“Zero Liquid Discharge” Implementation in RMG Sectors of Bangladesh :

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT :

All praises and thanks are to Allah, the Lord of the world, the most Beneficent, the most
Merciful for helping me to accomplish this work.

I am beholden to my course coordinator respected teacher Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam sir of the
dept. of “Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering” for assigning a project dealing with
special and technological aspect titled “Zero Liquid Discharge” Implementation in RMG Sectors of
Bangladesh”. In this regard, first and foremost, my heartily profound thanks, gratitude and
appreciation to my project teacher Lecturer Tanvir Ahmed Sir for his encouragement, kind
support, invaluable technical and editorial advice, suggestions, discussions and guidance that
were a real support to complete this project. I could not do this project without the help of my
course coordinator as well as my project teacher for a great deal of time Dr. md. jahangir Alam
sir regarding his guidance and support and technical direction. I owe much gratitude to him.

I would also like to pay thank to the chairman of the department of Applied Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering, University of Dhaka and all of my respected teachers for their support
throughout my academic career in this department.

I would like to thank my parents for their encouragement, support and loving care. Last but not
the least, I am very thankful to everyone who all supported me to complete the project work
effectively and moreover on time.

ABSTRACT :

INTRODUCTION :

ZLD sector was apparently born in 1970s in USA, driven by the regulator Tight
federal regulations on salt discharge to surface waters introduced, especially, due to salinity problems
in the Colorado River Regulations were mainly concerned with power plant discharges from cooling
tower blowdowns and scrubbers (in the wake of previously introduced regulations on flu gas discharges)
Clean Water Act 1974, revised 1977, 1982 First ZLDs installed were 500‐2,000 GPM units based on
evaporation/crystallization Regulations are expected to keep tightening: new EPA’s guidelines (ELG)
expected in 2017 and 2022 on various Freger ZLD Feb 2014 3 types of discharges (many have to be ZLD

1.1 What is a zero liquid discharge treatment system?

Not every industrial facility that produces wastewater will require Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD).
It is usually looked to as a last resort because it can be a complex process that requires a high
initial investment.
If a facility is located on a site that has severe water scarcity issues and/or astronomical
discharge fees, it might be worthwhile to pursue, but in the instances it’s not mandated (some
local and/or federal regulations might require ZLD), careful consideration must be made as to
whether or not it will benefit your facility.
If your facility does require or is considering it, you might be wondering, “what is zero liquid
discharge and how does it work?”
The complex answer to this question is simplified and broken down for you below:
A Zero Liquid Discharge treatment system utilizes advanced technological water treatment
processes to limit liquid waste at the end of your industrial process to, as the name suggests,
zero.
An efficient and well-designed ZLD treatment system should be able to:

 handle variations in waste contamination and flow

 allow for required chemical volumes adjustments
 recover around 95% of your liquid waste for reuse
 treat and retrieve valuable byproducts from your waste (i.e. salts and brines)
 produce a dry, solid cake for disposal

A ZLD treatment system will also help your facility meet stringent effluent requirements, such
as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent
Guidelines. Just keep in mind your facility’s requirements will vary based on whether you are
discharging into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or to the environment under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit).
1.2 What’s included in a basic ZLD treatment system?

The exact components of a ZLD treatment system will largely depend on (1.) the volume of
dissolved material present in the waste, (2.) the system’s required flow rate, and (3.) what
specific contaminants are present. But in general, a basic ZLD treatment system typically
includes some type of:

 clarifier and/or reactor to precipitate out metals, hardness, and silica

 chemical feed to help facilitate the precipitation, flocculation, or coagulation of any
metals and suspended solids
 filter press to concentrate secondary solid waste after pretreatment or alongside an
evaporator
 ultrafiltration (UF) to remove all the leftover trace amounts of suspended solids and
prevent fouling, scaling, and/or corrosion down the line of treatment
 reverse osmosis (RO) to remove the bulk of dissolved solids from the water stream in
the primary phases of concentration
 brine concentrators to further concentrate the reject RO stream or reject from
electrodialysis to further reduce waste volume
 evaporator for vaporizing access water in the final phases of waste concentration
before crystallizer.
 crystallizer to boil off any remaining liquid, leaving you with a dry, solid cake for disposal

Depending on the needs of your plant and process, these standard components are usually
adequate, however, if your plant requires a system that provides a bit more
customization, there might be some features or technologies you will need to add on. Because
of the broad range of industries that use ZLD and the various waste streams produced, ZLD is a
highly custom process and these add ons will depend on your facility’s individual needs.

1.3 How does a ZLD treatment system work?

Specific treatment processes vary, but a typical ZLD treatment facility process will usually
include the following steps:

Pretreatment and conditioning

Pretreatment is used to remove simple things from the wastewater stream that can be
filtered or precipitated out, conditioning the water and reducing the suspended solids and
materials that would otherwise scale and/or foul following treatment steps.
Typically this treatment block consists of some type of clarifier and/or a reactor to precipitate
out metals, hardness, and silica. Sometimes this step requires the addition of caustic soda or
lime to help with coagulation, a process where various chemicals are added to a reaction tank
to remove the bulk suspended solids and other various contaminants. This process starts off
with an assortment of mixing reactors, typically one or two reactors that add specific chemicals
to take out all the finer particles in the water by combining them into heavier particles that
settle out. The most widely used coagulates are aluminum-based such as alum and
polyaluminum chloride.
Sometimes a slight pH adjustment will help coagulate the particles, as well.
When coagulation is complete, the water enters a flocculation chamber where the coagulated
particles are slowly stirred together with long-chain polymers (charged molecules that grab all
the colloidal and coagulated particles and pull them together), creating visible, settleable
particles that resemble snowflakes.
The gravity settler (or sedimentation part of the ZLD treatment process) is typically a large
circular device where flocculated material and water flow into the chamber and circulate from
the center out. In a very slow settling process, the water rises to the top and overflows at the
perimeter of the clarifier, allowing the solids to settle down to the bottom of the clarifier into a
sludge blanket. The solids are then raked to the center of the clarifier into a cylindrical tube
where a slow mixing takes place and the sludge is pumped out of the bottom into a sludge-
handling or dewatering operation. The settlers can also be designed using a plate pack for
smaller footprint.
Depending on the material in the feed, additional reactors or chemistry may be required for the
reduction of metals or silica. Careful consideration must be given to the pretreatment step for a
successful ZLD system.
Ultrafiltration (UF) can also be used after the clarifiers instead of the gravity sand filter, or it
can replace entire clarification process altogether. Membranes have become the newest
technology for treatment, pumping water directly from the wastewater source through the UF
(post-chlorination) and eliminating the entire clarifier/filtration train.
Out of this process comes a liquid that is then filter-pressed into a solid, resulting in a solution
much lower in suspended solids and without the ability to scale up concentration treatment.

Phase-one concentration

Concentrating in the earlier stages of ZLD is usually done with membranes like reverse osmosis
(RO), brine concentrators, or electrodialysis.
The RO train will capture the majority of dissolved solids that flow through the process, but as
mentioned in a prior article about common problems with ZLD, it’s important to flow only
pretreated water through the RO system, as allowing untreated water to go through the
semipermeable membranes will foul them quickly. Brine concentrators, on the other hand, are
also used to remove dissolved solid waste but they are usually able to handle brine with a much
higher salt content than RO. They are pretty efficient for turning out a reduced-volume waste.
Electrodialysis can also be used at this part of the ZLD treatment system. It’s a membrane
process that uses positively or negatively charged ions to allow charged particles to flow
through a semipermeable membrane and can be used in stages to concentrate the brine. It
is often used in conjunction with RO to yield extremely high recovery rates.
Combined, these technologies take this stream and concentrate it down to a high salinity while
pulling out up to 60–80% of the water.

Evaporation/crystallization

After the concentration step is complete, the next step is generating a solid, which is done
through thermal processes or evaporation, where you evaporate all the water off, collect it,
and reuse it. Adding acid at this point will help to neutralize the solution so, when heating it,
you can avoid scaling and harming the heat exchangers. Deaeration is often used at this phase
to release dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other noncondensible gases.
The leftover waste then goes from an evaporator to a crystallizer, which continues to boil off all
the water until all the impurities in the water crystallize and are filtered out as a solid.

Recycled water distribution/solid waste treatment

If the treated water is being reused in an industrial process, it’s typically pumped into a holding
tank where it can be used based on the demands of the facility. The ZLD treatment system
should have purified the water enough to be reused safely in your process.
The solid waste, at this point, will enter a dewatering process that takes all the water out of the
sludge with filter or belt presses, yielding a solid cake. The sludge is put onto the press and runs
between two belts that squeeze the water out, and the sludge is then put into a big hopper that
goes to either a landfill or a place that reuses it. The water from this process is also typically
reused.
2.1 Zero Liquid Discharge: Options for Bangladesh Textile Industry

The textile sector is the backbone of Bangladesh’s economy. However, the industry is faced with many
challenges due to high resource (energy, water and chemical) footprint and its consequent
environmental impact. Water usage by the textile industry in Bangladesh is estimated to be 1,500
million cubic meters, which is principally made of groundwater. Around 70% of this water consumption
takes place in the wet processing of textiles, which involves washing, dyeing, and finishing of textiles.
Besides high water footprint, the textile industry also faces the challenge of dealing with the problem of
effluent discharge and the use of coagulants and chemicals for its treatment. Realising the scale of these
issues and the urgent need for addressing them, Bangladesh Government has recently issued the Zero
Liquid Discharge (ZLD) Regulation for the textile sector. This poses a huge challenge for the industry,
particularly for the small and medium sized units. The key to its successful implementation would be a
cautious and practical approach and view this as an opportunity to deal with the pressing environmental
challenges in a sustainable manner.

Technological options for ZLD in Bangladesh textile sector :

Implementing the ZLD mandate in Bangladesh is thwart with many challenges like; 1. Technical
feasibility of various options, 2. Financial viability, 3. Practical implementation issues like lack of space in
existing units to install effluent treatment plants, 4. Disposal of solid waste/ sludge that would be
generated as a result etc. The Tirupur textile cluster in India, where zero discharge regulation has been
under implementation for some time, have dealt with similar issues and undergone technology
improvisation to deal with them. Learning’s from Tirupur experience could be relevant for Bangladesh as
it embarks on a challenging road to implement ZLD. Some recommendations based on India’s
experience are highlighted in this section:

Dealing with Operation and Management issues

In Bangladesh, the textile industry has largely emerged in clusters, where availability of space for setting
up individual ETPs is an issue. Similarly there are issues with regard to economic viability of setting up
and operating ETPs in tier 2 & 3 textile unit. To deal with these issues, Common Effluent Treatment Plant
(CETP) can be considered to cater to the needs of smaller textile units. Several units in a cluster can
jointly install and operate the ETP and share the capital and operating cost. This will help in achieving
economy of scale for the small scale factories. However a common problem with the running of CETP is
collection of Operation and Maintenance charges from member units. Here textile Associations like
BGMEA can have a role in enforcing discipline and providing support in working out a practical
agreement that can be followed by the industry at large. Depending on the response of different
stakeholders, the industry can also think of adopting different models of public private partnerships for
management of CETP. This could include Build Own Operate (BOO) or Build Own Operate and Transfer
(BOOT) models, in which the industry/ government can share the investments in full or part for the
CETP, including land and capital costs, while the operating partner can invest in full or part for the
operation & maintenance costs, which are then be recovered through user charges.

Dealing with Technical issues

While the technology for ZLD treatment and wastewater recycling has more or less stabilized, there are
still many issues with this technology and approach to management of wastes. The most important one
being evaporation of RO rejects in thermal evaporators. In fact several ZLD CETPs have failed due the
failure of these Evaporators. The major issues are: high costs involved in evaporation; technical
limitations in evaporating mixed salts, which is typical for textile wastewaters due to problems in
crystallization; corrosion and scaling of the evaporators resulting in reduced life and efficiency; and
frequent interruptions and downtime affecting processing capacity. Besides these issues, another
problem is with regard to contamination of mixed salt with other pollutants during the Evaporation
process. These mixed salts are unfit for reuse in textile processing on account of a host of reasons. They
also create a serious storage and disposal issue because in many cases they cannot be disposed in
landfills and require hazardous waste disposal facilities. Most CETPs particularly ZLD-CETPs can generate
several hundred tons/ day of Hazardous solid waste, such as sludge and waste salt. Thus Bangladesh
textile industry needs to shift from the approach of ZLD to Zero Waste Discharge. This can be adopted in
two ways discussed as follows:

i. ‘Zero Waste Discharge’ can be achieved by promoting ZLD technologies that does not
result in waste salt and sludge that can cause disposal issues. This will involve technical
interventions that can help in recovery and reuse of salts and chemicals from wastewater.
This can have a number of benefit such as elimination of sludge generation, enhanced
reuse of salt in the dyeing process, reduced demand for ground water supply, enhanced
local ground water table, prevention of ground water contamination, improved local micro
climate, and loss of ecology. This approach has been successfully tried out in Tirupur textile
cluster in India, wherein Nano-Filtration (NF) assembly has been used for salt recovery
from R.O. reject and the recovered salt is being reused for dyeing.
ii. Another approach to achieving ‘Zero Waste Discharge’ could be use of textile sludge in
other industries. Textile sludge can be used in a number of productive ways, for
substituting raw material and energy requirements, in other industries. Some Cement
Plants in India have started using textile sludge in Kilns as alternative fuel. Aditya Birla
Cement, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan, India) unit has been co-processing ETP sludge of about
1000 tonnes per month from textile mills located in Bhilwara Industrial Area. Bangladesh
textile industry could tie up with local cement industry to promote the sludge as an
alternate fuel in Cement manufacture. Another option for use of textile sludge in
Bangladesh could be as raw material in brick manufacture. This will however require R&D
in terms of waste characterisation of sludge to assess its suitability for making non-fired
bricks.
2.2 TIRUPUR :

The RMG and textile sector is not only the biggest export earner and employer of Bangladesh
but also the leader in many advance initiatives in the country. In its journey of about 35 years
RMG sector has emerged as one of the bona fide destination for apparel sourcing in the world.
In recent years Bangladesh RMG industry has proactively taken the issue of environmental
sustainability as one of the core areas to address. The sector always welcomed new initiatives
conducive to its ultimate goal of being a sustainable industry. Regional cooperation in the area
of technology transfer has always created positive impacts due to the similarity of socio-
economic and cultural context. In the area of waste water treatment Tirupur Textile cluster has
shown some landmark success in the South Asian region. To share the advancements of the
two neighboring countries the Institute of Industrial Productivity (IIP) India has organized an
exposure visit and study tour.

A five-member BGMEA delegation led by Faruque Hassan visited India from 13-18 September.
The delegation includes Managing Director of Urmi Group Asif Ashraf, Managing Director of PN
Composite Tapan Kumar Saha, Director of DBL Group Anwarul Azim, and Senior Deputy
Secretary of BGMEA Md. Monower Hossain. Tirupur is known as the knit capital of India. With a
broad range of factories this knit cluster is capable of exporting all types of knit fabrics and
garments. Employing around 600,000 people Tirupur exported around USD 3.29 billion in 2014-
15 FY. Tirupur is a dry region with no perennial rivers; the agro-based economy is mainly
dependent on rainwater. To ensure sustainable business and decrease pollution load in the
environment Tirupur Textile cluster started their journey towards Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD)
back in 2005. It was a huge challenge that time for the textile belt to implement ZLD, but due to
strong policy and financial support from the central and state government of India they succeed
in implementing ZLD in their industry. It is a unique success story in the South-Asian region.
Bangladesh on the other hand is a water-rich region with lots of monsoon rains and rivers. The
country has around 1700 wet processing units in the textile sector that consume around 1500
billion liters of groundwater annually. Moreover, this consumed water is discharged in the
surface water body resulting in severe pollution in the adjacent rivers and depletion of
groundwater aquifers. BGMEA along with its development and business partners are trying
proactively to improve the situation. The BGMEA delegation reached Chennai on 13 September
and participated in a session with the Tamilnadu Water Investment Company (TWIC) in
Chennai, India. The delegation was briefed about ZLD process and different aspects which
include policy mandate with respect to ZLD in India, technical and financial viability of ZLD,
barriers and challenges in implementation, advantages of ZLD and etc. The session was
conducted by Sajid Hussain who is the Chief Operating Officer, TWIC.
He explained that water scarcity, water economics and regulatory guidance lead to the
innovation of ZLD process. He also revealed that adopting zero waste discharge makes ZLD
process more viable. After the session, the delegation paid a courtesy visit to Harmander Singh,
Principal Secretary to the Ministry of Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles, and Khadi Department,
at Chennai Secretariat. Mr. Singh appreciated the initiative of collaborative learning and sharing
of relevant knowledge with neighboring countries in South Asia. The interactions mainly
focused on the development of textile industry in both India and Bangladesh. After the session
in TWIC, the delegation flew to Coimbatore district to see the ZLD plants in the Tirupur cluster.
The delegation visited two of the ZLD Plants to observe the technical demonstration of ZLD. The
delegation also visited Chinnakkarai CETP which has a capacity of processing 8 MLD and caters
to the load of 29 neighboring textile units. The delegation visited another CETP which was
located in Arulpuram. The CETP with 5.5 MLD capacities caters to the effluent management
demand of 22 textile units in that area. During the visit the delegation learned about the ZLD-
CETP and its technicality along with life of membranes and resins in reverse osmosis and resin
filters processes. The role of renewable energy in supporting ZLD systems were also explored
and discussed with TWIC. The major processes involved are:

1. Collection and homogenization: Effluent collection from different sources

and homogenization in single tank.

2. Biological oxidation: After the ph correction (neutralization) the effluent is

fed to biological oxidation tank where the BOD, biological oxygen demand and COD chemical
oxygen demand are corrected. An online meter helps in close monitoring of the parameters.

3. Clarifier: The biological oxidation is followed by clarification. The effluent is

fed to the clarifier tank and remained undisturbed for a cycle time of 24 hours. In this duration,
the suspended solids in the effluent start settling down due to density difference and clarified
water with lesser TSS is obtained.

4. Quartz filtration: From the clarifier the effluent solution is charged into the
quartz filters, resin filters for ultra filtration. The softener output acts as feed to the RO system.

5. Reverse Osmosis: The softened effluent is fed to the Reverse osmosis

modules to get permeate and concentrate. The RO permeate is stored in recovered water tanks
and concentrate is fed to the evaporation section for further treatment and recovery.

6. Mechanical Vapor Reactor: In the Mechanical vapor reactor the filtration is

achieved by indirect thermal heat transfer between heating media and the treated effluent
inside the reactor. The steam is circulated in the outer jacket of reactor as a heat source. The
condensate collected is the output of the system. The concentrate of evaporator is further
crystallized and salt is recovered after the centrifuge governed separation of Glauber salt. The
residual effluent is sent to the solar evaporation panels. We found these two CETPs very
planned and functional.

FIG : Tirupur Textile Dyeing Effluents Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD)

On the other hand in Bangladesh context we are already doing most of the steps they are
doing. We just need to add the reverse osmosis and salt recovery steps to go for ZLD. The day
after CETP visit the delegation visited the Tirupur Exporters Association (TEA) at Tirupur and
met TEA President Dr. A Sakthivel. The idea of meeting TEA was to understand the
development process of the cluster as one of the major export hubs for textile industry and to
discuss various factors which have led to commencement of first of its kind ZLD facility for
textile sector in the world. The President of TEA appreciated the initiative of knowledge transfer
to neighboring countries and stressed that the need of such a system for the industry is
inevitable considering the global situation. Mr. Faruque Hassan congratulated TEA for
successfully implanting ZLD in Tirupur. After that, the delegation visited a modern readymade
garment processing unit namely M/s Maharaja Palanisamy Garments in the Netaji Apparel Park,
Tirupur. The delegation looked at the resource efficiency part along with the manpower
resource management practices in the unit. The success of ZLD in India is not solely an industry
success, rather it was highly fueled by conducive policy of the Indian Government and heavy
subsidy from the Central and State government of India. In Tirupur textile cluster case the cost
of the CETPs has been subsidized as much as 70%-75% of which 53% came as special grant.

Bangladesh
WHO
Water Quality Parameters Standards Methods/ Equipments
Guide Line
(mg/L)

India sets a very rare example that environmental sustainability is a shared responsibility rather
than just Industry.

It is expected that Bangladesh RMG industry will also be able to implement the ZLD system in
near future with policy, finance and technical support from the Government of Bangladesh and
the major development partners. Faruque Hassan said: “BGMEA is trying to comprehensively
look into all the gaps we had. We are trying to achieve our aspired goal of USD 50 billion of
RMG exports in 2021 sustainably and become a leader in green industrialization.” “We need to
collaboratively work with the government and partners; the sector has to be owned by all the
stakeholders concerned,” he added. Nowadays environmental sustainability is an integrated
part of global business landscape and is a key strategic area nationally and internationally.
Bangladesh is at its take-off phase of industrialization and one of the lowest carbon emitters of
the world, but at the same time is the most vulnerable country to climate change. Standing on
this paradoxical juncture we are trying to become more and more sustainable considering the
global environmental situation. Recently the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina won
the ‘Champions of the Earth Award’ for her proven leadership in addressing the impacts of
climate change. We believe we will definitely be able to make Bangladesh RMG industry a
model of green industry in the world

3.1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT :

Water Quality Parameters Bangladesh Standards & WHO Guide Lines :
01 Arsenic 0.05 0.01 AAS

02 BOD 5 Day, 200C 0.2 - 5 days Incubation

03 Chloride 150-600 - Titrimetric

04 Carbontetrachloride 0.01 0.004 Gas Chromatograph

05 COD 4 - Closed Reflux Method

0 CFU Membrane Filtration

06 Coli form (Faecal) 0
(N/100mL) Method

07 Colour 15 Hazen - Colour Comparator

08 Detergent 0.2 - UV-VIS

09 DO 6 - Multimeter

10 Hardness as CaCO3 200-500 - Titrimetric

11 Kjelhl Nitrogen (Total) 1 - UV-VIS/ Digestion

12 Mercury 0.001 0.001 Mercury Analyzer

13 Odour Odourless - Threshold Method

14 Oil and Grease 0.01 - Oil and Grease meter

15 pH 6.5-8.5 pH Meter

Radioactive Materials (Gross Alpha

16 0.01 Bq/L 0.5 Bq/L -
Activity)

17 Salinity -%0 - Multimeter

18 Total Dissolved Solid 1000 - Multimeter

19 Temperature 20-30C Thermometer

20 Turbidity 10 NTU - Turbidity meter

4.1 WATER POLLUTION IN BANGLADESH BY TEXTILE INDUSTRIES :

Physicochemical parameters such as TSS, TDS, DO, pH, EC, Turbidity, BOD, COD, anionic
parameters such as F-, Cl-, NO2, NO3, SO4 and PO43- and heavy metals such as Pb, Zn, Cd and
Cu of the samples were investigated by using various techniques. The results showed that,
textile dyeing industries discharges effluents composed of various physicochemical and anionic
pollutants at considerably higher level compared to pollution limit. Further, the surface water
of channel, ponds and lakes around the studied textile dyeing industries also contain various
physicochemical and anionic pollutants at intolerable limit.

Industrial pollution is one of the vital problem presently facing Bangladesh and all over the
world. The careless disposal of industrial effluents and other wastes may contribute greatly to
the poor quality of the water. Textile is the most important sector of Bangladesh's economy.
Textile industry uses a large quantity of water in its production processes and highly polluted
and toxic waste waters are discharged into sewers and drains without any kind of treatment
Textile industries are major sources of these effluents due to the nature of their operations
which requires high volume of water that eventually results in high waste water generation.
They are one of the largest of water users and polluters. More than 80% industries have no
industrial large treatment plant for effluent discharge. Less than 2% are composite units
(knitting, dyeing, finishing) which have proper treatment plants. Industrial wastes comprise
different types of solid waste, liquid wastes, and gaseous waste.

Only the surface water of Dhaka is being highly polluted by many industries every year. So, we
as well as government should take necessary steps to prevent this kind of pollution. Otherwise
the whole environment will fall in great dange

4.2. Impact of some Effluents of Textile Dyeing:

Effluents under the measurement conditions. It exhibited significant correlation with TSS, TDS,
turbidity, Cl- and PO43- (0.96, 0.99, 0.86, 0.79 and 0.67). Total suspended solids (TSS) denote
the suspended impurities present in the water. Measurement of suspended particulate matter
is important as they are responsible for pollutant transport in the aquatic environment. The TSS
values of the effluents of the study area lie between 736 to 1960 mg/L and average value was
found 1123 mg/L which exhibited significant correlation with TDS, EC, turbidity, Cl- and PO43-
(0.97, 0.96, 0.82, 0.72 and 0.63). It is found that the effluent samples contain TSS concentration
about 3 to 7 times higher in our country.
 Table : standard characteristics of waste water

TDS :
TDS in water mainly consist of ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, alkalis, some acids,
sulphates, metallic ions etc. The TDS values of the effluents of the study area lie between 391
to 46700 mg/L and average value was found 10283 mg/L. It is found that most of theb effluent
samples contain TDS concentration 3 to 7 times higher than DOE standard (Fig. 2). The high TDS
value of effluent is not desirable because a high content of dissolved solids elevates the density
of water, influences osmoregulation of fresh water organisms, reduces solubility of gases (like
oxygen) and utility of water for drinking, irrigational and industrial purposes. It also exhibited
significant correlation with TSS, EC, turbidity, Cl- and PO4_ (0.93, 0.87, 0.99, 0.85 and 0.73).
Turbidity in water is caused by suspended and colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided
organic and inorganic matter, and plankton and other microscopic organisms.

DO :
Oxygen is essential to all forms of aquatic life including those organisms responsible for the self-
purification processes in natural waters. Like terrestrial animals, fish and other aquatic
organisms need oxygen to live. The presence of oxygen in water is a positive sign of a healthy
body of water but the absence of oxygen is a signal of severe pollution. Textile industries
releases a lot of biochemical oxygen demanding wastes. The BOD values of the effluents varied
from 415 to 770 mg/L and the average value was found 573.89 mg/L which exhibited significant
correlation with DO and COD.
FIG : The variation of concentrations of the various physicochemical parameters with effluent
sources

4.3 Concentrations of the heavy metals in the effluents of textile dyeing

industries:

The average concentrations of the of the heavy metals such as Pb, Cd, Zn and Cu of the
effluents of the study area were found 0.0001ppm, 0.001ppm, 0.0001ppm and 0.001 ppm
respectively which are within the permissible limit recommended by DoE. It suggested that the
textile dyeing industries of the study area uses organic dyes instead of heavy metal pigment
dyes

FIG : Polluted black water of buriganga

Concentrations of the physicochemical properties of the surface water:

Further the impacts of the pollutants of the effluents on the surface water were studied by
measuring the various parameters of the surface water collected from the surrounding ponds,
lakes and channel of the industrial area. The levels of pollution of the surface water were
determined by comparing the observed values of the various parameters with the inland
surface water standard and drinking water standard value recommended by DoE, Bangladesh.

Concentrations of the anionic properties of the surface water:

Further the impacts of the pollutants of the effluents on the surface water were studied by
measuring the various parameters of the surface water collected from the surrounding ponds,
lakes and channel of the industrial area. The concentration ranges of the anionic parameters of
the surface water with the average values are shown in Table 2. Fluoride is an important
inorganic anion of water. The F- concentration of the surface water of the studied industrial
area varied from 0.02 to 7.6 mg/L and the average value was found 3.33 mg/L. The average F-
concentration of the surface water contains 3 times higher value than DoE standard.
Table : Descriptive statistics of the anionic parameters of the surface water samples

The NO3- concentrations of the surface water of the studied industrial area varied from 0.02 to
227.1 mg/L and the average value was found 55.8 mg/L .The average of the surface water was
around 5 times higher than the DoE standard for drinking purpose. A quantitative analysis of
fluoride (F-), chloride(Cl-), nitrite (NO2-), nitrate (NO3-) and sulfate (SO4-) were determined by
Ion chromatography (IC). Aquantitative analysis of phosphorous was determined by UV
spectrophotometer at 400nm wave length. Phosphate (PO4 3-) concentration was determined
from phosphorous (P) concentration using factor (95/31 = 3.0645).

Fig : surface water pollution by textile water effluent

The concentrations of the various physicochemical, anionic parameters and heavy metals of the
effluents and surface water in our country were studied in order to assess the impact of various
pollutants of textile dyeing effluents on the surface water quality of this area by industrial
activities. The results of the study reveal that textile dyeing industries discharges large
quantities of effluent composed of various physicochemical and anionic pollutants at significant
higher level than standard value of DoE. However, the heavy metal concentrations of the
effluents are found within the limit of DoE standard.
5.1 TRADITIONAL WAY OF TREATING WATER IN BANGLADESH :

1 Equalization Process : The raw waste from factory is collected in the equalization tank. It
is needed to use a bar screen to protect any solid materials. The equalization tank is designed
based on hydraulic retention time (HRT) of around 8-9 hours. Under this process air grids
connection is required for mixing the wastewater to protect the solid materials in suspension.

2 Feeding Tank : Raw wastewater is stored in the feeding tank which is collected from the
equalization tank and pH is maintained at neutral level for auto-biodegradation. The equalized
wastewater is then filled into the Feeding Tank. From feeding tank wastewater is fed into the
codigester. Feeding is started by using pump under upflow mode of action to the anaerobic
reactor.

3 Anaerobic Process : The anaerobic process followed by Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge

Blanket (UASB) process and Bio-filtration was maintained by polyurethane materials followed
by down-flow process. The anaerobic process is a high quality treatment process. The anaerobic
process is having some favorable opportunities such as; low cost, simple operational
mechanism and able to produce less volume of excess sludge and the organic matter can be
converted in to energy in the form of biogas. Therefore, anaerobic process is a beneficiary
process in terms of environmental protection and the process is economically viable. The Up-
flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) process is a “high rate” anaerobic treatment process.
During the earlier development of anaerobic treatment, the main drawback was the low rate of
treatment process i.e., the reactor operated under the long Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT). It
has already been proved that the UASB system can be widely used in low and high temperature
conditions with shorter retention time. The UASB system is a high rate treatment process.
Organic loading rate is the most important for determining the shape and size of the reactor.
The UASB is successfully used under mesophilic temperature ranged from 25-35°C. The basic
concept of UASB is based on the fact that the flocks of anaerobic bacteria will tend to settle
under gravity, when applying a moderate up-flow velocity. The anaerobic bacteria make
granule in the size of 3-7 m2 .

4 Bio-filtration Process : The Down-flow Hanging Bio-filtration (DHB) system has been
developed first-time in Japan to make the standardized effluent quality of municipal
wastewater. The novel combined process of UASB and DHB system is very appropriate
technology for the significant reduction of organic matter with pathogenic microorganisms
from the UASB effluent. The UASB and DHB combined system has been developed by Professor
Heideki Harada and his research group, Nagaoka University of Technology, Nagaoka, Japan. The
author was a Post-doctoral student under his guidance and continued higher level of research.
The major significant features of DBS system are as follows: a) Final effluent become standard
effluent quality b) No external aeration is required c) Final effluent contains more dissolved
oxygen d) Less excess sludge is produced

5.2 WHY SHOULD WE USE ZLD INSTEAD OF TRADITIONAL PROCESSES ?

There are a number of benefits to targeting zero liquid discharge for an industrial process or
facility:
 Lowered waste volumes decrease the cost associated with waste management.
 Recycle water on site, lowering water acquisition costs and risk. Recycling on-site can
also result in less treatment needs, versus treating to meet stringent environmental
discharge standards.
 Reduce trucks associate with off-site waste water disposal, and their associated
greenhouse gas impact and community road incident risk.
 Improved environmental performance, and regulatory risk profile for future permitting.
 Some processes may recover valuable resources, for example ammonium sulfate
fertilizer or sodium chloride salt for ice melting.
Several methods of waste management are classified as zero liquid discharge, despite using
different boundaries to define the point where discharge occurs. Usually, a facility or site
property line that houses the industrial process is considered the border or ‘boundary
condition’ where wastewater must be treated, recycled, and converted to solids for disposal to
achieve zero liquid discharge.

Certain facilities send their liquid waste off-site for treatment, deep well disposal, or
incineration and they consider this to qualify as zero liquid discharge. This approach to zero
liquid discharge eliminates continuous discharge of liquids to surface waters or sewers, but can
significantly increase cost.
Some engineers describe their designs as near-zero liquid discharge or minimal liquid discharge
to highlight that they discharge low levels of wastewater, but do not eliminate liquid in their
waste. For some facilities, it may be more economic to approach but not achieve complete ZLD
by concentrating brine to lower volumes. Furthermore, it may be possible to avoid the creation
of liquid waste on-site through careful water conservation or by treating contaminants at their
source before they can enter the main flow of water.
In a world where freshwater is an increasingly valuable resource, industrial processes threaten
its availability on two fronts, unless the water is treated. Many industrial processes require
water, and then reduce the availability of water for the environment or other processes, or
alternately contaminate and release water that damages the local environment.

Although the history of tighter regulations on wastewater discharge can be traced back to
the US Government’s Clean Water Act of 1972, India and China have been leading the drive for
zero liquid discharge regulations in the last decade. Due to heavy contamination of numerous
important rivers by industrial wastewater, both countries have created regulations that require
zero liquid discharge. They identified that the best means to ensure safe water supplies for the
future is to protect rivers and lakes from pollution. In Europe and North America, the drive
towards zero liquid discharge has been pushed by high costs of wastewater disposal at inland
facilities. These costs are driven both by regulations that limit disposal options and factors
influencing the costs of disposal technologies. Tong and Elimelech suggested that, “as the
severe consequences of water pollution are increasingly recognized and attract more public
attention, stricter environmental regulations on wastewater discharge are expected, which will
push more high-polluting industries toward ZLD.”
Another important reason to consider zero liquid discharge is the potential for recovering
resources that are present in wastewater. Some organizations target ZLD for their waste
because they can sell the solids that are produced or reuse them as a part of their industrial
process. For example, lithium has been found in USA oil field brines at almost the same level as
South American salars. In another example, gypsum can be recovered from mine water and flue
gas desalinization (FGD) wastewater, which can then be sold to use in drywall manufacturing.

Regardless of an organization’s motivations to target zero liquid discharge, achieving it

demonstrates good economics, corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship. By
operating an in-house ZLD plant, disposal costs can be reduced, more water is re-used, and
fewer greenhouse gases are produced by off-site trucking, which minimizes impact on local
ecosystems and the climate.

5.3 ECONOMICAL BENEFITS OF ZLD SYSTEM WITH RESPECT TO

TRADITIONAL PROCESSES:

Based on a series of thermal processes the feed wastewater undergoes a

pretreatment step that reduces scaling potential, and is then concentrated sequentially by two
core elements a brine concentrator and a brine crystallizer (or an evaporation pond). The
distillates generated by the brine concentrator and crystallizer units are reused as clean product
water, whereas the solids produced are either stored (in evaporation ponds), further processed
for landfill disposal, or reused as valuable byproducts. Brine concentrators commonly use
mechanical vapor compression (MVC) for water evaporation. Although other thermal
desalination technologies, such as multieffect distillation (MED) and multistage flash (MSF),
have been extensively used in seawater desalination,40 their applications in ZLD systems have
not been reported in literature. In MVC, the feedwater is preheated by heat exchangers
utilizing the sensible heat from the distillate product water, and then mixed with the
recirculating brine slurry at the sump of the brine concentrator. The brine slurry is conveyed to
the top of the concentrator and flows down inside a bundle of heat transfer tubes. The flowing
brine forms a thin film on the internal tube surface where water evaporation occurs. Calcium
sulfate seeds are often added into the recirculating brine to provide preferential precipitation
sites, which keep precipitating salts in suspension and prevent scale formation on the heat
transfer tubes.11,41 The produced water vapor flows to the vapor compressor, which delivers
the compressed vapor to the external surface of the heat transfer tubes. The superheated
vapor condenses, transferring its latent heat to vaporize the falling brine slurry. The condensate
travels down the heat transfer tubes and is collected as distillate that preheats the incoming
feedwater before being reused. The formation of a falling thin film enhances the heat transfer
rate, thereby reducing the compression ratio and required energy of the compressor.42 The
use of energy recovery devices (e.g., heat exchangers) further decreases the energy
consumption. Even so, MVC brine concentrators are still very energy-intensive and require
high-grade electric energy. They typically consume 20−25 kWhe/m3 of treated feedwater,11,22
with higher values (up to 39 kWhe/m3 of feedwater) reported in the literature.43 As an
established technology that has been applied successfully in ZLD processes for decades,41 MVC
brine concentrators set a benchmark for energy comparison with other technologies, which
guides efforts to reduce energy consumption in ZLD. Further, brine concentrators are able to
reach salinity concentrations of 250 000 mg/L, with a water recovery of 90− 98%, and produce
high-quality product water (TDS < 10 mg/ L).20,22 However, capital costs of MVC are high due
to the use of expensive materials such as titanium and stainless steel, which are required to
prevent corrosion by the boiling brine.20,41 The concentrated brines produced by brine
concentrators are usually sent to a brine crystallizer where the remaining water is further
recovered. Similar to brine concentrators, vapor compressors are employed in crystallizers to
supply the heat needed for water evaporation. However, for small systems (less than 23 L/min),
steam-driven crystallizers are economically favorable.11,20 Vapor compressor crystallizers are
commonly operated in a forced-circulation mode. The viscous brine is pumped through
submerged heat exchanger tubes under pressure, thereby preventing boiling and subsequent
scaling inside the tubes.41 The energy consumption of crystallizers is as high as 52−66
kWhe/m3 of treated feedwater,11,22 which is nearly three times that consumed by MVC brine
concentrators. This dramatic energy increase is inevitable as crystallizers are treating feed
brines with much higher salinity and viscosity. Evaporation ponds can be used as competitive
alternatives to brine crystallizers. Evaporation ponds utilize natural solar energy and have a
lower operation cost.20,22 Nevertheless, they are only suitable when treating small volumes at
locations with a high evaporation rate and inexpensive land. Their high capital cost and
environmental concerns for potential leakage of hazardous waste further hinder widespread
application.22 In a hypothetic scenario of ZLD inland desalination in Las Vegas, Nevada,44 the
cost of land acquisition for evaporation ponds, not including the infrastructure, was estimated
to be nearly three times that of the total treatment cost by brine concentrators followed by
crystallizers. In addition, water evaporated from evaporation ponds cannot be collected and
reused, thereby making no contribution to improving water usage efficiency. Thermal ZLD with
RO Preconcentration. Despite their limitations, brine crystallizers or evaporation ponds are still
indispensable for ZLD processes. Therefore, the focus of ZLD technology has been on reducing
the volume of concentrated brine entering the brine crystallizers or evaporation ponds. RO, a
well-established, pressure-driven desalination technology with excellent energy efficiency
compared to thermal desalination, has been incorporated into ZLD operation to lower energy
consumption (Figure 2B). Unlike thermal processes, RO does not require product water to
undergo phase transition to achieve separation, thereby eliminating irreversible losses
associated with evaporation and condensation in thermal processes. The energy consumed by
the RO stage in seawater desalination at 50% recovery is as low as ∼2 kWhe/m3 of product
water,8 which is significantly lower than that by brine concentrators and crystallizers (Figure 3).
A smaller amount of energy is required when treating feedwater with lower salinity than
seawater (e.g., brackish water RO, BWRO).16 In addition, the modular nature of membrane-
based technologies provides further versatility in adapting RO into wastewater treatment
facilities. As a result, RO can be used to preconcentrate the feedwater prior to the more
energy-intensive thermal processes, increasing both energy and cost efficiencies of ZLD
systems. For example, Bond et al. reported that incorporating a secondary RO to treat RO
brines from inland desalination saved 58−75% of energy and 48−67% of treatment cost as
compared to using only a brine concentrator followed by an evaporation pond.19,21 Notably,
although the secondary RO largely reduced the volume of brine entering the brine
concentrator, the capital/ operation cost of the brine concentrator remained a major
contributor to the total treatment cost.21 However, application of RO in ZLD is constrained by
two inherent limitations: membrane fouling/scaling and a limited upper level of salinity that can
be treated. Membrane fouling/ scaling reduces water permeability and the lifespan of RO
membranes. This problem is particularly significant for ZLD, as the feedwater is concentrated
more substantially than conventional SWRO or BWRO. Therefore, extensive pretreatment, such
as chemical softening, pH adjustment, and ion exchange, is required in RO-incorporated ZLD
systems (Figure 2B). These pretreatment methods mostly involve intensive use of chemicals,
producing additional solid waste and increasing operation costs. Low-pressure membrane
filtration, like ultrafiltration (UF), also performs as effective RO pretreatment.45 Loganathan et
al. recently reported a pilot ZLD system which incorporated RO with UF pretreatment to treat
basal aquifer water with high fouling/scaling potential and an average TDS of 21 300 mg/L.46
UF pretreatment removed most of the total suspended solids and total iron, as well as nearly
50% of oil and grease present in the feedwater, thereby enabling the subsequent RO stage to
operate at high recovery rates prior to evaporation/crystallization.46 Altering the operating
conditions of RO can further reduce membrane fouling/scaling. For example, a proprietary
technology high-efficiency RO (HERO) achieves low fouling/

BEYOND THERMAL EVAPORATORS: EMERGING MEMBRANE-BASED ZLD TECHNOLOGIES Three

membrane-based processes ED, FO, and MD emerge as alternative ZLD technologies to brine
concentrators to further concentrate the wastewater after the RO stage. The produced brine
from these processes serves as a feed to the crystallizer or evaporation pond. A schematic
illustration of ZLD systems incorporating these technologies is shown in Figure 4. Their
advantages, limitations, and energy consumption, along with those of RO and MVC brine
concentrators, are summarized in Table 1. Some of these technologies (i.e., thermolytic FO and
MD) are hybrids of both thermal- and membrane-based processes. While the energy input to
these processes is thermal, membranes are the core separation components of these
technologies. Electrodialysis. ED applies an electric potential as the driving force to remove
dissolved ions through ion exchange membranes. In contrast to RO membranes that reject all
ions, ion exchange membranes selectively permit the transport of counterions but prevent the
passage of co-ions.50 As shown in Figure 4A, cations move toward the negatively charged
cathode by passing through cation-exchange membranes, whereas anions migrate in the
opposite direction through anion-exchange membranes. These concurrent processes generate
two stream salt-depleted diluate and concentrated brine. In a modified form of ED,
electrodialysis reversal (EDR), the polarity of the electrodes is reversed frequently for
minimizing fouling and scaling,20 thereby requiring much less pretreatment than RO.51 ED and
EDR also have a low scaling propensity for silicaenriched feedwaters (e.g., BWRO brines), as
neutral silica is not accumulated in the brine stream.20 Compared to RO, ED and EDR are able
to concentrate feed waters to higher salinity (>100 000 mg/L).5,52−54 When concentrating
brines to such high salinities, ED and EDR consume 7−15 kWhe/m3 of feedwater,52−55 which is
less than that required by MVC brine concentrators. Also, the total cost for equipment and
energy by ED was estimated to be lower than that of MVC.56 However, in contrast to the very
low TDS of water produced by brine concentrators and RO, the salinity of ED/ EDR effluent can
be much higher (e.g., TDS > 10 000 mg/L53), indicating a trade-off between the quality of the
desired product water and overall energy consumption and capital cost. For ED/EDR treating
concentrated feedwater in ZLD systems, low-salinity product water results in a large voltage
drop, high electric resistance, low current efficiency, and diluate loss, further increasing the
energy consumption.57,58 Furthermore, a decrease of diluate salinity reduces the limiting
current density, which increases the required membrane area and capital/operation cost.51 As
estimated by McGovern et al.,56 the cost of salt removal by ED is higher at lower diluate
salinities. As such, a stand-alone, single-stage ED/EDR system is not suitable for reaching ZLD in
most cases, since one of the benefits of ZLD is the production of usable water. A multistage
configuration is a feasible solution,56−58 but it increases the capital cost. As a partial
desalination process, ED/EDR has been applied in combination with RO in several ZLD systems.
Such systems achieved the dual function of extending the salinity limit of RO and reducing the
energy consumption relative to brine concentrators. For example, Oren et al. demonstrated a
pilot RO-EDR system for brackish water desalination with a water recovery of 97−98%.5 In that
system, EDR concentrated the RO brine to a salinity of 100 000−200 000 mg/L prior to a side-
loop crystallizer and wind-aided intensified evaporation. In another pilot study,53 EDR
effectively removed hardness to reduce the scaling potential of saline basal aquifer water,
thereby improving the subsequent RO recovery without chemical addition. The EDR brine could
reach a salinity of 125 000 mg/L and was further concentrated by a brine crystallizer to
approach ZLD. In both cases, the EDR effluent was further desalinated by RO or partially
blended with RO permeate to attain a desired product water quality.5,53 Forward
Osmosis.Unlike hydraulic pressure-driven RO, FO utilizes an osmotic pressure difference to
drive water permeation across a semipermeable membrane.59 In FO, water flows from the
feedwater to a concentrated draw solution with a higher osmotic pressure (Figure 4B). The
produced brine is sent to a brine crystallizer or an evaporation pond, whereas the draw solutes
are separated from the desalinated water to regenerate the concentrated draw solution. Since
the driving force in FO is osmotic pressure, FO can treat waters with much higher salinity than
RO. When using FO to concentrate feedwater beyond the salinity limit of RO, the osmotic
pressure of diluted draw solution will surpass the bearable pressure limit of RO. Hence, in this
case, draw solutes that depend on RO for regeneration (e.g., NaCl and MgSO4, 60) will not be
suitable. The development of thermolytic draw solutes, such as the ammonia−carbon dioxide
(NH3/CO2), paved the way for FOincorporated ZLD systems. The NH3/CO2 draw solution
generates very high osmotic pressure-driving forces and can be regenerated by low-
temperature distillation.61,62 A recent pilot study demonstrated the application of FO with
NH3/CO2 draw solution to concentrate produced water from the Marcellus shale region to an
average salinity of 180 000 mg/L.43 Because the thermolytic NH3/CO2 draw solution
decomposes at moderate temperature (approximately 60 °C at atmospheric pressure),61 low-
grade thermal energy, including industrial waste heat and geothermal energy, can be utilized to
regenerate the concentrated draw solution. A recent study estimated that U.S. power plants
produced 803 million GJ of waste heat at temperatures greater than 90 °C in 2012.63 This
amount of heat, if utilized to power the NH3/CO2 FO, could potentially produce a maximum of
1.9 billion m3 of water annually, which would meet the treatment demands for boiler water
makeup and FGD wastewater systems of all U.S. power plants.64 Also, geothermal energy is
abundantly available in major ZLD markets such as the U.S. and China.42,65,66 FO operates at
low pressure, resulting in foulant layers that are less compact and more reversible than in
hydraulic pressuredriven RO systems. Accordingly, FO has a much lower fouling propensity than
RO,59 which not only reduces the operation cost

for fouling control but also extends the applicability of ZLD to wastewaters with high fouling
potential. The thermolytic FO process can be used as a brine concentrator after the RO stage.
Compared to MVC brine concentrators, the NH3/CO2 FO can be competitive because a small
volume of the more volatile draw solutes (i.e., NH3 and CO2), instead of water, is vaporized to
regenerate the concentrated draw solution.43 Furthermore, the modularity of FO results in
smaller area footprint and also renders ZLD systems more adaptable to fluctuations in the flow
rate and quality of feedwater.67 Recently, the world’s first FO-based ZLD system was
constructed at the Changxing power plant in Zhejiang Province, China.26,67 The system treats a
mixture of FGD wastewater and cooling tower blowdown at 650 m3 /day. The feedwater is first
concentrated by RO to a concentration of ∼60 000 mg/L. The NH3/CO2 FO process is then used
as a brine concentrator to further concentrate the RO brine to above 220 000 mg/L TDS. As the
last step, the FO brine is fed to a crystallizer for further concentration, while a high-quality
product water (TDS < 100 mg/L after polishing by a secondary RO) is produced for reuse as
boiler makeup water.67 Membrane Distillation. MD is a thermal, membrane-based desalination
process, in which a partial vapor pressure difference drives water vapor across a hydrophobic,
microporous membrane.68 In MD, the feedwater is heated and the resultant temperature
difference between the hot feedwater (typically 60− 90 °C69,70) and colder permeate side
creates a vapor pressure difference to drive the water vapor flux (Figure 4C). The aqueous
permeate can be in direct contact with the membrane (direct contact membrane distillation,
DCMD). Alternatively, the water vapor can be collected on a condensation surface separated
from the membrane, such as in air gap membrane distillation (AGMD), vacuum membrane
distillation (VMD), or sweeping gas membrane distillation (SGMD).68,71−74 MD is more energy
intensive than RO and ED/EDR, because water separation by MD requires liquid−vapor phase
transition. The theoretical minimum energy of seawater desalination by single-pass DCMD with
heat recovery and a feed temperature at 60 °C is 27.6 MJ/m3 of product water,75 which is
much higher than that by RO with a typical recovery of 50% (3.8 MJ/m3 of product water).8 In
practical use, DCMD was estimated to consume 143−162 MJ (40−45 kWht ) per m3 of product
water for seawater desalination,76 and a comparable value of 80−240 MJ (22−67 kWht )/m3 of
product water was reported for AGMD.72 However, this thermal-based energy consumption
cannot be directly compared with the energy consumption of electricity-driven technologies
(RO, ED/EDR, and MVC brine concentrators), because the efficiency of electricity generation
from thermal energy varies with the quality (temperature) of the thermal energy. Compared to
MVC brine concentrators with well-designed energy recovery devices, efficient heat recovery
(e.g., use of heat exchangers75 or brine recycling77) is critical to improve the energy
competitiveness of MD. Similar to thermolytic FO, MD is beneficial due to its ability to treat
high salinity feed waters that cannot be desalinated by RO, and MD’s potential to leverage low-
grade thermal energy. When low-grade energy is available, MD achieves both cost saving and a
reduced carbon footprint relative to electricity-driven desalination technologies. Furthermore,
MD is modular, can operate at low pressure and temperature, and has low fouling
propensity.70,72,76,78 However, when volatile pollutants or surfactants are present in the
feedwater (e.g., in coal-to-chemical,79 brewery,80 and shale gas industries42), MD suffers from
membrane wetting and the passage of volatile compounds into the permeate, which
deteriorate product water quality and cause process downtime.42,70,81 The potential
application of MD in ZLD inland desalination has been demonstrated at the bench scale.82
When applying MD to further concentrate a secondary RO brine (with TDS of ∼17 500 mg/L), a
total water recovery of >98% was obtained for a brackish groundwater in California.82
Recently, a conceptual near-ZLD system incorporating MD with reverse electrodialysis (RED)
was shown to achieve both water and energy production in seawater desalination.83 In that
system, MD reduced the volume of simulated SWRO brine (1 M NaCl) by more than 80%. The
produced MD brine was then mixed with seawater in a RED stack to generate electrochemical
energy. To date, however, large-scale applications of MD are still hindered by its technical
immaturity and low single-pass, single-module water recovery.20,75 No pilot-scale applications
of MD in ZLD have been reported in the liter
 6.1 ZERO LIQUID DISCHARGE PROCESS

These are the basic Zero Liquid Discharge processes :

1. Conventional Thermal ZLD Technology :

The conventional ZLD is based on evaporation and crystallization operations

Evaporation (MVC or live steam) usually aims at  >90% water recovery

crystallization may achieve 100% recovery

solids can be further further dewatered dewatered on a filter‐press for landfill .

Latent heat of evaporation is partly recovered (especially, for MVC)

Operational and capital costs are still very high due to high energy consumption (20‐40 kWh/m3 vs. 2‐3
kWh/m3 in desalination), use of chemicals and expensive corrosion‐resistant materials.
2. MVC Evaporation (Falling Film):

3. Crystallization
4. Hybrid ZLD Technologies
Due to the high cost there is a strong motivation to employ more energy‐ saving process to minimize the
MVC/Crystallization share.

(Compare with costs of desalination technologies: RO << ED << Thermal.)

Reverse Osmosis* (RO) – rejects salt, passes water, 2‐4 kWh/m3

Nanofiltration* (NF) – similar to RO, but passes some salt

Electrodialysis* (ED) or ED reversal (EDR) – removes ion, costs intermediate to RO and MVC

Natural Evaporation – slow, large footprints

Another possible motivation is presence of organics, volatiles, colloids etc., which complicates the
treatment and water reuse. Available solutions:

Conventional bioremediation

MBR/UF pretreatment

5. ZLD Combined with RO

RO is presently the best and most energy‐saving available technology for desalting. The purpose is then
to use RO to recover as much water as possible before MVC. The ZLD cost drops as RO recovery recovery
increases increases.

The recovery in RO is however limited by 3 main factors

Osmotic Osmotic pressure pressure becomes becomes too high for TDS ~ 80,000 ppm

Scaling by sparingly soluble salts (Ca, Mg, SO4, PO4, silica), maybe alleviated to some degree using
anti‐scalants

Fouling (by organics organics, colloids colloids, biofilms biofilms etc )

6. ZLD Combined with ED

ED is not limited by osmotic pressure and thus it can achieve a much higher recovery.

Typically, ED desalting cost is higher than RO but lower than MVC/crystallization. The optimal
placement of ED is then between RO and evaporation evaporation.
Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) is an approach to water treatment where all water is recovered and
contaminants are removed as solid waste.
ZLD discharge system overview

ZLD technology includes pre-treatment and evaporation of the industrial effluent until the dissolved
solids precipitate as crystals. These crystals are removed and dewatered. The water vapor from
evaporation is condensed and returned to the process.

1. Pretreatment and conditioning. Pretreatment is used to remove simple things from the
wastewater stream that can be filtered or precipitated out, conditioning the water and
reducing the suspended solids and materials that would otherwise scale and/or foul
following treatment steps. Typically this treatment block consists of some type of
clarifier and/or a reactor to precipitate out metals, hardness, and silica. Out of this
process comes a liquid that is then filter-pressed into a solid, resulting in a solution
much lower in suspended solids and without the ability to scale up concentration
treatment.

2. Evaporation/crystallization. After the concentration step is complete, the next step is

generating a solid, which is done through thermal processes or evaporation, where you
evaporate all the water off, collect it, and reuse it. The leftover waste then goes from an
evaporator to a crystallizer, which continues to boil off all the water until all the
impurities in the water crystallize and are filtered out as a solid.

CONFIGURATION :

Normally the evaporation-crystallizing section receives the reject from a reverse osmosis section that
concentrates dissolved solids. To prevent fouling during the reverse osmosis
process, ultrafiltration is often used to eliminate suspended solids.

REVERSE OSMOSIS :

The RO train will capture the majority of dissolved solids that flow
through theprocess, but as mentioned in a prior article about common problems with ZLD, it's
important to flow only pretreated water through the RO system, as allowing untreated water to
go through the semipermeable membranes will foul them quickly.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a water purification technology that uses a semipermeable
membrane to remove ions, molecules and larger particles from drinking water. In
reverse osmosis, an applied pressure is used to overcome osmotic pressure,
a colligative property, that is driven by chemical potential differences of the solvent,
a thermodynamic parameter. Reverse osmosis can remove many types of dissolved
and suspended species from water, including bacteria, and is used in both industrial
processes and the production of potable water. The result is that the solute is retained
on the pressurized side of the membrane and the pure solvent is allowed to pass to the
other side. To be "selective", this membrane should not allow large molecules or ions
through the pores (holes), but should allow smaller components of the solution (such as
solvent molecules) to pass freely.
In the normal osmosis process, the solvent naturally moves from an area of low solute
concentration (high water potential), through a membrane, to an area of high solute
concentration (low water potential). The driving force for the movement of the solvent is
the reduction in the free energy of the system when the difference in solvent
concentration on either side of a membrane is reduced, generating osmotic pressure
due to the solvent moving into the more concentrated solution. Applying an external
pressure to reverse the natural flow of pure solvent, thus, is reverse osmosis. The
process is similar to other membrane technology applications. However, key differences
are found between reverse osmosis and filtration. The predominant removal mechanism
in membrane filtration is straining, or size exclusion, so the process can theoretically
achieve perfect efficiency regardless of parameters such as the solution's pressure and
concentration. Reverse osmosis also involves diffusion, making the process dependent
on pressure, flow rate, and other conditions. Reverse osmosis is most commonly known
for its use in drinking water purification from seawater, removing the salt and
other effluent materials from the water molecules.

ULTRAFILTRATION :

Ultrafiltration (UF) is a variety of membrane filtration in which forces

like pressure or concentration gradients lead to a separation through a semipermeable
membrane. Suspended solids and solutes of high molecular weight are retained in the
so-called retentate, while water and low molecular weight solutes pass through the
membrane in the permeate (filtrate). This separation process is used in industry and
research for purifying and concentrating macromolecular (10 3 - 106 Da) solutions,
especially protein solutions. Ultrafiltration is not fundamentally different
from microfiltration. Both of these separate based on size exclusion or particle capture.
It is fundamentally different from membrane gas separation, which separate based on
different amounts of absorption and different rates of diffusion. Ultrafiltration membranes
are defined by the molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) of the membrane used.
Ultrafiltration is applied in cross-flow or dead-end mode
7.1 PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES OF ZERO DISCHARGE ETP IN BANGLADESH :

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES IN BANGLADESH

Textiles industry contributes more than 80 percent to foreign earnings

Garment sector (5,150 factories), and dyeing and finishing sector (1,700 mills)

The textile dyeing and finishing sector is the most water intensive (i.e. 300 tons of water used for every
ton of textile dyed and finished)

Dyeing and finishing sector only meets 10 percent of the export-quality cloth requirements of the
garment industry

Steady growth ready-made garments sector will lead to growth of dyeing and finishing sector

WATER FOOTPRINT

The textile industry primarily draws groundwater for industrial use from the same aquifer that people
rely on for drinking water

The annual blue Water Footprint an Industrial Zone in Bangladesh :

RIVER POLLUTION AROUND DHAKA CITY

Industrial pollution accounts for 60 percent of pollution in the Dhaka watershed and the textile industry
is the second largest contributor (Islam et al, 2015 )
BUYERS’ REQUIREMENT

The top buyer, H & M is committed to improve water footprint and joined partnership for cleaner textile
(PaCT) in Bangladesh in 2012

PaCT has partnered with the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) Programme for
advocating zero discharge of hazardous chemicals into the environment including

Chemicals used in wet-processing, maintenance, waste water treatment, sanitation and pest control

11 priority Chemical Groups i.e., cleaners, solvents, adhesives, stabilizers, paints, inks, detergents, dyes,
pigments, auxiliaries, coatings and finishing agents

BANGLADESH LEGISLATION

The Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act (1995) and Rules (1997):

Textile Dyeing Industry is categorized as “Red Industries” Red Industries must have Effluent Treatment
Plant (ETP) Red Industries must treat and monitor the quality of their Wastewater
ETP AND ETP TECHNOLOGY IN BANGLADESH

Number of Effluent Treatment Plant(ETP) installed is 812 (as of May, 2014)

The Coverage of ETP in Bangladesh in 2014- 15 was 72 %

A combination of physico-chemical and biological units are most commonly used in textile dyeing
industries in Bangladesh
EXISTING ETP TECHNOLOGY

Typical existing coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation process (C-F-S) removes floating and settle able
matters, reduces color, turbidity and colloidal particles

Biological Treatment removes biodegradable organic matters such as organic carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorous.

Tertiary treatment removes residual suspended solid, dissolved solid and color.

ETP OPERATING COST

ETP OPERATING COST REDUCTION

Optimum Chemical Dosing : Jar Test for Optimum Dosing

Flow Segregation Option : Separate Highly Polluted from Less Polluted Effluent Streams from different
Stages of Dyeing

Treat Highly Polluted Effluent Streams by Physico-Chemical and then Biological Treatment

Treat Less Polluted Effluent Streams by Biological Treatment Only

ADVANCED ETP TECHNIQUES

Advanced coagulation treatment : Electro-coagulation: better removal of suspended solid, additional
power consumption

Advanced Biological Treatments : Membrane bioreactor (MBR): no need for settling tank; membrane
fouling

Moving bed biolfilm reactor (MBBR): compact unit, increased capacity; upstream fine screening, coarse
bubble aeration, limited degree of control

ZERO DISCHARGE

Currently, DoE is working on promoting ZeroDischarge policy among the industries

Zero discharge/Zero-liquid discharge (ZLD): wastewater is purified and recycled, leaving zero discharge
at the end of the treatment cycle including :

Reduction of BOD5 from 150 mg/l to less than 10 mg/l and Reduction of TDS from 2100 ppm to 200-
500ppm

ZERO DISCHARGE TECHNOLOGY

ZLD is an advanced wastewater treatment method at tertiary level and mostly carried out by the
following technology

reverse osmosis (20-50% of feed water rejection with high TDS 30,000 -50,000 mg/l)

evaporation/crystallization (TDS 400,000-600,000mg/l)

Other techniques : (R&D) Biological,Electro-dialysis,Electro-deionization.

CHALLENGES TOWARDS ACHIEVING ZLD

Operational cost: Implementation of ZLD increases costs of ETP operation 25 to 50% or more

Sensitive Pre-treatment and maintenance

ZLD plants produce solid waste

8.1 COSTING OF ZLD SYSTEM :

Cost Versus Benefit :

An example is Orlando Utilities Commission’s Stanton Energy Center in

Florida, which is sited on the ecologically fragile Floridan Aquifer. In addition to conserving
water, the ZLD plant also provides the utility with the operational flexibility — in terms of feed
water quality — needed to keep the area’s lights on.

According to Water and Wastewater International, the ZLD system uses four brine concentrator
evaporators and four crystallisers to treat blowdown from the cooling tower. It allows 95 to
98% of the wastewater to be reused as high-purity distilled water, which can be used in
industrial processes.

Although some may be concerned about the cost of ZLD, Jack Lyons, a project engineer with the
OUC, told Water World in 2015:

Pay now or pay later […] You have all types of options out there for water treatment. […] But if
you have a need for a high throughput, or extended operations, or high reliability, or great
operational flexibility, or confidence in your process, look at ZLD. No one is going to put in a ZLD
system and operate it for a year and shut it down […] the benefits justify the cost in the long
haul.

With increasing stewardship of environmental protection, both nationally and internationally,

many industrial facilities and effluent regulators are strengthening strategies to reduce
industrial process waste by implementing zero liquid discharge (ZLD), a process that limits
liquid waste at the end of your industrial process to—as the term suggests—zero.
A more recent example of how ZLD is being recommended for tightening effluent regulations is
the new mandates passed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for steam electric
power plants, with new rules for limiting harmful pollutants point to ZLD as the primary
solution for treating fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and flue gas mercury
control system wastewater.
It can be challenging to find a system for your facility that is both environmentally friendly and
cost effective, especially when more and more effluent regulations are tightening and
dwindling your discharge options.
If your facility’s goal is to eliminate discharging these pollutants that normally flow into deep
wells, streams, sewers to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and other waterways, ZLD
might be a good fit. Just keep in mind that, realistically, ZLD often only makes economic and
environmental sense when there are certain criteria. For example, if the facility is in an area
with no sewers and can’t, by regulation, discharge its waste to the environment, ZLD might be
beneficial, treating the water to eliminate liquid waste. Sometimes facilities want to recycle or
recover valuable materials in their wastewater. ZLD or near-ZLD technology can benefit facilities
like this, too.
If you are thinking your facility might require ZLD technology, you might also be wondering how
much does a ZLD treatment system cost and what are the factors that affect that cost? This
article breaks the answer to this question down for you below:

8.2 What’s included in a basic ZLD system?

The specific technologies that will make up a facility’s treatment system will vary greatly
depending on (1.) the volume of dissolved material present in the waste, (2.) the system’s
required flow rate, and (3.) what specific contaminants are present. The required technologies
will also affect the system’s cost.
Despite the possible variations that depend on your facilities wastewater characterization, a
ZLD system is generally a three-step process consisting of the following “blocks” of treatment:

3. Pretreatment and conditioning. Pretreatment is used to remove simple things from the
wastewater stream that can be filtered or precipitated out, conditioning the water and
reducing the suspended solids and materials that would otherwise scale and/or foul
following treatment steps. Typically this treatment block consists of some type of
clarifier and/or a reactor to precipitate out metals, hardness, and silica. Out of this
process comes a liquid that is then filter-pressed into a solid, resulting in a solution
much lower in suspended solids and without the ability to scale up concentration
treatment.
4. Phase-one concentration. Concentrating is usually done with membranes like reverse
osmosis (RO), brine concentrators, or electrodialysis. These technologies take this
stream and concentrate it down to a high salinity and pull out up to 60–80% of the
water.
5. Evaporation/crystallization. After the concentration step is complete, the next step is
generating a solid, which is done through thermal processes or evaporation, where you
evaporate all the water off, collect it, and reuse it. The leftover waste then goes from an
evaporator to a crystallizer, which continues to boil off all the water until all the
impurities in the water crystallize and are filtered out as a solid.
Again, the degree to which these steps are implemented in your specific ZLD system will vary
depending on your facility’s individual needs. It is important to have a thorough wastewater
treatability study done to be sure the contaminants present in your wastewater stream are
dealt with accordingly.
In short, the specific contaminants, volume of those contaminants, and required system flow
rate will all affect what technologies make up your ZLD system, and ultimately this will also
affect the cost of it. For example, if your plant runs consistently at a lower flow rate, you’re
usually looking at a lower capital cost for your ZLD treatment system. If your plant generally
runs a greater flow in a shorter amount of time, your capital cost is usually higher for
equipment.
Flow rates should always be factored into the ZLD treatment system cost, so be sure you
measure this as efficiently as possible prior to requesting a quote in order to get an accurate
cost estimate for your system. Sometimes inlet buffering tanks can be installed to minimize the
peaks in flow and concentration of contaminants.

Other important factors to consider when pricing a ZLD treatment system

 Up-front planning. Developing the concepts, designs, and regulatory requirements for
your project is the first step to planning your ZLD treatment system. The cost of
engineering for this type of project can typically run about 10–15% of the cost of the
entire project and is usually phased in over the course of the project, with most of your
investment being allocated to the facility’s general arrangement, mechanical, electrical,
and civil design.

 Space requirements. When planning for a ZLD treatment system, the size of your system
and your plant location will affect your cost. For example, if your plant is located in a
place that is very expensive when it comes to space, you might want to aim for a smaller
footprint, if possible.

 Installation rates. Another thing to keep in mind is the installation rates in your area.
These sometimes also fluctuate by location, so be sure you’re aware of the cost to
install the system and factor this into your budget. In areas where installation costs are
high you may want to consider prepackaged modules versus build-in-place facilities.

 Level of system automation needed. When it comes to the level of automation you
need for your ZLD treatment system, there are two options. The first is a higher level of
automation where you won’t need an operator present for much of the time. With type
of automation, you can eliminate much of the human error associated with running the
plant, and although this option is more costly up front (an initial investment in more
sophisticated PLC controls and instrumentation), the ongoing labor costs are less. The
 second option is a lower level of automation with less capital cost, but with added labor,
this can end up costing you more in the long run. When deciding whether or not to
invest in more costly controls, you need to consider what works for your company and
staffing availabilities.

 Turnkey and prepackaged systems. If you are able to order your ZLD treatment system
prepackaged, this will typically save you construction time at about the same cost or
less. A benefit to having your system prepackaged is that the production facilities and
fabrication shops that assemble your system are, more often than not, highly
knowledgeable about the type of system they are manufacturing. This results in a quick
and efficient fabrication versus build-in-place facilities. Sometimes when you hire a field
crew, there is a bit of a learning curve that can add extra time and/or cost to a project.
SAMCO specializes in these types of turnkey, prepackaged systems, and for more
information about what we offer, you can visit our website here. Installation costs will
vary, but typically range between 15–40% of the project cost, depending on the specifics
of prepackaging and amount of site civil work needed.

 Shipping the system to your plant. When having your ZLD treatment system shipped to
the plant, you usually want to factor in about 5–10% of the cost of the equipment for
freight. This can vary widely depending upon the time of year you are purchasing your
system in addition to where your plant is located in relation to the manufacturing
facility. When you are looking to purchase your system, check with your manufacturer
to see if there is a facility where the system can be constructed closer to you, if not on-
site.

 Operation costs. Also keep in mind that particular technology packages cost a certain
amount to purchase up front, but you need to also factor in system operating costs over
time. For decisions like these, you need to weigh the pros and cons of initial versus long-
term cost investment in addition to what works for your company and staff. You will
likely want to look into having someone develop an operating cost analysis so your
company can plan ahead for the operating cost over your wastewater treatment plant’s
life cycle. This might help you consider whether or not you want to spend more on your
system initially or over time. With ZLD systems, operational cost review is critical,
especially for electrical power and steam-generating facilities. The cost of operations
can change drastically based on the type of evaporator selected.

 Other possible costs and fees. When purchasing a ZLD wastewater treatment system,
you might also want to keep in mind what other hidden costs and fees might be. For
example: Will there be any taxes on the system or additional purchasing fees? What are
your possible utility costs to the installation area? Will there be any environmental
regulatory fees and/or permits? Any ongoing analytical compliance testing you need to
pay for?
Also consider that there will be costs to treating the secondary waste produced by the system.
With stringent environmental regulations, you will need to either treat the waste for hauling
away or solidify with a filter press/evaporator and transport to third party disposal firm. You
can learn more about SAMCO’s ZLD wastewater treatment systems on our website here.
Also be sure to ask your system manufacturer about options that might be cheaper to install.
They might be able to shed some light on the more installation-friendly systems with
suggestions on how to keep your costs to a minimum.

The bottom line

When it comes to treating your wastewater for ZLD, even though the treatment option and
costs can be complex, all in all, you are looking at a system that can run upwards of $25 to $50
million at a flow rate of one to three thousand gallons per minute when you factor in all the
needed equipment, engineering, design, installation, and startup. Smaller systems that run
about one to 20 gallons per minute can cost between $250,000 to over $2 million.
The pretreatment is fairly inexpensive and is fairly similar to primary wastewater treatment.
The membrane processes are a little more expensive, but they’re similar to the membrane
processes used in water treatment and purification treatment. They are a bit more expensive
because they are concentrating waste to yield higher recovery rates. The biggest expense will
be on the evaporative and crystallization section. (On overall equipment cost, about 60–70% of
the cost will go to evaporation/crystallization block. 30–40% on front-end pretreatment and
RO. The bigger the system gets, the more these numbers will fluctuate.)
How to calculate cost of ZLD
WHERE CAN I USE ZLD TREATED WATER?

By using wastewater after Zero Liquid Discharge wastewater treatment plant as a resource
rather than a waste product I can

Irrigate the garden during drought or water restrictions,

Can use the treated water in boilers to generate steam,

We can use it in different sort of industries where water is in scarcity,

For washing purpose in various sector

For cooling purpose in heat exchanger

For pulp and paper manufacturing process

In pharmaceuticals treated water is heavily in need

ROLE OF RIVER IN ZLD PROCESS

CONCLUSION :
Bangladesh economy has been targeting a middle-income status by 2021, and for
such development to occur, a sustainable development is required.

The garments industry of Bangladesh is the largest manufacturing and export sector in
Bangladesh with a 6.04% contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This sector
employs around 4.4 million workers of whom 80% are women. Due to the enormous nature of
the industry, environmental aspects are highly looked at in this industry, mainly resource
consumption and environmental degradation. The WDF (washing/dyeing, finishing) process
uses a bulk about of water, as much as 300 L/kg of fabric produced. Energy loss related to water
consumption is also a major area of concern. Resource consumption is a major aspect as
resource efficiency in terms of energy and water must be looked after, and the entire process
must use resources in such a way that overuse is not done (BKMEA, 2016). Secondly,
environmental degradation is a big aspect as proper disposal of solid and liquid waste are not
done as some garments expel wastewater in nearby water bodies. The WDF facilities require
usage of an effluent treatment plant, of which some are not in use and the water is expelled
untested. Machinery contributes to negative air quality with the aid of greenhouse gases and
volatile organic chemicals, which cause degradation to the air. Due to the size of the sector and
its contribution to environmental degradation, this sector must look after its environmental
aspects if the sustainability of the country is to be maintained.

By using ZERO LIQUID DISCHARGE process we can reduce water bills,use fewer water
resources,irrigate the garden during drought or water restrictions,cut down the amount of
pollution going into waterways,help save money on new infrastructure for water supplies and
wastewater treatment,decrease demand on infrastructure for sewage transport,treatment and
disposal allowing it to work better and last longer.

Our neighbouring country has adopted zero liquid treatment process long ago.It has been made
mandatory for tamilnadu textile industries to adopt this processs by Government,

We should also start using this treatment process as soon as possible.otherwise it will act as an
impediment to our future development which is just at the horizon.