Advertisement

Pulp and Paper Mill Wastewater: Ecotoxicological Effects and Bioremediation Approaches for Environmental Safety

  • Izharul Haq
  • Abhay RajEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Pulp and paper industry is one of the important industrial sectors in India, which consume huge amount of water in the papermaking process. The final wastewater is often characterized by high color, BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), COD (chemical oxygen demand), AOX (adsorbable organic halides), SS (suspended solids), TDS (total dissolved solids), phenolics, heavy metals, and plant components like lignin, tannin, resin acids, and extractives. Finally, these compounds are reached to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem and causing serious environmental pollution. The generated wastewaters are treated by conventional biological treatment like activated sludge process (ASP) after primary treatment. Biological treatment of paper mill effluent significantly removes BOD, COD, SS, and also COD, but it is insufficient in removal of lignin and chlorophenols due to its low biodegradability and toxicity. During last few decades, several physical and chemical methods have been developed with the aim to use as pre- and posttreatment method. However, application of this technology at large scale is costly. Therefore, bioremediation which involve the use of pollutant-specific microorganism for wastewater treatment has been considered as cost-effective and eco-friendly treatment method. Thus, this chapter provides the updated information on paper processing and wastewater generation and their characteristics and toxicity. Processes based on physicochemical and biological methods for the treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater have been also discussed.

Keywords

Pulp and paper mills Environmental pollution Toxicity Wastewater treatment Bioremediation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to the Director of CSIR-IITR, Lucknow (India), for his encouragement and support. Financial support from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, New Delhi (Grant No.BT/PR20460/BCE/8/1386/2016), is highly acknowledged.

References

  1. Abd-ElRahim WM, Zaki EA (2005) Functional and molecular characterization of native Egyptian fungi capable of removing textile dyes. Arab J Biotech 8:189–200Google Scholar
  2. Aftab U, Khan MR, Mahfooz M, Ali M, Aslam SH, Rehman A (2011) Decolourization and degradation of textile Azo dyes by Corynebacterium sp. isolated from industrial effluent. Pak J Zool 43:18Google Scholar
  3. Al-Asheh S, Banat F, Abu-Aitah L (2003) Adsorption of phenol using different types of activated bentonites. J Hazard Mater 33:1–10Google Scholar
  4. Ali M, Sreekrishnan TR (2001) Aquatic toxicity from pulp and paper mill effluents: a review. Adv Environ Res 5:175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Rasheed RA (2005) Water treatment by heterogeneous photocatalysis an overview. In: Paper presented at 4th SWCC Acquired Experience Symposium held in JeddahGoogle Scholar
  6. Baruah B, Baruah KD, Das M et al (1996) Study on the effect of paper mill effluent on the water quality of receiving wet lands. Pollut Res 15:389–393Google Scholar
  7. Bharagava RN, Saxena G, Chowdhary P (2017a) Constructed wetlands: an emerging phytotechnology for degradation and detoxification of industrial wastewaters. In: Bharagava RN (ed) Environmental pollutants and their bioremediation approaches, 1st edn. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 397–426.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315173351-15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bharagava RN, Chowdhary P, Saxena G (2017b) Bioremediation: an eco-sustainable green technology: its applications and limitations. In: Bharagava RN (ed) Environmental pollutants and their bioremediation approaches, 1st edn. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315173351-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bharagava RN, Saxena G, Mulla SI, Patel DK (2017c) Characterization and identification of recalcitrant organic pollutants (ROPs) in tannery wastewater and its phytotoxicity evaluation for environmental safety. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 75(2):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bharagava RN, Purchase D, Saxena G, Mulla SI (2018) Applications of metagenomics in microbial bioremediation of pollutants: From genomics to environmental cleanup. In: Das S, Dash H (eds) Microbial diversity in the genomic era, 1st edn. Academic Press, Elsevier, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814849-5.00026-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakar SF, Ragauskas JA (2004) Review of current and future softwood kraft lignin process chemistry. Ind Crop Prod 20:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandra R, Bharagava RN (2013) Bacterial degradation of synthetic and kraft lignin by axenic and mixed culture and their metabolic products. J Environ Biol 34:991–999Google Scholar
