JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
-
Upload
abhinav-ajmani -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
-
7/28/2019 JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
1/5
Journal of Environmental Researh And Development Vol. 1 No. 2, Oct.-December 2006
124
COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT- A BLESSING
FOR SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES AT
SACHIN INDUSTRIAL AREA, SURAT (INDIA)
D. J. Naik, K.K. Desai1, R. T. Vashi*2 and K.C.Desai3
1. Department of Chemistry, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat (India)
2. Department of Chemistry, Navyug Science College, Surat (India)3. Department of Chemistry, P. T. Science College, Surat (India)
Received April 15, 2006 Accepted October 15, 2006
ABSTRACT
Many dyestuff and dye intermediates manufacturing industries are small scale and
they cannot afford to the treat their effluents individually so they set up CETP.
Waste water discharging from dyeing house and dye manufacturing unit contain
higher amounts of BOD, COD,TDS and SS which is objectionable to the public for health
reason. Treated waste water from CETP reduces the mean level of BOD, more than 93% and
COD reduction was 90%, reduction of TDS and SS was 45 and 30% respectively. Mean
reduction of phenolic compound, nickel, oil and grease up to 50%, which is below the GPCB
permissible limit.
In this paper, the crucial role played by CETP for industrial wastewater from dyeing
industries situated at Sachin in South Gujarat is taken as a case study. Further, it is emphasized
that CETP can help industrial estates towards its sustenance and development.
Key Words : CETP, Dyes industries, Effluents, Phenolic compound Waste Water.
INTRODUCTION
India is among one of the major
producers of dyes and dyes intermediate from
Asian region and can meet the requirement of
the world at large. Dye is a major industry,
which contributes water pollution by discharging
large volume of coloured and toxic effluent.
These waste water are dumped into different
water bodies and spoil the aquatic life and
aesthetic value of the receiving water bodies.1
Dyes effluent contains heavy load of pollutants
*Author for correspence
like colour, high SS, TDS, BOD, COD and
some of them are carcinogenic and mutagenic.2
Industrial wastes primarily contain
chromium in the hexavalent form, as chromate
and dichromate. Hexavalent chromium is used
in the manufacture of inks ,industrial dyes and
paint pigments . Hexavalent chromium at
10 mg/kg of body weight will result in liver
necrosis, nephritis and ultimately death in
humanbeings.3Most of dyeing industries are
in small scale sector, existing in clusters and
-
7/28/2019 JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
2/5
Journal of Environmental Researh And Development Vol. 1 No. 2, Oct.-December 2006
125
not having enough land and financial capability
for setup their own Common Effluent
Treatment Plant (CETP). As an integrated
approach, a group of about 30 dye
manufacturing industries waste treatment to setup CETP and it was in operation since 2001.
G.L. Rao4 studied the role of CETP at
Jeedi melta industrial estate in Andhra Pradesh
and S.Rajmani et al.5 studied the CETP for a
group of 14 tanneries in Bangalore and
considered CETP as appropriate and viable in
technical, environmental, social and commercial
angle. Based on preceding data, design of the
CETP was finalized. It was observed that the
combined wastewater had high COD, BOD,
TDS, ammonical nitrogen and chloride. Effluent
was found highly acidic, so it was decided that
the CETP will receive effluent from each
industry after it is neutralized. CETP has no
tertiary treatment plant, at present.
The dyes manufacturing units situated
in Sachin industrial area have an average
production capacity of about 4 metric tonnes/
month depending on their size. The quantity of
water consumed by dyes manufacturing units
ranges from 5,000 to 30,000 L/day depending
upon their production capacity. The source of
inlet water is either the bore-well or GIDCwater supply. The quantity of wastewater
generated from these industries ranges from
2,000 to 18,000 L/day.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In the present study, ten dyes and dye
intermediates manufacturing industries were
selected for the collection of their primary
treated effluent samples. For each unit, the
pr ima ry trea ted effluent sa mples wer e
collected from tankers coming to CETP, six
times within a span of one year i. e., betweenDecember 2001 to December 2002. Water
samples of untreated and treated water from
CETP were also collected at the same time
for analysis.
