810/neutralizer
Nwadiogbu, J. (2015). Removal of crude oil from aqueous medium by sorption on
hydrophobic corncobs: Equilibrium and Kinetic studies. Journal of Taibah University
for Science.
Nwokoro, S. O., D., A. H., & Ikhinmwin A. F. (2005). Nutritional composition of garri
sievates collected from some locations in Southern Nigeria. Pakistan J. Nutr., 4(4),
257-261.
76
O, U. S., & Evbuomwan, B. (2014). The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For The
Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As Activating
Agent. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 37-41.
O, U. S., & Evbuomwan, B. O. (2014). The Effectiveness of Snail Shell as Adsorbent For
The Treatment of Waste Water From Beverage Industries Using H3 Po4 As
Activating Agent. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 37-41.
Othman, N., N-S Abd- Rahim, S.-N.-F. T.-B.-A., & Kumar, V. (2018). A Pontential
Agriculture Waste Material as Coagulant Aid: Cassava Peel. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering. 311, p. 5. Johor, Malaysia: IOP Publishing.
doi:doi:10.1088/1757-899X/311/1/012022
Palencia, M. A., & Dural, C. A. (2016, September 7). Philippines Patent No. 000006.
Parsons, A. (1982). Structure of the eggshell. Poult. Sci., 61, 2013-2021.
Petrucci et. al., R. (2007). General Chemistry: Principles & Modern Applications (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Puckett, L. (1995). Identifying the major sources of nutrient water pollution. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 29(9), 408-414.
Putra, W., Kamari, A., Yusoff, S., Ishak, C., Mohamed, A., Hashim, N., & Isa, I. (2014).
Biosorption of Cu (II), Pb (II) and Zn (II) ions from aqueous solutions using selected
waste materials: Adsorption and characterisation studies. Journal of Encapsulation
and Adsorption Sciences.
Rahman, I. A., Ismail, J., & Osman, H. (1977). Effect of nitric acid digestion on
organicmaterials and silica in rice husks. J. Mater. Chem., 7, 1505.
77
Rajendran, R., Abirami, M., Prabhavathi, P., Premasudha, P., Kanimozhi, B., & Manikandan,
A. (2015). Biological treatment of drinking water by chitosan based nanocomposites.
African J. of Biotechnology, 14(11), 930-936.
Reference. (2018). What Is the Chemical Composition of Chalk? Retrieved from Reference
Website: https://www.reference.com/science/chemical-composition-chalk-
77236e4f4cdea582
Ridley, B., Neill, M., & Mohnen, D. (2001). Pectins:structure, biosynthesis, and
oligogalacturonide-related signaling. Phytochem., 57, 929-967.
Rohaizar, N., Hadi, N., & Sien, W. (2013). Removal of Cu (II) from water by adsorption on
chicken eggshell. Environmental Pollution, 117(2), 50-57.
Rojas, G., Rojasa, Silvaa, J., Floresb, J. A., Rodriguezb, A., Lyc, M., & Maldonadob, H.
(2005). Adsorption of chromium onto cross-linked chitosan. Separation and
Purification Technology, 44, 31-36.
Rowe, N. R. (2012, March 19). Odor Control with Activated Charcoal. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, 13(4), 150-153. doi:DOI:
10.1080/00022470.1963.10468157
Rukzon, S., Chindaprasirt, P., & Mahachai, R. (2009). Effect of grinding on chemical and
physical properties of rice husk ash. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 16, 242.
S. M. Gawande, P. K. (2017, March). Analysis and Removal of Phosphate from Wastewater
by using Rice Husk. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET), 4(3), 2395-0056. Retrieved from www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
S.C. Smith, F. A. (2014).
78
Saduzaman, M., Sharmila, S., & Jeyanthi, R. (2013). Efficacy of leaf extract of Moringa
oleifera in treating domestic effluent. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical
Research, 5(2), 139-143.
Saha, B., & Orvig, C. (2010). Biosorbents for hexavalent chromium elimination from
industrial and municipal effluents. Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 254, 2959-2972.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2010.06.005
Santos, A. P., Teixeiraa, J., Britoa, A., Coelhob, L., & Nogueiraa, R. (2012). Coagulant
properties of Moringa oleifera protein preparations: application to humic acid
removal. Environmental Technology, 33, 69-75.
Schwarz, J., & Contescu, C. e. (1999). Surfaces of Nanoparticles and Porous Materials
(Vol.78). CRC Press.
ScienceStruck. (2018, January 29). How to Make Activated Charcoal. Retrieved from
ScienceStruck Website: https://sciencestruck.com/how-to-make-activated-charcoal
Shafad MR, A. I. (2013). A Preliminary Study on Dragon Fruit Foliage as Natural Coagulant