  13. Chandra R, Singh R (2012) Decolourisation and detoxification of rayon grade pulp paper mill effluent by mixed bacterial culture isolated from pulp paper mill effluent polluted site. Biochem Eng J 61:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandra R, Raj A, Purohit HJ, Kapley A (2007) Characterization and optimization of three potential aerobic bacterial strains for kraft lignin degradation from pulp paper waste. Chemosphere 67:839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chandra R, Abhishek A, Sankhwar M (2011) Bacterial decolorization and detoxification of black liquor from rayon grade pulp manufacturing paper industry and detection of their metabolic products. Bioresour Technol 102:6429–6436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandra R, Saxena G, Kumar V (2015) Phytoremediation of environmental pollutants: an eco-sustainable green technology to environmental management. In: Chandra R (ed) Advances in biodegradation and bioremediation of industrial waste. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18218-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawford DL, Muralidhara R (2004) Bacterial extracellular lignin peroxidase. Patent-5200338A, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  18. Das M, Singh S, Tanti B (2013) Biochemical analysis of paper mill effluent & microbial degradation of phenol. Int J Sci Res 2:4Google Scholar
  19. Dey S, Choudhury MD, Das S (2013) A review on toxicity of paper mill effluent on fish. Bullet Environ Pharmacol Life Sci 2:17–23Google Scholar
  20. Fazeli MS, Khosravan F, Hossini M, Sathyanarayan S, Satish PN (1998) Enrichment of heavy metals in paddy crops irrigated by paper mill effluents near Nanjangud, Mysore District, Karnataka, India. Environ Geol 34:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freitas AC, Ferreira F, Costa AM, Pereira R, Antunes SC, Gonçalves F, Rocha- santos TAP, Diniz MS, Castro L, Peres I, Duarte AC (2009) Biological treatment of the effluent from a bleached kraft pulp mill using basidiomycete and zygomycete fungi. Sci Total Environ 407:3282–3289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garg S, Modi D (1999) Decolorization of pulp-paper mill effluents by white-rot fungi. J Crit Rev Biotechnol 19:85–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garg SK, Tripathi M (2011) Strategies for decolorization and detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 212:113–136Google Scholar
  24. Gautam S, Kaithwas G, Bharagava RN, Saxena G (2017) Pollutants in tannery wastewater, their pharmacological effects and bioremediation approaches for human health protection and environmental safety. In: Bharagava RN (ed) Environmental pollutants and their bioremediation approaches. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315173351-14 Google Scholar
  25. Gonzalez AS, Catala M, Maroto RR, Gil JL, de Miguel AG, Valcarcel Y (2010) Pollution by psychoactive pharmaceuticals in the rivers of Madrid metropolitan area (Spain). Environ Int 36:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goutam SP, Saxena G, Singh V, Yadav AK, Bharagava RN, Thapa KB (2018) Green synthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles using leaf extract of Jatropha curcas L. for photocatalytic degradation of tannery wastewater. Chem Eng J 336:386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gupta VK, Minocha AK, Jain N (2001) Batch and continuous studies on treatment of pulp mill wastewater by Aeromonasformicans. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 76:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hao OJ, Kim H, Chiang PC (2000) Decolorization of wastewater. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 30:449–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haq A, Raj A (2018) Endocrine-disrupting pollutants in industrial wastewater and their degradation and detoxification approaches. In: Bharagava RN, Chowdhary P (eds) Emerging and eco-friendly approaches for waste management. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore, pp 121–142Google Scholar
  30. Haq I, Kumar S, Kumar V, Singh SK, Raj A (2016a) Evaluation of bioremediation potentiality of ligninolytic Serratia liquefaciens for detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent. J Hazard Mater 305:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haq I, Kumari V, Kumar S, Raj A, Lohani M, Bhargava RN (2016b) Evaluation of the phytotoxic and genotoxic potential of pulp and paper mill effluent using Vigna radiata and Allium cepa. Adv Biol:8065736Google Scholar
  32. Haq I, Kumar S, Raj A, Lohani M, Satyanarayana GNV (2017) Genotoxicity assessment of pulp and paper mill effluent before and after bacterial degradation using Allium cepa test. Chemosphere 169:642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haq I, Raj A, Markandeya (2018) Biodegradation of Azure-B dye by Serratia liquefaciens and its validation by phytotoxicity, genotoxicity and cytotoxicity studies. Chemosphere 196:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hataka A (1994) Lignin-modifying enzymes from selected white-rot fungi: production and role in lignin degradation. FEMS Microbiol Rev 13:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hewitt LM, Parrott JL, McMaster ME (2006) A decade of research on the environmental impacts of pulp and paper mill effluents in Canada: sources and characteristics of bioactive substances. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 9:341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hossain K, Ismail N (2015) Bioremediation and detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent: a review. Res J Environ Toxicol 9:113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hultman S (1997) External environmental measures. External environmental protection in the pulp and paper industry. Forest Industry Training Markaryd AB, MarkarydGoogle Scholar
