Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Due to strong globalization and industrialization, water has become a scarce resource. One industry that uses a lot of water and generates a large amount of wastewater is the textile industry. According to the Best Available Techniques reference document, pressure-driven membrane processes have been declared the best methods for the treatment and reuse of textile wastewater. Such processes generate a certain amount of solid waste in addition to excellent permeate quality. This book chapter provides a critical overview of pressure-driven membrane processes (microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) for the treatment of textile wastewater. Finally, this chapter covers the treatment and disposal of retentate and MBR sludge.
University of Zagreb Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Zagreb, Croatia
Luka Brezinščak
University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Zagreb, Croatia
Davor Dolar
University of Zagreb Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Zagreb, Croatia
*Address all correspondence to: icuric@fkit.unizg.hr
1. Introduction
The increase in population and the growing demand for industry and its products have led to significant impacts on the environment. Textiles are part of people’s daily needs, and the “buy, wear, and throw away” model is leading to an increasing demand for textile production [1, 2]. Among the manufacturing industries, the textile industry is considered the most complicated industry because it consists of a large number of production stages [3]. Each of these stages generates a larger amount of dry or wet waste. Therefore, production in the textile industry is divided into dry and wet processes. Dry processes produce unfinished textiles, while wet processes produce wastewater, which is generated by the combination of fresh water, which serves as a medium, and certain chemicals (auxiliaries, alkalis, acids, salts) [4]. The production of 1 kg of textiles consumes about 150 L of fresh water [5]. However, the amount of water depends on the type of work process, the machines used in production, and the type of material [6]. The wastewater that remains at the end of the process contains large concentrations of pollutants that cause significant concentrations of physico-chemical (chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand, total organic carbon, etc.), ecotoxicological (acute and chronic toxicity), and inorganic parameters (presence of metals) [7]. All this can have negative effects on the environment and life in the environment. For example, textile wastewater can disrupt photosynthesis and have carcinogenic and mutagenic effects on aquatic life [8]. Therefore, it is necessary to treat textile wastewater before it is discharged into natural recipients. Over the years, conventional textile wastewater treatment processes (adsorption, coagulation, etc.) have been developed, but they have problems with sludge formation, high investment costs, frequent use of chemicals, and many other problems [7, 9]. To minimize these problems, pressure-driven membrane processes (microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO)) can be used. These processes have been shown to be a high-quality option for obtaining a high-quality effluent that meets state regulations (if any) for discharge. They have also shown that the treated wastewater can be reused in production processes, reducing the need for fresh water [9]. Each technology has its advantages and disadvantages, for example, pressure-driven membrane processes “struggle” with high energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and the generation of waste, the retentate [10]. The retentate is one of the streams in cross-flow separation that contains higher concentrations of pollutants than the feed stream. It is necessary to treat the retentate before disposal because it has disastrous consequences for the environment [11, 12]. In membrane bioreactors (MBRs), a certain amount of sludge is produced due to the growth and decay of the bacteria contained in them [13]. In this case, treatment and disposal is required to avoid negative impacts on the environment.
The authors have not found any study on the characterization of the retentate and MBR sludge after the treatment of textile wastewater or on the possibility of its disposal. Therefore, this study presents the possibilities of treatment and disposal of retentate and MBR sludge from desalination plants and municipal wastewater treatment plants. This opens space for new research possibilities on the topic of retentate and MBR sludge after treatment of textile wastewater.
Industrialization contributes to economic growth by generating income and providing jobs for a growing population. It is the main driver of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. Therefore, industry plays a key role in global economic growth in both developed and developing countries [1, 14]. One of the largest industries contributing to economic growth is the textile industry, which is constantly expanding. With about 120 million employees and a global market share of about $2000 billion, the textile industry is an important contributor to the global economy [15]. Apart from its importance to the economy, the textile industry is also important to every human being as it contributes to the fulfillment of basic necessities of life, namely clothing [2]. To obtain a single textile product, it is necessary to pass through some of the largest and most complicated industrial chains among other various industrial products, which is characteristic of the textile industry [3]. The complex characterization of textile products is due to the wide range of chemicals, process sequences, various machines, and finishes [6].
The production chain begins with the drying process, i.e., the transformation of natural (cotton, linen, etc.) or artificial (polyester, polyamide, etc.) raw materials into yarn by spinning processes. The yarn is then used to knit or weave to produce knitted or woven fabrics. Depending on customer requirements, wet processes follow, consisting mainly of pretreatment, mercerizing, washing, bleaching, dyeing, finishing, and printing. At the end are squeezing, drying, calendering, tailoring, and sewing. Dry processing produces solid waste, while wet processing steps mainly produce liquid waste [16].