for Water Treatment. International J Eng Res Tech., 2(12), 1057-1063.
Shilpi, K., & Padmaja, S. (2011). Adsorption of mercury (II), methyl mercury (II) and phenyl
mercury (II) on chitosan cross-linked with a barbital derivative. Carbohydrate
Polymers, 86, 1055-1062. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.06.028
Sindhu, M., Begum, K., & Sugashini, S. (2012). A comparative study of surface modification
in carbonized ricehusk by acid treatment. Desalin. Water Treat, 45, 170-176.
79
Som, A. M., & Wahab, A. F. (2018). Performance Study of Dragon Fruit Foilage as a Plant-
Based Coagulant for Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent from Three Phase
Decanters. BioResources, 13(2), 4290-4300.
Sotheeswaran, S. N., V. Matakite, M., & Kanayathu, K. (2011). Moringa oleifera and other
local seeds in water purification in developing countries. Research Journal of
Chemistry and Environment, 15(2), 135-138.
Stadelman, W. (2000). Egg and egg products. In F. FJ, Encyclopedia of food Science and
technology (pp. 593-599). New York.
Stadelman, W. (2000). Eggs and egg products. In: Francis, F.J. (Ed.),second ed. New York,
United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.
Stuartxchange. (2018). Papaya: Carica Papaya Linn. Philippine Medicinal Plants.
Susheela, P., Sri, R., & Radha, R. (2014). Effectiveness of Moringa oleifera seeds in the
phytoremediation of pond water. Scrutiny International Research Journal of
Agriculture, Plant Biotechnology and Bio Products, 1(2), 34-42.
Suyama, K. F. (1994). A new biomaterial,hen egg shell membrane, to eliminate heavy metal
ion from their dilute waste solution. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 45(46), 871-879.
Tewe, O. O. (2004). Cassava for livestock feed in sub-Saharan Africa. Rome:
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT;.
The Boracay Beach. (2015, August 14). Vigormin: Boracay’s Eco-friendly Solution to Waste
Problems. Retrieved from The Boracay Beach Real Estate:
https://www.boracaybeachrealestate.com/mag/vigormin-boracays-eco-friendly-
solution-waste-problems/
80
Tilley et. al., E. (2016). Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies – (2nd Revised
Edition). Duebendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and
Technology.
Torres LG, 2. (2012). Use of Prosopis laevigata Seed Gum and Opuntia ficus-indica
Mucilage for the Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters by Coagulation-Flocculation.
Nat Res., 3, 35-41.
Tsai, W., Yang, J., Lai, C., Cheng, Y., Lin, C., & Yeh, C. (2006). Characterization and
adsorption properties of eggshells and eggshell membrane. Bioresour. Technol. 97(3),
488-493.
Tullett, S. (1987). Egg shell formation and quality. In: Wells, R.G.,Belyavin, C.G. (Eds.),.
Egg Quality—Current Problems and Recent Advances, pp. 123–146.
Unnisa, S. A., & Bi, S. Z. (2018). Carica papaya seeds effectiveness as coagulant and solar
disinfection in removal of turbidity and coliforms. Journal of Applied Water Science,
148-149.
Vieira AMS, V. M.-K. (2013). Use ofMoringa for refinery wastewater treatment in Warri,
Delta State, Nigeria. Int J Adv Biol Res, 17-20.
Wannapeera, J., Worasuwannarak, N., & Pipatmanomai, S. (2008). Product yields and
characteristics of rice husk, rice straw and corncob during fast pyrolysis in a drop-
tube/fixed-bed reactor. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., 30(3), 393.
WEPA. (2003). Philippines: Environment Monitor.
Williams, P. T., & Nugranad, N. (2000). Comparison of products from the pyrolysis and
catalytic pyrolysis of rice husks. Energy, 25, 493.
Yadav, P. (2017). Water Pollution Facts. The Borgen Project.
81
Yang, F., Liu, H., Qu, J., & J., P. C. (2011). Preparation and Characterization of chitosan
encapsulated sargassum sp. biosorbent for nickel ions sorption. Bioresource
Technology, 102, 2821-2828. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.038
Youchou Zhou, L. G. (2018). Adsorption of Congo red from aqueous solution onto shrimp
shell powder.
Zouboulis, & Tzoupanos. (2008).
ZOUBOULIS, N. D. (2008). COAGULATION-FLOCCULATION PROCESSES IN
WATER/WASTEWATER TREATMENT: THE APPLICATION OF NEW
GENERATION OF CHEMICAL REAGENTS .
Zulfikar, M., & Setiyanto, H. (2013). Adsorption of Congo red from aqueous solution using
powdered eggshell. Adsorption, 5(4), pp.1532-1540.
82
APPENDIX
Appendix A. DENR Administrative Order No. 2016-08 Effluent Standards
Table 22. Effluent Standards (Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Administrative Order No. 2016 – 08)
Water Body Classification