The effluent water samples were
collected one litre of previously rinsed with
double distilled water polythene bottles. The
samples were analysed according to the
procedure mentioned for standard methods.6
Every time three samples were taken fromequilization tank and their analysis was also
done. Average of three analysis is reported in
Table-1. Five samples of water, treated in
CETP were taken every month and analysed.
Average results of these five analysis are given
in Table-1.
To study the characterization of primary
treatment water from each unit from
equalization tank and treated waste water from
CETP different parameters like pH, COD
(Chemical Oxygen Demand), BOD (Bio-
chemical Oxygen Demand), SS (SuspendedSolid), TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), chlorides,
phenolic compound, Ammonical nitrogen,
Hexavalent chromium, Nickel as well as oil and
grease etc. are taken. In the present study
soluble hexavalent chromium is determined
spectrophometrically by complexing with
diphenyl carbazide. Take an aliquot of the acid
digested sample and filter if necessary. Add
ammonium hydroxide or dilute sulfuric acid to
make the solution neutral and dilute it to
100 ml and add 2 ml of diphenyl carbazide
solution , mix and allow to stand for 10 minutes
for full colour development .Mesuare the
absorbance at 540 nm. Prepare a calibration
curve using standard chromium (VI) solution.6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the field inventory, dyeing
processes adopted by the ten dyeing industries,
water usage and wastewater discharge pattern,
characterization of wastewater, regulations of
GPCB etc., the following design components
for CETP were adopted as shown in Table-2and the flow diagram of the CETP is presented
in Fig. 1. The evaluation of the performance of
all the units in the treatment plant is carried out
regularly and the plant performance data is
given in Table-2.
-
7/28/2019 JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
3/5
Journal of Environmental Researh And Development Vol. 1 No. 2, Oct.-December 2006
126
Table 1. Mean Values of Wastewater Characteristics at Different Stages ofTreatment in CETP
Sr. Parameter Industrial Waste water Treated Permissible
No. wastewater from waste water limit of after primary Equalization GPCB
treatment tank Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1. PH 6.9 8.2 7.2 7.9 7.1 7.5 6.5-8.5
2. COD 2705 889 2935 232 262 15 250
(247-284)
3. BOD (3 days 857 285 896 84 56 4 100
at 27 C) (51-62)
4. Suspended Solids 119 25 122 17 84 15 100
(68-100)
5. Total Dissolved 11,4813320 9562 1426 6268 319 2100
Solids (5890-6840)
6. Chlorides as Cl 3911 2182 6433 606 5567 388 1000
(5100-6200)
7. Phenolic 1.50 1.01 1.58 0.36 0.30 0.07 1
Compound (0.18-0.40)
8. Ammonical 26 10 27 5 13 2 50
Nitrogen as N (10-16)
9. Hexavalent 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.1
Chromium (0.04-0.08)
10. Nickel 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.27 0.13 0.02 1
(0.11-0.16)
11. Oil and Grease 5.58 2.94 8.03 1.22 2.70 0.41 10
(2.2-3.4)
Value in parenthesis gives range
All values except pH are expressed as mg/l
S. D. = Standard deviation
Table 2. Design criteria Adopted for CETP
Sr. No. Name of Unit Number Capacity in liters
1. Collection tank 2 6,75,000
2. Lime dosing tank 2 5,000
3. Ferrous Sulphate tank 2 5,000
4. Polyelectrolyte dosing tank 2 5,000
5. Flocculating chamber 1 36,000
6. Primary clarifier 1 1,00,000
7. Aeration tank 2 11,00,000
8. Secondary clarifier 1 1,00,000
9. Treated water tank 2 62,500
-
7/28/2019 JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
4/5
Journal of Environmental Researh And Development Vol. 1 No. 2, Oct.-December 2006
127
1. pH of primary treated waste water (6.9-
8.2) from equalization tank ( 7.2 7.9)
and treated waste water (7.1 7.5) from
CETP was fall within the GPCB limit of
6.5 to 8.5.2. Mean COD value of treated water from
CETP is 262 mg/l (in a range of 247 to
284 mg/l), which is almost in agreement
with GPCB limit of 250 mg/l.
3. The mean value of BOD is 56 mg/l for
treated water (in the range of 51 to 62
mg/l), which is below the GPCB
permissible limit of 100 mg/l.
4. Mean value of SS is 84 mg/l (with a
range of 68 to 108 mg/l), which is below
the GPCB permissible limit of 100 mg/l.
5. Mean value of ammonical nitrogen is 13
mg/l (with a range of 10 to 16 mg/l),
which is below the GPCB limit of 50 mgl.
6. Mean value of phenolic compound is
0.30 mg/l (with a range of 0.18 to 0.40
mg/l), which is below the GPCB
permissible limit of 1 mg/l.
7. Mean value of Hexavalent chromium
(0.06 mg/l) and Nickel (0.13 mg/.) are
below the permissible limit of GPCB.
8. Mean value of oil and grease content of
treated wastewater is 2.7 mg/l with a
range of 2.2 to 3.4 mg/l, which is below
the GPCB permissible limit of 10 mg/l.
9. Mean value of TDS is 6268 mg/l and
chloride is 5567 mg/l, which are muchhigher than the GPCB permissible limit
of 2100 and 1000 mg/l for TDS and
chloride respectively. This is due to very
high TDS of borewell water, which is
used by most of the industries.
CONCLUSION
Treated waste water from CETP
reduces the mean level of BOD, more than
93% and COD reduction was 90%, reduction
of TDS and SS was 45 and 30% respectively.
Mean reduction of phenolic compound, nickel,oil and grease up to 50%.Thus it is seen that
CETP is quite effective in treating the effluent
water of about 30 industries combined and the
quality of effluent water meets the requirement
of GPCB and can be safely discharged in
sewage. If every industry sets up its own plant
for effluent treatment was much more costly.
The recurring cost of CETP and workload of
GPCB monitoring the effluent water quality is
also sufficiently reduced.
Fig. 1. Flow Diagram of CETP.
-
7/28/2019 JeradDLId0124vol001issue002.pdf
5/5
Journal of Environmental Researh And Development Vol. 1 No. 2, Oct.-December 2006
128
Acknowledgement: The authors are
thankful to CETP ,Sachin and Department of
Chemistry, Veer Narmad South Gujarat
University,Surat for providing laboratory
facilities.REFERENCES
1. Burangey A. S. and Sharma V., Dye
industry effluent. Environ. Update, 4, 23-
24 (1997).
2. Khanna S. K. and Das M. J. Sci. Ind.
Res., 50, 965-974 (1991).
3. Sarkar S. and Gupta G.,Indian J. Environ
Hlth, 45(1),73-82 (2003).
4. Standard Methods for Examination of
water and waste water, APHA, AWWA,
WPCF, U. S. A., 20th
Ed. (1998).5. Rao K.L., Journal IAEM, 32,23-27
(2005).
6. Rajamani S., Suthathrarajan R.,
Ravindranath E. and Baghavan,
K.V., Jo ur na l IA EM, 22 ,175-178
(1995).
INVITATION TO AUTHORS
The Journal of Environmental Research And Development is an
International Quarterly Interdisciplinary official Journal of Natural Sciences,
Technology and Social Sciences for Environment. It covers Life Sciences, Bio-
Technology, Information Technology, Earth Sciences, Atmospheric and Ocean
Sciences, Chemical Sciences, Physical Sciences and Mathematics, Agricultural
Sciences, Food Sciences Pharmaceuticals, Civil Engineering, Environmental
Engineering, Management, Environment protection and Law.
Also, efforts in Sociology, Political Science, Psychology, Drawing, Music,
History, Geography, Home Science, Philosophy, Economics, Commerce and
Literature (English, Sanskrit and Hindi) concern with Environment.
Therefore, we invite you to contribute for the following types of publications :
(1) Full length research papers
(2) Short communications
(3) Review articles
(4) Recently launched Industrial products affecting Environment
(5) Awards, prizes, and scholarships of international or national repute
related with Environment
(6) Seminars, conferences and news etc. on environmental issue.
(7) Articles concern with environment protection and law.
You are also requested to become member of the Journal.