Sugar–alcohol industry: quality of its biotreated washing water for reuse in fertigation

  • Amanda Lys dos Santos Silva
  • Elane Cristina Lourenço dos Santos
  • Ana Maria Queijeiro LópezEmail author
Research Article


All processes in agro-industries consume water and generate large volumes of nutrient-rich effluents. To recycle effluents from a sugar–alcohol industry in the Northeastern Brazil (Coruripe, Alagoas), the effect of a daily application of a microbial formulation (containing five indigenous bacteria and two fungi), at the entrance of the two first facultative ponds (D, E) of its treatment plant formed by seven ponds (A–G), was evaluated in the sugarcane harvests of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Fortnightly, the values of 11 physicochemical parameters were checked and statistically compared (one and two-way ANOVA) in untreated (sedimentation pond A) and post-treated effluent (last facultative pond G), during both harvests. The treated effluent presented statistically significant improvements (p > 0.05), even between harvests, with averages of removal of organic matter of ca. 79.21% and 90.62%, and increases of the dissolved oxygen (DO) of ca. 72% and 74%, as well as the average increase of pH was ca. 42% and 50%. This better quality residue generally satisfied the class III level of the Brazilian Resolution 357/2005 (National Council for the Environment (CONAMA)), for water reuse in sugarcane irrigation on the yellow clay latosol soil, since it still is a light source of organic matter, nitrites and phosphorus, reducing the need of fertilizers for maintaining the productivity with low risk of salinization. According to Pearson’s bivariate correlation coefficient, while the DO and pH have positive correlation, they both have general inverse relation with the other physicochemical parameters evaluated and vice versa.


Bioaugmentation Microbial consortium Sugar–alcohol industry Sugarcane washing water Wastewater treatment 


Funding information

This work was supported by “SA Usina Coruripe de Açúcar e Álcool” (Coruripe-Al/Brazil), Federal University of Alagoas, and the Brazilian Foundation for Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES).