Parameter Units
AA A B C D SA SB SC SD
COD mg/L NDA 60 60 100 200 NDA 2 20 80
pH(Range) 6.0- 6.0- 6.0- 5.5- 6.5- 6.0- 5.5-

NDA NDA
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.0 9.0 9.5
Total Suspended
mg/L NDA 70 85 100 150 NDA 70 100 150
Solid
Appendix B. Data Tables for Primary Water Analysis
a) Power of Hydrogen
Raw Materials pH
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 8.13 8.68
Banana Peel 8.13 6.52
Rice Husk 8.13 8.57
Cassava Peel 8.13 5.43
Snail Shell 8.13 8.57
Eggshell 8.13 8.41
Vigormin 8.13 8.22
83
b) Chemical Oxygen Demand
Raw Materials Chemical Oxygen Demand
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 242.94 240.096
Banana Peel 242.94 1483.84
Rice Husk 242.94 137.76
Cassava Peel 242.94 1476
Eggshell 242.94 184.99
Vigormin 242.94 141.7
c) Turbidity
Raw Materials Turbidity
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 84.3 95.6
Banana Peel 84.3 73.5
Rice Husk 84.3 45.3
Cassava Peel 84.3 75.5
Eggshell 84.3 78.9
Vigormin 84.3 23.3
84
d) Total Suspended Solids
Total Suspended Solids

Raw Materials
Initial Day 4
Crab Shell 260 170
Banana Peel 260 240
Rice Husk 260 200
Cassava Peel 260 145
Snail Shell 260 205
Eggshell 260 80
Vigormin 260 10
85
Appendix C. Secondary Water Analysis
Appendix C.1 Data Tables for Combinations
Day 5 Parameter
Total
Total
Turbidity Total Dissolved
pH COD Suspended
(NTU) Solids Solids
Solids
Control 7.45 227.964 109 600 525 75
Vigormin 8.15 256.224 16 605 510 95
T1 7.82 167.676 37.7 1160 940 220
T2 8.01 263.76 43.2 870 795 75
T3 7.69 318.396 29 1250 1015 235
T4 7.72 346.656 26 1205 1105 100
T5 8.15 350.424 34.7 1175 1025 150
Day 7 Parameter
Total Total
Turbidity Total Dissolved Suspended

pH COD
(NTU) Solids Solids Solids
86
Control 7.45 227.964 109 600 525 75
Vigormin 7.95 449.44 20.3 675 620 55
T1 8 150.72 26.3 1290 1145 145
T2 8.19 233.616 60.1 1065 1040 25
T3 8.05 259.992 53.1 1190 985 205
T4 8.09 271.296 23 1070 985 85
T5 8.28 286.368 93.9 1095 990 105
Appendix C.2 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Odor Analysis
Table 23 Scale of Panelist at initial Water Samples per Treatment
Day 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Panel 1 9 8 8 7 7
Panel 2 9 7 9 6 8
Panel 3 8 7 7 7 9
Panel 4 8 7 8 7 7
Panel 5 8 8 9 9 9
X0 8.40 7.40 8.20 7.20 8.00
Table 24 Scale of Panelist at Water Samples per Data After five Days
Day 5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Panel 1 1 4 5 6 1
Panel 2 4 6 5 5 6
87
Panel 3 3 4 5 5 4
Panel 4 5 5 6 5 4
Panel 5 5 7 5 7 5
X5 3.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4
ONEWAY MeanOdor BY Day
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Descriptives
Mean
Odor
95% Confidence Interval for

