Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of SBRP and BRP at various process conditions for the removal of pollutants from dairy effluent: optimization and kinetic studies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research describes the impact of hydraulic retention time (HRT) and bacterial mass concentration (MLSS) in sequencing batch reactor process (SBRP) and batch reactor process (BRP) for the removal of pollutants from the dairy wastewater. The operational conditions used were variable volume exchange ratio up to 75%, hydraulic retention time (4–8 h), and initial MLSS concentration up to 5150 mg/L. It was found that the SBRP increased the removal efficiencies of biological oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS). The higher percent removals of BOD, COD, TP, TN, and SS were obtained in the bacterial mass concentration (MLSS) of 2100 mg/L which were in the order of 88, 96, 82, 92, and 75% for SBRP and were in the order of 84, 93, 70, 91, and 70% for BRP, respectively. The optimum level of MLSS was found to be 2100 mg/L at the retention time of 6 h for both SBRP and BRP. Compared to the conventional process, the SBR reduced the aeration step and achieved higher removal efficiency. Moreover, it reduced the excess sludge by about 25%. Interestingly, the results revealed that lower MLSS brought about better removal efficiencies for both SBRP and BRP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Gantner V, Mijić P, Baban M, Skrtic Z, Turalija A (2015) The overall and fat composition of milk of various species. Mljekarstvo 65(4):223–231. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2015.0401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Omil F, Garrido J, Arroj B, Mendez R (2003) Anaerobic filter reactor performance for the treatment of complex dairy wastewater at industrial scale. Water Res 37(17):4099–4108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00346-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Birwal P, Deshmukh G, Priyanka, Saurabh SP (2017) Advanced technologies for dairy effluent treatment. Bangalore J Food Nutr Popul Health 1(7):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  4. Slavov AK (2017) General characteristics and treatment possibilities of dairy wastewater—a review. Food Technol Biotechnol 55(1):14–28. https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.55.01.17.4520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarkar B, Chakrabarti P, Vijaykumar A, Kale V (2005) Wastewater treatment in dairy industries. Hyderabad Desalination 195(1–3):141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Demirel B, Yenigun O, Onay TT (2005) Anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewaters: a review. Process Biochem 40:2583–2595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gotmare M, Dhoble R, Pittule A (2011) Biomethanation of dairy waste water through UASB at mesophilic temperature range. Nagpur Int J Adv Eng Sci Technol 8(1):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vasseghian Y, Dragoi E-N, Almomani F, Le VT (2022) Graphene-based materials for metronidazole degradation: a comprehensive review. Chemosphere 286(2):131727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lateef SN, Beneragama TY, Iwasaki M, Umetsu K (2014) Batch anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and waste milk in two-stage process for hydrogen and methane productions. Bioprocess Bioeng 37(3):355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-013-1000-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bharati S, SheteShinkar N (2013) Dairy industry wastewater sources, characteristics & its effects on environment. Int J Curr Eng Technol 3(5):1611–1615

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kavitha R, Kumar S, Suresh R, Krishnamurthy V (2013) Performance evaluation and biological treatment of dairy waste water treatment plant by upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. J Chem Petrochem Technol 3(1):9–20

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chen W, Liu J (2012) The possibility and applicability of coagulation-MBR hybrid system in reclamation of dairy wastewater. Desalination 285:226–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Durai G, Rajasimman M, Rajamohan N (2011) Aerobic digestion of tannery wastewater in a sequential batch reactor by salt-tolerant bacterial strains. Appl Water Sci 1:35–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-011-0006-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Khalaf A, Ibrahim W, Fayed M, Eloffy M (2020) Comparison between the performance of activated sludge and sequence batch reactor systems for dairy wastewater treatment under different operating conditions. Alex Eng J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.10.062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lateef A, Chaudhry MN, Ilyas S (2013) Biological treatment of dairy wastewater using activated sludge. Science Asia 39:179–185. https://doi.org/10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2013.39.179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Showkat U, Najar IA (2019) Study on the efficiency of sequential batch reactor based sewage treatment plant. Appl Water Sci 9(1):10–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0882-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mainardis M, Buttazzoni M, Goi D (2020) Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) technology for energy recovery: a review on state-of-the-art and recent technological advances. Udine Bioeng 7(2):43–50. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering7020043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mane SS, Dr.G.R.Munavalli (2012) Sequential batch reactor-application to wastewater—a review. Proc Int Conf

  19. Vasseghian Y, Berkani M, Almomani F, Dragoi E-N (2021) Data mining for pesticide decontamination using heterogeneous photocatalytic processes. Chemosphere 270:129449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marañón IV, Rodriguez J, Castrillon L, Fernández Y, Lopez H (2008) Treatment of coke wastewater in a sequential batch reactor (SBR) at pilot plant scale. Biores Technol 99(10):4192–4198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mohseni B, Bazari H (2004) Biological treatment of dairy wastewater by sequencing batch reactor. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 1(2):65–69