2.1 Textile wastewater
To improve the properties of textiles, the use of wet processes is necessary [17]. These processes use water, chemicals, dyes, and auxiliaries. It is estimated that the use of auxiliaries accounts for 60–70% of dyes, while the consumption of dyes per kg of product is 50–90 g [18]. Water is the most important liquid substance for performing wet processes and has three functions: as a solvent for dyes and chemicals, as a medium for transferring dyes and chemicals to textiles, and as a medium for washing and rinsing [19]. Fresh water is very commonly used, and the average consumption is 150 L per 1 kg of product but can be as high as 933 L per 1 kg of textile product [5]. At the end of each wet process, a large amount of wastewater is generated, consisting of unfixed dyes, auxiliaries, and other chemicals. Due to its composition, textile wastewater contains a high color, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), etc. [20]. The World Bank estimates that the textile industry discharges 1–10 million liters of wastewater per day, and about 17–20% of it is discharged into the environment without prior treatment [1].
2.2 Textile wastewater treatment
Wastewater from the textile industry can actually disturb the natural balance if it is discharged directly into the environment without prior treatment. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Energy in Croatia has set the minimum permissible concentrations for wastewater emissions into natural aquifers and public drainage systems, depending on local conditions and environmental protection requirements. Unfortunately, not every state has legally permissible concentrations for discharges, which is very problematic [21]. Treatment of textile wastewater can be challenging because the toxic pollutants mentioned above are very difficult to degrade in wastewater. In recent decades, many techniques have been developed to find an economical and efficient way to treat textile wastewater, including physical, chemical, biological, combined treatment processes, and other technologies [7]. Equalization and homogenization, flotation, adsorption, ion exchange, and others have been applied as physical processes, while chemical coagulation, electrocoagulation, and oxidation treatment have been used as chemical processes. Biological methods consist of aerobic and anaerobic oxidation. These methods have disadvantages, such as the production of a large amount of concentrated sludge, some are very expensive, require the addition of chemicals, have large footprint, and are not suitable for every textile wastewater [9]. Some of the methods cannot meet the legal limits, which are increased every year.
In terms of sustainability and applicability, membrane technology shows great potential when all textile wastewater treatments are considered. Membrane technology fits into a concept of clean production based on the concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT), which must satisfy legal, environmental, and technical requirements [22]. Membrane technology fulfills one of two main strategies: efficient technology for end-of-pipe treatment [23]. This advanced treatment technology enables the treatment of wastewater in a small space and is very easy to apply, which enables a high level of wastewater treatment. In addition, it enables a successful transition from laboratory to pilot or full scale [9].
This type of technology is not a new invention, and the diversity of textile wastewater also presents a challenge for this technology. However, unlike conventional textile wastewater treatment processes, improvements can be made by modifying the membrane modules and elements. Singh and Hankins stated that membrane technology can bridge the gap between cost-effectiveness and sustainability with little or no use of chemicals, which is evidence of its environmental friendliness [24]. Also worth mentioning is the possibility of hybrid treatment, i.e., combining different membrane processes or conventional treatments with membrane processes [9].
Among other membrane technologies, pressure-driven membrane processes are most commonly used in wastewater treatment from pretreatment to post-treatment. The treatment principle is based on the application of hydraulic pressure to water, which thus passes through a porous membrane that retains pollutants (Figure 1), i.e., the feed stream is divided into two streams. Permeate is the stream that passes through the membrane (“clean water”), and retentate is the stream that is retained by the membrane. There are four main types of these processes: MF, UF, NF, and RO. The main differences between these processes are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1 [25, 26, 27].
Pressure-driven membrane processes not only enable hybrid performance but have also proven effective in combination with conventional processes, i.e., biological treatment. In the late 1960s, the first MBR was commercially developed by Dorr-Oliver. Both capital and operating costs were initially very high, but in the last 15 years, costs have been significantly reduced [12]. The unique feature of this technology is that it involves two separate processes. The first is biological treatment, and the second is membrane separation. In contrast to conventional biological treatment, MBR is characterized by consistent water quality, small footprint, reduced sludge production, and high pollutant removal rates. The Institute of Textile Research and Industrial Cooperation in Terrassa has conducted comparative studies on the treatment of textile wastewater with MBR and conventional biological systems [28]. The results are presented in Table 2. They showed that MBE has better efficiency in terms of COD and color removal from textile wastewater with lower sludge production. MBR can be operated in aerobic (AeMBR) or anaerobic (AnMBR) mode. In general, AnMBR requires longer sludge retention time, which may lead to greater fouling problems than AeMBR [29]. Friha et al. removed COD, color, SS, and BOD5 at 96–100% with AeMBR [30]. Yurtsever et al. achieved complete color removal from textile wastewater with AnMBR and 30–50% with AeMBR [31].