Std. Std.
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
0 5 7.840 .5177 .2315 7.197 8.483 7.2 8.4
1 5 4.720 .8672 .3878 3.643 5.797 3.6 5.6
Total 10 6.280 1.7769 .5619 5.009 7.551 3.6 8.4
88
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Mean Odor
Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic
4.216 1 8 .074
ANOVA
Mean Odor
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 24.336 1 24.336 47.718 .000
Within Groups 4.080 8 .510
Total 28.416 9
89
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Mean Odor
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 47.718 1 6.530 .000
Brown-
47.718 1 6.530 .000
Forsythe
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Means Plots
90
ONEWAY MeanOdor BY Treatment
91
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).
Oneway
Descriptives
Mean
Odor

Std. Std.
Deviation Error
1 2 6.000 3.3941 2.4000 -24.495 36.495 3.6 8.4
2 2 6.300 1.5556 1.1000 -7.677 20.277 5.2 7.4
3 2 6.700 2.1213 1.5000 -12.359 25.759 5.2 8.2
4 2 6.400 1.1314 .8000 -3.765 16.565 5.6 7.2
5 2 6.000 2.8284 2.0000 -19.412 31.412 4.0 8.0
Total 10 6.280 1.7769 .5619 5.009 7.551 3.6 8.4
92
Mean Odor
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
4.853E15 4 5 .000
ANOVA
Mean Odor
Between Groups .696 4 .174 .031 .997
Within Groups 27.720 5 5.544
Total 28.416 9
93
Mean Odor
Welch .015 4 2.408 .999
Brown-Forsythe .031 4 3.423 .997
Means Plots
94
Post Hoc Tests
95
Multiple Comparisons
Mean Odor
Tukey HSD
95% Confidence Interval

(I) (J) Mean Difference (I- Std.
Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J) Error
Bound Bound
2 -.3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.745 9.145
3 -.7000 2.3546 .998 -10.145 8.745

1
4 -.4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.845 9.045
5 .0000 2.3546 1.000 -9.445 9.445
1 .3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.145 9.745
3 -.4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.845 9.045

2
4 -.1000 2.3546 1.000 -9.545 9.345
5 .3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.145 9.745
1 .7000 2.3546 .998 -8.745 10.145
2 .4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.045 9.845

3
4 .3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.145 9.745
5 .7000 2.3546 .998 -8.745 10.145
96
Mean Odor
Tukey HSD

Sig. Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1 .4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.045 9.845
2 .1000 2.3546 1.000 -9.345 9.545

4
3 -.3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.745 9.145
5 .4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.045 9.845
1 .0000 2.3546 1.000 -9.445 9.445
2 -.3000 2.3546 1.000 -9.745 9.145

5
3 -.7000 2.3546 .998 -10.145 8.745
4 -.4000 2.3546 1.000 -9.845 9.045
97
Homogeneous Subsets
Mean Odor
Tukey HSD
Subset for alpha = 0.05

Treatment N
1
1 2 6.000
5 2 6.000
2 2 6.300
4 2 6.400
3 2 6.700
Sig. .998
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
98
Appendix C.3 ANOVA One-Way Factor for pH Analysis
ONEWAY pH BY Day
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Descriptives
pH
Mean
Std. Std.
N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
0 6 7.45 .000 .000 7.45 7.45 7 7
5 6 7.92 .208 .085 7.70 8.14 8 8
7 6 8.09 .123 .050 7.96 8.22 8 8
Total 18 7.82 .309 .073 7.67 7.98 7 8
99
pH
Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic
16.526 2 15 .000
ANOVA
pH
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.334 2 .667 34.247 .000
Within Groups .292 15 .019
Total 1.626 17
100
pH
Welch 89.014 2 6.667 .000
Brown-Forsythe 34.247 2 8.101 .000
Means Plots
101
Post Hoc Tests
pH
Tukey HSD

(I) Day (J) Day Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
5 -.473* .081 .000 -.68 -.26

