WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 12060 EDK 08/71
Liquid Wastes
From Canning and Freezing
Fruits and Vegetables
US FNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution in our Nation’s waters. They provide a
central source of information on the research, develop-
inent, and demonstration activities in the Environmental
Protection Agency, through inhouse research and grants
and contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies,
research institutions, and industrial organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Chief, Publications
Branch, Research Information Division, Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. 20460.
-------
LIQUID WASTES
FROM CANNING AND FREEZING
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
by
National Canners Association
Western Research Laboratory
Berkeley, California 94710
for the
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Number 12060 EDK
August 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.50
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The size of the U. S. fruit and vegetable canning and freezing industry
and estimates of its output of waste water, biochemical oxygen demand
(BaD), suspended solids (SS), and solid residuals are presented.
Typical processing operations and the sites of generation of wastes
are outlined. Estimates are made of the proportions of waste loads
generated at each of several processing steps for 15 commodities. The
proportions of waste effluents treated and the the costs of liquid waste
management in this industry are estimated.
The generation of waste and factors influencing waste loads are dis-
cussed; quantities of waste and its treatment and/or disposal costs
are estimated. References are listed for operations important in p01-
lution control such as: harvest and delivery, in-plant water uses,
blanching, and peeling. Solid residuals and their use and disposal
are discussed.
Under liquid waste treatment, the separation of particulates, biologi-
cal treatment, land disposal, and other methods are discussed. Treat-
ment efficiency, important variables, costs, and references are given.
Additional research is recommended in: determining the sources of
waste, water conservation and reconditioning, blanching, peeling,
solid residuals utilization, liquid waste treatment and pollution eval-
uation.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 12060 EDK
under the partial sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Summary i
II Introduction 5
Scope and Problem 5
Total Waste Production 6
Current 6
Future 7
General Disposal Practices 8
III Harvest and Delivery 13
Mechanical Harvesting 13
In-field Processing 14
Soil Loads on Fruits and Vegetables 14
Hauling from Field to Plant 15
IV Processing Operations and Water Use 17
Unit Operations 17
In-plant Conveyance 19
Washing and Rinsing 19
Peeling 23
Blanching 23
In-plant Reuse of Water 24
V Waste Generation and Characteristics 27
Waste Generation by Unit Operations 27
Peeling 28
Blanching 28
Nutrient Losses 28
The pH of Processing Effluents 36
VI Treatment and Disposal of Solid and Liquid
Waste 37
Solid Waste 37
Solids Separation 37
Screening 37
Sedimentation, settling and chemical
precipitation 41
Vacuum filtration 44
Centrifugation 44
Flotation 45
Solids Disposal 46
V
-------
Section Page
VI Liquid Waste 48
(cont) Biological Treatment 48
Anaerobic ponds 49
Lagoons and stabilization basins 50
Aerated lagoons 54
Activated sludge 54
Trickling filters 54
City treatment 60
Other biological treatment 60
Land Disposal 61
Spray irrigation 62
Other irrigation systems 63
Other Treatment Systems 65
VII Costs of Liquid Waste Treatment and Disposal 67
Industry Waste Costs 67
Specific Systems Costs 69
Screening 69
Sedimentation 70
Lagoons 70
Aerated Lagoons 71
Activated Sludge 71
Trickling Filters 72
City Treatment 73
Spray Irrigation 73
VIII Research Needs 75
Waste Sources 75
Water Conservation 75
Reconditioning Water for Reuse 77
Blanching 77
Peeling and Solid Wastes 78
Liquid Waste Treatment 79
Waste Pollution Evaluation 80
IX Acknowledgements 83
X References 85
XI Glossary 141
XII Appendix 143
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 The Use of Water and the Generation of
Wastes in Typical Unit Operations 18
2 Change in Product Minerals, Protein and
Solubles Concentration from Water and
Steam Blanching 33
3 Losses in Vitamin Content of Fruits and
Vegetables from Water and Steam Blanching 34
4 Losses in Soluble Solids and Ascorbic Acid
from Experimental Methods of Blanching 35
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Wastewater Flows and Disposal 9
2 Liquid Waste Disposal by Urban and Non-
urban Plants 10
3 The Use of Wastewater Treatment Systems 11
4 The Use of Water in Washing Fruits and
Vegetables 20
5 Removals by Washing 22
6 Characteristics of Wastewater from
Peeling Fruits and Vegetables 29
7 Pollution Loads in Effluents from Water
Blanching of Vegetables 31
8 Suspended and Total Solids in Blancher
Effluents 32
9 The Performance of Screening Systems on
Food Processing Effluents 39
10 Suspended Solids in Screened Effluents from
Food Processing 40
11 Efficiency of Chemical Coagulation of Screened
Effluents 42
12 Suspended Solids in Screened Fruit and Vege-
table Effluents 43
13 Anaerobic Pond Performance on Screened
Food Wastes 50
14 Typical Design Factors for Stabilization
Lagoons 51
15 Stabilization Lagoon Land Area Requirements 52
16 Stabilization Lagoon Performance in Treating
Food Processing Wastes 53
17 Aerated Lagoon Performance in Treating
Food Processing Wastes 55
18 Activated Sludge Performance in Treating
Food Processing Wastes 56
19 Trickling Filter Performance in Treating
Food Processing Wastes 58
20 Spray Irrigation Performance in Disposing
of Food Processing Wastes 64
21 Estimated Liquid Waste Costs 67
22 BOD Removals and Costs (1) 68
viii
-------
Number Page
23 BOD Removals and Costs (2) 68
24 Costs of Sedimentation of Cannery Effluents 70
25 Costs of Lagoon Treatment 70
26 Costs of Activated Sludge Treatment 72
27 Costs of Trickling Filter Treatment 73
Al Total Wastes from Canned and Frozen Fruits
and Vegetables 144
A2 Mechanical Harvesting of Fruits and Vege-
tables 146
A3 In -field Processing of Fruits and Vegetables 148
A4 Hauling of Fruits and Vegetables from Field
to Plant 149
A5 Transfer of Fruits and Vegetables during
Processing 150
A6 Reuse of Water in Fruit and Vegetable
Processing 151
A7 Treatment of Water for Reuse in Processing
Operations 152
A8 Waste Generation from Unit Processing
Operations on Fruits and Vegetables 154
A9 The pH of Fruit and Vegetable Effluents 157
AlO Peel Waste from Fruits and Vegetables 158
ix
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY
About 170, 000 persons work in about 1,800 plants in the canned and
frozen fruits and vegetables industry in the United States. It is
estimated that this industry annually:
utilizes 26 million tons of raw product,
discharges 83 billion gallons of waste water,
generates 800 million pounds of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and 392 million pounds of suspended solids (SS),
and produces 8 million tons of solid residuals.
On the average the food industry utilizes more public treatment and
ground disposal (mostly irrigation) for the ultimate disposal of its
waste than do other U.S. manufacturers. Non-urban plants are much
more likely to have their own treatment systems than are urban plants.
Disposal methods for liquid wastes vary widely among commodities.
Flow diagrams, typical of the industry’s commodities, are presented
for peaches, peas, corn, beets and tomato products. Proportions of
the total liquid waste flow, BOD, and SS from each of five or six
processing steps for 15 commodities are estimated. Pollutional loads
tend to concentrate in relatively little water at some of the steps (for
example, peeling, blanching); relatively clean water is discharged
from some operations (for example, washing some products, final
canning and freezing operations). The effluent pH varies from less
than 4. 0 to more than 12. 0 depending upon the commodity being pro-
cessed and the specific type of unit operation utilized during process-
ing.
A trend toward increased mechanical harvesting of the industry’s
crops is continuing with increased problems in product damage, soil,
and loss in yields. Movements toward more in-field processing and
improved transportation methods are noted.
Water is used extensively for transporting commodities within the
processing plant because it is a convenient transportation medium
and helps maintain sanitary conditions. Water is necessary for
cleaning raw commodities. However, solubles leached during trans-
portation add to the organic load in the plant effluent. Water is ex-
tensively recirculated within equipment and reused at upstream opera-
tions in food processing, but additional water savings by reuse are
possible and needed. Reconditioning of the water is sometimes necessary.
—1—
-------
Blanching is essential in the preparation of many vegetables for
canning and freezing. High pollutional loads are generated by conven-
tional blanching methods using steam and, especially, hot water.
Nutrients and minerals are leached or destroyed to some degree
during blanching.
Peeling by some methods also produces strong pollutional loads.
Mechanical peeling with dry-handling of the residuals is feasible for
some commodities and minimizes water use and soluble pollutants.
“Dry caustic” peeling, which reduces the pollution load in the liquid
waste, is a proven process for potatoes and has been used success-
fully on several other commodities in pilot plant experiments.
The first and commonest step in treating liquid effluents from food
processing plants is the separation of particulate matter. This step
is generally accomplished by either screening or settling. Several
types of stationary, vibrating, and rotary screens are used with a
wide range of mesh sizes. Screening and/or settling equipment re-
moves little of the BOD but if this equipment is adequately operated
it will prevent further leaching of organic s (BOD) into the transport
water. The efficiency of settling can be improved by flocculents.
Air flotation has promise for removing fine solids from some kinds
of waste streams.
Solid residuals left from processing many fruits and vegetables have
no ready use because they are: a) generated during a few months of
the year, b) generated in small quantities by widely dispersed plants,
c) not storable without expensive partial processing, and/or d) not
as suitable as other raw products. However, the solid residuals
from citrus, pineapples, and white potatoes are produced in large
quantities over along campaign season. Corn processing also gener-
ates large quantities of solids which may be stored. As a result, these
residuals along with smaller quantities from many othei c mmodities
are used as stockfeed. A number of other by-products are made
from food processing residuals in small amounts.
Biological processes are widely used to treat food processing waste
effluents. These effluents often need added inorganic nutrients for
efficient biological treatment. The sludge produced in biological
treatment, largely cells of microorganisms, is usually separated
by settling and disposed of by various methods.
A number of systems for biological treatment have been developed.
Some waste conversion occurs by natural flora during long periods
-2-•
-------
in holding ponds. Various methods of aerating the effluent and of
recycling some or all of the sludge to the aerated or to an anaerobic
section of the system improve the efficiency and shorten the time of
treatment at increased costs. BOD and SS removals vary widely
among and within the systems. Some biological systems are sensitive
to shock loadings or pH changes, which, together with insufficient
aeration, may reduce BOD removals and/or produce a sludge that is
difficult to settle.
Within the food processing industry the most common method of liquid
waste disposal on the land is spray irrigation. The availability of
suitable land, the characteristics of the soil, the cover crop, the
waste water, and climatic conditions all affect this method of disposal.
Some irrigation systems operate with little or no run-off and remove
practically all of the pollutional load; even with run-off fairly high
removals can be achieved.
Such treatment methods as carbon adsorption, ultra-filtration, re-
verse osmosis, and liquid incineration have been little used for food
processing wastes except experimentally.
Roughly half of the industry’s plants discharge their liquid wastes to
municipal treatment.
Liquid waste costs for a synthetic average plant in the industry are
estimated at $18, 000 per year or $1. 30 per ton of raw product, in-
cluding annual capital and operation and maintenance costs.
Extensive research is needed in many phases of the industry’s waste
problems: the sources, quantities, and characterization of waste
loads during processing; water reconditioning, recirculation, and
reuse in the plant; new, low-pollution methods of blanching and peel-
ing; the operations of current treatment systems and explorations
of new systems; improved monitoring methods; and cost estimates
for all waste handling methods.
-3-.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE AND PROBLEM
The effective minimizing of the pollutional loads developed in fruit
and vegetable processing is important to both the economic and social
status of the enterprise. It is the objective of this report to consoli-
date and make available the substance and record of published infor-
mation dealing with wastes generation during fruit and vegetable
processing. Also, from this, to direct attention to potential areas
for reducing the pollution loads through research, most of which will
have economic advantages to the operation, and which will enable
better meeting of the objectives in environmental protection programs.
The data in this report were taken largely from the published litera-
ture; more than 700 references are listed.
During the past ZO years there has been a constant consolidation of
smaller fruit and vegetable operations into larger, more centralized
process operations, resulting in greater usage of water and more
discharge of wastes per operation. Thus, during the highly seasonal
periods of operation in the industry it is not unusual for a process
operation to utilize much more water and to generate more waste
than the community in which the operation is located. The waste
loads in this industry are generated within a relatively small harvest
period during the year; treatment systems must be geared to prevent
pollution at periods when rainfall and stream flow are at a minimum.
Further, where the wastes are channeled into municipal systems,
often these are already overtaxed in capacity and inadequate for the
community requirements.
The solid wastes produced in processing many fruits and vegetables
have relatively little economic value and are not marketable. Dis-
posal may be by land fill or by spreading on land, and sometimes
creates problems of pollution, hygiene or public annoyance. However,
solid residual material from some products is specifically handled
for stock feed.
The waste in the effluents from canning and freezing plants are bio-
degradable, but treatment costs are increasing, effluent discharge
requirements are becoming more stringent, and urbanization in-
creasingly limits the availability of land.
-5-
-------
Thus there are many problems to be dealt with in handling the industry’s
waste.
TOTAL WASTE PRODUCTION
CURRENT - The fruit and vegetable canning and freezing industry in-
cludes operations in 1,838 plants employing 167, 000 persons, result-
ing in increased value to the raw crop of some $2. 2 billion. This
industry utilizes an estimated 99 billion gallons of Intake water, re-
circulates about 64% of it, and discharges about 96 billion gallons.
The percentages of these values compared to those for all U. S.
manufacturing and for all food and kindred products are, respectively:
number of plants, 0. 6 and 5. 6%
number of employees, 0.9 and 10.1%
value added, 0. 8 and 8. 3%
intake water, 0. 6 and 12. 2%
recirculated water, 0. 3 and 12. 4%
discharged water, 0. 7 and 12. 8%
All of the figures above are from preliminary reports of the 1967
Census of Manufacturers, U. S. Department of Commerce, is sued in
1970.
An independent estimate of the quantity of water discharged in canning
and freezing fruits and vegetables made for this study is somewhate
lower than the census value: 83 billion gallons, including a very small
quantity used in dehydration plants and a substantial quantity used in
types of manufacturing excluded from the census figures. The inde-
pendent estimates are in the Appendix in Table Al.
Table Al also gives estimates of raw product tonnages, and of BOD,
SS and solid residuals generated. “Other fruit” and “other vegetables”
include all those rot specifically listed. Estimated totals, for the
United States in 1968, are:
26 million tons of raw product
83 billion gallons of wastewater discharged
800 million pounds of BOD generated
392 million pounds of SS generated
8 million tons of solid residuals.
Citrus, tomatoes, corn, and white potatoes (excluding dehydrated
potatoes) account for 67% of the raw tonnage, 57% of the waste water,
52% of the BOD, 62% of the SS, and 72% of the solid residuals.
-6-
-------
The raw tonnage estimates are believed to be the most precise. They
are mostly from the U. S. Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting
Service but some are National Canners Association estimates based
on canned and frozen pack statistics. They are for 1968 except that
tomato tonnage was reduced from 7 million to 5 million tons because
1968 was abnormally high for canning tomatoes. The other estimates
are based on averages of widely varying figures per ton, mostly
published in the l96Ots; some of the sources are unpublished data of
the National Canners Association; most of the figures on BOD per
ton and SS per ton are from reference 582. The varying estimates
for a given product are partly the result of real plant to plant differ-
ences. Data from many of the references were converted from values
per case to values per ton using U. S. Department of Agriculture
figures for average cases per ton (10). Missing data, in particular
those for ‘ other fruitu and TTother egetables’, were estimated by
comparison with data for the principal products. The numbers in the
table are best estimates from currently available data.
Estimates were made for the current survey of total solids in the
wastewater generated by the industry. They were based on sparser
data than were available for the other items and are therefore not
listed in detail. The estimated total was 2. 4 billion pounds of total
solids, a very high proportion coming from potato processing.
Powers et al (521) gave 87 billion gallons of water discharged from
canned and frozen fruits and vegetables in 1964; and for 1963 the
same quantity of wastewater and also 1, 190 million pounds of BOD
and 600 million pounds of SS generated from all canned and frozen
foods. These figures are somewhate higher than the current study
estimates and the additional products included in the earlier estimates
do not seem to account for the differences in BOD and SS.
Other estimates derived from reference 521 indicate that in 1963 all
food and kindred products manufacturing was about 1/10 and the
canned and frozen fruits and vegetables industry was about 1/100 of
all U. S. manufacturing as measured by value added. These two
segments of the economy used about 5.4 and 0. 5%, respectively, of
the total water, but produced about 20% and 5%, respectively, of the
total BOD. The comparisons reflect the relatively high strength
wastewater discharged by food manufacturing.
FUTURE - Other discharges estimated for canning and freezing
fruits and vegetables were (584):
-7-
-------
1963 estimate: 71 billion gallons wastewater; 660 million
pounds BOD
1972 projection: 93. 5 billion gallons wastewater; 845
million pounds BOD.
A 1967 publication (637) estimated for canned and frozen fruits and
vegetables the following total waste loads, million pounds:
Year
1963
1968
1972
1977
BOD
660
785
845
905
SS
750
890
960
1035
TDS*
710
845
910
980
*Total dissolved solids
Projections of the U. S. per capita consumption of canned and frozen
foods (10) and of the U. S. population indicate an increase by 1980
of about 30% in the production of these foods. Without changes in
processing procedures the following totals would be estimated for
1980:
34 million tons of raw product
110 billion gallons of wastewater discharged
1000 million pounds of BOD and 500 million pounds of SS
generated
10 million tons of solid residuals
However, water conservation practices and improved procedures
are certain to reduce both effluent flows and pollutional loads per
unit of product in the next few years.
GENERAL DISFOSAL PRACTICES
All of the figures on wastes referred to above pertain to generated
wastes. Large proportions of these are reduced by treatment
b,efore final discharge.
The 1963 Census of Manufacturers is the source of data in Table 1,
which shows the totals and percentages of wastewater flows from
plants discharging 20 million gallons per year or more.
-8-
-------
Table 1. Wastewater Flows and Disposal
Total waste- Percent to:
water flow, public surface
billion gallons treatment ground water total*
All U. S. manu-
facturing
13, ZOO
7
1
90
98
Food and kindred
products
688
35
11
51
97
Canned and frozen
fruits and vege-
tables
66
38
17
42
97
*The small quantities unaccounted for were transferred to other uses.
The food industries discharged much higher proportions of their
liquid wastes to public sewers and to land disposal than did manu-
facturers as a whole. Discharges onto the land are principally by
irrigation, mostly spray irrigation, but also by seepage from ponds
and by pumping into non-productive wells. Ground disposal generally
removes very high percentages of the pollutional load. The high
degree of utilization of public treatment plants and ground discharge
by food processors is partly explained by the need for reducing the
relatively high strength of this industry 1 s wastes.
Most industrial wastewater (including that from food processing) is
used for cooling or for other relatively non-contaminating purposes.
Added heat may be a problem, but not other types of pollution. Dis-
charging this more-or-less clean water to surface water may be
necessary to maintain stream flows and provide water for down-
stream populations and industries. Wastewater disposed of in
streams and lakes is often treated before discharge.
A 1965 study (102) found the distribution of liquid waste disposal
practices shown in Table 2 in 80 fruit and vegetable canneries,
some of which were also freezers.
-9-
-------
Table 2. Liquid Waste Disposal by Urban and Non-urban Plants
Percent of Plants :
urban non-urban
Discharge to:
total
City systems
100
9
47
Ponds
0
28
16
Spray irrigation
0
55
31
Surface water
0
9
5
Urban plants were defined as those located within cities; non-urban
plants, those located in the country, in small towns, or on the out-
skirts of cities. The contrast in disposal methods by the two groups
reflects the availability of treatment plants in cities and the high
cost of city land.
Table 3, mostly 1969-1970 data from reference 471, shows the
distribution of liquid waste disposal methods found in a study of
all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables except pineapple.
Some of these plants used more than one of the listed methods and
a plant putting up more than one product was tallied under each corn-
rnodity. ‘Holding” and T1 treatment” ponds were not strictly defined;
generally the removal of pollution would be less in a holding than in
a treatment pond. Some methods of treatment at the plant or of dis-
posal were not included in the summary. For example, about half
the citrus plants used additional methods, and the clarifiers which
remove settleable material at most potato plants were omitted.
Most reliance on city systems was by tomato, peach, pear, and mis-
cellaneous fruit plants; on treatment ponds, by potato and apple
plants; and on irrigation, by corn, apple, and pea plants. A survey
in the western half of the United States reported in the same reference
(471) found that plants farther away from open land were more likely
to use city treatment and less likely to use their own treatment sys-
tems for their liquid effluents.
-10-
-------
Table 3. The Use of Wastewater Treatment Systems
Percent of plants using :
city holding treatment
Product systems ponds ponds irrigation
citrus 12 10* 24
tomato 67 11 19 13
corn 40 12 28 44
potato 43 14 57 21
peach 83 3 11 11
apple 30 10 40 30
snapbean 58 6 24 27
pea 39 13 10 36
pear 92 4 8 8
other fruit 67 10 16 20
other vegetable 59 10 23 17
*Both types of ponds combined
—11—
-------
SECTION III
HARVEST AND DELIVERY
MECHANICAL HARVESTING
Mechanical harvesting has been applied recently to many crops and
further developments are to be expected. Certain crops such as:
green peas; lima beans; bush, green, snap, and yellow wax beans;
spinach; corn; tomatoes; lettuce; cranberries; cherries; potatoes;
beets; carrots; rutabagas; and turnips are now mechanically harvest-
ed. Formerly, certain wastes such as vines and stalk were accum-
ulated during harvest and disposed of in one manner or other, prin-
cipally as animal feed. Much of this material is still retained in the
field and utilized by the grower for feed or as a soil additive. How-
ever, other unusable parts of vegetables and fruits are not separated
at the field or orchard (tomato, corn, cranberry, cucumber, cherry,
grape, beet, potato, and carrot) but are transported to storage or
factory. Separation of cull material by hand during mechanical
harvesting is being done to some extent for tomatoes and potatoes.
Table AZ (in the Appendix) is a compilation of references dealing
with procedures and problems in the mechanical harvesting of fruits
and vegetables.
Mechanical harvesting, while beneficial economically and in other
respects, may be accompanied by certain undesirable effects:
1. Greater physical damage to the crop, such as: split skins on
tomatoes; bruises on apples, pears, peaches and cherries;
broken ends of snap beans; smashed kernels of corn; and
damage to plant or tree.
2. Inclusion of soil with the harvested crop, particularly with
vegetables, and greater numbers of microbes adhering to the
product surface.
3. Loss in yield and delivery of products at non-optimal maturity
from non-selective harvesting.
Physically damaged areas of products such as tomatoes frequently
become focal points for lodging of soil, sand, and dust; and for
growth of various types of organisms. Rotting may readily occur
at the damaged areas. Such damage or infection can be held to be
indicative of unsanitary practices, and can affect the quality grade of
the harvested crop and degree of safety expected in thermal processes.
-13--
-------
IN-FIELD PROCESSING
In-field processing or preparation of the crop for subsequent pro-
cessing has been used in one form or another for a considerable
period. Peas were at one time harvested on the vine and transported
to the canning plant where vining (or shelling) took place. In the
past twenty years, the vining has been done at stationary viners within
a 10 mile radius of the fields, and more recently, almost entirely
with mobile viners. Developments have also included devices to
assist in the removal of “trash ’ 1 (stems, sticks, leaves, soil) from
various crops which have been mechanically harvested or mechanically
loaded, such as citrus, apples, potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, and
sugar cane.
Some mechanical harvesting devices also sort the products according
to size. Experimental systems for sorting tomatoes by color have
been developed. More elaborate experiments (580a) have included
ufield site” tomato processing, in which tomatoes are processed by
an acid-hot break procedure into juice for transport in bulk tanks to
the cannery.
The concept of pre-washing and pre-sorting snap beans has been used
in receiving stations to facilitate central process plant operations.
There are several advantages to such in-field treatment, including
prompt processing after harvest; elimination of much damage and
loss of solids during transport of fresh fruit; and retention of wastes,
culls, seed, peel, and soil near the points of production. Separated
wastes can be retained for disposal in field soils.
Table A3 is a compilation of references on in-field processing of
fruits and vegetables.
SOIL LOADS ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
There is relatively little information available on the amount of soil
included with various crops during harvest. A limited survey of pro-
cessors of mechanically harvested root crops indicates that soil may
range from 5 to 22% of the total harvest load weight, depending on the
type of root, type of soil, and soil moisture (670).
The handling of crops containing much soil may cause problems during
processing, such as plugging of flumes, conveyors, and sewer lines
due to settling of soil. The inclusion of soil in the harvested loads
has other economic implications: the withdrawal of irreplacable top
-14-
-------
soii and wasteful transport of unusable material.
The loss of soil from the land in the annual production of canned
potatoes, carrots, and beets has been estimated at 27, 000 - 54, 000
tons (670). York, et al. (701) reported the soil loads on mechanically
harvested tomatoes from different type soils to range from 0. 1 to 0. 37%
of the weight of tomatoes. Mercer (424) reported as high as 1. 87%.
Soil loads on potatoes and carrots have been reported to be 3 - 5%
of load weights (387). On the basis of total production, this would
result in the removal of a few hundred thousand tons of soil from the
land each year.
It would appear that increased mechanization of harvest has increased
the quantity of soil on many crops hence the need for more thorough
water washing or alternate systems. The increased soil loads can
result in the presence of organisms with greater thermal resistance
(424). Increased soil loads on tomatoes due to use of mechanical
harvest has increased bacterial spore loads 10 - 200 times (424).
HAULING FROM FIELD TO PLANT
Approximately 14 million tons of vegetables and 12 million tons of
fruit are harvested annually requiring transport to a treatment or pro-
cess facility. In some instances multiple transportation is involved.
The procedures in handling crops for transport have changed mater-
ially in the last decade. A significant development has been the direct
transfer from mechanical harvesters into dry bulk loading trucks
(e.g. potatoes, beets, carrots, citrus, peas, corn, tomatoes, and
beans), tote bins or boxes, eliminating the use of smaller containers
such as sacks, baskets, hampers, or lug boxes. There has been
some transport of crops such as cherries in water. Tomatoes and
potatoes have been transported in water experimentally.
Transport of crops in water is believed to provide possible economic
advantages as well as such benefits as partial wash or soak, cooling,
and ease of transfer through fluming at destination. However, the
successful utilization of water as a transport medium for harvested
crops depends on several factors:
1. The adaptability of the commodity to such treatment; tomatoes
transported in water, for example, are subject to splitting.
2. The limitation of container size to that at which undesirable
pressures on the product, which could cause bruising during
handling, do not occur.
-15-
-------
3. The availability of water.
4. The control of microbial growth.
The new methods of transport have been applied for economy, im-
provement in quality, and adaptation to other phases of the operations.
The integration of mechanical harvesting with bulk transport facilities
has decreased the delay between field and processing plant, and has
permitted improved management of the harvesting and processing
operations.
Table A4 is a compilation of references on transport of fruit and vege-
table crops in-field and from field to process plant.
-16-
-------
SECTION IV
PROCESSING OPERATIONS AND WATER USE
UNIT OPERATIONS
Processing steps for five typical commodities are outlined in Figure 1:
peaches to exemplify fruits; peas and corn, common vegetables; beets,
peeled root crops; and tomato products, pulped commodities. The
principal steps where water (Or steam) is used and where solid and
dissolved residuals are generated are indicated. Some steps common
to all products are omitted. Detailed flow diagrams and processing
descriptions for many products are in references 471 and 582.
Receiving is generally in 40 - 50 pound lug boxes, half-ton bins, or
larger bulk loads. The containers are dumped into the first stage
vasher or flume or onto belts. The product is conveyed by flumes,
pipes, belts, elevators, or other convevors between processing steps.
Fluming water, generally reused, and small flows of water to belts,
graders, and other equipment for lubrication and sanitation are not
noted in the flow diagrams.
After the outlined processing operations, canned foods are filled into
cans, brine or sirup may be added, and the cans may pass through
an exhaust box (a steam chamber). Some spillage occurs in filling
and in brining or siruping, and a small amount of steam condensate
comes from exhausting. The cans are then sealed, cooked with
steam, and cooled. Large amounts of cooling water are used; it is
relatively uncontaminated and may be recirculated, sometimes after
passing through a cooling tower, or reused for product washing or
fluming. Because it is clean, cooling water may be reused or dis-
charged separately from the rest of the plant effluent, into storm
sewers or directly to a stream.
Vegetables for freezing are water cooled after blanching, with the
generation of soluble waste. The products may be frozen before or
after packaging. Freezer condenser water is handled about the same
as can cooling water. Overall, final freezing operations generate
less pollutional load than do final canning operations.
All food processing products, containers, supplies, and equipment
must be kept in a sanitary condition. Product handling equipment is
washed, commonly with chlorinated water and often by continuous
spraying during operations. In any case, each piece of equipment
is cleaned periodically during plant shut-downs, with scrubbing and
-17-
-------
Blanche r/ rinse
Pulper/finisher
Slicer/dicer
Evaporator
*Optional or alternative operations in ().
*Relatively clean water
• *
Ope ration
Peaches Peas
Tomato
Corn Beets products
Type of
Waste Generated
Solid Soluble Soil
Water
-
Dry dump
Water dump
Air cleaner
Trash eliminator
Husker
X X X (X)*
(X) X
X X
X
x
•
•
S
•
•
•
S
Sorting/trimming
Washer
Grader/sizer
Cutter
Peeler/rinse
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X
X X (X)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
S
S
•
OD
x (X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
•
(X)
(X)
S
•
•
Figure 1. The Use of Water and the Generation of Wastes in Typical Unit Operations
-------
disassembly if necessary. Plant clean-up water contains solid and
dissolved residuals and often detergents which raise the pH.
IN-PLANT CONVEYANCE - Various means have been adapted for
conveying fruit or vegetable products at unloading docks into and
through the process plant. These include fluming, elevating, vi-
brating, screw conveyor, air propulsion, negative air, hydraulic
flow, and jet or air blast. Water, in one way or another, has been
extensively used in conveying products within plants because it
has been economical in such use and because it serves not only as
conveyance but also for washing and cooling.
It has been traditional to consider water an economical means to
transport fruits and vegetables within a plant and to assume there was
some sanitary significance to such use, not only for the product, but
also for the equipment. A significant disadvantage, however, may be
leaching of solubles from the product, such as sugars and acids from
cut fruit; and sugars and starch from cut corn, beets and carrots.
Alternative systems to decrease such losses from water have been in-
vestigated, such as osmotically equivalent fluid systems (Z98, 4Z6).
Table A5 is a listing of recent publications on in-plant conveyance of
fruits and vegetables.
WASHING AND RINSING - Fruits and vegetables for fresh market may
be and those for processing are washed and rinsed. These treatments
are applied for a number of reasons:
1. Removal of soil, dust, pesticides, microbial contamination,
insects, and their residuals.
Z. Removal of adhering juices or exudate, products of respiration
or of spoilage.
3. Removal of extraneous matter such as leaves, stems, dirt,
stones, and silk.
4. Removal of occluded solubles or insolubles such as occur during
cutting, coring, peeling, and blanching.
5. Cooling.
6. Extraction of solubles such as preservative salts or acids.
—19-
-------
Table 4. The Use of Water in Washing Fruits and Vegetables
Effluent load
Water Used BOD SS
Product Function gal/ton gal/case** lbs/ton* lbs/ton* Ref.
