CHARACTERIZATION OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLEPROCESSING WASTEWATERS*

M. R. Soderquist**, G. I. Blanton, Jr.** and D. W. Taylor***

INTRODUCTION

For the past two years, the Department of Food Science and Technology atOregon State University has been monitoring the wastawaters from WillametteValley fruit and vegetable processing plants. The data generated in thestudy are being used to augment existing knowledge of the volumes andcharacteristics of food processing effluents.

The need for such a study became evident when a state-wide processor surveyand concurrent literature review indicated that although considerableinformation on fruit and vegetable processing waste streams was available,most of the data were either so general as to be of limited use or hadbeen gathered in such a manner that reliance on them would be ill-advised.For example, many of the studies were conducted 20 to 30 years ago using"grab" samples gathered over short periods of time ranging from a few hoursto a few days. Data gathered in this manner are of dubious validity,especially when one is dealing with food processing, where effluent strengthsand flows often fluctuate wildly.

To indicate the reliance on historical rather than contemporary data,Table 1 was prepared. This table lists, for each of three commodities,the wastewater characteristics cited by four respected text and referencebooks dating from 1953 to 1971.

*This investigation was supported, in part, by funds from the Office ofWater Resources Research, U.S. Department of the Interior, under theWater Resources Research Act of 1964, PL 88-379, and by the OregonAgricultural Experiment Station, the Oregon State University GraduateSchool General Research Fund, and the Oregon State UniversityComputer Center.

**Department of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University,Corvallis, Oregon.

***National Environmental Research Center, Environmental Protection Agency,Corvallis, Oregon.

Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Paper No. 3388

409

Table 1. Literature Values for End-of-pipe Wastewater Characteristics

VolumeReference (gal/case)

Whole kernel corn:

Rudolfs (1) 25-70Gurnham (2) 25-70Lund (3) 25-70Nemerow (4) 25-70

Red beets:

Rudolfs (1) 27-65

BOD

(mg/1)Suspended Solids

(mg/l)

1123-6025 300-40001120-6300 300-40001120-6300 300-40001123-6025 300-4000

Gurnham (2) 27-70Lund (3) 27-70Nemerow (4) 27-65

1580-5480 740-21881580-7600 740-22201580-7600 740-22201580-5480 720-2188

Green and wax beans:

Rudolfs (1) 26-44 160-600 60-85Gurnham (2) 26-44 160-600 60-150Lund (3) 26-44 160-600 60-150Nemerow (4) 26-44 160-600 60-85

While some minor variations in values are evident, the similarities areunmistakable. All but one of these references cited the same sourceof information, N. H. Sanborn (4), who was associated with the NationalCanners Association at the time he did that work. The remainingreference was Gurnham (2), in which the chapter on "Canned Foods" wasauthored by W. A. Mercer, also of the National Canners Association.

The fact that the-values of Table 1 have remained essentiallyunchanged for nearly twenty years might be explained in at least twoways : 1) the numbers have remained valid and are applicable to today'sprocessing plants; or 2) they have become out-dated, but nonetheless,have been transferred from publication to publication, apparentlywithout adequate verification.

Sanborn was the author of the chapter on food processing in the early(1953) book edited by Rudolfs (1). The sources of Sanborn's valueswere not individually identified, but if it is assumed that they wereincluded in his bibliography, where the publication dates varied from1913 to 1948, perhaps it would be fair to say that the averagewastewater characteristic in Sanborn's chapter was generated around 1940.

Specifics regarding methods and frequency of sampling and analysis wereoften unavailable to Sanborn; indeed he stated (1):

"Details concerning the collection of samples are frequentlylacking. It is believed that most, if not all, of the datawere obtained after screening."

Data origins are difficult to pinpoint, but if the findings of thisexercise are typical, many of the currently-used food processingwastewater characterization figures (because of their antiquity andquestionable circumstances under which they were generated) maynot warrant the confidence of those who rely on them. Thus, the needfor contemporary wastewater quantity and quality analyses was recognizedby the authors. This need was underscored in a recent publication on"Research Needs in Sanitary Engineering" (5) by the Sanitary EngineeringResearch Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers:

"Industrial wastes are typically less well identified [thansanitary sewage]... All of these waste streams must be morecompletely characterized to insure optimum environmentalcontrol by focusing attention on the most significantproblem areas."

THE FIRST SEASON

In 1970 the authors began the task of supplementing and verifying (orrefuting) existing data by developing wastewater quantity and qualityprofiles for each of Oregon's major commodity-process combinations.Analyses were conducted as prescribed by Standard Methods (9) exceptphosphorus determinations, where the methods of Jankovic, et al, (10) werefollowed. All samples were screened (20 mesh) prior to analysis. Sincea newly-constructed (and untested) mobile laboratory (6) was to be employed,a processing plant in close proximity to the O.S.U. campus was chosen.This would minimize the inconvenience of altering, repairing and "debugging"the new laboratory. Hindsight reveals that this criterion should have beenassigned a lower priority than some others, most notably plant layout. Itsoon became apparent that the plant's physical configuration presenteddifficult problems to the wastewater sampling technician. In many cases thecollection of discrete samples from single commodity unit-operations wasimpossible; in those instances, samples containing wastewaters from thesimultaneous processing of more than one commodity were taken.

Since this paper is limited to the presentation of data from theprocessing of single commodities, not many of the results of the firstseason’s efforts are included. Consequently, because of the smallnumbers of datum points involved, statistical analyses of these resultshave not been attempted.

Corn

The plant processed several commodities, including sweet corn, beets,green beans, purple plums and red sour cherries, but only corn andbeets were processed discretely.

The corn was husked, trimmed, washed, cut from the cob, de-silked, andwashed again. Then it was canned (whole-kernel) and retorted. A totalof nine days' "corn-only" processing yielded the data of Table 2.

'411

Table 2. Total Plant Effluent Characteristics During Corn Processing

Parameter Mean Range

Flow (gpm) 207.5 121.9-317.8gpT) 1307 813-2002(gal/case) 40.8 25.4-62.6

COD (lb/Ton) 34.38 32.99-35.89

In this table, flow was expressed in terms of gallons per standardcase (24 number 303 equivalent cans) by using the yield value found inthe latest "Yearbook" issue of Canner-Packer magazine (7). The rangeof water usage expressed in that manner compares well with itscounterparts in Table 1, indicating that the published water usagefigures for whole-kernel corn processing were applicable to thisprocessing plant in 1970.

When considering wastewater constituents expressed in terms ofconcentration (e.g., mg/l or ppm) one should avoid direct comparisonsamong plants or even among different processing periods within thesame plant. The reasons for this are many; one of the most obviousis the influence of production on waste load. In most processingoperations water usage is not proportional to product throughput.The flow through each unit is either constant or increases from asignificant (non-zero) base level as some (often non-linear) functionof production. Therefore it is preferable to express wastewaterconstituents in terms of production, as is COD in Table 2.

Comparison of the COD values of Table 2 with the BOD values of Table 1is difficult because Table 1 lists concentrations. One can convertthe BOD values of Table 1 to equivalent COD's using the BOD:COD ratio,0.75,found to be applicable in this study to combined (end-of-pipe)corn waste. Subsequent conversion to a production basis, however,becomes more difficult to defend. It is common knowledge that in awaste stream, pollutant concentration more nearly approximates aninverse function of water usage than a direct one. Both functions,however, are poor estimates of reality. In Table 3 the data of Table 1have been manipulated variously to illustrate the problems discussedabove. In the first two lines are expressed the two ranges of BOD listedin Table 1, that of Rudolfs (1) and Nemerow (4) being designated (a)and that of Gurnham (2) and Lund (3), (b). In the next pair of linesBOD has been converted to COD using the BOD/COD ratio (0.75). Thenext two lines list COD's based on production under the (admittedlyunrealistic) assumption labeled "Case I": that the lowest concentrationsoccurred at periods of minimum flow and the highest concentrations atpeak flow. Although this assumption is unreasonable, it sometimes

