School of Chemical Engineering

EKC 475: WASTEWATER TREATMENT ENGINEERING

A Proposal To Improve Treatment

of A Coffee Companys Effluent
Prepared by,

Gopinathan Subramaniam, (120501)

Tharveen Raj Rajalingam, (120550)

Date of Submission,

Friday, 16th December 2016

Name of Lecturer,

Dr. Suzylawati Ismail

 Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Statement of Problem.................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Current Situation ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 5

3.0 Proposed Solution ................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Justification of Proposed Alternative/Solution ................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Efficiency of Waste Removal .............................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1.1 Screening Sieves ................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1.2 Sedimentation Tank/Equalization Basin ................................................................................................ 6
3.1.1.3 Electrochemical Oxidation Reactor ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1.4 Activated Carbon Sand Bed 1 ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1.5 Neutralization Tank .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1.6 Activated Carbon Sand Bed 2 ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Cost Effectiveness of The Processes Chosen ............................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Limitation of Space In The Waste Treatment Area ................................................................ 14
3.1.4 By-Product Value of Waste Treatment ....................................................................................... 15
3.1.5 Returns of Investments ..................................................................................................................... 16

4.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 17

Reference ......................................................................................................................................... 18

List of Tables

Table 1: Incoming raw waste flow rate...................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Wastewater parameter testing results. ......................................................................... 2
Table 3: Equipment and vessel dimensions. ............................................................................ 15

i
1.0 Introduction
Coffee, which comes from the genus Coffea of Rubiaceae family, is among the
worlds most popular beverages consumed [1]. In 2013, Malaysia was ranked 45th in the top
50 coffee consuming countries in the world with 1.3 kg coffee consumed per capita (per
person on average) [2]. Coffee is processed either through the wet or dry method. Wet
processing method is often desirable because of the superior quality of coffee produced as
compared to the dry method. The wet method involves the use of mechanical removal of pulp
with the aid of water and this generates a large amount of wastewater [1]. It has been
estimated that 4045 L of wastewater are produced per kilogram of coffee [3]. A usual
coffee-curing or coffee-processing industrial wastewater has a dark brown colour with
chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the range of 6,000 mg/L to about 11,000 mg/L and a
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of 3,000 mg/L to 5,000 mg/L. The characteristics of the
wastewater may vary depending on the processing and type of coffee beans. The major
organic compounds usually found in coffee-curing wastewater includes tannins, sucrose,
caffeine, chlorogenic and quinic acids, trigonelline and nicotinic acids, lipids and alkaloids
with minute amounts of cholesterol proteins. Of the organic compounds mentioned, tannins,
humic acid, humates (degraded products of lignin), caffeine, chlorogenic acids, nicotinic
acids, alkaloids and a few other organics are responsible for the colour of wastewater [4].

Coffee Green Beans

Cleaning & Washing

Washing Effluent

Roasting & Grinding

Roasting & Ground Coffee

Figure 1: Partial schematics of coffee curing process and wastewater source.

1
The processes of curing and wastewater source are depicted partially in Figure 1 above. The
organics escape conventional biological treatment processes and as they degrade very
gradually, they tend to remain in the receiving water bodies and can cause harmful effects to
the surroundings. Thus, it is imperative that these organics are removed from the wastewater
prior to disposal to ensure no pollution of the environment is caused [4].

1.1 Statement of Problem

The effluent produced by a coffee company, Company XYZ, originates from two
main sources of effluent; from the roasted processing area and wet scrubber systems. The
effluent produced by the company must be treated before discharged into the public drains.
However, the treated effluent discharged into the public drain by the company has failed to
meet a number of parameters that have been set by the Department of Environment (DOE).
The company needs improvements to their existing treatment systems to ensure the flow of
effluent discharged into the public drains meet specifications of Standard B as articled in
Environmental Quality Act (EQA), enforced by the Department of Environment.

The following tables indicate the parameter values for the incoming raw wastes.

Table 1: Incoming raw waste flow rate.

