4.1 Article

Case studies on biological treatment of tannery effluents in India

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Volume 53, Issue 8, Pages 976-982

Publisher

AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOC
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2003.10466250

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a comparative assessment of the cost and quality of treatment of tannery wastewater in India by two common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) constructed for two tannery clusters, at Jajmau (Kanpur) and at Unnao in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. The Jajmau plant is upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process-based, while the Unnao plant is activated sludge process (ASP)-based. Investigations indicated that the ASP-based plant was superior in all respects. Total annualized costs, including capital and operation and maintenance costs, for the UASB and ASP plants were Rs. 4.24 million/million liters per day (MLD) and Rs. 3.36 million/MLD, respectively. Land requirements for the two CETPs were 1.4 hectares/MLD and 0.95 hectares/MLD, respectively. Moreover, the treated UASB effluent had higher biochemical and chemical oxygen demand (BOD/COD) and considerable amounts of other undesirable constituents, like chromium (Cr) and sulfide, as compared with the ASP effluent, which had lower BOD/COD and negligible concentration of sulfide and Cr. Sludge production from the UASB-based plant was also higher at 1.4 t/day/MLD, in comparison to the sludge production of 0.8 t/day/MLD for the ASP-based plant. Also, the entire sludge produced in the UASB-based plant was Cr-contaminated and, hence, hazardous, while only a small fraction of the sludge produced in the ASP-based plant was similarly contaminated. The results of this study are at variance with the conventional wisdom of the superiority of anaerobic processes for tannery wastewater treatment in tropical developing countries like India.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available