    Google Scholar 

  22. Karadag D, Koroglu OE, Ozkaya B, Cakmakci M (2015) A review on anaerobic biofilm reactors for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Istanbul Process Biochem 50:262–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tanik A, Genceli EA, Ekdal A (2002) Chemical treatability of dairy wastewater. Environ Manag Health 13(2):163–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/09566160210424590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Munavalli GR, Saler PS (2009) Treatment of dairy wastewater by water hyacinth. Water Sci Technol 59(4):713–722. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdulgader ME, Yu QJ, Williams P, Zinatizadeh AAL (2009) Biological treatment of dairy wastewater by a sequencing batch flexible fibre biofilm reactor. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 120:911–920. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP090862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nadais H, Capela I, Arroja L, Duarte A (2005) Optimum cycle time for intermittent UASB reactors treating dairy wastewater. Water Res 39(8):1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.01.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tikariha A, Sahu O (2014) Study of characteristics and treatments of dairy industry waste water. J Appl Environ Microbiol 2(1):16–22. https://doi.org/10.12691/jaem-2-1-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Passeggi M, López I, Borzacconi L (2012) Modified UASB reactor for dairy industry wastewater: performance indicators and comparison with the traditional approach. J Clean Prod 26:90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jakubaszek A, Stadnik A (2018) Efficiency of sewage treatment plants in the sequential batch reactor. Civil Environ Eng Rep 28:121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rico C, Munoz N, Fernandez J, Rico J (2015) High-load anaerobic co-digestion of cheese whey and liquid fraction of dairy manure in a one-stage UASB process: limits in co-substrates ratio and organic loading rate. Chem Eng 262:794–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.10.050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wichern M, Bken ML, Horn H (2008) Optimizing sequencing batch reactor (SBR) reactor operation for treatment of dairy wastewater with aerobic granular sludge. Water Sci Technol 58(6):1199–1206. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Samkutty P, Gough R, Mcgrew P (2008) Biological treatment of dairy plant wastewater. J Environ Sci Health 31(9):2143–2153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529609376482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Baresel C, Jingjing Y, Niclas B, Kare T, Linda K, Klara W (2022) Direct GHG emissions from a pilot scale MBR-process treating municipal wastewater. Adv Clim Chang Res 13(1):138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2021.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang A, Yan M, Lin J, Lijie Xu, Gong He, Gong H (2021) A review of processes for removing antibiotics from breeding wastewater. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(9):4909–4919. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S (2002) Utilization of SBR technology for wastewater treatment: an overview. Barcelona Am Chem Soc 41(23):5539–5553. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0201821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rifi SK, Fels LE, Driouich A, Hafidi M, Ettaloui Z, Souabi S (2022) Sequencing batch reactor efficiency to reduce pollutant in olive oil mill wastewater mixed with urban wastewater. Int J Environ Sci Technol 90:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03866-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Suresh S, Tripathi R, Gernal RM (2011) Review on treatment of industrial wast ewater using sequential batchreactor. Int J Technol Manag 2:64–84

    Google Scholar 

  38. Singh NK, Kazmi AA (2018) Performance and cost analysis of decentralized wastewater treatment plants in Northern India: case study. J Waste Resour Plann Manag. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tawfik A, Sobhey M, Badawy M (2008) Treatment of a combined dairy and domestic wastewater in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor followed by activated sludge. Desalination 227:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.06.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Torrijos M, Vuitton V, Moletta R (2001) The SBR process: an efficient and economic solution for the treatment of wastewater at small cheese making dairies in the Jura mountains. Water Sci Technol 43(3):373–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu Y, Guo J, Huang D, Wang Q (2016) Prediction of filamentous sludge bulking using a state-based Gaussian processes regression model. Sci Rep 6:31303–31313. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Xu S, Wu D, Hu Z (2014) Impact of hydraulic retention time on organic and nutrient removal in a membrane coupled sequencing batch reactor. Water Res 55:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Andrade L, Motta G, Amaral M (2013) Treatment of dairy wastewater with a membrane bioreactor. Brazil J Chem Eng 30(4):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-66322013000400008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dutta A, Sarkar S (2015) Sequencing batch reactor for wastewater treatment: recent advances. Water Pollut 1:177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-015-0016-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. APHA, AWWA, WEF (2017) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.

