Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

Wastewater treatment in dairy industries possibility of reuse


Baisali Sarkar, P.P. Chakrabarti, A. Vijaykumar, Vijay Kale*
Lipid Science and Technology Division, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad 500007, India Tel. +91 (40) 2719-3370; Fax +91 (40) 2719-3370; email: vijay_kale1@rediffmail.com

Received 30 June 2005; accepted 7 November 2005

Abstract The reuse of wastewater from the dairy industry was investigated using coagulation, adsorption and membrane separation. Dairy industry was chosen as it requires huge volume of water. In recent times, development of newer membranes with high flux/rejection characteristics have increased the probability of water reuse and recycling up to a greater extent. In this investigation thorough pretreatment studies were done using different types of coagulants categorized as inorganic, polymeric, and organic having biological origins. The coagulant treatment was performed at various pH using different dosages and it was followed by activated charcoal treatment. The combined effects of these two pretreatment methodologies were evaluated. The color and the odor were removed completely and permanently after charcoal treatment. The pretreated water was passed through a cross flow reverse osmosis membrane system and the permeate water was found to have very good quality. This was compared to the process water used by the dairy farm and was found that the water can be recycled or reused. Keywords: Dairy wastewater; Coagulants; Powdered activated charcoal (PAC); TDS; COD; Membrane processes

1. Introduction Ever increasing industrialization and rapid urbanization have considerably increased the rate of water pollution. The dwindling supplies of natural resources of water have made this a serious constraint for industrial growth and for a reasonable standard of urban living. The environmental pro-tection agencies have imposed more stringent regulatory prohibitions and they have started more strict vigil along with some non governmental
*Corresponding author.

organizations to protect the environment. This has made the water treatment more expensive and to comply with the discharge quality standard itself, is becoming a huge burden for the industries. It was therefore felt that the possibilities of reuse of the wastewater for various purposes should be investigated. The recycling or reuse of water for similar duties mainly depends on availability of suitable process technology for water purification. Due to wide fluctuations in industrial effluent quality, this becomes more challenging. With the advent of membrane technology and significant

0011-9164/06/$ See front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

142

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

improvements in efficiency and cost effectiveness, the competitiveness of recycling over discharge has greatly increased. In dairy industries, water has been a key processing medium. Water is used throughout all steps of the dairy industry including cleaning, sanitization, heating, cooling and floor washing and naturally the requirement of water is huge. Dairy wastewater is distinguished by the high BOD and COD contents, high levels of dissolved or suspended solids including fats, oils and grease, nutrients such as ammonia or minerals and phosphates and therefore require proper attention before disposal. In recent times, researchers have shifted their interests in possibilities of reuse or recycling of industrial wastewaters dairy industries are no exceptions [1,2]. Dairy wastewater generally does not contain conventional toxic chemicals like those listed under EPAs Toxic Release Inventory. However, it has high concentration of dissolved organic components like whey proteins, lactose, fat and minerals [3] and it is also malodorous because of the decomposition of some of the contaminants causing discomfort to the surrounding population. To comply with the discharge standard, the dairy industries are practicing an elaborate effluent treatment protocol which is affecting the overall economy of the plant. The need of the hour is a suitable technology for recycling or reuse at least a reasonable quantity of the wastewater produced in the plant. Recent studies revealed that membrane separations may help in solving problem of attaining a quality of water that can be recycled back to the process and it was tested for various chemical industries and in some food processing industries also [47]. Even the dairy industry effluent was also treated by membrane process and possibility of reuse was reviewed [1,8]. However the proteinous materials of the dairy wastewater were found to be severe foulant for the existing membrane materials [9]. With the advent of the newer membrane materials which are less prone to fouling,

