Anaerobic Treatment of Real Textile Wastewater with a Fluidized Bed Reactor

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, San Diego State University, CA 92182, USA.
Water Research (Impact Factor: 5.53). 05/2003; 37(8):1868-78. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00577-8
Source: PubMed


Anaerobic treatability of a real cotton textile wastewater was investigated in a fluidized bed reactor (FBR) with pumice as the support material. The immobilized biomass or attached volatile solids level on the support material was 0.073 g VSS/g support material at the end of the 128-d start-up period. During the operation period, real cotton textile wastewater was fed to the anaerobic FBR both unsupplemented (in Stages 1 and 2) and supplemented (with synthetic municipal wastewater in Stage 3 and glucose in Stages 4-6). The effect of operational conditions such as organic loading rate (OLR), hydraulic retention time (HRT), influent glucose concentration as the co-substrate, etc. was investigated to achieve the maximum color removal efficiency in the reactor. Results indicated that anaerobic treatment of textile wastewater studied was possible with the supplementation of an external carbon source in the form of glucose (about 2g/l). The corresponding maximum COD, BOD(5) and color removals were found to be around 82%, 94% and 59%, respectively, for HRT of around 24h and OLR of 3 kg COD/m(3)/d. Further increase in external carbon source added to real textile wastewater did not improve the color removal efficiency of the anaerobic FBR reactor.

Download full-text


Available from: Goksel Demirer, Mar 13, 2015
    • "Likely, Jianrong et al., [30] achieved a higher removal values of 90% COD reduction and 96% color reduction in a laboratory-scale UASB reactor (HRT\8 h) followed by an activated sludge reactor (HRT\6 h) fed with a deeply-colored high-strength effluent of a dye manufacturing plant. For improving the efficiency of UASB treating textile wastewater, Sen et al., [26] investigated the effect of addition of glucose as a co-substrate (electron donor) on the COD removal. They found that, COD, removal was found to be around 82% at a HRT of 24 h and OLR of 3 g COD/l.d. "

  • Source
    • "Considering both volume generated and effluent properties, such as chemical stability, non-biodegradability, and toxic and carcinogenic characteristics, textile industry wastewater is ranked as the most polluting sector [2] [3] [4]. Therefore, treatment of textile wastewater is a prerequisite to its release into water streams. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study focused on the treatment of real cotton textile wastewater by combining metal (Al/Fe)-impregnated granular activated carbon (MIGAC) as moving particle electrodes in electrocoagulation, referred to here as the MIGAC-TEC system. The feasibility test clearly indicated that MIGAC significantly accelerated the decolorization and COD removal efficiency. The effects of four parameters: applied voltage, initial pH, MIGAC dosage, and reaction time on the percentage of color and COD removal were investigated using response surface methodology with a central composite design. As results, it was found that the decolorization (R2 = 0.9576) and COD removal (R2 = 0.9395) were well fitted by a developed quadratic polynomial models and the initial pH was the most influential factor. Through numerical optimization, highly acceptable removal performances of 99.13 ± 0.21% decolorization and 97.01 ± 0.18% COD removal efficiency were achieved under statistically optimized conditions, and suggested that the developed system is a very suitable technique for the enhancement of electrocoagulation-based cotton textile wastewater treatment.
    Separation and Purification Technology 05/2015; 146. DOI:10.1016/j.seppur.2015.03.043 · 3.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Textile wastewater includes a large variety of dyes and chemicals additions that make the environmental challenge for textile industry not only as liquid waste but also in its chemical composition [1], hence the textile industry wastewater is one of the most polluting among all industrial sectors. Important pollutants in textile effluent are mainly recalcitrant organics, color, toxicants and inhibitory compounds, surfactants, chlorinated compounds, salts, high temperature (at least 40˚C), and high pH due to the large amount of alkali in wastewater [2]. On the other hand, textile dye wastewater is well known to contain very strong color, wide range of pH from 2 to 14, presenting large *Corresponding author. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this work was to study the feasibility of treating real textile wastewater by combined chemical coagulation (using poly aluminum chloride (PAC) as coagulant), electrocoagulation (using aluminum electrodes), and adsorption process (using pistachio nut shell ash) to achieve the required standards. The influence of the critical operating variables such as coagulant dose, electrical potential, reaction time, and adsorbent dose on the removal efficiencies of major pollutants was determined. The results of this study were showed that removal of pollutants increased with increasing doses of PAC and applied voltage. The chemical coagulation process showed 40% of chemical oxygen demand (COD), 34% of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 23.7% TSS, and 44.5% of dye removal efficiency, even though using relatively low PAC concentration (30 mg/L). COD, BOD5, and dye removals of 93.1, 88.8, and 98.6% were achieved by electrocoagulation process (applied voltage 60 V). In addition, COD, BOD5, and dye removals of 98, 94.2, and 99.9% were achieved by overall combined process (chemical coagulation, electrocoagulation, and adsorption processes). The experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of combined processes for the treatment of real textile wastewaters. Consequently, combined processes are inferred to be superior to these processes alone for the removal of both organic and inorganic compounds from textile wastewater.
    Desalination and water treatment 03/2015; DOI:10.1080/19443994.2015.1027960 · 1.17 Impact Factor
Show more