  38. ISI (Indian Standard Institute) (1974) Tolerance limits of industrial wastewater discharge into inland surface water. Indian Standard Institute, New Delhi, p 2490Google Scholar
  39. Joensson AS, Joensson C, Teppler M, Tomani P, Waennstroem S (1996) Treatment of paper coating color effluents by membrane filtration. Desalination 105:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnsen K, Tana J, Lehtinen KJ, Stuthridge T, Mattsson K, Hemming J, Carlberg GE (1998) Experimental field exposure of brown trout to river receiving effluent from an integrated newsprint mill. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 40:184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnston PA, Stringer RL, Santillo D, Stephenson AD, Labounskaia IP, McCartney HMA (1997) Towards zero-effluent pulp and paper production: the pivotal role of totally chlorine free bleaching. Environ Sci Pollut Res 4:130–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kamali M, Khodaparast Z (2015) Review on recent developments on pulp and paper mill wastewater treatment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 114:326–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kamenev I, Viiroja A, Kallas J (2008) Aerobic biooxidation with ozonation for recalcitrant wastewater treatment. J Adv Oxid Technol 11(2):338–347Google Scholar
  44. Katkar BS, Sasidharan KK (2000) Effluent treatment in pulp and paper industry. Chem Ind Dig 13:74–77Google Scholar
  45. Keharia H, Madamwar D (2003) Bioremediation concepts for treatment of dye containing wastewater: a review. Indian J Exp Biol 41:1068–1075Google Scholar
  46. Khansorthong S, Hunsom M (2009) Remediation of wastewater from pulp and paper mill industry by the electrochemical technique. Chem Eng J 151:228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kishor R, Bharagava RN, Saxena G (2018) Industrial wastewaters: the major sources of dyes contamination in environment, ecotoxicological effects and bioremediation approaches. In: Bharagava RN (ed) Advances in environmental management, 1st edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  48. Kulkarni HD (2013) Pulp and paper industry raw material scenario–ITC plantation a case study. IPPTA 25:79–89Google Scholar
  49. Kumari V, Kumar S, Haq I, Yadav A, Singh VK, Ali Z, Raj A (2014) Effect of tannery effluent toxicity on seed germination, α-amylase activity and early seedling growth of mung bean (Vigna radiata) seeds. Int J Latest Res Sci Technol 4:165–170Google Scholar
  50. Kumari V, Yadav A, Haq I, Kumar S, Bhargava RN, Singh SK, Raj A (2016) Genotoxicity evaluation of tannery effluent treated with newly isolated hexavalent chromium reducing Bacillus cereus. J Environ Manag 183:204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kumar S, Haq I, Prakash J, Singh SK, Mishra S, Raj A (2017a) Purification, characterization and thermostability improvement of xylanase from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and its application in pre-bleaching of kraft pulp. 3 Biotech 7:20–31Google Scholar
  52. Kumar S, Haq I, Yadav A, Prakash J, Raj A (2017b) Immobilization and biochemical properties of purified xylanase from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens sk-3 and its application in kraft pulp biobleaching. J Clin Microbiol Biochem Technol 1:026–034Google Scholar
  53. Kumar S, Haq I, Prakash J, Raj A (2017c) Improved enzyme properties upon glutaraldehyde cross-linking of alginate entrapped xylanase from Bacillus licheniformis. Int J Biol Macromol 98:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Laitinen N, Luonsi A, Levanen E, Nystrom M (2001) Effect of backflushing conditions on ultrafiltration of board industry wastewaters with ceramic membranes. Sep Purif Technol 25:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Latorre A, Malmqvist A, Lacorte S, Welander T, Barcelo D (2007) Evaluation of the treatment efficiencies of paper mill whitewaters in terms of organic composition and toxicity. Environ Pollut 147:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu T, Hu H, He Z, Ni Y (2011) Treatment of poplar alkaline peroxide mechanical pulping (APMP) effluent with Aspergillus niger. Bioresour Technol 102:7361–7365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ljungberg M, Brannvall E (2011) Overview of pulp and paper processes. The Ljungberg textbook-pulp and paper processes. KTH Fibre and Polymer Technology, Stockholm, p 310Google Scholar
  58. Malaviya P, Rathore VS (2007) Bioremediation of pulp and paper mill effluent by a novel fungal consortium isolated from polluted soil. Bioresour Technol 98:3647–3651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mandal TN, Bandana TN (1996) Studies on physicochemical and biological characteristics of pulp and paper mill effluents and its impact on human beings. J Fresh Water Biol 8:191–196Google Scholar
  60. Marquez MC, Costa C (1996) Biomass concentration in PACT process. Water Res 30:2079–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Metcalf Eddy (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  62. Mishra A, Tripathi CPM, Dwivedi AK, Dubey VK (2011) Acute toxicity and behavioral response of freshwater fish, Mystus vittatus exposed to pulp mill effluent. J Environ Chem Ecotox 3:167–172Google Scholar
  63. Munkittrick KR, Sandstrom O (1997) Ecological assessments of pulp mill impacts: issues, concerns, myths and research needs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on environmental fate and effects of pulp and paper mill effluents (pp 379–390). November 9–13, Rotorua, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  64. Murugesan AG, Ramosankar R, Karthi KK, Sukumaran N (2000) Performance and evaluation of up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (VASBR) for treating distillery spent wash. National seminar on industrial pollution and its control (pp 177–185). Proceeding of IPCGoogle Scholar
  65. Naseem R, Ve Tahir SS (2001) Removal of Pb(II) from aqueous/ acidic solutions by using bentonite as an adsorbent. Water Res 35:982–3986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Orrego R, Guchardi J, Krause R, Holdway D (2010) Estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects of wood extractives present in pulp and paper mill effluents on rainbow trout. Aquat Toxicol 99:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pavon-Silva T, Pacheco-Salazar V, Carlos SMJ, Roa-Morales G, Colín-Cruz A (2009) Physicochemical and biological combined treatment applied to a food industry wastewater for reuse. J Environ Sci Health Part A, Toxic/Hazard Sub Environ Eng 44:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Persson PO (2011) Cleaner production: strategies and technology for environmental production. Royal Institute of Technology – Industrial Ecology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  69. Pokhrel D, Viraraghavan T (2004) Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater-a review. Sci Total Environ 333:37–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raghukumar C, Dsouza-Ticlo D, Verma AK (2008) Treatment of colored effluents with lignin-degrading enzymes: an emerging role of marine-derived fungi. Crit Rev Microbiol 34:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ragunathan R, Swaminathan K (2004) Biological treatment of pulp and paper industry effluent by Pleurotussp. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 20:389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rahman NHA, Rahman NAA, Surainiabdaziz M, Hassan M (2013) Production of ligninolytic enzymes by newly isolated bacteria from palm oil plantation soils. Bioresources 8:6136–6150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Raj A, Reddy MM, Chandra R, Purohit HJ, Kapley A (2007) Biodegradation of kraft-lignin by Bacillus sp. isolated from sludge of pulp and paper mill. Biodegradation 18:783–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raj A, Kumar S, Haq I, Singh SK (2014a) Bioremediation and toxicity reduction in pulp and paper mill effluent by newly isolated ligninolytic Paenibacillus sp. Ecol Eng 71:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Raj A, Kumar S, Haq I, Kumar M (2014b) Detection of tannery effluents induced DNA damage in mung bean by use of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers. ISRN Biot:727623Google Scholar
  76. Ramsay JA, Nguyen T (2002) Decoloration of textile dyes by Trametes versicolor and its effect on dye toxicity. Biotechnol Lett 24:1757–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reyes F, Chamorro S, Yeber MC, Vidal G (2009) Characterizations of E1 kraft mill effluent by toxicity identification evaluation methodology. Water Air Soil Pollut 199:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rodrigues AC, Boroski M, Shimada NS, Garcia JC, Nozaki J, Hioka N (2008) Treatment of paper pulp and paper mill wastewater by coagulation–flocculation followed by heterogeneous photocatalysis. J Photochem Photobiol A: Chem 194:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Savant DV, Abdul-Rahman R, Ranade DR (2006) Anaerobic degradation of adsorbable organic halides (AOX) from pulp and paper industry wastewater. Bioresour Technol 97:1092–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Saxena G, Bharagava RN (2015) Persistent organic pollutants and bacterial communities present during the treatment of tannery wastewater. In: Chandra R (ed) Environmental waste management, 1st edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19243-10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Saxena G, Bharagava RN (2017) Organic and inorganic pollutants in industrial wastes, their ecotoxicological effects, health hazards and bioremediation approaches. In: Bharagava RN (ed) Environmental pollutants and their bioremediation approaches, 1st edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315173351-3 Google Scholar
