Filtration Treatment of Dairy Processing Wastewater

Abstract

The effectiveness of various filtration agents in the primary treatment of dairy processing wastewater was investigated in laboratory-scale studies. The filtration agents used were: zeolite, crushed coral, charcoal, sand and crushed coral and sand and glass beads. The effectiveness of the filtration media was determined by testing parameters such as chemical oxygen demand (COD), total solids (TS) and total suspended solids (TSS) before and after filtration of wastewater. Percent reduction of the different parameters as a result of filtration was calculated. Sand combined with crushed coral or glass beads was found to be the most effective filtering medium with an average reduction of 99% in TSS, 93% in COD and 51% in TS. Charcoal filtration resulted in an average 85% reduction in TSS, 83% reduction in COD and 46% reduction in TS. Filtration using crushed coral resulted in an average 83% reduction in TSS, 78% reduction in COD and 39% reduction in TS. Zeolite was the least effective of the four media; it resulted in an average reduction of 78% in TSS, 76% in COD and 30% in TS. The differences among mean values of COD, TSS and TS after the different treatments were analyzed statistically using analysis of variance (ANOVA). When differences among means were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.0001), each mean value was compared with every other mean value using Duncan's multiple range test and least significant difference (LSD) test. Comparison of the mean values indicated the following: No significant difference between means of zeolite and crushed coral treatment. Mean values of COD, TSS, and TS of charcoal treatment were significantly different from the other treatments. Sand combined with crushed coral or glass beads was the most effective filtration agent and the means were significantly different from the means of the other treatments.

Zeolite as a Potential Medium for Ammonium Recovery and Second Cheese Whey Treatment

“…Nevertheless, the decrease in COD removal does indicate partial zeolite saturation. The ability of zeolites to absorb organic matter has been previously reported in various studies [17,18,39]. Kolakovic et al [17] reported that COD reduction from dairy wastewater using organozeolite and a filter column ranged from 30% to 50% when a mean initial COD concentration of 2676 mg/L was applied.…”

“…Nevertheless, the exact mechanism of COD removal was not examined by Kolakovic et al [17] and was attributed to the zeolite's ability to absorb both organic and inorganic substances. Samkutty and Gough [18] reported higher COD removal (76%) when applying dairy processing wastewater with low initial COD concentrations (between 713 and 1410 mg/L), however provided no data on the zeolite used. High COD removal (71.8%) was also recorded by Guo et al [48], however this research studied the treatment of swine wastewater using a composite of MgO-modified zeolite and a bioflocculant rather than a natural zeolite.…”

“…Wastewaters originating from cheese manufacturing industries, such as cheese whey (CW), second cheese whey (SCW), and washing waters, are of high-strength as they contain significant [14] Simulated swine wastewater Chemical modification with NaCl Ammonium 40%-95% [15] Dairy farm wastewater treated in constructed wetlands Natural Phosphorus Ammonium 86%-99% 88%-99% [16] Dairy industry wastewater Organo-zeolites COD Nitrate nitrogen Phosphate 50% 70% 20% [17] Dairy processing waters Natural COD 76% [18] Aqueous solution/carcass leachates Naturaland Mg 2+ modified Ammonium 8.173 mg/g 7.759 mg/g [19] Municipal wastewater Natural Ammonium 5.03 mg/g 75.6% [20] Aqueous solution Modified with fly ash Ammonium 41.73%-45.25% [21] Review of acid mine drainage urban runofflandfill leachate Natural/synthetic Heavy metals Zn (30%-95%)/Cu (33%-100%) Cd (54%-99%)/Cu (31%-90%)/Zn (81.892%)/Ammonium 78% Ammonium (over 50%)/Pb (71%)/Cd (74%) [22] Aqueous solution Natural Ammonium 22.90 mg/g [23] Aqueous solution Modified by microwave and sodium acetate Ammonium 92.90% [24] [25] Municipal wastewater Natural Modified (Z-Fe) Phosphate (single) Ammonium (single) Phosphate (single) Ammonium (single) 0.6 mg/g 33 mg/g 3.4 mg/g 27 mg/g [26] Aqueous solution Natural Modified with potassium permanganate Ammonium 5.85 mg/g 3.68 mg/g [27] Aqueous solution Modified with lanthanum oxide Phosphorus Ammonium 8.96 21.2 mg/g [28] Aqueous solution Natural Ammonium 67.4%-81.1% [29] Simulated reclaimed wastewater Modified with NaCl Ammonia, nitrogen Phosphorus 98.46% 99.8% [30] Aqueous solution Natural Ammonium 75%-95.3% [31] Aqueous solution Natural (eight different types) Ammonium 15.7%-32.4% [32] Municipal wastewater Natural Phosphorus Ammonium 46%-100% 70% [33] Aqueous solution Natural Modified Phosphate 0.28-1.82 mg/g 1.31-1.97 mg/g [34] Aqueous solution Natural Phosphate Up to 26.48 mg/g [35] Aqueous solution Modified with nanosized particles of magnetite Arsenate Up to 5.2 mg/g [36] Post-treated municipal wastewater Natural Ammonium 23 ± 0.8 mg/g [37] Aqueous solution Modified with cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) Hexavalent chromium 5.8 mg/g [38] Simulated municipal wastewater (vertical flow constructed wetlands) Natural Ammonium >90%…”

“…High phosphorus and ammonium removal levels were achieved, of between 86%-99% and 88%-99%, respectively. Filtration treatment of dairy wastewater using natural zeolite was studied by Samkutty and Gough [18]. Their results showed that zeolite was the least effective medium (presenting only 30% COD removal) compared to crushed coral, charcoal, sand with crushed coral, and sand with glass beads (78%, 83%, 93%, 93%, respectively).…”

A two-stage decentralised system combining high rate activated sludge (HRAS) with alternating charcoal filters (ACF) for treating small community sewage to reusable standards for agriculture

“…Charcoal is such a material and it is ubiquitously available in Uganda. The use of charcoal for wastewater treatment has been widely studied (Abe et al, 1993;Samkutty and Gough, 2002;Scholz and Xu, 2002;Ochieng et al, 2004;Sirianuntapiboon et al, 2007;Nkwonta et al, 2010;Ahamad and Jawed, 2011). Its performance compared well with other media like gravel, sand rocks and zeolite, however, attaining its continued use is still a challenge.…”