  1. Akan JC, Abdulrahman FI, Dimari GA, Ogugbuaja VO (2008) Physicochemical determination of pollutants in wastewater and vegetable samples along the Jakara wastewater channel in Kano Metropolis, Kano state, Nigeria. Eur J Sci Res 23:122–133Google Scholar
  2. Andrade MC (1989) História das usinas de açúcar de Pernambuco. Massangana, Recife (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  3. APHA (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22nd edition edited by E. W. Rice, R. B. Baird, A. D. Eaton and L. S. Clesceri. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF), Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1991) A qualidade da água na agricultura. Campina Grande, UFPB (Universidade Federal da Paraiba). 218p. Estudos FAO: Irrigação e Drenagem, 29. rev.1 (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn F (1984) Sugarcane. Longman, London, pp 47–52Google Scholar
  6. Brasil (2005) Resolução 357 de 17 de março de 2005 do CONAMA (Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente). Available in: Accessed 17 May 2017 (In Portuguese)
  7. Brasil (2011) Resolução 430 de 13 de maio de 2011 do CONAMA (Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente). Available in Accessed 17 May 2017 (In Portuguese)
  8. Carstensen J, Sanchez-Camacho M, Duarte CM, Krause-Jensen D, Marbà N (2011) Connecting the dots: responses of coastal ecosystems to changing nutrient concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 45:9122–9132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen M, Fan R, Zou W, Zou H, Tan Z, Li X (2016) Bioaugmentation for treatment of full-scale diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGBE) wastewater by Serratia sp. BDG-2. J Hazard Mater 309:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chooyok P, Pumijumnog N, Ussawarujikulchai A (2013) The water footprint assessment of ethanol production from molasses in Kanchanaburi and Suphanburi Province of Thailand. APCBEE Procedia 5:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delgadillo-Mirqueza L, Lopes F, Taidic B, Pareau D (2016) Nitrogen and phosphate removal from wastewater with a mixed microalgae and bacteria culture. Biotech Rep 11:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domde P, Kapley A, Purohit HJ (2007) Impact of bioaugmentation with a consortium of bacteria on the remediation of wastewater-containing hydrocarbons. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du C, Cui CW, Qiu S, Shi SN, Li A, Ma F (2017) Nitrogen removal and microbial community shift in an aerobic denitrification reactor bioaugmented with a Pseudomonas strain for coal-based ethylene glycol industry wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24:11435–11445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elefsiniotis P, Wareham DG, Smith MO (2004) Use of volatile fatty acids from an acid-phase digester for denitrification. J Biotechnol 114(3):289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fito JN, Tefera N, Kloos H, Van Hulle SWH (2018) Anaerobic treatment of blended sugar industry and ethanol distillery wastewater through biphasic high rate reactor. J Environ Sci Health Part A 53(5):676–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galloway JN, Leach AM, Bleeker A, Erisman JW (2013) A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle. Philos Trans R Soc B 368:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerbens-Leenes PW (2018) Green, blue and grey bioenergy water footprints, a comparison of feedstocks for bioenergy supply in 2040. Environ Process 5(Suppl 1):S167–S180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldemberg J, Nogueira LA (2014) Sweetening the biofuel sector: the history of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. Bioenergy Connection. Accessed 8 April 2017
  19. Gray NF (2005) Water technology: an introduction for environmental scientists and engineers. Elsevier Science & Technology Books, Amsterdam 645pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaushik G (2015) Bioremediation of industrial effluents: distillery effluents. In: Kaushik G (ed) Applied environmental biotechnology: present scenario and future trends. Springer, India, pp 19–28Google Scholar
  21. Kouba V, Vejmelková D, Proksova E, Wiesinger H, Concha M, Dolejs P, Hejnic J, Jenicek P, Bartacek J (2017) High-rate partial nitritation of municipal wastewater after psychrophilic anaerobic pre-treatment. Environ Sci Technol 51:11029–11038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar V, Chopra A (2012) Fertigation effect of distillery effluent on agronomical practices of Trigonella foenum-graecum L. (Fenugreek). Environ Monit Assess 184:1207–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le HT, Jantarat N, Khanitchaidecha W, Ratananikom K, Nakaruk A (2016, 2016) Utilization of waste materials for microbial carrier in wastewater treatment. Biomed Res Int:6957358. 6 p. Accessed in 18th November 2017Google Scholar
  24. Lingle SE, Wiegand CL (1996) Growth and yield responses of sugarcane to saline soil: sucrose biochemistry in individual internodes. Proc Inter Am Sugarcane Seminars:93–102Google Scholar
  25. Macarie H, Le Mer J (2006) Overview of the biological processes available for the treatment of sugarcane mill wastewater. Int Sugar J 108(1292):431–439Google Scholar
  26. Madden N, Lewis A, Davis M (2013) Thermal effluent from the power sector: an analysis of once-through cooling system impacts on surface water temperature. Environ Res Lett 8:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marin FR (2017) Árvore do Conhecimento: Cana-de-açúcar. Agência Embrapa de Informação Tecnológica. Accessed 17 May 2017 (In Portuguese)
  28. Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants, 2nd edn. Academic Press Inc., San Diego 889pGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalf L, Eddy H (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York 1851pGoogle Scholar
  30. Morrison G, Fatoki OS, Persson L, Ekberg A (2001) Assessment of the impact of point source pollution from the Keiskammahoek sewage treatment plant on the Keiskamma River - pH, electrical conductivity, oxygen - demanding substance (COD) and nutrients. Water SA 27:475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naddafi K, Hassanvand MS, Dehghanifard E, Razi DF, Mostofi S, Kasaee N, Nabizadeh R, Heidari M (2009) Performance evaluation of wastewater stabilization ponds in Arak-Iran. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 6:41–46Google Scholar