0
7 -.643* .081 .000 -.85 -.43
0 .473* .081 .000 .26 .68

5
7 -.170 .081 .121 -.38 .04
0 .643* .081 .000 .43 .85

7
5 .170 .081 .121 -.04 .38
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
102
Homogeneous Subsets
pH
Tukey HSD
Day N 1 2
0 6 7.45
5 6 7.92
7 6 8.09
Sig. 1.000 .121
103
Appendix C.4 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis
ONEWAY COD BY Day
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Descriptives
COD
for Mean
Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
0 6 2.27964E2 .000000 .000000 227.96400 227.96400 227.964 227.964
1 6 2.83856E2 69.617985 2.842142E1 210.79641 356.91559 167.676 350.424
2 6 2.75239E2 97.933974 3.998138E1 172.46326 378.01407 150.720 449.440
Total 18 2.62353E2 69.896887 1.647485E1 227.59398 297.11179 150.720 449.440
COD
3.276 2 15 .066
104
ANOVA
COD
Between Groups 10866.136 2 5433.068 1.129 .349
Within Groups 72188.636 15 4812.576
Total 83054.772 17
COD
Welch 2.393 2 6.667 .165
Brown-Forsythe 1.129 2 9.025 .365
105
Means Plots
106
Post Hoc Tests
COD
Tukey HSD

1 -55.892000 4.005236E1 .368 -159.92683 48.14283

0
2 -47.274667 4.005236E1 .482 -151.30949 56.76016
0 55.892000 4.005236E1 .368 -48.14283 159.92683

1
2 8.617333 4.005236E1 .975 -95.41749 112.65216
0 47.274667 4.005236E1 .482 -56.76016 151.30949

2
1 -8.617333 4.005236E1 .975 -112.65216 95.41749
107
Homogeneous Subsets
COD
Tukey HSD

Day N
1
0 6 227.96400
2 6 275.23867
1 6 283.85600
Sig. .368
108
ONEWAY COD BY Treatment
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Descriptives
COD
Std. for Mean

N Mean Std. Error Minimum Maximum
Deviation Lower Upper
Bound Bound
0 3 3.11209E2 120.542295 6.959513E1 11.76567 610.65299 227.964 449.440
1 3 1.82120E2 40.597176 2.343879E1 81.27102 282.96898 150.720 227.964
2 3 2.41780E2 19.243871 1.111045E1 193.97557 289.58443 227.964 263.760
3 3 2.68784E2 45.852602 2.647301E1 154.87982 382.68818 227.964 318.396
4 3 2.81972E2 60.061888 3.467675E1 132.77000 431.17400 227.964 346.656
5 3 2.88252E2 61.251735 3.536371E1 136.09426 440.40974 227.964 350.424
Total 18 2.62353E2 69.896887 1.647485E1 227.59398 297.11179 150.720 449.440
109
COD
2.753 5 12 .070
ANOVA
COD
Between Groups 31033.635 5 6206.727 1.432 .282
Within Groups 52021.137 12 4335.095
Total 83054.772 17
COD
Welch 1.538 5 5.284 .318
Brown-Forsythe 1.432 5 5.512 .342
110
Means Plots
111
Post Hoc Tests
COD
Tukey HSD

(I) (J) Mean Difference (I-
Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment J)
Bound Bound
1 129.089333 5.375931E1 .230 -51.48393 309.66259
2 69.429333 5.375931E1 .784 -111.14393 250.00259
0 3 42.425333 5.375931E1 .964 -138.14793 222.99859
4 29.237333 5.375931E1 .993 -151.33593 209.81059
5 22.957333 5.375931E1 .998 -157.61593 203.53059
0 -129.089333 5.375931E1 .230 -309.66259 51.48393
2 -59.660000 5.375931E1 .868 -240.23326 120.91326
1 3 -86.664000 5.375931E1 .606 -267.23726 93.90926
4 -99.852000 5.375931E1 .469 -280.42526 80.72126
5 -106.132000 5.375931E1 .408 -286.70526 74.44126
0 -69.429333 5.375931E1 .784 -250.00259 111.14393
1 59.660000 5.375931E1 .868 -120.91326 240.23326
2 3 -27.004000 5.375931E1 .995 -207.57726 153.56926
4 -40.192000 5.375931E1 .971 -220.76526 140.38126
5 -46.472000 5.375931E1 .948 -227.04526 134.10126
112
COD
Tukey HSD