  82. Saxena G, Chandra R, Bharagava RN (2016) Environmental pollution, toxicity profile and treatment approaches for tannery wastewater and its chemical pollutants. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 240:31–69Google Scholar
  83. Saxena G, Purchase D, Mulla SI, Saratale GD, Bharagava RN (2019) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated sites: eco-environmental concerns, field studies, sustainability issues, and future prospects. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1007/398_2019_24 Google Scholar
  84. Schnell A, Steel P, Melcer H, Hodson PV, Carey JH (2000) Enhanced biological treatment of bleached kraft mill effluents-II.Reduction of mixed function oxygenase (MFO) induction in fish. Water Res 34:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sepulveda MS, Quinn BP, Denslow ND, Holm SE, Gross TS (2003) Effects of pulp and paper mill effluents on reproductive success of largemouth bass. Environ Toxicol Chem 2:205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Singh YP, Dhall P, Mathur RM, Jain RK, Thakur VV, Kumar V, Kumar R, Kumar A (2011) Bioremediation of pulp and paper mill effluent by tannic acid degrading Enterobacter sp. Water Air Soil Pollut 218:693–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Singh C, Chowdhary P, Singh JS, Chandra R (2016) Pulp and paper mill wastewater and coliform as health hazards: a review. Microbiol Res Int 4(3):28–39Google Scholar
  88. Singhal A, Thakur IS (2009) Decolourization and detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent by Cryptococcus sp. Biochem Eng J 46:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sponza DT (2003) Application of toxicity tests into discharges of the pulp-paper industry in Turkey. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 54:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Srivastava SK, Singh AK, Sharma A et al (1994) Physico-chemical studies on the characteristics and disposal problem of small and large pulp and paper mill effluents. Indian J Environ Prot 10:438–442Google Scholar
  91. Tewari PK, Batra VS, Balakrishnan M (2009) Efficient water use in industries: cases from the Indian agro-based pulp and paper mills. J Environ Manag 90:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thakur IS (2004) Screening and identification of microbial strains for removal of colour and adsorbable organic halogens in pulp and paper mill effluent. Process Biochem 39:1693–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thompson G, Swain J, Kay M, Forster CF (2001) The treatment of pulp and paper-mill effluent: a review. Bioresour Technol 77:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tiku DK, Kumar A, Chaturvedi R, Makhijani SD, Manoharan A, Kumar R (2010) Holistic bioremediation of pulp mill effluents using autochthonous bacteria. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 64:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tripathi AK, Harsh NSK, Gupta N (2007) Fungal treatment of industrial effluents: a mini-review. Life Sci 4:78–81Google Scholar
  96. Tyagi S, Kumar V, Singh J, Teotia P, Bisht S, Sharma S (2014) Bioremediation of pulp and paper mill effluent by dominant aboriginal microbes and their consortium. Int J Environ Res 8:561–568Google Scholar
  97. Vass KK, Mukopadhyay MK, Mistra K, Joshi HC (1996) Respiratory stresses in fishes exposed to paper and pulp wastewater. Environ Ecol 14:895–897Google Scholar
  98. Wang J, Chen Y, Wang Y, Yuan S, Yu H (2011) Optimization of the coagulation– flocculation process for pulp mill waste water treatment using a combination of uniform design and response surface methodology. Water Res 45:5633–5640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wu J, Xiao YZ, Yu HQ (2005) Degradation of lignin in pulp mill wastewaters by white-rot fungi on biofilm. Bioresour Technol 96:1357–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Yadav S, Chandra R (2015) Syntrophic co-culture of Bacillus subtilis and Klebsiella pneumonia for degradation of kraft lignin discharged from rayon grade pulp industry. J Environ Sci 33:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yang C, Cao G, Li Y, Zhang X, Ren H, Wang X, Feng J, Zhao L, Xu P (2008) A constructed alkaline consortium and its dynamics in treating alkaline black liquor with very high pollution load. PLoS One 3:10.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yang Q, Angly FE, Wang Z, Zhang H (2011) Wastewater treatment systems harbor specific and diverse yeast communities. Biochem Eng J 58:168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zhang S, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Zhao M, Li Y (2012) Selective removal of lignin in steam-exploded rice straw by Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Intj Biodeterior Biodegrad 75:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Microbiology Laboratory, Environmental Toxicology GroupCSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR)LucknowIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations