Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/agrieast.v12i1.

47

Constructed wetland for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment

K. Keerthana and R. Thivyatharsan*

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Eastern University, Sri Lanka

Abstract

Water quality has become a burning issue as best quality water is needed for daily lives. The
slaughterhouses functioning at Batticaloa district generate huge amount of effluent and discharge to
surrounding environment without proper treatment. It pollutes the surface water and soil as well.
Discharging slaughterhouse wastewater without treatment contributes to greatly degrading the aquatic
environment as well as human health issues. Therefore, there is a need to treat slaughterhouse wastewater
before discharging into the water bodies and soil to avoid environmental pollution and human health
effects. The objectives of the study were to design, construct and evaluate the efficiency of constructed
wetland for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater with special reference to the parameters of
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved solid (TDS), total suspended solid (TSS), nitrate,
phosphate, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and pH as well as to analyze the characteristics of
slaughterhouse wastewater. The wetland was constructed with the layers of coir fiber, gravel and sand
with the dimension of 1m x 1m x 0.3m. Cattail (Typha latifolia) plant was used as macrophytes. The
results revealed that the removal of the above mentioned parameters increased with increasing retention
time of wastewater in constructed wetland. The maximum removal efficiency of constructed wetland for
the parameters of phosphate, COD, BOD5, nitrate, TDS and TSS nitrate and phosphate were 85.8%,
77.5%, 93.3%, 68%, 71.3% and 88.7% respectively. It was concluded that the constructed wetland
performed well for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater for the parameters of COD, TSS, TDS,
BOD5, nitrate and phosphate.

Keywords: Constructed wetland, slaughterhouse, wastewater

Introduction
Water is used for domestic, agriculture and adopted for water and wastewater
industrial purposes. The slaughterhouse treatment depending on the differences in
uses water for washing and cleaning geographic location, financial resources,
operations of the meat, pipes, machines and living standards and life quality in different
floors. Thus, generates large quantity of countries, as well as the characteristics of
water as wastewater with higher organic the wastewater effluents and pollutants
loading (Seif and Moursy, 2001). The (Daigger, 2009).
treatment of water and wastewater has
become crucial due to the continuous Slaughterhouses and meat processing
growth of world population and the plants (MPPs) are part of a large industry
pollution of freshwater because of not worldwide, where the composition of the
adequately treated wastewater discharged wastewater depends on the diverse
into environment, especially in developing practices in the slaughtering process.
countries (Bustillo-Lecompte and Mehrvar, Wastewaters from slaughterhouses and
2015). Besides, the decreasing availability of meat processing industries have been
freshwater has redirected the objectives in classified by Environmental Protection
the area of wastewater treatment. Agency (EPA) as one of the most harmful to
Nevertheless, diverse techniques are the environment (Walter et al., 1974). Blood,

Corresponding author: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7898-3495