Time Flow Rate (m3/hr)

Day 1 Day 2
0900 0.00 0.65
1000 0.00 0.67
1100 0.16 0.68
1200 0.11 0.90
1300 0.37 0.90
1400 0.37 1.05
1500 0.38 1.49
1600 0.39 1.50
1700 0.39 1.52

Table 2: Wastewater parameter testing results.

Parameter Standard B Before Treatment After Treatment

Day 1 Day 2
pH value 5.5 9.0 3.4 3.3 4.8
BOD5 (mg/L) 50.0 2000.0 5900.0 1500.0

2
Suspended solids (mg/L) 100.0 60.0 111.0 22.0
COD (mg/L) 200.0 8000.0 14000.0 4600.0
Oil & grease (mg/L) 10.0 50.0 150.0 ND
Colour (ADMI) 200 2000 3700 3000
Iron (mg/L) 5.00 9.82 9.64 > Standard B Range
Phenol (mg/L) 1.00 1.7 1.7 > Standard B Range

1.2 Current Situation

As of now, the existing wastewater treatment system in Company XYZ has performed
below expectation levels. The following lists the variables that require improvements to
treatments and the limitations that are at present in the wastewater treatment system.

Critical effluent discharge parameters below Standard B requirements:

1. pH value
2. BOD5
3. COD
4. Colour
5. Iron content
6. Phenol content

Limitations in the existing wastewater treatment system:

1. Spaces are limited (10m 10m).
2. The reaction tank is bypassed and wastewater travels straight to sand bed from sump.

Figure 2: Top view of the existing treatment system.

3
Figure 3: Side view of the existing treatment system.

4
2.0 Objectives
We intend to review the available information on how the exisiting wastewater
treatment system works in Company XYZ. In this proposal, after reviewing the available
information and proposing improvements on the treatment systems, we hope to achieve the
following two goals:
1. Ensuring the effluent wastewater from Company XYZ meets all specifications of
Standard B in the Environmental Quality Act (EQA), 1974.
2. Ensuring the implemented treatment improvements are effective and affordable.

3.0 Proposed Solution

Based on numerous researches reviewed, we have recognized the best possible
solution that we have deemed fit for implementation in Company XYZ to improve their
current wastewater treatment process. The flow sheet of the proposed alternative is as
follows.

Figure 4: Flow sheet of proposed alternative.

Translation of the flow sheet above denotes the usage of screening sieves, settling tank (also
interchangeably called sedimentation tank or clarifier), electrochemical oxidation process,
neutralization tank and two different activated carbon sand beds.

5
3.1 Justification of Proposed Alternative/Solution
The proposed solution above is finalized based on criteria such as efficiency of waste
removal (with comparisons to the existing treatment system), cost effectiveness of the
alternative chosen, limitation of space in the waste treatment area, by-product value of waste
treatment and return of investments. The mentioned criteria and their detailed explanations
would serve as a guideline to the overall feasibility of the proposed alternative as illustrated
in Figure 4.

3.1.1 Efficiency of Waste Removal

The efficiencies of waste removal are obtained from existing data of the current
wastewater treatment process in Company XYZ and also literature data to support the
proposed modifications. The following order of explanation is based on the order of the flow
sheet in Figure 4.

3.1.1.1 Screening Sieves

Screening sieves in this wastewater treatment process are used to filter out large suspended
solids based on dimensions of the sieves with respect to the suspended solid size. Existing
use of the screening sieve in the wastewater treatment process proves highly reliable as the
amount of suspended solids in the effluent after treatment is considerably lesser than the
recommended value assigned in Standard B. Based on the data obtained from the current
screening process, around 87% of the suspended solids in the raw waste is removed during
treatment. The only modification done for this process is the positioning of the screening
sieves. Existing treatment process utilizes the screens on top of the sand beds. The proposed
alternative incorporates the use of the screening sieves at the start of the treatment process.
The leading statement shall be justified in the following criteria. The efficiency of screening
sieves remains.

3.1.1.2 Sedimentation Tank/Equalization Basin

The coffee industries employ batch processes in their factories. Consequently, the amount of
incoming raw wastes produced differs from time to time and day to day and these values can
differ widely. Subsequently, an equalization basin is necessary to regulate and dampen the
flow rates of the wastewater into the unit operations. The basin also helps minimize flow

6
surges to physical-chemical treatment systems and permit chemical feed rates compatible
with feeding equipment [5]. The equalization basin in talk is implemented in an in-line
equalization basis. This proves true for the existing treatment system and no modifications
are made to the basin. The efficiency of equalization remains. The equalization basin is also
proposed to be made as a makeshift sedimentation tank. The equalization basin is deemed to
hold two days worth of raw incoming wastewater with a regulated amount leaving the unit
for further treatment. An opportunity is determined here to consider the basin a makeshift
sedimentation tank. Suspended solids that somehow passed through the screening sieves
could be composed of some settleable solids. This settleable solids form silt and sediment
down the bed of the basin. This further removes suspended solids though not considerably
high due to the fact that suspended solids that escaped the screening sieves are much smaller
and discrete in size giving rise to the possibility of more non-settleable solids as compared to
the settleable solids. However still, more suspended solids are removed to an extent. The
efficiency of equalization remains with respect to flow of wastewater.

3.1.1.3 Electrochemical Oxidation Reactor

Electrochemical oxidation is one of the advanced oxidation processes, potentially a powerful
method of pollution control. It is reported the effectiveness of electrochemical technology
using iron electrodes for treating paper and pulp mill wastewater removed up to 91% COD
and 100 % colour [6]. (Bejankiwar, 2003) studied the removal of colour and organic
compounds from biologically treated coffee curing wastewater by an electrochemical
oxidation method. Electrochemical oxidation degrades organics present with neither addition
of any chemicals nor production of a large amount of sludge. This process proves to be an
effective means of treating wastewater containing non-biodegradable organics. Thus, in
waste treatment, application of electrochemical oxidation is a truly clean technology [4].
Based on the findings of Bejankiwar, the percentage removal of COD and colour can be
made a function of electrolysis time. It was observed that the colour removal rates reach 95%
after 30 minutes electrolysis time and COD removal reached 66% after 60 minutes of
electrolysis. Bejankiwar also discovered that longer electrolysis duration showed marginal
increases for COD removal (up to 72%). A breakthrough is achieved when initial pH effects
were studied on the removal of COD in wastewater. The removal of COD increased from
66% to 78% when the pH of the wastewater was decreased from pH 9 to pH 3. The
electrolysis time required is also much shorter. For the pH 3 run, an energy consumption of

7
12.86 kWh.kg-1 COD is obtained. The energy consumption is reduced by about 37% as
compared to when using pH 9 [4]. Coming back to context of our solution, a 95% removal of
colour can be obtained using electrochemical oxidation. A 95% removal rate of colour in the
effluent stream should arise within the Standard B range or just above the recommended
limits. However, it must be noted that this is the first actual chemical treatment of the
wastewater. Though, the colour limits are still above range by a minimal amount (285 ADMI
after 95% removal of colour for sum of Day 1 and Day 2), there are still a few more units
leading to the final discharge. The units will be explained in more detail in the following
sections. The pH of the raw wastewater entering the process is around pH 3.4. This correlates
well with the experimental conditions mentioned above. A 78% COD removal can be
obtained. This indicates an amount of 5,500 mg/L still in effluent treatment process.
However, as mentioned above, there are still a few more units leading to the final discharge.

3.1.1.4 Activated Carbon Sand Bed 1

The activated carbon used in this first sand bed is maintained as in the existing treatment
system. No modifications are made and the type of activated carbon used is maintained to
remove oil and grease in the incoming wastewater. Based on the data obtained from the
existing treatment, almost all of the oil and grease in the incoming wastewater is adsorbed
and removed. As such no modifications are made to the unit. The efficiency of sand bed is
maintained.

3.1.1.5 Neutralization Tank

The neutralization tank is proposed to process the ongoing processed wastewater from the
first sand bed for the purpose of neutralization. Since the acidity of the wastewater is yet to
be treated, calcium oxides or calcium hydroxides are added to treat the pH of the wastewater
to the recommended levels. A pH sensor can be installed at the tank to give operators an
indication of how much alkalinity is needed to neutralize the acid to the recommended levels
in Standard B. The standard practice of neutralization shows the formation of salts that in this
case turns to sludge. These sludge can then be scrapped off later on with purposes that shall
be described in following sections.

8
3.1.1.6 Activated Carbon Sand Bed 2
The second sand bed in this proposed treatment process will utilize activated carbon made of
Avocado Seed Carbon (ASC). A study done estimated the efficiency of COD and BOD
removal from coffee processing wastewater at 98.28% and 99.19% respectively [7]. Thus,
this technique may be a good option to remove all remaining COD and BOD in the
wastewater. Results of the study mentioned above showed that at 70 minutes contact time, a
pH of 7 and particle size of adsorbent less than 0.75mm, the conditions were optimum for the
ASC to remove almost all the amounts of BOD and COD in the wastewater [7]. In the
context of our proposed solution, the second sand bed with ASC in it will allow removal of
colour, BOD and COD to a large extent. This renders all the parameters in the wastewater
treatment unit within recommended levels.

For the case of phenol and iron content, phenol is associated with the presence of tannins.
Tannins are one of the organics that give rise to the dark brownish colour in wastewater [4].
The electrochemical oxidation and subsequent sand beds are proposed to have removed most
of the colour in the wastewater, which directly indicates flavonoids and tannins, consequently
removing most of the phenols in the wastewater. Most of the iron content in the wastewater is
also removed with the usage of sand beds, especially the second bed. Iron is adsorbed faster
and preferentially onto the carbon medium as compared to manganese and fluoride for
instance [8]. The percentage of removal of iron from wastewater is about 99.02% using
granular activated carbons (GAC) [9]. The final iron content in the treated effluent seem to be
well within the Standard B range as recommended. It is safe to say that the ASC incorporated
in the final part of the treatment system acts as the sweeping mechanism to remove all
remaining iron, phenol, BOD, COD and colour content in the wastewater.

3.1.2 Cost Effectiveness of The Processes Chosen

Based on the proposed flow sheet in Figure 4, the modifications performed on the
existing treatment systems are as follows:
1. Re-positioning of screening sieves.
2. Usage of electrochemical oxidation reactor.
3. Addition of neutralization tank.
4. Addition of activated carbon sand bed 2.

9
For the re-positioning of the screening sieves, the original treatment system had the physical
treatment process just before the effluent enters the sand bed. The proposed solution
incorporates the physical treatment process as the initiating process of the wastewater
treatment system. As the number of screening sieves data werent provided for the existing
treatment system, a few assumptions are made. The assumptions are as follows:
There is more than 1 screening sieve in the existing treatment system to remove
suspended solids.
The number of sieves in the proposed solution is the same as the number in the existing
treatment process.

The modification made was re-aligning the screening sieves retractable for cleaning as
illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 5: Screening sieves employed in coffee processing industries.

The costs conjured for this modification would be the capital cost of constructing the cement
housing of the screening sieves.

10
Capital Cost Calculations:
, 2 = (0.914 1.219) = 1.1142 = 11.99 2
Assuming construction costs inclusive labor hours = 30.00 2
Price of construction = .

For the usage of electrochemical oxidation reactor, the existing treatment system bypasses the
feed wastewater from the equalization basin to the sand bed. The proposed solution uses the
already built reactor and converts it into a electrochemical oxidation reactor.

Figure 6: Laboratory schematics of a

electrochemical oxidation reactor.

Figure 7: Reactor housing the

electrochemical oxidation.

No capital costs are required for the electrochemical oxidation reactor operation as there is
already an existing reactor unused. The only costs out of this process are the operational costs
of replacing the anodes for the process and electricity usage for the electrochemical
oxidation. Steel anodes can be used for efficient treatment of the coffee wastewater for its
colour and organic removal. The use of steel anodes cost significantly less and is an
economical option [4].

Operational Cost Calculations:

The price of steel bars in Malaysia per ton is RM 2,500.00.
Assuming one ton of steel anodes are used per year.

11
Energy consumption at pH 3 is 12.86 kWh.kg-1 COD.
Taking 8-hour factory operation for 350 days a year from existing data.
350
Total energy consumed = 12.86 8 = 36,008 .
1

Price of electricity in Malaysia = 0.3373/.

0.3373
Price of electricity usage for operation of electrochemical oxidation reactor =

350
12.86 8 = , .
1

For the addition of the neutralization tank, the costs conjured for this modification would be
the capital cost of constructing the neutralization tank and operating costs of the calcium
oxide bases.

Capital Cost Calculations:

, 2 = (3.657 1.828) = 6.6852 = 71.96 2
Assuming construction costs inclusive labor hours = 30.00 2
Price of construction = , .

Operational Cost Calculations:

The price of quicklime in Malaysia per ton is RM 670.00.
Assuming four tonnes of quicklime are used per year.
Cost of quicklime per year is RM 2,680.00.

For the usage of activated carbon in the second sand bed, the price of the ASC used is
dependent on the transportation and processing costs only. The raw material discarded is
available at no costs thus the overall price of the activated carbon is tremendously dropped.
However, avocado arent native fruit trees in Malaysia and thus, the shipping costs to obtain
the ASC will be a costly one.

Capital Cost Calculations:

, 2 = (0.914 1.219) = 1.1142 = 11.99 2
Assuming construction costs inclusive labor hours = 30.00 2
Price of construction = .

12
Operational Cost Calculations:
The price of ASC per kg: RM 60.00.
Assuming 26kg of ASC are used per year similar to the first sand bed.
Cost of ASC per year is RM40, 560.00.

Overall Costing Calculations:

1. Budget allocated for the improvement of the system: RM100, 000.00
2. Total costs of improvement alone (Capex + Opex): RM 60, 763.49
3. Total costs per year of operating existing system alone: RM 8, 112.00
4. Total costs per year of new operation system (Opex old + new): RM 65, 997.49
5. Total Opex costs after introducing 25% extra allowance: RM 82,496.87

*The calculation of total costs for the existing system alone (commercial activated carbon in
the first sand bed) is the same as calculating operational costs for ASC consumption per year
except that the price for the existing systems commercial activated carbon is RM12.00 per
kg.
**A 25% allowance is introduced to allow miscellaneous costs incurred for other processes
uncounted.

Based on the above calculations, the proposed system is within the allocated budget of
Company XYZ to perform the improvement on the treatments. Thus, this criteria is fulfilled
in terms of cost effectiveness.

13
3.1.3 Limitation of Space In The Waste Treatment Area
The area provided for the waste treatment process is only a mere 10m by 10m. This
corresponds to an area of 100m2 only.

Based on the proposed solution, the only hassle with the alternative as compared to the
existing treatment system would be the incorporation of the screening sieves, the
neutralization tanks and the activated carbon sand bed 2.

Sand Bed 1 Neutralization

Tank

Sedimentation
Tank/Equalization Sand Bed 2 Treated
Basin effluent

Electrochemical
Oxidation Reactor

Screening Sieves

*Not up to scale. Boundaries of the square box outside represent 10m by 10m.

14
The above illustration depicts that the allocated 100m2 is more than enough to house the
additional units of the proposed solution. The length and width of the allocated area allows
the utilization of space for the neutralization tanks.

The following table lists the dimensions of each vessel and its dimensions.

Table 3: Equipment and vessel dimensions.

Equipment/Vessel Dimensions (Length x Width x Height) mm

Screening Sieves 1219 914 914
Equalization Basin 3657 1828 914
Electrochemical Oxidation Reactor 1219 4727
Sand Bed 1 1219 914 914
Neutralization Tank 3657 1828 914
Sand Bed 2 1219 914 914
Treated Water Tank 1828 914 914

Based on the reviewed spacing available, it is feasible to implement the proposed solution in
the above-mentioned manner.

3.1.4 By-Product Value of Waste Treatment

The use of screening sieves in the beginning of the process, sedimentation tanks and
neutralization tanks allow the retrieval of filtered and settled solids. This solids can be made
fertilizers from coffee wastes and have demand among rural farmers in Malaysia.

Assuming amount of by-products produced per day is equivalent to 2 kgs.

Based on surveys online, the selling price of coffee waste fertilizers are around RM7.50 per
kg of fertilizer.
Taking a 350-day operation period per year.
Amount of by-products produced per year is 700 kg.
Amount of income from the selling of by-products equal to an amount of RM5, 250.00 per
year.

An income is made with the selling of by-products of the coffee wastewater treatment
process.

15
3.1.5 Returns of Investments

To make amends for the improvement costs established, the recycle of treated water is carried
out. According to a case study in Guatemala, recycling treated water into the coffee
producing treatment process reduces the expenditure for water consumption by 90%.

Assuming that Company XYZ is situated in Penang, the following standards are used.

Supplier: Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd (PBAPP)

0 20m3 = RM0.22 /m3
21 40m3 = RM0.46 /m3
41 60m3 = RM0.68 /m3
61 200m3 = RM1.17 /m3
Over 200m3 = RM1.30 /m3

Taking 90% of the total raw coffee wastewater being made up of water. That much of water
(4035.15m3) is needed to wash off cherries in the roasting process and produce 4,483.5m3 of
coffee wastewater in Company XYZ per year.
The cost needed to pay per year for such an amount of water is RM 5,245.695.

Recycling reduces the amount of water needed by a tenth of the initial amount and Company
XYZ only needs to pay RM524.7 per year.

, =
/

2, 878.00
, = = 0.2886
( 5, 250.00 + 4, 721.13)

= .

Based on the calculated figures, we can observe that the capital costs can be returned back by
savings due to by-product sales and water recycling in 3.5 months. This is provided the
operating costs are maintained and sustained without hassle according to yearly budget.

16
 4.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed solution is able to remove all the parameter values to within the
recommended ranges of Standard B. The cost effectiveness and returns of investment were
studied as well. The figure below shows a summary of our proposed solution with each units
respective removal efficiency. With the mentioned justifications and reasons, we hope that
our proposal is considered and accepted by Company XYZ.

Screening Removal of
suspended
Sieves solids.

Dampening of
Sedimentation flow rates.
Tank/Equalizat Removal of
ion Basin suspended
solids.

Electrochemical Removal of
Oxidation colour, COD
Reactor & BOD.

Removal of
Sand Bed 1 oil &
grease.

Neutralization Reduction
Tank of acidity.

Removal of
colour, COD,
Sand Bed 2 BOD, iron &
phenol.

Figure 8: Schematic breakdown of proposed improvement for coffee wastewater treatment.

17
Reference

1. Saxena, D., A Case Study on Effluent Treatment Plant of An Instant Coffee

Production Unit Water Today, 2016: p. 84-89.

2. LaMendola, D., Top 50 Coffee Consuming Countries. 2013, Euromonitor

International.

3. Rodriguez, P.S., S.R.M. Perez, and B.M. Fernandez, Studies of anaerobic

biodegradability of the wastewater of the humid benefit the coffee. Interciencia, 2000.

25: p. 386-390.

4. Rajesh, S.B., K.S. Lokesh, and T.P.H. Gowda, Colour and organic removal of

biologically treated coffee curing wastewater by electrochemical oxidation method.

Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2002. 15(3): p. 323.

5. Alturkmani, A., Equalization. Industrial Wastestream Variables, 2008.

6. Mahesh, S., et al., Electrochemical Degradation of Pulp and Paper Mill Wastewater.

Part 2. Characterization and Analysis of Sludge. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry

Research, 2006. 45(16): p. 5766-5774.

7. Devi, R., V. Singh, and A. Kumar, COD and BOD reduction from coffee processing

wastewater using Avacado peel carbon. Bioresource Technology, 2008. 99(6): p.

1853-1860.

8. Siabi, W.K., Potential of activated carbon for manganese and iron removal, in 29th

WEDC International Conference. 2003: Abuja, Nigeria. p. 152-155.

9. Goher, M.E., et al., Removal of aluminum, iron and manganese ions from industrial

wastes using granular activated carbon and Amberlite IR-120H. The Egyptian

Journal of Aquatic Research, 2015. 41(2): p. 155-164.

18