412

Table 3. Literature Corn Waste Organic Values Expressed by AlternativeMethods

*Minimum concentration occurs at minimum flow and maximum at maximumflow

**Minimum concentration occurs at maximum flow and maximum at minimumflow

appears in the literature. Case II, then, lists the "opposite"assumption (which, although more nearly correct, is also inaccurate):that low concentrations coincide with peak flows and peak concentrations,with low flows.

Based on Case II, then, the COD values of Table 2 do fall well withinthe ranges derived from the values reported in the literature (Table 3).

Beets

Red beet processing at this plant involved washing, peeling, blanching,slicing (or dicing), canning and retorting. The initial wash waterwas heavily laden with suspended solids; four to five percent of theincoming raw product weight was attributable to soil, most of whichwas removed in the initial washing.

As with corn, nine days' "beets only" processing led to the flow dataof Table 4. Using a yield of 70 standard cases per raw product ton (7),the flows expressed on a case basis were calculated. Comparing theseflows with their counterparts in Table 1 reveals the mean from thecurrent work to fall completely below the ranges quoted in the earlierliterature. In fact, the upper end of the current range barely fallswithin the lower range of the earlier literature values.

During beet processing only two 24-hour flow proportioned "beets only"samples were analyzed for chemical oxygen demand. The results of thoseanalyses also are listed in Table 4. As with corn, to facilitatecomparing these current values with those of the older literature,

413

Table 5 was prepared similarly to Table 3.

Table 4. Total Plant Effluent Characteristics During Beet Processing

Parameter Mean Range

Flow (gpm) 292.8 249.8-353.5(gpT) 1655 1410-1998(gal/case) 24.8 21.1-29.9

COD (lb/'&n) 74.8 68.0-81.7

Table 5. Literature Beet Waste Values Expressed by Alternate Methods

Based on Case II, the COD values of Table 4 fall on the lower partof the range of values expressed in the older literature.

Tables 6 and 7 offer a comprehensive breakdown of the wastewatersfrom the two isolable unit operations within the beet canning process:

raw product washing and blanching-peeling, Eight flow-proportionedcomposite samples were analyzed in each case. In this plant the washingprocess contributed 17 percent of the flow, containing only 2 percentof the COD. Therefore it would little behoove the processor toattempt reduction of his overall organic loading by modifying thewashing operation. The blanching-peeling process, however, was anothermatter, where 39 percent of the total plant outflow contained 85 percentof the COD. This operation, then, would be a logical starting pointfor effective overall organics reduction.

414

Table 6. Beet Wash Effluent Characteristics

Parameter Mean Range

Flow (gpm)(gpT)(gal/case)

COD (lb/Ton)Total phosphorus (lb/Ton)Total inorganic phosphorus (lb/Ton)Orthophosphate (lb P/Ton)Ammonia (lb N/T)Organic nitrogen (lb/T)

50.0* - - - - -

281.2 216.4-421.44.0 3.1-6.01.7 0.1-7.90.033 0.012-0.0490.020 0.007-0.0330.004 0.002-0.0080.002 0-0.0030.010 0-0.028

*constant flow

Table 7. Beet Blanching and Peeling Effluent Characteristics

Relatively little phosphorus and nitrogen were contributed to the planteffluent by these unit operations. Washing produced 0.033 lb P/ton rawproduct and 0.012 lb Kjeldahl N/ton; whereas blanching and peeling contributed0.156 lb P/ton and 0.219 lb K-N/ton. With a BOD/COD relationship of0.87, the BOD:N:P ratio for washing becomes approximately 45:0.4:1. Likewise,the ratio for blanching-peeling becomes 354:1.4:1.