  46. Elmollaa ES, Chaudhuri M (2011) Combined photo-Fenton–SBR process for antibiotic wastewater treatment. J Hazard Mater 192(3):1418–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.06.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shete BS, Shinkar NP (2013) Comparative study of various treatments for dairy industry wastewater. Maharashtra J Eng 3(8):42–47

    Google Scholar 

  48. Elmolla E, Ramdass N, Malay C (2012) Optimization of sequencing batch reactor operating conditions for treatment of high strength pharmaceutical wastewater. J Environ Sci Technol 5(6):452–459. https://doi.org/10.3923/jest.2012.452.459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Emerald F, Prasad D, Ravindra M, Pushpadass H (2012) Performance and biomass kinetics of activated sludge system treating dairy wastewater. Society of Dairy Technology, Bangalore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Alimoradi S, Faraj R, Torabian A (2018) Effects of residual aluminum on hybrid membrane bioreactor (coagulation-MBR) performance, treating dairy wastewater. Tehran Chem Eng Process 133:320–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEP.2018.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vasseghian Y, Rad SS, Vilas-Boas JA, Khataee A (2021) A global systematic review, meta-analysis, and risk assessment of the concentration of vanadium in drinking water resources. Chemosphere 267:128904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vasseghian Y, Le VT, Joo S-W, Dragoi E-N, Kamyab H, Chelliapan S, Klemes JJ (2022) Spotlighting graphene-based catalysts for the mitigation of environmentally hazardous pollutants to cleaner production: a review. J Clean Prod 365:132702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fraga FA, García HA, Hooijmans CM, Míguez D, Brdjanovic D (2016) Evaluation of a membrane bioreactor on dairy wastewater treatment and reuse in Uruguay. Int Biodeterior Biodegad 119:552–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Heidari MR, Malakootian M, Boczkaj G, Sun X, Tao Y, Sonawane SH, Mehdizadeh H (2021) Evaluation and start-up of an electro-Fenton-sequencing batch reactor for dairy wastewater treatment. Water Resour Ind 25:100149–100158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2021.100149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cai Y, Yang H, Liu J, Zuo D, Deng L (2022) Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and anoxic and oxic process (A/O) display opposite performance for pollutant removal in treating digested effluent of swine wastewater with low and high COD/N ratios. J Clean Prod 372:133643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Goli A, Shamiri A, Khosroyar S, Talaiekhozani A, Sanaye R (2019) A review on different aerobic and anaerobic treatment in dairy wastewater. J Environ Treat Tech 6(1):113–141

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kolhe A, Pawar V (2011) Physico chemical analysis of wffluents from dairy industry. Res Sci 3(5):29–32

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sokołowska JK, Kotowska U, Piekutin J, Laskowski P, Mielcarek A (2022) Analysis of 1H-benzotriazole removal efficiency from wastewater in individual process phases of a sequencing batch reactor SBR. Water Resour Ind. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2022.100182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kushwaha JP, Srivastava VC, Mall ID (2013) Sequential batch reactor for dairy wastewater treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 1(4):1036–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.08.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sathian S, Rajasimman M, Radha G, Shanmugapriya V, Karthikeyan C (2014) Performance of SBR for the treatment of textile dye wastewater: optimization and kinetic studies. Alex Eng J 53(2):417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2014.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Singh NK, Banyal P, Kazmi AA (2016) Techno-economic as-sessment of full scale MBBRs treating municipal wastewater followedby different tertiary treatment strategies: a case study from India. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 15(4):1311–1316

    Google Scholar 

  62. Alagha O, Allazem A, Bukhari AA, Anil I, Mu’azu ND (2020) Suitability of SBR for wastewater treatment and reuse: pilot-scale reactor operated in different anoxic conditions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1617–1625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Khalaf AH, Ibrahim WA, Fayed M, Eloffy MG (2021) Comparison between the performance of activated sludge and sequence batch reactor systems for dairy wastewater treatment under different operating conditions. Alex Eng J 60(1):1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.10.062

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, 600119, Tamil Nadu, India

    Rajan Subramanian, Sathish Sundararaman & Prabu Deivasigamani

  2. School of Pharmacy, Kazakh National Medical University Named After S.D. Asfendiyarov, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Ainash Baidullayeva

  3. Department of Environmental Engineering, Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai, 600020, Tamil Nadu, India

    Balaji Venkateswaran

  4. Department of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Manohar Arthy & Jagadeesan Aravind Kumar

Authors
  1. Rajan Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sathish Sundararaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ainash Baidullayeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Balaji Venkateswaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Prabu Deivasigamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manohar Arthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jagadeesan Aravind Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conceptualization and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by RS. The data and methodology were verified and modified by SS, BAK, and BV. The first draft was written by RS. The validation and correction were carried out by PD, MA, and JAK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jagadeesan Aravind Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• The dairy industry effluent contains high nitrogen and phosphorus load, compared to effluent from other food industries.

• Sequencing batch reactor was used for treating dairy wastewater by changing the HRT and MLSS concentrations in SBRP and BRP for pollutant and nutrient removal.

• The optimized filling time, reaction time, and settling time were 20 min, 3 h, and 2 h and 40 min, respectively.

• The process showed that the increase in MLSS concentration leads to a decrease in the removal efficiencies of pollutants and nutrients.

• The dissolved oxygen was inversely proportional to the MLSS concentration in the reactor.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Subramanian, R., Sundararaman, S., Baidullayeva, A. et al. Evaluation of SBRP and BRP at various process conditions for the removal of pollutants from dairy effluent: optimization and kinetic studies. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03533-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03533-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation