4.7 Article

Laundry wastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane filtration

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 185-196

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.11.002

Keywords

laundry wastewater; chemical analyses; coagulation; membrane filtration; pilot plant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the results obtained from laundry wastewater treatment using conventional methods namely precipitation/coagulation and the flocculation process with adsorption on granular-activated carbon (GAC) and an alternative method, membrane filtrations, namely ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO). Chemical analyses showed that parameter values of untreated wastewater like temperature, pH, sediment substances, total nitrogen and phosphorous, COD, BOD5, and the amount of anion surfactants had been exceeded in regard to Slovenian regulation. These regulations can be used as requirements for wastewater reuse and make treated wastewater an available source for the existing water supply. The study of conventional treatment was based on a flocculation with Al-2(SO4)(3)center dot 18H(2)O and adsorption on GAC. Membrane filtrations were studied on a pilot wastewater treatment plant: ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO) units. The membranes used in this experiment were ceramic UF membrane and spiral wounded - polyethersulfone - RO membranes. The quality of the wastewater was improved by both methods and the specifications of a concentration limit for emission into water were confirmed. The disadvantage of GAC is that there is no possibility of any kind of selection, which is essential for recycling and re-use, while permeate coming from RO met the required regulation as well as requirements for reusing in washing process. However, the economical analyses showed that the membrane filtrations are more expensive compared to the GAC treatment process. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available