the research thrust in this area has increased tremendously. To control the fouling and to improve the productivity and life of membranes, use of coagulant and adsorbent before membrane application were done in primary and secondary effluent treatment and in sewage effluent treatment [1012]. In the present investigation, thorough pretreatment studies were performed using conventional coagulants and a few newer coagulants to evaluate their suitability for treatment of dairy effluent. The effectiveness of use of Na-CMC and chitosan as coagulant in the treatment of some food processing industry wastewater such as in egg processing plant and in fish meal factories had been reported [13,14]. Not much literature is available on another polysaccharide alginic acid as coagulant in the treatment of wastewater. Activated charcoal treatment was done after coagulation as it is known to remove the color and odor of the surface water and improve the taste of drinking water combined with some other treatment options [15,16]. To optimize the conditions for chemical pretreatment of dairy wastewater, studies were undertaken to evaluate the effects of dosages of coagulants and adsorbents, pH, contact time, settling time etc. before the membrane processing. Preliminary results of each chemical pretreatment were evaluated with respect to percent reduction of total dissolved solids (TDS) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) of treated water. Membrane separation studies were performed in both the dead end system (for laboratory-scale studies) and cross flow system (for pilot-scale studies) and the water quality obtained after membrane separations were compared to the process water actually used by some dairy industries. 2. Experimental 2.1. Materials Raw wastewater was collected from A.P. Dairy, Hyderabad, India at an interval of 15 days and

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

143

stored in the refrigerator, if required to be used for long periods. 2.1.1. Reagents For the pretreatment studies before membrane processing different types of coagulants like inorganic (alum and ferric chloride), polymeric (polyaluminium chloride) and natural organic (sodium carboxymethyl cellulose commonly known as Na-CMC, alginic acid, and chitosan) were tested. Alum was purchased from local market. Ferric chloride LR grade was procured from S.D. Fine Chem Ltd., Mumbai whereas polyaluminium chloride was obtained from Permionics Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Alginic acid (LR grade) was obtained from Loba Chemie Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India. Chitosan and Na-CMC were purchased from Sigma Aldrich Inc., St. Louis, USA. Powdered activated charcoal (LR grade) was obtained from S.D. Fine Chem Ltd., Mumbai, India. Commonly used chemicals to maintain the pH of the medium NaOH and HCl both LR grade were procured from S.D Fine Chem Ltd, Mumbai and Ranbaxy Fine Chemicals Ltd, New Delhi, India respectively. 2.1.2. Membranes Cellulose acetate flat sheet membranes of 44 cm2 surface area having 10,000 Da and 1,000 Da molecular weight cut off were supplied by Millipore Corporation, MA, USA. Permionics Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, India had supplied nanofiltration membrane of 300 Da molecular weight cut off (MWCO) and RO flat sheet membrane as complimentary samples. The membranes are polyamide on non oven polyester. The ceramic microfiltration membrane having 0.45 micron pore size used in pilot plant was purchased from Orelis, France. It is having tubular configuration with 19 channels and 0.167 m2 surface area. Spiral wound RO membrane with 2 m2 surface area was procured from Osmonics, USA. The membrane is made up of cellulose acetate and having more than 99% NaCl rejection.

2.1.3. Membrane units The ultrafiltration experiments were performed in a dead-end test cell supplied by Millipore Corporation, MA, USA. The nanofiltration/reverse osmosis experiments were done in a stainless steel test cell of dead-end type having maximum pressure limit of 50 bar. This test cell was supplied by Snowtech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India. Both the test cells were fitted with magnetic stirrer. The transmembrane pressure (TMP) was generated by nitrogen gas. Pilot scale cross flow membrane unit had a feed tank of 50 L capacity and was supplied by Nishotech Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The membranes used in pilot scale studies were housed in stainless steel casing. 2.2. Analytical methods Wastewater samples and various water samples after treatment were analyzed for suspended solid, total dissolved solid content (TDS), chloride, sulfate, hardness, oil and grease content (FOG), and phosphorus content according to the standard method [17]. pH and conductivity were measured with the help of digital pH meter (model: DI 707), supplied by Digisun Electronics, Secunderabad, India and digital conductivity meter (DCM 900) supplied by Global Electronics, Hyderabad, India respectively. Turbidity measurement was done with Digital Nephelo-Turbiditymeter 132. For COD estimation the digestion of the sample was done in a COD reactor, supplied by HACH, Colorado, USA followed by titration with standard ferrous ammonium sulfate. 5 day 20C BOD values were estimated using YSI5100 dissolved oxygen meter, supplied by YSI Incorporated, Ohio, USA. 2.3. Experimental procedure 2.3.1. Chemical pretreatment of dairy wastewater Wastewater sample collected from dairy farm was filtered and the filtered water samples were then subjected to coagulant and PAC treatment.

144

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

400 ml of filtered wastewater was taken in 500 ml beaker. a.Optimization of the coagulant dosages: Coagulant dosages were varied from 100 to 1000 mg/L. Addition of coagulant was followed by stirring for 5 min on magnetic stirrer and settling for 120 min. Depending on the analytical results the dosages were further reduced to 10 100 mg/L in case of chitosan. b.Optimization of pH for an individual coagulant: pHs selected were 4.0, 6.5 and 8.0. pH of the wastewater was maintained with the help of 1:1 HCl and 0.1N NaOH, whenever required. c. Optimization of settling time after coagulation: The settling time intervals were varied between 30150 min to get the best possible results. d. Studies on powdered activated charcoal treatment: Variable dosages (0.52.0 g/L) of PAC were added to the wastewater sample and stirred on magnetic stirrer for 90 min. The pH of the wastewater was also varied in the same manner as mentioned in the coagulant treatment. The stirring time was varied from 30 to 120 min. The optimum conditions of PAC treatment were selected depending on TDS and COD values of the treated water. 2.3.2. Selection of pretreatment sequence The effects of coagulant treatment followed by the PAC treatment were evaluated and the sequence of operation was finalized based on the percent reduction of TDS and COD. 2.3.3. Membrane processing of pretreated water After coagulant and PAC treatment the pH of the water was adjusted to 6.5, and was passed through UF and RO membranes separately in the test cells and checked for TDS and COD reduction. For UF treatment the pressure was maintained at 33.5 bar. For RO experiments as high as 35 bar transmembrane (TMP) pressure was created to get a reasonably good flux.

In the pilot unit, the wastewater sample after chemical pretreatment and pH adjustment was first passed through a tubular ceramic microfiltration membrane having 0.45 micron pore size. Transmembrane pressure of 1.752 bar was maintained. The permeate of the MF membrane was then passed through a spiral wound RO membrane where the TMP was maintained at 1820 bar. 3. Results and discussion The quality of raw dairy wastewater collected from A.P. Dairy, Hyderabad, India varied batchwise according to the production of the dairy farm. Generally it had bad smell and was light greenish in color. Water pH was in the neutral to slight alkaline range. The high BOD and COD values indicated that it is heavily contaminated with organic matter. The quality of raw dairy wastewater is given in Table 1. 3.1. Coagulant treatment Coagulationflocculation is one of the most important physicochemical treatment steps in industrial wastewater treatment to reduce the suspended and colloidal materials responsible for turbidity of the wastewater and also for the reduction of organic matters which contributes to the BOD and COD content of the wastewater [18,19]. Addition of coagulants involves destabilization of the particulate matters present in the wastewater, followed by particle collision and floc formation which results in the sedimentation or
Table 1 Characteristics of raw dairy wastewater

pH TSS, mg/L Turbidity, NTU TDS, mg/L COD, mg/L BOD, mg/L

5.57.5 250600 1530 8001200 15003000 350600

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

145

flotation. The performance of a particular coagulant depends upon the quality of the wastewater. Different types of coagulants were selected in the present study to observe their effects on dairy effluent. Performance of coagulants was primarily based on pH, conductivity, TDS and COD values of treated water. 3.1.1. Effects of inorganic coagulants Alum was found to be effective coagulant in reducing solids, organics and nutrients in the dairy industry effluent to reuse it in irrigation [2]. Removal of 99% suspended solids with appreciable removal of COD and turbidity were achieved when slaughterhouse wastewater was treated with alum in the range of 1001000 mg/L and pH in the range of 49 [19]. Ferric chloride had shown better results than alum in the removal of COD and suspended solid and in the reduction of color in a cost effective way for the clarification of tannery wastewater. The performance of the coagulants was highly dependent on pH and dosages [20]. The most commonly used inorganic coagulants in wastewater treatment; alum and ferric chloride were therefore tried in initial experiments. As the dosages of the coagulants were increasing, the formation of floc followed by settling was appreciable in both the cases at pH 6.5 and 8.0. No coagulation was observed at pH 4.0 for ferric chloride which is reflected in Fig. 1a. At 500 mg/L dosage of ferric chloride the TDS is showing mini-