Type of the process
COD removal (%)
Color removal (%)
Conventional biological process
70
< 92
MBR
81
92
Table 2.
Comparative study of textile wastewater treatment by conventional biological process and MBR.
4. Challenges in purification of textile wastewater
Pressure-driven membrane processes have proven to be satisfactory replacement for conventional textile wastewater treatment processes. Nevertheless, each technology has its drawbacks. For example, pressure-driven membrane processes have a greenhouse gas problem because they consume large amounts of energy since pressure is the driving force. The biggest problem with this technology is the second stream in the treatment, the retentate [10]. Other names include brine, brine reject, and concentrate, but all refer to the concentrated waste stream [32]. Because the retentate is the stream that is retained by the membrane, it contains much higher concentrations of pollutants than the feed stream (wastewater). In addition to the substances from the feed stream, it may also contain agents for membrane cleaning, maintenance, and optimization of membrane performance [10, 32].
Jones et al. reported that retentate production in 2019 was 141.5 million m3 day−1 [33]. Katal et al. noted that approximately 5 to 33% of the total cost of membrane treatment is related to retentate disposal. The exact percentage depends on the characteristics and volume of the retentate and the disposal option [34]. In 2006, Mickley & Associates reported in the second edition of Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 123, in which they outlined the regulations for retentate disposal in the USA [35]. As far as the authors are aware, no such regulations exist in Europe.
4.1 Disposal of the retentate
The management and disposal of retentate from any membrane wastewater treatment plant requires careful consideration to avoid environmental degradation. While there is a considerable amount of knowledge and practical experience related to the discharge of retentate from seawater and brackish water desalination plants, to the authors’ knowledge, no study has been conducted on the environmental impacts of discharging retentate from water treatment plants to water bodies or the ocean [36, 37]. When retentate is generated from a wastewater treatment plant, it is undeniable that it contains toxic substances in very high concentrations that affect the environment.
Retentate is usually discharged into sewers, oceans or seas, ponds, and deep wells. Ariono et al. explained the double impact of retentate: physico-chemical and ecological. The physico-chemical properties of the receiving water may change due to high pollutant content or salinity. Salt in water can increase the osmotic pressure, and the disturbance of the equilibrium between organisms and receiving water can damage the cells of organisms [38]. Jenkins et al. found that salinity as low as 2–3 g L−1 can have effects on several marine species [39]. In addition to salinity, thermal pollution can also occur from the disposal of retentate. Retentate raises the temperature of about 60% of seawater, resulting in less dissolved oxygen than in cool water. These conditions lead to hypoxia and death of aquatic organisms [40]. Higher alkalinity is another problem in retentate disposal. Ahmet et al. found that the discharge of retentate increases the concentrations of carbonate, sulfate ions, and other elements to twice the normal value [40]. The disposal of retentate on soil can also affect the physico-chemical properties of soil. Anders et al. reported the effects of retentate disposal from desalination plants on soils in western Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Analysis of electrical conductivity and sodium saturation in the soil showed that 45% of the samples at the site of retentate discharge were saline and 25% were salic [41].
4.2 Solutions for the retentate
As mentioned above, discharge of retentate to surface waters is the most common practice and the cheapest disposal option. Prior to discharge, certain preparatory measures must be taken to avoid endangering surface waters. The authors found only one study dealing with the reuse of retentate from the treatment of textile wastewater, so the disposal of retentate from desalination plants is described below.
A promising solution could be dilution with seawater or municipal wastewater to reduce the salt concentration in the retentate from desalination plants [42]. Malfeito et al. investigated the possibility of diluting the retentate of RO from the desalination plant in Javea, on the Spanish Mediterranean coast, into the beach of the Fontana Channel. The dilution eliminated the problem of anoxia [43]. Shrivastava and Adams diluted retentate from a desalination plant with cooling water from the condenser, treated wastewater, and seawater. Dilution with treated wastewater results in higher effective salinity dilution than predilution with cooling water or seawater [4].
One option for retentate disposal and management is land application. Retentate can be applied when vegetation (hydroponic systems, fields, parks, etc.) requires nutrients. Several issues need to be addressed prior to application. These include the cost of installing an irrigation system, salinity, infiltration rate, and land availability and cost [42].
Jiménez-Arias et al. investigated the possibility of using retentate from desalination plants in the Canary Islands for hydroponic systems for tomato. Dilution of the retentate saved 20% of the cost of the hydroponic solution because the retentate contained nutrient-rich minerals. The tomatoes showed excellent organoleptic quality after cultivation [44].
Saf et al. conducted an integrated study on the agroecological applications of olive mill wastewater from UF and NF. The retentate from both processes was evaluated for phytotoxicity to the two major crops, corn and flax, and to wild mustard germination. Ultrafiltration and NF retentate resulted in a significant increase in corn growth. A study on the weed Sinapis arvensis showed no germination, suggesting a promising potential for the production of bioherbicides from the retentate [45].
Yuzer et al. reused NF retentate as a salt in reactive dyeing at various dilutions after treating textile wastewater for the dyeing process. The spectrophotometric values on textiles showed no deviations [46].
4.3 MBR sludge
In Section 3.1., we provided information on the significant possibility of using MBR as a promising solution for the treatment of textile wastewater. It is estimated that the average annual production of sludge in Europe, USA, and China is 240 wet tons. Therefore, the treatment and disposal of MBR sludge can be challenging. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Part 503 rule contains comprehensive requirements for the disposal of sludge generated during wastewater treatment [47]. Banti et al. reported a sludge generation of 14 m3 day−1 in MBR after treatment of municipal wastewater [48].
Like MBR, conventional activated sludge (CAS) systems are also commonly applied technologies for wastewater treatment [49]. These coupled systems deal with sludge development due to the growth/decay of microorganisms, which is unavoidable in both processes. Apart from the different operating conditions of the two systems (MBR has higher sludge retention time (SRT)), there are also differences in the quality of the resulting sludge at the end of wastewater treatment [13, 49]. Massé et al. and Fenu et al. compared sludge morphology in CAS and MBR systems and showed that the larger size CAS flocs aggregation forms (≈200 μm) consisted of more filamentous bacteria than in MBR, which consisted of smaller flocs (≈50 μm) with more non-flocculating bacteria [50, 51]. Floc aggregation is related to extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), which are the third component between water and the cells most present in the sludge [13]. EPS is the product of bacteria and can account for about 80% of the total mass of the sludge and is responsible for the structural and functional integrity of the flocks [52]. Pontoni et al. found that EPS production in the MBR system is lower than in the CAS system, which is related to the chemical composition of EPS. They reported that the chemical composition of EPS in CAS consisted of proteins (57–61%), followed by carbohydrates (28–29%), humic acids (6–7%), and uronic acids (4–8%). MBR had lower contents of proteins (17–50%), carbohydrates (13–22%), and humic acids (2–4%) at higher uronic acid concentrations (32–60%) [53]. Indeed, the predominant mechanism behind of floc formation depends strongly on the chemical composition of the EPS. Uronic acid in the EPS composition can form hydrogels and interact with the interstitial water in the presence of polyuronate molecules. Polyuronates may hinder flocculation, resulting in a reduction of sludge volume [13].
4.3.1 Sludge treatment
Although the MBR has a lower SRT than the CAS system, the amount of sludge produced does not differ between the two systems when the wastewater supplied and the mass of microorganisms in the reactor are the same. There is a lack of information about MBR sludge treatment and disposal. This is very unusual, as interest in MBR treatments and membrane separation process in general has been increasing over the years. For this reason, it is necessary to know the impact and costs of disposal for the total cost of wastewater treatment [54]. The sludge treatment system must include the following stages before final disposal: 1) thickening, 2) pretreatment, 3) post-treatment stage, and 4) dewatering stage (Figure 3). In the thickening stage, the moisture content is removed and the solid content is increased to approximately 2 to 5%. Usually, this can be done by centrifugation, dissolved air flotation, and gravity. This can later help with dewatering [55].
Figure 3.
Sludge treatment steps.
Dewatering is the reduction of the bound water content, i.e., the reduction of the total volume in order to minimize the costs of sludge treatment and transportation [53]. Dewatering can be accomplished by mechanical dewatering or by thermal dewatering. Mechanical dewatering processes can achieve a maximum solids content of 60%, while a thermal dewatering process has a better solids content of 90% [56]. MBR sludge generally has poorer dewatering properties than CAS sludge, which is due to the previously mentioned different chemical composition of EPS [53].
Before the dewatering process, it is important to reduce the amount of sludge (stabilization). In order to improve the biodegradability of sludge, it is necessary to introduce sludge pretreatment, such as chemical, physical (mechanical, thermal) and biological processes. Pretreatment of sludge reduces particle size and accelerates microbial solubilization, i.e., hydrolysis. Also, during hydrolysis, organic polymers break down into smaller molecules (monomers or dimers) and degrade the EPS. Pretreatments make sludge more susceptible to digestion. Without some kind of pretreatment, the digestion process takes longer and the amount of residual sludge to be disposed of in the end is lower [57]. In addition, it has been found that a higher energy requirement is needed to achieve water removal from sludges with lower water content. Usually, pretreatments affect the metabolism of microorganisms and cell lysis-cryptic growth, leading to the release of intracellular and extracellular substances [13]. Biological methods are more attractive because they are less expensive and more environmentally friendly than chemical methods. To choose the right method, the properties of the raw sludge must be known. Parameters such as pH, organic acid content, and alkalinity can be very important because, for example, the organic acid content can influence the anaerobic digestion process [58].
Aerobic and anaerobic digestion are two well-known biological processes. In aerobic digestion, organic matter is decomposed by aerobic microorganisms using oxygen, while in anaerobic digestion, no oxygen is used, only anaerobic microorganisms. Aerobic digestion is effective in terms of complete pathogen eliminations and short sludge retention, but anaerobic digestion has better cost efficiency and high resource and energy recovery from sludge (conversion of organic matter to biogas such as methane and carbon dioxide) [13]. In addition, anaerobic digestion can reduce the amount to be disposed of while controlling odor emissions [59]. In the European Union, anaerobic digestion is the most common digestion process [60]. Asia et al. subjected textile sludge to anaerobic treatment and obtained a reduction of 61% in total solids, 68% in settleable solids and 51% in volatile solids, 99.99% in total bacteria, BOD and COD by 89% [61]. The authors found no characterization of MBR sludge from textile wastewater treatment and its treatment/disposal. Houghton et al. investigated the effect of ECP on the dewaterability of sludge before and after anaerobic digestion. The ECP content after digestion is lower than before digestion, and the organic composition of ECP changed after digestion with more proteins and carbohydrates. This indicates that the lowering of the ECP content results in a sludge that is easier to dewater [62].
4.3.2 Sludge disposal
The three most common disposal methods for industrial sludge are landfilling, incineration, and agricultural land application. Landfilling is the most common method in the world because it is simple. Before landfilling, some conditions must be met. In addition to stabilization and dewatering, the solid content of the sludge must be at least 25%. This method cannot be sustainable because environmental standards are constantly increasing and there are problems with the available space for landfilling. On the other hand, incineration is a thermal waste disposal method that burns the sludge and converts it into gas, ash, and heat that can be used to generate electricity. The incineration method can avoid the problems of heavy metals and pathogens from the sludge that occur during landfilling. However, toxic gasses are released during incineration [55]. Agricultural land application can be beneficial to the soil because sludge is rich in organic matter and contains macro- and micronutrients that can improve plant growth. It also reduces the use of expensive fertilizers. However, sludge can have negative impact on soil quality because it contains pathogenic bacteria and heavy metals that can contaminate human food. In their study, Kakati et al. showed the potential reuse of textile sludge as fertilizer for the growth of green gram. The results showed that sludge at low concentration can be used as fertilizer to promote plant growth, but higher concentration of the sludge may have negative effects on growth due to its toxicity.
Overall, this method is the most economically favored compared to other methods and has fewer global warming problems [63]. These problems can be easily reduced with the above methods (anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, and dewatering).
In addition to landfilling, incineration, and disposal on agricultural lands, there are alternative methods of reuse, i.e., solidification (formation of solid material) and use of solid material for a specific type of material. For example, brick and concrete. During solidification, chemical interaction between consolidating additives and impurities does not necessarily occur. Beshah et al. have made bricks from textile sludge. The results show that 10–20% of the bricks meet the standards and were compared to pristine clay bricks [64]. Lissy et al. also used textile sludge to make bricks. Their test results showed that the control bricks and the bricks made from sludge were cast under the same condition, and suggested that the bricks made from sludge should be used for construction purposes [65].
Patel and Pandey used sludge from the CAS after TWW treatment to make blocks as construction material. They investigated the viability of the blocks in terms of solidification time, unconfined compressive quality, and toxicity characteristic. The estimate of the compressive quality of the blocks produced decreased when the percentage of sludge in the cement was increased [66].
Jahagirdar et al. also used textile sludge as an absorbent to remove dyes from wastewater. They burned the sludge at 800°C and studied the ash structure. The ash of the sludge was made permeable, and they found that it could be used as a retention agent for dye-absorbing applications [67].
Despite the great recognition of membrane pressure-driven processes for wastewater treatment, which are characterized by efficiency and simplicity, they have a problem with the creation of a certain amount of waste after treatment.
This chapter in the book provides information on waste generation during wastewater treatment with membrane pressure-driven processes. Furthermore, the ways of managing this waste are explained. This chapter also provides guidelines on how the generated waste can be recovered.
I would first like to thank my supervisor/mentor, associate professor Davor Dolar, PhD. I would like to thank him from the bottom of my heart for giving me the guidance and advice I needed to succeed. Working under a great supervisor has been very enjoyable and I have learned and grown a lot.
My second expression of gratitude goes to my colleagues, who have always supported me in my studies and progress. By setting me challenging tasks, they have strengthened me and given me a boost.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleague Luka Brezinščak, mag. ing. agr. who participated with us in this work and future collaboration.
This book chapter is dedicated to my one-year-old son, Fran.