Beans, green wash 25.5 155
(two years) 20. 8
Beans, green tank & spray 52 425
flume 108
Beets primary wash flume 100 0.8 20. 0 673
Carrots primary wash flume 90 0. 5 2. 0 673
Corn spray 8-l8(gal/min) 203
cool 10-24(gal/min)
Corn husked corn washer 103 2. 5 1. 0 673
washer & silker 212 15.0 4.0
Cranberry skimmer & washer 1440 36. 5 15. 0 379
Fruits spray 385 423
Peaches spray 3 6 0(gal/min) 487
Peaches lye peel rinser 707(gal/min) 494
flume l028(gal/min)
Peas wash & flume 1200 357
Peas clipper mill & wash 706 12. 0 5. 5 673
wash 432 4. 0 0. 5
Potatoes spray 2500 20.0 30.0 258
Potatoes spray & soak 640 10.7 21.0 516
peel & wash 468 2. 2 2. 2
Potatoes spray 960 5. 1 2. 7 79
Potatoes (dehydr) slicer-washer 1540 40.0 49.7 158
Potatoes primary wash flume 70 0. 5 2. 0 673
-------
Table 4. (continued)
N)
Water Used
gal/ton
Effluent load
BOD SS
lbs/ton lbs/ton*
Product
Function
gal/case
Ref.
Tomatoes
wash
13Z0
4Z1
Tomatoes
first wash
second wash
1-ZO
2- 4
0. 8***
203
Tomatoes
rinse after dump
lye peel removal
1186
504
494
Tomatoes
spray
lye peel rinse
lye peel rinse
712
1374
790
599
Ton of raw product
Case of finished product
Pounds per case
-------
Table 4 summarizes reports on the quantities and characteristics of
water used for washing and rinsing fruits and vegetables. The quantity
of water used in wash and rinse operations may be as much as 50% of
the total usage in process operations.
Examples of the effectiveness of washing to reduce contamination by
extraneous matter are in Table 5.
Table 5. Removals by Washing
Reduction
Product Function Item Ref.
Potatoes (dehydr) presoak & surface contamin-
wash ation 0.5-12 387
Tomatoes wash soil 33-80 429
organic debris 30-64
bacterial spores 6-79
Tomatoes wash Drosophila eggs 10-70 253
Tomatoes wash bacterial spores 75-95 701
lactic bacteria 75-96
mold 76-92
Tomatoes chlorinated
wash bacteria 90 486
Tomatoes chlorinated
wash spores 92 469
Microbial loads, where excessive, have been shown to affect the thermal
process required for sterilizing canned foods (463a). The presence of
excessive mold in tomato is considered to be indicative of unsanitary
conditions, and regulatory standards for mold content have been estab-
lished. The presence of non-hazardous but objectionable extraneous
matter (skin, leaves, stems) is a factor affecting the market grade and
economic value of the product. Limits have been established for the
quantities of residual pesticides in fruits and vegetables.
Thus on the one hand, water is essential to prepare fruits and vegetables
for processing; yet on the other hand, it creates pollution loads in plant
effluents. Procedures have been recommended for reuse of water in
fruit and vegetable process systems based on reduction in bacterial
loads and on beneficial effects in quality.
-22-
-------
PEELING - The quantity of peel on fruits and vegetables affects the
yield of the processed product. Geneticists have expended much
effort in the development of varieties (particularly vegetables) with
thin, smooth skin, absence of rootlets, and other desired conforma-
tion in order to reduce peeling losses.
Peel can be removed from fruit or vegetables by one method or a
combination of several methods including: hydraulic pressure, im-
mersion in hot water or lye solution, exposure to steam, mechanical
knives, mechanical abrasion, hot air blast, exposure to flame, and
infra red radiation. The more extensively used procedures for peeling
root crops include: steam/abrasion, immersion in lye solution/hy-
draulic or abrasion, and abrasion. Frequently used procedures for
peeling fruits include: mechanical knives, immersion in lye solution,
and reamers and corer s.
The separation of peel wastes is costly not only for the effort neces-
sary to remove it, but also for the concomittant loss of edible material.
Related costs include the economic wastes incurred in growing,
transporting, and handling unusable material.
The equivalent cost for lagoon treatment of liquid wastes from peeling
for which estimates could be derived is at least two million dollars
annually, and would be much greater than this if commodities for which
information is unavailable were included (670).
Dry caustic peeling of potatoes is reported to achieve removal of
peel with less loss of product than by the more common liquid lye or
abrasion procedures (255). The major portion of the peel and lye
is withheld from the effluent waste stream. Similar results have
been obtained in trial runs with apricots, peaches, pears, and beets
(47 2a).
BLANCHING - Blanching of vegetables for canning, freezing or de-
hydration is done for one or more reasons: removal of air from
tissues; removal of solubles which may affect clarity of brine or
liquor; fixation of pigments; inactivation of enzymes; protection of
flavor; leaching of undesirable flavors or components such as sugars;
shrinking of tissue; and destruction of microorganisms.
Vegetables are blanched either in water or in steam at various temp-
eratures and times. Water blanching is generally used for canned
vegetables and steam blanching for frozen or dehydrated vegetables.
-23-
-------
Vegetables are water blanched in order to remove air and to leach
solubles for clarity of brine. These are factors in the USDA grades
of canned vegetables. For freezing and dehydration, destruction of
enzymes is important. Blanching in water removes more solubles,
including minerals, sugars and vitamins, than does steam blanching.
The pollution loads from blanching are a significant portion of the
total pollution load in the effluent stream during the processing of
certain vegetables. The national amortized annual treatment facility
cost for the pollution from selected vegetable blanchers is estimated
at 2.4 million dollars and the annual maintenance and operation cost,
about 3 million dollars (670). Research to reduce such costs should
be beneficial.
IN-PLANT REUSE OF WATER
Table A6 shows a compilation of studies dealing with the reuse of
water in the various phases of processing fruits and vegetables. These
studies were undertaken primarily to establish the feasibility of mul-
tiple uses of water for conservation and economy and the acceptability
of multiple uses.
The acceptability of procedures for reuse of water in processing oper-
ations requires such consideration as:
1. Water is an excellent solvent and vector, and is readily modified,
chemically, physically, and microbiologically. Thus, one use
may or may not render water suitable for upstream application,
such as primary washing. Recovered downstream, the water
may be suitable for further use only when given enough treat-
ment to be considered potable.
2. The soil, organic, or heat loads in the used water may be such
that considerable treatment is necessary to render it suitable
for reuse.
Perhaps the most extensive work on feasibility in reuse of water has
been done with peas and tomatoes, primarily in “counter-current
flow systems. Another example is the use of cooling water to wash
products following blanching, and this water in turn used for initial
washing of incoming raw product.
Consideration has been given to segregation of various wastewaters in
the process plant for immediate reuse or reuse after suitable treat-
ment for certain operations. The treatments required for reuse of the
-24-
-------
water may be relatively simple, such as chlorination, or may become
quite involved, requiring sedimentation, flocculation, and filtration or
other unit operations.
Multiple use of water is being applied in commercial processing of
fruits and vegetables. This has unquestionably permitted conservation
of water and greater efficiency in the treatment required for the total
plant effluent.
There are many reports and suggestions on procedures for cons erva—
tion of water in fruit and vegetable process operations (422, 428, 429,
431, 433, 458, 465). Few of these cite values for the magnitude of
reduction in water usage. Eckenf elder et al. (213) calculated the
possible reduction in waste flows by use of conservation procedures
from 134 to 81 gal. 1mm in the processing of tomatoes, and from 125
to 49 gal. 1mm in the processing of corn. Cook et al. (155) showed re-
ductions of 18 and 25 respectively, in the quantity of water used in
two different years in processing green snap beans. Mercer (425)
cited procedures for recovery treatment of brines for olives.
The treatment of water to condition it for reuse in processing fruits
and vegetables has been given considerable attention. Table i 7
shows a compilation of reports on the treatment of water for reuse.
Two aspects of such treatment are:
1. The economic factor, that is, the cost of fresh water vs the cost
of treating and recirculating it for reuse, and the cost of
disposal of wastewater following its use.
2. The acceptability of the treated water for its intended use.
The costs for treatment of water depend on the condition of the water
and the treatment required to recondition it. If the water has acquired
salt, sugars, starch, acids, or other organic or suspended materials,
extensive treatment may be necessary. On the other hand, such treat-
ment may be necessary anyway to reduce the total effluent degradation,
or because such effluent cannot be discharged into municipal or waste
streams.
Eckenfelder et al. (208) have cited the maximum effluent quality ex-
pressed as BOD, COD, soluble solids, and nitrogen attainable by
various recovery treatments, and have related the parameters for cost
determination of such water treatments.
-25-
-------
Treatment methods which have been cited for the recovery of water
to be reused are:
carbon adsorption foam separation
centrifugation freezing
chemical precipitation ion exchange
chlorination micro screening
distillation ozonation
electrodialysis reverse osmosis
eutectic freezing screening
filtration sedimentation
flocculation solvent extraction
flotation ultrafiltration
-26-
-------
SECTION V
WASTE GENERATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE GENERATION BY UNIT OPERATIONS
Table A8 lists estimates of the wastewater quantities, BOD or COD,
and SS from steps in processing fruits and vegetables as percentages
of the total amounts generated (582). These data were estimated by
experienced persons in the industry and are not carefully measured
values.
Estimates of all three parameters for the same operation often varied
widely. Some of the differences are explained by differences in style
of pack, but many must come from ranges in product maturity, trans-
portation method, and other factors. In many instances a concentra-
tion of pollutional load in relatively little wastewater is indicated;
for example, apple peeling and pulping and cherry pitting. Examples
of low pollutional load in relatively larger quantities of wastewater
are in the final steps for canning. Freezing generally generated less
waste load than did canning.
Data such as those in Tables Al and A8 point out the principal sources
of the industry’s wastewater flows and pollutional loads and therefore
where the greatest potential reductions can be achieved by further
research and development.
Much of the total waste flows from many commodities, especially
from citrus, come from relatively clean water used in cooling, con-
densing, and concentrating. The segregation of this water for reuse
is practiced to some extent and should become almost universal.
Other large waste flows are from washing tomatoes (roughly 8 billion
gallons per year), peeling potatoes, peeling peaches, washing potatoes
(all three roughly 2 to 3 billion gallons), cutting corn, cutting and
pitting peaches, washing corn, and blanching corn (all four roughly
1 to 2 billion gallons).
Large quantities of BOD are generated in washing tomatoes, peeling
potatoes (roughly, more than 50 million pounds per year from each),
cutting corn (more than 40 million pounds), peeling peaches, blanch-
ing corn, and cutting and pitting peaches (roughly 20 to 30 million
pounds from each of the three operations). Citrus by-products re-
covery also generates very large amounts of BOD and SS. Other
large sources of SS are peeling potatoes (perhaps 70 million pounds
-27-
-------
per year), cutting corn (about 40 million pounds), and washing tomatoes
(roughly 30 million pounds).
PEELING - Peeling of fruits and vegetables results in large quantities
of wastes. Table AlO shows estimated quantities of peel in various
fruit and vegetable products. The peeling must be done in such a
manner that the peeled product is attractive and free of blemish or
peel residue. The presence of peel in canned and frozen products is
a factor in its market grade (10).
Table 6 shows a summary of estimated pollution loads in the effluent
from peeling fruits and vegetables reported by various investigators.
Studies other than these have been reported, but the data have not
been covertible to quantitative values of pollution loads. Peel wastes
comprise a high percentage of the total pollution loads in the effluent
of fruit and vegetable plants.
BLANCHING - Table 7 shows examples of losses from vegetables
during blanching expressed in BOD, COD, and SS.
Table 8 shows examples of the concentrations of suspended and of
total solids in the effluents from water blanching of vegetables. It is
the current practice to add this waste stream to the total plant efflu-
ent. The volume of effluent from blanchers is generally relatively
small) and the concentrations of suspended and total solids high. There
are, therefore, potential gains in the isolation and separate treatment
of the effluent from blanchers. It is reasonable to consider the appli-
cation of sophisticated procedures, including concentration by evapora-
tion, chemical precipitation, centrifugation, and filtration, in the treat-
ment of the effluent from blanchers to reduce total pollutio.n loads.
NUTRIENT LOSSES
Figures Z and 3 show reported changes in the nutrient content of vege-
tables from water and steam blanching; mostly the changes were losses
but a few gains in nutrients occurred. Many of the points of these
graphs are the highest and lowest reported losses from a series of
data; the losses between the extremes are not graphed. Figure 4 shows
losses in soluble solids and in ascorbic acid from several experimental
blanching methods.
Very wide ranges in retention have been reported for most nutrients
and blanching methods. Steam blanching retained slightly to definitely
more ascorbic acid, riboflavin, ash, and phosphorus than did water
blanching. The two methods were about the same in retaining niacin,
carotene, calcium, protein, and solubles.
-28-
-------
Table 6. Characteristics of Wastewater from Peeling Fruits and Vegetables
BOD SS
% of plant
Product lbs/ton lbs/cs waste stream rate lbs/cs Ref.
Apricots 5-10 470
Beets
(blancher/peeler) 194 4.0 84 220 lb/hr 1.0 673
Carrots
(blancher/peeler) 97 1.4 65 163 lb/hr .7 673
Peaches (rinse after
peeling) 40 599
Peaches 60(COD) 10 lb/ton 472a
Peaches 8-12 5-9 lb/ton 470
Pears 12-18 10-15 lb/ton 470
Potatoes (peeler) 20 90 lb/ton 258
Potatoes 37-79 75-108 lb/ton 236
Potatoes (peeler,
chips) 2.3 4 lb/ton 516
Potatoes (peeler!
dehydration 20 90 lb/ton 516
Potatoes 32 156
Potatoes (lye peel) 186 3. 1 89 .5 673
Potatoes (dry caustic
peel) 26 80 255
Potatoes (lye peel) 376 681
Potatoes (infra red
peel) 260 681
Potatoes (steam peel) 260 681
-------
Table 6. Characteristics of Wastewater from Peeling Fruits and Vegetables (continued)
BOD SS
% of plant
Product lbs/ton lbs/cs waste stream rate lbs/cs Ref.
Potatoes (irifra red
peel) ZOO 681
Peach/tomato
(flume after peel) 1 383 ppm 665
Peach! tomato
(rinse after peel) 19 1230 ppm 665
Peach/tomato
(rinse after peel) . 29 20 599
Tomato (scald/trim) . 16 213
Tomato (lye peel) 39 123
Tomato (lye peel) . 30 599
Tomato (lye peel) . 12 35 599
* Pounds of BOD or suspended solids per ton of raw product, per case of finished product,
or per hour of operation.
-------
Table 7. Pollution Loads in Effluents from Water Blanching of Vegetables
Effluent flow BOD COD SS
Vegetable gal/hr lbs/ton lbs/ton lbs/ton Ref.
Beets ( & peeler) 13, 100 194 (85)* 323 (83) 239 (55) 673
Carrots
(&peeler) 8,420 97.6 (65) 196 (67) 338 (64) 673
Corn 270 610 (lbs/day) 860 (lbs/day) 144 (lbs/day) 213
Corn 2,272 24.6 (16) 30.1 (18) 6.0 (12) 673
Peas 1, 280 3,500 ppm 386
in effluent
Peas 1,280 3,500 ppm 492
in effluent
Potatoes 2, 520 52 58 37 79
Potatoes 2,310 22 32 25 79
Potatoes
(&peeler) 9,210 186 (89) 279 (86) 181 (37) 673
BOD, COD, and SS in pounds per ton of raw product except as noted.
** Percent of total effluent pollution load in ( ).
-------
Table 8. Suspended and Total Solids in Blancher Effluents
Effluent flow SS TS
Vegetable gal/hr ppm lbs/hr lbs/hr Ref.
Beets (& peeler) 13,100 (51)* 122 2,510 673
Carrots
& peeler) 8, 420 (49) 104 478 673
Corn 2,272 (14) 28.2 206.4 673
Peas 1,114 120
Peas 3,244 120
Peas 4,360 (20) 10.8 262 673
Potatoes
hotbianch 1,800 3,300 79
wet blanch 5, 400 195 37 (per ton) 79
Potatoes
(& peeler) 9, 210 (44) 70. 1 3, 330 673
* Percent of total effluent in ( ).
-------
w
40
20
To Loss
10
To Gain
20
40
60
Figure 2. Changes in Product Minerals, Protein and Soluble Con-
centration from Water and Steam Blanching
Ash Calcium Iron Potassium Phosphorous Protein Sugar or
Solubles
- 33 -
-------
..i__ •
$1
•
••
•
••I•
•
S
S
• • 5
S.
S
S ...
• 5
S
.
* 5,
•
.
•
S
I.
S
S
••
.
$
S
S
•
.
•5S •
S
;
S ..
• 5
• 5 •
• S
•5 S
•5 5
• S
$ S.
..• •
•Se S
S.
S
5•S 55
S
•5 I
55
5
S
•
S
. 5
S
S S
S.
.
:.
• S
S
,&
S.
••
•5
•.•
S
•• .
S
I
£ •
.
S
5
•
S
S.
E
a)
S..
S
S
S
E
D
a)
S
S
.
E
O
—
a)
S..
.
E
(
c W
S
S ,_•
S
•5
• S
.
5
S
e.
S...
S
S
1W
80
40
20
%Loss
1°
To Gain
20
S
S
S
Ascorbic Niacin Riboflavin Thiamin Carotene
Acid
Figure 3. Losses in Vitamin Content of Fruits and Vegetables from
\Vater and Steam BlanchirL
- 34 -
-------
so
Figure 4. Losses in Soluble Solids and Ascorbic Acid from Experi-
mental Methods of Blanching
x =Soluble Solids
0 =Ascorbic Acid
x
‘I . ,
.3
A
60
40
20
0
x
x
x
0
0
0
0
0
x x oo
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
Microwave Electronic Dialectric Dialectric-
Dialectric-
Dialectric
Water
Air
Spray
- 35 -
-------
Sparse data on experimental methods showed no or only slight ascor-
bic acid losses using microwave, electronic, and dialectic blanching;
and no soluble solids losses by the last. The dialectric method com-
bined with water, air, or spray brought about larger losses than dia-
lectric alone. All three of these combined methods caused larger
losses of soluble solids than did water or steam blanching. They
retained ascorbic acid better than did water blanching; and were pro-
bably better for ascorbic acid than steam blanching, especially the
dialectric -air process.
References for the three figures on blanching nutrient losses are:
Figure 2: 2, 275, 297, 299, 330, 348, 365, 367, 388, and 671.
Figure 3: 2, 183, 215, 225, 226, 263, 264, 281, 297, 298, 319, 354,
355, 365, 367, 419, 454, 455, 523, 622, and 657.
Figure 4: 76, 77, 275, 330, 439, 440, 452, 454, and 523.
THE pH OF PROCESSING EFFLUENTS
The pH of processed fruit and vegatable effluents varies among pro-
ducts, among plants, and from time to time within plants. Reported
pH values of fruit and vegetable processing effluents are in Table A9.
High pH accompanies lye peeling; fruit, tomato, and root crops
peeled in other ways may yield an effluent with neutral or low pH.
Drastic fluctuations in pH occur when lye peeling tanks are dumped
periodically and smaller fluctuations may result from the caustic
solutions used in plant clean-up.
- 36 -
-------
SECTION VI
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
SOLIDS SEPARATION - The utilization, treatment and disposal of
cannery and freezer effluent wastes involves, first, effective separa-
tion and segregation of the solids in the effluent. Separation of the
discrete fractions may be important in economic treatment of the
wastes.
The effective and efficient separation of discrete solids depends
principally on the physical properties of the particles, including
size, density, and concentration in the waste; and on the capability
of the equipment for their separation. The decision to separate the
smaller particles (colloidal or suspended) from the waste depends
principally on: a) whether there is value in such wastes, b) whether
such material may as readily and as economically be degraded by
the usual disposal systems, such as land spray or lagoon treatments,
c) the potential reuse of the water from the clarified wastes, and d)
increased costs of liquid waste treatment if the particulates are not
removed.
The cost-size relationships of different disposal systems have been
reviewed by Parker (504); see also reference 123.
Screening - The separation of coarse discrete waste material from
the total effluent is generally done with screens. The wastes in
fruit and vegetable process effluent may contain some very large
pieces of material several inches in size (whole fruit or vegetable)
and other material ranging from smaller in size to colloidal. The
separation of the larger material can be accomplished by steel bar
screens separated 1/2 inch to 2 inches, and sloped at angles 30 to
60 degrees away from the direction of flow. The removal of the
separated material may be done manually or mechanically.
The removal of smaller but discrete pieces of material is effectively
done by mechanical screens of various types. The Tyler Standard
Screen Sieve is frequently used for dimension reference of wire
screens, which are commonly referred to by their number of meshes
per inch. Perforated screens also are employed for limited uses.
- 37 -
-------
The effectiveness of screening discrete fruit or vegetable material
from the effluent is affected by a number of conditions, including:
1. Mechanical features: screen opening dimensions, screen porous
area, screen motion, flow rate of effluent, and conditions of
flow.
2. Properties of the effluent: concentration of discrete materials
and of components such as fiber, and particle dimensions.
Manufacturers of screening equipment provide data and recommen-
dations for various devices for screening discrete material. Gener -
ally the capability of the equipment is expressed in terms of the
volume of the effluent per square foot of mesh dimension. Several
types of screening systems are:
Stationary screens
Vibrating, gyrating, oscillating screens
Rotary screens
Endless belt screens
Screens used for separating fruit and vegetable wastes range from
several meshes per inch to 150 mesh wire cloth. Vibrating screens
are by far the most commonly used type and 20 meshes per inch the
most common size in fruit and vegetable processing (471). About
one tenth of the fruit and vegetable processors reported using no
screens. Typical screening loads of wastes vary from 18 to 66
Ibs/l000 gal. and the screened waste contains 70-96% moisture (213).
The degree of screening necessary may be prescribed by the nature
of subsequent treatments of the waste. For example, vacuum filtra-
tion and centrifugal clarification require more complete pretreat-
ment for particle separation. The efficiency of screening of fruit
and vegetable process effluents depends upon the proportions of
large and small particles present. A limiting factor in the efficiency
of screening certain wastes such as pea and corn is that a high per-
centage of the dispersed solids is suspended or colloidal and not
readily affected even by 150 mesh screens. There can occur also
some mechanical reduction in particle size during screening of the
wet pulpy solids (467). It has been suggested that, although some
solids are separated from corn and pea effluent by use of fine screens,
no significantly measurable reduction in BOD loads were noted (670).
- 38 -
-------
In other studies, only slight reduction in BOlD loads in the effluent
resulted from screening cannery wastes (104, 105, 213).
Table 9 shows the performance reported for various screening sys -
tems applied to process effluents.
Table 9. The Performance of Screening Systems on Food Processing
Effluents
Screen
Screen
Input
Waste
type
mesh Product
Load
Removed Ref.
Oscillating
Oscillating
Oscillating
Oscillating
Oscillating
Rotary
Rotary
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
Vibrating
100 Beet-carrot
24 Beet-carrot
60 Peas
24 Potato-
carrot
50 Potato-
carrot
28 Red beet
28 Tomato
Beet
100 Beet-carrot
10 Beet-carrot
50 Peas
56% SS
79% SS
7-17% SS
2% SS
44% SS
400-600 lbs
(135 lb/ft. 2
/hr.)
60% SS
13% TS, 35%
settl. sol.
z0% TS, 47%
settl. sol.
32% SS
Zl6a
216a
670
670
670
33
2% SS 670
0% SS 670
670
60% SS 670
21% SS 670
Vibrating 40
287
670
(8-12, 000
gal. /hr.)
(975 gal. /ft. 2
/hr.)
(500 gal. 1mm)
10 Potato-
carrot
10 Potato-
carrot
30 Peach
30 Pumpkin
48 Fruit-
tomato
0% SS 670
420
420
467
- 39 -
-------
Screening is an effective, economical procedure for removal of dis-
crete material of particle sizes which may interfere with the treat-
ment of liquid effluents in spray, lagoon, or municipal systems.
The suitability of fine mesh screening for removal of material of
lesser size depends on the capability of the screens, the concentra-
tion of such solids in the effluent waste, and the costs of such removal.
There is a lack of reliable information on the efficiency of the sim-
pler screening systems for the removal of smaller dispersed mater-
ial and on the physical characteristics of such material. The con-
centrations of suspended solids in screened total process effluents
are of relatively low order. Suspended solids in process effluents
are reported in Table 10.
Table 10. Suspended Solids in Screened Effluents from Food
Processing
Product
% SS
Total
in Screened
Effluent lbs
SS
per 1000 Cases
Ref.
—
Apples
0.005
221
Beets
0. 10
53la
Beets
1100
673
Carrots
0. 11
531a
Carrots
708
673
Corn
0.16
531a
Corn
220
673
Peas
0.04
531a
Peas
0.003
221
Peas
800
637
Peach rinse
0.04-0.15
430
Peach
0.01-0.001
221
Pear
0.03
221
Potatoes
0. 10
531a
Potatoes
530
673
Tomato
0.3-8.0
213
Tomato
0. 04-0. 10
430
One study indicated that single deck, circular, vibrating screens had
twice the hydraulic capacity of table top screens with comparable
mesh size and area; and that the hydraulic capacity was 50% greater
in two deck than in single deck, circular, vibrating screens (467).
- 40 -
-------
Sedimentation, settling and chemical precipitation - Sedimentation
is employed to remove suspended or settleable solids from fruit
and vegetable process waste effluent. Sedimentation or settling of
solids occurs in collecting ponds or lagoons. Separation of the solids
from the effluent can be done in settling basins or tanks prior to the
discharge of the wastes for further treatment. The basins or tanks
are often equipped with overflow wiers and baffles for continuous
operation and with means for addition of chemical agents to facili-
tate flocculation of the particulate matter. Factors involved in the
effectiveness of the systems are physical properties of the particle,
viscosity, and turbulence. Parameters for conditions for removal
of the suspended solids can be established from laboratory tests.
The flocculation and settling of suspended material may be accele-
rated by use of coagulants such as alum (aluminum sulfate), and
ferric and ferrous sulfate (669), which react with hydroxyl ions to
form hydrous oxides. The latter are relatively insoluble at normal
pH values and tend to floc, coalesce, and settle.
There is much greater potential in the application of procedures for
the removal of coagulable and settleable solids from the effluent
flow at various stages in the process line where the concentrations
are greatest. The concentrations of settleable solids in tomato
wastes and tomato-peach wastes were greatest at the skin peeling
and removal areas (459). Similar concentrations were found in the
processing of peas, corn, beets, carrots and potatoes (673). Pre-
liminary trials have indicated such solids can be effectively removed
by sedimentation and other procedures. There is need, however,
for economic evaluation of such applications.
The efficiency of removal of suspended matter from certain vege -
table wastes by chemical coagulation and by primary settling is in
the range of 60-80%. Table 11 shows the reduction in SS and in
BOD by such treatment. However, since there is a very high level
of total dissolved solids in such wastes, the net reduction in BOD
in the effluent is frequently insufficient to permit its reuse for some
purposes even after such clarification (669). Table 12 shows the
concentrations of SS in typical cannery wastes, after screening.
- 41 -
-------
Table 11. Efficiency of Chemical Coagulation of Screened Effluents
Coagulants BOD SS Removal
Product
p
pm
ppm
ppm
Effi. BOD
Alum
Lime
Infl.
Effi.
Infi.
SS
Peas
44
266
68
39
95
18
42
81
Beets and corn
65
357
222
196
259
47
28
82
Lima beans
39
136
142
121
146
26
15
82
Lima beans and
spinach
22
218
130
89
212
52
32
75
Reference 669.
(Figures
rounded)
-------
Table 12. Suspended Solids in Screened Fruit and Vegetable Effluents
SS
Product % lb/Case Ref.
Apples
Apricots
Asparagus
Beans, baked
Beans, green/wax
Beans, kidney
Beans, lima
Beets
Carrots
Cherries
Corn, cream style
Corn, whole kernel
Cranberries
Peas
Peaches
Potatoes, sweet
Potatoes, white
Pumpkin
Sauerkraut
Spinach
Tomatoes
.03 -.06
.02-.04
.003-.018
• 02
•006-.015
.014
042
.074-. 22
• 18
.02-. 06
.03-.067
.03-.40
.01-. 25
.027-.04
.045-.75
.04-. 25
.09-. 118
.078-. 196
• 063
•009-.058
.019-. 20
0. 10-0.20
0. 14-0.25
0.02-0. 12
0.07
0. 02-0.04
0.02
0.02-1.02
0.05-1.0
0.04
0.05-0. 14
0.07-0. 17
0. 20-0.95
0. 02-0. 05
0. 06-0. 20
0. 024-0. 034
0.31-1.95
0. 38
I,
I,
Ten to 30% BOD removal and 50 to 80% SS removal by sedimentation
of cannery waste effluents have been estimated (637). In potato
plants sedimentation removes 41 to 70% of the BOD and 73 to 93%
of the SS (186, 257, 351).
A study has been reported (123) on a city treatment plant which
received waste flows from 1’7 canneries with an aggregate of
583,000 tons of raw products per year, about half tomato. Primary
treatment removed about 44% of the BOD and 74% of the SS during
non-canning months, when the flow was 55 to 60 million gallons per
day; and about 18% of the BOD and 62% of the SS during canning
months, when the flow was 75 to 80 MGD.
637
‘V
‘V
‘V
‘V
‘V
‘I
‘V
503
- 43 -
-------
Eldridge (217) reported BOD removals of 33 to 75% in effluents from
beet, tomato, pea, corn and kraut processing using lime, alum,
iron sulfates and chloride, and zinc chloride in combinations at 700
to 2520 mg per liter. A BOD removal of 50% in tomato effluent with
40-50 mg/i of lime has been reported (592). BOD removals of 39
to 75% have been reported (637) from tomato, beet, corn, carrot,
pea, and wax bean wastes flows using lime alone and in combination
with alum or iron sulfate; with lime alone, 86 and 90% SS removals
were reported for tomato and beet effluents, respectively.
Poor removals of BOD and COD were observed in the laboratory
using peach and tomato waste water treated with lime (123). BOD
was oxidized from the waste at the rates of 1. 8 parts per part of
potassium permangmate per hour, and 1 to 6 parts per part of
chlorine (from NaOC1) per hour; these treatments were considered
simple but expensive.
Vacuum filtration - Vacuum filtration requires relatively heavy
investments for the removal of solids and has had limited usage in
the treatment of fruit and vegetable wastes. However, this method
has been used in solids thickening and removal of starch in the pro-
cessing of potatoes. There is little information available on its
application to fruit and vegetable wastes, and parameters and po-
tentials for vacuum filtration in reclaiming water for reuse are not
known.
Centrifugation - Centrifugation is used extensively to separate highly
dispersed and suspended materials which have economic value.
There are virtually no published data on its application for removal
of SS from screened fruit and vegetable effluents. Pilot studies indi-
cate that separation by centrifugation of such dispersed solids as
corn, carrot, and beet (peeler effluent) is mechanically feasible (670).
The concentration of suspended solids in the total effluent from the
industry’s plants is relatively low. But concentrations are suffi-
ciently great at certain stages in the process to warrant application
of special procedures for removal, and to reclaim water. Probably
the SS will have only low value, except where specific components
may be isolated (starches, waxes, etc. ). There is little informa-
tion on the economic appraisal in removal of SS from fruit and vege-
table wastes, either for obtaining the solids, for reclaiming water
- 44 -
-------
for reuse, or for reducing BOD loads in the total effluent. The SS
may be a problem in the formation of scum layers in lagoons and
sewage treatment plants (230, 378). Eckenfelder (205) described
the use of centrifugation for separating sludge at various stages in
the treatment of paper, municipal, and other wastes.