  32. Ogunfowokan AO, Okoh EK, Adenuga AA, Asubiojo OI (2005) An assessment of the impact of point source pollution from a university sewage treatment oxidation pond on a receiving stream-a preliminary study. J Appl Sci 5:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oliveira KMP, Júlio PDS, Tsunada MS, de Araújo RP, Suárez YR, Grisolia AB (2017) Efficiency analysis of the Australian wastewater treatment system in a pig slaughterhouse. Biosci J 33:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perovano Filho N, Silva KFS, Santos ECL, Queissada DD, López AMQ (2016) Physicochemical monitoring of wastewater from a sugar and ethanol industry after bioaugmentation, with a proposal for reuse. Acta Sci 38(4):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poddar PK, Sahu O (2017) Quality and management of wastewater in sugar industry. Appl Water Sci 7:461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Puig S, Coma M, Monclus H, van Loosdrecht M, Colprim J, Balaguer M (2008) Selection between alcohols and volatile fatty acids as external carbon sources for EBPR. Water Res 42:557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rais M, Sheoran A (2015) Treatment of sugarcane industry effluents: science & technology issues. Int J Eng Res Appl 5:11–19Google Scholar
  38. Rajagopal R, Saady NMC, Torrijos M, Thanikal JV, Hung YT (2013) Sustainable agro-food industrial wastewater treatment using high rate anaerobic process. Water 5:292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rajwar D, Paliwal R, Rai JPN (2017) Biodegradation of pulp and paper mill effluent by co-culturing ascomycetous fungi in repeated batch process. Environ Monit Assess 189:482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reinsel MA (2014) Nitrate removal technologies: new solutions to an old problem. Water Online. Accessed 10 May 2017
  41. Rogers TM (2010) As feridas mais profundas: uma história do trabalho e do ambiente do açúcar no Nordeste do Brasil. UNESP, São Paulo (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  42. Rosendo dos Santos V, Soltangheisi A, Junqueira Franco HC, Kolln O, Vitti AC, Santos Dias CT, Pavinato OS (2018) Phosphate sources and their placement affecting soil phosphorus pools in sugarcane. Agron 8(12):283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rozeff N (1995) Sugarcane and salinity—a review paper. Sugarcane 5:8–19Google Scholar
  44. Salgado I, Cárcamo H, Carballo ME, Cruz M, Durán M del C (2017) Domestic wastewater treatment by constructed wetlands enhanced with bioremediating rhizobacteria. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25(21):20391–20398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santana MJ, Carvalho JA, Souza KJ, Sousa AMG, Vasconcelos CL, Andrade LAB (2007) Efeitos da salinidade da água de irrigação na brotação e desenvolvimento inicial da cana-de-açúcar (Saccharum spp) e em solos com diferentes níveis texturais. Ciên Agrot 31:1470–1476 (In Portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawyer CN, Mc Carty PL, Parkin GF (1994) Chemistry for environmental engineering, 4th edn. Mc Graw-Hill Int editions, New York 658 pGoogle Scholar
  47. Schindler DW, Hecky RE, Findlay DL, Stainton MP, Parker BR, Paterson MJ, Beaty KG, Lyng M, Kasian S (2008) Eutrophication of lakes cannot be controlled by reducing nitrogen input: results of a 37-year whole-ecosystem experiment. PNAS 105:11254–11258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sentíes-Herrera HE, Trejo-Téllez LI, Gómez-Merino FC (2017) The Mexican sugarcane production system: history, current status and new trends. In: Murphy R (ed) Sugarcane: production systems, uses and economic importance. Nova Science Publishers Inc., pp 40–71Google Scholar
  49. Shah MP (2017) Bio-augmentation: a fantabulous technology in wastewater treatment. Int J Waste Resour 7:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sindaçúcar-AL (Sindicato da Indústria do Açúcar e do Álcool no Estado de Alagoas) (2019) Boletim comparativo de safras - safras 2017/2018 X 2018/2019. Available in: Accessed in 30th november 2019. (In Portuguese)
  51. Singh AL (2016) Nitrate and phosphate contamination in water and possible remedial measures. Environ Prob Plant 3:44–56Google Scholar
  52. Sur DH, Mukhopadhyay M (2017) COD reduction of textile effluent in three-phase fluidized bed bioreactor using Pseudomonas aureofaciens and Escherichia coli. Biotech 7:141Google Scholar
  53. Usina Coruripe (2019) Relatório de Sustentabilidade. 52p. Available in: Access in 6th December 2019 (In Portuguese)
  54. Vasconcelos RFB, Cantalice JRB, Oliveira VS, Costa YDJ, Cavalcante DM (2010) Estabilidade de agregados de um latossolo amarelo distrocoeso de tabuleiro costeiro sob diferentes aportes de resíduos orgânicos da cana-de-açúcar. R Bras Ciên Solo 34:309–316 (In Portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Veloso MEC, Duarte SN, Silva IJO (2004) Potencial de uso de águas residuárias na agricultura como suprimento hídrico e nutricional. Eng Rural 15:79–86 (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  56. Wiegand C, Anderson G, Lingle S, Escobar D (1996) Soil salinity effects on crop growth and yield - illustration of an analysis and mapping methodology for sugarcane. J Pl Phys 148(3–4):418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhu X, Chen M, He X, Xiao Z, Zhou H, Tan Z (2015) Bioaugmentation treatment of PV wafer manufacturing wastewater by microbial culture. Water Sci Technol 72:754–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zoppas FM (2017) Comparison of different strategies for nitrogen removal by simultaneous nitrification and denitrification process in a batch rotating disk reactor. Am J Eng Res (AJER) 6(10):76–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda Lys dos Santos Silva
    • 1
  • Elane Cristina Lourenço dos Santos
    • 1
  • Ana Maria Queijeiro López
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Biochemistry of Parasitism and Environmental Microbiology (LBPMA), Institute of Chemistry and Biotechnology (IQB)Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL)MaceióBrazil

Personalised recommendations