Various technological methods are available for industrial wastewater treatment; from conventional to advanced treatment processes. Hence, it is a difficult task to select the most appropriate technology to treat industrial wastewater at a particular location. Many factors are involved in the decision‐making process, including capital, operation, and maintenance costs, as well as land requirement. The present work reports the results of the application of multiple‐attribute decision‐making (MADM) tool to industrial wastewater treatment plants operated under a hybrid aerobic/anaerobic biological process. At the first step, nine industrial wastewater treatment plants were evaluated and ranked by eight criteria using the Vikor method. Among the selected criteria, land requirements, energy consumption, and excess sludge production had the most pronounced effect on the decision‐making process. The results also indicated that the integration of upflow anaerobic fixed bed with intergraded fixed‐film activated sludge process could be used as the most appropriate treatment technology with a Vikor index of one. The result can provide wastewater treatment professionals and water agencies with an effective tool to choose the most appropriate hybrid process for industrial wastewater treatment plants. © 2019 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 38:e13146, 2019

No abstract

In this study, the energy consumption of Nasirabad Industrial Park (NIP) treatment plant was evaluated. A combination of up-flow anaerobic baffled reactor (UABR) and aerobic integrated fixedbed activated sludge (IFAS) processes were employed in NIP. To find out the average electrical energy use per m 3 influent wastewater, the rate of energy usage of the plant was calculated by data derived from the monthly utility bills in 2013 and 2014. The energy consumption was estimated to be 10.4 and 10.7 kWh.day -1 .m -3 in 2013 and 2014, respectively. In addition, the electrical energy consumption of different electromechanical equipment of the plant was separately assessed. The average daily electrical energy consumed by treatment processes (effective energy) in both 2013 and 2014 was estimated at 7.2 kWh.day -1 .m -3 , while the average energy consumption by other parts of the treatment plant (ineffective energy) was 3.2 and 3.5 kWh.day -1 .m -3 in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The rate of electrical energy usage per kg COD removal was found to be 4.9 and 5.1 kWh.day -1 in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Finally, it was inferred that energy use in NIP was not being managed in a suitable manor. Given the significance of energy, price risings, and the decline of resources by which energy is generated, it is imperative to take effective managerial actions to reduce electrical energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants. Also, the designers of water and wastewater treatment plants should consider less energy-intensive processes to improve their energy efficiency.

Currently, the efficiency improvement of industrial wastewater treatment plant (IWWTP) has turned into a noticeable challenge for plants operator. In addition, decreasing in the cost and energy consumption of wastewater treatment plants has attracted great interest by water agencies and IWWTP management. Since IWWTPs are energy-intensive facilities, the need for cost-efficient and reliable treatment processes has significantly increased so as to meet the standards of environmental regulations and national goals. Determination of energy efficiency of IWWTPs is a starting point for any energy-saving initiative. In this paper, a case study was carried out in 79 WWTPs in Iran's industrial zones to identify electrical energy efficiency indices (EEI). In order to achieve a reliable result, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was applied by Lingo11 software. The electrical energy efficiency index was estimated by regression equations for plants with different level of treatment (ready to discharge to the river, irrigation of green spaces, and agriculture) using Minitab17 software. The obtained results showed that only 1% of the treatment plants have high energy efficiency index (0.8