Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
In an attempt to achieve water suitable for recycling from paper-mill effluent, photo-Fentons advanced oxidation
and chemical coagulation were investigated as options to remove both non-biodegradable COD and color from prebioremediated black liquor effluent. It was found that at the first bioremediation COD removal ranged from 3598%
and TSS removal ranged from 1289%. Almost 20% of the heavy metals were removed. Photo-Fentons UV advanced
oxidation and lime coagulation combination treatment achieved complete removal of COD, TSS and color. It was able
to remove 80100% COD, 70100% TSS and 77100% color. The removal of heavy metals was enhanced to reach
>80% removal. Two potential microbial species out of the eight tested strains were the most dominant species in the
three media. Diplodia oryzae and Phaerochaete chrysosporium NRRL6364 enhanced the post-physicochemical
treatment to reach optimum clean-up after 12 days of incubation at 32C. They produced a medium-grade recycled
water. Operating costs are outlined.
Keywords: Bioremediation; Advanced oxidation process; Wastewater; Recycling; Treatment
1. Introduction
Many industrial wastewaters contain high
amounts of nondegradable organics. Paper and
pulp industry effluent is one of the important
*Corresponding author.
environmental problems, which has been correlated with mutagenic and carcinogenic activity
[1,2]. Many attempts have been made to remove
black liquor by bioremediation, which is considered inexpensive clean-up technology [3,4].
Industrial biotechnology applications help the
elimination of environmentally hazardous wastes.
Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment: Fresh Water for All, Malta, 48 May 2003.
European Desalination Society, International Water Association.
0011-9164/03/$ See front matter 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
332
333
334
Table 1
Specifications of effluent sample before treatment
Parameter
Value
pH
COD, mg/L
TS, mg/L
DS, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
Color
Heavy metals, mg/L:
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Pb
8.77
1790
1690
1080
59.4
Dark brown
0.140
0.344
1.960
0.152
0.11
resemble the chemical structure of many persistent organic compounds contaminating the
environment; consequently, the fungi can effectively degrade a pollutant [17]. From Table 2 we
obtain similar results in COD reduction, firstly by
P. chrysosorium NRRL 6364 (92.82%) and then
P. chrysosporium NRRL 6359 (79.64%). While
Diplodia oryzae is the most efficient strain
(98.50%), C. pseudotropicalies has a poor reduction of COD (46.84%).
3.1.2. Ammonia dihydrogen phosphate and
glucose (M2 )
This compound was more efficient than the
previous medium (M1). All strains displayed their
susceptibility for reduction value of COD.
Results show that the removal value of COD
ranged between (44.8397.13%) for 12 days of
incubation at 32C. P. chrysosporium NRRL
6364 showed a greater reduction in COD
(97.13%) than P. chrysosporium NRRL 6359
(85.06%), which played an important part of
pollutant removal [17]. Helminthsporium turcicum and Diplodia oryzae have a similar action
on COD (91.3091.38%), followed by Candida
tropicalis (87.76%). E. coli and yeast strains
recorded less efficient COD reduction except for
C. tropicalis (87.76%), as noted in Table 2.
3.1.3. Mineral salt solution (M3 )
This medium was less efficient than the
previous M1 and M2, as shown in Table 2. The
fluctuation shown in COD% removal ranged
from 34.4889.65% confirmed by Ian [13],
Kannan et al. [14], Katayama et al. [15] and Kaal
et al [16). COD reduction values descend
according to vital activity of different strains such
as Helminthsporium turcicum > Diplodia oryzae
> C. tropicalis > P. chrysosporium NRRL 6364
> S. calsprgenisis > P. chrysosporium NRRL
6359 > C. pseudotropicalies > E. coli).
Helminthsporium turcicum and Diplodia oryzae
are more efficient strains than Candida tropicalis
Table 2
Percentage of COD, TSS and color removal resulting from bioremediation of black liquor by eight strains in three different media (M1, M2 and M3)
followed by photo-Fetons oxidation and lime coagulation
Name of
organism
Primary treatment as bioremediation (% removal) Secondary treatment as photo-Fentons oxidation and lime coagulation
(% removal)
M2
M3
M1
M2
M3
COD TSS
COD
TSS
COD
TSS
COD
TSS
Color
COD
TSS
Color
COD
TSS
Color
E. coli
57.47 12.00
49.14
34.48
38.00
67.24
88.00
59.50
92.53
100
100
46.55
62.00
64.55
Candida
pseudotopicalies
46.84 39.60
44.83
44.67
46.55
66.93
82.90
60.40
75.00
95.80
55.33
75.00
100
99.34
100
Candida tropicali
58.62 62.93
87.76
53.06
85.06
75.80
100
86.5
95.98
46.94
90.00
95.06
100
30.00
Saccharomyces
carlsprgenisis
47.70 75.06
45.97
74.93
70.11
100
99.19
100
100
100
100
93.50
100
45.00
Diplodia oryzae
98.50 89.70
91.30
83.23
89.08
41.34
100
100
100
100
100
85.25
100
58.66
70.00
Helminthsporium
turcicum
56.32 33.73
91.38
4.00
89.65
92.36
98.53
77.00
100
99.46
81.00
100
100
100.00
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6359
79.64 12.13
85.06
15.60
62.360
99.30
71.20
67.50
100
84.40
100
93.30
97.73
77.5055
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6364
92.82 28.53
97.13
22.66
75.86
100
87.60
83
100
77.34
100
85.06
100
55.00
M1
335
336
337
Table 3
Determination of percentage of heavy metal removal for three effective strains in three different media (M1, M2 and M3)
after primary and secondary treatment
Element
name
Element
initial conc.,
mg/L
Medium
used
Organism name
and media used
Element %
removal after
primary
treatment
Element %
removal after
secondary
treatment
Allowable
limits in
Law 4 to the
year 1992
Pb
0.11
M1
M2
Diplodia oryzae
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6364
Helminthsporium turcicum
0.00
>10
9.09
>10
0.1
9.09
>10
Diplodia oryzae
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6364
Helminthsporium turcicum
13.57
11.5
19.28
12.14
9.46
26.61
Diplodia oryzae
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6364
Helminthsporium turcicum
13.66
32.41
83.14
63.95
24.56
82.55
Diplodia oryzae
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6364
Helminthsporium turcicum
10.71
20.73
64.114
60.167
13.55
25.99
Diplodia oryzae
P. chrysosporium
NRRL6364
Helminthsporium turcicum
55.26
28.75
65.79
65.79
21.053
67.76
M3
Cr
0.14
M1
M2
M3
Cu
0.344
M1
M2
M3
Fe
1.196
M1
M2
M3
Ni
0.152
M1
M2
M3
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.1
338
Table 4
Relationship between optimum dose used for treatment of 1 L of wastewater and its relative cost (in L.E.)
Materials
Price
Optimum dose/L
Ferrous sulfate, kg
Hydrogen peroxide 10%, L
Sulfuric acid, L
Calcium hydroxide, kg
Total cost of materials
3.9
1.75
3.20
0.80
6g
100 ml
2 ml
5g
0.02340
0.17200
0.00064
0.00425
0.20029
References
[1] N. Kinae, M. Yamashita, L. Tomita, I. Kimura, H.
Ishida, H. Kumai and G. Nakamura, Possible correlation between environmental chemical and pigment cell neoplasia in fish. Sci. Total Environ., 94
(1990) 143153.
[2] R. Yang, J. Pickard and K. Omatani, Assessment of
industrial effluent toxicity using flow-through fish
egg/alleviants/fry (EAF) toxicity test. Bull.
Environm. Contam. Toxical., 62(4) (1999) 440447.
[3] C. Raghukumar, Fungi from marine habitats: an
application in bioremediation. Mycol-res, 104 (1989)
12221226.
[4] J. Bent, Cultivating microorganisms for managing
waste effluent. Patent no. GB 23/3833, 1997; priority
patent appl. GB 961135 (960604).
[5] S.A. Dutta, N.M. Parhad and S.R. Josih,
Decolorization of lignin bearing waste by Aspergillus
Sp. LAWPC Technol., 12 (1985) 3237.
[6] D.C. Eton, H.M. Chang and T.K. kirk, Fungal
decolorization of kraft bleach plant effluents. TAPPI,
63 (1980) 103106.
[7] L. Vernich and N.M. Kallas, Combination and
catalytic wet oxidation for the treatment of pulp and
paper-mill effluents. Water Sci. Technol., 44 (2001)
145152.
[8] J. Hoigne, Y.Z. Zuo and L. Nowll, Photochemical
reaction in atmospheric waters, role of dissolved iron
species, in: Aquatic and Surface Photochemistry,
G.R. Heiz, R.G. Zepp and D.G. Crosby, eds., Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, 1994, pp. 7584.
[9] A. Safarzadeh-Amiri, J.R. Boiton and S.R. Caer, The
use of iron in advanced oxidation processes, J. Adv.
Oxid. Technol., 1 (1996) 1826.
[10] R.b. Kinstre, An overview of strategies for reducing
the environmental impact of bleach-plant efluents,
TAPPI J., 76(3) (1993) 105113.
[11] I. Demel and C.H. Bius, Improving the settling of
activated sludge by chemical additives. Water Sci.
Technol., 20(1) (198) 283286.
[12] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, American Public Health
Association, New York, 1990.
339