248 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 A B S T R A C T Brazil is a significant producer of agricultural and agro-industrial waste, which can be used to recover valuable resources, such as struvite, hydroxyapatite, methane gas, hydrogen gas, and carboxylic acids, to mitigate the environmental impacts of the agro-industrial sector, add economic value to organic waste, and promote the sustainability of natural resources. Thus, this work’s objective was to compile and analyze data on the composition, physical-chemical characterization, and volumetric production of six agricultural and agro-industrial wastewaters (AWWs) from activities of paramount importance in Brazilian agribusiness and to report studies on resource recovery from those liquid wastes. The literature review was carried out by analyzing scientific works obtained by searching for keywords in different databases. It was concluded that swine wastewaters (SWs), slaughterhouse wastewaters (SHWs), and dairy wastewaters (DWs) are the most promising for struvite recovery. DWs also stand out for the recovery of hydroxyapatite. SWs and brewery wastewaters (BWs) are commonly used for prospecting for algae or bacterial biomass and their derivative products. All AWWs analyzed are considered promising for biogas, methane and hydrogen, while the most soluble AWWs are more valuable for carboxylic acid production. Keywords: nexus concept; organic liquid waste; environmental sustainability; agro-industrial wastewater; wastewater treatment. R E S U M O O Brasil é um grande produtor de resíduos agrícolas e agroindustriais, os quais podem ser utilizados para a recuperação de recursos valiosos, como a estruvita, a hidroxiapatita, o gás metano, o gás hidrogênio e os ácidos carboxílicos, visando mitigar os impactos ambientais do setor agroindustrial, agregar valor econômico aos resíduos orgânicos e promover a sustentabilidade dos recursos naturais. Assim, o objetivo deste trabalho foi compilar e analisar dados de composição, de caracterização físico- química e de produção volumétrica de seis águas residuárias agrícolas e agroindustriais (ARA) provenientes de atividades de suma importância ao agronegócio brasileiro e reportar estudos sobre recuperação de recursos a partir desses resíduos líquidos. A revisão de literatura foi elaborada por meio da análise de trabalhos científicos obtidos mediante à busca de palavras-chave em diferentes bancos de dados. Concluiu-se que as águas residuárias da criação de suínos (ARCS), as águas residuárias de abate bovino (ARAB) e as águas residuárias do beneficiamento de leite (ARBL) são as mais promissoras para a recuperação de estruvita. As ARBL também se destacam para a recuperação de hidroxiapatita. As ARCS e as águas residuárias da produção de cerveja (ARPC) são comumente utilizadas para a prospecção de biomassa algácea ou bacteriana e seus produtos derivados. Todas as ARA analisadas são adequadas para a prospecção de biogás, metano e hidrogênio, enquanto as ARA mais solúveis são as mais promissoras para a produção de ácidos carboxílicos. Palavras-chave: conceito nexus; resíduos líquidos orgânicos; sustentabilidade ambiental; águas residuárias agroindustriais; tratamento de águas residuárias. Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical‑chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery Estudo sobre águas residuárias do agronegócio brasileiro: composição, caracterização físico-química, produção volumétrica e recuperação de recursos Naassom Wagner Sales Morais1 , Milena Maciel Holanda Coelho2 , Amanda de Sousa e Silva1 , Erlon Lopes Pereira1 1Universidade Federal do Ceará – Fortaleza (CE), Brazil. 2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil. Correspondence address: Naassom Wagner Sales Morais – Campus do Pici, Bloco 713 – Pici – CEP: 60455-900 – Fortaleza (CE), Brazil. E-mail: naassomw@gmail.com Conflicts of interest: the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Funding: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Estações de Tratamento de Esgoto Sustentáveis (INCT ETEs Sustentáveis). Received on: 07/31/2020. Accepted on: 01/21/2021. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z21769478875 Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences ISSN 2176-9478 Volume 56, Number 2, June 2021 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6013-3433 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3902-0290 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6744-3795 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9999-1590 mailto:naassomw@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.5327/Z21769478875 http://www.rbciamb.com.br http://abes-dn.org.br/ Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 249 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Introduction According to the Center for Advanced Studies in Applied Econom- ics at the University of São Paulo (Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada da Universidade de São Paulo — CEPEA/USP) and the National Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock of Brazil (Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil — CNA), in the first half of 2020, Brazil was the fourth largest exporter of agri- cultural products in the world, second only to the European Union, the United States of America (USA) and China. It was also a world leader in coffee production and a leader in the export of sugar, coffee, orange juice, soybeans, beef and chicken, showing agribusiness as one of the main activities that sustain the Brazilian economy (CNA, 2020). In 2019, agribusiness was responsible for 43% of national exports, 21.4% of the Brazilian gross domestic product (GDP), and generating more than 18.2 million jobs, corresponding to 19.54% of the employed population with and without formalization (CEPEA and CNA, 2020). The share of agribusiness in the national GDP increased from 20.8% to 21.4% between 2018 and 2019 and showed a growth of 1.9% of GDP in the first quarter of 2020 compared to the same period of 2019 (Barros et al., 2020). Due to agro-industry growth, there is an increasing generation of liquid organic waste, such as agricultural and agro-industrial wastewa- ters (AWWs), in production processes and related activities. These res- idues cause environmental impacts when they are not treated and dis- posed of properly, which contributes to soil, air and water pollution, contributing to the eutrophication of water bodies, in addition to caus- ing possible harm to human and animal health (Dornelles et al., 2017; Morais et al., 2020b). Only dairy wastewaters generated worldwide, for example, have a polluting potential equivalent to 60% of the world pop- ulation (Silva et al., 2020a). In addition to the high generation of effluents from agribusiness activities, it is estimated that the global demand for water, energy and food will increase by more than 50% by 2050 compared to 2015 (Zhang et al., 2018). Such demand, driven by rapid population growth, urbanization, climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels, requires the adoption of solutions or alternatives that allow global resources management in a comprehensive, interconnected and efficient man- ner. Thus, the nexus water-energy-food concept was designed to study how these three systems are related and propose integrated planning strategies to optimize the use of natural resources in a sustainable way (Zhang et al., 2018). In this context, aiming not only to mitigate the environmental im- pacts caused by its inadequate disposal but also to add economic value to organic liquid waste, the development of new treatment technolo- gies and the study of the characteristics and potential of production and resource recovery from AWWs and other wastes have become es- sential to the progress of society and the maintenance of environmen- tal resources (Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar, 2015). Thus, wastewater treatment can be directed towards the produc- tion and recovery of resources of commercial and industrial interest, such as struvite, hydroxyapatite, methane (CH 4), hydrogen (H2), and carboxylic acids (Song et al., 2018). In this scenario, due to the high agricultural and agro-industrial activity in Brazil, it is essential to an- alyze the potential for prospecting these resources from different res- idues, stimulating the design and implementation of treatment plants with resource recovery. Accordingly, scientific studies on resource recovery from AWWs can be facilitated by reviewing the technical literature that provides scientists with fundamental knowledge for developing their research. Despite several scientific studies on the treatment of AWWs, data on the composition and physical-chemical properties are dispersed in the literature and, generally, are reported superficially in applied research. Thus, this work’s objective was to compile and analyze data on the composition, physical-chemical characterization, and volumetric pro- duction of six agricultural and agro-industrial wastewaters from activ- ities of paramount importance in Brazilian agribusiness and to report studies on resource recovery from those liquid wastes. Methodology Agricultural and agro‑industrial wastewaters The AWWs analyzed in this work were: slaughterhouse wastewa- ters (SHWs), swine wastewaters (SWs), brewery wastewaters (BWs), dairy wastewaters (DWs), fruit processing wastewaters (FPWs) from the production of ice cream and biodiesel production wastewaters (re- sidual glycerol – RG). It is already consolidated in the technical literature that these AWWs can be used to recover bioenergy from anaerobic methane pro- duction (Silva et al., 2020a), demonstrating the potential of these liquid residues for the recovery of other bioproducts. Thus, the possibility of recovering resources from low-cost substrates prompted us to inves- tigate these AWWs and to build a literature review compiling data on their composition, physical-chemical characterization and volumetric production, aiming to provide researchers, in an only material, funda- mental knowledge about each wastewater evaluated and to stimulate the development of new scientific research. Resource recovery studies The technical literature reports several chemical, physical and biological processes in which AWWs can be submitted aimed at the production and prospecting of resources. Due to the impossibility of deepening and discussing all the strategies reported in the litera- ture, the most common ones were adopted in the context of waste- water treatment, such as anaerobic and aerobic biological treatment. In addition to these, in the context of nutrient removal, the chemical precipitation process was selected (Chernicharo, 2007; Metcalf and Eddy, 2016). Morais, N.W.S. et al. 250 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 On the basis of scientific studies reporting the use of AWWs for resource recovery, a significant amount of research has been observed associated with the removal of nutrients from the recovery of miner- als (such as struvite and hydroxyapatite), the production of biomass for the prospecting of compounds of industrial interest (such as algal biomass) and the production and extraction of compounds commonly exploited in the anaerobic digestion of organic waste (methane, hydro- gen and carboxylic acids, for example). Therefore, these resources were chosen for detail in this review. Thus, on the basis of the composition and physical-chemical characterization of the AWWs selected for eval- uation, one can analyze which ones are most promising for obtaining these resources. Data collection The literature review was carried out through the analysis of scien- tific articles and other academic works, such as monographs, master’s dissertations, and doctoral theses, obtained by searching keywords in different databases, such as SciVerse Scopus, Google Scholar, SciELO, Science Direct and CAPES Journals (Higher Education Personnel Im- provement Coordination Journals – Periódicos da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES). The data survey took place between January and July 2020. The main keywords used (in English and in Portuguese) in the databases to search for scientific works were: slaughterhouse waste- waters (águas residuárias de abate bovino), swine wastewaters (águas residuárias da criação de suínos), brewery wastewaters (águas residuárias da produção de cerveja), dairy wastewaters (águas residuárias do bene- ficiamento de leite), fruit processing wastewaters (águas residuárias do beneficiamento de frutas), residual glycerol (glicerol residual), meth- ane (metano), hydrogen (hidrogênio), carboxylic acids or volatile fatty acids (ácidos carboxílicos), algae biomass (biomassa algácea), struvite (estruvita) and hydroxyapatite (hidroxiapatita). Context-related words were also used, such as slaughterhouse (abatedouro), swine farming (suinocultura), brewery (cervejaria), dairy (laticínios), fruit processing (beneficiamento de frutas), ice cream (sorvetes), and glycerol (glicerol). These words were combined in different ways to carry out the research. For the selection of scientific articles, the summary and objectives of each one were read. Subsequently, articles that contained data on the composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric pro- duction of raw wastewaters and those that addressed resource recovery using these AWWs were selected. The publication date was another selection criterion used, considering only articles published between 1990 and 2020. However, preference was given to collecting data re- ported in papers published since 2010 in international journals with scientific relevance. Articles with cross-cutting themes were also se- lected, such as environmental pollution, the nexus