Flotation - SS may be removed from effluents by air flotation. The
procedure starts by subjecting effluent waste to air pressure in
pressure vessels. When the effluent, supersaturated with air, is
released to atmospheric pressure, the excess dissolved air is re-
leased as small bubbles to which suspended material becomes
attached and separates as foam or float. The use of lime and alum
to floc the suspended organic material aids in its separation.
Nelson (478) reported 50-80% SS removal from peach and tomato
waste water at flows to 7000 gallons/square foot/day by flotation.
Pilot plant flotation treatment of peach and pumpkin effluents with
air rates of 0. 46 to 0. 60 cubic feet/minute has been described (458).
Influent BODs were about 2000-2400 ppm for peach and 2200-2600
ppm for pumpkin wastes; ingoing pH, around 10 for peach and 6.7
for pumpkin. Percent removals with peach and pumpkin wastes,
respectively, were: BOD, 17 and 7; SS, 84 and 62; total solids (TS),
16 and 2; and settleable solids, 94 and 99. Sulfuric acid neutra-
lization improved BOD and settleable solids removal from peach
waste. Lime addition depressed SS removal from peach waste to
73%, resulted in no decrease in peach waste settleable solids,
brought about increases in SS and settleable solids in pumpkin waste,
but improved BOD removal to 30% in pumpkin waste. Dissolved
solids removals were mostly poor, but reached 26% in the lime
treated pumpkin waste.
Pilot plant flotation studies were reported (467) on a two-stage
pumping system with air injection between the two pumps and a
short pressurized hold before release to the flotation tank. Ratios
of raw waste flow to recycle were varied from 1:1 to 3:1; and solids
loading from 0.3 to 2.2 lbs/hour/square foot for peaches and 9.7
to 19. 5 lbs/hour/square foot for tomatoes. With peach lye peel
rinsewater the best SS removal was about 93% at a flow rate of 1. 0
gallon/minute/square foot; the poorest about 65% at 2. 6 and 2. 9
gpm/square foot. SS removals from tomato process water (which
contained field soil) were 84% at 1. 0 gpm/square foot and 61% at
2. 9 gpm/square foot.
- 45 -
-------
The separation of SS (and minimizing formation of sludge) from fruit
and vegetable effluents has been found feasible through use of vacuum
flotation procedures. When aerated liquid is subjected to vacuum,
minute bubbles are released and become attached to particles which
migrate to the surface where they can be removed. Treatments of
0.025-0.05 cu.ft. air/gallon effluent/30 sec were effective. Remo-
val of suspended solids from effluents of tomato, pear, asparagus,
string bean, and spinach ranged from 77-98% (230, 378).
SOLIDS DISPOSAL - Many recent changes in processing procedures
affect the utilization of waste:
1. The scale of operations has increased in virtually all fruit and
vegetable processing. Operations have been consolidated in
fewer plants and within fewer management organizations. The
quantities of product handled per hour are greater than before.
2. There has been sophistication in methods of separating wastes
at the time of harvest (mobile mechanical harvest) and in pro-
cess lines (improved separation devices).
3. Transport facilities (roads and trucks) have improved consider-
ably in the past decade so that there can be and is more trans-
shipment of unprocessed crop to plants for processing, and there
exists better opportunity for withdrawal and consolidation of
wastes for treatment.
4. There have been developments in preparing crops for ensiling
preservation and utilization of plant leaf for proteins.
5. Animal and poultry feeding procedures have been sharply refined
with better understanding of the nutritional requirements of
these species. The growing of animals and fowl has been up-
graded in scale. Feed cost/weight gain ratios are critical in
successful feeding management practices. The acceptance of
any livestock feed is affected by availability, cost, and perfor-
mance.
6. There has been a continued increase in the utilization of canned
and frozen food, accompanied by a decrease in utilization of
- 46 -
-------
fresh” product, in homes, restaurants, and institutions. This
has increased the quantity of fruit and vegetable waste to be dis-
posed of at processing plants and decreased the quantity dis-
posed of, relatively, in community systems.
7. There is greater emphasis both legal and political on the need
to reduce pollution by all industrial organizations, including
food processors. Residents of communities near food processing
operations exert continued pressure to correct undesirable con-
ditions, emphasizing the problems in waste disposal.
Although the solid wastes from most commodities have little use and
are disposed of mostly by filling or spreading on land, the residuals
from some are used extensively for animal feed. Examples are
citrus, corn, pineapple, and potato. These commodities are pro-
duced in large tonnages for processing and are located in areas
where cattle or other stock are available for feeding. Citrus, pine-
apple, and potato are processed during most of the year and the
silage from corn can be stored. Largely as a result of this use of
these commodity residuals, about three-fourths of all residuals
from fruit and vegetables processing are disposed of as by-products
(47 1).
Smaller quantities of residuals from many commodities are used
for vinegar (33,000 tons), charcoal (30,000 tons), alcohol (18,000
tons), and other by-products (57, 000 tons). The figures in paren-
theses are estimated total annual tons of residuals used for each
purpose (471).
Burch et al. (114a) have analyzed problems in handling food wastes:
relative costs in disposal and utilization; marketing problems for
derived materials; and research and development problems involved.
They cite possible disposal procedures for food wastes including:
municipal systems, dump disposal, lagooning, spray and furrow
irrigation, and incineration. They stress the necessity of first
knowing current costs of waste disposal for comparison with alter-
native methods.
Marketing problems in the utilization of wastes are most difficult
to solve. Most cannery and freezer wastes have high moisture
contents. Removal of the moisture may also remove carbohydrate
solids, which are of low value commercially. Removal of extractives
of some value may result in fibrous residuals of low value.
- 47 -
-------
Establishing the market position for many processed wastes requires
establishing a competitive price principally on the basis of replace-
ment. Factors affecting market acceptance for derived products are:
1. The adequacy of the supply, which may be serious in light of
the seasonal operation of many food processing plants.
2. The perishable nature of the wastes, which require conversion.
3. The necessity of users to alter their formulations in order to
utilize the processed wastes or derivatives.
4. The costs of additional handling and transport.
5. The low value of the wastes compared to other sources of nu-
trients, oils, etc.
Ben Gera and Kramer (87a) have presented an excellent review on
the utilization of food industry wastes. It is evident that for some
wastes in-depth appraisal has been made of the feasibility of their
utilization. Some studies also include appraisal of the economic
feasibility of utilization of the wastes.
LIQUID WASTE
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - Many types of microorganisms remove
organic materials from liquid wastes. Those most commonly used
in treatment systems are heterotrophs, which utilize organic carbon
for their energy and growth. Some are aerobic and require molecu-
lar oxygen for converting wastes to carbon dioxide and water. Others
are anaerobic and grow without molecular oxygen. Anaerobic micro-
organisms grow more slowly than aerobes and produce less sludge
per unit of waste treated than do aerobic microorganisms. Anaerobes
also release acids and methane, and their action on sulfur-containing
wastes may create odor problems. Some microorganisms are
facultative; that is, they can grow in either an aerobic or anaerobic
environment.
Added nutrients, most often nitrogen and sometimes phosphorous,
may be required for efficient biological treatment of food processing
wastes.
- 48 -
-------
The multiplying microorganisms produce a sludge, measured as
volatile suspended solids (VSS), by conversion of the soluble organic
waste materials to bacterial cells. The rate of sludge generation is
constant for a given waste under steady state conditions. In aerobic
systems, oxygen is needed for both conversion of organic matter to
cellular material and for cell maintenance. The settling char acter-
istics of the sludge are important in affecting the ease of its removal
from the system. Sludge settling rates depend on the types of micro-
organisms present and their growth conditions. Therefore, operating
variables such as waste physical and chemical characteristics,
waste loading rates, holding times, degrees of aeration, and propor -
tions of sludge recirculat d in the system will affect sludge settle-
ability.
Eckenfelder (205) discussed and quantified the factors influencing
biological waste treatment. Esvelt and Hart (223) studied their appli-
cation to fruit processing wastes, and SCS Engineers (582) reported
descriptions, advantages, and disadvantages of several biological
(and other) treatment systems.
Anaerobic ponds - In anaerobic ponds biological degradation of organic
material occurs in the absence of dissolved oxygen. The ponds are
typically deep and heavily loaded with waste, reducing the land require-
ment per unit volume of effluent, and are used especially for stabi-
lizing solids, including sludge from other types of treatment systems.
In facultative ponds the anaerobic condition exists in strata of other-
wise aerobic ponds. Under anaerobiosis, organic materials are con-
verted to methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, organic acids, and
others, as well as to carbon dioxide and water. Conversions of 80
to 90% of the organic load may be achieved, at a slower rate and
producing less sludge than in aerobic systems, but undesirable odors
may be generated. Higher temperatures increase the efficiency of
anaerobic systems except between 37 and 45, and above about 58
degrees C. (l87a).
Some performance data on anaerobic ponds are in Table 13.
- 49 -
-------
Table 13. Anaerobic Pond Performance on Screened Food Wastes
BOD
lbs/l000cu ft/ Detention BOD, %
Product ppm /day days removed Ref.
Cannery 9.6-430 1/6-37 (pilot) 40-95 6
Citrus 4600 21.4 1.3* 87 411
Corn 70-104 6-11.3 25-69 135
70-104 6_ll.3* * 53 135
Fruit,
sewage 360-1200 110-430 1/6-1/4 (lab) 50-70 484
Pea 81.5-159 2.8-3.9 22-29 135
81. 5-159 2.8-3. 9** 47-49 135
Pea blanch 30000 10 90+ 492
Tomato 550 7.5 7.4 80 288,289
5. 1 9.25 82 288, 289
86 37 98 288, 289
2.5-9.9 7.5-10 70 - 96, 600
Tomato,
lirna 1975 2.53 40 126
* Contact anaerobic process
With added sodium nitrate
Lagoons and stabilization basins - Lagoons, ponds, or basins are
extensively used for treating food processing wastes where land is
available. Holding or storage ponds are large enough to accommo-
date a whole season’s effluent for discharge when a receiving stream
is at maximum flow or to land, or for dispersal by evaporation.
Some waste conversion occurs during the holding period by settling
of solids and by biological processes. Oxygen may be supplied for
aerobic bacteria by algae in “aerobic or in Ifacultativeut ponds;
the latter are partly aerobic and partly anaerobic in action. Odors
and seepage to ground water may be problems; large land areas and
insect controls are necessary; and the reduction of pollutional load
may be low.
Increasing urbanization, which increases land costs and odor annoy-
ances, and increasingly strict discharge requirements on pollu-
tional loads have led to developing more efficient lagoon operations,
by nutrient additions and especially by aeration. Suggested design
- 50 -
-------
factors for various types of stabilization ponds are in Tables 14
and 15. The suitability of a lagoon or other biological waste treat-
ment system is thus determined not only by cost, but also by such
social factors as urbanization and pollution regulations.
Table 14. Typical Design Factors for Stabilization Lagoons
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Aerated
Depth, ft.
Detention, days
BOD loading,
lb/acre/day
Percent BOD
0.6-3.
2-20
50-200
80-95
0
3-6
7-30
20-50
75-85
8-15
5-25
300-1000
50-70
6-15
2-10
55-90
removal
Algae concentra-
tion mg/liter
100
10-50
nil
nil
* Reference 532.
- 51 -
-------
Table 15. Stabilization Lagoon Land Area Requirements
Facultative Ponds Aerobic- Aerated Anaerobic Aerobic
(A) (B) algae lagoon pond
Area 84 acres 73 acres 19 acres 2. 6 acres 2. 82 acres 42 acres
Depth 6 feet 6 feet 1 foot 10 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Retention time 82 days 72 days 6 days 4. 0 days 4. 60 days 41 days
Loading 50 57 200
lbs BOD/acre/
day
Reference 532.
-------
Canham (135) reported that a pure culture innoculation failed to
improve the perfirmance of lagoons and that enzymes and odor
maskers in the lagoon were not proven to help.
Porges (517) stated in 1963 that of 827 waste water lagoons in use
in the United States, 238 were fir canning wastes.
Data on the performance of lagoons are summarized in Table 16.
Table 16. Stabilization Lagoon Performance in Treating Food
Processing Wastes
hOD, ppm hOD Detention BOD %
Product in out lbs/acre/day days removed Ref .
Apricot, peach 90 106 96 502
800 47 79 502
500 78 93 502
600 70 88 502
Cannery 4770 2.5 40 124
786 72 90 124
Citrus 200 120 83 324
Corn 2760 42 84 566
2760 40 95 566
2936 9.6 59 213
774-3700 11-56 (6 ponds 181
in series)
Pea 1430 49 91 566
70 84 96 180
337-1050 17 58 (6 ponds 181
in series)
Potato 1000 116 91 495
Tomato 628 17 74-81 502
396 26 80-81° 502
1800 42 93 566
Tomato, citrus 662 22 74-75° 502
135 17 85 88° 502
* With added nutrient
- 53 -
-------
Aerated lagoons - Several systems have been developed for mecha-
nical transfer of oxygen to aerated lagoons, including surface
mechanical aerators and pumped air injectors or diffusers. The
achieved concentration of oxygen affects the efficiency of BOD con-
version, and the oxygen transferred to the lagoon per horsepower-
hour is an important factor in cost.
Aerated lagoons resist upsets from organic load and pH shocks and
can achieve good BOD reductions without odors. In this treatment
system the biological solids (SS) remain in the treated effluent.
Performance data on aerated lagoons are in Table 17.
Activated sludge - An activated sludge system is one in which the
solids from an aerated treatment system are settled and returned
to the first treatment basin. Several modifications of this basic
scheme are in use. Poor settling sludge is often associated with
activated sludge treatment of food processing waste. This problem
may be the result of: a) filmentous organisms which tend to outgrow
other forms at concentrations of dissolved oxygen below 0. 5 ppm,
or b) diffuse bacterial flocs which may form at high growth rates
(205). The process can achieve 90% or higher reductions in BOD
and in SS under good operating conditions.
Jewell and Eckenfelder (322) reported experiments with pure oxygen
for aeration in a pilot scale activated sludge unit, using brewery
waste. The pure oxygen improved sludge settling characteristics
at high mass loadings with 90% COD removal.
Performance data are in Table 18.
Trickling filters - A trickling filter is a porous bed with a bacterial
slime growth. As liquid wastes are passed down through the bed, they
are biologically oxidized by organisms in the slime film. The filter
may be deep or shallow and the packing medium stone, wood, or
plastic. Many modifications in the system are possible, including
changes in dimensions, medium porosity, waste flow and its organic
load, recycling, adjustments in nutrients, pH, or temperature, and
aeration. In an ideal system the various factors are in balance for
maximum degradation of the BOD input. Some of the factors can be
monitored and controlled. Data on the performance of trickling
filters are in Table 19.
- 54 -
-------
Table 17. Aerated Lagoon Performance in Treating Food
Processing Wastes
Influent BOD Detention BOD, %
Product ppm days removed Ref.
Beet 4236 1. 1 98 273
3830 .75 96 273
Cannery 360 4.5(17.2 C) 94 522
920 4.5( 6.3 C) 43 522
980 13 ( 8.5 C) 95 522
1650 (COD) 2-5 50-80 489
Carrot 1910 .37 86 273
Pea 535-1212 12 76-97 581
970 .39 94 273
578 . 23 93 273
820 5.6 78 187
3000-44o0 5.5 76 184
Pea,carrot 1260 .25 81 273
Peach 1650 . 16 54 420
1100 .6 60-70 545
Potato 1000 82 97 487
Pumpkin 1380 .35 60 420
6 77 198
6 85 198
6 88 198
2500 1.2 50-60 545
Tomato 5 68 213
1500 98 286
Tomato, corn 580 5 (lab.) 71 489
550 4 (lab.) 61-70 489
890 3 (lab.) 60 489
840 2 (lab.) 59 489
605 1 (lab.) 43 489
* Pounds/acre/day
- 55 -
-------
Table 18. Activated Sludge Performance in Treating Food Processing Wastes
Influent BOD
lbs/l000cuft Detention BOD, %
Product ppm lbs/lb solids /day hours removed Ref.
Apple 1200-1400 90-330 91-99+ 222,223
Bean,snap 140 2.4 101 35 96
Beet 4000 2.0 9.3 96 117
i i 3700 6. 6 (pilot) 82 309
it 4800 20 (pilot) 97 309
5300 4 0 (pilot) 98 309
Cannery, 50-70 6(# 6 sludge 90-95 484
sewage rearation)
200+ 70— 484
300-1600 .47 200 4.6 & 8 90 501
a’ “ .14 148 87 123
Citrus 1200 . 04-. 38 (pH adjusted) 98-99. 7 325
Food, sewage 100 4- . 1+ 97 254
Pea, carrot 1100 6. 6 (pi1ot) 89 309
1500 2.5 3. 1 H 95 117
Peach 3200 24 95 82 96
860-1800 70-120÷ 80-98 212,223
Peach, tomato . 12-. 65 (lab. ) — 93-98 123
i i i i 740 . 65 - ‘,- 1. 58 209
Pear 1600-2000 80-170÷ 99 222,223
Pimento 810 50 25 — 61 96
Potato 2100 20 129 74 96
138 20(pilot) 92 160
210 10(pilot) 86 160
480 1 + 10(pilot) 59 160
-------
Table 18. Activated Sludge Performance in Treating Food Processing Wastes (continued)
Influent BOD Detention BO]J, %
lbs/lUUUcu ft
Product ppm lbs/lb solids /day hours removed Ref.
Potato 500 1 + 6(pilot) 49 160
1000-2000 .3-.4+ 190-360 6(pilot) 98— 79
1000-2000 .3-.4÷ 190-360 .5+2(pi1ot) 50— 79
1000-2000 .3-.4-s- 190-360 1-1.5+6-8 80— 79
(pilot)
230-410 8 (lab.) 85-99÷ 601
65-280 12 98 601
Tomato 410 .8+1.6 ’ 85 209
U-’
— I , 540 .35 + 1. 84 209
Tomato, apple 490 1.0 + 2. 90 209
Vegetables 2-14 (COD) 4. 9 (high rate 33-99 607
unit)
36 (extend. 56-99 607
aer.)
With added nutrients
Aerate and clarify in the same unit
Contact stabilization
-------
Table 19.
Trickling Filter Performance in Treating Food Processing Wastes
Influent BOD
ppm lbs/l000cu ft/day
BOD, %
P rn (‘ r ri P f
320
150
1200
500
1600 100
500-2000
500-2000
2300 (COD)
2300 (COD)
3400 (COD)
1100
1100
640
40
640
950
1200
1 600
50 gpm
100 gpm
150 gpm
• 66 gal/sq ft/mm
• 88 gal/sq ft/mm
• 88 gal/sq ft/mm
1. 5 gal/sq ft/mm
15-20 mgd
(1:10)
(1:5)
150 gpm
100 gpm
150 gpm
(1:1)
(1:1)
(1:1)
(7:4)
(1:4-5)
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
35 484
94- 278
94.- 278
46 432
50 432
33 432
53 467
20 467
39 467
26 467
14 366
78 366
25 549
25-37 593
Product
Recycle
Flow JR wxecvc1e I
L I ’
03
1-7 gpm
1-7 gpm
7-14 gpm
7-14 gpm
Apricot
Beet
Cannery
Cannery,
sewage
Corn
‘V
Fruit
Pea
60
80
100
140
to 150
to 110
34
87
80
50
80
77 -85
63 -78
50-68
35-57
549
549
549
549
148
484
484
484
484
l2ftdiarn
l2ftdiarn
1 Zft diam
pilot
180- 420
-------
Table 19. Trickling Filter Performance in Treating Food Processing Wastes (continued)
Specialities
Vegetables
(500 lbs/acre-
foot/day)
(1000 H H
(2000 H H
(3000 H H
2-5 gpm
2-5 gpm
2-5 gpm
70 160 gal/sq ft/day
36 mgad
.72 mgad
1.4 rngad
2.2 mgad
830 gal/sq ft/day
.38 mgd
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
pilot
BOD, %
Removed Ref .
50 702
41 549
45 593
90 702
33 549
29 432
44 432
24 432
23 432
85 432
75 161
49 161
35 161
90+ 122
94 601
92 601
77 601
55 601
53 142
69 149
Plastic medium
With added nutrients
Influent BOD Recycle
ppm lbs/l000cu ft/day Flow (Raw:recycle)
220
250
52
Product
Pea
Pea, carrot
Pea, sewage
I,
Peach
I It
U i
‘ .0 Potato
‘I
I,
800
720
2700-4000
2700-4000
2700-4000
2700-4000
2700-4000
960
2300
2500
2900
2400
400
600
800
(1: 14)
(3:14)
(5:14)
(7:7)
(7:7)
14 gpm
15 gpm
14 gpm
600
145
2 stage filters
-------
City treatment - Preliminary figures from reference 471 showed
the following percentages of canners and freezers of the tabulated
products disposing of effluents to city systems in the continental U.S.
snap
Product: citrus tomato corn potato peach apple bean pea pear
1* 67 40 43 83 30 58 39 92
other fruit other vegetable
67 59
Reference 232
The degree of purification at public treatment plants varies widely;
estimates of their average removals are (637): 75% of the BOD,
85% of the SS, and 14% of the total dissolved solids (TDS).
Other biological treatment - Yeast fermentation has been used for
the production of alcohol and yeast and for treating food wastes simul-
taneously. Torula yeast has been grown on waste from citrus (24),
potato (539), and other wastes (63 6 a) but the process has not been
widely adopted. Stricter waste effluent standards may make the me-
thod more attractive.
Strains of the fungus genus Imperfecti have been propogated on corn
and soy bean wastes in pilot studies (151). Reductions in the COD
of corn waste from 2, 500 to 100-400 mg/liter in 20 days and fungus
mycelium yields of 1000 mg/liter have been reported. The prelimi-
nary tests are promising and conditions for good growth of the fun-
gus have been fairly well established.
McCarty (401) has discussed results with a pilot scale anaerobic fil-
ter, a medium something like a trickling filter but kept submerged
and anaerobic by the effluent flowing upward through it. BOD
removals of about 60% (at 4. 5 days detention) to about 98% (at 3 6-72
days detention) have been observed experimentally with strong wastes
(750 ppm COD and higher). Relatively little sludge was produced
and the filter responded well to intermittant operation. However,
clogging with waste solids may be a problem and pH must be con-
trolled.
- 60 -
-------
LAND DISPOSAL - The successful disposal of fruit and vegetable
wastes onto land depends on a number of factors. Engineering aspects
include infiltrative and percolative capacities of the soil, clogging,
quality changes in the soil, and the engineering of soil systems (405).
Other factors are the trans location of the underground water to springs
and streams or through i aults to water supplies, evaporation, and
transpiration through cover crop plant growth.
The effects of disposal of wastes into the soil mantle are as complex
as are the wastes. While many operations appear to be successful,
the long term effects are less clearly understood. Several considera-
tions are important for successful disposal of food wastes into the
soil; they are:
1. Land area: sufficient land area must be available to handle the
waste during peak operations without overloading. Some pro-
visions should be made for land to accommodate expansion of
operations.
2. Soil: the character of the soil is important to acceptability of
land for irrigation.
3. Slope: some slope is desirable to minimize ponding of water
which is followed by destruction of plants, bacterial decomposi-
tion, and odor development. Too great a slope may result in
excessive runoff.
4. Rest interval: the necessary rest interval depends on several
factors, including BOD load during spraying, porosity of the
soil, and the distribution of the effluent.
5. Cover crop: this is essential for the spray irrigation method of
soil waste disposal in order to increase absorption and transpira-
tion, and to prevent soil settling and erosion. A dense cover
crop protects the soil from physical change, increases transfer
of water to soil through the root system, and from the soil to
atmosphere by evapo-transpiration.
6. Waste: wastes vary considerably in characteristics such as pH,
BOD, ratios of nutrients, SS, soluble solids, and salt concentra-
tions which all affect the soil mantle. These, ultimately, affect
degradation of the wastes.
- 61 -
-------
Spray irrigation - Spray irrigation consists of spraying screened
liquid wastes from vegetable or fruit process operations onto land
where it undergoes percolation into the soil and biodegradation.
Spray irrigation of sewage wastes was practised as early as 1860-
1870 (579) and of cannery waste beginning at least in 1947 (574).
A large variety of cover crops have been successfully used for spray
irrigation fields. There is, however, a great difference in the
capability of various crops to absorb and transpire water. Cover
crops used include planted vegetable crops, grasses, stands of
native bush, trees, and orchards. In many instances efforts are
made to maintain stands of certain grasses while in others the prac —
tice has been to let natural survival determine the stand. A dense
growth will transpire 10-20 inches of water per season (110).
Percolation studies of cannery wastes in lysimeters have been made
(305, 546). Waste waters from process plants have been found to
contain greater concentrations of sodium and chloride and were more
acidic than fresh waters. Permanent pasture was affected adversely
by spraying of blancher water (588). Hydraulic loading was a prime
factor in disposal of plant effluent (199). Spraying on wooded waste-
land over a period of three years resulted in gradual replacement
of the natural stand with other plants (583).
The parameters of water and waste disposal on land vary depending
on the nature of the soil and land. Applications ranging from 0. 4 to
1. 0 in. /hr with suitable interval rests of six days have been cited
(129, 437, 442). Lane (359) found feasible a precipitation of 87, 000
gal. /acre/day (absorbency of 3 inches/day), with rest intervals of
4-10 days. BOD applications have been reported up to 649 lbs /acre/
day and SS, 285/lbs/acre/day (99, 100).
Spray irrigation on slopes draining to lagoons appears to be very
successful and adaptable to soils which limit lateral movement of
underground water (618); 99% reduction in BOD, total color removal,
and 90% reduction in N and P may be expected.
Comrninuted pea waste has been applied to soil by spraying an esti-
mated 1000-1300 tons/acre at rates of 1 inch per acre/day, equiva-
lent to an average of 0. 15 inch/day for the season (128).
- 62 -
-------
Monson (442) reported that 250 canneries used spray irrigation sys-
tems in 1957. According to Ebbert (201), 50 out of 118 canneries in
one midwestern state used spray irrigation in 1958; Zall Research
Associates (547) found 4 out of 14 surveyed canners and freezers and
1 out of 23 surveyed dairies using spray irrigation in 1967; in addi-
tion, three of the former and 10 of the latter were situated where
they could have installed the system.
Preliminary figures from reference 471 showed the following percen-
tages of canners and freezers of the listed products disposing of
effluents by irrigation in the continental U.S.
Product:
%
citrus tomato
34 13
corn
44
potato peach
21 11
apple
30
snap
bean
27
pea
36
pear
8
other fruit
20
other
vegetable
17
*
Referen
ce 232
Bendixen et al. (89) estimated there were 2, 400 systems for disposing
of effluents to the land in 1965 and that 900 of these were used by
food processors.
Performance data on spray irrigation are in Table 20.
Other irrigation systems - The ditch and furrow system consists of
developing shallow ditches in the land through which effluent is direct-
ed. At intervals of use the land is permitted to dry, is disced, and
refurrowed. It has been estimated in one operation that 46 inches of
effluent were spread over 66 acres in 4 months operation, refurrow-
ing after 18 inches. About 50% of the effluent was believed to eva-
porate and the balance to percolate. All accumulated SS were disced
into the soil. The estimated soil loading was 0. 124 lb of COD per
square foot per day, based on 66 acres in use, 100 days operation,
and 35, 600 lb daily COD load (13).
- 63 -
-------
Table 20. Spray Irrigation Performance in Disposing of Food Processing Wastes
Flow
Applied BOD 1000 gal/ inches!
Product ppm lbs/acre/day acre/day day Crop Ref.
Aspar.,bean 22 3.5 637
Cannery 9 1/3 alfalfa, cut, 180-day yr. 87
210 210 60-120 6.4 wooded, 8-month yr. 399, 667
210-1800 361
Cherry 810 3.6 637
Corn 860 3.4 637
20 pasture, wood 572
Dairy 140-680 2.1-5.4 mostly grasses 361
Lima 65 . 38 637
Pea 150 4.0 199
1200 5.9 . 16 grass, cut, inc. solid waste 132
Pea,corn .5 grass,cut 197
Potato (5-6 mil lbs organic solids) .35 grass, alfalfa, cut 268
Poultry 640 1- sandy over clay, drain pipes 248
Specialities 620 1/4-1/2 grass, cut, all yr. 249
Tomato 410 3.0 637
160 .7 637
(920, 000 lbs COD/season) 24 grass, 2-month yr. 89, 248
Tomato, fruit 1100 42 4.6 grass, honeysuckle 384
Vegetables 40 . 38 637
7-8 4-6 grass, pasture 199,442
-------
The ridge and furrow system was originally conceived as a system
in which the waste overflowed furrows atop ridges on sloped land.
Unabsorbed waste was collected in a furrow and directed for further
disposal. Ridge and furrow irrigation now consists of confining the
wastes to furrows several inches below the ridges. Vegetation may
be grown on top of the ridges (99, 100, 578).
A number of installations were made in the 1940-1960 period with
some success. Generally, this system has been replaced by the
spray system.
OTHER TREATMENT SYSTEMS - Waste waters frequently contain,
besides organic load, considerable amounts of polar material.
Even when processed so as to reduce the organic load, the salinity
may be too great to permit reuse. Ion exchange treatment may be
used to desalinate the waste water and to improve it for reuse. The
ion exchange process has been applied to pineapple press juice and
to olive and pickle brines for reducing salt ion concentration (11,
39, 290, 641).
The solids in fruit and vegetable process effluents may be separated
by one or more treatments during the various steps of processing
or from the final waste effluent. Methods for in-process separation
of discrete and suspended solids have been cited previously. Separa-
tion of the sedimentary or settleable solids called sludge, or acti-
vated sludge, resulting from secondary or tertiary treatment of the
wastes may be achieved by similar treatments, including sedimen-
tation, chemical coagulation and precipitation, chemical oxidation,
incineration, and land disposal (116, 208). The selection of a treat-
ment for the wastes from various operations necessarily will be
influenced by the type of wastes, their degree of degradation, and
economics.
Incineration is applied to the disposal of various industrial solid
wastes. Solid wastes may undergo size reductions from which by-
products may be extracted, and which may be disposed of by biolo-
gical degradation or incineration. Solid wet wastes of various types
can be incinerated by designed systems; in some cases the combus-
tion is sustained by the wastes when the organic compounds have
adequate heating values. Liquid wastes can be concentrated prior
to incineration treatment. Thermal treatments generally operate
at temperatures up to 2000°F; applications of temperatures to
4500°F for chemical processes indicate potentials in engineered sys -
tems.
- 65 -
-------
Carbon adsorption is a process by which wastes are chemically
clarified by granular carbon. The waste is pretreated with polymer
and brought into contact with carbon, which is regenerated and
recycled. Olive brines were successfully conditioned for reuse as
storage brines, producing olives of good quality (425, 428, 472).
Estimated costs of $36. 40 per 1000 gallons of brine might be reduced
to about one-third by a centralized operation.
Reverse osmosis is a process by which water is forced by pressure
through a molecular selective membrane. The process is also des-
cribed as molecular filtration. Separation of salts, acids, and
other components is feasible. Variables in the process involve pres -
sures, types of membranes, and their dimensions. Reverse osmo-
sis has many potentials for separation of components of food process
waste (sugar, acids, salts) and for reconditioning water for reuse
in food processing operations (425).
The rapid oxidation of organic substances can be achieved at a suitable
catalytic electrode. A proposed system (387a) has porous electrodes
with air and the liquid waste in alternate channels.
Except for some of the solids separation procedures mentioned inci-
dentally, none of the “other treatment” systems summarized here
has had significant commercial use for treating wastes. Their appli-
cation to wastes in the future depends on further development and on
comparison of their costs to those of other treatment methods.
- 66 -
-------
SECTION VII
COSTS OF LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
INDUSTRY WASTE COSTS
Preliminary data from reference 471, supplemented by references
102, 105, 460, 522, 644, and 645, are the bases of the estimated
expenditures in Table 21 for an assumed average fruit and vegetable
processing plant.
Table 21. Estimated Liquid Waste Costs
Item
Item costs, $ Proportion Per plant cost, $
capital 0 & M of plants capital cap./vr 0 & M
In-plant
42, 000
2, 000
all
42,
000
4, 200
2,
000
Primary
treatment
7,000
5,000
1/4
500
50
350
Secondary
treatment
20,000
12,000
1/6
3,
600
360
2,
200
Irrigation
17,000
4,500
1/5
3,
600
360
900
City
treatment
--
15,000
1/2
--
--
7,
500
Total $5,000 $13,000
The characteristics of an ‘!averagec! plant were estimated from data
on apple, peach, pear, snap bean, corn, pea, and tomato processing.
The following plant size and waste averages were assumed: 15, 000
tons of raw product in a 100-day season; 3,000 gal. /ton, or about
450,000 gpd, or 45 million gal. /year; 30 lbs BOD/ton of product,
approximating 1000 ppm BOD; 10 lbs SS/ton of product, approxi-
mating 400 ppm. Component costs from the cited references were
estimated for a plant with these average’ characteristics; they
were converted to 1970 dollars using reference 645 data. Some
estimates were averages of figures that varied over a wide range.
Capital costs per year were estimated as one-tenth of capital costs.
f ln_plantit costs included expenses for waste flumes, piping, pumps,
tanks, sumps, gutters, and screens. Primary and secondary treat-
ment systems were not well or consistently defined in the references.
- 67 -
-------
Using unit costs per year as estimated above and the assumed BOD
removals given in Table 22, overall costs for different treatment
efficiencies were estimated for an “average’ plant; the in-plant costs
were added to each of the other systems’ costs; see Table 22.
Table 22. BOD Removals and Costs (1)
BOD, %
removed
Treatment
Cost
per
year
In-plant
Primary
Secondary
Irrigation
City treatment
5
50
80
100
75
$
6,
12,
20,
12,
21,
000
000
000
000
000
*
Including in-plant costs
SS would be removed in higher percentages than BOD by the simpler
systems, which include settling. Irrigation costs could be much
higher than shown in Table 22, depending on the availability of
suitable land.
Estimates derived from figures in reference 123 for a 0. 5 mgd
plant were approximately (converted to 1970 costs and rounded) as
in Table 23.
Table 23. BOD Removals and Costs (2)
BOD, %
removed
Cost per year
capital
Item
O&M
In-plant
0-10
$1,200
5,000
Sedimentation
10
4,200*
7,500*
Aerobic pond
50
4,
700
*
9,
000
Aerated lagoon
80
8,700*
11,000*
Irrigation
100
4,000*
12,000*
Including in-plant
costs
- 68 -
-------
In-plant costs included those for screening and for handling solid
wastes; these in-plant costs were estimated to be required in all
plants and have been added to the costs of the other systems.
SPECIFIC SYSTEMS COSTS
Estimated costs of specific waste treatment systems are presented
in the following discussion.
SCREENING - Boyle and Polkowski (104) estimated the following
screening costs per case:
Product
capital
0 & M
total
peas
and
corn
$.
0014
$.
0012
$.
0026
beets
and
carrots
.
0022
.
0092
.
0114
Screening costs for a plant canning about 15, 000 cases of peaches
and 57, 000 cases of tomatoes per day and discharging about 300, 000
gal. /hr were detailed as (123):
capital $47, 000, at 10 year life and 6%, per year $ 6, 375
maintenance and repair 2, 170
attendant 3, 800
cleaning 700
power 1,250
annual total $14, 295
Hauling the 10, 140 yards of resulting solid waste cost an additional
$12, 168. The cost per equivalent case of peach and tomato products
combined was $. 0029 ($. 0054 including hauling).
The same reference estimated the costs for a 300 days per year
operation with a 40-mesh vibrating screen, conveyors, and hoppers
to vary from (figures rounded) $9, 500 plus $3, 750 for a plant with
0.5 million gallons/day flow to $65, 500 plus $32, 900 for an 8 MGD
plant (capital costs and operation and maintenance costs per year,
respectively).
- 69 -
-------
SEDIMENTATION - Estimated costs of sedimentation of cannery
effluents in 1965 for 1 and 3 hours detention, corresponding to about
9 and 14% BOD removal, are in Table 24 (123).
Table 24. Costs of Sedimentation of Cannery Effluents
Waste flow Acres Capital cost Annual 0 & M
MGD required $1000 $1000
.
1.
2.
4.
8.
5
0
0
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
06-.
10-.
14-.
18-.
28-.
12
16
24
36
58
18-33
26-61
44-110
82-210
150-390
1.
3.
6.
12.
21.
9
4
3
0
0
Figures
rounded
LAGOONS - Lagooning costs for removing 80-90% of the BOD from
screened effluents were estimated to be $. 0014 per case for pea
and corn canning and $. 0022 per case for beet and carrot canning
(105). The costs for various types of ponds for cannery effluents
have been estimated assuming a 300 day operating year (123).
Figures estimated for a plant discharging 8 million gallons per day
are in Table 25.
Table 25. Costs of Lagoon Treatment
Annual
Lagoon Depth BOD, % Capital 0 & M
type feet Acres Removed $1000 $1000
aerobic
3
37-330
68-96
14-980
45
facultative
6
12-110
60-90
120-720
59
anaerobic
12
10-71
50-80
170-1100
56
evaporation,
6
--
all
2000
29
percolation
* Figures rounded
- 70 -
-------
AERATED LAGOONS - Aeration equipment to remove 90-95% of the
BOD from the effluent was estimated to cost $. 0227 per case of peas
and corn or $. 092 per case of beets and carrots; costs of the lagoon,
piping, etc. would be additional (105). Approximate costs were
given by Esvelt (222) for removing about 80% of the BOD from flows
of about 0.6 to 1. 4 million gallons per day from peach, pear and
apple processing. Capital was estimated at $205, 000 and calculated
at 7% interest and 20 years life.
Item capital p er nutrients operationmaintenance other
Annual
cost,$ 19,400 7,000 10,500 6,000 1,500 4,500
Total costs came to $. 041 per pound of BOD removed.
Aerated lagoon costs for a range of waste flows and BOD removals
were estimated assuming a 300 day operating year (123). For 8
million gallons per day, capital costs were $61, 000 and $648, 000
plus .79 and 19.9 acres of land for 10 and 90% BOD removals, res-
pectively; corresponding operation and maintenance costs were about
$34, 000 and $68, 000 per year. Capital costs for a 1 mgd flow were
estimated to be about one-fifth of these.
Robe et al. (545) calculated a cost of $. 21 per 100 lbs oxygen added
by surface aerators, compared to $4 to 5 for the same amount from
sodium nitrate.
Costs of an aeration system given by Lane (359) for treating 86. 2
million gallons of peach waste in 658 operating hours were $1, 128
for materials, $914 for electricity, and $295 for labor. For
treating 38. 8 million gallons of pumpkin waste in 1028 operating
hours the costs were, respectively, $1,673, $1,346, and $1,009;
capital costs were additional.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE - Costs were given for an activated sludge
system handling 2.5 million gallons/day of mixed food processing
and domestic wastes with a BOD of roughly 100 mg/i which worked
well without primary clarification: construction, $506, 300; opera-
tion and maintenance, $20/million gallons (254). These costs were
much lower than for a conventional plant.
- 71 -
-------
Esvelt and Hart (222 and 223) described a treatment plant for fruit
wastes with detailed costs; capital costs were given as (a) $470, 000
without and (b) $557, 000 with sludge re-aeration and were estimated
at 7% interest and 20 year life.
Item
(a)
(b)
power
nutrients
operation
maintenance
other
Annual
cost,
$1000
44.452.6 10.
0
10.
5
12.
5
2.
0
7.
5
At 95% BOD removal total costs would be (a) $. 061 and (b) $. 067/
pound of BOD removed.
Activated sludge plant costs for a range of flow rates and purifica-
tion efficiencies have been estimated (123). The 8 mgd plant esti-
mates are in Table 26.
Table 26. Costs of Activated Sludge Treatment
BOD, % Acres Capital cost Annual 0 & M
removal required $1000 $1000
60
2.
5
540
58
73
1.
9
450
58
90
3.
9
550
58
95
8.
8
700
58
Figures rounded
TRICKLING FILTERS - The costs for trickling filter treatment of
wastes with 300 ppm BOD were estimated over a range of conditions
(123). Estimates for 0. 5 and 8 million gallons per day waste flows,
respectively, including a two-hour detention in secondary clarifiers,
are in Table 27.
- 72 -
-------
Table 27. Costs of Trickling Filter Treatment
Assumed BOD Hydraulic Acres Capital 0 & M
removal,% loading required $1000 $1000
34
2
.
09-. 63
78-360
3.
9-19
58
4
.
14 1.
6
120-640
3.
9-19
69
10
.
27 3.
8
94-1100
4.
0-29
76
30
.
51-7.
5
164-2000
4.
0-29
Figures
rounded.
Million
gal. /acre/day.
CITY TREATMENT - The costs of city collection and treatment of
waste flows from a peach and tomato cannery in 1964 and 1965 were
given as $. 0477 and $. 0406 per standard No. 2-1/2 case of product
(123). Roughly half of the costs were for collection.
Charges for a number of municipal treatment systems may be
summarized as follows (470): Five cities charged from 15 to 75%
of the plants water bill, with a median of 50%. Twelve cities
charged from $0. 002 to $0. 15 per 100 to 120 cubic feet of waste
volume, with a median of $0. 085. Some cities had added surcharges
of $0. 0035 to $0. 005 per pound of BOD, generally for that BOD in
excess of a given concentration (300 to 750 ppm). One city had an
additional surcharge of $0. 0072 per pound of BOD based on the pre-
vious years maximum demand, and some cities added surcharges
for SS.
SPRAY IRRIGATION - The capital cost of a 40 acre spray irrigation
system to handle 360, 000 gallons of waste per day, or 60 inches in
a 180-day season, was given as $12, 000 (1953 cost) by Bell (87).
Operation required one full-time man; the alfalfa crop returned
$5000 per year. Lane (359) reported a spray irrigation cost of
$.01 per No. 2 case, and at another plant canning 40,000 cases of
tomatoes, a capital cost of $2, 030, both about 1954. Nelson (480)
reported $.006/case; reference 51, $.01 to .05/case, for spray
irrigation in the early 1950’s.
For a 120 acre system with grass and alfalfa to handle 100 inches of
waste per year, Haas (268) reported capital costs of $30, 000 (plus
- 73 -
-------
land) and annual operation and maintenance costs of $40, 000. The
total costs of spray irrigation systems about 15 to 20 years ago
were reported as: $15, 000 for 84 wooded acres, 5-10 mgd, 8 months
operation per year (399, 667); $15, 000 for 48 acres in hay, 75, 000
gal. /day; $5, 200 for 100 acres in pasture, 80, 000 gal. /day; and
$5, 000 for 40 acres in pasture, 400, 000 gal. Iday. The latter three
were for dairy wastes (574). Lawton et al. (361) reported costs for
five other dairy plant spray irrigation systems, excluding land costs,
as $400 to $2, 300; the systems used 0. 018 to 1. 15 acres, mostly in
grass cover crops, and handled 380 to 5, 900 gallons of effluent per
day.
- 74 -
-------
SECTION VIII
RESEARCH NEEDS
WASTE SOURCES
The capability of reducing the pollution load in the effluent from
fruit and vegetable processing depends largely on knowing the point
of origin of the wastes, the causes for their occurrence, and their
magnitude and characterization. With such information means to
correct malfunction or unsatisfactory operation may be applied, or
efforts made to develop alternative systems which minimize the
loss of extracted solids or leachate. More importantly, efforts
toward reduction in pollution load can be directed to those phases
of operation where the generation of pollution load is relatively
great. Complementary to identifying the important sources of
pollution load is the application of monitoring systems by which
these operations can be better defined.
Relatively few studies have been made on the magnitude and charac-
terization of the wastes generated during specific processing steps;
these include studies on apples, citrus, peaches, pears, beets,
carrots, corn, peas, snap beans, and tomatoes. Additional infor -
mation is needed on these crops and others. Examples of the poten-
tial benefits of such studies have been the development of fruit
peelers which are more efficient in the separation of peel and skin
with less loss of solubles (apple, pear, tomato, beet, carrot, and
potato); characterization of the losses of suspended and soluble
materials during water blanching; improved container fillers; and
isolation of waste streams for conditioning and reuse. Efforts in
the characterization of in-plant wastes should be greatly intensified
so that other alternative processes may be developed.
WATER CONSERVATION
A major problem in the conservation of water in many food process
operations is that it is considered the cheapest commodity available,
and hence readily expendable in comparison with investment in
sophisticated equipment and in labor. Efforts to encourage conser-
vation of water have not been wholly successful except where it is
critical in supply or where economies are apparent in its conser-
vation.
- 75 -
-------
The conservation of water in processing fruits and vegetables is
important for several reasons; the volume of water used and dis -
charged is directly related to capital and treatments costs for the
effluent; water is a vector and extractant for solubles and suspended
solids from products and from wastes; it is a vector for heat, which
is relatively costly; and finally, it is costly per Se, contrary to the
popular evaluation that it is not.
Little data are available on the costs of water used in the processing
of fruits and vegetables including not only the power and capital costs
in making it available from wells, but also the costs of its distribu-
tion through the factory and of its treatment; little information is
available on the leaching effects resulting in greater pollution loads
from the excessive uses of water.
Studies should be undertaken to establish norms in the use of water
for processing various fruit and egetable products, to establish
means of conservation where such will be effective in reducing
pollution loads, and to develop better understanding by management
of the costs of water.
Among subjects in need of study are the following:
1. Develop quantitative data on the loss of soil with various root
crops during mechanical harvesting to focus attention on the
magnitude of the problem and the necessity for engineering
improvements in harvest machinery.
2. Develop experimental data on new concepts for field site wash
stations to remove and recover soil from root and other crops,
and on the related transport costs and product quality.
3. Develop quantitative data on water usage and costs, including
energy and capital costs in water procurement and in its conve-
yance throughout the plant.
4. Develop energy balances in water usage, including water trans -
port, to evaluate better the costs of water uses.
5. Develop data on the costs of waste effluent disposal in terms of
actual (uncontrolled) water usage and conservative (controlled)
water usage.
- 76 -
-------
6. Develop experimental data on new concepts for cleaning raw
products, including soak and hydraulic systems, cavitation,
detergent wash, air stream separation, mechanical abrasion,
and osmotically balanced washing.
7. Develop improved and new procedures for treating water to per -
mit greater multiple use for fruit and vegetable processing, and
particularly to compare economic values in the use of fresh and
treated water.
Voluntary water conservation can best be implemented by establish-
ing economic benefits.
RECONDITIONING WATER FOR REUSE
In addition to the conservation of water in processing fruits and
vegetables, there is need for more reconditioning and reuse of
water as a result of its decreasing availability and changes in its
quality. A limited number of studies have been conducted, princi-
pally on tomatoes, indicating the feasibility of water reuse. Clean
and sterile retort water, for example, may be directed upstream;
product rinse water may be directed upstream to product washing.
A number of procedures are available for reconditioning water;
ion exchange, reverse osmosis, filtration, sedimentation, floccu-
lation, and centrifugation. These have been little used in fruit and
vegetable processing primarily because water generally is readily
available and because the total costs of water are not known.
The potentials of reconditioning water have not been adequately
determined. Studies are needed on the treatment of water from
various in-process streams and on costs and efficiency. The hy-
gienic acceptability of the conditioned waters must also be evaluated
since this is an important criterion for foods.
BLANCHING
Blanching generates a significant pollution load and causes losses
of nutrients and reductions in yield. The processes used for blanch-
ing have not been adequately investigated to permit maximum correc-
tion of the adverse effects. Determinative end points are not
available to permit application of only the necessary degree of
blanching (excessive blanching appears to be the rule), and possible
- 77 -
-------
alternative systems have not been adequately investigated. Among
these may be cited the sequential timing of liquid and liquid/steam
thermal processes; the use of osmotically balanced blanching media,
hot air, infra red, and micro-wave; and sequences of these proce-
dures.
The relatively low volumes of effluents from water or steam blanch-
ing have high concentrations of pollution load. These effluents can
be separated from the total waste stream and treated by concentra-
tion and drying or removal otherwise, thereby significantly reducing
pollution loads. Studies are needed to reduce pollution from blanch-
ing and to establish operational parameters in this process.
PEELING AND SOLID WASTES
Peel wastes are used to some extent; for example, in citrus, pine-
apple, and apple processing. For many peel wastes, however,
there appears to be no market and their disposa1 is an operational
burden. At least two phases of research are needed to reduce the
pollution loads involved in peeling fruits and vegetables: 1) develop-
ment of alternative systems of solid waste separation to reduce
concurrent losses in solubles and suspended solids and to increase
product recovery; and 2) characterization and evaluation of the
material for recovery of potentially useful materials. Traditional
disposal of the separated wastes include use as feed for animal or
fowl, and on land. The possible utilization of these wastes has not
been given adequate consideration in the light of modern food pro—
cessing operations. Conversion of the wastes into alternate physi-
cal forms for use or disposal; extractants that may have market
value as nutrients, chemicals, fertilizers, or other products; and
consolidation of wastes from adjacent processing plants for econo-
mies in conversion and marketing should all be studied.
The recently developed dry caustic peeling of certain root crops
appears to have benefits in minimizing the problem of liquid wastes
and the concept should be extended; other procedures including
comminution, concentration, and incineration should be evaluated
to provide better disposal systems and reduce pollution loads in
effluents.
- 78 -
-------
Because the soil and peel loads in certain crops are large, consi-
deration should be given to in-field washing and peeling during har-
vest; this would retain both soil and organic peel materials on the
land. Although there appears to be objection to such concepts on
hygienic grounds, these may be less serious than the problems in
handling waste effluents.
LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT
There is a lack of information on the relative efficiency of simple
screening and separation systems for the removal of colloidal and
dispersed matter from effluents. The application of such procedures
at various stages in the processing of fruits and vegetables is needed
to reduce the pollution load in the plant effluent and permit reuse of
the water. There are only limited published data on the use of
screens, vacuum systems, centrifugal systems, and sedimentary
systems for the treatment of selected effluent streams.
There is considerable engineering information on the disposal of
effluent wastes upon soil. Soil type, pollution load, application rate,
soil cover, and other conditions vary widely; the results have de-
pended upon the experience of the participants in the projects. There
is a dearth of information on the potential effects of the applications
on the character of the soil from chemical interactions. A compen-
dium of information for land disposal systems is needed.
There is a great need for information on establishing the optimum
conditions for the biological degradation of the various types of
effluents in lagoons to achieve maximum effect in the shortest time.
The information should include flora, temperature, concentration,
pH, nutrient supplement, and oxygen tension necessary to achieve
maximum degradation. This information is needed to achieve effi-
ciency in lagoon utilization and to minimize the hazard which may
occur when the lagoons operate improperly. Lagoons are exten-
sively used and are important tools in the treatment of wastes; the
procedure is replete with problems in the light of increasing social
and legal pressures.
The relationship of the composition of the effluent to its biodegra-
dability is not clearly established; for example, the rates of degra-
dation of effluents bearing different types of organic solids, such as
vegetable starches and fruit acids.
- 79 -
-------
The data should be implemented by information to attain complete and
rapid biodegradation of the wastes to the point of permitting economic
treatment and recycling/reuse of the water. New engineering con-
cepts may be feasible in the use of waste energy from stack gases of
thermal processes applied to specific wastes or to biodegrading sys -
tern S.
The processing of effluents by such systems as yeasts and fungi
Imperfecti and by trickling filters should be further examined to
determine potentials in sequential treatment. This information is
needed for the different types of wastes derived in processing fruits
and vegetables to assist engineers in designing treatment systems.
WASTE POLLUTION EVALUATION
The concentration of pollution loads in process wastes is measured
by other than simple tests, such as chemical oxygen demand (COD),
or biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). These are not simple in the
sense that for reliability in the values obtained trained personnel
must supervise their application.
The COD test is the more quickly performed (several hours) and
the BOD 5 test requires 5 days, each after procedures have been
standardized. These tests are used as the basis of acceptability of
effluents disposed into natural waterways and in part to determine
sewer charges.
A number of laboratory tests and instruments have been devised for
quantifying the properties of waters and wastes. These range from
sophisticated instruments for analysis for various components in
water or wastes to gross or proximate measurement of floc or
precipitate. Many procedures have been applied in technical studies
to characterize wastes and their degradation. Instrument manufac-
turers offer simplified forms of some tests to permit routine evalua-
tion of some qualities of waters and wastes.
For routine surveillance by fruit and vegetable processors of the
pollution loads in various steps of processing, there is a great need
for at least two sets of evaluation procedures. The first is the need
for data on the characterization of pollution load equivalent wastes
of specific product processes as measured or interpreted by regular
employees. Among these may be cited values obtained through
- 80 -
-------
laboratory instruments such as turbidimeters, refractometers,
centrifuges, conductivity meters, oxygen concentration meters,
pH meters, etc. Establishing values from such instrument readings
is highly desirable and presumably would be effective for supervision
of pollution control. The second is the need for simplified quick
and dirty” procedures for measuring with reasonable reliability
directly or indirectly COD equivalents of waste effluent streams in
various stages of processing. These should permit managers to
monitor waste streams and treatments better than at present and
should lead to better control of pollution problems.
- 81 -
-------
SECTION IX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was carried out with the partial sponsorship of a grant
No. 12060 EDK from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial
Pollution Control Program, under the direction of William J. Lacy
and Mr. H. George Keeler, program manager.
For the National Canners Association Research Foundation, the Project
Director was Walter A. Nercer and the Principal Investigator was
Walter W. Rose; Norman A. Olson made additional contributions.
For the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Kenneth G. Wec1 el, under sub-
contract from the National Canners Association, trovided a first
draft of the report and most of the references.
The Project Officer for the EPA, Kenneth A. Dostal, reviewed the
report and was responsible for important additions as well as
continuing guidance.
The help of these persons and of others who furnished important but
less extensive information is gratefully acknowledged.
— 83 —
-------
SECTION X
REFERENC ES
1. Aceto, N. C., Edwards, P. W., Eskew, R. K., Redfield, C. S.,
Hurley, R.F., and Hoersch, A., Jr.,1950. Production of Leaf
Meals from Vegetable Wastes in Rotary Alfalfa Driers. USDA
Eastern Reg. Lab., AIC-266, Philadelphia, Penn.
2. Adam, W. B., Homer, G., and Stanworth, 3., 1942. Changes Oc-
curring During the Blanching of Vegetables. Ind. Eng. Chem. 28,
595.
3. Adams, H. W., Hickey, F. D., and Willard, M. J., Jr., 1969. Lye-
Pressure Steam Peeling of Potatoes and Other Products. Food
Technol. 14, 1.
4. Adams, S. L., 1950, Tftiization of Cannery Fruit Waste by Con-
tinuous Fermentation. Washington State Institute of Technology,
Bull. No. 207.
5. Adrian, P.A., Fridley, R.B., and Claypool, L.L., 1968. Adapt-
ing Shake-Catch Method of Harvesting to Cling Peaches, Paper
No. 67-141, Transactions of the ASAE II, 159.
6. Agardy, F. 3., and Spicher, R. G., 1967. Anaerobic Treatment
of Cannery Wastes - A Bench Scale Study. San Jose State Col-
lege, San Jose, Calif.
7. Agardy, F.J., Spicher, R.G., andOrlob, G.T., 1967.
Cannery Waste Treatment Part II. Treatability. 22nd md.
Waste ConI., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
8. Agen, J. R., Willis, R. L. and Robe, K., 1965. Peas by Bump
Truck Big Savings. Food Processing 26.
9. Ahrens, G.G., 1969. Morrell Pioneers More Efficient Aeration.
Food Eng. 41 (Aug.), 84.
10. Almanac of the Canning, Freezing, Preserving Industries, 1969.
Edward Judge Publishing Co., Westminister, Md.
11. American Chemical Society, 1969. ?tCleaning Our Environment -
The Chemical Basis for Action ’ t , p. 95. A Report by the Sub-
committee on Environmental Improvement, Committee on Chem-
istry and Public Affairs, Washington, D. C.
- 85 -
-------
12. Ammerman, G.R., and Desrosier, N.W., 1958. Aeration Curbs
Waste-DisposalOdors. Food Eng. 30 (Jan.), 115.
13. Anderson, D.R., Bishop, W.D., and Ludwig, H., 1966. Per-
colation of Citrus Wastes Through Soil. 21st md. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
14. Angell, F. F., 1968. Tractor-Mounted Tomato Harvester.
Maryland Processor’s Report 14 (2), 1., Univ. of Maryland,
College Park, Md.
15. Anon. 1937. How to Treat Wastes. Food md. (Aug.), 430.
16. Anon. 1940. Treatment Methods for Waste From Citrus Juice
Canning Plants. Public Works 71(8), 7.
17. Anon. 1944. Asparagus Waste Fed to Microbes. Food md. 16,
713.
18. Anon. 1944. Asparagus Waste By-Product. Food Packer 25, 63.
19. Anon. 1944. Corn Cannery Waste Effectively Disposed. Food
Packer 25 (Feb.), 28.
20. Anon. 1944. Food Plant Wastes Used to Clean Metal. Food
md. 16 (Jan.), 91.
21. Anon. 1944. Lab. Extracts Feed Yeast from Citrus Waste.
Food [ nd. 16 (May), 644.
22. Anon. 1945. Use of Sodium Nitrate in Treating Cannery Wastes.
Public Works 76 (Dec.), 48.
23. Anon. 1945. Vegetable Wastes by Dry Process. The Food
Packer 26 (July), 32.
24. Anon. 1946. Citrus Processing Waste Used to Produce By-
Product Feed Yeast. U. S. Dept. Ag. Report of Chief of Bureau
of Ag. and hid. Chem., Ag. Res. Adm. p. 35.
25. Anon. 1947. Citrus Waste Disposal Gets Test in Florida. Food
hid. 19 (Nov.), 130.
26. Anon. 1948. Study Citrus Waste as Fuel Gas Source. Food hid.
20 (Mar.), 138.
- 86 -
-------
27. Anon. 1949. Cannery Wastes Fermented by Continuous Process.
Food md. 21 (Sept.), 1278.
28. Anon. 1952. Making Pear Waste Salable. Food Eng. 24 (Feb.),
136.
29. Anon. 1952. Plastic Pipe System Solves Cannery Water Dis-
posal and Irrigation Problems. The Canner 115(23) , 22.
30. Anon. 1952. Tomato Waste Converted to Animal Feed. Canner
114 (June).
31. Anon. 1953. Citric Acid From Lemons. Food Eng. 25, (July),
162.
32. Anon. 1956-1963. Derived from Annual Reports, City of
Stockton, Calif., Treatment Plant.
33. Anon. 1954. Vibrating Screen Solves Pollution Problem.
Canner 118 (24), 23.
34. Anon. 1963. Spray Irrigation Disposal. Compost Sci. (Spring),
38.
35. Anon. 1963. Ion-Exchange Removal of Sodium Nitrate Chloride
from Water With Calcium Hydroxide as Recoverable Regenerant.
Science 141 , 1038.
36. Anon. 1963. Just How Effective are Lagoons. Compost Science
4 (Autumn), 25.
37. Anon. 1963. Ridge and Furrow Disposal Fields. Compost
Science 4 (Spring), 39.
38. Anon. 1966. Harvesting, Hauling Costs. Amer. Fruit Grower
86 (Mar.), 29.
39. Anon. 1966. Water Re-Use, C&E Special Report. Chemical and
Eng. News 44(12) . 91.
40. Anon. 1967. Destroys Fluidized Waste Without Pollution. Food
Eng. 69 (May), 204.
41. Anon. 1967. Vine Cleaning. Hydraulics and Pneumatics 20, 26.
- 87 -
-------
42. Anon. 1968. Fluid Bed Incinerators Studied for Solid Waste
Disposal. Environmental Science and Tech. 2 (7), 495.
43. Anon. 1968. Improve Quality of Frozen Vegetables. Food
Processing 29 (Oct.), 80.
44. Anon. 1968. Incineration - A Practical and Scientific Approach.
Environmental Science and Tech. 3(7), 524.
45. Anon. 1968. Offers Complete, Smokeless Burning of Waste.
Food Eng. 70 (Mar.), 185.
46. Anon. 1968. Tomato In-Field Washing 3 tations. National
Canners Association, Research Information No. 134, Berkeley,
Calif., Jan.
47. Anon. 1968. Unpublished Data of a Canning Industry Committee.
48. Anon. 1968. Washington Laboratory Research on Water Re-Use.
National Canners Association, Research Information No. 141,
Washington, D.C., Aug.
49. Anon. 1969. Carbon Makes Debut in Secondary Treatment.
Environmental Science and Technology 3(9), 809.
50. Anon. 1969. Clear Water From Wastes. Agricultural Research
18 (6), 10.
51. Anon. 1969. Controls Oxygen in Waste Water. Food Eng. 41
(Sept.), 221.
52. Anon. 1969. Fruit Processor Solves Community Relations
Problem. Food Processing 30 (Oct.), 72.
53. Anon. 1969. Harvester and Consumer Use Same Criteria for
Tomatoes. Canner/Packer 138 (Nov.), 37.
54. Anon. 1969. High Intensity Waste Aeration Process. Food
Processing 30 (Sept.), 69.
55. Anon. 1969. More Cherries: Separating Sweet Stems, Buying
by Volume, and Hope for a New Variety. Canner/Packer 138
(Aug.), 28.
56. Anon. 1969, New Process Purifies Raw Sewage. Research!
Development 20(9), 6.
- 88 -
-------
57. Anon. 1969. Novel Process Could Aid in Waste Disposal.
Chemical and Engineering News 47 (Nov. 17), 43.
58. Anon. 1969. Polymers Vie for Water Treatment Role. Environ-
mental Sci. and Tech. 3(8), 713.
59. Anon. 1969. Processes Tomatoes ... in the Field. Food Eng.
12 (Nov.), 76.
60. Anon. 1969. Waste Disposal Without Air Pollution. Food Eng.
71 (Dec.), 103.
61. Anon. 1970. Cleaning-up Waste Water. Food Eng. 42 (July),
65.
62. Anon. 1970. Continuous Process for Celery Oil. Ag. Research,
U.S. Dept. of Ag. 18(11), 15.
63. Anon. 1970. Deliver Tomatoes to Processor as Juice. Food
Processing 31 (1), 29.
64. Anon. 1970. NCA Testifies on Wastes. Canner/Packer 139(5),
30.
65. Anon. 1970. New ‘Super Sweeteners’ Made From Citrus Peel.
Foods of Tomorrow (Summer), F4. Special Tearout From Food
Processing 31, 1970.
66. Anon., 1970. Proceedings First National Symposium on Food
Processing Wastes, Sponsored by FWQA Pacific l’brthwest Water
Laboratory, USDA Western Regional Re search Laboratory,
National Canners Association, Northwest Food Processors Assoc-
iation; Portland, Ore.
67. Anon. 1970. Process Treats Waste Water, Produces Algae.
Chemical and Engineering News 48 (Mar. 23), 47.
68. Anon. 1970. Reverse Osmosis Separates Solids From Whey for
lc/lb. Food Processing (Jan.), 26.
69. Anon. 1970. SO 2 Should Help. Chemica.l and Engineering News
48 (Aug. 10), 15.
70. Anon. 1970. Squeezing the Peel Off Avocadoes. Ag. Research,
(Apri1 p. 15, U. S. Dept. of Ag., Washington, D. C.
- 89 -
-------
71. Anon. 1970. Waste Processes: a Little More Oxygen. Chemical
and Engineering News 48 (Mar. 23), 16.
72. Anon. 1970. Waste Sludge Will be Used to Fertilize Corn and
Pasture Grasses. Chemical and Engineering News L 8 (July
7), 37.
73. Aqua-Ion Corporation. 1969. Treatment of Saline Waste
Effluents by Ion Exchange With Lime as a Recoverable Re-
generant. Oakland, Calif.
74. Arnold, Dix, P. T., Becker, R. B., and Neal, W. M., 1941. The
Feeding Value and Nutritive Properties of Citrus By-Products.
II. Dried Grapefruit Pulp for Milk Production. Univ. of Fla. Ag.
Expt. Sta. Bull. 354, Gainesville, Fla.
75. Asselbergs, E.A., and Powrie, W.D., 1956. The Peeling of
Apples With In.fra-Red Radiation. Food Technol. 10, 297.
76. Asselbergs, E.A., Mohr, W.P., Kemp, J.G., and Yates, A. R.,
1959. Blanching Celery and Apples by Infra-Red Shows Flavor,
Texture, Appearance Gains. Quick Frozen Foods 21 (Feb.) 45.
77. Asselbergs, E.A., Mohr, W.P., and Kemp, J.G., 1960.
Studies on the Application of Infrared in Food Processing. Food
Technol. 14, 449.
78. Atkeson, F.W., andAnderson, G.C., 1929-1934. Potatoes as
a Feed for Dairy Cows. Idaho Ag. Expt. Sta Bull. No. 216.
Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, IdahQ.
79. Atkins, P. F., and Sproul, 0. J., 1964. Feasibility of Bio-
logical Treatment of Potato Processing Wastes. 19th hid.
Waste Corif. Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
80. Atkins, CD.,, Wiederhold, E., and Moore, E.L., 1945.
Vitamin C Content of Processing Residue from Florida Citrus
Fruits. The Fruit Prod. J. and Amer. Food Manufacturer 24,
260.
81. Bass, J.H., and Evans, R.R., 1951. Sedimentationand
Flocculation Equipment for Treatment of Industrial Wastes.
Sewage and End. Waste 23(12), 1523.
82. Becker, R.B., Davis, G.K.,, Kirk, W.G., DixArnold, P.T.,
and Hayman, W. P., 1946. Citrus Pulp Silage. Fla Ag. Expt.
Sta. Bull. 423, Gainesville, Fla.
- 90 -
-------
83. Beeman, 3. F., Dean, W. W., Jr., and Halsey, L. FL, 1965.
Development of a Mechanical Celery Harvester. Paper No. 65-
622, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
lv i ich.
84. Beeman, J. F., Dean, W. W., Jr., and Halsey, L. H., 1966.
Developing a Mechanical Celery Harvester. Ag. Eng. 47 376.
85. Beidler, 3. W., 1952. Apple, Cherry, and Tomato Waste Treat-
ment. 7th md. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
86. Bell, 3., 1961. Spray Irrigation and Research of Canning Plant
Wastes. Canadian Food md. 32 (Sept.), 31.
87. Bell, 3. W. 1955. Spray Irrigation for Poultry and Cannery
Wastes. Public Works 9 (86), III.
88. BendLxen, T. W. , Hill, R. D., Schwartz, W. A., and Roebeck G. G.
1968. Ridge and Furrow Liquid Waste Disposal in a Northern
Latitude. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers 94 (no. SAl), 147.
89. Bendixen, T.W., Hill, R.D., DuByne, F.T., and Robeck, G.G.,,
1969. Cannery Waste Treatment by Spray Irrigation Runoff.
Journal WPCF 41 (3), (Mar.), 385.
89a. Ben-Gera, I. , and Kramer, A. , 1969. The Utilization of Food
Industries Wastes. In Advances in Food Research 17. Academic
Press, New York and London.
90. Ben-Sinai, I. M., Ben-Sinai, M. Ahmed, E. M., and Kramer, A.,
1965. The Fodder and Fodder Value of Pea Plant Parts (Pisum
Sativum 1.) as Related to Harvest Time and Variety. Food Tech-
nol. 19, 856.
91. Beohner, H. L., and Mindler, A. B., 1949. Ion Exchange in
Waste Treatment. md. and Eng. Chem. 41 (3), 448.
92. Berg sbaken, C, and Weckel, K. G., 1963. Waste Utilization:
Charcoal Briquets from Cherry Pits. Canner/Packer 132 (Aug.),
25.
93. Berlage, A. G., and Yost, G. E., 1969. A Positive-Transfer
Fruit Conveyor. Transactions of the ASAE 50, 258.
94. Berry, D. L., and Higgins, G. C., 1968. Operation of Plastic
Media Trickling Filters at Sedalia. Burns and McDonnell Engi-
neering Company, Kansas City, Missouri, and Dow Chemical.
Company, Midland, Mich.
- 91 -
-------
95. Bishop, D.F., Marshall, L.S., O FarreU, T.P., Dean, R.B.,
O t Connor, B.,Dobbs, R.A., Griggs, S.H., and Vihiers, R.V.,,
1967. Studies on Activated Carbon Treatment. Environ. Sci.
and Tech. 3(9), 823.
96. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., 1967. Unpublished Report on
Cannery Waste Water.
97. Black, H. H., 1942. Treating Corn Cannery Waste. Canning
Age 23 (May), 325.
98. Bloom, R., Jr., Joseph, R. T., Friedman, L. D., and Hopkins,
C. B., 1969. New Technique Cuts Carbon Regeneration Costs.
Env. Sci. and Technology 3(3), 214.
99. Bolton, P. 1947. Cannery Waste Disposal by Field Irrigation.
The Food Packer 28 (Aug.), 42.
100. Bolton, P., 1947. Disposal of Canning Plant Wastes by Irri-
gation. 3rd md. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
101. Bondi, H. S., 1955. Food Wastes Made Into Profitable Product.
Food Eng. 27 (Jan. 84.
102. Bower, B. T., 1965. Unpublished Data.
103. Boyd, J.W., Yoshida, T., Vereen, L.E., Cada, R.L., and
Morrison, S. M., 1969. Bacterial Response to the Soil Environ-
ment.
104. Boyle, W.C., and Polkowski, L.B., 1968. Aerated Lagoons for
Treatment of Vegetable Cannery Wastes. Polkowski, Boyle &
Associates, Madison, Wis.
105. Boyle, W.C., and Polkowski, L.B., 1968. Observations of
Aerated Lagoons for the Treatment of Vegetable Cannery Wastes.
Polkowski, Boyle and Associates, Madison, Wis. (April).
106. Bradakis, H. L., 1961. A Joint Municipal-Industry Spray Irri-
gation Project. hid. Water and Wastes 6 (July-Aug.), 117.
107. Braverman, J. S., and Levi, A., 1960. Comminuted Orange, a
Novel Process for its Manufacture. Food Technol. 14, 106.
- 92 -
-------
108. Bregman, J. I., 1970. Membrane Processes Gain Favor for
Water Reuse. Environ. Sci. and Tech. 4(4), 296.
109. Brooke, D., and Capel, G. L., 1958. An Economic Analysis of
Alternative Methods of Cull Tomato Disposal in Dade County,
Florida. Fla. Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 500.
110. Brown, H.D., Hale, H.H., and Sheets, W.D., 1955. Disposal
of Cannery Waste by Irrigation, Part I. Food Packer 36 (Aug.),
28.
lii. Brown, H.D., 1956. Disposal of Cannery Wastes in Ohio. The
Canning Trade 78 (Jan. 2), 7.
112. Brunner, C.A., 1967. Pilot Plant Experiences in Demineraliza-
tion of Secondary Effluent Using Electrodialysis. Journal WPCF
39(10, Part 2), Ri.
113. Bryan, E.H., 1962. Two-Stage Biological Treatment industrial
Experience. Proceedings of the 11th Southern Municipal and
End. Waste ConE., Univ. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C.
114. Burbank, N. C., Jr., and Kumagai, J. S., 1965. A Study of a
Pineapple Cannery Waste. 20th md. Waste ConE., Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, md.
ll4a. Burch, J.E., Lipinski, E.S., and Litchfield, J.H., 1963.
Technical and Economic Factors in the Utilization of Waste Pro-
ducts. Food Tech. 17(10), 1266-1272.
115. Burchinal, J.C., and Jenkins, C.R., 1969. Ditches Provide
Efficient Treatment. Environmental Sci. and Tech. 3(11). 1170.
116. Burd, R. 5 . ., 1968. A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal. U.S.
Dept. of Interior, FWPCA, Pub. WP-20-4, Ohio Basin Region,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
117. Busch, A. and Kalinske, A. A., 1957. In Biological Treatment of
Sewage and industrial Wastes, Vol. I, Edited by B. J. McCable and
W. W. Eckenlelder, Reinhold.
118. Busch, P. L., and Stumm, W., 1968. Chemical interactions in
the Aggregation of Bacteria Bioflocculation in Waste Treatment.
Environmental Sci. and Tech. 3(1), 49.
- 93 -
-------
119. Buswell, A. M., 1947. Reaction of Sodium Nitrate in Stabiliz-
ing Organic Wastes. Sewage and md. Wastes 19(4), 628.
120. Buswell, A, M., Greenfield, R. E., and Shive, R. A., 19Z6.
Chemical Characteristics of Some Trade Wastes. md. Eng.
Chem. 18, 1082.
121. Buzzell, J. C., and Sawyer, C. N., 1967. Removal of Algae
Nutrients From Raw Wastewater with Lime. Journal WPCF 39
(10, Part 2), Rl6. —
122. Buzzell, J.C., Jr., Caron, A-L.J., Ryckman, S.J., and Sproul,
0. J., 1964. Biological Treatment of Protein Water From
Manufacture of Potato Starch- - Parts I and II. Water and Sewage
Works.
123. California State Water Resources Control Board, 1968. Cannery
Waste Treatment, Utilization, and Disposal. Publication No. 39,
Sacramento, Calif.
124. Catham, R.A., 1949. Anaerobic Treatment of Food Canning
Wastes. Proceedings of 5th Lid. Waste Corif., Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, Lid.
125. Canham, R.A., 1950. Anaerobic Treatment of Food Canning
Wastes. The Canner 109 (Apr. 29), 10.
126. Canham, R.A., 1950. Anaerobic Treatment of Food Canning
Wastes. Food Packer 31 (5), 32.
127. Canham, R.A., 1951. Anaerobic Treatment of Food Canning
Wastes. Sewage and md. Wastes 23(5), 695.
128. Canham, R. A., 1958. Comminuted Solids Inclusion
Spray Irrigated Canning Waste. Sewage and Lid. Wastes 30(8),
1028.
129. Canham, R.A., 1955. Some Problems Encountered in Spray
Irrigation of Canning Plant Waste. 10th Lid. Waste ConL,
Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Lid.
130. Canham, R.A. 1957. Spray Irrigation for Disposal and Crop
Growth, hid. Wastes 2(3), 57.
- 94 -
-------
131. Canham, Robert A. 1957. Theprogram of the National Canners
Association on Waste Disposal. Food Tech. 11 (Dec.), 670.
132. Canham, R.A., 1957. A Study of Inclusion of Comminuted Solids
With Canning Waste Handled by Spray Irrigation. Multiithed,
National Canners Association.
134. Canham, R.A. 1965. Current Trends in Handling Canning Waste.
Proceedings of the 5th Annual Water Symposium, Eng. Ext. Sta.
Bull. No. 55, Louisiana Univ.
135. Canham, R.A., 1968. Stabilization Ponds in the Canning In-
dustry. In Advances in Water Quality Improvement, Water
Resources Symposium No. 1, edited by E. F. Gloyna and
W.W. Eckerifelder, Jr., Univ. of Texas Pres
136. Canham, R.A., and Bloodgood, D. E., 1949. Anaerobic Pilot
Plant Operation, Tomato and Pumpkin Wastes. 4th md. Waste
Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
137. Canham, R.A., and Bloodgood, D.E., 1950. Anaerobic Di-
gestion of Tomato and Pumpkin Wastes. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 22 (8), 1095.
138. Carl, C. E. . 1961. Waste Treatment by Stabilization Ponds.
J. Milk and Food Tech. 24, 147.
139. Carusi, A., 1945. Composition and Digestibility of Tomato Seed
Cake. Ann. 1st. Zootee. Roma 3, 329.
140. Casten, J.W., 1964. Utilization and Disposal of Liquid and
Solid Residues. In Joslyn and Heid, Editors, Food Processing
Operations, Vol. Ill.
141. Caudill, H., Jr., 1968. Application of the Anaerobic Trickling
Filter to Domestic Sewage and Potato Wastes. MS Thesis, Univ.
of Washington.
142. Cawley, W.A., and Brouillette, R.W., 1962. Polyvinyl Chloride
for Trickling Filters. Industrial Water and Wastes, (July-Aug).
143. Cedargreen, C. R., a Robe, K., 1964. Fluidized Handling in
Bulk Storage of Frozen Foods. Food Processing 25.
- 95 -
-------
144. Cedargreen, C.R., and Robe, K., 1967. t Clumpless 1 IQF Hand-
ling. Food Processing 28 (April), 59.
145. Chace, E. M., 1925. By-Products from Citrus Fruits. Dept.
Circ. 232, U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
146. Charley, V.L.S., 1963. BritishComminutedDrink Production.
Food Technol. 17, 987.
147. Charley, V. L. S., Hopkins, D. P., and Pollard, A., 1944. The
Utilization of Surplus Carrots. The Fruit Products J. and
American Food Man. 23 (Feb.), 180.
148. Chipperfield, P. N. J., 1967. The Dev.e.lopment, use and Future
of Plastics in Biological Treatment. Effluent and Water Treat-
ment Convention, London, England.
149. Chipperfied, P. N.J., Askew, M. W., and Benton, J.H., 1970.
Multi-Stage Plastic Media Treatment Plants, 25th md. Waste
ConI., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
150. Chong, G., and Cruess, W.V., 1949. ObtainingJuiceFrom
Waste Pear Peels and Cores. The Canner 109 (Oct.), 14.
151. Church, B.D., and Nash, H.A., 1970. Use of Fungi Im-
perfecti in Waste Control. In Reference 66.
152. Clevenger, M.A., 1949. California Canners Tackle Waste
Problem. The Canning Trade 71 (Oct. 31), 7.
153. Cochran, B., and Baker, G., 1969. To Remove Trash From
Sugar Cane. Ag. Eng. 50, 218.
154. Colorado State University, Sanitary Engineering Papers, Fort
Collins, Cob.
155. Cook, R.W., Wang, J., Dougherty, P, Farrow, R.P., and
Rhoads, A. T., 1969. Changes in Water Quality Factors During
Recycling through a Water Recovery System While Canning
Green Beans. Washington Research Lab. Research Report No.
1-69, National Canners Association, 1130 20th St., NW, Wash-
inton, D. C., 20036.
- 96 -
-------
157. Cooler, F. W., and Kramer, A., 1960. Water Handling of
Tomatoes. Maryland Processor’s Report 6 (4), 8.
158. Coo1 y, A.M., Wahi, E.D., and Fossum, G.O., 1964. Char-
acteristics and Amounts of Potato Wastes From Various
Process Streams. 19th md. Waste Coni., Purdue, Univ.
Lafayette, md.
159. Coppock, G.E., and Hedden, S.L., 1968. Designand Develop-
ment of a Tree-Shaker Harvest System for Citrus Fruits. Trans-
actions of the ASAE 11, 339.
160. Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, 1966. An Engineering
Report on Pilot Plant Studies, Secondary Treatment of Potato
Process Water. For the Potato Processors of Idaho Assoc.
161. Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, 1969. A Pilot Plant
Study, Anaerobic Secondary Treatment of Potato Process \ Tater.
For the Potato Processors of Idaho Assoc.
16a. Cruess, W.V., 1914. Utilization of Waste Oranges. Calii, Ag.
Expt. Sta. Bull. Z44.
163. Cruess, W.V. 1948. Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Products,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
164. Cyrus, Wm. Rice and Co., 1969. Projected Wastewater Treat-
ment Costs in the Organic Chemicals Industry, The Cost of
Clean Water and its Economic Impact. Vol. W, US Dept. of
Interior, FWPCA.
165. Daugherty, M.H., 1964. Activated Sludge Treatment of Citrus
Waste. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 36(1), 7Z.
166. Davey, T., Enger, J., and Robe, K., 1969. Processes 40,000,000
lb/yr faster, more efficiently. Food Processing 30
167. Davis, G. B., and Hutchings, H. M., 1959. Costs and Efficiences
in Pea Freezing Operations. Part I, Vining. Miscellaneous
Paper 66 Oregon State College, Ag. Exp. Sta. , Corvallis, Ore.
168. Davis, N.E., 1959. Control of Canning Waste Oxidation Ponds.
Public Works 90(8) (Aug.), 133.
- 97 -
-------
169. Davis, R. N., and Kremrnerer, A. R., 1948. Lactating Factor
for Dairy Cows in Dried Grapefruit Peel. Journal of Dairy
Science 31, 973.
170. Day, R.O. and Furgason, R.R., 1965. Anaerobic Stabilization
of Secondary Potato Wastes. Research Report, Univ. of Idaho.
171. Dean, R. B., 1968. Ultimate Disposal of Waste Water Concen-
trates to the Environment. Environmental Science and Technology
2, 1079.
172. Dennis, J. M., 1953. Spray Irrigation of Food Processing Wastes.
Sewage and md. Wastes 25(5), 591.
173. Dickinson, D., 1947. Waste Waters From Canneries. Food 16
(Feb.), 45.
174. Dickinson, D.,, 1949. Purification of Cannery Wastes. Food 18
(Apr.), 104.
175. Dickinson, D., 1949. Performance of Recirculating Plant for
the Purification of Cannery Wastes in Biological Filters. The
Surveyor 108 (Feb. 11), 89.
176. Drehwing, F.J., and Nemerow, N.L., 1963. Aeration of
18th hid. Waste ConI, Purdue Univ., Lafayette,
hid.
177. Dickinson, D., 1949. Performance of recirculating Plant for
Purification in Biological Filters. Sewage and hid. Wastes 21
(7) 757.
179. Dickinson, D., 1954. The Purification of Cannery Waste Waters
in Biological Filters, J. Sci. Food Agri. 5 (2) (Feb. 5), 94.
180. Dickson, G., 1963. The Application of Stabilization Basins to
Vegetable Cannery Wastes. 18th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, hid.
181. Dickson, G.,, 1965. A Multipond Flow-Through Lagoon System for
Treatment of Cannery Waste. Proceedings of 12th hid., Waste
ComE., Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
98
-------
182. DiGregorio, D., 1968. Cost of Wastewater Treatment Pro-
cesses. The Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory, U. S. Dept.
of Interior, FWPCA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
183. Dietrich, W. C., and Neumann, H. J., 1965. Blanching Brussel
Sprouts. Food Technol. 19, 1174.
184. Dostal, K.A., 1968. Progress Report on Aerated Lagoo Treat-
ment of Food Processing Wastes. Report No. PR-5 Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, FWPCA.
185. Dostal, K.A., 1968. Pilot Plant Studies on Secondary Treatment
of Potato Processing Wastes. Symposium on Potato Waste
Treatment, FWPCA and the Univ. of Idaho.
186. Dostal, K. A., 1969. Secondary Treatment of Potato Processing
Wastes. Report No. FR-7, US Dept. of Interior, FWPCA.
187. Dostal, K.A., and Burm, R.J., 1970. Status of R D Efforts
on Food Processing Wastes. In Reference 66.
187a. Dostal, K.A., 1971. Personal Communication.
188. Dougherty, M.H., 1964. Activated Sludge Treatment of Citrus
Waste. Journal WPCF 36(1), 72.
189. Dougherty, M.H., and McNary, R.R., 1958. Elevated Temp-
erature Effect on Citrus Waste Activated Sludge. Sewage and
md. Waste 30(10), 1263.
190. Dougherty, M. H., and McNary, R. R., 1958. Activated Citrus
Sludge-Vitamin Content and Animal Feed Pot ntia 1. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 30(9), 1151.
191. Dougherty, M.H., Wolford, R.W., and McNary, R.R., 1955.
Citrus Waste Water Treatment of Activated Sludge. Sewage and
Ind. Waste 27(7), 821.
192. Douglass, I. B., 1960. By-Products and Waste in Potato Pro-
cessing. 15th Ind. Waste Coni., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
193. Dow. 1965. Industrial Water and Wastewater Clarification With
Purifloc. The Dow Chemical Company, Functional Products and
Systems Dept., Midland, Mich.
- 99 -
-------
194. Dowskin, P.B., Hester, O.C., Kerr, H.W., and Bayton, J.A.,
1963. Instant Sweet Potatoes, U. S. Dept. Ag., Market Research
Rept. No. 580.
195. Drake, LA., and Bieri, F.K., 1950. Conversionto Freezing
can Triple Canner’s Needs. Food Packer 31 (Mar.), 28.
196. Drake, J.A., and Bieri, F.K., 1950. A Case History of
Lagooning: Stabilization and OIor Control. Food Packer 31
(Apr.), 26.
197. Drake, JA., and Bieri, F. K., 1951. Disposal of Liquid Was es
by the Irrigation Method of Vegetable Canning Plants in
Minnesota 1948-1950. 6th md. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, md.
198. Drehwing, F.J., Nemerow, N.L., 1963. Aerationof Pumpkin
Cannery Wastes. 18th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette,
hid.
199. Dunstan, G.H., and Lunsford, J.V., l9 5. Cannery Waste Dis-
posal by Irrigation. Sewage and hid. Wastes 27(7), 827.
200. Dyment, R., 1959. How Packers and Borough Solve Penn. Waste
Disposal Problem. Canner/Packer 128 (May), 27.
201. Ebbert, S. A., 1958. Spray Irrigation of Food Plant Waste Waters.
Presented at 30th Annual Meeting, Federation of Sewage & In-
dustrial Wastes Associations. Eckenf elder, W. W., Jr.,
1953. Instrumentation and Automatic Control Applications in
the Activated Sludge Treatment of Industrial Wastes. 8th hid.
Waste ConI., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, hid.
201a. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., 1953. Instrumentation and Automatic
Control Applications in the Activated Sludge Treatment of
Industrial Wastes. 8th hid. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ.,
Lafayette, hid.
202. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., 1956. Process Design of Aeration
Systems for Biological Waste Treatment. Chem. Eng. Progress
52(7), 287.
203. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., 1958. Pilot Plant Investigations of
Biological Sludge Treatment of Cannery and Related Wastes.
7th hid. Waste ConL, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, hid.
204, Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., 1966. Sources and Characteristics
of Industrial Wastes. In tllndustrial Water Pollution Control, “
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
- 100 -
-------
205. Eckenlelder, W. W., Jr., Editor, 1970. Water Resources Man-
agement Series Vol. 1-Manual of Treatment Processes Environ-
mental Science Series Corporation.
zo6. Eckenfelder, W.W.., Jr. 1968. Industrial Waste Treatment -
Canning, Freezing and Dehydrating. In “Industrial Waste Dis-
posal”, R. D. Ross, ed., Reinhold Book Corporation, New York.
207. Eckenfelder, W. W. , Jr., and Ford, D. L., 1967. Engineering
Aspects of Surface Aeration Design. 22nd md. Waste Conf.,
Part I, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, [ nd.
208. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., and Ford, D. L., 1969. Economics
of Wastewater Treatment. Chem. Eng. 76 (Aug. 25), 109.
209. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr. and Grich, E. R., 1955. md. Waste
Coni., Purdue Univ, Lafayette, md.
210. Eckenfelder, W. W. , Jr., and Grich, E. R., 1956. Cannery
Waste Oxidation by Activated Sludge, 4-6. In “Theory and
Mechanism of Biological Waste Treatment”, Part I, McCabe and
Eckenlelder, ed., Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York.
211. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., and Hood, J. W., 1951. The Appli-
cation of Oxidation-Reduction Potential to Biological Waste Treat-
ment Process Control. 6th md. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ.,
Lafayette, md.
212. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr. and O’Connoe, D.J., 1961. Biological
Waste Treatment. Pergamon Press.
213. Eckenfelder, w. w. ,Jr. \\ oodward,, Dr., C., Lawler, J, P. , and
Spinna, R. J., 1958. Study of Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Waste Disposal Methods in the Eastern Region. USDA Research
and Marking Contract No. 12-14-100-482 (73), Civil Eng. Dept.,
Manhattan College, N. Y.
214. Edwards, P.W., Eskew, R.K., Hoersch, A., Jr., Aceto, N.C.,
Redfield, C. S. l952. Recovery of Tomato Processing Wastes.
Food Technol. 6, 383.
215. Eheart, M. S., 1969. Variety, Fresh Storage, Blanching Solution
and Packaging Effects on Ascorbic Acid, Total Acids, ph and
Cholorphylls in Broccoli. Food Technol. 23, 238.
- 101 -
-------
216. Eidt, C. C., and MacArthur, M., 1944. The Peeling of Fruits
and Vegetables for Processing. Food in Canada 4(7), 31.
216a. Eldridge, E.F., 1942. The Role of Chemicals in Industrial Waste
Treatment. Water Works and Sewerage 89, 34 1-346.
217. Eldridge, E.,F., 1947. Symposium on Industrial Wastes, Canning
Industry. md. and Eng. Chem. 39 (5), 619.
218. Elias son, R., and Tchobanoglous, G., 1968. Chemical Process-
ing of Wastewater for Nutrient Removal. Journal WPCF 40 (5,
Part 2), R171.
219. Englis, D. T., and Sekera, V. C., 1931. Effects of Water
Blanching on the Canning of Whole Kernel Corn. Canner
72 (18), 11.
220. Esselen, W. B., Jr., and Fellers, C. R., 1939. Nutritive Value
of Dried Tomato Pornace. Poultry Sci. 18, 45.
221. Esvelt, L.A., 1969. Aerobic Treatment of Fruit Processing
Wastes. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Dept.
of the Interior, Washington, D. C., 20242.
222. Esvelt, L. A., 1970. Aerobic Treatment of Liquid Fruit Process-
ing Waste. in Reference 66.
223. Esvelt, L. A. and Hart, H. H., 1970. Treatment of Fruit Pro-
cessing Waste by Aeration. J. Water Pollution Control Fed.
42(7), 1305.
224. Everts, W. W. 1944. Disposal of Wastes from Fruit and Vege-
table Canneries. Sewage Works J. 16(5), 944.
225. Feaster, J.F., Mudra, A.E., Ives, M. and Thompkins, M.D.,
1949. Effect of Blanching Time on Vitamin Retention in Canned
Peas. Canner 108 (1), 27.
226. Fellers, C.R., Esselen, W.B., Jr., andFitzgerald, G.A., 1940.
VitaminB 1 and Vitamin B 2 (G) Content of Vegetables as Influenced
by Quick Freezing and Canning. Food Research 5, 495.
227. Felton, G., 1949. Use of Ion Exchangers in By-Product Recovery
From Pineapple Waste. Food Technol. 3, 40.
- 102 -
-------
228. Fenelon, E. S., 1943. How to Meet the Demand for Better
Waste Disposal. Food md. 15 (July), 84.
229. Feustal, I. C., and Thompson, J. H., 1946. Pear Canning Waste
May be Valuable for Yeast Culture. Western Canner and Packer
38 (Apr.), 60.
230. Fisher, A. J., 1943. New Vacuum Flotation Process Aids Liquid
Waste Disposal. Food md. 15 (July), 87.
231. Fisk, W.W., 1964. Food Processing Waste Disposal. Water
and Sewage Works 111 (Sept.), 417.
232. Fiske-Gay Associates, Inc., 1965. Engineering Report on
Florida Citrus Processing Industry Waste Water Survey for
Florida Citrus Commission.
233. Flay, R. B., 1953. Periodate Oxidation of Pea Cannery Wastes.
Sewage and md. Waste 25(8), 953.
234. Formo, H. G., 1961. Problems and Approaches in the Treatment
of Wastes from Potato Processing Plants. Proceedings 10th
Pacific Northwest Industrial Waste Conference.
235. Fossum, G.O., Cooley, A.M., and Wahi, E.D., 1964. Stabiliza-
tion Ponds Receiving Potato Wastes With Domestic Sewage. 19th
md. Waste, Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
236. Francis, R. L., Chemist, North Dakota State Dept. of Health,
Bismarck, N. D. Personal Communication in; Douglas, I. B., 1960.
By-Products and Waste in Potato Processing. 15th md. Waste
Conf., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
237. Free, W.A., 1938. Nation-wide Picture of Cannery Waste Dis-
posal Requirements. Canning Age 19 (June), 265.
238. Fridley, R.B., andAdrian, P.A., 1968. EvaluatingtheFeasi-
bility of Mechanizing Crop Harvest. Transactions of the ASAE
jj, 350.
239. Froehlich, C. W., 1944. Waste Disposal Problems at a Southern
California Fruit and Vegetable Cannery. Sewage Works Journal
16(5), 940.
- 103 -
-------
240. Gaden, E.J., Jr., Petsiavas, D.N., and Winoker, J., 1954.
Microbiological Production of Riboflavin and Citric Acid from
Citrus Molasses. Ag. and Food Chem. 2(12), 632.
241. Gallop, R. A., Can field, P. E., and Rastogi, R. K., 1970.
Conservation, Reclamation and Re-Use of Solids and Water in
Food Processing. Third International Congress of Food Sci.
and Technol., Washington, D. C., Aug.
242. Gaston, H.P., and Levin, J.H., 1955. Transporting Red
Cherries in Water from Ochard to Processing Plant. Mich.
Quarterly Bull. 37 3), 437
243. Gaston, H.P., and L4evin, J.H., 1956. Weighing Cherries that
are Transported in Wa’ r. Mich. Quarterly Bull. 38(4), 606.
244. Gaston, H.P., Levin, J.H., and Hedden, S.L., 1960. Blue-
berries - Plums and Cherries Can be Harvested with Machines.
Am. Fruit Grower 80 (Apr.), 14.
245. Germain, J. E., 1966. Economic Treatment of Domestic Waste
by Plastic-Medium Trickling Filters. 3. Water Pollution Control
Fed. 38(2), 192.
246. Gilde, L. C., 1967. Water Pollution Problems Facing the Food
Industry. Water Pollution: Industrial Problems and Current Re-
search Trends, 83rd Meeting of Princeton Univ. ConI., pg. 47.
247. Gilde, L. C., 1967. Experiences of Cannery and Poultry Waste
Treatment Operations. 22nd md. Waste Comf., Purdue Univ.,
Lafayette, md .
248. Gilde, L. C., 1968. Cannery and Poultry Waste Treatment.
Water & Sewage Works, July.
249. GLide, L. C., 1970. Food Processing Waste Treatment by Sur-
face Filtration. In Reference 66.
250. Gjerde, E. 1969. The Incineration of Fume and Liquid Waste
With Heat Recovery Applications. Gas Symposium for the
Carolinas, Virginia Institutions and Industries, May 21-22.
251. Gloyna, E. F., and Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., 1970. Water
Quality Improvement by Physical and Chemical Process. Water
Resources Symposium No. 3. Center for Research in Water
Resources, Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
- 104 -
-------
252. Gooding, E.G.B., Tucker, G.B., and McDougall., 1960.
Dehydration of Carrots. Food Manuf. 35 (6), 249.
253. Gould, W. E., Bash, V. D., Yingst, D. E., Geisman, J. R.,
Marlowe, G. A., and Brown, W. M., 1963. Handling and Holding
Studies of Mechanically Harvested Tomatoes. National Canners
Association Information Letter No. 1909, Washington, D. C.,
Jan. 31.
254. Graham, J.L. and Filbert, J.W., 1970. Combined Treatment
of Domestic and Industrial Wastes by Activated Sludge. In
Reference 66.
255. Graham, R.P., Huxsoll, C.C., Mart, M.R., Weaver, M,L.,
and Morgan, A. I., Jr., 1969. uDryT! Caustic Peeling of Potatoes.
Food Technol. 23(2) , 195.
256. Graham, R. P., and Shepherc, A. D., 1953. Pilot Plant Production of
Low-Methoxyl Pectin from Citrus Ag. and Food Chem. 1,
993.
257. Grames, L. M. and Kueneman, P. W ., 1969. Primary Treatment of
Potato Processing Wastes With By-Product Feed Recovery.
J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 41(7).
258. Gray, H. F., and Ludwig, H. F., 1943. Characteristics and
Treatment of Potato Dehydration Wastes. Sewage Works Journal
15 (1), 71.
259. Gray, W.D., andAbou El-Seound, M.O., 1966. Fungal Protein
for Food and Feeds. II. Whole Sweet Potato as Substrate. Econ.
Botany 20, 119.
260. Green, R. L. 1970. Basic Considerations for a Spray Irrigation
Disposal System. Maryland Processor’s Report 16(3). Univ.
of Maryland, College Park, Md.
261. Green Giant Co. , 1969. Proposed Pilot Plant Installation for
Use of Fungi Imperfecti on Vegetable Wastes. The Green Giant
Company, Le Sueur, Minn.
262. Grieg, W. S., and Manchester, A. C., 1958. Cost of Peeling Potatoes
by Lye and Abrasive Methods. USDA Report No. 225.
- 105 -
-------
263. Guerrant, N.B., and Dutcher, A.R., 1948. Further Observa-
tions Concerning the Relationship of Temperature of Blanching
to Ascorbic Acid Retention in Green Beans. Arch. Biochem.
18, 353.
264. Guerrant, N.B., Vavich, M.G., Fardig, O.B., Ellenberger, H.A.,
Stern, R.M., and Coonan, N.H., 1947. Nutritive Value of
Canned Foods. Effect of Duration and Temperature of Blanch on
Vitamin Retention by Certain Vegetables. md. Eng. Chem. 39,
1000.
265. Gulevich, W., Renn, C. E., and Liebman, J. C., 1968. Role of
Diffusion in Biological Waste Treatment. Environ. Sci. and
Tech. 2(2), 113.
266. Guttormsen, }c , and Carison, D. A., 1970. Status and Research
Needs of Potato Processing Wastes. In Reference 66.
267. Guttormsen, K., and Carlson, D. A., 1969. Current Practice in
Potato Processing Waste Treatment. US Dept. of Interior, FWPCA.
268. Haas, F.C., 1968. Spray Irrigation Treatment, Proc. Symposium
Potato Waste Treatment. FWPCA and the Univ. of Idaho.
269. Hall, H. W., 1944. Disposal of Citrus Wastes. Civil Eng. 14
(1), 15.
270. Hall, J. E., and Bundell, C. C., 1946. In-Plant Chlorination.
Food hid. 18 (Apr.), 520.
271. Halvorson, H.O., Johnson, D.W., and Tsuchiya, H., 1940.
The Treatment of Corn Canning Wastes. The Canner 90 (Jan. 20),
12.
272. Hamlin, G.H., 1962. Super-Rate Biological Filter, hid. Water
and Wastes 7 (Sept. -Oct.), 148.
273. Hanes, N.B., 1957. AerationofCanneryWastes. MS Thesis,
Univ. of Wisconsin.
274. Hanks, F. J., Lambert, J.R., and Opliger, P.S., 1968. Hydrologic
and Quality Effects of Disposal of Peach Cannery Waste. Trans-
actions of the ASAE 11, 90.
275. Hard, M.M., and Ross, E., 1956. Dielectric Scalding of
Spinach, Peas, and Snap Beans for Freezing Preservation. Food
Technol. 10, 241.
- 106 -
-------
276. Hart, S. A., Slurried Waste Disposal in Soil. Dept. of Ag. Eng.,
Univ. of Calif., Davis, Calif.
277. Hart, S. A., Flocker, W. J., and York, G. K., 1970. Refuse
Stabilization in the Land. Compost Science 11(1), 4.
278. Hatfield, R., Strong, E. R., Heinsohn, F., Powell, H., and
Stone, T. G., 1956. Treatment of Wastes from a Corn Industry
by Pilot-Plant Trickling Filters. Sewage and md. Wastes 28
(10), 1240.
279. Hasfurther, W.A., 1951. Aeration Gives Low-Cost Waste Dis-
posal. Food md. 23 (Feb.), 90.
280. Hays, F.A., 1919. Swine Production in Delaware. Delaware
Univ. Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull. 124, 28.
281. Heberlein, D.G., Ptak, L.R., Medoff, S., and Clifcorn, L.E.,
1950. Quality and Nutritive Value of Peas as Affected by Blanch-
ing. Food Technol. 4, 109.
282. Heid, 3. L., 1945. Drying Citrus Cannery Wastes and Disposing
of Effluents. Food md. 17 (Dec.), 109.
283. Helmers, E. N., Frame, J. D., Greenberg, A. E., and Sawyer,
C. N., 1951. Nutritional Requirements in the Biological Stab iiza-
tion of industrial Wastes. Sewage and md. Wastes 23(7), 884.
284. Hendrikson, R., and Kesterson, J. W., 1921. Florida Lemon
Seed Oil US Dept. of Ag. Bull. No. 927.
285. Henke, L.A., 1931. Pineapple Bran as a Feed for Livestock.
Hawaii Ag. Expt. Sta. Circ. 2.
286. Herman, D., 1967. Biological Digestion of Tomato Wastes.
Indiana Canners Tech. Conf., Indianapolis, hid.
287. Hert, 0. H., 1947. Tomato Canning Plant Waste. Food Packer
28(10), 40.
288. Hert, O.H., 1948. Research on Anaerobic Treatment of Canning
Plant Waste. 4th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette,
Ind.
289. Hert, 0. H., 1950. Research in Anaerobic Treatment of Canning
Plant Wastes. Sewage and md. Wastes 22(8), 1095.
- 107 -
-------
290. HEW. 1965. Deep Well Injection of Liquid Waste. US Dept. of
HEW, Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio.
291. HEW. 1968. Special Studies for Incinerators. US Dept. of
Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Publica-
tion No. 1748. U. S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D. C.,
20402.
292. Hicks, W. M., 1952. Disposal of Fruit Canning Wastes by Spray
Irrigation. 7th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
293. Higgins, F. B., Jr., Wohier, H. C., and Segall, S., 1970. In-
dustry Contributes to Air Pollution But Can Also Help Solve
National Problem. Candy hid. (May 26), 77.
294. Hindin, E., and Dunstan, G. H., 1963. Anaerobic Digestion of
Potato Processing Wastes. Journal of the WPCF 35(4), 486.
295. Hoag, D. L., and Hunt, D. R., 1965. Mechanical Stripping for
Harvesting Strawberries. Paper No. 65-620, ASAE, St. Joseph,
Mich.
296. Hoag, D. L., and Hunt, D. R., 1966. Mechanical Stripper to
Harvest Strawberries. Ag. Eng. 47 (June), 320.
297. HohJ., L.A., Swanburg, J., David, J., and Ramsey, R., 1947.
Cooling of Blanched Vegetables and Fruits for Freezing. Food
Research 12, 484.
298. Holmquist, J. W., Clifcorn, L. E., Heberlein, E. G. , and Schmidt, C.
1954. Steam Blanching of Peas. Food Technol. 8, 437.
299. Homer, G., 1936-1937. The Losses of Soluble Solids in the
Blanching of Vegetables. Ann. Rept. Fruit Vegetable Preserv.
Research St., Campden, Univ. Bristol.
300. Horton, B. D., and Twigg, B. A. A Preliminary Report on Use
and Disposal of Water in Four Maryland Processing Plants. Water
Resources Research Center, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.
301. Howells, D.H., and Dubois, D. P., 1959. The Design and Cost of
Stabilization Ponds in the Midwest. Sewage and md. Wastes 31(7),
811.
- 108 -
-------
302. Huibers, D.T.A., McNabney, R., and Halfon, A., 1969. Ozone
Treatment From Waste Water Treatment Plants. Robert A. Taft
Water Research Center, Report No. TWRC-4, US Dept. of Interior,
FWPCA, Ohio Basin Region, Cincinnati, Ohio.
303. Humphrey, H. J., 1940. Waste Treatment at a New York State
Cannery. The Canner 94 (Mar. 30), 16.
304. Hundley, C.L., and Matulis, J.T., 1962. Deep Well Disposal.
17th hid. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
305. Hunt, P. G., and Peele, T. C., 1968. Organic Matter Removal
from Liquid Peach Waste Percolation Through Soil and Interrela-
tions With Plant Growth and Soil Properties. Ag. J. 60 (May-
June), 321.
306. Hunter, D. L. , 1965. Design of Fruit Processing Plants to Reduce
Waste Disposal Problems. Proceedings of 12th Pacific Northwest
hid. Waste Conf., Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
307. Hutchman, J. E., 1949. Gold From Citrus Waste. Chem. Digest
8 (Sept. ), 6.
308. Hurwitz, F., 1963. Degradation of Organic Wastes by the Wet Air-
Oxidation Proces . Proceedings of 15th Research Conference
American Meat Institute Foundation, Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
309. Inlilco Technical Data Bulletin No. TE-24. 65-2. 1953. Report on
Model Aero-Accelator Operation When Treating Cannery Wastes.
310. Ingaisbe, D.W., Clore, W.J., andCone, W.W., 1967. Measure-
ment and Removal of Dirt on Concord Grapes Grown in Central
Washington in 1967. Washington Ag. Expt. Sta., College of Ag.,
Washington State Univ., Circ. 485.
311. Ingols, 1945. The Citrus Canning Waste Disposal Problem in
Florida. Sewage Works Journal 17(2), 320.
312. Ingols, R. S. , Dr., 1958. Treating Food Processing Wastes. md.
Wastes 3 (July-Aug), 95.
313. Ingols, R. S., Hodgden, H. W., and Miller, H. E., 1954. Canning
Plant Waste Problem Solves by Simplified Procedures. Water
and Sewage Works 101 (May), 227.
- 109 -
-------
314. Irish, J. H., 1923. Pear By-Products. U. of Calif. Ag. Expt.
Sta. Circ. 259.
315. Jackson, F.A., 1957. Spray Irrigation Uses Cannery Wastes.
Western Canner and Packer 45 (Nov.), 14.
316. Janicki, J., Szebiotko, K. and Stawicki, S., 1966. Potatoes
and their Industrial Wastes as Media for Yeast Production.
Symposium on the Utilization and Disposal of Potato Wastes,
New Brunswick.
317. Jan, K., 1969. Symba Yeast Process. Food Technol. 23, 1009.
318. Jan, K., and Tveit, M., 1963. A Method for Removal of
Starch From Industrial Waste Liquids by Symbiotic Cultivation
of Yeasts. Socker, Handlinger 1118(2), 25.
319. Jenkins, R.R., Tressler, D.K., and Fitzgerald, G.A., 1938.
Vitamin C Content of Vegetables. V I II. Frozen Peas. Food Re-
search 3, 133.
320. Jenks, H. N., 1947. “Salad Bowl” Wastes Treated at Converted
Plant. Sewage Works Engineering 18 (Aug.), 422.
321. Jenks, H. N., 1950. Aeration Ponds Handle Cannery Wastes.
Sewage and md. Wastes Eng. 21 (Feb.), 62.
322. Jewell, W. J. and Eckenlelder, W. W., Jr., 1971. The Use of
Pure Oxygen for the Biological Treatment of Brewery Waste
Waters. 26th hid. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
323. Johnson, C.C., and Bloodgood, D.E., 1958. Effect of Vegetable
Oil and ABS on Anaerobic Digestion of Primary Sludge. In
“Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes”, Part II.
McCabe and Eckenfelder, ed., Reinhold Pub. Corp., New York.
324. Jones, F. D., 1944. A Storage Lagoon for Wastes From Canning
Company Plants. Public Works 75(4).
325. Jones, R.H., 1970. Lime Treatment and In-Plant Resuse of an
Activated Sludge Plant Effluent in the Citrus Processing Industry.
In Reference 66.
326. Jordan, L. M, 1939. Simple System Saves Water in Canning Plant.
Food hid. 11, 492.
- 110 -
-------
327. Joyce, F., 1967. One-Crop Problems Solved by Novel, Low-
Cost Treatment. Canadian Food md. 38 (Mar.), 22.
328. Jutras, P.M., and Coppock, G. E., 1963. Harvesting Citrus
Fruit With an Oscillating Air Blast. Transactions of the ASAE
6, 192.
329. Kagan, J. J., Pilnik, W., and Smith, M. D., 1960. Lactic Acid
Fermentation of Citrus Peel Juice. Ag. and Food Chem. 8(3),
236.
330. Kaloyereas, S.A., 1947. The Effect of Various Methods of
Blanching on Ascorbic Acid and Soluble Solids in Cauliflower and
Spinach. Effect of Rapid Freezing on Catalese Test. Fruit
Products J. and Am. Food Manufacturer 26 (Jan.) 134.
331. Kaples, D. A., 1961. The Big Question: Can We Harvest by
Machine. Am. Fruit Grower 81 (Jan), 16.
332. Keinath, T. M., and Weber, W. J., Jr. 1968. A Predictive Model
for the Design of Fluid-Bed Adsorbers. Journal of WPCF 40(5)
Part I, 745.
333. Kelley, E. G., 1950. Making Use of Vegetable Residues. In,
“Crops in Peace and Waru, the Yearbook of Agriculture, 1950-
1951, US Dept Ag. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
334. Kelley, E. G., Wall, M. E., and Willaman, J. J., 1943. Vegetable
Wastes as Animal Feedstuffs. Feedstuffs 26 (June), 18.
335. Kelly, C.F., 1967. Mechanical Harvesting. Sci. Amer. 217(11)
50.
336. Kemp, D.C., 1966. Cleaners for Vined Peas From Plot. J.Ag. Eng.
Research 11(3), 224.
337. Kepner, R.A., and O’Brien, M., 1969. ASortingandTrimming
System for Mechanically Harvested Asparagus. Dept. of Ag. Eng.,
University of Calif., Davis, Calif. July.
338. Kimbal, 3. H., and May, H. L., 1941. Developments in Cannery
Waste Studies at Palo Alto. Sewage Works 3. 13(4), 731.
— 111 —
-------
33&a. Kimberley, A. E., 1931. Status of Pea Canning Waste Treatment.
Waterworks and Sewerage 78(5), 126-128.
338b. Kimberley, A. E., 1935. Vegetable Wastes, Wisconsin Experi-
ments. Sewage Works J. 7(1), 144.
339. King, D.L., and Bunn, D.R., 1966. ComparisonofAnaerobic-
Aerobic and Aerobic Lagoon Treatment. 21st hid. Waste ConI.,
Purdue Univ., Lafayette, hid.
341. Kingston, T. M. S., 1963. Catham, Ontario 1 s Approach to Joint
Municipal-Industrial Waste Treatment. Journal WPCF 35(4), 544.
342. Kirsh, J. T., 1953. Lagoon and Viner Stack Odor Control. The
Canning Trade 76 (Apr.), 9.
343. Kline, L., MacDonnell, L.R., and Lineweaver, Hans, 1944.
Bacterial Proteinase From Waste Asparagus Butts, hid, and
Eng. Chem. 36(12), 1152.
345. Knicely, D.R., Stout, B.A., and Ries, S. K., 1963. Harvesting
Asparagus Mechanically. Mich. Ag. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bul.,
45(4), 652.
346. Koenig, L., 1963. Ultimate Disposal of Advanced-Treatment
Waste. The Advanced Waste Treatment Research Program, Basic
and Applied Sciences Branch, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
347. Kraemer, J. R., 1952. Trends Speed Cannery Pace. Food Eng. 24
(Nov. ), 98.
348. Kramer, A., ai .d Smith, Mary H., 1947. Nutritive Value of Canned
Foods. Effect of Duration and Temperature of Blanch on Proximate
and Mineral Composition of Certain Vegetables. hid. Eng. Chem.
39, 1007.
349. Kobayashi, K., Nagata, I., Nagata, M., and Iwata, H., 1964.
Nutritional Studies on the Utilization of Distillers Stilage. J. Ag.
Chem. Soc. Japan 33, 317.
- 112 -
-------
350. Kefford, J. F., 1966. Composting Trials With Pear Canning
Wastes. Compost Science 7 (Autumn-Winter), 24.
351. Kueneman, R. W., 1966. Performances of Primary Waste
Treatment Plants in NW USA. Symposium on the Utilization and
Disposal of Potato Waste. New Brunswick.
352. Lackey, LB.,, Morgan, G.B., and Calaway, W.T., 1956. Citrus
Waste Treatment, Experimental and Applied. 11th hid. Waste
ConS.,, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
353. Lackey, J.B., Calaway, W.T., and Morgan, G.B., 1956. Bio-
logical Purification of Citrus Waste. Sewage and md. Wastes
28(4), 538.
354. Lamb, F. C., Pressley, A., and Zuch, T., 1946. Nutritive Value
of Canned Foods. XII. Retention of Nutrients During Commercial
Production of Various Canned Fruits and Vegetables. Food Re-
search 12, 273.
355. Lamb, F. C., Lewis, L. D., and Lee, S. K., 1948. Effect of
Blanching on Retention of Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine in Peas.
Western Canner and Packer 40 (May), 60.
356. Lamb, F. C., Kawai, M., and Cortes, A., 1969. Study of Wastes
from Canning of Starchy Foods - Progress Report. National
Canners Association, Berkeley, Calif.
357. Lamb, P. and Havighorst, C.R., 1953. Top-RankQuick-Freeze
Operation. Food Eng. 25 (Jan.), 68.
358. Langford, C. T., 1948. Recent Advances in the Fermentation
Field. Chem. Digest 7(May), 4.
359. Lane, L. C., 1955. Disposal of Liquid and Solid Wastes by Means
of Spray Irrigation in the Canning and Dairy Industries. 10th md.
Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
360. Lawrence, A. W., and McCarty, P. L., 1969. A Kinetic Approach
to Biological Wastewater Treatment Design and Operation. Techni-
cal Report No. 23, Cornell Univ. Water Resources and Marine
Science Center, Ithaca, New York.
361. Lawton, G.W., Engelbert, L.E., Rohlich, G.A., and Porges, N.,
1960. Effectiveness of Spray Irrigation as a Method for the Dis-
posal of Dairy Plant Wastes. Univ. of Winconsin.
- 113 -
-------
363. Leavitt, P., and Ziemba, J.V., 1969. At Gerber Water Does
Triple Duty. Food Eng. 41 (Sept.) 9G.
364. Lee, Frank A., 1958. The Blanching Process. In HAdvances in
Food Research, ‘ Vol. 8, Eds, E. M. Mrak, and G. F. Stewart.
p. 63. Academic Press Inc., Publishers, New York.
365. Lee, F.A., and Whitcombe, J., 1945. Blanching of Vegetables
for Freezing. Effect of Different Types of Potable Water on
Nutrients of Peas and Snap Beans. Food Research 10, 465.
366. Leete, G.V., Dunstan, G.M., and Lunsford, J.V., 1955. Blancher
Waste Disposal by Trickling Filtration, hid. Waste 1(2), 60.
367. Legault, R.R., Talburt, W.F., Hanson, H.L., and Leinbach,
L. R., 1950. Effect of Steam Blanching on Quality of Frozen
Peas. Food Technol 4, 194.
368. Lenker, D. H., and Hedden, S. L., 1968. Optimum Shaking
Action for Citrus Fruit Harvesting. Transactions of the ASAE
11, 347.
369. Leo, M. A., Beisel, G., and Robe, K., 1969. Remove Fine
Solids From Fast Flowing Waste Water. Food Processing 30
(Aug.), 16.
370. Lesperance, T.W., 1967. Market For Water Pollution Control
Equipment Burgeons. Environmental Sci. and Tech. 1(10), 785.
371. Levin, J.H., andGaston, H.P., 1954. Hydracooling and Trans-
porting Red Cherries in Water. Mich. Ag. Expt. Sta. Quarterly
Bulletin 36(4), 378.
372. Liner, G. H., and Stepp, J. M., 1968. Summary of Selected
Literature on Lagoon and Spray Systems of Treating Fruit and
Vegetable Processing Wastes. AE 316, South Carolina Ag.
Expt. Sta., Clemson University, Clemson, S. C.
373. Ling, J. T., 1963. Pilot Study of Treating Wastes With an Aerated
Lagoon. Journal WPCF 35(8), 963.
374. Livingston, L., 1969. Mainline: Airline for Flying Corn. Canner/
Packer 138 (Mar.), 30.
375. Litsky, W.,, Gunner, H. B., and Kreplick, R. , 1969. Technical
Aspects of Joint Waste Treatment - Municipal/Industrial. Pro-
ceedings of an Institute held at Framingham, Mass. Publication
of the Technical Guidance Center for hid. Water Pollution, U. of
Mass.
- 114 -
-------
376. Loeb, S., 1966. A Composite Tubular Assembly for Reverse
Osmosis Desalination. Water Resources Center De salination
Report No. 5, Dept. of Eng. , U. of Calif. , Los Angeles.
377. Logan, J. A., Matfield, W. D., Russel, G. S., and Lynn, W. R.,
1962. An Analysis of the Economics of Waste Water Treatment.
J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 34(1).
378. Logan, R. P., 1949. Scum Removal by Vacuator at Palo Alto.
Sewage Works Journal 21(6), 799.
379. Logan, R. P., and LeVine, R. Y., 1948. Lime Treatment of
Cranberry Packing Wastes. Sewage Works Engineering 19
(Dec.), 635.
380. Lorenzen, C., and Lamouria, L.H., 1964. Hydraulic Handling
of Fruit in Processing Operations. Ag. Eng. 41, 258.
381. Lorenzen, C. , and Fridley, R. J3., 1966. Mechanizing Specialized
Crops, Ag. Eng. 47, 336.
382. Ludwig, R. G., and Stone, R.V., 1963. Disposal Effects of
Citrus By-Products Wastes. Water and Sewage Works 109, 410-
415.
383. Ludwig, H.F., Ludwig, G.W.,, and Finley, J.A., 1951. Dis-
posal of Citrus By-Products Wastes at Ontario, Calif. Sewage and
hid. Wastes 23(10), 1254.
384. Luley, H. G., 1963. Spray Irrigation of Vegetable and Fruit
Processing Wastes. Journal WPCF 35(10), 1252-1261.
385. Lunsford, J.V., 1957. Effect of Cannery Waste Removal on
Stream Conditions. Sewage and Industrial Wastes 29(4), 428.
386. Lunsford, J.V., and Dunstan, G. S., 1958. Thermophiic
Anaerobic Stabilization of Pea Blancher Wastes. In T Biological
Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes, T I Part II, W. W.
Eckenlilder and B. J. McCabe. p. 107. Reinhold Publishing Corp.
New York.
387. Lutz, J. M., Findlen, H., and Hansen, J., 1955. Efficiency of
Various Methods of Washing Red River Valley potatoes. American
Potato Journal 32, 340.
- 115 -
-------
387a. Lyons, E. H. , Jr., 1969. An Investigation of a Method for
Rapid Oxidation of Cannery Wastes. Proposal for a research
contract to the Environmental Protection Agency from Lockheed
Palo Alto Research Laboratory, LMSC/D0807 12-1.
388. Magoon, C.A., and Culpepper, C.W., 1924. Scalding, Pre-
cooking, and Chilling as Preliminary Canning Operations.
U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bull. 1265.
389. Manfre, B. L., 1968. The Mechanical Harvesting of Tomatoes -
for Profit. Transactions of the ASAE 11(3), 356.
390. Markward, E.D., 1967. Machine Harvesting and Handling of
Apples for Processing in New York, p. 77. National Canners
Association Information Letter No. 1202, Washington, D. C.,
Feb. 9.
391. Markwardt, E. D.,, Guest, R. W., Cain, 3. C., and LaBelle, R. L.,
1964. Mechanical Cherry Harvesting. Transactions of the ASAE
7, 70.
392. Markwardt, E. D., Longhouse, H. A., and Maynard, J., 1968.
Effects of Tree Structure on Damage to Apples During Mechanical
Harvesting. Paper No. 66-135, Transactions of ASAE 11, 360.
393. Marshall, D. E., and Hedden, S. L., 1969. Citrus Pick-Up Service.
Ag. Research, U. S., Dept. Ag. Nov., 7.
394. Marshall, E. A., 1947. Effects of Beet Canning Wastes on
Sewage Treatment Plant Operation. Sewage Works 3. 19(2),
266.
395. Marshall, McNeil, and Hamann, D. D., 1968. Mechanical Apple
Harvesting by the Shake and Catch Method. Paper No. 3-005,
ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
396. Marshall, McNeil, Hamann, D.D., Johnson, J.M., Wood, C.B.
Barden, 3. A., Rollins, H. A., Jr., and Williams, G. R., 1969.
Mechanical Apply Harvesting by the Shake-Catch Method. Ag.
50, 355.
397. Masuda, I-I., Noritaka, and Maraki, H., 1964. Studies on
Fermentative Processing of Apple Fruit. P /. Fermentation of
Milled Apple in Cider Making. J. Ferment. Technol. 42, 379.
399. Mather, 3. R., 1953. The Disposal of Industrial Effluent by
Woods Irrigation. 8th md. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette,
Ind.
- 116 -
-------
400. Mazzola, C. L., 1943. New Caustic Peeling Method Reduces
Waste, Saves Labor. Food md. 15 (Jan.), 53.
401. McCarty, P. L., 1970. Biological Treatment of Food Processing
Waste. In Reference 66.
402. McCarty, C. D., Kemper, W. C.,, and Lewis, L. N., 1965. Leaf
and Twig Removal as Related to Mechanical Harvesting of Oranges,
Calif. Citrograph 50(6), 208.
403. McCay, C. M.,, and Smith, S. E., 1940. Tomato Pomace in the
Diet. Science 91, 388.
404. McDermott, F. A., and Walker, S. S.,, 1917. The Utilization of
Cull Citrus Fruits in Florida, Fla. Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull. 135,
Gainesville, Fla.
405. McGauhey, P.R., and Krone, R. B., 1967. Soil Mantel as a
Wastewater Treatment System. Sanitary Eng. Research Lab.,
College of Eng. and School of Pub. Health, U. of Calif., Berkeley,
Calif.
406. McElhinney, T.R., Becker, B.M., and Jacobs, P.B., 1942.
Activated Carbon From Certain Agricultural Wastes. Iowa State
College of Science 16, 227.
407. McIntosh, G.H. and McGeorge, G.G., 1964. Year Around Lagoon
Operation. Food Processing, 82-86.
408. McKinney, R. E. and O’Brien, W. J., 1968. Activated Sludge-
Basic Design Concepts. Journal WPCF 40(11, Part 1), 1831.
409. McKinney, R. E., Poliakoff, L., and Weichlein, R. G., 1954.
Citrus Waste Treatment Studies. Water and Sewage Works 101
(Mar.), 123.
410. McNary, R. R., 1949. Disposal of Citrus Cannery Wastes. The
Citrus Industry (June), 10.
411. McNary, R.R., Wolford, R.W., and Dougherty, M.H., 1953.
Experimental Treatment of Citrus Waste Water. 8th md. Waste
ConI., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, hid.
412. McNary, R.R., Wolford, R.W., and Dougherty, M.H., 1956.
Sewage and hid. Waste 28(7), 894.
- 117 -
-------
413. McNary, R.P., and Dougherty, M.H., 1960. Citrus Vinegar.
University of Florida Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull. 622, Gainesville,
Fla.
414. Mead, S. W., and Guilbert, H. R., 1926. The Digestibility of
Certain Fruit By-Products as Determined for Ruminants. Part I.
Dried Orange Pulp and Raisin Pulp. Univ. of Calif. Expt. Sta.
Bull. 409.
415. Mead, S. W., and Guilbert, H. R., 1927. The Digestibility of
Certain Fruit By-Products as Determined for Ruminants. Part
II. Dried Pineapply Pulp, Dried Lemon Pulp and Dried Olive
Pulp. Univ. of Calif. Expt. Sta. Bull. 439.
416. Mehta, D.S., Davis, H.H., and Kingsbury, R.D., 1968. A
new Design Tool for Plastic Media Trickling Filters, hid. Water
Eng. 5 (Sept.), 42.
417. Meiners, A. F., Lawler, E.A., and Morrison, J.I., 1968.
An Investigation of Light-Catalyzed Chlorine Oxidation for
Treatment of Wastewater. Report No. TWRC-3, U. S. Dept.
of Interior, FWPCA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
418. Meller, F.H., 1969. Conversion of Organic Solid Wastes into
Yeast. An Economic Evaluation. U. S. Dept. HEW, Public
Health Service, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health
Service, Environmental Control Admin., Bureau of Solid Waste
Management.
419. Melnick, D. Hochberg, M., Oser, B.L., 1944. Comparative
Study of Steam and Hot Water Blanching. Food Research 9, 148.
420. Mercer, W.A., 1956. Aeration-Digestion-Sedimentation Treat-
ment of Canning Waste Water. National Canners Association
File 816-56.
421. Mercer, W.A., 1958. Comments on Lagooning as a Method of
Cannery Waste Disposal. Multiithed, National Canners Association.
422. Mercer, W.A., 1964. Physical Characteristics of Recirculated
Waters as Related to Their Sanitary Condition. Food Tech. 18.
423. Mercer, W.A., 1965. Canned Foods, Ch. 6. Industrial Waste-
water Control, C. F. Gurnham, Ed., Academic Press, New York.
- 118 -
-------
424. Mercer, W.A., 1967. Handling, Washing, and Utilization of
Mechanically Harvested Tomatoes. National Canners Association
Information Letter No. 1202, Washington, D. C., Feb. 9.
425. Mercer, W.A., 1969. Reconditioning and Reuse of Food Process-
ing Brines. Report WPRD-144-0l-68-1 National Canners Asso-
ciation, Berkeley, Calif.
426. Mercer, W.A., 1969. Treatment of Waste Streams From Food
Processing, Pg. 29. In, Reverse Osmosis in Food Processing,
ARS 74-51, Report of a Symposium, Jan. 23, Albany, Calif.
427. Mercer, W.A., Chapman, J.E., Rose, W.W., Katsuyama, A.,
and Dwinnell, F., Jr., 1962. Aerobic Compo sting of Vegetable
and Fruit Wastes. Compost Science 3 (Autumn), 9.
428. Mercer, W. A., Maagdenberg, H. J., and Ralls, J. W., 1970.
Reconditioning and Reuse of Olive Processing In
Reference 66.
429. Mercer, W.A., and Rose, W.W., 1956. Studies on Tomato
Washing Operations. National Canners Association Research
Lab. Report No. 59-W-54, Berkeley, Calif.
430. Mercer, W.A., and Rose, W.W., 1968. Integrated Treatment
of Liquid Wastes From Food Canning Operations. Research and
Development Grant WPRD-151-01-68, National Canners Asso-
ciation Research Foundation, Washington, D. C.
431. Mercer, W.A., Rose, W.W., Butler, C.E., and Appleman. M.M.,
1958. More Effective Product Washing With Less Water.
National Canners Association, Information Letter No. 1666,
Washington, D.C., Jan.
432. Mercer, W.A., Rose, W.W., and Katsuyama, A.K., 1968.
Trickling Filter Treatment of Liquid Canning Wastes. 61st
Annual Meeting, American Inst. of Chem. Eng., Los Angeles,
Cal if.
433. Mercer, W.A., and lork, G. III ., 1953. Water Reuse in
Canning Peas. Parts I and II. Canner 117, (Aug. 10 and 24),
11 and 30.
434. Merkel, J.A., 1969. Methods of Liquid Waste Treatment. Mary-
land Processor’s Report 15(3), 1.
- 119 -
-------
435. Miller, L., 1937. The Problem of Cannery Waste Treatment.
Canning Age 18 (May), 210.
436. Miller, L. B., 1947. Cannery Waste: An Example of Complete
Treatment and Disposal. Public Works Mag. 78(2), 19.
437. Miller, P. E., 1953. Spray Irrigation at Morgan Packing Com-
pany. 8th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
438. Mills, D.A., 1961. Depth and Loading Rates of Oxidation Ponds
Water and Sewage Works 108 (Sept.), 343.
439. Mitchell, R. S., Board, P. W., and Lynch, L. J., 1958. Fluidized-
Bed Blanching of Green Peas for Processing. Food Technol. 22,
717.
440. Mitchell, R.S., Lynch, L.J., and Casimir, D.J., 1969. Blanch-
ing of Green Peas. Food Technol. 23, 105.
441. Mohlman, F.W., 1950. Waste Disposal as a Factor in Plant
Location. Chem. Eng. Progress 46 (7), 321.
442. Monson, H., 1953. Development of Vegetable Cannery Waste
Disposal by Land Irrigation. 8th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue
Univ., Lafayette, hid.
443. Monson, H. G., 1953. Vegetable Cannery Waste Disposal. The
Canner 12 (June 15), 14.
444. Monson, H. G., 1953. Cannery Waste Disposal, Part II. The
Canner 112 (June 29), 35.
445. Monson, H., 1956. Successful Disposal of Cannery Waste
Materials. Food in Canada 16 (Nov.), 42.
446. Monson, H., 1958. Cannery Waste Disposal by Spray
IrrigationAfter 10 Years. 13th hid. Waste ConI. , Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, md.
447. Moore, M. 3., 1964. Mechanical Harvesting - Asparagus.
Paper No. 64-122, ASAL, St. Joseph, Mich.
448. Morris, H. R., 3rd, 1944. Apple Syrup - A Promising Outlet
for Cull Apples. Chemurgic Digest 3 (4), 57.
- 120 -
-------
449. Morris, H. R., 3rd, 1946. Vegetable Wastes - Their Avail-
ability and Utilization. 22nd md. Waste Conf. Purdue Univ.,
Lafayette, md.
450. Morris, H. R. , 3rd, Colker, D. A., and Chernoff, M. F., 1944.
Vegetable Wastes Availability and Utilization. AIC-51, U.S.
Dept. of Ag. Eastern Reg. Research Lab. Philadelphia, Penn.
451. Morris, G. L., VanDenBerg, L., Gulp, G. L., Geckler, J.R.,
and Porges, R., 1963. Extended-Aeration Plants and Inter-
mittent Water Courses. U.S. Dept of HEW, Pub. Health Service
Publication No. 999-WP-8, Division of Water Supply.
452. Moyer, J. C., and Holgate, K. C., 1947. Cooling After Water and
Electronic Blanching. Food md. 19, 1370.
453. Moyer, J. C., Robinson, W. B.., and Kertesz, Z. I., 1949. Con-
serving Vitamin C in Peas During Processing. Canner 108 (17),
18.
454. Moyer, J. C., and Stotz, E., 1947. The Blanching of Vegetables
by Electronics. Food Technol. 1, 252.
455. Moyer, J.C., and Tressler, D.K., 1943. ThiaminContentof
Fresh and Frozen Vegetables. Food Research 8, 58.
456. Muckenheim, R. J., 1969. Private Communication. Univ. of
Wisconsin, Dept. of Soils, Mar. 14.
457. National Canners Association - Some In-Plant Doss and Don’ts.
Paper No. D-222, National Canners Association, Berkeley, Calif.
458. National Canners Association, 1951. Water Conservation. Multi-
lithed Progress Report.
459. National Canners Association, 1956. Physical and Chemical
Characterization of the Fresh Water Intake, Separate In-Plant
Waste Streams, and Composite Waste Flows Originating in a
Cannery Processing Peaches and Tomatoes. National Canners
Association, Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.
460. National Canners Association, 1959. Unpublished Survey of Waste
Costs in Canneries.
461. National Canners Association, 1964. Trickling Filter Treatment
of Liquid Fruit Canning Waste. National Canner Association
Research Foundation, 1133.
- 121 -
-------
462. National Canners Association, 1965. Damage Comparisons -
Tomatoes Harvested in Boxes and Bins. Report D-1515, Berkeley,
Calif.
463. National Canners Association, 1966. Research Information, Paper
No. 121, Washington, D.C., Dec.
463a. National Canners Association, 1966. Processes for Low-Acid Canned
Foods in Metal Containers. Bull. 26-L, 10th Ed. Washington, D. C.
464. National Canners Association, 1968. Trickling Filter Treatment of
Liquid-Processing Waste. Progress Report, Part III. National
Canners Assoc. Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.
465. National Canners Association, 1968. Washington Laboratory re-
search on Water Reuse. N ,tional Canners Association
Information Letter No. 141, Washington, D. C., Aug.
466. National Canners Association, 1969. Evaluation of Controlled
Temperature and Forced Aeration in Trickling Filter Treatment of
Food Canning Waste Waters. Research and Development Grant
WPRD-25l-01-68, National Canners Association Research Founda-
tion, Washington, D.C.
467. National Canners Association, 1969. Reduction and Treatment of
Cannery Wastes. For the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
is trat ion.
468. National Canners Association, 1969. Tomato In-Field Washing
Station. National Canners Association Research Information No.
146, Berkeley, Calif. (Jan.)
469. National Canners Association, 1969. Tomato In-Field Washing
Station Study. Report D-2l67, Berkeley, Calif.
470. National Canners Association, 1969. Unpublished Data.
471. National Canners Association, 1970. Preliminary Summaries of a
Survey of Solid Wastes From Canning and Freezing. For Bureau
of Solid Waste Management, US Dept. of HEW.
472. National Canners Association, 1971. Reconditioning of Food
Processing Brines. For the Water Quality Office, EPA, Grant
No. WPRD-l34-Ol-68.
- 122 -
-------
472a. National Canners Association, 1971. Low Water Volume Peeling
of Peaches, Pears, and Apricots for Reduced Liquid Waste Volume
and Strength. With Environmental Protection Agency and USDA -
Agr. Res. Service, Program 12060 FQE, Report D-2400.
473. National Research Council, 1968. Recommended Daily Allowances.
Bull. No. 1694,Washington, D.C.
474. National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Waste, 1965.
Water in Industry.
475. Neal, W. M., Becker, R. B. , and Dix Arnold, P. T. , 1935. The
Feeding Value and Nutritive Properties of Citrus By- Products.
Univ. of Florida Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull 275, Gainesville, Fla.
476. Nealy, W. A., 1941. Dollars From Cranberry Wastes. Western
Canner and Packer 33 (Dec.), 22.
477. Nelson, F. G, 1948. Pretreatment of Carbohydrate Industrial
Waste. Sewage Works Journal 20(3), 530.
478. Nelson, F. G. , 1948. Pretreatment of Cannery Wastes. Sewage
and md. Waste 20(3). 530.
479. Nelson, C, , Senator, 1970. News Release. Wednesday, April 1,
1970, Washington, D. C.
480. Nelson, L. E., 1952. Cannery Wastes Disposal by Spray Irriga-
tion. Wastes Engineering 23 (Aug.), 398.
481. Neubert, A. M., Graham, D. W., Henry, J. L., and Brekke, J. E.,
1954. Recovery of Sugars From Pear-Canning Waste. Ag. and
Food Chem. 2(1), 30.
482. Nolte, A. J., von Loesecke, H. W., and Pulley, G. N., 1942. Feed
Yeast and Industrial Alcohol From Citrus Waste Press Juice. md.
and Eng. Chem. 34(6), 670.
483. Nolte, A. J., and vonLoesecke, H. W. , 1940. Grapefruit Seed Oil.
Ind. and Eng. Chem. 32, 1244.
484. Norgaard, J.T., Hicks, R., and Reinsch, D.A., 1960. Treatment
of Combined Sewage and Fruit Canning Wastes. J. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 32(10) 1088.
- 123 -
-------
485. O’Brien, M., Claypool, L. L., Leonard, S. J., York, G. K., and
MacGihivray, J.H., 1963. Causes of Fruit Bruising on Trans-
port Trucks. Hilgardia35(6), 113.
486. O’Brien, M., York, G. K., MacGillivray, J. H., and Leonard, S.H.
1963. Bulk Handling of Canning Tomatoes. Food Tech. 96, 1050.
487. O’Connell, W. J., 1957. California Fruit and Vegetable Cannery
Waste Disposal Practices. Sewage and Industrial Wastes 29(3)
268- 280.
488. O’Connell, W.J. , Jr,, and Fitch, K.A., 1950. Waste Disposal.
Food bid. 22, 73.
489. O’Connor, D. J., and Eckenlelder, W. W., Jr., 1960. Treatment
of Organic Wastes Aerated Lagoons. J. Water Pollution Control
Fed. 32(4), 365.
490. Okey, R. W., and Stavenger, P. L., 1967. Membrane Technology:
A Progress Report. hid. Water Eng., (Mar.).
491. Okey, R.W., Stavenger, P.L., and Davies, D.S., 1967. Engi-
neered Membrane Systems, a New Dimension in Waste Manage-
ment. Central Operations Laboratories, Greenwich, Conn.
492. Oliver, G. E. and Dunstan, C. H., 1955. Anaerobic Digestion of
Pea-Blancher Waste. Sewage and hid. Wastes 27(10) 1171.
493. Olson, 0.0. and Vennes, J. W., 1963. Mechanical Aeration of
Potato Processing and Domestic Sewage. Park River Study, US
Dept. of Interior, FWPCA.
494. Orlob, G. T., 1965. Progress Report for Cannery Waste Research
Project. State Water Quality Control Board, Lafayette, Calif.
495. Olson, 0. 0., Van Heuvelen, W., and Vennes, J., 1964.
Aeration of Potato Waste. 19th hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, hid.
496. Olson, 0.0., Van Heuvelen, W., and Vennes, J.W., 1966. Ex-
perimental Treatment of Potato Wastes in North Dakota, USA.
Symposium, Utilization and Disposal of Potato Wastes, New
Brunswick.
497. Ostrander, C., 1963. Waste Disposal. .. . are Lagoons the
Answer? Farm Tech. 1 9 (Oct.), 8.
- 124 -
-------
498. Oswald, W. J., 1960. Stabilization Pond Research and Installa-
tion Experiences in California. Proceedings of a Symposium at
Kansas City, Missouri. US Dept. of HEW Washington, D. C.
August 1.5.
499. Outlook, 1968. The Cost of Clean Water. Environ. Sd. and
Technol. 2(4), 257.
500. Pailthrop, R. E., and Filbert, J.W., 1968. Potato Processing
Wastewater Treatment Costs. Cornell, Howland, Hayes and
Merryfield, Corvallis, Ore.
501. Palmer, W. G., 1970. Cannery Waste Treatment by a High Solids
Activated Sludge Process. In Reference 66.
502. Parker, C. D., 1966. Food Cannery Waste Treatment by Lagoons
and Ditches at Shepparton, Victoria, Australia. 21st md. Waste
Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
503. Parker, M. E., and Litchfield, J. H., 1962. Sanitary Aspects of
Water Supply, Ch. 7. Food Plant Sanitation, Reinhold Publish-
ing Corp., New York.
504. Parker, D. S. , Monser, J. R., and Spicher, R. G., 1969. Unit
Process Performance Modeling and Economics for Canning Waste
Treatment. 23rd hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Ind.
505. Pasveer, A., 1965. The Use of the Oxidation Ditch in the Purifi-
cation of Domestic and Industrial Wastes. Symposium on the
Utilization and Disposal of Potato Wastes, New Brunswick.
506. Pearl, R. C., 1963. 1962 Tomato Mechanical Harvest Research
in California. National Canners Association Information Letter
No. 1909, Washington, D.C., Jan. 31.
507. Pearson, G.A., Knibbe, W. G. J., and Worley, H. L., 1970. Com-
position of Effluents From Food Processing Plants. Typescript.
508. Pierce, D. M., 1960. Symposium on Waste Stabilization Lagoons.
Water and Sewage Works 107 (Oct.), 408.
509. Piorz, B., 1955. Peeling by Hot-Air Blast. Food Eng. 27(2) 68.
510. Pinder, K. L., and Gauvin. W. H., 1957. Applications of the
Atomized Suspension Technique to the Treatment of Waste
Effluent. 12th hid. Waste ConI., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
511. Poore, H.D., 1925. Citrus Pectin. USDA, Dept. Bull. No.
1323, Washington, D.C.
- 125 -
-------
512. Popkin, R.A., andBendixen, T.W., 1968. Improved Subsurface
Disposal. Journal WPCF 40 (Aug.), 1499.
513. Popper, K., 1970. Possible Uses of Uni-Flow Filter. In Reference
66.
514. Popper, K., Bouthilet, R. J., and Slamecka, V., 1963. Ion-
Exchange of Sodium Chloride From Water With Calcium Hydroxide
as Recoverable Regenerant. Science 141 (3585), 1038.
515. Popper, K., Camirand, W. M., Watters, G. G., Bouthilet, R. J.,
and Boyle, F. P., 1967. Recycles Process Brine Prevents Pollu-
tion. Food Eng. 39, (April), 78.
516. Porges, R., 1952. Waste Loadings From Potato Chip Plants.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes 24(8), 1001.
517. Porges, R., 1963. Industrial Waste Stabilization Ponds in the
United States. Water Pollution Control Fed. 35 (4), 456.
518. Porges, N., Jasewicz, L., and Hoover, S.R., 1956. Principles
of Biological Oxidation, 1-3. In “Biological Treatment of Sewage
and Industrial Wastes”, Part I. McCabe and Eckenfelder, ed.,
Reinhold Publishing Corp.
519. Potter, E. F., Bevenue, A., and McComb, E., 1948. Test Pear
Cannery Waste for By-Product Values. Western Canner and
Packer ±2. (April), 56.
520. Powerl, S. T., 1939. Industrial-Waste Problems and Their
Correction. Mechanical Engineering 61, 359.
521. Powers, T.J., Ill, Sacks, B.R., and Holdaway, J.L., 1967.
National hid istrial Wastewater Assesorment Manufacturing Year
1963. US Dept. of Interior, FWPCA.
522. Private Communication, 1966.
523. Proctor, B. E., and Goldblith, S., 1948. Radar Energy for Rapid
Cooking and Blanching, and its Effects on Vitamin Content. Food
Technol. 2, 95.
524. Proctor and Redfern, Civil and Consulting Engineers, 1961. Re-
port on Industrial Waste- -Potato Flaking Plant at Alliston, Ontario.
- 126 -
-------
525. Pulley, G. N. , and von Loesecke, H. W. , 1940. Drying Method
Changes Composition of Grapefruit By-Product. Food md. 12
(6), 62.
526. Quackenbush, H. E. , Stout, B. A., and Ries, S. K., 1962. Pneumatic
Tree-Fruit Harvesting. Ag. Eng. 39, 388.
527. Rabak, F., 1908. Peach, Apricot and Prune Kernel By-Products of
the Fruit Industry of the United States, U. S. Dept. Ag. Bur. Plant
md. Bull No. 133.
528. Rabak, F., 1916. The Utilization of Cherry By-Products. U. S.
Dept. of Ag. Bull. No. 350.
529. Rabak, F., 1917. The Utilization of Waste Tomato Seeds and Skin
USDA Bull. No. 632., Washington, D. C.
530. Ramage, W. D., 1950. Waste Utilization. The Canner 111 (July
8), 9.
531. Ramage, W.D., and Thompson, J.H., 1949. Producing Yeast
from Processing Wastes. Food Packer 30 (May), 33.
5 31a. Rambo, R. S., 1968. Vegetable Canning Process Wastes. Thesis,
Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., 157 pp.
532. Randall, C., 1970. Basic Considerations for a Lagooning Dis-
posal System. Maryland Processor’s Report 16 (May), 8.
University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
533. Ratzesberger, L., Jr., 1964. Enough Clean Water For All.
Food Technol. 18, 1895.
534. Reeder, M. D., 1962. Problems Encountered in the Use of
Mechanical Harvesters for Tomatoes. National Canners Asso-
ciation Information Letter No. 1813, Washington, D. C., Jan.
31.
535. Regan, W. M. , and Mead, S. W., 1927. The Value of Orange
Pulp for Milk Production. Univ. of Calif. Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull.
427.
536. Regester, R. T., 1940. The Canning mdustry t s Waste Disposal
Problem. The Canning Trade 62 (Jan. 15), 30.
537. Reichmann, I., 1945. Ways to Save Water in the Food Plant.
Food md. 17 (11 and 12), 98 and 114.
- 127 -
-------
538. Reid, 3. T., and Brantley, B. B., 1963. Mechanical Harvesters
for Southern Peas. Ga. Ag. Expt. Sta. N. S. Circ. 36.
539. Reiser, C. 0., 1954. Torula Yeast From Potato Starch Wastes.
Ag. and Food Chem. 2(2), 70.
540. Reynolds, T. D., 1967. Aerobic Digestion of Waste Activated
Sludge. Water and Sewage Works 114 (Feb.), 37.
541. Rhoads, A. T., Disposal Systems for Food Processing. Journal
of Milk and Food Tech. 28, 392.
542. Riedesel, P.W., and Lawson, W.R., 1945. Freezing as a Factor
in the Stabilization of Corn Cannery Wastes. Sewage Works J.
17(5), 952.
543. Richter, G.A., 1970. Aerobic Secondary Treatment of Potato
Processing Waste. In Reference 66.
544. Ries, S. K. , and Stout, B. A., 1962. Bulk Handling Studies With
Mechanically Harvested Tomatoes. Am. Soc. Hort. Sd. Proc.
81, 479.
545. Robe, K., Bock, R. 0., and Batina, R., 1968. Eliminates Waste.
Food Processing-Marketing 29 (Mar.), 54.
546. Robeck, G. G., Bendixen, T. W., Schwartz, W. A., and Woodward,
R. L., 1964. Factors Influencing the Design and Operation of
Soil Systems for Waste Treatment. Journal WPCF 36(8), 971.
547. Robert R. Zall Research Associates, 1967. The Role of Irriga-
tion in Food Processing Waste. Multiithed Report to Water Re-
sources Center, Cornell University.
548. Rogus, C. A., 1966. Control of Air Pollution and Waste Heat Re-
covery From Incineration. Public Works (June), 100.
549. Rose, W. W., 1970. Trickling Filter Treatment of Food Canning
Waste Waters. In Reference 66.
550. Rose, W. W., Chapman, J. E., Roseid, S., Katsuyama, A.,
Porter, V., and Mercer, W. A., 1965. Composting Fruit and
Vegetable Refuse. Compost Science 6 (summer), 13.
551. Rose, W.W., and Mercer, W.A., 1958. Current Research on
Canning Waste Problem. 12th md. Waste Conf., Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, Wash.
- 128 -
-------
552. Ross, R. D., 1968. Incineration, Ch. 4. In “Industrial Waste
Disposal”, Reinhold Book Corp. New York.
553. Rudolfs, W., 1953. Industrial Wastes, Their Disposal and Treat-.
ment, Reinhold Book Corp. New York.
554. Rudolph, V. J., and Dils, R. E., 1955. Irrigating Trees With
Cannery Waste Water. Michigan Quarterly Bull. 37(3), 407.
555. Rudolf s, W., and Heukelekian, H., 1952. Sure Methods for Dis-
posing Food Wastes. Food Eng. 24 (Aug.), 104.
556. Runyan, M. W., 1957. Columbia River Dilution Simplifies Treat-
ment of Sewage-Cannery Waste. Wastes Eng. 28 (Jan.), 20.
557. Rutherford, D. M., 1948. What Happens to Surplus Oranges? The
California Citrograph 33, 424.
558. Ryan, W.A., 1940. Effect of Cannery Wastes on Operation of
Sewage Treatment Plants. Sewage Works J. 12(1), 99.
559. Ryan, W. A., 1945. Experiences With Sodium Nitrate Treatment
of Cannery Wastes. Sewage Works Journal 17(6), 1227.
560. Ryan, W., 1950. Industrial Waste Lagoons. Sewage and md.
Waste 22(1), 71.
561. Sak, 3. G., 1967. New Wrinkle in Trickling Filters. Ind. Water
Eng. ± (Aug.).
562. Sak, 3. G., 1967. Plastic Biological Oxidation Media for Industrial
Waste Treatment Needs. 14th Ontario md. Waste ConL, Niagara
Falls, Canada.
563. Sammet, L. L., 1952. Efficiency in Fruit Marketing, Orchard-
to-Plant Transportation. Calif. Ag. Expt. Sta., Giannini Founda-
tion of Ag. Ec., Mimeograph Report No. 131, July.
564. Sanborn, N.H., 1939. New Information on Canning Waste Dis-
posal. The (Convention) Canner 96 (Feb. 25), 71.
565. Sanborn, N. H., 1941. Nitrate Treatment of Cannery Waste.
The Canner 92 (Mar. 22), 12.
566. Sanborn, N. H., 1941. Nitrite Treatment of Cannery Wastes.
The Canning Trade, March.
567. Sanborn, N.H., 1941. Nitrate Kills Odor in Waste. Food md.
13 (April), 57.
- 129 -
-------
568. Sanborn, N. H., 1942. Treatment of Vegetable Cannery Wastes.
md. and Eng. Chem. 34(8), 911.
569. Sanborn, N. H., 1945. Food Canning Waste Utilization, Pro-
ceedings of the 1st md. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. , Lafayette,
md.
570. Sanborn, N.H., 1945. Canning Wastes Bring Dollars. The Food
Packer 28 (Jan.), 35.
571. Sanborn, N.H., 1946. Canning Factory Wastes and Methods of
Disposal. The Canner 103 (Mar. 23), 18.
572. Sanborn, H.H., 1952. Spray Irrigation as a Means of Cannery
Waste Disposal. National Canners Association Information Letter
No. 1371, Washington, D. C.
573. Sanborn, N. H., 1952. Spray Irrigation as a Means of Cannery Waste
Disposal. The Canning Trade 74, (Mar. 3), 17.
574. Sanborn, N. H., 1953. Disposal of Food Processing Wastes by
Spray Irrigation. Sewage and Lnd. Wastes 25(9), 1034.
575. Schaefer, D.A., 1968. Report to Select Committee on Nutrition
and Related Human Needs, U. S. Dept. Ag., Ag. Research Ser-
vice, Hyattsville, Md.
576. Schertz, C. E., and Brown, G. K., 1968. Basic Considerations in
Mechanizing Citrus Harvest. Transactions of the ASAE 11(3), 343.
577. Schraufnagel, F. H., Waste Disposal by Ridge and Furrow Irri-
gation. Univ. of Wisconsin Eng. Expt. Sta. Research Report No. 20.
578. Schraufnagel, F.H., 1962. Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigationfor In-
dustrial. ‘Waste Disposal. Journal WPCF 34(11), 1117.
579. Schraulnagel, F. H., 1959. Disposal of Industrial Wastes by
Irrigation. Public Health Reports 74(2), 133.
580. Schroeder, E. D., and Busch, A. W., 1967. The Role of Nitrate
Nitrogen in Bio-Oxidation. 22nd md. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.
Lafayette, md.
58Oa. Schultz, W. G., Graham, R. P., Rockwell, W. C., Bomben, J. L.
Miers, J. C. , and Wagner, J. R. , 1971. Field Processing of
Tomatoes. 1. Process and Design. Journal of Food Science
(3), 397-399.
- 130 -
-------
581. Scientia Research Laboratories, Inc., 1964. Analysis of the
Behaviour of Ferndale Indust; : ial Waste Treatment Facility, for
Infilco.
582. SCS Engineers, 1971. Interim Report, Industrial Waste Study
Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vegetables. Contract No. 68-01-
0021. for U.S. EPA, Long Beach, Calif.
583. Seabrook, B. L., 1957. Disposes Billion Gallons of Water
Annually. Food Eng. 29 (Nov.), 112.
584. Secretary of Agriculture and Director, Office of Science and
Technology, 1969. Control of Agriculture-Related Pollution.
Washington, D. C.
585. Selders, A.W., Kleis, R.W., Hayes, K.M., and Lord, W.J.,
1967. Harvesting Processing Apples Mechanically. Ag. Eng. 44,
(Dec.) 718.
586. Sen, B. P., and Bhaskaran, T. R., 1952. Anaerobic Disgestion
of Liquid Molasses Distillery Wastes. Journal WPCF 34 (10), 1015.
587. Shaffer, C. A., 1928. Important Facts Revealed by Experiments
on Corn Waste Disposal. The Canner 78 (Jan. 7), 19.
588. Shannon, S., Vittum, M. T., and Gibbs, G. H., 1968. Irrigating
With Waste Water From Processing Plants. N. Y. State Ag.
Expt. Sta. Res. Circ. 10, Cornell Univ., Geneva, N. Y.
589. Shaw, R., 1966. Recovery of Edible and Industrial Products from
Effluent Streams of Potato Processing Plants. 21st Ind. Waste
Coni., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
590. Sherman, W. C., and Koehn, C. J., 1948. Beta-Carotene From
Sweet Potatoes. hid, and Eng. Chem. 40(8), 1445.
591. Shrader, J. H., and Rabak, F., 1921. Commercial Utilization of
Waste Seed From the Tomato Pulping Industry. USDA Bull No, 927.
592. Siebert, C. L., and Allison, C., 1948. Some Rights and Wrongs
of Cannery Waste Treatment. Water and Sewage Works 95, 227.
593. Skrinde, R.T., and Dunstan, G.H., 1963. Aerobic Treatment
of Pea Processing Waste. Air and Water Pollution 5 (2/4).
- 131 -
-------
594. Smith, R., and McMichael, W. F., 1969. Cost and Performance
Estimates for Tertiary Processes. U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA,
Advanced Treatment Research Lab., Robert A. Taft Water Research
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
595. Smith, S. E., 1941. Tomato and Tomato Products for Feeding Fur
Animals. N. Y. State Ag. Expt. Sta. Rec. 81, 93.
596. Smock, R. M., and Neubert, A. M., 1950. “Apples and Apple
Products.” Interscience Pub., Inc. New York.
597. South Dakota Dept. of Health. 1965. Wastewater Stabilization
Ponds in South Dakota. Division o€ Sanitary Engineering, S. D.
Dept. of Health, Pierre, S. D.
598. Southwell, B. L., and Blak, W. H., 1948. Dehydrated Sweet
Potatoes for Fattening Steers. Georgia Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 45.
599. Spicher, R.G., Agardy, F.J., and Orlob, G.T., 1967. Cannery
Waste Treatment. Part I. In-Plant Characterization. 22nd md.
Waste ConI., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
600. Splittstoesser, D. F., and Downing, D. L., 1969. Analysis of
Effluents From Fruit and Vegetable Processing Factories. NY
State Agric. Station Research Circular No. 17, Cornell Univ.
60].. Spro’il, 0. J., 1966. Potato Processing Waste Treatment Investi-
gation at the Univ. of Maine. Symposium on the Utilization and
Disposal of Potato Wastes, New Brunswick.
602. Spurny, K.R . , Lodge, J.P., Jr., Frank, E.R.,, and Sheesley,
D. C., 1969. Aerosol Filtration by Means of Nucleopore Filters
Structural and Filtration Properties. Environmental Sci. and
Tech. 3 (May), 453.
603. Staff, 1955. Air Flotation Can Economize Your Waste Water
Treatment. Food Eng. 27 (Sept.), 107.
604. Stavenger, p., 1970. The Food Industry and Pollution. Food
Technol. 124 (Feb. ), 16.
605. Stephenson, K.Q., 1964. MechanicalTomato Harvester. Ag.
Eng. 41, 250.
- 132 -
-------
606. Stevens, T. H., and Cole, G. L. , 1959. Economics of Water Use
and Waste Disposal in Delaware Vegetable Processing. Univ. of
Delaware Agri. Station Bull. 380.
607. Streebin, L. E., Reid, G. W. , and Ru, A., 1970. Cannery Waste
Treatment by Two-Stage Aeration Process. In Reference 66.
608. Stone, H. J., Batina, R. T., and Downing, D. R., 1968. Libby,
McNeil & Libby Waste Treatment Experience, Aerated Lagoon,
Hartford Wisconsin. Libby, McNeill & Libby, Operations Engi-
neering, 11800 South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Ill.
609. Stout, B. A., and Cline, C. K., 1968. Predicting Economic Feasi-
bility of Mechanical Vegetable Harvesting Systems. Transactions
of the ASAE 11(3), 353.
610. Stout, B. A., and Ries, S. K. , 1950. Development of a Mechanical
Tomato Harvester. Ag. Eng. 37 (Oct.), 682.
611. Sussman, C. H., 1969. The Characteristics of Some Anaerobic
Bacteria From Digesting Sludge. School of Public Health ESE
Notes 6(3), 4, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C.
612. Swope, D. A., 1969. What Americans Are Eating as Shown by USDA
Nationwide Survey. Presented at the Wisconsin Canners and
Freezers Convention, Milwaukee, Wis. , Nov. 13.
613. Templeton, C. W., 1945. Dehydrating Tomato Wastes. Food
Packer 28 (Nov.), 53.
614. Templeton, C. W., 1951. Cannery Waste Treatment a.nd Disposal.
Sewage and md. Wastes 23(12), 1540,
615. Tenney, M. W. , and Stumm, W., 1955. Chemical Flocculation of
Microorganisms in Biological Waste Treatment. Journal WPCF
37 (10), 1370.
616. Teot, A. S., and Daniels, S. L., 1969. Flocculation of Negatively
Charged Colloids by Inorganic Cations and Anionic Polyelectrolytes.
Environmental Sci. and Tech. 3 (9), 825.
617. Thomas, R.L. Coarse Filter Media For Artificial Recharge.
Dept. of Ed. and Registration, State Water Survey. Peoria, ill.
- 133 -
-------
618. Thornthwaite Associates, 1969. An Evaluation of Cannery Waste
Disposal by Overland Flow Spray Irrigation. Publications in
Climatology 22(2) Elmer, New Jersey.
619. Tolman, S. L., 1962. The Mechanics of Mixing and Flocculation.
Public Works 93 (Dec.), 88.
620. Tomhave, A. E., 1931. Dried Tomato Pomace in the Dairy Ration.
Delaware Univ. Agr. Expr. Sta. Ann. Report 172, 23.
621. Tomhave, A. E., 1932. Dried Tomato Pomace in the Dairy Ration.
Delaware Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Ann Rept. 179 , 23.
622. Tressler, D. K., Mack, G. L., Jenkins, R. R., and King, C. G.
1937. Vitamin C in Vegetables. VII. Lima Beans. Food Re-
search 2, 175.
623. Tsao, G.T., and Cramer, W.D., 1968. WaldhorfTypeFer-
mentors in Disposal of Food Wastes. American Institute of
Chem. Engineers, New York.
624. Twigg, B.A., 1961. Water Handling of Tomatoes. National
Canners Association Information Letter, No. 1814, Washington,
D.C., Jan. 31.
625. Uber, W. S., and Rogers, H. G., 1951. Dairy and Food Process-
ing Wastes Predominate in Minnesota. Wastes Eng. 22 (Oct.),
538.
626. Uhlmann, P.A., 1943. Three Years t Treatment of Sewage at
Celina, Ohio. Pub. Works 74 (Mar.), 13.
627. Uhlmann P.A., 1944. Charges to Industries for Treating Their
Wastes in a Municipal Plant. Public Works 75 (Dec.), 23.
628. University of Idaho, and FWPCA Pac. NW Lab. Potato Waste
Treatment, Proceedings of a Symposium, U. S. Dept. of mt.,
FWPCA, NW Reg., Pac. NW Water Lab., Corvallis, Ore.
629. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1956. Chemistry and Tech-
nology of Citrus, Citrus Products, and By Products. Agri-
culture Handbook No. 98, USDA, Washington, D. C.
630. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1963. Composition of Foods. Agri-
cultural Handbook No. 8, Washington, D. C.
- 134 -
-------
631. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1965. In’Losses in Agriculture”.
U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
632. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1969. Proceedings of the 19th National
Potato Utilization Conference. USDA, ARS 73-65, Philadelphia.
Penn.
633. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1970. Proceedings of the Conference on
the Treatment and Disposal of Wastes from Vegetable Processing.
Progress and Research Needs. Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Dept. of Ag., ARS7Z-80, New Orleans, La.
634. U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1962. Fruit Processing Industry-An Industrial
Waste Guide. Public Health Service Pub. 952.
635. U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1965. Advanced Waste Treatment Research,
P. 8. Summary Report, Public Health Service Publication No.
999-WP-24, Robert A. Taft Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
636. U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1965. Summary Report, The Advanced Waste
Treatment Research Program. U. S. Dept. HEW, Public Health
Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Washington,
D.C.,
636a. U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1969. Conversion of Organic Solid Wastes
into Yeast. Public Health Service Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment, Contract No. PH86-67-204.
637. U.S. Dept. mt., 1967. The Cost of Clean Water, Vol. III. In-
dustrial Profile. No. 6. Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vege-
tables. U. S. Dept. of mt., FWPCA, Washington, D. C.
638. U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1968. The Cost of Clean Water, Vol. II ,
Detailed Analysis. U. S. Dept. of mt., FWPCA, Washington, D. C.
639. U. S. Dept. mt., 1967. Summary Report Advanced Waste Treatment.
640. U. S. Dept. mt., 1968. The Cost of Clean Water, Vol, I, Summary
Report. U.S. Dept. of mt., FWPCA, Washington, D.C.
641. U. S. Dept. hit., 1968. Summary Report Advanced Waste Treat-
ment. FWPCA Publication WP-Z0-AWTR-19, Cincinnati, Ohio.
642. U. S. Dept. hit., 1969. Summary and Conclusions - The Current
Position of User Charges. Reprint From ‘ 1 The Cost of Clean
Water and its Economic Impact”, Vol. 3, 1969 Sewerage Costs.
- 135 -
-------
643. U. S. Dept. mt., 1969. Ozone Treatment of Secondary Effluents
from Wastewater Treatment Plants. FWPCA Report No. TWRC-4,
Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
644. U. S. Dept. hit., FWPCA, 1969. The Cost of Clean Water and
its Economic Impact, Vol. I The Report.
645. U.S. Dept. hit., FWPCA, 1970. The Economics of Clean Water-
Vol. I Detailed Analysis.
646. Van Antwerpen, F. J., 1941. Utilization of Citrus Wastes, hid.
and Eng. Chem. 33, 1422.
647. Van Heuvelen, W., Smith, J.K., and Hopkins, G.J., 1960.
Waste Stabilization Lagoons - Design, Construction, and Operation
Practices Among Missouri Basin States. Journal of WPCF 32
(9), 909.
648. Van Patten, E.M., and McIntosh, G.H., 1952. Waste-Pollution
Problem Solved by Engineering the “Ounce of Prevention”. Food
Eng. 24 (April) 61.
649. Van Patten, E.M., and McIntosh, G.H., 1952. Corn Products
Manufacture, hid. and Egn. Chem. 44(3), 483.
650. Vecchiotti, G. G., and Piva, G., 1964. Amino Acid Levels in
Tomato By-Products. Proc. Congr. Soc. Ital. delle Sci. Vet.,
P. 279.
651. Veidhuis, M.K., and Gordon, W.O., 1948. Experiments on
Production of Feed Yeast From Citrus Press Juice. The Citrus
Industry 29 (Jan), 7.
652. Vennes, J. W., and Olmstead, E. G., 1961. Stabilization of
Potato Wastes. Official Bulletin North Dakota Water and Sewage
Works Conference.
653. Vincent, D.B., 1951. Processing Citrus Cannery Waste. 6th
hid. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
654. Vincent, D. B., 1967. Waste Heat Evaporates Waste. Food
Eng. 39 (Feb), 84.
655. von Loesecke, H. W., 1950. Citrus Cannery Waste, Its Use and
Disposition. AIC-290, Bureau of Ag. and hid. Chem., U. S. Dept.
of Ag., Washington, D.C.
- 136 -
-------
656. von Loesecke, H. W., Pulley, G. N., Nolte, A. J., and Goresline,
H. E., 1941. Experimental Treatment of Citrus-Cannery Effluent
in Florida. Sewage Works Journal 13(1), 115.
657. Wagner, J.R., Strong, F. M., and Elvehjem, C.P., l947 Nutritive
Value of Canned Foods. Effects of Commercial Canning Operations
on the A scorbic Acid, Thiamine, Riboflavin, and Niacin Content
of Vegetables. End. Eng. Chem. 39, 9885.
658. Wakefield, J. W., 1952. Semi-Tropical Industrial Waste Problems.
7th md. Waste Conf. Purdue, Univ. Lafayette, md.
659. Wakefield, J. W., O Nea1, B. F., and Kelso, F. S., Mrs., 1954.
Citrus Waste Disposal Practices and Research. 9th md. Waste
Conf., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
660. Waring, F.H. , 1927. Progress in Ohio in the Disposal of
Industrial Wastes. The Canner 77 (Jan. 8), 19.
661. Warrick, L. F., 1927. Lime in the Treatment of Pea Cannery
Wastes. md. and Eng. Chem. 19(5), 577.
662. Warrick, L. F., 1938. The Disposal of Food Plant Wastes. Food
md. 10 (Jan.), 20.
663. Warrick, L. F., and Beatty, E. J., 1936. The Treatment of In-
dustrial Wastes in Connection With Domestic Sewage. Sewage
Works J. 8(1), 122.
664. Warrick, L.F., Wisniewski, T.F., and Sanborn, N.H., 1945.
Cannery Waste Disposal Lagoons. Bulletin 29-L, National Canners
As sociation.
665. Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 1966. Evaluation of the Tech-
nical and Economic Feasibility of In-Plant Separation and/or
Treatment of Cannery Waste Flows. Lafayette, Calif.
666. Webster, L. F., 1967. Oxidation Ditch Treats Tomato Waste.
Water and Pollution Control.
667. Webster, L.R., 1954. Discussion of Seabrook Farms. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 26(2), 133.
668. Webster, M.H., 1970. The Reuse of Waste Waters in Food Pro-
duction. Third International Congress of Food Sci. and Technol.,
Washington, D.C., Aug.
- 137 -
-------
669. Webster, R.A., 1953. Vegetable Processing Wastes, Pilot Plant
Studies. Sewage and md. Wastes 25(12)4. 1432.
670, Weckel, K. G., 1970. Unpublished Data.
671. Weckel, K, G., and Keusel, D. C., 1955. Quality and Yield of
Fresh and Processed Peas. Univ. of Wisconsin Agr. Expt.
Sta. Res. Bull. 186, Madison, Wis.
672. Weckel, K. G., and Lee, H. D., 1960. Composition of Cherry
Seed and Cherry Seed Oil. Food Technol. 14(3), 151.
673. Weckel, K. G., Rambo, R. S., Veloso, H., and vonElbe, 3. H.,
1968. Vegetable Canning Process Wastes. Research Report 38,
College of Agric. and Life Sciences, Univ. of Wisconsin.
674. Weiss, F. J., 1944. Microorganisms Can Convert Waste Materials
into Food. Food md. 16 (July), 525.
675. White, 3. W. , Jr., Weil, L. , Naghski, 3., Della Monica, E. S.
and Wilaman, 3. J., 1949. Protoplasts from Plant Materials
40(3), 293.
676. Wiegand, E. H., 1944. Dollars From Factory Waste, Part II.
Canner 98 (Feb. 12), 20.
677. Wiegand, E.H., 1945. Utilization of Fruit Wastes. Chem.
Digest 4, 127.
678. Wiegand, E.H., Dr.., 1948. CanneryResidues. AnAnalysis of
Progress in Utilization and Disposal in the Processing of Food.
Chemurgic Digest 7 (Jan.), 9.
679. Will, R.T., 1915. Some Phases of the Citrus By-Product In-
dustry in California. md. and Eng. Chem. 8(1), 78.
680, Willaman, J. J., and Eskew, R. K., 1949. Utilization of Vege-
table Wastes. Chem. Digest 8 (April), 15.
681. Willard, M. J. ., 1969. Pilot Plant Study of the USDA-Magnuson
Infrared Peeling Process. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Potato
Utilization Conference, Ferris State College, Big Rapids, Mich.
682. Willenbrink, R.V., and Staley, A. E., 1967. Waste Control and
Treatment by a Corn and Soybean Processor. 22nd [ nd. Waste
ConL, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, md.
- 138 -
-------
683. Willoughby, E,, 1969. Select the fright’ Waste Treatment System.
Food Eng. 71 (Aug.), 74.
684. Winter, F., and Coffelt, R. J., 1970. Progress Report. Cooling
Vegetables After Blanching. Food Sci. and Technol. Dept.,
Univ. of Calif., Davis, Calif.
685. Wisniewski, T. F., 1948. Waste Disposal Methods. Food Packer,
29 (June), 25.
68 . Wisniewski, T. F. , 1961. Irrigation Disposal of Industrial Wastes.
Public Works 92 (July), 96.
687. Wittenberger, R., and LaBelle, R. L., 1969. Effects of
Mechanization and Handling on Cherry Quality. Fruit and Vege-
table Mechanization, Michigan State Univ., 699.
688. Whittlesey, N. K., and Duff, J. B., 1967. An Economic Analysis
of Alternative Methods of Harvesting Green Peas in Eastern
Washington and Eastern Oregon. Wash. Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull.
684, Wash. State Univ. , Pullman, Wash.
689. Wolnak, B., and Miner, C. S., Jr., 1954. Dried Activated
Sludge as a Fermentation Accelerator. Ag. and Food Chem.
2(15), 790.
690. Woodley, R. A., and Moore, S. L., 1966. Deep Well Disposal
of Industrial Wastes in Indiana. Journal of Milk and Food Tech.
29, 211.
691. Woodruff, J. B., Cecil, S. R., Shelor, E., and Cecil, I. A., 1948.
Peeling With Lye. Food md. 20, 862.
692. Woodward, C., Dr., Lawler, J. p , Spinna, R. J., and Eckenfelder,
W.W., Jr., 1958. Study of Fruit and Vegetable Processing Waste
Disposal Methods in th.e Eastern Region. USDA Research and
Marketing Contract No. 12-14-100-482(73), Civil Engineering Dept.,
Manhattan College, New York, N. Y.
693. Wright, C. E. , 1951. Solves Waste Problem; Saves Too. Food
Eng. 23 (Sept.), 107.
694. Wright, R. C. , and Whiteman, T. M., 1949. Tests Show Which
Potatoes Have Least Peeling Loss. Food md. 12, 1567.
- 139 -
-------
695. Wuhrmann, K., 1956. Factors Affecting Efficiency and Solids
Production in the Activated Sludge Process, 1-4. In t!Theory and
Mechanism of Biological Waste TreatmentU, Part I, McCabe and
Eckenlelder, ed. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York.
696. Yall, I., Boughton, W. H., Knudsen, R. C., and Sinclair, N. A.,
1970. Biological Uptake of Phosphorous by Activated Sludge.
Applied Microbiology (July), 145.
697. Yang, H. Y., 1958. Vodka From Pear Wastes. Food Eng. 38
(Jan.) 87.
698. Young, C. H., 1943. Treatment of Cherry Waste Water. Public
Works 74 (Nov.), 25.
699. Young, H.H., 1949. Nitrate Treatment of Lagoons. 4th hid.
Waste Coni., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, md.
700. Young, J. C., 1967. The Anaerobic Filter for Waste Treatment.
22nd hid. Waste Conf., Part II, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, hid.
701. York, G.K., O 1 Brien, M., Winter, F.H., Tombropoulos, D,
and Leonard, S. J., 1964. Sanitation in Mechanical Harvesting
and Bulk Handling of Canning Tomatoes. Food Tech. 18(1),
97.
702. Zickefoose, C. S., 1963. Pea Wastes and City Sewage Treated in
Parallel Plants. Wastes Engineering 34 (May), 242.
- 140 -
-------
SECTION XI
GLOSSARY
BOD (1) Abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand.
The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical
oxidation of organic matter by bacteria in a speci-
fied time (usually 5 days), at a specified tempera-
ture (20°C), and under specified conditions. (2) A
standard test used in assessing wastewater strength.
By-product A useful product made from material that would
otherwise be waste.
Cs Abbreviation for ‘ 1 case”, a quantity of finished
product containing a number (often 24) of consumer-
size units.
COD Abbreviation for chemical oxygen demand. A mea-
sure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of inorganic
and organic matter present in water or was tewater.
It is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed
from a chemical oxidant in a specified test. It does
not differentiate between stable and unstable organic
matter and thus does not necessarily correlate with
BOD. Also known as OC and DOC, oxygen consumed
and dichromate oxygen consumed, respectively.
O and M Abbreviation for ‘operation and maintenance’s; the
annual costs of a facility excluding capital costs.
pH The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion content;
a measure of the functional acidity or alkalinity of
a liquid.
Raw product The quantity of a commodity delivered to a food
processor; also referred to as “raw tons”.
Residual Material left over from processing a primary pro-
duct; e used as a by-product or wasted.
Settleable solids Insoluble rr rial measured by settling.
— 1 I —
-------
SS Abbreviation for suspended solids. Solids that
either float on the surface of, or are in suspension
in, water, wastewater, or other liquids, and which
are largely removable by laboratory filtering.
TDS Abbreviation for total dissolved solids. The total
amount of soluble material, organic and inorganic,
contained in water or wastewater.
TS Abbreviation for total solids. The solids in waste-
water, both suspended and dissolved.
- 142 -
-------
SECTION XII
APPENDIX
- 143 -
-------
Table Al. Total Wastes from Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
VEGETABLES
Raw
Product
Wastewater
BOD5
Suspended
Solids
Solids
Residuals
1000
lO 3 gal
mil.
lbs
mil.
lbs mu.
lbs
1000
tons
/ton
gal. *
/ ton
lbs
/ton lbs
/ton
tons
FRUIT
Apple
1,050
2.1
2,200
36
38
6 6
580
290
Apricot
120
8.7
1,000
71
9
16 2
240
16
Cherry
190
2. 4
400
26
5
5 1
280
26
Citrus
7,800
1.8
19,000
16
125
3 23
790
3,080
Peach
1, 100
5.6
6,200
62
68
13 14
530
290
Pear
410
3.0
1,200
42
17
12 5
660
140
Pineapple
900
0.5
500
20
18
8 7
890
400
Other fruit
460
8.0
3,700
20
9
10 5
--
70
Fruit
sub-total
12,030
34,200
289
63
4,312
Asparagus
120
13.3
1,300
7
1
8
1
700
42
Bean, lirna
120
9.0
1,
100
25
3
80
10
320
19
Bean, snap
630
7.6
4,800
22
14
15
9
420
130
Beet
270
3.8
1,000
135
36
53
14
670
90
Carrot
280
3.7
1,000
50
14
29
8
1,000
140
Corn
2,480
2.2
5,500
44
110
22
55
1,310
1,620
Pea
580
5.3
3,100
61
35
22
13
260
74
Pumpk,squash
220
1.5
300
41
9
11
2
500
55
Sauerkraut
230
0.
4
100
14
3
1
0
660
76
-------
Table Al. Total Wastes from Canned and Frozen Fruits and \Icgetables (continued)
U i
* Units are 1000 galiDns or pounds per ton of raw product
Estimated total annual waste generation for the United States
Raw
Solids Residuals
Product
Wastewater BOD5
/ton* ga1. /ton lbs /ton lbs /ton* tons
tons
Spin.,greenS
240
8.4 2,000 28 7 18 4 280 33
98 15 39 6 (in other veg.)
Sweet potato
150
2.6
14 70 7 35 180 400
Tomato
5,000
2.7 14,
110 53 130 760 910
White potato
2,400
3.4 8,200
60 84 30 42 -- 460
Other vegetables
1, 400
4 ..0 5,600
Vegetable
511 329 4,049
sub-total
14, 120
48,900
83, 100800 392 8, 361
Total
26, 150
-------
Table AZ. Mechanical Harvesting of Fruits and Vegetables
Product Problem Ref.
Apples Bruising 390
Apples Boom-shaker, conveyor 585
collection
Apples Shaker - deceleration strip 392
damage
Apples Shake-catch - effect on bruising 395,396
- economics
Asparagus Snapping units - types - 345
comparisons
Asparagus Selective - sensor - 447
compressed air - problems
Asparagus Rotating knives - sort - 337
trim - uniform cut
Celery Types - damage comparison 83, 84
requirements
Cherries Catch frame -pruning - 391
stems - damage - efficiency
Cherries Mechanization effect 687
Citrus Tree-shaker - tractor - 159
catch frame -performance
Citrus Oscillating air blast - 328
fruit maturity - leaf damage
Citrus Inertia-shaker - stem and 368
fruit removal
Citrus Mass-harvest - injury 576
individual harvest - selection
Fruit,tree Blueberry - plum -cherry 244
cost reduction
Fruit,tree Harvester types - savings 331
problems
Oranges Mechanical harvest - leaf and 402
twig loss - yield effect
Peach Shake-catch - modify tree 381
production costs
Cling peaches Shake-catch - selectivity - 5
percent bruise - yield
- 146 -
-------
Table AZ. Mechanical Harvesting of Fruits and Vegetables
(continued)
Product Problem Ref.
Peas Harvester development - 538
design - damage -
adaptation to crops
Peas Methods - comparison - 688
costs - vining station
Strawberries Mechanical stripping - 295
selective
Tomatoes Once-over harvest - 610
yield - bruises
Tomatoes Compare damage of hand 544
and mechanical
Tomatoes Effect of field layout - 534
yields - damage
Tomatoes Damage - dirt 506
Tomatoes Mechanical harvest - 701
microbial contamination -
fruit condition
Tomatoes Selective - color - 605
separation - shaking
Tomatoes Damage - hand and mechanical 462
harvest - containers
Tomatoes Effects on BOD quantities 665
Tomatoes Harvest whole plant - 335
sort belt
Tomatoes Tractor -mount - pickup - 14
conveyor - fruit condition
Tomatoes Bed shape - uniform stand 389
optimum conditions
Tomatoes Large operator - speed - 53
clean fruit - less damage -
color sort
tree fruit Pneumatic - force required 526
physical character
Tree crops Economics - fruit loss - harvest 238
rate - degree mechanization
Vegetable Economic feasibility - once- 609
over harvest - multiple
harvest - break-even yields
- 147 -
-------
Table A3. In-field Processing of Fruits and Vegetables
Product Process system Ref.
Citrus Trash eliminator - conveying 393
Peas Vining - conveying - on-stream 357
Peas Field and plant vining - costs 167
Peas Plot cleaner - trash removal 336
Sugar Cane Trash removal 153
Tomatoes Mechanical harvester - culls 109
in-field - grader
Tomatoes Field grade - washing - 701
sanitation
Tomatoes Vine cleaning - field disposal 41
Tomatoes Washing - spraying - sorting 424
damage - spore counts
Tomatoes Harvester - color grading - 53
cull removal
Tomatoes Acidified break - juice 59
extraction
Tomatoes Acidified field break - 63, 580a
efficiency
Tomatoes Washing - damage - spores 468, 469
- 148 -
-------
Table A4. Hauling of Fruits and Vegetables from Field to Plant
Cherries
Cherries
Cherries
Citrus
Citrus
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Peas
Tomatoes
Tomatoes
Tomatoes
Tomatoes
243
55
38
393
563
485
93
8
157
624
544
486
Product
Cherries
Ref.
371
242
Water transport - comparison
to lug
Water transport - cost -
simplifies - retains quality
Water transport - weighing -
weight change
Pallet tanks - water - shrinkage
Haul and loading costs
Pick-up - conveyors - bins -
trucks
Efficiency - labor - equipment -
comparisons
Transport truck - vibrations -
bruising
Positive transfer - padded belts
Dump truck
Water handling
Water - condition after haul
Compare types of boxes
Bulk - bin - water - storage
effect
- 149 -
-------
Table A5. Transfer of Fruits and Vegetables during Processing
Product
Conveyance system
Ref.
Apricot
Water - labor reduction -
380
system description
Peas
Fluming in reused water
423
Tomatoes
Hydraulic conveying -
bacteria count
422
Vegetable
Pneumatics - frozen product
-
143
(frozen)
cost efficiency
Vegetable
Pneumatics - clumping
144
(frozen)
prevention
Vegetable
Fluidized freezing -
43
(frozen)
conveyor - less bacteria
Vegetable
Pneumatics
166
(fresh & frozen)
Vegetable
Pneumatics -
374
(fresh & frozen)
negative air air conveyor
- 150 -
-------
Table A6. Reuse of Water in Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Process Ref.
Recirculation Reuse for drain flush 326
Conservation Cut usage in process 537
4 stage counter- In pea canneries 433
flow
Recirculation Cool water for washing, 213
fluming, reuse screened
flume water
Recirculation 431
Conservation Tomato washing studies 433
Conservation Reduction in peeling, 503
washing, cleaning
Recirculation Hydraulic system, bacteria 422
count
Reuse Reuse refrigeration and un- 306
contaminated process water
Reuse Can cooling and flume water 665
Recycling Process brine 515
Countercurrent Reuse in preceding wash 465
and flume
Recycling Reuse for washing 155
Triple-loop water 363
economy circuit
Reuse Lye rinse and process water 426
as makeup
Counterfiow In tomato, sweet potato 300
processing
Recirculated Reuse volume per year 471
- 151 -
-------
Table A7. Treatment of Water for Reuse in Processing Operations
Treatment Parameter studied Ref.
Activated carbon Organic removal 290
adsorption
Activated carbon Organic removal 332
adsorption
Activated carbon Organic removal 641
adsorption
Activated carbon Dissolved organics removal 11
Activated carbon Reconditioning brine 425
Activated carbon 290
adsorption
Air stripping Ammonia removal 641
Biological Nutrient removal 641
denitrification
Brine disposal 11
Chemical oxidation Refractory organic 290
materials removed
Chemical oxidation 39
Chemical oxidation Dissolved inorganics 11
Chlorination 433
Chlorination 39
Coagulation- Suspended solids removal 11
sedimentation
Coagulation- Suspended solids and dissolved 155
sedimentation solids removal
Disinfection 11
Distillation Inorganic and organic removal 290
Distillation Inorganic removal 641
Electrodialysis 290
Electrodialjsis Demineralize secondary 112
effluent
Electrodialysis Inorganic removal 641
Electrodialysis Dis solved inorganics removal 11
Freezing 290
Freezing Inorganic removal 641
Ion exchange 290
Ion exchange 39
- 152 -
-------
Table A7. Treatment of Water for Reuse in Processing Operations
(continued)
Treatment
Parameter studied
Ref.
Ion exchange
641
Ion exchange
Dissolved inorganics
removal
11
Ozone sterilization
363
Ozone treatment
302
Ozone treatment
Reduction of COD
641
Precipitation
Nutrient removal
641
Reverse osmosis
290
Reverse osmosis
Inorganic removal
583
Reverse osmosis
Dissolved inorganic
removal
11
Reverse osmosis
426
Reverse osmosis
108
- 153 -
-------
Table A8. Waste Generation (Percentages) from Unit Processing
Operations on Fruits and Vegetables
Fill,ht, Exhaust,
Clean Peel Cut,pit Pulp syrup seal,cook
Apple (4)**
water 20_30*** 5-20 10-25 10 40-65
B/COD 5-20 10-40 5-40 70 10-80
SS 2-15 15-40 3-35 85 10-80
Apricot (3)
water 20-95 - 5-40 - 15-15 25-40
B/COD 20-20 - 40-55 - 15-30 10-10
SS 30 40 - 20 10
Cherry (3)
water 30-60 3-6 35-65
B/COD 10 80 10
SS 35 - 60 5
Peach (3)
water 15-20 25-50 15-35 - 10 10-20
B/COD 5-10 35-50 30-50 - 5-10 2-5
SS 5-10 30-60 25-55 - 5 2-5
Pear (3)
water 30-60 7-30 - 10-13 30-40
B/COD 50-78 10-40 - 5-10 2-5
SS 45-83 10-45 - 5-5 2-5
Fill,brine, Fill,
Clean Peel Cut Blanch seal,cook freeze
Asparagus (2)
water 20-40 - 10-20 25-30 15-40 5
B/COD 20 - 10 60 10 5
SS 50 - 10 30 10 5
Beans, snap (4)
water 30-40 - 0-40 10-45 20-50 5-10
B/COD 10-60 - 0-20 40-60 0-20 5
SS 30-80 - 0-30 20-30 0-10 5
Feet (2)
water 10-30 30-40 20-26 20-24
B/COD 15-20 50-60 20-20 5-10
SS 15-30 50-70 10-20 0-5
- 154 -
-------
Table A8. Waste Generation (Percentages) from Unit Processing
Operations on Fruits and Vegetables * (continued)
Fill, brine, Fill,
Clean Peel Cut Blanch seal,cook freeze
Carrot (2)
water 12-30 30-40 20-28 0-5 15-20
B/COD 16-20 50-60 20-21 0-10 0-3
SS 10-18 40-65 15-40 0-10 0-2
Corn, canned (2)
water 30-40 40-41 - zo- 29
B/COD 20-30 50-75 - 5-20
SS 10-15 70-80
Corn, frozen (2)
water 19-40 26-30 25-50 - 5-5
B/COD 10-18 30-68 13-55 - 1-5
SS 10-15 70-80 5-15 - 0-5
Pea (3)
water 50-60 - 10-30 20-40 5-10
B/COD 45-55 40-45 5-10 5
SS 55-65 - 30-35 5-10 5
Potato, sweet (1)
water 30 35 15
B/COD 25 50 20 5
SS 25 40 30 5
Pumpkin, squash (1)
water 10 20 * 20 20 30 -
B/COD 15 3Q z* z 35 10 10
SS 10 25*** 50 10 5
Spinach, greens (4)
water 20-60 - 0-10 10-40 15-55 5-10
B/COD 15-30 - 10-30 30-60 10-20 5
SS 30-60 - 10-40 20-20 10-10 5
Tomato, whole (2)
water 50-80 i O-40 - - 10-10
B/COD 60 35 - - S
SS 70 30 - 0
- 155 -
-------
Table A8. Waste Generation (Percentages) from Unit Processing
Operations on Fruits and Vegetables (continued)
Fill, brine, Fill,
Clean Peel Cut Blanch seal,cook freeze
Tomato, pulped (3)
water 30-85 5_3Q o - - 10-60
B/COD 95 5o z - 0
SS 95 - - 5
“Clean’ includes washing, sorting, shaking, blowing, etc. ; “peel”
and blanch’ include related steps such as rinsing; “cut” includes
slicing and dicing.
Number of estimates in Q.
Where two or more estimates were available, the highest and
lowest are shown.
Pulping operation (not peeling).
- 156 -
-------
Table A9. The pH of Fruit and Vegetable Effluents
pH
Product Range Median Ref.
Apple 4.1-8.2 5.3 600
Cherry 5.2-7.9 6.4 600
Grape 5.2-9.5 7.2 600
Olive storage 4.0-4.3 4.2 428
Peach (6. 2)*_lO.6 9.6 420,421,432,
458
Bean,lima 5.7-7.0 5.9 507
Bean,snap 5.2-8.6 6.5 507,600
Beet 5.6-11.9 8.0 309,600
Carrot 7.4-10.6 8.2 600
Corn (3.9)-8.0 6.4 181,507,600
Pea 4.9-9.2 6.6 181, 184, 507,
600
Pumpkin,squash (4.2)-7.2 6.6 420,458,507,
600
Sauerkraut 3.6-6.8 5.0 600
Sweet potato 5. 8-11.4 10.5 507
White potato (3.6) -12.6 8.4 160,267,351,
507, 543, 601
Tomato 4.5-11.3 6.6 123,327,507,
600
In ( ), possibly not typical
- 157 -
-------
Table A10. Peel Waste from Fruits and Vegetables
Peel waste,
Product % of raw weight Ref.
Apples (peel and core) 35 569
Apples (mechanical peel) 15-18 216
Apples (infra red peel) 2 75
Grapefruit 58 569
Grapefruit (peel and rag) 83 80
Orange (peel and rag) 74 569
Peaches (lye peel) 9-26 691
Pears (peel and core) 42 569
Potatoes (abrasion) 3-12 258
Potatoes (lye) 12-30 400
Potatoes (mechanical peel) 7-31 694
Potatoes (abrasion peel) 25 262
Potatoes (lye peel) 22 262
Potatoes (steam peel) 18 262
Potatoes (lye/steam peel) 15 3
Potatoes (abrasion peel) 14-25 192 .
Potatoes (steam peel) 11-19 192
Potatoes (lye peel) 11-23 192
Potatoes (lye peel) 18 681
Potatoes (infra red peel) 13 681
Potatoes (steam peel) 10 681
Potatoes (infra red peel) 10 681
Sweet potatoes (lye peel) 10-29 691
Tomatoes (hot air blast) - - 509
Tomatoes (total waste) 25 569
Tomatoes (total waste) 8 471
- 158 -
-------
Subje t F
Aice ion WATER R ESOUR S ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
w
I
Organization National Canners Association
1950 Sixth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
o Title
Liquid Wastes from Canning and Freezing Fruits and Vegetables
10 Author(s)
—
Mercer, Walter A.
Rose, Walter W,
Weckel, Kenneth C.
Project De igna(ion
EPA, 12060 EDK
21 lVote
22 Citation
I Berkeley, California; National Canners Association, August, 1971;
158 pages; 4 figures; 37 tables; 714 references,
D scriptors (Starred First)
cannerie s, wastewater treatment, water pollution sources, costs,
wastewater disposal, water reuse
251 J1eotjfteri (Starred First)
i:IFreezing (food processing)
27 Abstract
This study estimates that the 1800 plants in the U.S. canned and frozen fruits and
vegetables industry annually utilize 26 million tons of raw product, discharge 83
billion gallons of water, and generate 800 million pounds of biochemical oxygen
demand, 392 million pounds of suspended solids, and 8 million tons of solid residuals.
Increased mechanical harvesting is increasing problems in product damage, soil, and
loss in yields. Water is extensively recirculated in food processing plants but addi-
tional water savings by reconditioning and reuse are needed, High pollutional loads
are generated in blanching and peeling operations and large amounts of relatively
clean water are discharged from cooling and condensing operations. Solids are com-
monly removed from waste water by screening. The solid residuals from some
commodities are used in large quantities for animal feed. Biological processes are
widely used to treat food processing waste water. Anaerobic, aerobic, and aerated
lagoons, activated sludge, trickling filter, and other treatment systems are discussed.
Roughly half of the canning and freezing plants discharge their waste waters to city
treatment systems and about one-fifth use spray irrigation for liquid waste disposal.
Abstractor lr i i itiJr ion
Norman A. Olson National Canners Association
5 :2 FEE JELY 912’ SEND. ,‘.Ti, COPy QF DOCUMENT, TO WSTER RESOUFCES SCENT:F:C ‘NFORMA ON CENTER
s c U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NTER!OR
ASkINGTON. 0. C 00240
SUS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 084-483/90 1—3
------- |