Treatment of textilewaste water by CAS, MBR, and MBBR: A comparative study from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives
In this study, three different biological methods—a conventional activated sludge (CAS)system, membrane bioreactor (MBR), and moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)—were investigatedto treat textile wastewater from a local industry. The results showed that technically, MBR was themost efficient technolog...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/327976 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/327976 https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/W12051306 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Sewage -- Purification Water reuse Textile industry--Environmental aspects Membrane bioreactor (MBR) Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) Conventional activated sludge system (CAS) Textile wastewater Economic feasibility Life cycle assessment (LCA) Aigües residuals -- Depuració Indústria tèxtil -- Residus Aigua -- Reutilització -- Aplicacions industrials Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Enginyeria tèxtil::Impacte ambiental Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Desenvolupament humà i sostenible::Enginyeria ambiental::Tractament de l'aigua |
| Sumario: | In this study, three different biological methods—a conventional activated sludge (CAS)system, membrane bioreactor (MBR), and moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)—were investigatedto treat textile wastewater from a local industry. The results showed that technically, MBR was themost efficient technology, of which the chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS),and color removal efficiency were 91%, 99.4%, and 80%, respectively, with a hydraulic retention time(HRT) of 1.3 days. MBBR, on the other hand, had a similar COD removal performance comparedwith CAS (82% vs. 83%) with halved HRT (1 day vs. 2 days) and 73% of TSS removed, while CAShad 66%. Economically, MBBR was a more attractive option for an industrial-scale plant since itsaved 68.4% of the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and had the same operational expenditures (OPEX)as MBR. The MBBR system also had lower environmental impacts compared with CAS and MBRprocesses in the life cycle assessment (LCA) study, since it reduced the consumption of electricityand decolorizing agent with respect to CAS. According to the results of economic and LCA analyses,the water treated by the MBBR system was reused to make new dyeings because water reuse in thetextile industry, which is a large water consumer, could achieve environmental and economic benefits.The quality of new dyed fabrics was within the acceptable limits of the textile industry. |
|---|