concept, biological treatment of wastewater and bioproducts, to support the introduction and discussion. The choice of articles published in recent years (2015 to 2020) was prioritized. Through consultation with electronic portals (websites), technical and economic reports were also obtained and analyzed from different relevant institutes or organizations, such as the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísti- ca — IBGE), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento — MAPA), the Center for Advanced Studies in Applied Economics (Centro de Estu- dos Avançados em Economia Aplicada — CEPEA) and the National Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária — CNA). In this case, only works published since 2016 were considered to provide more recent information on the evaluated agribusiness activities’ economic aspects. The Statista portal (https://www.statista.com/), which consists of a statistics and infographics platform for consultation, was also used in data collection in some cases. After selecting scientific pa- pers, the data of interest were compiled, and the review article was constructed. Composition, Physical‑Chemical Characterization and Volumetric Production of Agricultural and Agro‑Industrial Wastewaters Table 1 summarizes the importance of some Brazilian agribusiness activities in a national and international panorama based on 2017 and adjacent years. This table also presents a range of volumetric produc- tion for each AWW. Figure 1 shows the leading Brazilian states that produce these wastes. It is noticed that these agribusiness sectors are concentrated in the South, Southeast and Midwest regions. The constant generation of wastewaters from cattle slaughter (slaugh- terhouse wastewater — SHWs) and swine farming (swine wastewaters — SWs) is the result of the growing demand for livestock products due to the high nutritional value of meat (proteins, minerals, and bioavailable vitamins), which is a crucial part of the diet of the population of several countries, including Brazil (Moukazis et al., 2018). SHWs are generally composed of blood, manure and viscera and contain a high proportion of proteins and lipids, thus having a high amount of biodegradable organic matter (Fia et al., 2015). Furthermore, SHWs have a high concentration of pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms and can promote ecotoxicity at acute and chronic lev- els, which makes the treatment of this effluent indispensable before it is disposed of in water bodies (Pereira et  al., 2016). SHWs may also contain heavy metals and residues of cleaning agents and veterinary medical products, which is why they are considered highly polluting worldwide due to their complex composition and high volumetric pro- duction (Souza and Orrico, 2016). In the same sense, SWs are complex liquid wastes that can be defined as a mixture of wasted feed, water spilled from drink- ing fountains, animal excrement (feces and urine) and wa- ter used for cleaning and hygiene purposes in swine farming. https://www.statista.com/ Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 251 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Table 1 – National and international relevance and range of volumetric production of wastewaters generated by Brazilian agribusiness activities, based on 2017 and adjacent years. Agribusiness activities National relevance International relevance Volumetric production References Cattle slaughter It is estimated that in 2017, 30.8 million heads were slaughtered. The actual bovine data in 2018 indicate that the country had, in that year, 222.0 million head. In 2019, Brazil was the largest beef exporter, with around 2.00 million tons, and the second largest producer, with 9.90 million tons. In 2017, world beef production totaled 70 million tons. Meat production is dominated by Brazil, China, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States. During the bovine slaughter process, about 3 m3 of wastewater are generated, on average, by slaughtered cattle. A processing facility can consume between 2.5 and 40 m3 of water per ton of meat produced. Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar (2015) Pereira et al. (2016) Brasil (2018) CNA (2020) Swine farming Around 3.75 million tons of pork were produced in 2017, making Brazil fourth in world production. In 2019, Brazil was the fourth largest pork producer and exporter, making 3.70 million tons available on the national market and exporting 0.7 million tons. World net pork production totaled around 109.85 million tons of carcass weight in 2016, with production dominated by China, the European Union, the United States and Brazil. It is estimated that 4 - 9 L of wastewater are generated daily by swine on a farm. García et al. (2017) USDA (2018) Nagarajan et al. (2019) CNA (2020) Beer production Brazil produces about 13 billion L of beer per year. In 2016, 140 million hL of beer were produced in the country, giving Brazil third place worldwide. In 2017, global beer production reached around 1.95 billion hL, compared to 1.3 billion hL in 1998. The main countries in beer production are China, the United States and Brazil. It is estimated that for each liter of beer produced, 4.5 - 10 L of wastewater are generated. Marcusso and Müller (2017) Arantes et al. (2017) Pachiega et al. (2019) Statista (2019a) Milk processing and production of derivatives In 2017, Brazil produced around 35.1 billion liters of milk. Over four decades, national production has quadrupled. Sales of dairy products abroad were mostly powdered milk (62.2%), UHT milk (18.7%) and different types of cheese (9.1%). World milk production reached 811 million tons in 2017. The world’s top five milk producers are the European Union (20%), India (20%), the United States (12%), Pakistan (6%) and China (5%). The dairy and milk processing industry produces 0.2 - 10 L of wastewater per liter of milk processed. Fernandes and Naval (2017) EMBRAPA (2018) FAO (2018) OECD and FAO (2018) Silva, A.N. et al. (2019) Fruit processing for ice cream production In 2017, about 1,129 million L of ice cream were produced, with a per capita consumption of 5.44 L per year, making Brazil the sixth leading country worldwide in consumption (3.1%). In 2017, the global ice cream market had an estimated value of 56.91 million USD. By 2024, it is expected to be worth 74.96 billion USD. The ice cream industry generates 3 - 7 L of wastewater per 0.45 kg of ice cream produced. Enteshari and Martínez-Monteagudo (2018) ABIS (2019) Statista (2019b) Biodiesel production In 2017, biodiesel production was 4.3 million m3, which corresponded to 56.2% of the total national production capacity (21.2 thousand m3 per day). That same year, 374,500 m3 of glycerol were generated as a by-product of biodiesel production. The global production of biodiesel was just over 34 million tons in 2016. The most important producer of biodiesel is the European Union, followed by the United States and Brazil. For every 90 m3 of biodiesel produced by transesterification, 10 m3 of glycerol are generated. Mota et al. (2009) Yazdani and Gonzalez (2007) ANP (2018) UFOP (2017) Morais, N.W.S. et al. 252 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 For this reason, SWs are characterized by having high levels of organic matter, suspended solids, nutrients and high microbial load (Pereira et al., 2009). SWs can also contain considerable concentrations of an- tibiotics (tetracyclines, sulfonamides and macrolides) and hormones (estrogens, androgens, glucocorticoids and progestogens), extensively used to treat infections and even used as promoters of animal growth. For this reason, this type of AWW can introduce micropollutants, such as antibiotics and hormones, indiscriminately into the environment (Cheng et al., 2018). In another perspective, the beverage sector makes up a funda- mental part of the agribusiness in the national and international pan- orama, emphasizing the production of soft drinks, coffee, beer and milk (Cervieri Júnior et  al., 2014). In this type of industry, a large amount of water is used to produce beverages, washing bottles and cleaning equipment and machines, with an estimated 50% of the total wastewater generated coming from washing bottles. Thus, the bever- age sector contributes to the generation of polluting liquid effluents due to the high concentrations of sugars and other biodegradable compounds derived from its production process (Abdel-Fatah et al., 2017). In the beverage sector, beer is the fifth most consumed beverage globally, behind tea, soda, milk and coffee (Olajire, 2012). The beer industry generates residues called wastewaters from beer production (brewery wastewaters – BWs), containing residual amounts of raw materials for the drink, including suspended solids, sugars and yeasts. BWs come from the beer production chain’s unitary operations, such as filtration, equipment discharges, container washing and cleaning of tanks, vats, pipes, and floors (Arantes et al., 2017). On the other hand, the dairy industry is one of the largest sectors of food processing and, for this reason, consumes large amounts of water for cleaning and sanitizing machines and equipment, exchanging heat and washing its locations. Wastewaters from milk processing (dairy wastewaters – DWs) and derived products are composed of wasted milk residues, lactose, fats, nutrients and residues of detergents and disinfectants. Depending on the season and the production system, the characterization of DWs varies considerably (Chandra et al., 2018; Daneshvar et al., 2019). Still in the context of the food industry, ice cream is one of the most popular luxury items in the world and the sector is overgrowing (Kon- stantas et  al., 2019). During the washing and pulping of fruits for ice cream production, liquid residues referred to as wastewaters from the processing of fruits for ice cream production (fruit processing waste- waters – FPWs) are generated. These consist of a complex colloidal mixture of suspended solids (flavoring compounds), soluble molecules (carbohydrates, milk proteins and other sources, lipids and minerals) and detergent and disinfectant residues (Demirel et al., 2013). Biodiesel is increasingly considered an environmentally viable sub- stitute for diesel in the biofuels business due to global energy needs. Residual glycerol from biodiesel plants (RG) is a by-product of the manufacture of this biofuel from a transesterification reaction of oils (vegetables or animals) with alcohol (Pereira et al., 2019). Besides hav- ing a high organic load, the generated RG includes many impurities and chemicals, such as methanol, organic and inorganic salts, vegetable dyes, traces of mono- and diglycerides and soap, making it a polluting by-product (Anitha et al., 2016). Due to the importance of the agro-industrial activities shown in Table 1 and the environmental impacts potentially caused by them, it is essential to know the physical-chemical characteristics of raw AWWs generated in their production processes. Table 2 summarizes the main physical-chemical characteristics of raw AWWs reported in the tech- nical literature. According to data expressed in Table 2, there is significant variability in the physical and chemical characteristics of AWWs due to the produc- tion processes, the routine inherent to each agribusiness and the sustain- ability practices adopted (Ranade and Bhandari, 2014). Despite this vari- ability, all of them have high levels of organic matter and nutrients, not meeting the effluent release standards established by the federal legisla- tion in force in Brazil (Brasil, 2011), showing that they must be treated before being disposed of in the environment (Morais and Santos, 2019). Resource Recovery from Agricultural and Agro‑Industrial Wastewaters The following topics will briefly present an over view of resource recover y from the AWWs evaluated in this work, mainly discussing these resources’ industrial applications. Figure 1 – Leading Brazilian states producing agricultural and agro-industrial wastewaters. Source: adapted from Marcusso and Müller (2017), EMBRAPA (2018), ANP (2018), ABIS (2019) and CNA (2020). Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 253 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Table 2 – Range of values of physical-chemical characteristics of raw agricultural and agro-industrial wastewaters evaluated. AWWs Parameter Value range Unit References SHWs pH 4.9–8.1 - Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar (2015) Pereira et al. (2016) Plácido and Zhang (2018) Morais (2019) Morais et al. (2020b) Morais et al. (2021) Al 83–1,500 mg L-1 CaCO3 COD 1,018–13,800 mg L -1 O2 BOD 420–5,770 mg L -1 O2 TN 50–840 mg L-1 N-NH4 + 20–340 mg L-1 TP 20–2,260 mg L-1 SWs pH 7.0–8.5 - Suto et al. (2017) Ding et al. (2017) Cheng et al. (2018) Xiao et al. (2018) Morais et al. (2020a) Al 560–4,780 mg L-1 CaCO3 COD 3,000–30,000 mg L -1 O2 BOD 1,500–8,700 mg L -1 O2 TN 800–6,000 mg L-1 N-NH4 + 400–2,000 mg L-1 TP 100–1,400 mg L-1 BWs pH 5.0–11.0 - Shi et al. (2010) Bakare et al. (2017) Arantes et al. (2017) Enitan et al. (2018) Silva, A.S. et al. (2019) Al 190–3,170 mg L-1 CaCO3 COD 2,000–32,500 mg L -1 O2 BOD 1,200–3,600 mg L -1 O2 TN 25–450 mg L-1 N-NH4 + 5–22 mg L-1 TP 0.5–20 mg L-1 DWs pH 4.7–1.0 - Lu et al. (2016) Justina et al. (2018) Murcia et al. (2018) Daneshvar et al. (2019) Coelho et al. (2020b) Al 140–620 mg L-1 CaCO3 COD 80–95,000 mg L -1 O2 BOD 40–48,000 mg L -1 O2 TN 14–380 mg L-1 N-NH4 + 1–48 mg L-1 TP 9–280 mg L-1 FPWs pH 3.2–7.7 - Borja and Banks (1994) Borja e Banks (1995) Hu et al. (2002) Demirel et al. (2013) Morais et al. (2020b) Al 220–1,500 mg L-1 CaCO3 COD 4,500–10,480 mg L -1 O2 BOD 1,620–2,450 mg L -1 O2 TN 145–165 mg L-1 N-NH4 + 32–43 mg L-1 RG pH 3.7–10.3 - Sittijunda and Reungsang (2012) Oliveira et al. (2015) Silva et al. (2017) Ren et al. (2017) Pan et al. (2019) Coelho et al. (2020a) COD 1,023–1,260 g L -1 O2 TN 0–500 mg L-1 N-NH4 + 5–50 mg L-1 TP 53–90 mg L-1 pH: hydrogenionic potential; Al: total alkalinity; COD: chemical oxygen demand; BOD: biological oxygen demand; TN: total nitrogen; N-NH4 +: ammonium nitrogen; TP: total phosphorus. Morais, N.W.S. et al. 254 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 The constructive and operational aspects of treatment technolo- gies and resource prospecting will not be analyzed. Table 3 pres- ents a compilation of recent studies that aim to treat AWWs with production and resource recover y. Production of struvite and hydroxyapatite by chemical precipitation AWWs have considerable concentrations of nutrients, such as phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). These nutrients can be recovered in the forms of orthophosphates (PO4 3-, HPO4 2-, H2PO 4-, H3PO4) and ammonium nitrogen (N-NH4 +), respectively, through solid pre- cipitates, such as struvite (MgNH4PO4·6H2O) and hydroxyapatite (Ca5(PO4)3OH). The great interest in the biorefinery of these nutrients is since they can be applied in the production of fertilizers for the ag- ricultural industry and as building block chemicals in the chemical in- dustry for the production of nylon, plastic, explosives, rocket fuels and animal feed supplements (Carey et al., 2016). Struvite is considered a slow-release fertilizer, being less soluble in water, and it contains low levels of heavy metals compared to conventional fertilizers, causing less severe environmental impacts on groundwater and water bodies (Wang et al. 2005). The recovery of struvite from AWWs provides the advantage of simultaneously removing phosphorus and nitrogen, depending on the composi- tion of the AWWs, and has been extensively studied for a variety of liquid effluents, especially wastewaters from animal husbandry, particularly swine farming (in the case of struvite), and for effluents from the dairy and soft drink industry as well (Muhmood et  al., 2019). Recently, Kwon et  al. (2018) investigated nitrogen and phos- phorus removal via struvite formation by treating SWs (initial con- centrations of ammonia and phosphate of 3.141 and 60.8 mg L-1, Table 3 – Research on resource recovery from agricultural and agro-industrial wastewaters evaluated in this study.  AWWs Technology Recovered resource Efficiency of resource recovery process References SHWs Anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) CH4 95% COD removal. Yield of CH4: 365 L per kg COD applied. Jensen et al. (2015) Tubular anaerobic digestors Biogas COD removal: more than 70%. Maximum biogas production: 0.2 m3 m-3 d-1. Martí-Herrero et al. (2018) Pilot scale two-stage anaerobic digesters CH4 68.5% COD removal. Maximum CH4 yield: 384 mL per g COD applied. Wang et al. (2018) Microbial fuel cell with aerobic and anaerobic bioreactors Bioelectricity and nitrogen 99% COD removal efficiency. Generation of 162.55 mW m-2 of bioelectricity and 100% nitrogen recovery. Mohammed and Ismail (2018) Batch anaerobic reactor Fed-batch anaerobic reactors Semi-continuous anaerobic reactors CAs Maximum concentration obtained of 100 g L-1 CAs. The predominant acids were C2, C4 and iso-C5. Plácido and Zhang (2018) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs On average, 76% of the applied COD was converted to CAs. Yield 0.76 mg COD per mg COD applied. Morais (2019) SWs Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) H2 69-75% COD removal. Productivity: 0.9 - 1.0 m3 m-3 d-1 H2. Wagner et al. (2009) Photobioreactor Biomass and carbohydrates 60-70% COD removal. 40-90% removal of NH4 +-N. 3.96 g L-1 of maximum biomass concentration and 58% dry weight in carbohydrates. Wang et al. (2015) Anaerobic sequential batch reactor (ASBR) CH4 Maximum CH4 production rate: 1.952 L L -1 d-1. Yang et al. (2016) Constructed wetlands (CWs) Nitrogen 87.7–97.9% removal for N-NH4 + and 85.4–96.1% for TN. Nitrogen recovery: of 120–222 g m-2 year-1. Luo et al. (2018) Anaerobic digester Struvite Removal of ammonia and phosphorus of 91.95 and 99.65%, respectively, with struvite formation in the molar ratio of 1.2 (Mg2+): 1.0 (P-PO4 3-): 1.0 (N-NH3). Kwon et al. (2018) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs On average, 40% of the applied COD was converted to CAs. Yield 0.40 mg COD per mg COD applied. Morais et al. (2020a) Continue... Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 255 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Table 3 – Continuation.  AWWs Technology Recovered resource Efficiency of resource recovery process References BWs Batch anaerobic reactor H2 Maximum H2 yield: 149.6 mL per g COD applied. Shi et al. (2010) Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor CH4 The highest rate of CH4 production occurred at 29 °C. Methane production rate increased from 0.29 to 1.46 L g COD-1, when the loading rate was increased from 2.0 to 8.26 g COD L-1 d-1. Enitan et al. (2015) Immobilized-cells continuously stirred tank reactors (immobilized-cells CSTR) H2 and energy The maximum rate of H2 production of 55 L L -1 d-1 was obtained in hydraulic detention time of 1.5 h. High energy efficiency with an energy production rate of 641 kJ L-1 d-1. Sivagurunathan et al. (2015) Anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) CH4 Removal efficiency of 98% COD with 0.53 L of biogas per g COD removed. Biogas composition: 59% CH4, 31% CO2 and 10% N2. Chen et al. (2016) Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor CH4 78.97% COD removal; 60.21% BOD removal; CH4 corresponded to about 60-69% of the biogas. Enitan et al. (2018) Photosynthetic bacterial- membrane bioreactor (PS-MBR) Algal biomass, bacterial biomass and derived products COD removal above 97%. Yields of biomass, proteins, polysaccharides, bacteriochlorophyll and coenzyme Q10 were respectively 0.51, 0.21, 0.089, 0.0013, 0.0054 and 0.019 g per g COD removed. Lu et al. (2019) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs On average, 76% of the applied COD was converted. Yield of 0.60 g acids per g COD applied. Silva, A.S. et al. (2019) DWs Fed-batch anaerobic Reactors Struvite Recovery of 89% ammonia and 93% phosphate in various compounds, such as struvite. Krishan and Srivastava (2015) Photobioreactor Biodiesel and CAs Maximum COD, TN, and TP removal rates obtained in indoor conditions were 88.38, 38.34, and 2.03 mg L-1 d-1. Lu et al. (2015) Two-stage anaerobic reactors H2 and CH4 64% COD removal. Yield of H2: 105 mL per g COD applied. Yield of CH4: 190 mL per g COD applied. Kothari et al. (2017) Combined system: continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and compartmented anaerobic reactor Biogas 82% COD removal. Yield of Biogas: 0.26 m3 per kg COD removed. Jürgensen et al. (2018) Anaerobic fluidized-bed reactor (AFBR) H2 32.2% COD removal. Maximum H2 productivity: 0.80 L h−1 L−1. Silva, A.N. et al. (2019) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs On average, 83% of the COD applied was converted to CAs. Yield of 0.83 mg COD per mg COD applied. Coelho et al. (2020b) FPWs Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor CH4 87% TOC removed. Yield of CH4: 0.93 m 3 per kg TOC removed. Goodwin et al. (1990) Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor Biogas Biogas yield: 0.31 - 0.52 L g-1 COD. 48.2% - 71.0% of CH4 in biogas. Borja and Banks (1994) Anaerobic filter CH4 70% COD removal. Yield of CH4: 0.36 m 3 per kg COD removed. Hawkes et al. (1995) Batch anaerobic reactor CH4 Yield of CH4: 0.338 L per g COD removed. Percentage of methane in biogas: 70%. Demirel et al. (2013) Batch anaerobic reactor CH4 Yield of CH4: 0.283 L per g COD removed and 0.228 L per g COD applied. Biogas rich in CH4 (83.7%). Morais (2019) Continue... Morais, N.W.S. et al. 256 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Table 3 – Continuation.  AWWs Technology Recovered resource Efficiency of resource recovery process References RG Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor H2 Total energy conversion efficiency of 44.8%. Maximum H2 productivity: 6.2 mmol L -1 h-1. Sittijunda and Reungsang (2012) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs Yield 0.51 g COD per g COD applied. Maximum CAs concentration: 38.5 g COD L-1. Yin et al. (2016) Photobioreactor Biomass and lipids Average biomass production of 16.7 g m−2 d−1, lipid content of 23.6%, and the removal of 2.4 g m−2 d−1 N-NH4 +, 2.7 g m−2 d−1 TN, 3.0 g m−2 d−1 TP, and 103.0 g m−2 d−1 of COD. Ren et al. (2017) Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor H2 Total energy conversion efficiency of 63.63%. Yields of 368 mmol H2 per mol glycerol, 55 mmol H2 per L of 1,3-PDO, and 71 mmol H2 per L of ethanol. Sittijunda and Reungsang (2017) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs and 1,3-PDO Production of C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and 1,3-PDO at concentrations of 0.21, 0.50, 0.50, 2.31, 3.84 and 1.62 g L-1, respectively. Conversion of 100% glycerol. Dams et al. (2018) Batch anaerobic reactor CAs On average, 82% of the COD applied was converted to CAs. Yield 0.82 mg COD per mg COD applied. Coelho (2019) COD: chemical oxygen demand; BOD: biological oxygen demand; CAs: carboxylic acids; TOC: total organic carbon; TN: total nitrogen; N-NH4 +: ammonium nitrogen; TP: total phosphorous; CH4: methane; H2: hydrogen; C2: acetic acid; C3: propionic acid; C4: butyric acid; iso-C5: isovaleric acid; C5: valeric acid; C6: caproic acid; 1,3-PDO: 1,3-propanediol. respectively) in an anaerobic digester. The authors obtained ammonia and phosphorus removal efficiency of 91.95 and 99.65%, respectively, with the formation of struvite in the molar ratio of 1.2 (Mg2+):1.0 (P-PO4 3-):1.0 (N-NH3). Krishan and Srivastava (2015) established the same objective as the aforementioned authors, but treating DWs (ini- tial concentrations of ammonia and phosphate of 69.96 and 45.05 mg L-1, respectively) in an anaerobic batch reactor and achieved recovery of 89% ammonia and 93% phosphate in the form of various com- pounds together with struvite. For the efficient recovery of struvite from AWWs that have low concentrations of magnesium and phosphorus about ammonium ni- trogen concentrations, it is necessary to supplement magnesium and phosphorus salts, since, theoretically, the molar ratio 1:1:1 of Mg:N:P is a requirement for its precipitation (Muhmood et al., 2019). Among the AWWs presented in this work, the SWs would be the most promising for the recovery of struvite due to the high levels of total nitrogen (800–6,000 mg L-1 N) and total phosphorus (100–1,400 mg L-1 P) commonly found in its composition (Kumar and Pal, 2015; Ding et al., 2017), which confirms the struvite recovery potential wide- ly reported in the literature for this type of AWW (Suzuki et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2019). However, it is expected that it will be necessary to supplement the reaction medium with magnesium, since studies show that, in general, SWs are rich in ammonium and phosphate, while their magnesium content is low (Muhmood et al., 2019). Despite this, the recovery of phosphorus as struvite is not always possible or appropriate since the precipitation of this compound competes with the precipitation of hydroxyapatite when the Ca2+/P molar ratio is greater than 1, which can be a problem in the recov- ery of struvite in AWWs that include calcium in their composition (Monballiu et  al., 2018). Ca2+ ions block struvite’s growth surface, thus impairing its formation (Pastor et  al., 2008). Tao et  al. (2016) reported that a high Ca2+/Mg2+ molar ratio (greater than 0.5) caus- es a competitive environment between the formation of struvite and calcium-based phosphate products, causing adverse impacts on the formation of struvite. Accordingly, Hakimi et  al. (2020) evaluated the recovery of stru- vite from SHWs using an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR). They  reported that the molar ratio Mg2+/Ca2+ of 0.8 (high concentra- tion of calcium ions) has a significant negative impact on the produc- tion and quality of struvite. The authors also observed that when SHWs were treated with a negligible concentration of Ca2+ (molar ratio of Mg2+/Ca2+ > 20), 80% of total phosphorus was removed via struvite pre- cipitation. Also, higher rates of nitrogen and phosphorus removal were obtained at pH 9.5 with a 2:1 Mg2+/PO4 3- molar ratio. Sreyvich  et  al. (2020) also evaluated SHWs for nutrient recovery and conclud- ed that this residue is promising for struvite recovery by obtaining 99.3% phosphate and 98.1% ammonium removal using a PO4 3-/Mg2+ molar ratio of 1:3 at pH 9.0. Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 257 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 In addition to SWs and SHWs, DWs are also commonly investi- gated for struvite recovery due to their high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus (Rabinovich et al., 2018; Lavanya and Thanga, 2020). However, DWs have high concentrations of Ca2+ ions, which prompts many researchers to study techniques and operational strategies aimed at optimizing struvite recovery through the use of this AWW as a sub- strate (Numviyimana et al., 2020). Thus, another possibility is the recovery of phosphorus from hy- droxyapatite precipitation. Hydroxyapatite is used in the medical and dental fields as a coating material for metal implants and for filling bone cavities (Valente, 1999). Ease of handling and low cost of inputs are considered the main advantages of recovering this mineral from AWWs (De-Bashan and Bashan, 2004). However, compared to stru- vite, hydroxyapatite has no potential as a fertilizer for agriculture due to its low solubility and sufficient Ca2+/P specific binding strength to hinder P availability in the soil (Hao et al., 2013; Shashvatt et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). DWs are promising for the recovery of phosphorus via hydroxy- apatite precipitation since they commonly have high concentrations of phosphate, ammonium and calcium (up to 950 mg L-1 Ca2+) (Demi- rel et  al., 2005; Kharbanda and Prasanna, 2016). Generally, calcium salts are used during the production of dairy products, which could decrease costs by supplementing this compound in hydroxyapatite re- covery (Karadag et al., 2015). Production of algal biomass, bacterial biomass and products derived from biological treatment of agricultural and agro‑industrial wastewaters Besides prospecting for nutrients, a diversity of bioproducts can be recovered through biological treatments in aerobic processes. Among these products, algal biomass, bacterial biomass and products derived from aerobic treatment stand out (Wang et al., 2015; Lu et al., 2019). Aerobic treatment is an oxidation process by which microor- ganisms degrade organic matter and other pollutants in the presence of oxygen (O2). In this type of treatment, the main objective is to achieve a high degree of substrate conversion. One of the fundamental advan- tages is that the oxidative degradation of carbon present in wastewater provides the necessary energy to propagate microorganisms that act as catalysts. (Ranade and Bhandari, 2014). For this reason, biological treatment in aerobic AWW processes has been studied to obtain bio- mass to extract cellular components that may be useful industrially, such as carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and enzymes. Wang et al. (2015), for example, studied the treatment of SWs at dif- ferent dilutions (without dilution and dilutions of 5, 10 and 20 times), using the microalga Chlorella vulgaris JSC-6 in a photobioreactor to obtain biomass rich in carbohydrates, which can be used as a raw ma- terial for the fermentative production of biofuels. The authors achieved about 60–70% removal of COD and 40–90% removal of N-NH3 de- pending on the dilution rate adopted, with the highest removal rate ob- tained at 20 times dilution. Mixotrophic cultivation using wastewater diluted five times resulted in the highest biomass concentration (3.96 g L-1). Besides, the carbohydrate content in microalgae produced from the SWs can reach 58% (dry weight). Lu et  al. (2019) investigated photosynthetic bacteria’s use to treat BWs in a photosynthetic bacterial-membrane bioreactor (PS-MBR) on a pilot scale, aimed at the production of bacterial biomass rich in com- pounds of industrial interest. The authors obtained satisfactory results, reaching COD removal above 97% and yields of biomass, proteins, polysaccharides, carotenoids, bacteriochlorophyll and coenzyme Q10 of respectively 0.51, 0.21, 0.089, 0.0013, 0.0054 and 0.019 g g-1 COD removed. These bioproducts are added value compounds that can be used in agriculture and the cosmetic and medical industries. Methane and hydrogen production from anaerobic treatment of agricultural and agro‑industrial wastewaters Another biological treatment option for AWWs is anaerobic treat- ment, which is more complex than aerobic treatment due to the dif- ferent metabolic pathways that microorganisms can use to degrade organic matter present in waste. In recent years, this type of treatment’s relevance has increased due to higher energy costs and the operational and managerial problems of aerobic processes, such as excessive sludge disposal (Show and Lee, 2017). Conventionally, anaerobic digestion has been adopted for the pro- duction of bioenergy from different organic residues, mainly for CH4 prospecting, which can be used for the generation of electricity, heat, steam, as a vehicle fuel and for injection into the natural gas network for domestic use, as well as for the production of H2, which can be used as fuel in vehicles and for electricity generation (Silva et  al., 2020a). CH4 is the biogas purification product, that is, the removal of impuri- ties present, such as CO2, water, H2S and siloxanes. The main technolo- gies used for this purpose are pressure swing adsorption, high-pressure water washing, organic solvent washing, amine clearance, membrane separation and cryogenic separation (Khan et  al., 2017). This stage is considered the most expensive in the CH4 production and recovery process. Therefore, it is crucial to adopt the most effective and efficient technology to obtain the required degree of purity for a specific appli- cation (Muñoz et al., 2015). When considering the viability of waste as a raw material for a biogas generation plant, it is necessary to understand how the pro- duction of CH4 or H2 occurs from this substrate (Alzate et al., 2012). For this, the biogas potential production (BPP) test is widely used, and as the experimental conditions of this test are not yet fully stan- dardized, it is possible to adapt it to evaluate different substrates, inoculants and gases, mainly CH4 and H2 (Strömberg et  al., 2014). The BPP test results mostly in stoichiometric coefficients of biogas production and cell growth, which can be used to estimate the gas of interest and manage the sludge produced in anaerobic treatment units (Sun et al., 2015). Morais, N.W.S. et al. 258 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 The technical literature presents research on the BPP for each of the AWWs analyzed in this work, showing that these substrates have po- tential for prospecting this bioproduct (Table 3). As an example, Yang et al. (2016) studied the production of CH4 in an anaerobic sequential batch reactor (ASBR) using SWs as substrate. They reported that the highest volumetric methane production rate (1.95 L L-1 d-1 CH4) was obtained when the system was operated at 35 °C with an organic load of 7.2 g L-1 d-1 VS. Enitan et al. (2018) reported that 80% of the organic matter used from the BWs was converted to CH4 in an upflow anaero- bic sludge blanket — UASB reactor. Martí-Herrero et  al. (2018) investigated the production of biogas treating SHWs in tubular anaerobic digesters, aiming to identify the best operational conditions for its production. The organic loading rate (OLR) varied from 0.04 to 1.13 kg m-3 d-1 VS and the hydraulic deten- tion time (HDT) from 3.2 to 87.4 days. The authors observed a peak of biogas production of 0.2 m3 m-3 d-1 for OLR of 0.37 kg m-3 d-1 SV with 9.7 days HDT. COD removal above 70% was achieved with HDT greater than 19 days. Regarding the production of H2, Silva, A.N. et al. (2019) evaluated the effect of OLR on H2 production from the use of DWs as a sub- strate in an anaerobic fluidized-bed reactor (AFBR). Different OLRs of 28.7, 53.2 and 101.7 kg m-3 d-1 COD and different HDT corresponding to 8, 6 and 4 h, respectively, were applied. The researchers concluded that the increase in OLR negatively affects the production of H2 since the gas yield fell from 2.56 ± 0.62 to 0.95 ± 0.28 mol H2 per mol of carbohydrate as OLR increased from 28.65 to 95.76 kg m-3 d-1 COD. The content of H2 in biogas and the highest volumetric production of H2 were respectively 35.72 ± 9.43% and 0.80 ± 0.21 L h -1 L-1 H2 when the OLR was 53.25 ± 7.81 kg m-3 d-1 COD. Sittijunda and Reungsang (2017) evaluated the production of H2 from RG and found a maximum productivity rate of 3.2 L L-1 d-1 H2, but the COD removal efficiency was not presented. Despite extensive research on the anaerobic digestion of AWWs and on the prospecting and purification of biogas, the use of CH4 in Brazil from landfills and sewage treatment plants (STPs) was only reg- ulated in 2017 by the National Petroleum Agency, Natural Gas and Bio- fuels (Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis — ANP) with ANP Resolution No. 685/2017, which promoted an increase in the share of this resource in the Brazilian energy matrix (ANP, 2017). According to the International Center for Renewable En- ergies-Biogas (Centro Internacional de Energias Renováveis-Biogás — CIBiogás) between 2010 and 2018, the share of biogas in the Brazilian energy matrix increased from 0.01%, (14 thousand toes, a ton of oil equivalent) to 0.07% (CIBiogás, 2020). In 2018, the primary sources of biogas production were landfills (72%), the food/beverage indus- tries (14%), swine farming (7%) and sewage sludge (5%) (EPE, 2019). Thus, the importance of STPs and agribusiness for consolidating a market for biogas and CH4 is perceived. Nonetheless, Brazil still has an underutilized potential, having only 275 biogas production plants in operation, mostly located in Brazil’s South and Southeast regions (CIBiogás, 2020). Production of carboxylic acids from anaerobic treatment of agricultural and agro‑industrial wastewaters There has been a trend in the search for by-products from the aci- dogenic fermentation stage of anaerobic digestion, such as short-chain carboxylic acids (SCCAs) (acetic acid – C2, propionic – C3, butyric – C4, and valeric – C5). These compounds are building block chem- icals widely applied in the industry in producing varnishes, paints, perfumes, disinfectants, surfactants, textile auxiliaries, medicines and food products (Lee et al., 2014). The organic production of carboxylic acids (CAs) has been advocated as an effective way to generate sustain- able fuels and chemicals from biomass and organic waste (Silva et al., 2020b). Conventionally, CAs are produced by petrochemical routes, and for this reason, their production by biological means from sub- strates rich in organic matter, as is the case of AWWs, is interesting both from an environmental and economic point of view (Sittijunda and Reungsang, 2017). The biological production of CAs occurs during the hydrolyt- ic-acidogenic process of organic matter, requiring the inhibition of the methanogenesis and sulfate reduction steps to block the conversion of CAs to CH4 and H2S (Kleerebezem et al., 2015). The main strategies for inhibiting the activity of methanogenic archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria are the addition of chloroform, which acts by inhibiting the coenzyme M reductase necessary for the metabolism of archaea (Vi- ana et al., 2019), the addition of 2-bromoethanesulfonic acid (2-BES), which acts in the inhibition of the acetyl-CoA route, and the combined addition of chloroform and molybdate, which works directly in the enzymatic inactivation. However, the use of chemical agents in this inhibition increases the production of CAs, which encourages the de- velopment of studies related to other inhibition strategies, such as pH reduction and nutritional restriction (Siriwongrungson et al., 2007; Ge et al., 2015). SCCAs are the main products of acidogenic fermentation of or- ganic residues, while medium-chain carboxylic acids (MCCAs), which have six to twelve carbon atoms, are formed in lower concentrations (Steinbusch et  al., 2011). MCCCs are formed during the carboxylic chain elongation process (CCEP), in which an SCCA such as C2 re- acts with reduced organic material, usually ethanol or other alcohol, forming an MCCA such as caproic acid (C6) and caprylic acid (C8) (Cavalcante et al., 2017). MCCAs are more economically attractive than SCCAs and can be used as food additives, antimicrobial agents, precursors for biodiesel production, and bioplastics production (Strazzera et al., 2018). In ad- dition to greater industrial applicability, MCCAs are easier to extract from the reaction medium compared to SCCAs because of their great- er hydrophobicity, reducing costs with downstream processing of these bioproducts (Grootscholten et al., 2013). It is estimated that the aggre- Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 259 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 gate value of MCCAs is 2,000-2,500 USD ton-1, thus being higher than the market price of SCCAs (400–2,500 USD ton-1), CH4 (200–600 USD ton-1) and H2 (800–1,600 USD ton -1) (Bastidas-Oyanedel et  al., 2015; Moscoviz et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2020a). In this sense, studies indicate that the recovery of CAs from the acidogenic fermentation of agricultural and agro-industrial waste is possibly more advantageous in economic terms than CH4 and H2 (Bastidas-Oyanedel and Schmidt, 2018). Silva et  al. (2020a) reported that the gross added value of CAs is higher than that of CH4 and H2. However, it is necessary to carry out further economic studies, mainly involving the analysis of downstream processing costs (e.g., costs in- volved in extracting CAs from the fermentation medium). Morais et  al. (2020a) and Coelho et  al. (2020b) assessed the CA production potential of SWs and DWs, respectively. The experiments were carried out in four batch reactors made of borosilicate glass with a reaction volume of 250 and 50 mL of headspace, inoculated with the brewery sludge at a substrate/inoculum (S/I) of 0.60 ± 0.04 g COD per g SSV. To inhibit methanogenic activity, the authors added chloroform 0.05% (v/v) to the basal medium. Morais et  al. (2020a) reported that 40% of the applied organic matter from SWs was bio- converted to CAs, with a yield of 0.33 g acids per g COD. Coelho et al. (2020b) observed that DWs have a high potential for acidification under acidogenic conditions and obtained the conversion of 83% of the COD applied to CAs, representing a yield of 0.66 g acids per g COD. The leading CAs formed were C2 and C4; however, the authors pointed out that SWs and DWs have the potential for the production of MCCAs because even without the addition of electron donors or the application of other methods to enhance CCEP, C6 was formed in low concentrations. In further research, Morais et al. (2021) and Coelho et al. (2020a) also evaluated the prospecting of CAs from SHWs and RG, respective- ly, using the same operational conditions as their previous studies with SWs and DWs. For SHWs, the authors reported the conversion of 76% of COD to CAs (yield of 0.55 g acids per g COD), while for RG a yield of 0.62 g acids per g COD was obtained, corresponding to 82% conver- sion of applied organic matter. On the basis of these studies, the authors concluded that more sol- uble AWWs generally have a greater potential for CA production due to the reduction of the hydrolysis step and the fact that organic matter is readily available for acidogenic microorganisms, which promotes rapid use and bioconversion of the substrate into CAs. In this sense, SHWs, DWs, BWs and RG because of their high levels of soluble or- ganic matter are more promising substrates to be investigated for the production of CAs than substrates that have a higher concentration of organic matter in the particulate fraction, such as SWs. In this per- spective, showing the high potential of soluble substrates for the or- ganic production of CAs, Yin et al. (2016) investigated the acidogenic fermentation of glucose, peptone and RG in batch reactors inoculated with mixed biomass from a brewery wastewater treatment. They re- ported average yields of 0.66, 0.60 and 0.51 g COD per g COD for these substrates, respectively. To increase the production of MCCAs in acidogenic processes and to enhance, several strategies have been investigated, such as the establishment of optimized operational parameters (pH, tem- perature, volumetric organic load, hydraulic detention time) and the external addition of donors of electrons to the fermentation process (Steinbusch et al., 2011). Approximately 80% of studies aimed at pro- ducing C6 use ethanol as an electron donor to favor CCEP. How- ever,  this external addition can cause environmental impacts and increase the costs of the fermentation process. Therefore, one of the focuses of current research is to optimize ethanol’s dose required by CCEP (Moscoviz et al., 2018). Another technique to favor CCEP is bio-augmentation (addition of microorganisms specialized in chain extension to mixed microbi- al cultures). According to Hung et  al. (2011), bio-augmentation can improve the rate of degradation of complex compounds by combin- ing microorganisms’ metabolic pathways and assisting in producing precursors (C2 and C4) for CCEP. Dams et al. (2018) conducted a C6 production experiment in batch reactors by the RG’s acidogenic fer- mentation using bio-increased brewing sludge with Clostridium ace- tobutylicum ATCC 824 as an inoculum and adding 100 mM ethanol to stimulate CCEP. The authors reported that the C6 concentration increased from 1.61 to 3.82 g L-1. Another resource studied to increase the production of MCCAs in anaerobic reactors is the extraction concomitant with its output. This process reduces problems of inhibition of microbial activity due to the toxicity of the CAs formed. The production of CAs in anaerobic reactors requires extraction techniques specific to the type of acid pro- duced. Usually, a selective extraction module for only one MCCA is the preferable choice to relieve toxicity to microorganisms of this product and recirculate to the reactor the remaining SCCAs not yet elongated to be reused in the process (Cavalcante et al., 2017). Hybrid membrane modules with extracting liquids have been among the leading technologies for prospecting CAs (Moraes et  al., 2015). In this process, the more hydrophobic CA in greater concen- tration has removal priority (Ge et al., 2015). Although there are sev- eral techniques capable of extracting CAs from anaerobic fermen- tation processes, including ion exchange resin, electrodialysis and liquid-liquid extraction membrane, the recovery of these bioproducts from the reaction (fermented) liquid is still one of the main barriers of the biological process production of CAs, requiring further studies on the optimization of operational parameters (López-Garzón and Straathof, 2014). Conclusion On the basis of the technical literature review carried out on the composition and physical-chemical characterization of agricultural and agro-industrial wastewaters (AWWs), it was possible to conclude Morais, N.W.S. et al. 260 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 that swine wastewaters (SWs), slaughterhouse wastewaters (SHWs) and wastewaters from milk processing (DWs) are the most promis- ing for the recovery of struvite since they generally have high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen. DWs also stand out for the recovery of hydroxyapatite due to high concentrations of phosphorus and calci- um. SWs and wastewaters from beer production (BWs) are commonly used in research to recover biomass rich in carbohydrates, proteins and polysaccharides. All the AWWs analyzed are suitable for prospecting for biogas, methane and hydrogen. The more soluble AWWs (e.g., SHWs, DWs, BWs and residual glycerol — RG) are more promising for research in producing carboxylic acids compared to more partic- ulate substrates, such as SWs. The scarcity of studies with fruit pro- cessing wastewaters (FPWs) from ice cream production is noteworthy. Thus, due to the high output of AWWs, Brazil is a promising country for the implementation of treatment plants that aim to recover resourc- es from these liquid wastes. Contribution of authors: Morais, N.W.S.: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing - original draft, and writing — review and editing. Coelho, M.M.H.: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing — original draft, and writing — review and editing. Sousa e Silva, A.: Methodology and writing — review and editing. Pereira, E.L.: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, validation and acquisition of funding. References Abdel-Fatah, M.A.; Sherif, H.O.; Hawash, S.I., 2017. Design Parameters for Waste Effluent Treatment Unit from Beverages Production. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, v. 8, (3), 305-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2016.04.008 Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP). 2017. Resolução ANP nº 685, de 29.6.2018 - DOU 30.6.2017. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP) (Accessed January 22, 2020) at: http://legislacao.anp.gov.br/?path=legislacao-anp/resol-anp/2017/ junho&item=ranp-685--2017 Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP). 2018. Anuário Estatístico Brasileiro Do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP) (Accessed January 22, 2020) at: http://www.anp.gov.br/images/publicacoes/ anuario-estatistico/2018/anuario_2018.pdf Alzate, M.E.; Muñoz, R.; Rogalla, F.; Fdz-Polanco, F.; Pérez-Elvira, S.I., 2012. Biochemical Methane Potential of Microalgae: Influence of Substrate to Inoculum Ratio, Biomass Concentration and Pretreatment. Bioresource Technology, v. 123, 488-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.113 Anitha, M.; Kamarudine, S.K.; Kofli, N.T., 2016. The Potential of Glycerol as a Value-Added Commodity. Chemical Engineering Journal, v. 295, 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.03.012 Arantes, M.K.; Alves, H.J.; Sequinel, R.; Silva, E.A., 2017. Treatment of Brewery Wastewater and Its Use for Biological Production of Methane and Hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 42, (42), 26243-26256. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.206 Associação Brasileira das Indústrias e do Setor de Sorvetes (ABIS). 2019. Produção e Consumo de Sorvetes No Brasil. Associação Brasileira das Indústrias e do Setor de Sorvetes (ABIS) (Accessed January 20, 2020) at: http://www.abis.com.br/ Bakare, B.F.; Shabangu, K.; Chetty, M., 2017. Brewery Wastewater Treatment Using Laboratory Scale Aerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor. South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, v. 24, 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sajce.2017.08.001 Barros, G.S.C.; Castro, N.R.; Morais, A.C.P.; Machado, G.C.; Almeida, F.M.S.; Almeida, A.N., 2020. Mercado de Trabalho do Agronegócio Brasileiro. Boletim Mercado de Trabalho do Agronegócio Brasileiro. Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada (CEPEA) e Fundação de Estudos Agrários Luiz de Queiroz (FEALQ), Piracicaba, v. 4. Bastidas-Oyanedel, J.R.; Bonk, F.; Thomsen, M.H.; Schmidt, J.E., 2015. Dark Fermentation Biorefinery in the Present and Future (Bio)Chemical Industry. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, v. 14, (3), 473-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9369-3. Bastidas-Oyanedel, J.R.; Schmidt, J.E., 2018. Increasing Profits in Food Waste Biorefinery-a Techno-Economic Analysis. Energies, v. 11, (6), 1551. https:// doi.org/10.3390/en11061551 Borja, R.; Banks, C.J., 1994. Kinetics of an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Treating Ice-Cream Wastewater. Environmental Technology, v. 15, (3), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593339409385423 Borja, R.; Banks, C.J., 1995. Response of an Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor Treating Ice-Cream Wastewater to Organic, Hydraulic, Temperature and PH Shocks. Journal of Biotechnology, v. 39, (3), 251-259. https://doi. org/10.1016/0168-1656(95)00021-H Brasil. Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. 2011. Resolução nº 430, de 13 de Maio de 2011, do Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente – Conama. Dispõe Sobre as Condições e Padrões de Lançamento de Efluentes, Completa e Altera a Resolução nº 357, de Março de 2005, do Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente – CONAMA. Diário Oficial Da União. Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. 2018. Projeções do Agronegócio: Brasil 2017/18 a 2027/28. Projeções de Longo Prazo. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília (Accessed February 5, 2020) at: https://www.bnb.gov.br/documents/80223/3732326/ Informe+Agronegocio+03+-+Out2018.pdf/af384b9e-40aa-684d-60ae- e35222f015bd#:~:text=As%20proje%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20para%20o%20 algod%C3%A3o,27%2C4%25%20na%20produ%C3%A7%C3%A3o Bustillo-Lecompte, C.F.; Mehrvar, M., 2015. Slaughterhouse Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment, and Management in the Meat Processing Industry: A Review on Trends and Advances. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 161, 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2016.04.008 http://legislacao.anp.gov.br/?path=legislacao-anp/resol-anp/2017/junho&item=ranp-685--2017 http://legislacao.anp.gov.br/?path=legislacao-anp/resol-anp/2017/junho&item=ranp-685--2017 http://www.anp.gov.br/images/publicacoes/anuario-estatistico/2018/anuario_2018.pdf http://www.anp.gov.br/images/publicacoes/anuario-estatistico/2018/anuario_2018.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.206 http://www.abis.com.br/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajce.2017.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajce.2017.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9369-3 https://doi.org/10.3390/en11061551 https://doi.org/10.3390/en11061551 https://doi.org/10.1080/09593339409385423 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1656(95)00021-H https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1656(95)00021-H https://www.bnb.gov.br/documents/80223/3732326/Informe+Agronegocio+03+-+Out2018.pdf/af384b9e-40aa-684d-60ae-e35222f015bd# https://www.bnb.gov.br/documents/80223/3732326/Informe+Agronegocio+03+-+Out2018.pdf/af384b9e-40aa-684d-60ae-e35222f015bd# https://www.bnb.gov.br/documents/80223/3732326/Informe+Agronegocio+03+-+Out2018.pdf/af384b9e-40aa-684d-60ae-e35222f015bd# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.008 Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 261 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Carey, D.E.; Yang, Y.; McNamara, P.J.; Mayer, B.K., 2016. Recovery of Agricultural Nutrients from Biorefineries. Bioresource Technology, v. 215, 186- 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.093 Cavalcante, W.A.; Leitão, R.C.; Gehring, T.A.; Angenent, L.T.; Santaella, S.T., 2017. Anaerobic Fermentation for N-Caproic Acid Production: A Review. Process Biochemistry, v. 54, 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procbio.2016.12.024 Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada (CEPEA); Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária (CNA). 2020. PIB do Agronegócio Brasileiro de 1996 a 2018. Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada (CEPEA) e Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária (CNA). Cervieri Júnior, O.; Teixeira Júnior, J.R.; Galinari, R.; Rawet, E.L.; Silveira, C.T.J. 2014. O Setor de Bebidas No Brasil. Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social, (40), 93-129. Chandra, R.; Castillo-Zacarias, C.; Delgado, P.; Parra-Saldívar, R., 2018. A Biorefinery Approach for Dairy Wastewater Treatment and Product Recovery towards Establishing a Biorefinery Complexity Index. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 183, 1184-1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.124 Chen, H.; Chang, S.; Guo, Q.; Hong, Y.; Wu, P., 2016. Brewery Wastewater Treatment Using an Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor. Biochemical Engineering Journal, v. 105, (part B), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bej.2015.10.006 Cheng, D.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.S.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Mathava Kumar, S.; Du, B.; Wei, Q.; Wei, D., 2018. Problematic Effects of Antibiotics on Anaerobic Treatment of Swine Wastewater. Bioresource Technology, v. 263, 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.010 Chernicharo, C.A.L., 2007. Reatores Anaeróbios. 2 ed. UFMG/DESA, Belo Horizonte, 245 pp. Centro Internacional de Energias Renováveis-Biogás (CIBiogás). 2020. Centro Internacional de Energias Renováveis-Biogás (Accessed April, 2020) at: https:// cibiogas.org Coelho, M.M.H. 2019. Avaliação Do Potencial e Modelagem Cinética Da Produção de Ácidos Carboxílicos a Partir de Resíduos Agroindustriais Tratados Anaerobiamente. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Biotecnologia), Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza. Coelho, M.M.H.; Morais, N.W.S.; Ferreira, T.J.T.; Silva, F.S.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Santos, A.B., 2020a. Carboxylic Acids Production Using Residual Glycerol as a Substrate in Anaerobic Fermentation: A Kinetic Modeling Study. Biomass and Bioenergy, 143, 105874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biombioe.2020.105874 Coelho, M.M.H.; Morais, N.W.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Leitão, R.C.; Santos, A.B., 2020b. Potential Assessment and Kinetic Modeling of Carboxylic Acids Production Using Dairy Wastewater as Substrate. Biochemical Engineering Journal, v. 156, 107502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2020.107502 Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária (CNA). 2020. Panorama do Agro. Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária (CNA). (Accessed January 22, 2020) at: https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/cna/panorama-do-agro. Dams, R.I.; Viana, M.B.; Guilherme, A.A.; Silva, C.M.; Santos, A.B.; Angenent, L.T.; Santaella, S.T.; Leitão, R.C., 2018. Production of Medium- Chain Carboxylic Acids by Anaerobic Fermentation of Glycerol Using a Bioaugmented Open Culture. Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 118, 1-7. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.07.023 Daneshvar, E.; Zarrinmehr, M.J.; Koutra, E.; Kornaros, M.; Farhadian, O.; Bhatnagar, A., 2019. Sequential Cultivation of Microalgae in Raw and Recycled Dairy Wastewater: Microalgal Growth, Wastewater Treatment and Biochemical Composition. Bioresource Technology, v. 273, 556-564. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.059 De-Bashan, L.E.; Bashan, Y., 2004. Recent Advances in Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater and Its Future Use as Fertilizer (1997-2003). Water Research, v. 38, (19), 4222-4246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.07.014 Demirel, B.; Örok, M.; Hot, E.; Erkişi, S.; Albükrek, M.; Onay, T.T., 2013. Recovery of Biogas as a Source of Renewable Energy from Ice-Cream Production Residues and Wastewater. Environmental Technology, v. 34, (13- 14), 2099-2104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.774055 Demirel, B.; Yenigun, O.; Onay, T.T., 2005. Anaerobic Treatment of Dairy Wastewaters: A Review. Process Biochemistry, v. 40, (8), 2583-2595. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.12.015 Ding, W.; Cheng, S.; Yu, L.; Huang, H., 2017. Effective Swine Wastewater Treatment by Combining Microbial Fuel Cells with Flocculation. Chemosphere, v. 182, 567-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chemosphere.2017.05.006 Dornelles, H.S.; Matsuoka, M.; Binelo, L.A.; Pauvels, L.A.; Caron, C.M.; Silva, V.R., 2017. Biomassa e Atividade Microbiana de Solos Com Aplicação de Resíduo Sólido Urbano e Dejeto Líquido de Suínos. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais (Online), (44), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176- 947820170046 Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA). 2018. Anuário do Leite 2018. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) (Accessed Jan 20, 2020) at: ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/ item/181654/1/Anuario-Leite-2018.pdf Enitan, A.M.; Adeyemo, J.; Swalaha, F.M.; Bux, F., 2015. Anaerobic Digestion Model to Enhance Treatment of Brewery Wastewater for Biogas Production Using UASB Reactor. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, v. 20, (6), 673-685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9457-3 Enitan, A.M.; Kumari, S.; Odiyo, J.O.; Bux, F.; Swalaha, F.M., 2018. Principal Component Analysis and Characterization of Methane Community in a Full-Scale Bioenergy Producing UASB Reactor Treating Brewery Wastewater. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, v. 108, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pce.2018.06.006 Empresa de Pesquisa Energética (EPE). 2019. Biogás no Brasil: Visão Atual e Futura. VI Fórum do Biogás, São Paulo, Brasil. Enteshari, M.; Martínez-Monteagudo, S.I., 2018. Subcritical Hydrolysis of Ice-Cream Wastewater: Modeling and Functional Properties of Hydrolysate. Food and Bioproducts Processing, v. 111, 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fbp.2018.08.002 Fernandes, T.A.; Naval L.P., 2017. Potencial de Utilização de Efluentes Tratados de Laticínios. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais (Online), (46), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820170235 Fia, R.; Pereira, E.L.; Fia, F.R.L.; Emboaba, D.G.; Gomes, E.M., 2015. Start-up of Anaerobic Reactors for Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment. Engenharia Agrícola, v. 35, (2), 331-339. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric. v35n2p331-339/2015 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018. Dairy Market Review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Accessed January 28, 2020) at: http://www.fao.org/3/I9210EN/i9210en.pdf García, D.; Posadas, E.; Grajeda, C.; Blanco, S.; Martínez-Páramo, S.; Acién, G.; García-Encina, P.; Bolado, S.; Muñoz, R., 2017. Comparative Evaluation of Piggery Wastewater Treatment in Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactors under Indoor and Outdoor Conditions. Bioresource Technology, v. 245, (part A), 483-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.135 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.093 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2016.12.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2016.12.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.010 https://cibiogas.org https://cibiogas.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105874 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105874 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2020.107502 https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/cna/panorama-do-agro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.07.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.07.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.07.014 https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.774055 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.12.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.12.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.006 https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820170046 https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820170046 http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/181654/1/Anuario-Leite-2018.pdf http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/181654/1/Anuario-Leite-2018.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9457-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.06.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.06.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2018.08.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2018.08.002 https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820170235 https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v35n2p331-339/2015 https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v35n2p331-339/2015 http://www.fao.org/3/I9210EN/i9210en.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.135 Morais, N.W.S. et al. 262 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Ge, S.; Usack, J.G.; Spirito, C.M.; Angenent, L.T., 2015. Long-Term n-Caproic Acid Production from Yeast-Fermentation Beer in an Anaerobic Bioreactor with Continuous Product Extraction. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 49, (13), 8012-8021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00238 Goodwin, J.A.S.; Wase, D.A.J.; Forster, C.F., 1990. Anaerobic Digestion of Ice-Cream Wastewaters Using the UASB Process. Biological Wastes, v. 32, (2), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(90)90077-6 Grootscholten, T.I.M.; Steinbusch, K.J.J.; Hamelers, H..V.M.; Buisman, C.J.N., 2013. High Rate Heptanoate Production from Propionate and Ethanol Using Chain Elongation. Bioresource Technology, v. 136, 715-718. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.085 Hakimi, M.H.; Jegatheesan, V.; Navaratna, D., 2020. The Potential of Adopting Struvite Precipitation as a Strategy for the Removal of Nutrients from Pre- AnMBR Treated Abattoir Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 259, 109783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109783 Hao, X.; Wang, C.; Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Hu, Y., 2013. Looking beyond Struvite for P-Recovery. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 47, (10), 4965-4966. https://doi.org/10.1021/es401140s Hawkes, F.R.; Donnelly, T.; Anderson, G.K., 1995. Comparative Performance of Anaerobic Digesters Operating on Ice-Cream Wastewater. Water Research, v. 29, (2), 525-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)00163-2 Hu, W.C.; Thayanithy, K.; Forster, C. F., 2002. A Kinetic Study of the Anaerobic Digestion of Ice-Cream Wastewater. Process Biochemistry, v. 37, (9), 965-971. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00310-7 Hung, C.-H.; Chang, Y.-T.; Chang, Y.-J., 2011. Roles of Microorganisms Other than Clostridium and Enterobacter in Anaerobic Fermentative Biohydrogen Production Systems - A Review. Bioresource Technology, v. 102, (18), 8437- 8444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.084 Jensen, P.D., Yap, S.D.; Boyle-Gotla, A.; Janoschka, J.; Carney, C.; Pidou, M.; Batstone, D.J., 2015. Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors Enable High Rate Treatment of Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 97, 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.02.009 Jürgensen, L.; Ehimen, E.A.; Born, J.; Holm-Nielsen, J.B. 2018. A Combination Anaerobic Digestion Scheme for Biogas Production from Dairy Effluent— CSTR and ABR, and Biogas Upgrading. Biomass and Bioenergy, 111, 241-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.04.007 Justina, M.D.; Muniz, B.R.B.; Bröring, M.M.; Costa, V.J.; Skoronski, E. 2018. Using Vegetable Tannin and Polyaluminium Chloride as Coagulants for Dairy Wastewater Treatment: A Comparative Study. Journal of Water Process Engineering, v. 25, 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.08.001 Karadag, D.; Köroʇlu, O.E.; Ozkaya, B.; Cakmakci, M., 2015. A Review on Anaerobic Biofilm Reactors for the Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater. Process Biochemistry, v. 50, (2), 262-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procbio.2014.11.005 Khan, I.U.; Othman, M.H.D.; Hashim, H.; Matsuura, T.; Ismail, A.F.; Rezaei- DashtArzhandi, M.; Wan Azelee, I., 2017. Biogas as a Renewable Energy Fuel – A Review of Biogas Upgrading, Utilisation and Storage. Energy Conversion and Management, v. 150, 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enconman.2017.08.035 Kharbanda, A.; Prasanna, K., 2016. Extraction of Nutrients from Dairy Wastewater in the Form of Map (Magnesium Ammonium Phosphate) and Hap (Hydroxyapatite). Rasayan Journal of Chemistry, v. 9, (2), 215-221 Kleerebezem, R.; Joosse, B.; Rozendal, R.; Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2015. Anaerobic Digestion without Biogas ? Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, v. 14, (4), 787-801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9374-6 Konstantas, A.; Stamford, L.; Azapagic, A. 2019. Environmental Impacts of Ice Cream. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 209, 259-272. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.237 Kothari, R.; Kumar, V.; Pathak, V.V.; Tyagi, V.V., 2017. Sequential Hydrogen and Methane Production with Simultaneous Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater: Bioenergy Profit Approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 42, (8), 4870-4879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.163 Krishan, A.; Srivastava, A., 2015. Recovery of Nutrients from Dairy Wastewater by Struvite Crystallization. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, v. 3, (5), 591-597. Kumar, R.; Pal, P., 2015. Assessing the Feasibility of N and P Recovery by Struvite Precipitation from Nutrient-Rich Wastewater: A Review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, v. 22, 17453-17464. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-015-5450-2 Kwon, G.; Kang, J.; Nam, J.H.; Kim, Y.O.; Jahng, D., 2018. Recovery of Ammonia through Struvite Production Using Anaerobic Digestate of Piggery Wastewater and Leachate of Sewage Sludge Ash. Environmental Technology, v. 39, (7), 831-842. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1312550 Lavanya, A.; Thanga, R.S.K., 2020. Effective Removal of Phosphorous from Dairy Wastewater by Struvite Precipitation: Process Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology and Chemical Equilibrium Modeling. Separation Science and Technology, v. 56, (2), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1080 /01496395.2019.1709080 Lee, W.S.; Chua, A.S.M.; Yeoh, H.K.; Ngoh, G.C., 2014. A Review of the Production and Applications of Waste-Derived Volatile Fatty Acids. Chemical Engineering Journal, v. 235, 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.002 Li, S.; Zeng, W.; Wang, B.; Xu, H.; Peng, Y., 2020. Obtaining Three Cleaner Products under an Integrated Municipal Sludge Resources Scheme: Struvite, Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Biological Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering Journal, v. 380, 122567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122567 López-Garzón, C.S.; Straathof, A.J.J., 2014. Recovery of Carboxylic Acids Produced by Fermentation. Biotechnology Advances, v. 32, (5), 873-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.04.002 Lu, H.; Peng, M.; Zhang, G.; Li, B.; Li, Y., 2019. Brewery Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery through Long Term Continuous-Mode Operation in Pilot Photosynthetic Bacteria-Membrane Bioreactor. Science of the Total Environment, v. 646, 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.268 Lu, Q.; Zhou, W.; Min, M.; Ma, X.; Ma, Y.; Chen, P.; Zheng, H.; Doans, Y.T.T.; Liu, H.; Chen, C.; Urriola, P.E.; Shurson, G.C., Ruan, R., 2016. Mitigating Ammonia Nitrogen Deficiency in Dairy Wastewaters for Algae Cultivation. Bioresource Technology, v. 201, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2015.11.029 Lu, W.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Yuan, Z. 2015. Cultivation of Chlorella Sp. Using Raw Dairy Wastewater for Nutrient Removal and Biodiesel Production: Characteristics Comparison of Indoor Bench-Scale and Outdoor Pilot-Scale Cultures. Bioresource Technology, v. 192, 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2015.05.094 Luo, P.; Liu, F.; Zhang, S.; Li, H.; Yao, R.; Jiang, Q.; Xiao, R.; Wu, J., 2018. Nitrogen Removal and Recovery from Lagoon-Pretreated Swine Wastewater by Constructed Wetlands under Sustainable Plant Harvesting Management. Bioresource Technology, v. 258, 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2018.03.017 Marcusso, E.F.; Müller, C.V., 2017. A Cerveja no Brasil: o Ministério da Agricultura Informando e Esclarecendo. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Accessed February 5, 2020) at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/ inspecao/produtos-vegetal/publicacoes/a-cerveja-no-brasil-28-08.pdf https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00238 https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(90)90077-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.085 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.085 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109783 https://doi.org/10.1021/es401140s https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)00163-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00310-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.084 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.02.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.04.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2014.11.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2014.11.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.035 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.035 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9374-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.163 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5450-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5450-2 https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1312550 https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2019.1709080 https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2019.1709080 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122567 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.04.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.268 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.017 https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-vegetal/publicacoes/a-cerveja-no-brasil-28-08.pdf https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-vegetal/publicacoes/a-cerveja-no-brasil-28-08.pdf Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 263 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Martí-Herrero, J.; Alvarez, R.; Flores, T., 2018. Evaluation of the Low Technology Tubular Digesters in the Production of Biogas from Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 199, 633-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.148 Metcalf e Eddy. 2016. Tratamento de Efluentes e Recuperação de Recursos. 5. ed. AMGH, Porto Alegre, 1080 pp. Mohammed, A.J.; Ismail, Z.Z., 2018. Slaughterhouse Wastewater Biotreatment Associated with Bioelectricity Generation and Nitrogen Recovery in Hybrid System of Microbial Fuel Cell with Aerobic and Anoxic Bioreactors. Ecological Engineering, v. 125, 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.10.010 Monballiu, A.; Desmidt, E.; Ghyselbrecht, K.; Meesschaert, B., 2018. Phosphate Recovery as Hydroxyapatite from Nitrified UASB Effluent at Neutral PH in a CSTR. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, v. 6, (4), 4413-4422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.06.052 Moraes, L.S.; Kronemberger, F.A.; Ferraz, H.C.; Habert, A.C., 2015. Liquid- Liquid Extraction of Succinic Acid Using a Hollow Fiber Membrane Contactor. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, v. 21, 206-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.026 Morais, N.W.S., 2019. Recuperação de Subprodutos (Metano e Ácidos Carboxílicos) Em Sistemas Anaeróbios Tratando Resíduos Agroindustriais. Dissertation, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Civil – Saneamento Ambiental, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza (Accessed February 15, 2020) at: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/40490/3/2019_dis_ nwsmorais.pdf Morais, N.W.S.; Coelho, M.M.H.; Ferreira, T.J.T.; Pereira, E.L.; Leitão, R.C.; Santos, A.B., 2021. A Kinetic Study on Carboxylic Acids Production Using Bovine Slaughterhouse Wastewater: A Promising Substrate for Resource Recovery in Biotechnological Processes. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, v. 44, 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-020-02440-3 Morais, N.W.S.; Coelho, M.M.H.; Silva, A.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Leitão, R.C.; Santos, A.B., 2020a. Kinetic Modeling of Anaerobic Carboxylic Acid Production from Swine Wastewater. Bioresource Technology, v. 297, 122520. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122520 Morais, N.W.S.; Coelho, M.M.H.; Silva, F.S.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Santos, A.B., 2020b. Caracterização Físico-Química e Determinação de Coeficientes Cinéticos Aeróbios de Remoção Da Matéria Orgânica de Águas Residuárias Agroindustriais. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, v. 25, (3), 489-500. https:// doi.org/10.1590/S1413-4152202020190220 Morais, N.W.S.; Santos, A.B., 2019. Análise dos padrões de lançamento de efluentes em corpos hídricos e de reúso de águas residuárias de diversos estados do Brasil. Revista DAE, v. 67, (215), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.4322/ dae.2019.004 Moscoviz, R.; Trably, E.; Bernet, N.; Carrère, H., 2018. The Environmental Biorefinery: State-of-the-Art on the Production of Hydrogen and Value-Added Biomolecules in Mixed-Culture Fermentation. Green Chemistry, v. 20, (14), 3159-3179. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8gc00572a Mota, C.J.A.; Silva, C.X.A.; Gonçalves, V.L.C., 2009. Glycerochemistry: New Products and Processes from Glycerin of Biodiesel Production. Química Nova, v. 32, (3), 639-648. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-40422009000300008 Moukazis, I.; Pellera, F.M.; Gidarakos, E., 2018. Slaughterhouse By-Products Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion. Waste Management, v. 71, 652-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.009 Muhmood, A.; Lu, J.; Dong, R.; Wu, S., 2019. Formation of Struvite from Agricultural Wastewaters and Its Reuse on Farmlands: Status and Hindrances to Closing the Nutrient Loop. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 230, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.030 MUÑOZ, R.; MEIER, L.; DIAZ, I.; JEISON, D., 2015. A review on the state-of- the-art of physical/chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, v. 14, (4), 727-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9379-1 Murcia, J.J.; Hernández-Laverde, M.; Rojas, H.; Muñoz, E.; Navío, J.A.; Hidalgo, M.C., 2018. Study of the Effectiveness of the Flocculation- Photocatalysis in the Treatment of Wastewater Coming from Dairy Industries. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, v. 358, 256-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2018.03.034 Nagarajan, D.; Kusmayadi, A.; Yen, H.W.; Dong, C.D.; Lee, D.J.; Chang, J.S., 2019. Current Advances in Biological Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Microalgae-Based Processes. Bioresource Technology, v. 289, 121718. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121718 Numviyimana, C.; Warchoł, J.; Izydorczyk, G.; Baśladyńska, S.; Chojnacka, K., 2020. Struvite Production from Dairy Processing Wastewater: Optimizing Reaction Conditions and Effects of Foreign Ions through Multi-Response Experimental Models. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, v. 117, 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2020.11.031 Olajire, A.A., 2012. The Brewing Industry and Environmental Challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 256, 102817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2012.03.003 Oliveira, J.V., Alves, M.M.; Costa, J.C., 2015. Optimization of Biogas Production from Sargassum Sp. Using a Design of Experiments to Assess the Co-Digestion with Glycerol and Waste Frying Oil. Bioresource Technology, v. 175, 480-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.121 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018. OECD- FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018-2027. OECD Publishing, Paris; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome (Accessed Jan 18, 2020) at: https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2018-en Pachiega, R.; Rodrigues, M.F.; Rodrigues, C.V.; Sakamoto, I.K.; Varesche, M.B.A.; Oliveira, J.E.; Maintinguer, S.I., 2019. Hydrogen Bioproduction with Anaerobic Bacteria Consortium from Brewery Wastewater. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 44, (1), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhydene.2018.02.107 Pan, C.; Tan, G.Y.A.; Ge, L.; Chen, C.L.; Wang, J.Y., 2019. Two-Stage Microbial Conversion of Crude Glycerol to 1,3-Propanediol and Polyhydroxyalkanoates after Pretreatment. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 232, 615-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.118 Pastor, L., Mangin, D.; Barat, R.; Seco, A., 2008. A Pilot-Scale Study of Struvite Precipitation in a Stirred Tank Reactor: Conditions Influencing the Process. Bioresource Technology, v. 99, (14), 6285-6291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2007.12.003 Pereira, E.L.; Borges, A.C.; Heleno, F.F.; Oliveira, K.R.; Silva, G.J.; Mounteer, A.H., 2019. Central Composite Rotatable Design for Startup Optimization of Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor Treating Biodiesel Production Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, v. 7, (3), 103038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103038 Pereira, E.L.; Campos, C.M.M.; Moterani, F., 2009. Efeitos Do PH, Acidez e Alcalinidade Na Microbiota de Um Reator Anaeróbio de Manta de Lodo (UASB) Tratando Efluentes de Suinocultura. Ambiente & Água, v. 4, (3), 157- 168. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.109 Pereira, E.L.; Paiva, T.C.; Silva, F.T., 2016. Physico-Chemical and Ecotoxicological Characterization of Slaughterhouse Wastewater Resulting from Green Line. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, v. 227, 199. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11270-016-2873-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.148 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.10.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.06.052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.026 http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/40490/3/2019_dis_nwsmorais.pdf http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/40490/3/2019_dis_nwsmorais.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-020-02440-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122520 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122520 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-4152202020190220 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-4152202020190220 https://doi.org/10.4322/dae.2019.004 https://doi.org/10.4322/dae.2019.004 https://doi.org/10.1039/c8gc00572a https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-40422009000300008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.030 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9379-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2018.03.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121718 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121718 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2020.11.031 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.121 https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2018-en https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.02.107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.02.107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103038 https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.109 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-2873-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-2873-4 Morais, N.W.S. et al. 264 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 Plácido, J.; Zhang, Y., 2018. Production of Volatile Fatty Acids from Slaughterhouse Blood by Mixed-Culture Fermentation. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, v. 8, (3), 621-634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-018-0313-y Rabinovich, A.; Rouff, A.A.; Lew, B.; Ramlogan, M.V., 2018. Aerated Fluidized Bed Treatment for Phosphate Recovery from Dairy and Swine Wastewater. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, v. 6, (1), 652-659. https://doi. org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02990 Ranade, V.V.; Bhandari, V.M., 2014. Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Recycling, and Reuse: An Overview. Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and Reuse, 1-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099968-5.00001-5 Ren, H.; Tuo, J.; Addy, M.M.; Zhang, R.; Lu, Q.; Anderson, E.; Chen, P.; Ruan, R., 2017. Cultivation of Chlorella Vulgaris in a Pilot-Scale Photobioreactor Using Real Centrate Wastewater with Waste Glycerol for Improving Microalgae Biomass Production and Wastewater Nutrients Removal. Bioresource Technology, 245, (part A), 1130-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2017.09.040 Shashvatt, U.; Benoit, J.; Aris, H.; Blaney, L., 2018. CO2-Assisted Phosphorus Extraction from Poultry Litter and Selective Recovery of Struvite and Potassium Struvite. Water Research, v. 143, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. watres.2018.06.035 Shi, X.Y.; Jin, D.W.; Sun, Q.Y.; Li, W.W., 2010. Optimization of Conditions for Hydrogen Production from Brewery Wastewater by Anaerobic Sludge Using Desirability Function Approach. Renewable Energy, v. 35, (7), 1493-1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.01.003 Show, K.Y.; Lee, D.J., 2017. Anaerobic Treatment Versus Aerobic Treatment. Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering: Biological Treatment of Industrial Effluents, 205-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 444-63665-2.00008-4 Silva, A.N.; Macêdo, W.V.; Sakamoto, I.K.; Pereyra, D.A.D.; Mendes, C.O.; Maintinguer, S.I.; Caffaro Filho, R.A.; Damianovic, M.H.Z.; Varesche, M.B.A.; Amorim, E.L.C., 2019. Biohydrogen Production from Dairy Industry Wastewater in an Anaerobic Fluidized-Bed Reactor. Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 120, 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2018.11.025 Silva, A.S.; Morais, N.W.S.; Coelho, M.M.H.; Pereira, E.L.; Santos, A.B., 2020a. Potentialities of Biotechnological Recovery of Methane, Hydrogen and Carboxylic Acids from Agro-Industrial Wastewaters. Bioresource Technology Reports, v. 10, 100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100406 Silva, A.S.; Morais, N.W.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Leitão, R.C.; Santos, A.B., 2019. Produção de Ácidos Carboxílicos de Alto Valor Agregado a Partir Da Água Residuária de Cervejaria. In: 2o Seminário Nacional - ETEs Sustentáveis. Fortaleza, 1-4. Silva, A.S.; Morais, N.W.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Santos, A.B. 2020b. Fatores Que Influenciam a Produção de Ácidos Carboxílicos a Partir de Resíduos Agroindustriais. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, v. 25, (5), 655-666. https:// doi.org/10.1590/s1413-4152202020190174 Silva, F.M.S.; Oliveira, L.B.; Mahler, C.F.; Bassin, J.P., 2017. Hydrogen Production through Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Crude Glycerol at Mesophilic Conditions. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 42, (36), 22720-22729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.159 SIRIWONGRUNGSON, V.; ZENG, R.J.; ANGELIDAKI, I., 2007. Homoacetogenesis as the alternative pathway for H2 sink during thermophilic anaerobic degradation of butyrate under suppressed methanogenesis. Water Research, v. 41, (18), 4204-4210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.037 Sittijunda, S.; Reungsang, A., 2012. Biohydrogen Production from Waste Glycerol and Sludge by Anaerobic Mixed Cultures. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 37, (18), 13789-13796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhydene.2012.03.126 Sittijunda, S.; Reungsang, A., 2017. Fermentation of Hydrogen, 1,3-Propanediol and Ethanol from Glycerol as Affected by Organic Loading Rate Using up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 42, (45), 27558-27569. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.149 Sivagurunathan, P.; Sen, B.; Lin, C.Y., 2015. High-Rate Fermentative Hydrogen Production from Beverage Wastewater. Applied Energy, v. 147, 1-9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.136 Song, X.; Luo, W.; Hai, F.I.; Price, W.E.; Guo, W.; Ngo, H.H.; Nghiem, L.D., 2018. Resource Recovery from Wastewater by Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors: Opportunities and Challenges. Bioresource Technology, v. 270, 669-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.001 Souza, A.C.; Orrico, S.R.M., 2016. Consumo de Água Na Indústria de Abate de Bovinos Do Estado Da Bahia. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais (Online), (42), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820160035 Sreyvich, S.; Petrus, H.T.B.M.; Purnomo, C.W., 2020. Nutrient Recovery from Slaughterhouse Wastewater. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, v. 778, 012136. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/778/1/012136 STATISTA. 2019a. Beer Production Worldwide from 1998 to 2017 (in Billion Hectoliters). (Accessed January 22, 2020) at: https://www.statista.com/ statistics/270275/worldwide-beer-production/ STATISTA. 2019b. Size of the Global Ice Cream Market from 2013 to 2024 (in Billion U.S. Dollars). Steinbusch, K.J.J.; Hamelers, H.V.M.; Plugge, C.M.; Buisman, C.J.N., 2011. Biological Formation of Caproate and Caprylate from Acetate: Fuel and Chemical Production from Low Grade Biomass. Energy and Environmental Science, v. 4, (1), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00282h Strazzera, G.; Battista, F.; Garcia, N.H.; Frison, N.; Bolzonella, D., 2018. Volatile Fatty Acids Production from Food Wastes for Biorefinery Platforms: A Review. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 226, 278-288. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.039 Strömberg, S.; Nistor, M.; Liu, J., 2014. Towards Eliminating Systematic Errors Caused by the Experimental Conditions in Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) Tests. Waste Management, v. 34, (11), 1939-1948. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.018 Sun, C.; Cao, W.; Liu, R., 2015. Kinetics of Methane Production from Swine Manure and Buffalo Manure. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, v. 177, 985-995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1792-y Suto, R.; Ishimoto, C.; Chikyu, M.; Aihara, Y.; Matsumoto, T.; Uenishi, H.; Yasuda, T.; Fukumoto, Y.; Waki, M., 2017. Anammox Biofilm in Activated Sludge Swine Wastewater Treatment Plants. Chemosphere, v. 167, 300-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.121 Suzuki, K.; Tanaka, Y.; Kuroda, K.; Hanajima, D.; Fukumoto, Y.; Yasuda, T.; Waki, M., 2007. Removal and Recovery of Phosphorous from Swine Wastewater by Demonstration Crystallization Reactor and Struvite Accumulation Device. Bioresource Technology, v. 98, (8), 1573-1578. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.06.008 Tao, W.; Fattah, K.P.; Huchzermeier, M.P., 2016. Struvite Recovery from Anaerobically Digested Dairy Manure: A Review of Application Potential and Hindrances. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 169, 46-57. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.006 Union Zur Förderung Von Oel- Und Proteinpflanzen E.V. (UFOP). 2017. Report on Global Market Supply 2017/2018. Union Zur Förderung Von Oel- Und Proteinpflanzen E.V. (Accessed January 25, 2020) at: https://www.ufop.de/ files/3515/1515/2657/UFOP_Report_on_Global_Market_Supply_2017-2018.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-018-0313-y https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02990 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02990 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099968-5.00001-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.035 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.035 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63665-2.00008-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63665-2.00008-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2018.11.025 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100406 https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-4152202020190174 https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-4152202020190174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.159 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.001 https://doi.org/10.5327/z2176-947820160035 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/778/1/012136 https://www.statista.com/statistics/270275/worldwide-beer-production/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270275/worldwide-beer-production/ https://doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00282h https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1792-y https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.06.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.06.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.006 https://www.ufop.de/files/3515/1515/2657/UFOP_Report_on_Global_Market_Supply_2017-2018.pdf https://www.ufop.de/files/3515/1515/2657/UFOP_Report_on_Global_Market_Supply_2017-2018.pdf Study on Brazilian agribusiness wastewaters: composition, physical-chemical characterization, volumetric production and resource recovery 265 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.2 | Jun 2021 | 248-265 - ISSN 2176-9478 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of Agriculture. Valente, M.C. 1999. Síntese de Hidroxiapatita e Sua Aplicação Como Biomaterial. Thesis, Pós-Graduação em Tecnologia Nuclear, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (Accessed February 20, 2020) at: http://pelicano.ipen.br/ PosG30/TextoCompleto/Magali de Campos Valente_D.pdf Viana, M.B., Dams, R.I.; Pinheiro, B.M.; Leitão, R.C.; Santaella, S.T.; Santos, A.B., 2019. The Source of Inoculum and the Method of Methanogenesis Inhibition Can Affect Biological Hydrogen Production from Crude Glycerol. Bioenergy Research, v. 12, (3), 733-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-09994-5 Wagner, R.C., Regan, J.M.; Oh, S.E.; Zuo, Y.; Logan, B.E., 2009. Hydrogen and Methane Production from Swine Wastewater Using Microbial Electrolysis Cells. Water Research, v. 43, (5), 1480-1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. watres.2008.12.037 Wang, F.; Fu, R.; Lv, H.; Zhu, G.; Lu, B.; Zhou, Z.; Wu, X.; Chen, H., 2019. Phosphate Recovery from Swine Wastewater by a Struvite Precipitation Electrolyzer. Scientific Reports, v. 9, (1), 8893. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 019-45085-3 Wang, J.; Burken, J.G.; Zhang, X.J.; Surampalli, R., 2005. Engineered Struvite Precipitation: Impacts of Component-Ion Molar Ratios and PH. Journal of Environment Engineering, v. 131, (10), 1433-1340. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:10(1433) Wang, S.; Hawkins, G.L.; Kiepper, B.H.; Das, K.C., 2018. Treatment of Slaughterhouse Blood Waste Using Pilot Scale Two-Stage Anaerobic Digesters for Biogas Production. Renewable Energy, v. 126, 552-562. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.076 Wang, Y.; Guo, W.; Yen, H.W.; Ho, S.H.; Lo, Y.C.; Cheng, C.L.; Ren, N.; Chang, J.S., 2015. Cultivation of Chlorella Vulgaris JSC-6 with Swine Wastewater for Simultaneous Nutrient/COD Removal and Carbohydrate Production. Bioresource Technology, v. 198, 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2015.09.067 Xiao, D.; Huang, H.; Zhang, P.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, N., 2018. Utilizing the Supernatant of Waste Sulfuric Acid after Dolomite Neutralization to Recover Nutrients from Swine Wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal, v. 337, 265- 274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.12.097 Yang, H.; Deng, L.; Liu, G.; Yang, D.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Z. 2016. A Model for Methane Production in Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Wastewater. Water Research, v. 102, 464-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.060 Yazdani, S.S.; Gonzalez, R., 2007. Anaerobic Fermentation of Glycerol: A Path to Economic Viability for the Biofuels Industry. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, v. 18, (3), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2007.05.002 Yin, J.; Yu, X.; Wang, K.; Shen, D., 2016. Acidogenic Fermentation of the Main Substrates of Food Waste to Produce Volatile Fatty Acids. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v. 41, (46), 21713-21720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhydene.2016.07.094 Zhang, C.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Ding, W.; Fu, G., 2018. Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Concepts, Questions and Methodologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 195, 625-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.194 http://pelicano.ipen.br/PosG30/TextoCompleto/Magali http://pelicano.ipen.br/PosG30/TextoCompleto/Magali https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-09994-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.037 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45085-3 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45085-3 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.067 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.067 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.12.097 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.060 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2007.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.194