(I) (J) Mean Difference
Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment (I-J)
Bound Bound
0 -42.425333 5.375931E1 .964 -222.99859 138.14793
1 86.664000 5.375931E1 .606 -93.90926 267.23726
3 2 27.004000 5.375931E1 .995 -153.56926 207.57726
4 -13.188000 5.375931E1 1.000 -193.76126 167.38526
5 -19.468000 5.375931E1 .999 -200.04126 161.10526
0 -29.237333 5.375931E1 .993 -209.81059 151.33593
1 99.852000 5.375931E1 .469 -80.72126 280.42526
4 2 40.192000 5.375931E1 .971 -140.38126 220.76526
3 13.188000 5.375931E1 1.000 -167.38526 193.76126
5 -6.280000 5.375931E1 1.000 -186.85326 174.29326
0 -22.957333 5.375931E1 .998 -203.53059 157.61593
1 106.132000 5.375931E1 .408 -74.44126 286.70526
5 2 46.472000 5.375931E1 .948 -134.10126 227.04526
3 19.468000 5.375931E1 .999 -161.10526 200.04126
4 6.280000 5.375931E1 1.000 -174.29326 186.85326
113
Homogeneous Subsets
COD
Tukey HSD
Treatment N 1
1 3 182.12000
2 3 241.78000
3 3 268.78400
4 3 281.97200
5 3 288.25200
0 3 311.20933
Sig. .230
114
Appendix C.5 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Turbidity Analysis
ONEWAY Turbidity BY Day
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Descriptives
Turbidity

Std. Std.
Deviation Error
0 6 109.00 .000 .000 109.00 109.00 109 109
1 6 31.10 9.606 3.922 21.02 41.18 16 43
2 6 46.12 28.709 11.721 15.99 76.25 20 94
Total 18 62.07 38.409 9.053 42.97 81.17 16 109
Turbidity
Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic
11.185 2 15 .001
115
ANOVA
Turbidity
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 20496.448 2 10248.224 33.546 .000
Within Groups 4582.488 15 305.499
Total 25078.936 17
Robust Tests of Equality of Meansb
Turbidity
Welch . . . .
Brown-
. . . .
Forsythe
b. Robust tests of equality of means cannot be performed
for Turbidity because at least one group has 0 variance.
116
Means Plots
117
Post Hoc Tests
Turbidity
Tukey HSD

1 77.900* 10.091 .000 51.69 104.11

0
2 62.883* 10.091 .000 36.67 89.10
0 -77.900* 10.091 .000 -104.11 -51.69

1
2 -15.017 10.091 .324 -41.23 11.20
0 -62.883* 10.091 .000 -89.10 -36.67

2
1 15.017 10.091 .324 -11.20 41.23
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
118
Homogeneous Subsets
Turbidity
Tukey HSD

Day N
1 2
1 6 31.10
2 6 46.12
0 6 109.00
Sig. .324 1.000
119
ONEWAY Turbidity BY Treatment
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Descriptives
Turbidity

Std. Std.
Deviation Error
0 3 48.43 52.496 30.309 -81.97 178.84 16 109
1 3 57.67 44.820 25.877 -53.67 169.01 26 109
2 3 70.77 34.172 19.729 -14.12 155.66 43 109
3 3 63.70 41.040 23.694 -38.25 165.65 29 109
4 3 52.67 48.809 28.180 -68.58 173.92 23 109
5 3 79.20 39.271 22.673 -18.35 176.75 35 109
Total 18 62.07 38.409 9.053 42.97 81.17 16 109
120
Turbidity
Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic
.351 5 12 .872
ANOVA
Turbidity
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 1996.489 5 399.298 .208 .953
Within Groups 23082.447 12 1923.537
Total 25078.936 17
Turbidity
Welch .142 5 5.581 .975
Brown-
.208 5 11.154 .952
Forsythe
121
Means Plot
122
Post Hoc Tests
Turbidity
Tukey HSD

Sig. Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1 -9.233 35.810 1.000 -129.52 111.05
2 -22.333 35.810 .987 -142.62 97.95
0 3 -15.267 35.810 .998 -135.55 105.02
4 -4.233 35.810 1.000 -124.52 116.05
5 -30.767 35.810 .949 -151.05 89.52
0 9.233 35.810 1.000 -111.05 129.52
2 -13.100 35.810 .999 -133.38 107.18
1 3 -6.033 35.810 1.000 -126.32 114.25
4 5.000 35.810 1.000 -115.28 125.28
5 -21.533 35.810 .989 -141.82 98.75
0 22.333 35.810 .987 -97.95 142.62
1 13.100 35.810 .999 -107.18 133.38
2 3 7.067 35.810 1.000 -113.22 127.35
4 18.100 35.810 .995 -102.18 138.38
5 -8.433 35.810 1.000 -128.72 111.85
123
Turbidity
Tukey HSD

Sig. Lower Upper
Bound Bound
0 15.267 35.810 .998 -105.02 135.55
1 6.033 35.810 1.000 -114.25 126.32
3 2 -7.067 35.810 1.000 -127.35 113.22
4 11.033 35.810 1.000 -109.25 131.32
5 -15.500 35.810 .998 -135.78 104.78
0 4.233 35.810 1.000 -116.05 124.52
1 -5.000 35.810 1.000 -125.28 115.28
4 2 -18.100 35.810 .995 -138.38 102.18
3 -11.033 35.810 1.000 -131.32 109.25
5 -26.533 35.810 .972 -146.82 93.75
0 30.767 35.810 .949 -89.52 151.05
1 21.533 35.810 .989 -98.75 141.82
5 2 8.433 35.810 1.000 -111.85 128.72
3 15.500 35.810 .998 -104.78 135.78
4 26.533 35.810 .972 -93.75 146.82
124
Homogeneous Subsets
Turbidity
Tukey HSD
Treatment N 1
0 3 48.43
4 3 52.67
1 3 57.67
3 3 63.70
2 3 70.77
5 3 79.20
Sig. .949
125
Appendix C.6 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Total Suspended Solids Analysis
ONEWAY TSS BY Treatment
/PLOT MEANS
/MISSING ANALYSIS
Oneway
Descriptives
TSS

Std. Std.
Deviation Error
0 3 75.00 20.000 11.547 25.32 124.68 55 95
1 3 146.67 72.514 41.866 -33.47 326.80 75 220
2 3 58.33 28.868 16.667 -13.38 130.04 25 75
3 3 171.67 85.049 49.103 -39.61 382.94 75 235
4 3 86.67 12.583 7.265 55.41 117.92 75 100
5 3 110.00 37.749 21.794 16.23 203.77 75 150
Total 18 108.06 59.065 13.922 78.68 137.43 25 235
126
TSS
Levene
df1 df2 Sig.
Statistic
2.547 5 12 .086
ANOVA
TSS
Between Groups 28690.278 5 5738.056 2.249 .116
Within Groups 30616.667 12 2551.389
Total 59306.944 17
TSS
Welch 1.325 5 5.310 .377
Brown-
2.249 5 5.655 .183
Forsythe
127
Means Plots
128
Post Hoc Tests
TSS
Tukey HSD

Sig. Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1 -71.667 41.242 .535 -210.20 66.86
2 16.667 41.242 .998 -121.86 155.20
0 3 -96.667 41.242 .249 -235.20 41.86
4 -11.667 41.242 1.000 -150.20 126.86
5 -35.000 41.242 .952 -173.53 103.53
0 71.667 41.242 .535 -66.86 210.20
2 88.333 41.242 .330 -50.20 226.86
1 3 -25.000 41.242 .989 -163.53 113.53
4 60.000 41.242 .696 -78.53 198.53
5 36.667 41.242 .942 -101.86 175.20
0 -16.667 41.242 .998 -155.20 121.86
1 -88.333 41.242 .330 -226.86 50.20
2 3 -113.333 41.242 .136 -251.86 25.20
4 -28.333 41.242 .980 -166.86 110.20
5 -51.667 41.242 .804 -190.20 86.86
129
TSS
Tukey HSD

Sig. Lower Upper
Bound Bound
0 96.667 41.242 .249 -41.86 235.20
1 25.000 41.242 .989 -113.53 163.53
3 2 113.333 41.242 .136 -25.20 251.86
4 85.000 41.242 .366 -53.53 223.53
5 61.667 41.242 .673 -76.86 200.20
0 11.667 41.242 1.000 -126.86 150.20
1 -60.000 41.242 .696 -198.53 78.53
4 2 28.333 41.242 .980 -110.20 166.86
3 -85.000 41.242 .366 -223.53 53.53
5 -23.333 41.242 .992 -161.86 115.20
0 35.000 41.242 .952 -103.53 173.53
1 -36.667 41.242 .942 -175.20 101.86
5 2 51.667 41.242 .804 -86.86 190.20
3 -61.667 41.242 .673 -200.20 76.86
4 23.333 41.242 .992 -115.20 161.86
130
Homogeneous Subsets
TSS
Tukey HSD

Treatment N
1
2 3 58.33
0 3 75.00
4 3 86.67
5 3 110.00
1 3 146.67
3 3 171.67
Sig. .136
131
Appendix D. Letters
132
133
Documentation
1. Solid Waste Powder Production
a. Collection of Raw Materials
Banana Peels Eggshells
Crab Shells Snail Shells
134
Cassava Peels Rice Husk Ash
b. Preparation and Weighing of Raw Materials
Weighing of the different Raw Materials
135
c. Heat Treatment
136
d. Grinding and Particle Sizing
137
2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment Procedure
a. Collection Of Wastewater
138
b. Laboratory Material Preparation
139
140
141
Combinations
c. Testing
142
Equipment used for TSS Testing
143
Equipment used for COD Testing
144
Before and after Laboratory Scale Wastewater Treatment
145
146

Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder for Wastewater Treatment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder for Wastewater Treatment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Compounded Organic Solid Waste Powder for Wastewater Treatment and Odor

A Thesis presented to the

Faculty of the College of Engineering

Cagayan State University - Carig Campus

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering

Lozano, John Harvey S.

Necesito, Miko Paul B.

Sia, John Patric R.

Telan, Melody Mae B.

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 3

1.2 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Significance of the Study........................................................................................... 3

1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study ......................................................................... 4

1.5 Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................... 5

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................. 6

2.1 Wastewater Characterization .................................................................................. 6

2.1.1 Wastewater Quality Based from DENR Standard ..................................................... 7

2.2 Desirable Characteristics for the Selection of Raw Materials .............................. 7

2.2.1. Neutralizer Effect ..................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2. Odor Removing Effect.............................................................................................. 7

2.2.3. Coagulation Effect .................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Raw Materials ............................................................................................................ 9

2.3.1. Eggshell .................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2. Crustacean Shells .................................................................................................... 13

2.3.3. Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash ............................................................................... 15

2.3.4. Snail Shell ............................................................................................................... 19

2.3.6. Cassava Peels .......................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Commercial Product (VIGORMIN)...................................................................... 25

2.5 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................... 28

2.6 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 29

3.1 Materials .................................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Flow Chart of Activities .......................................................................................... 30

3.2.1. Compounded solid waste powder production ........................................................ 30

3.2.1.1. Collection of Solid wastes ............................................................................... 31

3.2.1.2. Preparation of Raw Materials .......................................................................... 31

3.2.1.3. Heat Treatment................................................................................................. 31

3.2.1.4. Weighing and Mixing ...................................................................................... 32

3.2.2. Laboratory Scale Wastewater treatment Procedure .............................................. 32

3.2.2.1. Collection of Wastewater ................................................................................. 33

3.2.2.2. Primary Water Analysis ................................................................................... 33

3.2.2.3. Final Water Analysis........................................................................................ 33

3.3 Statistical Analysis................................................................................................... 34

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 35

4.2 Primary Water Analysis .............................................................................................. 35

4.3 Formulation of Combinations ..................................................................................... 45

4.4 Secondary Water Analysis........................................................................................... 45

4.4.1 Odor Analysis .......................................................................................................... 45

4.4.2 Power of Hydrogen Analysis ................................................................................... 47

4.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand Analysis ....................................................................... 49

4.4.4 Turbidity Analysis ................................................................................................... 51

4.4.5 Total Suspended Solids Analysis ............................................................................ 52

4.5 Treatment Comparison with Vigormin ..................................................................... 54

4.5.1 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 54

4.5.2 Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................... 55

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 67

5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 67

5.2 RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................... 68

Appendix A. DENR Administrative Order No. 2016-08 Effluent Standards ............... 83

Appendix B. Data Tables for Primary Water Analysis .................................................. 83

Appendix C. Secondary Water Analysis .......................................................................... 86

Appendix C.2 ANOVA One-Way Factor for Odor Analysis ........................................... 87