References
1.Adane T, Adugna AT, Alemayehu E. Textile industry effluent treatment techniques. Journal of Chemistry. 2021;2021:1-14. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5314404
2.Deng D, Lamssali M, Aryal N, Ofori-Boadu A, Jha MK, Samuel RE. Textiles wastewater treatment technology: A review. Water Environment Research. 2020;92(10):1805-1810. DOI: 10.1002/wer.1437
3.Paździor K, Bilińska L, Ledakowicz S. A review of the existing and emerging technologies in the combination of AOPs and biological processes in industrial textile wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2019;376:120597. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.12.057
4.Shrivastava I, Adams EE. Pre-dilution of desalination reject brine: Impact on outfall dilution in different water depths. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research. 2019;24:28-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jher.2018.09.001
5.Bilińska L, Gmurek M. Novel trends in AOPs for textile wastewater treatment. Enhanced dye by-products removal by catalytic and synergistic actions. Water Resources and Industry. 2021;26:100160. DOI: 10.1016/j.wri.2021.100160
6.Vhanbatte SB. Background and type of textile materials processed in textile industry. In: Applications of Biotechnology for Sustainable Textile Production. Duxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier; 2022. p. 1-22. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85651-5.00004-9
7.Azanaw A, Birlie B, Teshome B, Jemberie M. Textile effluent treatment methods and eco-friendly resolution of textile wastewater. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. 2022;6:100230. DOI: 10.1016/j.cscee.2022.100230
8.Yusuf R, Sonibare J. Characterization of textile industries. Effluents in Kaduna, Nigeria and pollution implications. GlobalNEST. International Journal. 2004;6:212-221. DOI: 10.30955/gnj.000284
9.Keskin B, Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, Koyuncu I. Pilot and full-scale applications of membrane processes for textile wastewater treatment: A critical review. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2021;42:102172. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102172
10.Jarma YA, Karaoğlu A, Senan IRA, Baba A, Kabay N. Brine minimization in desalination of the geothermal reinjection fluid by pressure-driven membrane separation processes. Desalination. 2022;535:115840. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2022.115840
11.Khan S, Malik A. Toxicity evaluation of textile effluents and role of native soil bacterium in biodegradation of a textile dye. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018;25:4446-4458. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-0783-7
13.Campo R, Capodici M, Corsino F, Di Bella G, Esposito G, Fabbricino M, et al. 14 - membrane bioreactors sludge: From production to disposal. In: Mannina G, Pandey A, Larroche C, Ng HY, Ngo HH, editors. Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020. pp. 323-351. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819854-4.00014-9
14.Upadhyaya S, Kepplinger D. How Industrial Development Matters to the Well-Being of the Population: Some Statistical Evidence. Vienna: UNIDO [Internet]; 2014
15.Kishor R, Purchase D, Saratale GD, Saratale RG, Ferreira LFR, Bilal M, et al. Ecotoxicological and health concerns of persistent coloring pollutants of textile industry wastewater and treatment approaches for environmental safety. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2021;9(2):105012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.105012
16.Mani S, Chowdhary P, Bharagava RN. Textile wastewater dyes: Toxicity profile and treatment approaches. Emerging and Eco-Friendly Approaches for Waste Management. 2019;1:219-244. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-8669-4_11
17.Kan C-W. Plasma treatments for sustainable textile processing. In: Sustainable Apparel. Cambridge, UK: Elsevier; 2015. pp. 49-118. DOI: 10.1016/B978-1-78242-339-3.00003-0
18.Sudarshan S, Harikrishnan S, Rathi Bhuvaneswari G, Alamelu V, Aanand S, Rajasekar A, et al. Impact of textile dyes on human health and bioremediation of textile industry effluent using microorganisms: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2022;134(2):1-23. DOI: 10.1093/jambio/lxac064
19.Senthil Kumar P, Grace PK. 2 - water and textiles. In: Muthu SS, editor. Water in Textiles and Fashion. Duxford, United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing; 2019. pp. 21-40. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102633-5.00002-6
20.Shrivastava R, Singh NK. Assessment of water quality of textile effluent and its treatment by using coagulants and plant material. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021;43:3318-3321. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.373
21.Wang Z, Xue M, Huang K, Liu Z. Textile dyeing wastewater treatment. Advances in Treating Textile Effluent. 2011;5:91-116. DOI: 10.5772/22670
22.Ćurić I, Dolar D, Karadakić K. Textile wastewater reusability in knitted fabric washing process using UF membrane technology. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;299:126899. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2009.09.037
23.Tomei MC, Pascual JS, Angelucci DM. Analysing performance of real textile wastewater bio-decolourization under different reaction environments. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;129:468-477. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.028
24.Singh R, Hankins N. Emerging Membrane Technology for Sustainable Water Treatment. United Kingdom: Elsevier; 2016
25.Cirillo AI, Tomaiuolo G, Guido S. Membrane fouling phenomena in microfluidic systems: From technical challenges to scientific opportunities. Micromachines. 2021;12(7):820. DOI: 10.3390/mi12070820
26.Gul A, Hruza J, Yalcinkaya F. Fouling and chemical cleaning of microfiltration membranes: A mini-review. Polymers. 2021;13(6):846. DOI: 10.3390/polym13060846
27.Pal P. Chapter 1 - Introduction to the arsenic contamination problem. In: Pal P, editor. Groundwater Arsenic Remediation. MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2015. pp. 1-23. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801281-9.00001-1
28.Yang X, Crespi Rosell M, López GV. A review on the present situation of wastewater treatment in textile industry with membrane bioreactor and moving bed biofilm reactor. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2018;103:315-322. DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2018.21962
29.Jegatheesan V, Pramanik BK, Chen J, Navaratna D, Chang C-Y, Shu L. Treatment of textile wastewater with membrane bioreactor: A critical review. Bioresource Technology. 2016;204:202-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.006
30.Friha I, Bradai M, Johnson D, Hilal N, Loukil S, Ben Amor F, et al. Treatment of textile wastewater by submerged membrane bioreactor: In vitro bioassays for the assessment of stress response elicited by raw and reclaimed wastewater. Journal of Environmental Management. 2015;160:184-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.008
31.Yurtsever A, Sahinkaya E, Aktaş Ö, Uçar D, Çınar Ö, Wang Z. Performances of anaerobic and aerobic membrane bioreactors for the treatment of synthetic textile wastewater. Bioresource Technology. 2015;192:564-573. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.024
32.Khan SJ, Murchland D, Rhodes M, Waite TD. Management of concentrated waste streams from high-pressure membrane water treatment systems. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2009;39(5):367-415. DOI: 10.1080/10643380701635904
33.Jones E, Qadir M, van Vliet MTH, Smakhtin V, Kang S-m. The state of desalination and brine production: A global outlook. Science of The Total Environment. 2019;657:1343-1356. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.076
34.Reza K, Teo Ying S, Iman J, Saeid M-P, Abadi F MHD. An overview on the treatment and Management of the Desalination Brine Solution. In: Davood Abadi F MH, Vahid V, Amir Hooshang T, editors. Desalination. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2020. p. Ch. 1. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.92661
35.Mickley, Associates, Engineering ERTWT, Group R, Research WD, Program D. Membrane Concentrate Disposal: Practices and Regulation. VA, US: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service; 2006
36.Hoepner T, Lattemann S. Chemical impacts from seawater desalination plants — A case study of the northern Red Sea. Desalination. 2003;152(1):133-140. DOI: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)01056-1
37.Mohamed AMO, Maraqa M, Al HJ. Impact of land disposal of reject brine from desalination plants on soil and groundwater. Desalination. 2005;182(1):411-433. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.02.035
38.Ariono D, Purwasasmita M, Wenten IG. Brine effluents: Characteristics, environmental impacts, and their handling. Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences. 2016;48:367-387. DOI: 10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2016.48.4.1
39.Jenkins S, Paduan J, Roberts P, Weis J. Management of Brine Discharges to Coastal Waters; Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel. CA, USA: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Costa. 2012
40.Ahmed M, Anwar R. An assessment of the environmental impact of brine disposal in marine environment. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research. 2012;24:2756-2761
41.Anders CR, Santos Fernandes C, da Silva DN, da Silva Gomes JW, de Souza Melo MR, de Souza BGA, et al. Environmental impacts of reject brine disposal from desalination plants. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2020;181:17-26. DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2020.25055
42.Pramanik BK, Shu L, Jegatheesan V. A review of the management and treatment of brine solutions. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2017;3(4):625-658. DOI: 10.1039/C6EW00339G
43.Malfeito JJ, Díaz-Caneja J, Fariñas M, Fernández-Torrequemada Y, González-Correa JM, Carratalá-Giménez A, et al. Brine discharge from the Javea desalination plant. Desalination. 2005;185(1):87-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.05.010
44.Jiménez-Arias D, Morales-Sierra S, Machado FJ, García-García A, Luis J, Valdés F, et al. Rejected brine recycling in hydroponic and thermo-solar evaporation systems for leisure and tourist facilities. Changing waste into raw material. Desalination. 2020;496:114443. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2020.114443
45.Saf C, Gondet L, Villain-Gambier M, Belaqziz M, Trebouet D, Ouazzani N. Investigation of the agroecological applications of olive mill wastewater fractions from the ultrafiltration-nanofiltration process. Journal of Environmental Management. 2023;333:117467. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117467
46.Yuzer B, Aydin MI, Bulut FB, Palamutcu S, Emer U, Bekbolet M, et al. Reuse of the treated textile wastewater and membrane brine in the wet textile processes: Distorting effects on the cotton fabric. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2015;56(4):997-1009. DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2014.951001
47.Management USEPAOoW, Branch USEPAOoWMMT. A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management; 1994
48.Banti DC, Tsangas M, Samaras P, Zorpas A. LCA of a membrane bioreactor compared to activated sludge system for municipal wastewater treatment. Membranes. 2020;10(12):1-15. DOI: 10.3390/membranes10120421
49.Pontoni L, D’Alessandro G, d’Antonio G, Esposito G, Fabbricino M, Frunzo L, et al. Effect of anaerobic digestion on rheological parameters and dewaterability of aerobic sludges from MBR and conventional activated sludge plants. Chemical Engineering Transactions. 2015;43:2311-2316. DOI: 10.3303/CET1543386
50.Fenu A, Roels J, Wambecq T, De Gussem K, Thoeye C, De Gueldre G, et al. Energy audit of a full scale MBR system. Desalination. 2010;262(1):121-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2010.05.057
51.Massé A, Spérandio M, Cabassud C. Comparison of sludge characteristics and performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor and an activated sludge process at high solids retention time. Water Research. 2006;40(12):2405-2415. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.04.015
52.Ding Z, Bourven I, Guibaud G, van Hullebusch ED, Panico A, Pirozzi F, et al. Role of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) production in bioaggregation: Application to wastewater treatment. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2015;99(23):9883-9905. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-015-6964-8
53.Pontoni L, Papirio S, D’Alessandro G, Caniani D, Gori R, Mannina G, et al. Dewaterability of CAS and MBR sludge: Effect of biological stability and EPS composition. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2018;144(1):04017088. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001299
54.Semblante GU, Hai FI, Ngo HH, Guo W, You SJ, Price WE, et al. Sludge cycling between aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic regimes to reduce sludge production during wastewater treatment: Performance, mechanisms, and implications. Bioresource Technology. 2014;155:395-409. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.029
55.Lee LH, Wu TY, Shak KPY, Lim SL, Ng KY, Nguyen MN, et al. Sustainable approach to biotransform industrial sludge into organic fertilizer via vermicomposting: A mini-review. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 2018;93(4):925-935. DOI: 10.1002/jctb.5490
56.Kurt M, Aksoy A, Sanin FD. Evaluation of solar sludge drying alternatives by costs and area requirements. Water Research. 2015;82:47-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.04.043
57.Wang X, Xie Y, Qi X, Chen T, Zhang Y, Gao C, et al. A new mechanical cutting pretreatment approach towards the improvement of primary sludge fermentation and anaerobic digestion. Journal of environmental. Chemical Engineering. 2022;10(2):107163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.107163
58.Uddin MM, Wright MM. Anaerobic digestion fundamentals, challenges, and technological advances. Physical Sciences Reviews. 2022. DOI: 10.1515/psr-2021-0068
59.Naserian ES, Cheraghi M, Lorestani B, Sobhanardakani S, Sadr MK. Qualitative investigation of sewage sludge composting: Effect of aerobic/anaerobic pretreatments. Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 2021;14(10):836. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-021-07232-x
60.Houghton JI, Stephenson T. Effect of influent organic content on digested sludge extracellular polymer content and dewaterability. Water Research. 2002;36(14):3620-3628. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00055-6
61.Asia I, Oladoja N, Bamuza-Pemu EE. Treatment of textile sludge using anaerobic technology. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2006;5(18):1678-1683
62.Houghton JI, Quarmby J, Stephenson T. The impact of digestion on sludge Dewaterability. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2000;78(2):153-159. DOI: 10.1205/095758200530547
63.Rorat A, Courtois P, Vandenbulcke F, Lemiere S. Sanitary and environmental aspects of sewage sludge management. In: Industrial and Municipal Sludge. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier; 2019. pp. 155-180. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815907-1.00008-8
64.Beshah DA, Tiruye GA, Mekonnen YS. Characterization and recycling of textile sludge for energy-efficient brick production in Ethiopia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;28(13):16272-16281. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-11878-7
65.Lissy P, Sreeja MJIJoM, e-ISSN CE. Utilization of sludge in manufacturing energy efficient bricks. 2014;11:1684-2278
66.Patel H, Pandey S. Exploring the reuse potential of chemical sludge from textile wastewater treatment plants in India-a hazardous waste. American Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2009;5(1):106
67.Jahagirdar SS, Shrihari S, Manu B. Utilization of textile mill sludge in burnt clay bricks. International Journal of Environmental Protection. 2013;3(5):6-13
Written By
Iva Ćurić, Luka Brezinščak and Davor Dolar
Submitted: 30 May 2023Reviewed: 25 July 2023Published: 22 September 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
