EFFECTS OF ECOFRIENDLY PRODUCTION …uest.ntua.gr/iwwatv/proceedings/presentations/22_May/SESSION_VII/3... · EFFECTS OF ECOFRIENDLY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION

EFFECTS OF ECOFRIENDLY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND

TREATMENT PLANT PERFORMANCE

G. Yuksek1*, D. Okutman Tas1, E.Ubay Cokgor1, G. Insel1, B.Kirci3, O. Erturan2

1Istanbul Technical University, Environmental Engineering Department

2Arçelik A.Ş, Energy & Environment Department

3Arçelik A.Ş, Bolu Cooking Appliances Facilty

AIM & SCOPE

2

Aim of the study

to characterize the metal surface coating application industry wastewater after new eco-friendly coating

process

to evaluate the efficiency of the potential wastewater

treatment system

Scope of the study

To determine the processes that cause wastewater production

To characterize wastewater of the metal finishing industry

To analyze treatability of wastewater by chemical and biological methods

To choose optimum coagulant and coagulant dosage for chemical treatment

To research the efficiency of wastewater treatment plant units, in the light of

experimental result

May 21-23 2015, Athens

INTRODUCTION• Metal Finishing Industry

– Metal Anodizing,– Metal Heat Processes,– Metal Treating, Sand

Spraying and Polishing,– Metal Colorization,– Plastic Coating, Enamel

Coating and Varnishing,– Hardening of metals.

• The metal finishing in this study; – Metal Surface Preparation– Metal Surface Coating

• Enamel Coating• Painting

3

Metal Processing and Formation

Metal Coating

Surface Preperation and Cleaning

Rinsing

Coating

Rinsing

The Others (Montage of final product)


The Factory-Water Consumption & WW Prodcution

Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011

Total Per Product Total Per

Product Total Per Product Total

Per Produc

t Consumed

Water239,445 m3

0.12 m3/pr

206,010 m3

0.11 m3/pr

240,492 m3

0.12 m3/pr

266,087m3

0.12 m3/pr

Produced Wastewater

205,920 m3

0.10 m3/pr

135,002 m3

0.07 m3/pr

171,770 m3

0.09 m3/pr

190,940m3

0.08 m3/pr

4May 21-23 2015, Athens

Domestic Wastewater

(m3/YIL)44%Industrial

Wastewater (m3/YIL)

56%

WASTEWATER STREAM

The Factory

MATERIAL & METHODS

5May 21-23 2015, Athens

Enamel Process1

Hanger Washing Rinsing 2Rinsing 1Degreasing

2Degreasing

1

Enamel Process 2

Pre-Degreasing

Degreasing 1 Rinsing 2Rinsing 1Degreasing

2

Batch Treatment

ContinuousTreatment

Degreasing Rinsing 2Hot Rinsing Rinsing 1

Silver Process

MATERIAL & METHODS

6May 21-23 2015, Athens

MATERIAL & METHODS White-Black Process

Degreasing 1

Degreasing 2 Rinsing 2

Pre-deionized Bonderite

Rinsing 3Rinsing 1

De-ionized

Continious Treatment

Batch Treatment

Degreasing 1

Antifinger Process

De-ionizedPre-deionized Bonderite

Rinsing 3Rinsing 2Rinsing 1Degreasing 2

7

MATERIAL & METHODS Wastewater Treatment Plant

Pre-Equalization

Tank

Coagulation Tank

Flocculation Tank

Neutralization Tank

Settling Tank

Settling Tank

Industrial Biological Treatment

Plant

Continuous Treatment

Painting Pre-Equalization

Tank

Batch Treatment

Enamel Pre-Equalization

Tank

Neutralization Tank

EqualizationTank

Flotation Tank

Coagulation Tank

Settling Tank

Flocculation Tank

Coagulation Tank

35 m3/h

11.5 m3/h

8May 21-23 2015, Athens

MATERIAL & METHODS

Wastewater Treatment Plant Biological Treatment

Screens Domestic Biological Treatment

Settling Tank

Q:16,25 m3/h

Batch Treatment

Continuous Treatment

Industrial Biological Treatment

Biological Treatment Discharge

29.05.2015 9

Overall Treatment System


Toilets Kitchen

Bathroom

Domestic WW From;

MATERIAL & METHODS

Sampling Pre-

Equalization Tank

Coagulation Tank

Flocculation Tank

Neutralization Tank

Settling Tank

Settling Tank

Biological Treatment

Plant


Tank


Tank

Neutralization TankReaction Tank Flotation

TankCoagulation

TankSettling

TankFlocculation

Tank Coagulation

Tank

Screens Aeration Tank Settling Tank

Discharge 10

Sampling Periods and Types

Sample No Season Sampling

Type

1 Spring Grab

2 Winter Composite

3 Winter Composite

4 Summer Composite

11May 21-23 2015, Athens

Conventional Parameters

•COD, TSS, VSS, TP, TKN, Heavy metals.

Quantification Inert COD

•COD fractions were determined

Respirometric Studies

No Wastewater

1 Painting Total2 Painting Filtered3 Enamel Total4 Enamel Filtered5 Rinsing Total6 Rinsing Filtered

RESULT & DISCUSSION Characterization of Raw Wastewater

12

Sample Point pH TSS (mg/L)

VSS (mg/L)

Total COD (mg/L)

Soluble COD (mg/L)

Painting Wastewater 8.1 ± 0.2 40 ± 18 30 ± 12 190 ± 70 65 ±10

Enamel Wastewater 8.5 ± 0.6 145 ±13 100 ± 11 615 ± 155 300 ± 70

Rinsing Wastewater 7.7 ± 0.7 19 ± 11 10 ± 8 155 ± 85 50 ± 5

Domestic Wastewater 7.3 ± 0.2 180 ± 35 165 ±28 675 ±215 360 ± 70

Sample Point TP(mg/L)

PO4-P(mg/L)

TKN(mg/L)

Ammonia (mg/L)

NO2-N(mg/L)

NO3-N(mg/L)

Rinsing Wastewater 4.0 ± 1.3 <2 <1.5 <5 1.8 ± 0.6 <1

Domestic Wastewater 14.2 ± 1.6 5.5 ± 1 100±5 50±14 <1 <1


RESULT & DISCUSSION Characterization of Raw Wastewater Studies-Heavy Metals

13

Sample Point Cu Zn Cd Pb Mn Al T. Cr Cr+6 Fe Nimg/L

Painting Wastewater <0.2 1.2 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.06 <0.3

Enamel Wastewater <0.2 0.2 <0.05 <1 0.3 <1 <0.2 <0.2 <1 <0.3

Rinsing Wastewater <0.2 1.1 <0.05 <1 0.2 <1 <0.2 <0.2 <1 <0.3


RESULT & DISCUSSION

29.05.2015 14

Parameters(Wahaab et al., 2001 ) (Sthionnopka et

al., 2009)(Gabaldon et al.,

2007)Painting

WastewaterPhosphatingWastewater Mixed Wastewater Mixed Wastewater

pH 3-7.4 5.5-9 1.35 7.8-8.4COD (mg O2/L) 5905 2970 154 75-115BOD (mg O2/L) 2114 1610 <2 10-30TSS (mg/L) 687 640 3T. Phosphorus (mg /L) 24 220 -Oil &Grease (mg/L) 1470 430 -SVI (mL/L) 30 min 2.5 1 -NO3-N (g/m3) - - - 700-1000SO4-2 (g/m3) - - - 6500-7500Heavy Metals (mg/L)Zinc (Zn) 0.6 22 28.02 3.50-9.56Chromium (Cr) 0.05 0.3 39.14Copper (Cu) 0.05 1.05 66.72 2.53-6.97Cadmium (Cd) 0.03 0.06 Not detected. Not detected.Nickel (Ni) 0.34 8.20 0.046 0.21-0.92Lead (Pb) 0.06 0.025 1.266 Not detectedFerrous (Fe) - - 1.822Mercury (Hg) - - 0.004Manganese (Mn) - - 0.040

Characterizations in Literature


RESULT & DISCUSSION

29.05.2015 15

Parameters Unit Discharge Limits (SKKY)in Composite Samples Composite Sampling Results

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L 100 60 ±35

Total Suspended Solid (TSS) mg/L 125 19±3

Oil & Grease mg/L 20 8.4 ±2.5

Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4-N) mg/L 20 <5

Nitrite Nitrogen (NO2-N) mg/L 5 1.4±0.1

Total Chromium mg/L 2 <0.2

Chromium (Cr+6) mg/L 0.5 <0.2

Lead (Pb) mg/L 1 <1

Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.2 <0.05

Alumium (Al) mg/L 2 <1

Iron (Fe) mg/L 3 <1

Floride (F-) mg/L 50 2.1

Copper (Cu) mg/L 2 <0.2

Nickel (Ni) mg/L 2 <0.3

Zinc (Zn) mg/L 2 0.9

Fish Toxicity (ZSF) - 4 1

pH - 6-9 7.5 ±0.2

RESULT & DISCUSSION

Jar Test

16

Coagulants

• FeCl3• Al2(SO4)3• Commercial

Solution

pH adjustmen

t

• HCl• NaOH

Flocculant • Polielectrolyte

Chemicals

3 Volume Painting

Wastewater

1 Volume Enamel

Wastewater

Prepared Wastewater

COD : 250 mg/L TSS : 65mg/L


RESULT & DISCUSSION

17

Coagulant

• Commercial Solution (FeCl3 Containing)• Al2(SO4)3• FeCl3 Solution

Dosages

• 1-10-25-50-75-100-150 µL/L • 1-10-25-50-75-100-150 mg/L• 1-10-25-50-75-100-150 mg/L

pH

• pH of experiment: 5.5• pH of experiment: 6.5-7• pH of experiment: 5.5

Flocculant• 400 µL/L- Polyelectrolyte


RESULT & DISCUSSION

Jar Test-Commercial Solution Assay

Coagulant Dosage

Mixed Sample Supernatant Liquid

TSS mg/L pH COD

mg/LTurbidity NTU

1 µL/L 66 6.11 115 2310 µL/L 95 6.20 50 5.5 25 µL/L 95 6.24 45 5 50 µL/L 96 6.34 45 4 75 µL/L 100 6.20 40 3 100 µL/L 123 5.58 40 3.5<x<4 150 µL/L 129 5.78 40 3.5 Regulation Limits - 6-9 100 -

18May 21-23 2015, Athens

Jar Test

Coagulant Dosage

Mixed Sample

Supernatant LiquidAlum

Mixed Sample

Supernatant LiquidFeCl3

TSS mg/L pH COD

mg COD/LTurbidity

NTUTSS (mg/L) pH COD

mgCOD/LTurbidity NTU

1 mg/L 70 7.40 100 15 50 6.04 100 1510 mg/L 85 7.20 50 5 55 6.08 50 5.5 25 mg/L 90 7.15 50 2.5 80 5.97 50 4 50 mg/L 115 7.17 50 2 85 6.01 50 3 75 mg/L 115 7.05 45 2.5<x<2 118 6.34 45 2.5

100 mg/L 120 7.22 45 1.5 163 6.00 45 3.5 150 mg/L 185 7.24 40 1.5 180 6.02 45 3.5 Legislation Limits - 6-9 100 -

- 6-9 100 -

19May 21-23 2015, Athens

Heavy Metal Concentrations

Alum Commercial Solution FeCl3

Selected Dosage: 50

mg/L

Legislation Limits

Selected Dosage: 50 µL/L

Regulation Limits

Selected Dosage: 50 mg/L

Legislation Limits

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/LAl-Aluminium <1 2 <1 2 <1 2

Fe-Ferrous 0.2 3 0.5 3 0.5 3

Zn-Zinc <2 2 1.3 2 0.6 2

T. Cr-Total Chrome

<0.2 2 <0.2 2 <0.2 2

RESULT & DISCUSSION

Jar Test- pH Evaluation Assay Ad

just

edpH Coagulant Dosage

Mixed Sample Supernatant Liquid

TSS (mg/L) pH COD (mg COD/L)

Turbidity (NTU)

5.5

1 mg/L 50 6.04 100 1510 mg/L 55 6.08 50 5.5 50 mg/l 85 6.01 50 3

6.5-

7 1 mg/L 95 7.39 70 1110 mg/L 65 7.10 50 550 mg/L 130 7.12 40 4

8(O

rgin

a1 p

H) 1 mg/L 75 7.12 60 910 mg/L 60 7.47 55 5.550 mg/l 140 7.15 45 6

Legislation Limits - 6-9 100 -

21May 21-23 2015, Athens

RESULT & DISCUSSION

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150

Volu

me

of sl

udge

(L

/ to

nne

was

tew

ater

)

Amou

nt o

f slu

dge

(gr/

tonn

e w

aste

wat

er)

Commercial Solution (µL/L)

Amount of SludgeVolume of Sludge


RESULT & DISCUSSION

23

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

020406080

100120140160180200

0 50 100 150

Volu

me

of S

ludg

e (L

/ton

ne w

aste

wat

er)

Amou

nt o

f Slu

dge

(gr/

tonn

e w

aste

wat

er)

Alum (mg/L)

Amount of SludgeVolume of Sludge


RESULT & DISCUSSION

24

0

15

30

45

60

75

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 50 100 150

Volu

me

of sl

udge

(L/t

onne

was

tew

ater

)

Amou

nt o

f slu

dge

(gr/

tonn

e w

aste

wat

er)

FeCl3 Solution (mg/L)

Amount of sludge Volume of sludge


RESULT & DISCUSSION

Evaluation sludge production in real system

25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 10 25 50 75 100 150

grsl

udge

/ton

new

aste

wat

er

mg/L

Comparison of Results with The Facility Data

Alum FeCl3 Commercial Solution

575 gr sludge / tonne wastewater


Model Results

SET 1:IAS+DWW SET 2:DAS+DWW

Coefficients Unit Set 1 Set 2 LiteraturebH 1/day 0.24 0.24 0.1-0.65*µH 1/day 1.2 3 4.0-6.0*YH g cell COD/g COD 0.64 0.64 0.62-0.67*XH mg COD/L 315 900 -khx 1/day 0.30 1.6 ~1.9**KXX gCOD/g cell COD 0.70 0.03 ~0.18**KS mg/L 6 10 2.5-30*

26

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3

OU

R (m

g/L.

h)

Time (day)

Model

Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0,05 0,1

OU

R (m

g/L.

h)

Time (day)

ModelData

* Çokgör et.al., 1998-** Orhon et. al., 2003

Activity of biomass % 9 Activity of biomass % 35


Enzyme Activity

Model Results-Chemıcal Treated WW

SET 3 : IAS SET 4:DAS

27

Coefficients Unit SET 4 SET 5bH 1/day 0.24 0.24µH 1/day 4.0 2.5YH (g cell COD/g COD) 0.64 0.64XH mg COD/L 100 900khx 1/day 0.6 1KXX (g COD/g cell COD) 0.7 0.15KS mg/L 6 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1

OU

R (m

g/L.

h)

Time (day)

ModelData

0

5

10

15

20

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3

OU

R (m

g/L.

h)

Time (day)

Model

Data

Activity of biomass % 4 Activity of biomass % 25


RESULT SUMMARY &

28

• Pollutant load of raw WW ↓• Pollutant load of discharge

WW↓

Characterization Results

• Chosen Chemical : FeCl3 and Commercial FeCl3 Solution

• Opt. Dosage: 50 mg/L- 50 µL/L

Chemical Treatment

• 21.4 % of T. COD in enamel WW• 16.6 % of T. COD in paintingWW• 12 % of T. COD in rinsing WW

Inert COD Concentration


• Inhibitory effect on domestic activated sludge• Chemical treatment was decreased inhibitory effect• Biological treatment methods are not proper for the

industrial WW.

RespirometricAnalyses

29


Tank


Tank

Flocculation Tank

Reaction Tank Coagulation

Tank

Neutralization Tank

Settling Tank

Screen Biological Treatment Plant

Settling Tank

Pre-Equalization

Tank

Coagulation Tank

Flocculation Tank

Neutralization Tank

Settling Tank

Settling Tank

Biological Treatment

Plant

Discharge

Discharge

Discharge

CONCLUSION


30

RESULT & DISCUSSION Characterization of Treated Wastewater-Conventional Parameters

31

Sample Point pH (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

VSS (mg/L)

Total COD (mg/L)

Soluble COD (mg/L)

Effluent of Batch Treatment

7.1 ± 0.6 <7 <7 95 ±40 50 ± 20

Effluent of Domestic Biological Treatment

6.5± 0.2 12 ± 7 10 ± 8 40 ± 10 <30

Discharged Water 7.5 ± 0.2 19 ± 3 16± 3 60 ± 35 <30

Discharge Limits* 6-9 125 - 100 -

Sample Point TP (mg/L)

PO4-P(mg/L)

TKN (mg/L)

Ammonia (mg/L)

NO2-N (mg/L)

NO3-N (mg/L)

Effluent of Batch Treatment

x x <1.5 <5 x x

Effluent of Domestic Biological Treatment

x 11.7±0.5 x x 1.5±0.1 53.5±2.8

Discharged Water 2.5 ±0 <2 <1.5 <5 1.4±0.1 12.2± 6.1Discharge Limits* - - - - 5 -

RESULT & DISCUSSION Characterization of Treated Wastewater-Heavy Metals

32

Sample Points

Cu Zn Cd Pb Mn Fe Ni Al T.Cr Cr+6 Oil &Grease

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Effluent of Batch

Treatment

<0.2 1.4 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.3 <5 <0.2 <0.2 x

Discharged Water

<0.2 0.9 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.3 <5 <0.2 <0.2 8.4± 2.5

Discharge Limits*

2 2 0.2 1 - 3 2 2 2 0.5 20

RESULT & DISCUSSION

33

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Volu

me

of sl

udge

(L/t

onne

was

tew

ater

)

Amou

nt o

f slu

dge

(gr/

tonn

e w

aste

wat

er)

FeCl3 Çözeltisi

pH Evaluation Assay

Amount of sludge (pH=6.5-7) Volume of sludge (pH=6.5-7) Amount of sludge (pH=8)Volume of sludge (pH=8) Amount of sludge (pH=5.5= Volume of sludge (pH=5.5)


RESULT & DISCUSSION Determination Inert COD

5/29/2015 34

Enamel Wastewater

Unit Soluble Inert COD (SI) Particular Inert COD (XI)

mg COD/L 16 33

Total Wastewater % 7 14.4

Painting Wastewater


mg COD/L 15 24

Total Wastewater % 6.4 10.2

Rinsing Wastewater


mg COD/L 12 0

Total Wastewater % 12 0May 21-23 2015, Athens

Documents

EFFECTS OF ECOFRIENDLY PRODUCTION …uest.ntua.gr/iwwatv/proceedings/presentations/22_May/SESSION_VII/3... · EFFECTS OF ECOFRIENDLY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION