Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
b Chibuku Breweries, P.O. Box 3304, Southerton, Harare, Zimbabwe
Received 1 August 2003; accepted 17 January 2004
Abstract
A full-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor treating traditional opaque beer brewery wastewater recently installed at an
opaque beer factory was studied for 2 years. The total volume of the reactor was 500 m3 and the hydraulic retention time was approximately 24 h.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the UASB reactor during anaerobic digestion of opaque beer brewery wastewater in
terms of treatment efficiency. The untreated opaque beer wastewater has high solids content and high organic matter, which need pretreatment
before it is discharged into municipal sewage treatment works. The UASB reactor enables the brewery to meet the requirements of the
wastewater discharged into municipal sewerage system of Harare. The average percentage reduction in Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
was 57%. The total and settleable solids were also reduced by 50 and 90%, respectively. The effluent from the UASB reactor contained higher
orthophosphates and nitrogen levels than the influent leading to the accumulation of these nutrients in the system. These results indicated that
the UASB plant was effective for treating opaque beer brewery wastewater at ambient temperature to meet the quality of effluent that can be
discharged into public water works.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; UASB; Opaque beer brewery wastewater; Chemical Oxygen Demand
1. Introduction
The opaque beer brewery industry uses large volumes of
water and discharges large volumes of effluent throughout
the year, which are highly polluting. In Zimbabwe, there are
20 opaque beer breweries that produce over 420 million litres
of opaque beer each year. The opaque beer brewing involves
the blending of sorghum malt, and maize grits, followed by
its subsequent fermentation with yeast. Essentially the process involves lactic acid fermentation as well as alcoholic
fermentation. The beer is marketed and consumed whilst
still actively fermenting. The brewing process employs a
number of batch-type operations in processing raw materials to the final beer product. In the process large quantities
of water are used for the production of beer itself, as well as
for general washing of floors, and cleaning the brewhouse,
0032-9592/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2004.01.036
594
595
Table 1
Monitoring programme employed in this study
Monitoring point
Type of sample
Analysis
Frequency
Brewery wastewater
(raw wastewater, receiving tank)
Influent to UASB
(from balancing tank)
Effluent from UASB
Composite (24 h)
3 per week
Grab/composite (24 h)
3 per week
Grab/composite (24 h)
3 per week
Table 2
Opaque beer brewery wastewater characteristics before treatment
Parameter
Range of values
pH
COD (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Total solids (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
Settleable solids (cm3 /l)
Total nitrogen (mg/l)
Total phosphates (mg/l)
Permanganate value (mg/l)
Temperature ( C)
3.306.30
8240 20000
29013000
51008750
20205940
90400
0.01960.0336
16124
287900
2535
4.5
12535
2841
7201
4520
274
0.023
59
627
28
0.6
4278
175
1606
1927
268
0.007
52
232
3
596
20
80
18
70
16
COD (g/L)
12
50
10
40
30
% COD reduction
60
14
20
4
10
2
0
10 12 14
Time (months)
16
18
20
22
24
Fig. 1. COD removal efficiency of the full-scale UASB reactor treating opaque beer brewery wastewater for a period of 24 months (September 1999August
2001). The acceptable COD value by the city council is below 3 g/l. Influent COD (), effluent COD (), permissible value (), %COD reduction ().
a smaller mesh size (0.5 mm) in the 11th month, which reduced the quantity of total solids entering the digester. The
first screen had a mesh size of 1.0 mm. The COD removal
efficiency achieved in this study is comparable to an average
of 60% obtained in a comparative laboratory-scale study
of the effects of dairy and clear beer brewery effluents on
the treatability of domestic sewage by Kilani [2]. However,
Stadlbauer et al. [18] reported COD removal efficiencies of
85 to 90% from a study of anaerobic purification of lager
beer brewery wastewater in laboratory scale biofilm reactors
with and without a methanation cascade. Austermann-Haun
and Seyfried [4] also reported 80% COD removal efficiency from a pilot-scale UASB reactor treating clear beer
brewery wastewater. A study using a laboratory-scale upflow sludge blanket reactor at ambient temperatures gave
a COD removal of 89% [19]. In other words, the performance of the UASB currently being examined could be
improved.
800
80
700
70
600
60
500
50
400
40
300
30
200
20
100
10
% PV reduction
PV (mg/L)
effluent from the digester had high levels of COD remaining after treatment. This may have been probably due to
the presence of suspended solids in the influent. There was
a lot of bad beer destruction in these months as well. The
total solids in the influent to the anaerobic digester were
reduced as from the fourth month by removing solids from
the bottom of the receiving tank, and the performance of
the reactor improved. In the 5th, 6th and 11th month the
effluent from the reactor had high COD because of beer destruction. The brewery was discharging spoilt beer into the
effluent plant during these months. Furthermore the whole
wastewater treatment plant also suffered heavily from pump
mechanical breakdowns in these months. During pump
breakdowns the influent was discharged directly into the
municipal sewers. The average COD removal efficiency
was 57% for the period of this study. The COD removal
efficiency improved from the 12th month to the end of the
study period. This was due to installation of a screen with
0
0
10 12 14 16
Time (months)
18
20
22
24
Fig. 2. Time course of the performance of the UASB reactor in terms of permanganate value (PV) reduction. The acceptable PV value is below 80 mg/l.
Influent PV (), effluent PV (), permissible value (), percent PV reduction ().
597
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10 12 14
Time (months)
16
18
20
22
24
Fig. 3. Changes in Total Kejdahl Nitrogen (TKN) concentrations during anaerobic treatment of traditional opaque beer brewery wastewater in the UASB
reactor in 24 months. Influent TKN (), effluent TKN (), permissible TKN value ().