Received: 02.02.2018 Accepted: 07.03.2018

7
one of the major dissolved pollutants in The major environmental problem
slaughterhouse wastewater has the highest associated with this slaughterhouse
COD of any effluent from slaughtering wastewater is the large amount of
operations (Aniebo et al., 2009). The major suspended solids and liquid waste as well
characteristics of abattoir wastes are high as odor generation (Gauri, 2006). Effluent
organic strength, sufficient organic from slaughterhouses has also been
biological nutrients, adequate alkalinity, recognized to contaminate both surface and
relatively high temperature (20 to 30°C) and groundwater because during abattoir
free of toxic material (Aniebo et al., 2009). processing blood, fat, manure, urine and
Consequently, slaughterhouse wastewater meat tissues are lost to the wastewater
requires significant treatment for a safe and streams (Bello and Oyedemi, 2009).
sustainable release to the environment. Leaching into groundwater is a major part
of the concern, especially due to the
Constructed wetlands systems are fully recalcitrant nature of some contaminants
human-made wetlands for wastewater (Muhirwa et al., 2010). Discharging
treatment that have been designed and slaughterhouse wastewater without
constructed to utilize the natural processes treatment contributes to greatly degrading
involving wetland vegetation, soils and the aquatic environment and pollution of
their associated microbial assemblages to irrigation water (Michael et al., 1988).
assist in treating wastewater (Vymazal,
2005). Constructed wetlands are designed There are several slaughterhouses
within a more controlled environment to functioning at Batticaloa District and a huge
take the advantages of the processes that amount of effluent is generated and
occur in natural wetland. Constructed discharged openly. It pollutes the surface
wetlands (CWs) are simple and low cost water and soil as well as foul odor
wastewater treatment systems that use generation. Therefore, slaughterhouse
natural processes utilizing shallow (usually wastewater should be treated before
less than 1 m deep) beds or channels, discharge into water bodies to avoid
helophytes, substrate (soil, sand and environmental pollution and human health
gravels) and a variety of microorganisms to effects.
improve wastewater quality (EPA, 2008).
As water flows through a wetland, it slows This study was mainly focused on the use of
down and many of the suspended solids constructed wetland for slaughterhouse
become trapped by vegetation and settled wastewater treatment in Batticaloa District.
out. Other pollutants are transformed to The objective of the study were to design
less soluble forms taken up by plants or and construct wetland and to evaluate the
become inactive. Wetland plants also foster efficiency of constructed wetland for the
the necessary conditions for treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater
microorganisms to live there. Through a treatment with special reference to the
series of complex processes, these parameters of chemical oxygen demand
microorganisms also transform and remove (COD), total dissolved solid (TDS), total
pollutants from the water. And also, it is suspended solid (TSS), nitrate, phosphate,
being used to treat petroleum refinery biological oxygen demand (BOD) and pH as
wastes, compost and landfill leachates, well as to analyze the characteristics of
aquaculture discharges and pre-treated slaughterhouse wastewater.
industrial wastewaters, such as those from
pulp and paper mills, textile mills and
seafood processing (EPA, 2008).

8
Materials and Methods using 20 liter containers and analyzed for
the parameters such as COD, pH, TDS, TSS,
Materials
nitrate, phosphate and BOD5. Table 1
Wastewater: summarizes the main characteristics of the
Actual slaughterhouse wastewater samples influent slaughterhouse wastewaters.
were taken from Eravur slaughterhouse

Table 1: Characteristics of actual slaughterhouse wastewater

CEA
Parameter Values (mg/l) Mean (mg/l) Standards
(mg/l)

pH 8.6-8.8 8.7±0.1 6.5-8.5

TDS (mg/l) 270.0-320.0 296.7±25.2 2100.0
TSS (mg/l) 643.0-655.0 649.3±6.0 100.0
BOD5 (mg/l) 540.0-565.0 551.7±12.6 30.0
COD (mg/l) 1225.0-1155.0 1193.0±35.5 250.0
Nitrate (mg/l) 30.0-35.0 32.3±2.5 10.0
Phosphate (mg/l) 15.0-18.0 16.8±1.6 5.0
Values are means of three replicates ± standard deviation of replicate determination.

Constructed wetland:
The constructed wetland was constructed
by using coir fiber, medium sized gravel
and fine sand as wetland sediments and
Catail plant (Typha latifolia) was using as
macrophytes.

Methods
Construction of wetland
Fig. 1. Constructed wetland
The wetland was constructed with
dimension of 1m x 1m x 0.3m. Coir fiber was At first, the wastewater was allowed to
chopped and used for making bottom layer settle for 24 hours as preliminary treatment.
of 10cm height. Medium sized gravel was And, the effluent from preliminary
added to form a middle layer of 10cm treatment was introduced into the
height and fine sand was used as upper constructed wetland through inlet pipe. The
layer of 10cm height for the construction of effluent from constructed wetland was
bed. The healthy and young cattail collected directly from the outlet at 3rd, 6th
(Typha latifolia) plants were selected and and 9th day and analyzed for different water
transplanted into the bed. The PVC pipe quality parameters mentioned above. All
was used to make outlet at the bottom of the parameters were measured according to
bed to collect the treated water. Standard Methods (APHA, 19th edition
1995).

9
Experimental Setup and Procedure Agriculture, Eastern University, Sri Lanka
during the period of July 2017 to October
The experiment was laid out in a complete
randomized design (CRD). The experiment 2017.
consist one treatment such as activated
Results and Discussion
charcoal with three replicates. The data
were statistically analyzed through SAS Performance of constructed wetland in
software (SAS version 9.1). Treatment treating slaughterhouse wastewater
means were compared using t-test at 5% The changes of concentration of physico-
significant level. chemical parameters of slaughterhouse
wastewater with retention time is shown in
Experimental site the Table 2. The results revealed that the
concentration of these parameters was
The study was carried out at Department of reduced significantly with retention time.
Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of

Table 2: Changes of physico-chemical parameters of slaughterhouse wastewater

Retention time (days)
Parameters Initial value 3 6 9
pH 8.7±0.3 7.7±0.1 7.3±0.1 7.2±0.1
TDS (mg/l) 296.7 ±25.2 213.3±20.1 153.3±12.1 85.0±5.0
TSS (mg/l) 649.3±6.0 354.3±9.5 90.0±5.0 73.3±2.9
BOD5(mg/l) 551.7±12.6 345.0±10.0 119.3±9.0 30.3±5.5
COD (mg/l) 1193.0±35.5 918.3±30.3 558.3±16.0 253.3±10.4
Nitrate (mg/l) 32.3±2.5 25.3±1.5 17.3±1.5 10.3±1.5
Phosphate (mg/l) 16.8±1.6 12.0±1.3 5.5±1.8 2.4±0.6
Values are means of three replicates ± standard deviation of replicate determination.

Phosphate (1999) and Fisher and Acreman (2004)

reported that the retention time is
significant in determining sedimentation
rates, increasing contact time between
nutrient load and wetland sediment and
vegetation will increase the phosphate
removal. Picard et al., (2005) reported that
the plant present in wetland help in
phosphate cycling and microbial processes,
which are major processes involved in
nutrient removal. It was observed that the
removal of phosphate was higher in earlier
Fig. 2. Removal of phosphate with days (up to 6th day) and lesser later on
retention time because the sediments in the wetland
The phosphate removal in constructed became saturated with phosphate (Figure
wetland with retention time is shown in 2). Fink and Mitsch (2004) reported that the
figure 2. It was found that the removal of phosphorus removal (%) decreased with
phosphate increased with increasing time because sediment and litter in the
retention time. The deposited sediments wetland become saturated with
and macropytes present in wetland did phosphorus.
major role in phosphate removal. DeBusk

10
The maximum removal (%) of phosphate in Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
constructed wetland was achieved to 85.8% 100

Removal of COD (%)

at 9th day. The phosphate in effluent from 80
constructed wetland met the Central 60
Environmental Authority (CEA) standards 40
of maximum permissible limit (5 mg/l) 20
permitted to safe discharge of industrial 0
wastewater into inland water bodies. 0 3 6 9
Retention time (Days)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Fig. 4. Removal of COD with retention
100
time
Removal of BOD 5 (%)

80 The removal of COD increased with

60 increasing retention time as illustrated in
40 figure 4. Constructed wetland was able to
20 oxygenate the beds to a level that supports
0 the aerobic degradation of the organic load
0 3 6 9
of wastewater. In addition, the vegetation
Retention time (Days)
provided a substrate (roots, stems and
leaves) upon which microorganisms can
Fig. 3. Removal of BOD5 with retention grow as they break down organic
time molecules.
It was found that the removal of BOD5
increased with increasing retention time, is The removal of COD in constructed
shown in figure 3. Akratos et al., (2008) and wetland was achieved to 77.5% at 9th day.
Sindilariu et al., (2009) reported that higher The effluent COD of constructed wetland
retention time of wastewater in constructed was lower than the maximum permissible
wetlands was the most important positive limit (250 mg/l) of CEA standards
factor in BOD removal efficiency. The permitted for safe discharge of industrial
results show that the constructed wetland wastewater in to the inland water surface.
removed 93.29% of BOD5 at 9th day. The
biological degradation and sedimentation Nitrate
were the major processes to remove BOD5 in The initial nitrate concentration of
constructed wetland. The abatement slaughterhouse wastewater was 32.3±2.5
process of BOD5 is mainly carried out by mg/l (Table 2). Constructed wetland
bacterial activity (aerobic and anaerobic) reduced the nitrate significantly from the
with greenhouse gases production and wastewater. Denitrification, adsorption and
emission to the atmosphere (Mander et al., incorporation into cell mass were the key
2014 and Barbera et al., 2014) and by the process for the reduction of nitrate in
sedimentation and filtration of particulate constructed wetland. The studies
organic matter (Vymazal and Kropfelova, conducted by DeBusk (1999) and Al-Omari
2008). et al. (2003) proved this finding. DeBusk
(1999) reported that nitrate removal in
The BOD5 of the effluent of constructed wetlands is usually very high.
wetland met the CEA standards of
maximum permissible limit (30mg/l)
permitted to safe discharge of industrial
wastewater into inland water bodies.

