Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:E:Environmental Management and Health:Vol07.Issue3.1996:

(1)

(2)

Fayza A. Nas r and Hala M. El-Kamah

Che mic o -bio lo gic al tre atme nt o f dairy waste wate r

Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt and He alth

7 / 3 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 2 –2 7

(F igu r e 2). T h e m ixed liq u or -s u s p en d ed solid s w a s m a in t a in ed a r ou n d 3g/ l.

T h e t r ick lin g fi lt er w a s a gr avel-p a ck ed la b o-r a t oo-r y sca le m od el s im ila o-r t o t h a t u s ed by E l Goh a r y et a l.[8] (F igu r e 3). It con s is t ed of a py r ex gla s s t u b e of 75cm len gt h a n d 13cm in t er n a l d ia m et er. T h e in n er su r fa ce a r ea of t h e t u b e w a s con s id er ed a s a ver t ica l p la in s u r fa ce a r ea of 0.33m2_{. An a er ob ic t r ea t m en t}

w a s con d u ct ed in a 3.7 lit r e con t in u ou s u p -fl ow a n a er ob ic r ea ct or (F igu r e 4). T h e r ea ct or w a s op er a t ed con t in u ou sly a t or ga n ic loa d of 15k g COD/ m3/ d ay a t a con s t a n t d et en t ion t im e of t wo d ay s. T h e sy s t em w a s op er a t ed a t r oom t em p er a t u r e (25± 3°C). T h e r ea ct or w a s s eed ed w it h sew a ge slu d ge collect ed fr om m u n icip a l w a st ew a t er t r ea t m en t p la n t a t a con cen t r a t ion of 15g/ l. P r ior t o seed in g, t h e slu d ge w a s a cclim a t ed t o t h e d a ir y w a st e-w a t er. T h e volu m e of b ioga s p r od u ced e-w a s r ecor d ed u sin g w a t er d isp la cem en t t ech n iq u e.

Analysis

P h y sico-ch em ica l ch a r a ct er ist ics cover ed t h e follow in g: p H , t ot a l s olid s (TR) a t 105°C, vola t ile or ga n ic m a t t er (VOM) a t 550°C, t ot a l p h osp h a t e (TP ), COD, a n d t ot a l k jed a h l n it r o-gen (TON ). T h e a n a ly ses w er e ca r r ied ou t a ccor d in g t o t h e AP H A m et h od s [9]. Pe rme ate Che mic al c o agulatio n Bio lo gic al tre atme nt Tric kling filte r

Ac tivate d s ludge

Up-flo w anae ro bic re ac to r

Figure 1

Sc he matic diagram o f the diffe re nt tre atme nt pro c e s s e s

Efflue nt

Air

1 5 c m

2

3

c

m

Figure 2

Sc he matic diagram o f the ac tivate d s ludge unit

Efflue nt

7

5

c

m

Se ttling bas in Pump

Fe e d

Influe nt

Tric kling filter mo to r

1 3 c m

Figure 3

(3)

7 / 3 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 2 –2 7

Results and discussion

Characterization of wastewater from the cheese factory

Va r ia t ion s in t h e p h y sico-ch em ica l p a r a m e-t er s of w a s h in g w a e-t er fr om m ilk e-t a n k s a n d fi lt er s, t h e p er m ea t e efflu en t a n d com p os it e s a m p les of t h e fi n a l efflu en t of t h e ch ees e p la n t a r e r ecor d ed in Ta ble I. T h e r es u lt s ob t a in ed s h ow ed t h a t p er m ea t e is t h e m a in s ou r ce of p ollu t ion . T h e d a t a s h ow ed t h a t t h e p er m ea t e is a cid ic, t h e p H r a n ged fr om 4 t o 6. T h e COD r a n ged fr om 63 t o 70, w it h a n aver -a ge v-a lu e of 67gO₂/ l. Cor r es p on d in g BOD r a n ged fr om 20 t o 24 w it h a n aver a ge va lu e of 21.6gO₂/ l. Aver a ge t ot a l n it r ogen a n d p h os-p h or u s w er e 0.84gN / l a n d 0.52gP / l, r es os-p ec-t ively.

Physical treatment

T h e r esu lt s ob t a in ed (F igu r e 5) s h ow t h a t in cr ea sin g t h e r et en t ion t im e of set t lin g t o t h r ee h ou r s im p r oved t h e r em ova l efficien cy of COD by 20 p er cen t . Cor r esp on d in g r em ova l of VOM, TON a n d TP w er e 25 p er cen t , 21 p er cen t a n d 23 p er cen t r esp ect ively. In cr ea sin g t h e set t lin g t im e fr om t h r ee h ou r s t o 24 h ou r s sligh t ly in cr ea sed t h e COD r em ova l va lu es fr om 20 p er cen t t o 25 p er cen t .

Chemical treatment

Fe rro us sulphate with lime

Fer r ou s su lp h a t e w a s u sed a s a coa gu la n t , w h ile lim e w a s u sed a s a coa gu la n t a id a n d t o r a ise t h e p H of t h e p er m ea t e. Bot h Ca2+a n d Fe2+_{a ct ed sim u lt a n eou sly a s coa gu la n t s. T h e} r esu lt s ob t a in ed in F igu r e 6 in d ica t ed t h a t t h e aver a ge d ose of fer r ou s su lp h a t e w h ich p r o-d u ceo-d t h e m a xim u m COD a n o-d p h osp h or u s r em ova l w a s 250m g/ l. T h e aver a ge p er cen t -a ge r em ov-a ls of COD, VOM, TP -a n d TON w er e

Influe nt

1 0 0 mm

5

0

m

5

0

m

Bio gas

Efflue nt

Figure 4

Up-flo w anae ro bic me te r

3 5

3 0

2 5

2 0

1 5

1 0

5

Re mo val (pe r c e nt)

1 2 3 4 2 4

Time (ho urs )

Key

Che mic al o xyge n de mand Vo latile o rganic matte r To tal kje dahl nitro ge n To tal pho s phate

Figure 5

Effic ie nc y o f the phys ic al tre atme nt pro c e s s

Table I

Charac te rizatio n o f was te wate r fro m the plant

Samples Washing water Final effluent of the cheese plant Permeate

Parameters g/ l Range Average Range Average Range Average

pH-value 4 .2 -6 .1 – 5 .2 -6 .7 – 4 -6 –

Total residue, 105°C 6 .9 -9 .8 8 .6 4 .2 -5 .9 5 .1 5 7 -6 3 5 8 .6

Volatile organic matter, 550°C 5 .5 -8 .1 6 .9 3 .4 -5 .0 4 .3 5 1 -5 7 5 2 .9

Chemical oxygen demand 4 .6 -8 .4 6 .2 3 .6 -5 .7 4 .1 6 3 -7 0 6 7 .2

Biological oxygen demand 2 .1 -3 .7 2 .6 1 .8 -2 .8 2 .2 2 0 -2 4 2 1 .6

Total kjedahl nitrogen 0 .1 4 -0 .4 2 0 .3 0 .1 2 -0 .3 1 0 .2 0 .6 5 -0 .8 7 0 .8 4

Total phosphorus 0 .0 8 -0 .1 5 0 .1 0 .0 3 -0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .4 8 -0 .6 3 0 .5 2

Note:

(4)

(5)

7 / 3 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 2 –2 7

Tric kling filte r

T h e b iologica l t r ick lin g fi lt er w a s fed con t in -u o-u s ly w it h t h e ch em ica lly t r ea t ed effl-u en t s a t a con s t a n t h yd r a u lic loa d of 600l/ m3 _{d .} Wh en t h e efflu en t t r ea t ed w it h fer r ou s s u l-p h a t e a id ed w it h lim e w a s u s ed , t h e or ga n ic loa d w a s 170g COD/ m2_{/ d a n d w it h fer r ic} ch lor id e a id ed w it h lim e t h e or ga n ic loa d w a s 230g COD/ m2_{/ d .}

F r om t h e r esu lt s ob t a in ed (F igu r e 7, Ta ble III) it ca n b e seen t h a t COD, VOM, TON a n d TP r em ova l va lu es wer e low d u r in g t h e fi r st t en d ay s; t h is w a s followed by a gr a d u a l in cr ea se u n t il it r ea ch ed it s st ea dy st a t e a ft er 30 d ay s. Du r in g t h is r u n , u p t o 95 p er cen t r em ova l of COD w a s r ecor d ed . Th e cor r e-sp on d in g VOM r ed u ct ion r ea ch ed 90 p er cen t . T h e fi n a l efflu en t con st it u en t s: COD, BOD, TON, TP, wer e 1.36gO₂/ l, 0.49gO₂/ l, 0.06gN / l a n d 0.026gP / l, r esp ect ively. Hen ce t h e va lu es of t h e p ollu t ion a l p a r a m et er s of t h e t r ea t ed efflu en t by t h is sy st em wer e st ill h igh er t h a n t h e lim it s of t h e N a t ion a l Re gu la t or y St a n d a r d s for w a st ew a t er d isp osa l in t o t h e sewer -a ge sy st em .

Up-flow anaerobic reactor

T h e r es u lt s ob t a in ed in d ica t ed effect ive a n d sign ifi ca n t b iod e gr a d a t ion of d iss olved or ga n ic m a t t er left in t h e ch em ica lly t r ea t ed efflu en t . Res id u a l COD r a n ged fr om 0.45 t o 0.76, w it h a n aver a ge va lu e of 0.65gO₂/ l. Cor -r es p on d in g BOD va lu es -r a n ged f-r om 0.29 t o 0.43, w it h a n aver a ge va lu e of 0.37gO₂/ l. Aver -a ge p er cen t -a ge r em ov-a l of COD -a n d BOD w er e 97.8 p er cen t a n d 96 p er cen t r es p ect ively. T h e b ioga s p r od u ct ion r a t e r a n ged b et w een 0.34 a n d 0.41m3_{/ k g COD r em oved . T h e aver} -a ge v-a lu e w -a s 0.39m3_{/ k g COD r em oved .}

T h e va lu es of t h e p ollu t ion a l p a r a m et er s of t h e t r ea t ed efflu en t by t h is sy st em m eet t h e Table II

Expe rime ntal re s ults o f c he mic al-bio lo gic al tre atme nt

BTEb_{time (hours)}

Characteristics Unit Raw waste CTEa 1 2 3 4 24

pH-value 6 .2 7 .6 6 .2 6 .2 6 .2 5 .5 4 .5

Total residue, 105°C g/ l 5 8 .6 3 6 .9 3 2 .3 2 9 .0 2 1 .9 1 8 .3 1 7 .3

Volatile organic matter, 550°C g/ l 5 2 .9 3 1 .7 2 6 .6 2 3 .3 1 6 .2 9 1 2 .6 1 1 .6

Percentage removal % – 4 0 1 6 2 6 .5 4 8 .6 6 0 .3 6 3 .5

Chemical oxygen demand gO₂/ l 6 7 .2 2 9 .6 2 5 .3 4 8 .3 1 2 .4 1 1 .7 8 .6

Percentage removal % – 5 6 1 4 .6 1 7 .6 5 8 6 0 .4 7 0 .8

Biological oxygen demand gO₂/ l 2 1 .6 9 .3 7 .8 7 .0 3 .7 3 .4 2 .5

Percentage removal % – 5 7 1 6 .2 2 4 .6 6 0 .7 6 4 .2 7 2 .6

Total kjeldahl nitrogen gN/ l 0 .8 4 0 .3 9 0 .3 1 9 0 .3 0 3 0 .2 6 5 0 .1 8 9 0 .2 0 6

Percentage removal % – 5 3 1 9 .3 2 3 .4 3 2 .9 5 2 5 7 .8

Total phosphorus gP/ l 0 .5 2 0 .2 6 0 .2 1 3 0 .2 0 4 0 .1 4 4 0 .1 3 9 0 .1 2 9

Percentage removal % – 5 1 1 6 .4 2 0 4 3 .6 4 5 .5 4 9 .1

Notes:

a_{Chemic ally treated effluent using ferrous sulphate and lime} b_{Biologic ally treated effluent using ac tivated sludge}

1 0 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0

TON re mo val (pe r c e nt)

0 5 Time (days )

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

Figure 7

Stability o f the bio lo gic al tric kling filte r us ing c he mic ally tre ate d pe rme ate

Key

Lo ad = 1 7 0 g COD/ m2_{/ d}

Lo ad = 2 3 0 g COD/ m2_{/ d}

1 0 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0

COD re mo val (pe r c e nt)

0 5 Time (days )

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

1 0 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0

VOM re mo val (pe r c e nt)

0 5 Time (days )

(6)

7 / 3 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 2 –2 7

N a t ion a l Re gu la t or y St a n d a r d s for w a s t e-w a t er d is p os a l in t o t h e s ee-w er a ge sy s t em .

Conclusion

T h e follow in g w a s con clu d ed :

• T h e p h y s ica l or ch em ica l t r ea t m en t of t h e p er m ea t e fa iled in r ed u cin g a n y of t h e p ol-lu t ion a l p a r a m et er s t o t h e lim it s of t h e E gy p t ia n law 93/ 1962 for w a s t ew a t er d is-p os a l in t o t h e sew er a ge sy s t em .

• T h e ch em ica l-b iologica l t r ea t m en t u s in g a ct iva t ed slu d ge r em oved 64 p er cen t of VOM w h ile 90 p er cen t of VOM r em ova l w a s a ch ieved w h en t r ick lin g fi lt er w a s u s ed . H ow ever, t h is m et h od d id n ot r ed u ce t h e p ollu t ion a l p a r a m et er s t o t h e lim it s of t h e sa m e law m en t ion ed a b ove.

• T h e ch em ica l-b iologica l t r ea t m en t u s in g u p -fl ow a n a er ob ic r ea ct or su cceed ed in p r od u cin g a n efflu en t w h ich m eet s t h e N a t ion a l Re gu la t or y St a n d a r d s for w a s t e-w a t er d is p os a l in t o t h e s ee-w er a ge sy s t em .

References

1 Sw a m p a lli, R.Y. a n d Ba u m a n , E .R., “Kin et ic in t r ea t in g d om est ic a n d d a ir y w a s t e”, P r oceed -in gs 41, P u r d u e In d u st r ia l Wa s t e Con fer en ce, N o. 445, 1986.

2 Mu r r ay, W. a n d Va n d en Ber g, L., “An a er ob ic exp en d ed b ed t r ea t m en t of w h ey p r oces ses”,

A p p lied E n v ir on m en ta l M icr ob iolog y, Vol. 4,

1981, p p. 502-5.

3 N em er ow, N.L. a n d Da s gu p t a , H ., “T r ea t m en t of d a ir y w a st es”, in In d u str ia l a n d H a z a rd ou s

Wa ste T rea tm en t, Va n N os t r a n d Rein h old , N ew

Yor k , N Y, 1991.

4 M a r t in , J .H . a n d Za ll, P.R., “Da ir y p r ocess in g w a s t ew a t er eva lu a t ion ”, Pr oceed in gs 40, Pu r

-d u e In -d u str ia l Wa ste Con feren ce, N o. 351, 1985.

5 Va n d en Ber g, L. a n d Ken n edy, K.J ., “Da ir y w a s t e t r ea t m en t w it h a n a er ob ic st a t ion a r y fi xed fi lm r ea ct or s ”, B iotech n olog y L etters, N o. 3, 1981, p p. 165-70.

6 Ka r p a t i, A. Ben cze, L. a n d Bor s zek i, J ., “N ew p r oces s for p h y sico-ch em ica l p r et r ea t m en t of d a ir y efflu en t s w it h a gr icu lt u r a l u s e of slu d ge p r od u ced ”, Wa ter S cien ce a n d T ech n olog y, Vol. 22 N o. 9, 1990, p p. 93-100.

7 H iggin s, T., H a z a rd ou s Wa ste M in im iz a tion

H a n d b ook , 3r d ed ., Lew is P u blis h er, Boca

Ra t on , F L, 1990.

8 E l-Goh a r y, F.A., Aloo-E la , S.I. a n d E l-Ka m a h , H .M ., “Recla m a t ion of m u n icip a l w a st ew a t er ”,

Wa ter S cien ce a n d T ech n olog y, Vol. 21 N o. 1,

1989, p p. 93-9.

9 Am er ica n P u blic H ea lt h Associa t ion (AP H A),

S ta n d a rd M eth od s for th e E x a m in a tion of Wa ter a n d Wa stew a ter , 18t h ed ., Am er ica n

P u blic H ea lt h Associa t ion , Wa sh in gt on , DC, 1992.

10 E ck en feld er, V.W. J r, In d u str ia l Wa ter Pollu tion

Con tr ol, 2n d ed ., McGr aw -H ill In t er n a t ion a l

E d it ion s, N ew Yor k , N Y a n d Lon d on , 1989. 11 Ka r p a t i, A., “Wa st ew a t er p r et r ea t m en t a n d

s lu d ge u t iliza t ion in t h e d a ir y in d u s t r y ”, E n v i-r ot ech , Vien n a , 20-22 Feb i-r u a i-r y 1989.

Table III

Expe rime ntal re s ults o f c he mic al-bio lo gic al tre atme nt

BTEb_{time (hours)} _BTEc

Characteristics Unit Raw waste CTEa M inimum M aximum Average M inimum M aximum Average

pH-value 6 .2 7 .6 5 .5 6 .9 – 5 .9 6 .7 –

Total residue, 105°C g/ l 5 8 .6 3 6 .9 7 .6 1 8 .6 8 .3 6 .8 7 .3 7 .1

Volatile organic matter,

550°C g/ l 5 2 .9 3 1 .7 2 .4 1 3 .4 3 .1 1 .6 2 .1 1 .8

Percentage removal % – 4 0 8 9 .3 9 2 .4 9 0 .2 9 3 .3 9 4 .9 9 4 .3

Chemical oxygen demand gO₂/ l 6 7 .2 2 9 .6 1 .0 1 1 .8 8 1 .3 6 0 .4 5 0 .7 6 0 .6 5

Biological oxygen demand gO₂/ l 2 1 .6 9 .3 0 .3 8 0 .6 3 0 .4 9 0 .2 9 0 .4 3 0 .3 7

Percentage removal % – 5 7 9 3 .2 9 5 .9 9 4 .7 9 5 .4 9 6 .9 9 6

Total kjeldahl nitrogen gN/ l 0 .8 4 0 0 .3 9 0 .0 4 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 0 .0 2 6 0 .0 3 4 0 .0 3

Total phosphorus gP/ l 0 .5 2 0 0 .2 6 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 6 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 5

Biogas produced m3_{/ kg} _– _– _– _– _– _{0 .3 4} _{0 .4 1} _{0 .3 9}

COD removed

Notes:

a_{Chemic ally treated effluent using ferrous sulphate and lime} b_{Biologic ally treated effluent using tric kling filter}

c_{Biologic ally treated effluent using up-flow anaerobic reac tor}