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10 12 14
Time (months)
16
18
20
22
24
Fig. 4. Changes in total phosphates during anaerobic digestion of traditional opaque beer brewery wastewater in the UASB reactor. Influent total phosphates
(), effluent total phosphates (), permissible total phosphates value ().
20
100
18
90
16
80
14
70
12
60
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10 12 14
Time (months)
16
18
20
22
% TS reduction
598
24
Fig. 5. Changes in total solids concentration during anaerobic digestion of traditional opaque beer brewery wastewater in the UASB reactor. Influent total
solids (), effluent total solids (), % total solids reduction ().
350
100
90
80
250
70
60
200
50
150
40
% reduction
300
30
100
20
50
10
0
0
10 12 14
Time (months)
16
18
20
22
24
Fig. 6. Performance of the UASB reactor in terms of settleable solids removal. Influent settleable solids (), effluent settleable solids (), permissible
settleable solids concentration (), percent settleable solids reduction ().
4. Conclusion
The UASB reduced the organic load to permissible levels
during the period of the study, although there is a need to improve its performance in terms of organic load removal. The
organic load reduction transmitted to municipal treatment
plant and subsequently to the environment. Because loading becomes substantially lower, municipal sewer charges
drop thus resulting in significant savings, most of which is
based on effluent COD or BOD, and suspended solids content. Further benefits from the plant could be realised by
taping the energy generated by the anaerobic process in the
form of methane gas. The methane could be used to heat
the steam boiler at the brewery or converted to electricity
via a motor-generator. It can be concluded that these points
indicate the installation of an anaerobic wastewater treatment plant by the brewery as an extremely attractive economic and environmental alternative considering that lying
ahead is an era of critical energy shortages, substantially
higher energy prices, and higher demand on environmental
protection.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Chibuku Breweries, Technical Department for their cooperation and allowing part of
this research to be carried at their premises using their facilities. We would like to thank Nyarai Kurebwaseka and
Raymond Murimba for technical assistance. This work was
financially supported by SIDA/SAREC grants.
599
References
[1] Zvauya R, Parawira W, Mawadza C. Aspects of aerobic thermophilic
treatment of Zimbabwean traditional opaque-beer brewery wastewater. Bioresour Technol 1994;48:2734.
[2] Kilani JS. A compatibility study of the effects of dairy and brewery effluents on the treatability of domestic sewage. Wat SA
1993;19(3):24752.
[3] Yu H, Gu G. Biomethanation of brewery wastewater using an anaerobic upflow blanket filter. J Clean Prod 1996;4(3/4):21923.
[4] Austermann-Haun U, Seyfried CF. Experiences gained in the operation of anaerobic treatment plants in Germany. Water Sci Technol
1994;30(12):41524.
[5] Britz TJ, Ronquest LC. Influence of different granule seeding on the
start-up efficiency of a laboratory-scale UASB bioreactor treating
winery wastewater. In: African International Environmental Protection Symposium Incorporating the Southern Africa Anaerobic Digestion Symposium, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; 1999.
[6] Lettinga G, Hulshoff-Pol LW. UASB-process design for various types
of wastewaters. Water Sci Technol 1991;24:87107.
[7] Gujer W, Zehnder AJB. Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion.
Water Sci Technol 1983;15:12767.
[8] Liu WT, Chan OC, Fang HHP. Characterisation of microbial community in granular sludge treating brewery wastewater. Water Res
2002;36:176775.
[9] Lloyd HM, Van der Merwe-Botha M, Britz TJ. Bench-scale treatment of gelatin-manufacturing effluent using different anaerobic digesters designs. In: African International Environmental Protection
Symposium Incorporating the Southern Africa Anaerobic Digestion
Symposium, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; 1999.
[10] Jain SR, Mattiasson B. Acclimatisation of methanogenic consortia for
low pH biomethanation process. Biotechnol Lett 1998;20(8):7785.
[11] Cronin C, Lo KV. Anaerobic treatment of brewery wastewater using
UASB reactors seeded with activated sludge. Bioresour Technol
1998;64:338.
[12] Lettinga G. Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems.
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1995;67:328.
[13] Driessen W, Yspeert P. Anaerobic treatment of low, medium and
high strength effluent in the agro-industry. Water Sci Technol
1999;40(8):2218.
[14] Jeison D, Chamy R. Comparison of the behaviour of Expanded
Granular Sludge Bed (EGSB) and Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) reactors in dilute and concentrated wastewater treatment.
Water Sci Technol 1999;40(8):917.
[15] American Public Health Association. Standards for the examination
of waste and wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, DC, USA; 1998.
[16] Ochieng A, Odiyo JO, Mutsago M. Biological treatment of mixed
industrial wastewaters in a fluidised bed reactor. J Hazard Mater
2003;B96:7990.
[17] Leal K, Chacin E, Behling E, Gutierez E, Fernandez N, Forster CF.
A mesophilic digestion of brewery wastewater in unheated anaerobic
filter. Bioresour Technol 1998;65:515.
[18] Stadlbauer EA, Oey LN, Weber B, Jansen K, Weidle R, Lohr H,
et al. Anaerobic purification of brewery wastewater in biofilm reactors with and without a methanation cascade. Water Sci Technol
1994;30(12):395404.
[19] Fuchs W, Binder H, Marvis G, Braun R. Anaerobic treatment of
wastewater with high organic content using a stirred tank reactor
coupled with a membrane filtration unit. Water Res 2003;37:9028.