For satisfactory biological treatment, a minimal ratio is said to bearound 150:5:1 (8). This indicates that, if necessary, the wash water couldbe treated biologically with only nitrogen addition, whereas the blancher-peeler waste stream would require singificant nitrogen and phosphorus

415

addition prior to treatment.

With both corn and beets the COD measured per ton of product was lower inthe present study than in the literature. This can be attributed inlarge part to the reduced water usage (per ton of product) in today'scanneries when compared with those of twenty years ago. Water usereduction generally reduces product-water contact time and therebyreduces leaching.

THE SECOND SEASON

During the 1971 processing season the mobile laboratory was located at alarge processing plant where the processing lines for the variouscommodities were distinct and well separated. This facilitated thecollection of representative samples from each major unit operationwithout risk of interference from other commodities.

The processes monitored included the canning of Lambert and RoyalAnne cherries, green beans and Bartlett pears. In most cases, sufficientnumbers of samples were collected to permit statistical analyses of theanalytical results. These analyses resulted in means, ranges andstandard deviations for sixteen different parameters, each of whichwas expressed (where appropriate) both as a concentration and on araw product tonnage basis,

Green Beans

As shown on Figure 1, the green bean canning process involved an initialwashing followed by grading, snipping of ends (in Chisholm Ryder*snippers), cutting, blanching (in rotary water blanchers), canning andretorting. A subsequent paper will review the complete results of thegreen bean characterization; emphasis here is placed on the end-of-pipe effluent plus the major contributors to the total pollution load:the washing and grading and the blanching processes.

Table 8 presents the characteristics of the total process effluent.Standard deviations are not listed on this table because it represents asummation of the means, maxima and minima from the sub-processes.It is interesting that the per case flows fell completely below the rangequoted in the earlier literature (Table 1) supporting the theory thatpresent-day canneries are more conservative in their water consumptionpractices than in the 1940's.

When the BOD values of Table 1 are expressed in terms of raw producttonnage (assuming a Case II function). They become: 7.34 to 16.25 lb/T.The BOD values of Table 8 fall below that range, leading to the sameconclusion mentioned earlier with respect to corn and beets.

*Note Disclaimer at end of paper.

416

that this was primarily soil, which had been transported with the beansfrom the field. The washing-grading sub-process also contributed largevolumes of wastewater (20.9 percent of the total) to the system, beingsecond only to clean-up (32.6 percent of the total) and retorting(29.0 percent).

As was expected, the greatest contributor to the plant wastewater system interms of COD, nitrogen and phosphorus was the blanching operation, whichis characterized in Table 10. The rotary water blanchers generated 44 percentof the total process COD (hence, BOD) in this instance. The total solidslevel was comparable to the previous unit operation, but volatile solidsincreased from 73 to 79 percent. Tne blenchers were the major sourcesof nitrogen and phosphorus, producing, for example, 63 percent of theammonia and 43 percent of the orthophosphate found in the combined wastewaterstream. The BOD:N:P ratio for this sub-process was 109:6:1. 93 percent

Cherries

Two different varieties of sweet cherry, Royal Anne and Lambert, wereprocessed at this plant. A comparison of Figures 2 and 3 reveals thatthe processing methods were similar with one exception: stemmers(Atlas Pacific) were used with the Royal Annes, whereas none were neededfor the Lambert cherries which were received stemless. The similarity ofprocessing methods permitted investigation of varietal and ripenessinfluences on wastewater composition. The results were impressive;markedly different wastewater streams resulted.

Royal Anne Cherries: As shown on Table 11, the canning of RoyalAnne cherries required 1510 gallons of water per ton of raw product.This 1510 gallons contained organics which would exert about 28 lbsCOD; they also contained about 27 lbs total solids (of which about80 percent was volatile). The solids were largely soluble or colloidal,indicating that further screening (beyond the 20 mesh screening thatall samples received prior to analysis) would be useless.

Compared to snap beans, then, Royal Anne cherries contributed (on aproduction basis) more than four times the COD (hence, BOD) and nearlythree times the solids, while requiring only about 60 percent of theprocess water volume per ton of raw product.

When considering the unit operations within the Royal Anne canningline, one notes that in nearly every category the major contributorsto the wastewater loads were the Dunkley pitters. When Table 12 iscompared with Table 11, these units appear to have contributed morethan 90 percent of every contaminant except phosphorus. However,although the pitters were certainly the greatest source of allwastewater constituents, it should be noted that only 17 percent ofthe total Royal Anne cherry throughput was pitted. The means thatthe total plant effluent, representing the results of productionthroughout the season, cannot be directly compared with the pittereffluent. Nevertheless, it seems a valid conclusion that the pittereffluent (volatile solids = 96 percent) might best be handled bysegregation and separate treatment and/or by-product recovery.

The only unit operation not common to both the Royal Anne and theLambert cherry processing lines was stemming. The Royal Annes werehandled in Atlas Pacific stemmers. These units were the second-highest water users in the process line (the first being the continuouscookers). This water usage was about 570 gallons per ton of fruitprocessed. Investigation of Table 13 indicates the contribution ofall contaminants from the stemmers, however, to have been minor. Thevolatile solids level was 74 percent.

Lambert Cherries: Varietal differences and/or degree of ripeness(hence juice volume) were detectable between the Lambert and Royal Annecherries in that these differences were reflected strongly in the wastewatercharacteristics. Table 14 presents the data from the Lambert process.Although the water usage was only two-thirds that of the Royal Annes',the COD contribution was up 30 percent and the total solids, 35 percent

421

into other types of products. After trimming, the fruit was canned andcooked in FMC continuous cookers.

The total pear process effluent exhibited the characteristics listed inTable 16. The process required about 2850 gallons of water per ton andthe wastewater contained nearly 57 lbs total solids per ton (91 percentvolatile), about 95 percent of which was colloidal or soluble; 55 lbsCOB were exerted per ton of raw product.

The pear wastes were, therefore, the strongest (in terms of chemicaloxygen demand) encountered in the second season, being about 1.5 timesstronger than those of Lambert cherries, 2.0 times stronger than RoyalAnnes and 8 times stronger than green bean wastes. In both seasons'

4 2 9

activities, the only stronger wastes were those emanating from thebeet canning process of the first season (75 lb COD/ton).

Tables 17 and 18 compare the effluents from the two types of peelers.It can be seen that the newer-type contour peelers generated more thantwice the COD and total solids loads of the Ewald peelers. It isunfortunate (from a pollution control standpoint) that the Ewald peelers(being no longer available on the market) are being phased out of theindustry.

Table 17. Bartlett Pear Mechanical (Ewald) Peeler EffluentCharacteristics (18.samples).

430

greatest portion of the pollutant load generated in cherry processingoccurs at a single source, the pitters, and that, perhaps, this wastestream should be incorporated into a by-product recovery system; and4) that new designs for processing equipment should be evaluated interms of waste generation, as well as the more production-orientedparameters.

The availability of reliable, contemporary wastewater characterizationdata (such as the foregoing) should facilitate the efficient,enlightened approaches to solving environmental problems now beingdemanded of industry and government by an aroused public.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following staff members of the O.S.U. Department of Food Science andTechnology were instrumental in the preparation of this paper throughlaboratory analysis, data interpretation, or manuscript review and theirparticipation is gratefully acknowledged: J. E. Borden, W. D. Davidson,R. F. Cain, C. Phillips, C. Neshyba, R. Cain, S. Pierce, L. Grande,E. Brinemen, M. Fitzsimmons, G. Higgins, W. Sayed, K. Leistikow, J. Lyche,B. Montgomery, N. Thomas and P. Butz. Furthermore, this study couldnot have been undertaken without the willing cooperation of the personnelof the participating plants, which the authors sincerely appreciated.

DISCLAIMER

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constituteendorsement or recommendation for use.

435