WAC 2011

ORGANIC LOAD REMOVAL FROM PAPER MILL WASTEWATER USING GREEN TECHNOLOGY
Ashutosh Kumar Choudhary*, Satish Kumar and Chhaya Sharma Department of Paper Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Saharanpur Campus, Saharanpur 247001, U.P., India *Correspondence author: email: akchoudhary.env@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
This study evaluates the removal of color and chemical oxygen demand (COD) from the paper mill wastewater by horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSSF-CW) over a period of 15 weeks. The surface 2 area of the treatment system was 5.25 m , with dimensions of 3.5 m in length, 1.5 m in width, and 0.28 m in depth. Treatment efficiency of the system with hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 4 days was assessed. The COD and color removal efficiencies for the HSSF-CW system were 73-83% and 88-94% respectively. A linear correlation between COD mass loading and mass removal was obtained for a loading range from 18.5 to 31.2 g 2 COD/m /d. During this period, evapotranspiration (ET) of the treatment system was also observed and it varied from 8.2 to 11.7 mm/day. KEYWORDS: Constructed wetland, subsurface flow, paper mill wastewater evapotranspiration, horizontal

INTRODUCTION
The pulp and paper industry generates a large quantity of wastewater with high color and organic load that may cause serious environmental impacts upon direct discharge to receiving aquatic bodies. The most significant sources of pollution in pulp and paper industry are wood preparation, pulping, pulp washing, bleaching and coating operations (Catalkaya and Kargi, 2008; Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2004). The conventional treatment systems in pulp and paper mills include primary and secondary aerobic/anaerobic biological treatment systems. It has been observed that the secondary treated effluent still contains high color and organic load. In order to protect wastewater receiving bodies and to meet increasingly stringent standard discharge limits, it is essential to reduce the pollution load of pulp and paper mills effluent. For color and organic load reduction, constructed wetlands are suitable and efficient (Choudhary et al., 2011a). Constructed wetlands (CWs) are simple and low cost wastewater treatment systems that use natural processes utilizing shallow (< 1 m deep) beds, plants, substrate (soil, sand and gravels) and microorganisms to improve wastewater quality (EPA, 2004). CWs are generally classified into two categories: surface flow (SF) and subsurface-flow (SSF). Both the systems are capable of removing nutrients, organic load, total suspended solids, metals and pathogens from different types of domestic and industrial wastewaters (Choudhary et al., 2011b). Degradation of contaminants is accomplished by diverse treatment mechanisms including sedimentation, filtration, chemical precipitation, adsorption, microbial interactions and uptake or transformation by plants (Watson et al., 1989). Incoming nutrients support the growth of plants, which convert the inorganic chemicals into organic materials and form the basis of CW food chain (Brix, 1993). Microorganisms play a main role in biochemical transformation of pollutants (Hoppe et al., 1988; Madigan et al., 1997) and their capability in removing toxic organic compounds added to CWs has been reported (Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Kivaisi, 2001; Pitter and Chudoba, 1990; Reddy and DAngelo, 1997; Suyama et al., 1998). The soil is the main supporting material for plant and microbial growth. It was observed that fine gravel promotes greater growth of plants and therefore increases the amount of contaminants removal (Garcia et al., 2005). CWs are less expensive and have low maintenance cost than traditional wastewater treatment systems. Additionally these systems have more aesthetic value than traditional wastewater treatment systems (Kadlec et al., 2000; Langergraber, 2008). The treatment efficiency of these systems mainly dependent on the wetland design, hydraulic retention time (HRT), type of contaminant, microbial interactions and the climatic factors.

103

WAC 2011

The objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment efficiency of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSSF-CW) in terms of color and chemical oxygen demand removal from pulp and paper mill wastewater at HRT of 4 days. An additional objective was to determine the evapotranspiration (ET) of the CW treatment system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A HSSF-CW unit was constructed with dimensions of 3.5 m in length, 1.5 m in width, and 0.28 m in depth. 2 The surface area of the HSSF-CW unit was 5.25 m . The empty unit was filled with sand and gravel up to 0.28 m. Near the inlet and outlet zone of the unit a layer of coarse gravel was put to facilitate the distribution and collection of the wastewater. The CW unit was equipped with inlet and outlet hydraulic structures. Wastewater inflow is through perforated PVC pipe, placed across the entire width at the upstream side of the CW unit so that wastewater flow has a uniform distribution across unit. Other details of HSSF-CW unit configuration were given elsewhere (Choudhary et al., 2011a). The plant species (Canna indica) was collected from the near by region and planted by hand. The actual view of the experimental HSSF-CW planted with Canna indica is shown in Figure-1.

Figure-1: Actual view of the experimental HSSF-CW planted with Canna indica After plantation, the CW unit was loaded with water for five weeks for the growth of plant species. After that, pulp and paper industry wastewater was loaded to the unit. From July 2010 to November 2010, the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 4 days was maintained. The HRT was calculated by eq. (1) (EPA, 1993): HRT = nLWd/Q (1) where n is the effective porosity of the media, L is the length of the unit, W is the width of the unit, d is the depth of the bed, and Q is the average flow of wastewater through the unit. The porosity of the media was determined at the beginning of the study and was estimated to be 27%. Wastewater samples were collected at the inlet and the outlet of the CW unit (n=10). No sampling was done in the month of September due to rainfall. Wastewater samples were analyzed immediately in the laboratory for pH, color and COD. pH was determined by pH meter (Toshniwal) and color measurement was performed spectrometrically on a double beam spectrophotometer (Spekol 2000, Analytic Jena). For COD determination standard closed reflux method was employed (Clesceri et al., 1998).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The treatment efficiency of the HSSF-CW unit was examined by monitoring wastewater quality parameters (pH, color and COD) in the inlet and outlet wastewater at HRT of 4 days. The characteristics of the wastewater collected from the inflow and outflow are demonstrated in the Table 1 and Figure-2, 3 and 4.

104

WAC 2011

Table-1: Average values of the wastewater parameters at the inlet and outlet of the HSSF-CW unit (4 days HRT). Minimum and maximum values are indicated in the brackets. Average values Inlet pH Color (Pt-Co unit) COD (mg/L) 7.9 (7.8-8.3) 2371 (1877-4300) 903 (747-1259) Outlet 7.8 (7.7-7.9) 237 (212-272) 200 (181-216)

Parameters

8.6

Inlet Outlet

8.4

8.2

pH

8.0

7.8

7.6 Jul Aug Sept

Month

Oct

Oct

Nov

Figure 2: Inflow and outflow pH of wastewater at HRT of 4 days The average wastewater pH values obtained for the inlet and outlet of HSSF-CW were 7.9 and 7.8, respectively. Thus a decrease of 0.1 units in pH was observed from inflow to outflow. This decrease in pH value from inflow to outflow may be due to the formation of some acidic components. In our earlier study, a similar trend in pH value (from inlet to outlet) was observed at HRT of 5.9 and 8.6 days but the decrease in pH value was 0.3 and 0.4 units, respectively (Choudhary et al., 2011a). From this, it can be concluded that more the HRT more will be the degradation of organic matter and due to this more acidic components will form which further decease the pH of outflow wastewater.

4500 4000 3500

Inlet Outlet

Color (Pt-Co Units)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jul Aug Sept

Month

Oct

Oct

Nov

Figure-3: Inflow and outflow color of wastewater at HRT of 4 days

105

WAC 2011

1300 1200 1100 1000 900

Inlet Outlet

COD (mg/l)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Jul Aug Sept
Month

Oct

Oct

Nov

Figure-4: Inflow and outflow COD of wastewater at HRT of 4 days The inflow color concentration ranged between 1877-4300 Pt-Co units and for outflow it was between 212-272 Pt-Co units. The color removal efficiency varied from 88 to 94% with average removal of 90% as shown in Figure-5. The color removal from the wastewater through CW may be due to the adsorption of organic matter on the substrate and decomposition of soluble organics by microbial processes (aerobic and anaerobic). In our earlier study, the average color removal from pulp and paper mill wastewater through HSSF-CW was 97% at HRT of 5.9 days (Choudhary et al., 2011a). Calherios et al. (2009) also reported similar results for color reduction (90%) for the treatment of tannery wastewater through HSSF-CW. 100 90

Removal (%)

90 80 78 70 60 50 COD Color

Parameter
Figure-5: Removal of COD and color by HSSF-CW at HRT of 4 days The COD inflow concentration ranged between 747-1259 mg/L and for outflow it was between 181216 mg/L. The COD removal efficiency varied between 73-83% with average removal of 78% as shown in Figure-5. The COD removal is believed to occur rapidly through settling and entrapment of particulate organic matter in the void spaces of the substrate (EPA, 1993). The substrate is the main supporting material for plants and microbial growth. Fine gravel promotes greater growth of plants and therefore increases the amount of contaminants removal (Garcia et al., 2005). The microorganisms attached to the root zone of the plants play a very important role in the degradation of organic matter i.e. conversion of organic carbon to carbon dioxide, for this purpose oxygen is supplied by the root of the plants (Vymazal, 1998). Soluble organic matter may also be removed by a number of separation processes including absorption/ adsorption. The degree of sorption and its rate are dependent on the characteristics of both the organic matter and the solid

106

WAC 2011

surface (EPA, 2000). In addition to this, phyto-volatilization is also an important phenomenon for the removal of pollutants. Some wetland plants also take up pollutants directly through the root transport system and transfer them to the atmosphere via their transpiration stream (Hong et al., 2001; Ma and Burken, 2003). At HRT of 5 days, Daniels (2001) reported 8085% reduction in the COD from tannery wastewater through subsurface flow CW. 2 During the study, COD mass loading ranged between 18.5 to 31.2 g/m /day. The mean value for COD 2 2 mass loading was 22.4 g/m /day and the mass removal for COD varied between 15.9 to 28.3 g/m /day. A linear correlation between COD mass loading and mass removal was obtained as shown in the Figure 6. Calheiros et al. (2009) and Vymazal (2001) also reported the similar trend between mass loading and removal of COD. Figure-7 shows the evapotranspiration (ET) trend from July 2010 to October 2010. ET was not measured in the month of September due to heavy rainfall. From July to October the ET rate was found to decrease from 11.7 to 8.2 mm/day. The ET rate depends on the physical evaporation from the CW unit surface and the transpiration by the plants. The water balance of the CW unit is affected by growth and biomass of the plant species (Konnerupa et al., 2009). It means that greater the biomass, greater will be the ET rate. In this study, higher growth and biomass of Canna indica resulted in a significant water loss due to ET. The ET rate also depends on the dimensions of the CW unit and climatic conditions i.e. temperature of the day, and humidity etc. High ET rate in CWs can contribute to a significant water loss which in turn results in a longer HRT and hence more time for the degradation of pollutants. The ET rate can range from 3 to 20 -1 mm day over a year (Herbst and Kappen, 1999). 30.0 25.0

COD (g/m2/day)

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 16.0

20.0

24.0

28.0

32.0

COD loading

(g/m2/day)

Figure-6: COD mass removal rate by HSSF-CW 14

Evapotranspiration (mm/day)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 July-10 Aug-10 Oct-10

Month
Figure-7: Evapotranspiration of HSSF-CW planted with Canna indica

107

WAC 2011

CONCLUSION
Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland is an effective green technology for the treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater. The color and COD removal efficiencies for the HSSF-CW system were 88-94% and 73-83% respectively. From the above findings, it can be concluded that the HRT of 4 days is sufficient for the treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater to meet the standard discharge limits for organic load removal. The main mechanism for the organic load removal is physical filtration/settling and microbial processes takes place in the root zone of the plants. This study shows a linear correlation between mass loading and mass removal of COD. Evapotranspiration played a significant role in regulating the HRT of the pollutants in the treatment system. The treatment efficiency of CWs depends on several factors i.e., HRT, selection of plant species, hydraulic loading rates, design of the unit and climatic factors. It can be improved by the optimum combination of these factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, to provide research grant for this study.

REFERENCES
1. Brix, H., 1993. Wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands: systems design, removal processes, and treatment performance. In: Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement, Moshiri, G.A. (ed.), CRC press, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 9-22. 2. Calheiros, C.S.C., Rangel, A.O.S.S. & Castro, P.M.L., 2009. Treatment of industrial wastewater with twostage constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis. Bioresource Technology 100, p. 32053213. 3. Catalkaya, E.C. & Kargi, F., 2008. Advanced oxidation treatment of pulp mill effluent for TOC and toxicity removals. Journal of Environmental Management 87, p. 396404. 4. Choudhary, A. K., Kumar S., Sharma C. and Kumar P., 2011a. Performance of constructed wetland for the treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater. Proceedings of World Environmental & Water Resources Congress-2011, Palm Springs, California, p. 4856-4865, May 22-26. 5. Choudhary, A. K., Kumar, S. and Sharma, C., 2011b. Constructed wetlands: an approach for wastewater treatment, Elixir Pollution 37 (8), p. 3666-3672. 6. Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E. & Eaton, A.D., 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed., American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA. 7. Daniels, R., 2001. Enter the root-zone: green technology for the leather manufacturer, part 1, World Leather 14 (4), p. 6367. 8. EPA, 1993. Subsurface flow constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: A technology assessment, Office of water, 832-R-93-008. 9. EPA, 2000. Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters, EPA/625/R99/010. 10. EPA, 2004. Constructed treatment wetlands, Office of water, 843-F-03-013. 11. Garcia, J., Aguirre, P., Barragan, J., Mujeriego, R., Matamoros, V. & Bayona, J.M., 2005. Effect of key design parameters on the efficiency of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecological Engineering 25, p. 405418. 12. Herbst, M. & Kappen, L., 1999. The ratio of transpiration versus evaporation in a reed belt as influenced by weather conditions. Aquatic Botany 63, p. 113-125.

108

WAC 2011

13. Hong, M.S., Farmayan, W.F., Dortch, I.J. & Chiang, C.Y., 2001. Phytoremediation of MTBE from a groundwater plume. Environmental Science and Technology 35, p. 12311239. 14. Hoppe, H.G., Kim, S.J. & Gocke, K., 1988. Microbial decomposition in aquatic environments: combined process of extra cellular activity and substrate uptake. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54, p. 784 - 790. 15. Kadlec, R.H. & Knight, R.L., 1996. Treatment Wetlands, Lewis Publishers, CRC, New York. 16. Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P. & Haberl, R. (eds.), 2000. Constructed wetlands for pollution control: Processes, performance, design, and operation, IWA Scientific and Technical Rep. 8, International Water Association, London. 17. Kivaisi, A.K., 2001. The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a review. Ecological Engineering 16, p. 545-560. 18. Konnerup, D., Koottatep, T. & Brix, H., 2009. Treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical, subsurface flow constructed wetlands planted with Canna and Heliconia. Ecological Engineering 35, p. 248257. 19. Langergraber, G., 2008. Modeling of Processes in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands: A Review. Vadose Zone Journal 7, p. 830842. 20. Ma, X. & Burken, J.G., 2003. TCE diffusion to the atmosphere in phytoremediation applications. Environmental Science and Technology 37, p. 25342539. 21. Madigan, M.T., Martinko, L.M. & Brock, P.J., 1997. Biology of microorganisms, 8 Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 986.
th

ed., Prentice Hall,

22. Pitter, P. & Chudoba, J., 1990. Biodegradability of organic substance in the aquatic environment, CPR Press, Bostan, p. 306. 23. Pokhrel, D. & Viraraghavan, T., 2004. Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater a review. Science of the Total Environment 3, p. 3758. 24. Reddy, K.R. & DAngelo, E.M., 1997. Biogeochemical indicators to evaluate pollutant removal efficiency in constructed wetlands. Water Science and Technology 35, p. 110. 25. Suyama, T., Hosoya, H. & Tokiya, Y., 1998. Bacteria isolate degrading aliphatic polycarbonates. FEMS MIcrobiology Letters 161, p. 255-261. 26. Vymazal, J., 2001. Removal of organics in Czech constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow. In: Transformations of Nutrients in Natural and Constructed Wetlands, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, p. 305 327. 27. Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P.F., Green, M.B. & Haberl, R. (ed.), 1998. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in Europe, Backhuys, Leiden, The Netherlands. 28. Watson, J.T., Reed, S.C., Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L. & Whitehouse, A.E., 1989. Performance expectations and loading rates of constructed wetlands. In: constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment Hammer DA (ed.), Lewis, Chelsac, p. 319-351.

109