11
 80 The removal of nitrate in constructed
Removal of nitrate
60 wetland was achieved to 68%. The nitrate of
effluent from constructed wetland was
40
lower than the maximum permissible limit
(%)

20
(10mg/l) of CEA permitted for safe
0
discharge of industrial wastewater into the
0 3 6 9
inland water bodies.
Retention time (Days)

pH
Fig. 5. Removal of nitrate with retention
time
Nitrate removal increased with increasing 10
retention time as shown in the figure 5. 8
Bastviken (2006) and Fink and Mitsch (2004) 6

pH
found that long retention time and 4
accumulation of the organic material 2
increase the rate of denitrification in 0
0 5 10
wetland. These ultimately reduce the
Retention time (days)
amount of nitrate from wastewater.
Fig. 6. changes of pH with retention time
According to the graph (Figure 5) higher
The change of pH with retention time is
removal of nitrate was observed in initial
illustrated in figure 6. The results indicated
period because of increased uptake of
that the pH reduced gradually with
nitrogen by wetland plants and microflora
retention time. It was observed that the pH
as well as denitrification process. However,
plummeted in earlier days and reached
nitrogen removal was dropdown slightly
closer to neutral of 7.28 at ninth day.
after sixth day due to increased dissolved
Mayes et al., (2009) reported that the aquatic
oxygen (DO) which is produced by passive
macrophytes in wetlands mainly provided
aeration and photosynthesis of wetland
a substratum. Hence, that decomposing
plants. This DO enhanced nitrification rates.
microorganisms raised free CO2 in water.
Vymazal and Brezinova (2015) reported
The CO2 from the respiration of
that constructed wetland offers good
microorganisms in the constructed wetland
requirements of oxygen which leads
might have helped in the decrease of pH at
unfavourable conditions for the
the outlet.
denitrification of NO3. Eastman et al., (2009)
also stated high DO in wetlands causes the
The value of pH in the effluent of
nitrification process through a decrease in
constructed wetland met the CEA
ammonia levels and an increase of nitrates.
standards of maximum permissible limit
Retention time was an important factor in
(6.5-8.5) permitted to safe discharge of
determining the rate of nitrate removal. As
industrial wastewater into inland water
per the results, nitrate removal increased
bodies.
with increasing retention time. It was due to
an increase in thickness of biological
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
membrane formed around the sediment
The quantity of TDS was considerably
which led to the direct emergence of an
decreased along with the time in
oxygen deficient area around the bed
constructed wetland. It was clearly shown
particles that helped to remove nitrates.
in the table 2.
Andersson et al., (2005) has also proven that
the removal of nitrate in wetland depends
on hydraulic retention time of the wetlands,
oxygen concentration and organic matter
content.

12
 80 roots and stems of the macrophytes or onto
Removal of TDS (%) the soil/gravel particles in sediments.
60

40 100

Removal of TSS
80
20 60

(%)
40
0
20
0 3 6 9
0
Retention time ( days) 0 3 6 9
Retention time (Days)
Fig. 7. Removal of TDS with retention
time Fig.8. Removal of TSS with retention time
The TDS removal was increased with The removal of TSS with retention time is
increasing retention time as shown in figure graphically shown in figure 8. According to
7. There are three main processes that this graph it was observed that suspended
remove TDS namely binding to soils, solids decreased with increasing the time of
sedimentation and particulate matter, treatment. The higher removal of
precipitation as insoluble salts and uptake suspended solids indicated the
by bacteria, algae and plants (Kadlec and effectiveness of constructed wetland.
Knight, 1996). A certain level of ions in Constructed wetland removed around
water is really necessary for plant and they 88.7% of TSS from wastewater.
are biologically utilized or chemically
reactive in wetland. This may be the reason Conclusion
for the rapid reduction of TDS in wetland. The results of the study revealed that the
The removal of TDS was achieved to 71.34% constructed wetland had an ability to treat
at the end of the treatment. The TDS in the slaughterhouse wastewater. It was clear
effluent of constructed wetland was lower from the results that there was a significant
than the maximum permissible limit reduction in the concentration of above
(2100mg/l) of CEA standards permitted for discussed parameters with retention time.
safe discharge of industrial wastewater in to The initial mean values of slaughterhouse
inland water surface. wastewater during the study period were
obtained as COD of 1193.0±35.5mg/l, TSS
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) of 649.3±6.0 mg/l, TDS of 296.7±25.2 mg/l,
It was observed that the TSS was reduced BOD5 of 551.7±12.6 mg/l, nitrate of 32.3±2.5
with retention time. The mean values of the mg/l, pH of 8.7±0.3 and phosphate of
effluent of constructed wetland were 16.8±1.6 mg/l. The concentration of Nitrate,
354.3±9.5 mg/l at 3rd day and 73.3 ± 2.9 phosphate, BOD5, COD, TSS and pH in
mg/l at 9th day (Table 2). Thus, the wetland slaughterhouse wastewater were higher as
removed considerable amounts of compared to Central Environmental
suspended solids from the wastewater. Authority permissible limits for safe
Sedimentation, filtration, adsorption onto discharge of industrial wastewater into
biofilm and flocculation/precipitation were inland water bodies.
the major processes for the reduction of TSS
in wetland. Further, the surface area of Therefore, this study showed that there was
plant stems trapped fine materials within its significant reduction in the concentration of
rough structure. According to Vymazal parameters with the treatments of
(1998) studies, the suspended solids are constructed wetland. Maximum removal
mainly removed by constructed wetland efficiency of COD, TSS, TDS, BOD5, nitrate
via physical processes such as and phosphate with constructed wetland
sedimentation and filtration. Filtration were 77.5%, 88.7%, 71.3%, 93.3%, 68% and
occurs by the impaction of particles onto the 85.8% respectively. The nitrate, phosphate,

13
COD, TDS, pH, TDS and BOD5 of effluent Bello, Y. O. and Oyedemi, D. T. A. (2009).
treated with constructed wetland had lower The impact of abattoir activities and
than that of maximum permissible limit of management in residential
CEA standards for the safe discharge of neighbourhoods: A case study of
industrial wastewater into inland water Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Journal of Social
bodies. Finally, it could be concluded that Sciences, 19 (2): 121-127.
the constructed wetland ensure a more
stable removal of pollutants from Bustillo-Lecompte, C.F. and Mehrvar, M.
slaughterhouse wastewaters. (2015). Slaughterhouse wastewater
characteristics, treatment, and management
References in the meat processing industry: A
Akratos, C. S., Papaspyros, J. N. E. and review on trends and advances. Journal of
Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2008). An artificial neural Environmental Management, 161: 287-302.
network model and design equations for
BOD and COD removal prediction in Daigger, Glen. (2009). Evolving urban water
horizontal subsurface flow constructed and residuals management paradigms:
wetlands. Chemical Engineering Journal, 143: Water reclamation and reuse,
96-110. decentralization, and resource recovery.
Water Environment Research: a Research
Al-Omari, Abbas and Fayyad, Manar. Publication of the Water Environment
(2003). Treatment of domestic wastewater Federation, 81: 809-23.
by subsurface flow constructed wetlands in
Jordan. Desalination, 155: 27-39. DeBusk, W. F. (1999). Wastewater treatment
wetlands: Applications and treatment
Andersson, J. L., Bastviken, S. K. and efficiency. A fact sheet of the Soil and Water
Tonderski, K. S. (2005). Free water surface Science Department, Florida Cooperative
wetlands for wastewater treatment in Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Sweden: nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Water Science and Technology, 51(9): 31- 46.
Eastman, J., Gagnon, V.,Sundberg, C.,
Aniebo, A. O., Wekhe, S. N. and Okoli, I. C. Chazarenc, F., Burr, M.,Brisson, J., Camper,
(2009). Abattoir blood waste generation in A., Stein, O. (2009). Microbial processes
river state and its environmental influencing performance of treatment
implications in the niger delta. Toxicol. wetlands: A Review. Ecological Engineering,
Environmantal Chemistry, 91:619-625. 35: 987-1004.

Barbera, A.C., Borin, M., Cirelli, G.L., EPA, U. S. (2008). EPA's Report on the
Toscano, A. and Maucieri, C. (2014). Environment (Roe) (2008 Final Report). U.S.
Comparison of carbon balance in Environmental Protection Agency,
Mediterranean pilot constructed wetlands Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-07/045F
vegetated with different C4 plant species. (NTISPB2008-112484).
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
International, 22: 2372–2383. Fink, D.F. and Mitsch, W.A. (2004). Seasonal
and storm event nutrient removal by a
Bastviken, S. (2006). Nitrogen removal in created wetland in an agricultural
treatment wetlands –Factors influencing watershed. Ecological Engineering, 23(5): 313-
spatial and temporal variations. 325.
Dissertation No 1041. Linköping
University, Sweden.

14
Fisher, J. and Acreman, M.C. (2004). nutrient removal in wetland microcosms.
Wetland nutrient removal: a review of the Bioresource Technology, 96(9): 1039 – 1047.
evidence. Hydrology and Earth Systems
Science, 8(4): 673-685. Seif, H. and Moursy, A. (2001). Treatment of
slaughterhouse wastes. Sixth International
Gauri, S. M. (2006). Treatment of Water Technology Conference, 269-275.
wastewater from abattoirs before land
application: a review. Bioresource Sindilariu, P.D., Brinker, A. and Reiter,
Technology, 97 (9): 1119–1135. R. (2009). Factors influencing the efficiency
of constructed wetlands used for the
Kadlec, R. H. and Knight, R. L. (1996). treatment of intensive trout farm
Treatment wetlands. New York: Lewis effluent. Ecological Engineering, 35(5): 711-
Publishers, CRC. 722.

Mander, Ü., Tournebize, J., Kasak, K., Vymazal, J. (1998). Types of constructed
Mitsch, W.J. (2014). Climate regulation by wetlands for wastewater treatment. In: A
free water surface constructed wetlands for Paper presented at the Sixth International
wastewater treatment and created riverine Conference on Wetland Systems for Water
wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 72: 103- Pollution Control, Aguas de Sao Pedro,
115. Brazil.

Mayes, W. M., Batty, L. C., Younger, P. L., Vymazal, J. (2005). Constructed wetlands
Jarvis, A. P., Koiv, M., Vohlc, C. and for waste water treatment. Ecological
Mander, U. (2009). Wetland treatment at Engineering, 2: 472-478.
extremes of pH: A review. Science of the Total
Environment, 407(3): 944-957. Vymazal, J. and Brezinova, T. (2015). The
use of constructed wetlands for removal of
Michael, N. N., Terry, W. S. and Graig, L. B. pesticides from agricultural run-off and
(1988). Anaerobic contact pre-treatment of drainage: A review. Environment
slaughterhouse wastewater. Proceeding of International, 75: 11–20.
the Industrial Waste Conference, 42: 647.
Vymazal, l. and kropfelova, l. (2008). Waste
Muhirwa, D., Nhapi, I., Wali, U., Banadda, water treatment in constructed wetland
N., Kashaigili, J. and Kimwaga, R. (2010). with horizontal subsurface flow, springer,
Characterization of wastewater from an Dordrecht.
abattoir in Rwanda and the impact on
downstream water quality. International Walter, R.H., Shermah, R.M. and Downing,
Journal of Ecology & Development, 16:30- 46. D.L. (1974). Reduction in oxygen demand of
abattoir effluent by Precipitation with
Picard, C.R., Fraser, L.H. and Steer, D. metal. Journal of Agric Food Chemistry, 22:
(2005). The interacting effects of 1097-1099.
temperature and plant community type on

15