mum when the starting pH is in the range of 6.5 8.0. Alum also showed the same trend and at 500 mg/L dosage and at pH 6.58, TDS was found to be minimum (Fig. 1b). Hydrolysis of Al2(SO4)3 and FeCl3 in the alkaline medium at that particular dosage results in the formation of corresponding gel like hydroxides and some positively charged mononuclear and polynuclear species. These positively charged compounds combine with negatively charged colloidal particles present in the wastewater by charge neutralization mechanism and at the time of settling under gravity these hydroxides and complexed hydroxides sweep away remaining uncharged/ charged colloidal particles of the wastewater with them and precipitates out [21]. The increase of TDS after that particular dosage may attribute to the optimum hydrolysis of the coagulants at that particular dosage. The hydrolysis of these coagulants results in the formation of strong acids which enhances the ionic strength of the medium. As a result, pH of the medium was found to decrease and conductivity was found to increase with coagulant dosages as shown in Figs. 2a and 2b. Use of ferric chloride at higher dosages produces orange colored water. These results prompted us to search for other coagulants. 3.1.2. Effect of polymeric coagulant Coagulation using inorganic coagulants may result in the production of huge volume of sludge and aluminium or iron salts may be retained in

Fig 1a. Variation of TDS with ferric chloride dosage.

Fig. 1b. Variation of TDS with alum dosage.

146

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

Fig. 2a. Effect of coagulant dosages on the pH of the medium.

Fig. 2b. Effect of coagulant dosages on the conductivity of the medium.

the treated water. It is well known that uptake of aluminium is associated with Alzheimers diseases [22] and blood cancer. Synthetic polymeric coagulants were known to have some advantages over these inorganic coagulants. Polyaluminium chloride (PACl) is one of the most commonly used polymeric coagulants used in wastewater treatment. Treatment of secondary effluent from conventional wastewater treatment plant with polyaluminium chloride at pH 6.0 resulted in removal of 95% turbidity as compared to alum and ferric chloride [23]. In our study we observed that, in contrast to alum, poly aluminium chloride kept the pH of the medium very stable with increase in dosages and it did not have any significant effect on the reduction of solid content in case of dairy wastewater. 3.1.3. Study on natural organic coagulants Polymeric coagulants involve in the production of lower volume of sludge and its effectiveness is not very much dependent on the pH of the water. However, use of these coagulants are restricted because of the production of chlorinated and several other by-products in water which have adverse impact on human health [24]. Natural organic materials are biodegradable and mostly non toxic in nature and less polluting to environment. Na-CMC and alginic acid two members

in that category had been reported as coagulant in treatment of dairy wastewater [25,26]. In this study, therefore, these two coagulants were also tried for their effectiveness. However no floc formation was found in the entire pH range. After analysis it was observed that although the pH of the treated water did not change much with dosages as happened with inorganic coagulants, the TDS was found to increase with dosages as shown in Figs. 3a and 3b. Being high molecular weight compounds, Na-CMC and alginic acid instead of performing as coagulant may lead to increase the TDS with dosages. The higher rate of increase of TDS after alginic acid treatment confirms the higher average molecular weight of alginic acid compared to Na-CMC. It was therefore decided not to use these coagulants for further studies. Chitosan is another high molecular weight organic compound obtained from natural source like shells of shrimp, crab, and lobster and also biodegradable and non toxic in nature and it has very high affinity to proteins [25,27]. 100 700 mg/L dosages of chitosan had been used in the treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater and 215 g/L was applied in distillery wastewater treatment [28,29]. Only 2628% reduction in total solid was observed in fisheries wastewater when treated with chitosan at an optimal 60 mg/L dosage at pH 5.5 [30].

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

147

Fig. 3a. Effect of Na-CMC dosages on TDS at different pHs.

Fig.3b. Effect of alginic acid dosages on TDS at different pHs.

Therefore it was decided to check its suitability for the pretreatment of dairy wastewater and it was observed that the conductivity and pH of the medium were appreciably constant with dosages of chitosan. The dairy wastewater when treated with chitosan at a dosage of 100 mg/L had resulted in TDS values of the wastewater 440540 mg/L in the pH range of 4.06.5 as shown in Fig. 4a. In Fig. 4b the change of COD of the wastewater with dosages of chitosan is observed and at 100 mg/L of chitosan dosage the COD is in the range of 450680 mg/L when the pH is in the range of 4.0 6.5. Since chitosan is a costly coagulant compared to other coagulants it was decided to check the effect of lesser dosages. Dosages were again varied between 10100mg/L at pH 6.5 and 4. A maximum of 22% reduction in TDS and 20% decrease in COD was observed at pH 6.5 when

treated with chitosan in the dosage range below 100 mg/L. At pH 4.0 these reductions were 48% in TDS and 57% in COD at 1050 mg/L chitosan dosage. To make the treatment protocol cost effective for industry 10 mg/L dosage was selected at pH 4.0. Chitosan contains two highly polar OH and NH2 groups and have pKavalue nearly 6.5. In the acidic medium, i.e. at pH less than 6.5 it is cationic in nature and forms NH3+ group and attracts the negatively charged protein molecules present in dairy wastewater and reduces the solid content appreciably [27]. Once the coagulant and its dosages were selected the settling time for coagulation was varied between 30150 min at a particular coagulant dosage and at a particular pH. After 60 min settling time no more further reduction in TDS and COD was observed with time. Fig. 5 shows approx. 44% TDS and 40% COD reduction after 60 min settling time when treated with 10 mg/L chitosan at pH 4.

Fig. 4a. Effect of chitosan dosages on TDS at different pHs.

Fig. 4b. Effect of chitosan dosages on COD at different pHs.

148

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

Fig. 5. Percent reduction of TDS and COD with coagulation settling time after 10 mg/L chitosan dosage at pH = 4.

Chitosan was found to have significant effect as coagulant for the dairy wastewater taken for treatment in the present investigation. It had lowered the TDS and COD values considerably at very low dosage as compared to the common coagulants. Since the required dosage was very less, it might be used commercially as a coagulant in the pretreatment of dairy wastewater. The conductivity did not increase after chitosan treatment which may help in designing the final reverse osmosis step. However odor was still persistent after treatment with chitosan. 3.2. PAC treatment on raw wastewater Powdered activated charcoal (PAC) had been used as adsorbent in various industrial wastewater treatments. Olive mill effluent with high COD, BOD and phenolic content when treated with PAC had shown 94% removal of phenols with 83% removal of other organic matter at an optimum concentration of PAC [31]. Removal of phthalate from wastewater was done by modified activated carbon, performance of which was pH dependent [32]. Treatment of dairy wastewater with some low cost adsorbents and PAC had shown that PAC was better in lowering TDS than other pretreated adsorbents like bagasse, straw dust, saw dust, coconut coir and fly ash [33]. In our present work, an adsorption study with PAC was done on filtered

raw wastewater to optimize pH, dosage, and contact time of PAC. Fig. 6 shows the effect of pH of the wastewater on the adsorption properties of PAC. A Maximum of 40% and 62% reduction of TDS and COD respectively were observed at pH 4. This may be due to the generation of positive charge on the surface of charcoal particles in the acidic pH which attract negatively charged organic molecules abundantly present in the wastewater and remove by charge neutralization. Varied dosages of PAC were added to the wastewater having 730 mg/L and 1532 mg/L TDS and COD respectively at pH 4. Stirring time was fixed at 90 minutes. Optimum dosage of PAC was found to be 1.5 g/L as shown in Fig. 7 and the reduction of TDS and COD were 44% and 60%

Fig. 6. % removal of COD and TDS after 1.5 g/L charcoal treatment at different pHs.

Fig. 7. Variation of TDS and COD with PAC dosages at pH 4.0.

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

149

respectively. With further increase of PAC dosage there was no appreciable reduction of TDS and COD. The variation of TDS and COD with time using 1.5 g/L PAC at pH 4 is shown in Fig. 8. With increasing time the TDS and COD values were decreasing and at 90 min of time maximum removal of 44% and 68% of TDS and COD respectively were observed. From the above experiments it may be concluded that after treatment of filtered raw dairy wastewater with 1.5g/L PAC at pH 4 and 90 min stirring time, the reduction of TDS was 4044% and COD was 6068%. The color and odor had been eliminated also. This optimized PAC treatment protocol was tried after coagulant treated wastewater. 3.3. Optimization of pretreatment protocol After 10 mg/L chitosan treatment at pH 4.0 the filtered water was treated with already optimized 1.5 g/L dosage of PAC at the same pH and stirred on magnetic stirrer for 90 min and then again filtered. Results show 57% reduction in TDS along with 62% reduction in COD as shown in Fig. 9. No change in conductivity was observed. Color and odor were removed completely. The quality of the treated water was found to be reasonably good for further processing through membranes.
TDS and COD (mg/L)
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150

3.4. Membrane processing in test cells The chemically pretreated wastewater was passed through 10,000 Da followed by 1,000 Da, and reverse osmosis membranes separately in a dead end test cell. Appreciable reduction in TDS and COD was not seen after UF. After passing through RO membrane a complete water analysis was done on the permeate and results obtained are given in Table 2. 3.5. Pilot-scale membrane separation studies To reduce the fouling of spiral-wound RO membrane, a MF pretreatment was given before reverse osmosis to arrest the charcoal particles, fat molecules having bigger sizes and the microorganisms present in the wastewater. 71% FOG along with 81% BOD reduction was observed after MF run. Raw water turbidity reduction was observed 88% only after pH adjustment to 4.0. This may be due to the coagulation and agglomeration followed by precipitation of milk protein particularly casein molecules in acidic pH. Coagulant treatment further removed suspended and colloidal materials lowering further turbidity. PAC treatment after coagulant treatment significantly changed the appearance of the wastewater it became clear and odorless. COD in RO feed after MF came down to 197 mg/L. Reverse osmosis treatment reduced 98% COD from original. BOD

TDS(mg/L)
COD(mg/L)

Stirring time (min)

Fig. 8. Variation of TDS and COD with stirring time after 1.5 g/L PAC treatment at pH 4.

Fig. 9. Treatment of dairy wastewater with 10mg/L chitosan followed by 1.5g/L charcoal at pH 4.

150

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152

Table 2 Analysis of dairy wastewater after pretreatment and membrane processing in test cell unit

Raw filtered dairy Wastewater wastewater at pH 4 pH Conductivity, S/cm Turbidity, NTU TDS, mg/L Hardness, mg/L Chloride, mg/L Sulphate, mg/L Phosphorus, mg/L COD, mg/L Fat oil and grease, mg/L Color Odor 5.846.71 556880 1530 696980 150200 5871 25131 01.64 4051308 86252 White Bad smell 616 920 8.4 350950 150200 209264 84 01.68 4051165 182 White Bad smell

After 10 mg/L chitosan treatment 4.094.25 638797 3.63.8 260440 150200 209 6281 01.64 203583 83 Turbid Reduced

After 1.5 g/L PAC treatment 4.384.71 646 803 0.30.1 100200 150200 204209 5082 nil 203388 60 Clear Absent

After RO processing 6.156.43 47111 00.06 5790 1928 5860 1730 nil 81117 nil Clear Absent

Table 3 Analytical results of dairy wastewater after pretreatment and membrane processing in pilot plant unit

Filtered raw Wastewater dairy wastewater at pH 4 pH Conductivity, S/cm Turbidity, NTU TDS, mg/L TSS, mg/L Hardness, mg/L Chloride, mg/L Phosphorous, mg/L COD, mg/L FOG, mg/L BOD, mg/L Color Odor 6.61 923 16 780 216 125 70.4 1.5 1080.5 216 540 White Bad smell 4.06 920 2.1 920 nil 125 309 1.5 884 156 540 White Bad smell

After 10mg/L After 1.5g/L MF permeate RO permeate chitosan treatment PAC treatment 4.21 933 1.9 470 nil 125 307 1.5 295 56 520 Turbid Reduced 5.16 987 0.3 360 nil 125 289 nil 197 50 440 Clear Absent 6.53 1057 0.1 300 nil 125 260 nil 197 14 85 Clear No smell 6.55 40 0 33 nil 3 16 nil 16.5 nil 8 Clear No smell

and COD values of the wastewater came down to 8 mg/L and 16.5 mg/L respectively after reverse osmosis treatment. Drastic reduction in wastewater conductivity after RO (96% from the previous step) signifies the rejection of ionic species only by reverse osmosis and the results are tabulated in Table 3.

3.6. Comparison of dairy process water with RO water The process water sample used in some local dairy industries was collected. These samples were analyzed and compared with the permeate of reverse osmosis studies done earlier. The results are shown in Table 4.

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152 Table 4 Comparison of RO water with dairy process water
Process water pH 7.3 Conductivity, S/cm 242 Turbidity, NTU 0.2 TDS, mg/L 128 Hardness, mg/L 88 FOG, mg/L Nil Chloride, mg/L 58 COD, mg/L 24.7 RO permeate 6.5 40 0.0 33 3 Nil 16 16.5

151

References
[1] B. Balannec, G. Gesan-Guiziou, B. Chaufer, M. Rabiller-Baudry and G. Daufin, Treatment of dairy process waters by membrane operations for water reuse and milk constituents concentration, Desalination, 147 (2002) 8994. [2] M.F. Hamoda and S.M. Al-Awadi, Improvement of effluent quality for reuse in a dairy farm, Water Sci. Tech., 33(1011) (1996) 7985. [3] R. Mukhopadhyay, D. Talukdar, B.P. Chatterjee and A.K Guha, Whey processing with chitosan and isolation of lactose, Process Biochem., 39 (2003) 381 385. [4] K.H. Ahn, J.H. Song and H.Y. Cha, Application of tubular ceramic membranes for reuse of wastewater from buildings, Water Sci. Tech., 38(45) (1998) 373382. [5] V. Mavrov and E. Belieres, Reduction of water consumption and wastewater quantities in the food industry by water recycling using membrane processes, Desalination,131 (2000) 7586. [6] M. Marcucci, G. Nosenzo, G. Capannelli, I. Ciabatti, D. Corrieri and G. Ciardelli, Treatment and reuse of textile effluents based on new ultrafiltration and other membrane technologies, Desalination, 138 (2001) 7582. [7] M.D. Afonso and R. Borquez, Nanofiltration of wastewaters from the fish meal industry, Desalination, 151 (2002) 131138. [8] I. Koyuncu, M. Turan, D. Topacik and A. Ates, Application of low pressure nanofiltration membranes for the recovery and reuse of dairy industry effluents, Water Sci. Tech., 41(1) (2000) 213221. [9] S.S. Madaeni and Y. Mansourpanah, Chemical cleaning of reverse osmosis membranes fouled by whey, Desalination, 161 (2004) 1324. [10] D. Abdessemed and G. Nezzal, Treatment of primary effluent by coagulationadsorptionultrafiltration for reuse, Desalination, 152 (2002) 367373. [11] S.L. Kim, J. Paul Chen and Y.P. Ting, Study on feed pretreatment for membrane filtration of secondary effluent, Sep. Purif. Tech., 29 (2002) 171179. [12] W.S. Guo, S. Vigneswaran, H.H. Ngo and H. Chapman, Experimental investigation of adsorption flocculationmicrofiltration hybrid system in wastewater reuse, J. Membr. Sci., 242 (2004) 2735. [13] L.J. Xu, B.W. Sheldon, R.E. Carawan, D.K. Larick and A.C. Chao, Recovery and characterization of by-products from egg processing plant wastewater

4. Conclusion Chitosan at very low dosage, 10 mg/L was found to be a better coagulant compared to inorganic and organic coagulants. PAC treatment after chitosan was found to be useful in complete removal of color and odor of the wastewater before membrane processing. Performance of chitosan and PAC is pH dependent. Chitosan and PAC work efficiently at the same pH 4.0 and comprise the RO pretreatment step suitable for dairy wastewater. Pilot scale experiment using spiral wound RO membrane yields better water quality compared to flat sheet membranes used in bench scale experiments. The quality of water after reverse osmosis was found to be comparable to that of process water used in the Dairy and can be recycled back. Acknowledgement B.S. and A.V. acknowledge the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India for awarding senior research fellowship and junior research fellowship respectively. The authors are thankful to A.P. Dairy, Hyderabad, India for their cooperation in supplying wastewater during the course of this study. The authors wish to thank Permionics, Vadodara, India for giving polyaluminium chloride and RO flat sheet membrane used in the experiment as a complimentary sample.

152

B. Sarkar et al. / Desalination 195 (2006) 141152 [24] J.F. Lee, P.M. Liao, D.H. Tseng and P.T. Wen, Behaviour of organic polymers in drinking water purification, Chemosphere, 37(6) (1998) 10451061. [25] E.S. Olsen, H.C. Ratnaweera and R. Pehrson, A novel treatment process for dairy wastewater with chitosan produced from shrimp-shell waste, Wat. Sci. Tech., 34(11) (1996) 3340. [26] S. Taha, D. Tremaudan and G. Dorange, Comparative study of coagulationdecantation and UF for elimination of organic carbon from dairy wastewater, Recent Prog. Genie Proced., 9 (1995) 5560. [27] B. Krajewska, Membrane-based processes performed with use of chitin/chitosan materials, Sep. Purif. Technol., 41(3) (2005) 305312. [28] H. Ganjidoust, K. Tatsumi, T. Yamagishi and R.N. Gholian, Effect of synthetic and natural coagulant on lignin removal from pulp and paper wastewater, Wat. Sci. Tech., 35(23) (1997) 291296. [29] I.G. Lalov, I.I. Guerginov, M.A. Krysteva and K. Fartsov, Treatment of waste water from distilleries with chitosan, Wat. Res., 34(5) (2000) 15031506. [30] C.V. Genovese and J.F. Gonzalez, Solids removal by coagulation from fisheries waste waters, Water SA, 24(4) (1998) 371372. [31] M.O. Azzam, K.I. Al-Malah and N.I. Abu-Lail, Dynamic post-treatment response of olive mill effluent wastewater using activated carbon, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A, 39(1) (2004) 269280. [32] N. Adhoum and L. Monser, Removal of phthalate on modified activated carbon: application to the treatment of industrial wastewater, Sep. Purif. Technol., 38 (2004) 233239. [33] M. Rao and A.G. Bhole, Removal of organic matter from dairy industry wastewater using low-cost adsorbents, J. Indian Chem. Eng. Section A, 44(1) (2002) 2528.

using coagulants, Poultry Sci., 80 (2001) 5765. [14] L. Guerrero, F. Omil, R. Mendez and J.M. Lema, Protein recovery during the overall treatment of wastewaters from fish-meal factories, Bioresource Technol., 63 (1998) 221229. [15] B. Ericsson and G. Trgrdh, Treatment of surface water rich in humus Membrane filtration vs. conventional treatment, Desalination, 108 (1996) 117 128. [16] E.E. Hargesheimer and S.B Watson, Drinking water treatment options for taste and odor control, Wat. Res., 30(6) (1996) 14231430. [17] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed., 1998. [18] M. Rossini, J.G. Garrido and M. Galluzzo, Optimization of the coagulationflocculation treatment: influence of rapid mix parameters, Wat. Res., 33(8) (1999) 18171826. [19] N.Z. Al-Mutairi, M.F. Hamoda and I. Al-Ghusain, Coagulant selection and sludge conditioning in a slaughterhouse wastewater treatment plant, Bioresource Technol., 95 (2004) 115119. [20] Z. Song, C.J. Williams and R.G.J. Edyvean, Treatment of tannery wastewater by chemical coagulation, Desalination, 164 (2004) 249259. [21] National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals, Draft for Public Consultation, February 2005. [22] C. Huang, S. Chen and J. Ruhsing Pan, Optimal condition for modification of chitosan: a biopolymer for coagulation of colloidal particles, Wat. Res., 34(3) (2000) 10571062. [23] S. Delgado, F. Diaz, D. Garcia and N. Otero, Behaviour of inorganic coagulants in secondary effluents from a conventional wastewater treatment plant, Filtr. Sep., Sept (2003) 4346.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi