Recycling and Waste Management

**79**

**Chapter 5**

**Abstract**

Auxiliary Strategies for Water

Minimization of Water Use and

Possibility of Recycling and/or

*Fábio Henrique de Melo Ribeiro, Yeda dos Santos Silva* 

consumption, as well as reducing operating costs when treating effluents.

**Keywords:** industrial reuse, multicriteria analysis, segregation of effluents,

increased domestic waste production and industrial [4, 5].

Environmental pollution and the preservation of natural resources are subjects of constant presence in the world political and socioeconomic guidelines, especially the discussions related to water pollution. These debates are fueled by issues such as water scarcity [1–3], climate change pressures, disordered urban development and

To minimize some of these impacts, especially water scarcity, the implementation of effluent reuse programs provides direct and indirect benefits, such as the integration and sustainable use of water resources; reduction of excessive abstraction of

Water management in industry by minimizing water consumption and effluent generation, reusing and/or recycling as a possibility the economy and conservation of water, energy and economic resources. The characterization of the final effluent allows evaluating how much the treatment is adequate to meet the requirements of the regulations of different countries for recycling and/or reuse and evaluated the possibility of reuse, as well as the choice of effluent treatment methods. In this case, technical, environmental and economic criteria, with a view to complying with industrial reuse regulations, should be evaluated, and a multicriteria analysis (MCA) can be adopted to classify the treatment systems applied in different reuse scenarios, made possible by the combination of multiple processes, with the use of tertiary treatment techniques. It should be noted that the potential for recycling and/or reuse of effluents generated in industry increases when effluents are separated into groups (principle of segregation of effluent streams). As a way of promoting a more sustainable model, the use of reuse systems is promising to reduce

Management in Industries:

Reuse of Effluent

*and Liliana Pena Naval*

use of effluents, water management

**1. Introduction**

#### **Chapter 5**

## Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use and Possibility of Recycling and/or Reuse of Effluent

*Fábio Henrique de Melo Ribeiro, Yeda dos Santos Silva and Liliana Pena Naval*

#### **Abstract**

Water management in industry by minimizing water consumption and effluent generation, reusing and/or recycling as a possibility the economy and conservation of water, energy and economic resources. The characterization of the final effluent allows evaluating how much the treatment is adequate to meet the requirements of the regulations of different countries for recycling and/or reuse and evaluated the possibility of reuse, as well as the choice of effluent treatment methods. In this case, technical, environmental and economic criteria, with a view to complying with industrial reuse regulations, should be evaluated, and a multicriteria analysis (MCA) can be adopted to classify the treatment systems applied in different reuse scenarios, made possible by the combination of multiple processes, with the use of tertiary treatment techniques. It should be noted that the potential for recycling and/or reuse of effluents generated in industry increases when effluents are separated into groups (principle of segregation of effluent streams). As a way of promoting a more sustainable model, the use of reuse systems is promising to reduce consumption, as well as reducing operating costs when treating effluents.

**Keywords:** industrial reuse, multicriteria analysis, segregation of effluents, use of effluents, water management

#### **1. Introduction**

Environmental pollution and the preservation of natural resources are subjects of constant presence in the world political and socioeconomic guidelines, especially the discussions related to water pollution. These debates are fueled by issues such as water scarcity [1–3], climate change pressures, disordered urban development and increased domestic waste production and industrial [4, 5].

To minimize some of these impacts, especially water scarcity, the implementation of effluent reuse programs provides direct and indirect benefits, such as the integration and sustainable use of water resources; reduction of excessive abstraction of

surface and groundwater; reduction of energy consumption and environmental protection, reinforced by the restoration of rivers, marshes and lagoons [5]. With advances in effluent treatment technologies [6] and the possibility of [7, 8], water reuse presents itself as a potential source for different sectors of society, especially for the industrial sector.

The industry has also sought to improve processes in terms of sustainability, such as measures to reduce waste and effluent production, to meet international and national market requirements, and to adapt to the new scarcity scenario water resources. A number of countries practice industrial water reuse [9] the United States, Japan, and Australia have projects with a high percentage of effluent reuse from commercial and residential water and sanitation facilities [5, 10].

The establishment of targets for reuse, expressed in terms of the percentage of municipal effluents, which are treated to obtain a high quality, for an advantageous reuse have been adopted by different countries. Australia, which reused about 8% of the treated effluent in 2012, set the goal of increasing this quantity to 30% by 2030. In the case of Saudi Arabia, about 16% of the effluent was reused in of expansion to 65% by the end of 2016. Singapore, reuse 30% of the effluent and has a plan to reduce its dependence on external sources. Israel has achieved 70% reuse of domestic effluents [8].

In the case of the fish processing industry, where water is used in abundance in the various stages of production (an average of 11 m3 ton of processed fish and 15 m3 tons in the case of shrimp processing). The adoption of measures to reduce waste and effluent production are needed [11–14]. Under these circumstances, the use of reuse and recycling systems is promising to achieve these objectives and is important for achieving sustainable management [8]. In this industry, the large amount used leads to an increase in the volume of effluents generated, which, if not treated properly, lead to different impacts [7, 11–13, 15].

Evaluating alternatives for treatment of effluents capable of meeting technical, environmental and economic criteria implies the feasibility of reducing effluents and improving quality. The adoption of technologies and procedures that reduce the amount of water used. As well as the increase in reuse can characterize the implantation of cleaner production technologies in the industries, which not only confers the reduction of the direct and indirect costs of the process through the management of the consumption of water, energy and raw material used, as well as the efficiency of the enterprise.

#### **2. Quality and requirements established for the practice of industrial reuse**

As for the water consumption in the fish processing industries, it is known that the greater use is concentrated in the washing and cleaning steps. However, volumes used for the storage and refrigeration of fishery products should be considered for reuse [16], both before and during processing, as an important lubricant in the various stages of fish handling [16, 17]. As well as in waste management, which consists of scales, meat, bones, cartilage and viscera [11] and of the effluents characterized by high organic load and salts, which result in higher volumes of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) [11, 16, 18, 19] reducing the quality of these effluents. They are still rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, which when discharged can lead to eutrophication [12].

Other factors to be considered in production that will influence the effluent characteristics are the types of fish to be processed, the water supply system used

**81**

**Table 1.**

this type of industry.

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

**Concentration limits Application Country**

except fountains

systems.

industry

industry

of recirculation)

Fecal coliform <500 NPM/100 mL Class 3 water: used for flushing toilets

Class 1 water: used for car washing, direct contact of users with water, aerosol aspiration

Class 2 water: used for washing floors and pavements, watering gardens, maintaining lakes and canals for landscape purposes,

Class 4 water: reuse in orchards, cereal, fodder, cattle pastures and other crops through surface drainage or specific irrigation

Cleaning process, but not for the food

Processing and washing water in the food

Cooling towers and evaporative condensers

Cooling towers (variables depend on the rate

Use of single reticulated cooling water, cooling

water for boilers, process water.

Cooling without recirculation USA

Cooling water Greece

Brazil

Spain

and the volume of effluent generated [16, 18, 20]. The occurrence of these variables in the operational conditions makes it difficult to plan a single treatment unit capable of meeting the necessary requirements for all types of effluents produced in

*Reuse and recycling quality requirements established by standards and regulations for industrial reuse.*

*TSS, total suspended solids; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; NTU, turbidity unit; UFC, colony formation unit. Brazilian NBR Technical Standards 13969: 1997 [24], European Standards: Spain, Royal Decree 1620, [25] and* 

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

Fecal coliform <200 NPM/100 mL

Fecal coliform <500 NPM/100 mL

Free residual chlorine >0.5 mg/L

Fecal coliform <500 NPM/100 mL

UFC/100 mL

UFC/100 mL

Free residual chlorine between 0.5 and

pH between 6 and 8 Turbidity <5 NTU

Turbidity <5 NTU

Turbidity <10 NTU Dissolved oxygen >2 mg/L

*Legionella* spp.:100 UFC/L

Nematode eggs: 1 eggs/10 mL *Legionella* spp.: 100 UFC/L

*Escherichia coli*: 0 UFC/100 mL Nematode eggs: 1 eggs/10 mL

Thermotolerant coliforms ≤200/100 mL

Thermotolerant coliforms ≤200/100 mL

Minimum residual chlorine 1 mg/L

Minimum residual chlorine 1 mg/L

*Escherichia coli* ≤200 UFC/100 mL

BOD: ≤10 mg/L (in 80% of samples) TSS: ≤10 mg/L (in 80% of samples)

*Escherichia coli*: ≤5 UFC/100 mL (80% of samples), ≤50 (in 95% of samples)

*Greece, Ministerial Decree [26], American Guidelines [8].*

TSS: 35 mg/L Turbidity: 15 NTU *Escherichia coli*: 104

TSS: 35 mg/L *Escherichia coli*: 103

TSS: 5 mg/L Turbidity: 1 NTU

BOD ≤30 mg/L

BOD ≤30 mg/L

(average)

pH between 6 and 9 TSS ≤30 mg/L

pH between 6 and 8.5

Turbidity ≤2 NTU

pH between 6 and 9 TSS ≤30 mg/L

1.5 mg/L

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*


*TSS, total suspended solids; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; NTU, turbidity unit; UFC, colony formation unit. Brazilian NBR Technical Standards 13969: 1997 [24], European Standards: Spain, Royal Decree 1620, [25] and Greece, Ministerial Decree [26], American Guidelines [8].*

#### **Table 1.**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

especially for the industrial sector.

domestic effluents [8].

the efficiency of the enterprise.

**reuse**

eutrophication [12].

15 m3

surface and groundwater; reduction of energy consumption and environmental protection, reinforced by the restoration of rivers, marshes and lagoons [5]. With advances in effluent treatment technologies [6] and the possibility of [7, 8], water reuse presents itself as a potential source for different sectors of society,

The industry has also sought to improve processes in terms of sustainability, such as measures to reduce waste and effluent production, to meet international and national market requirements, and to adapt to the new scarcity scenario water resources. A number of countries practice industrial water reuse [9] the United States, Japan, and Australia have projects with a high percentage of effluent reuse

The establishment of targets for reuse, expressed in terms of the percentage of municipal effluents, which are treated to obtain a high quality, for an advantageous reuse have been adopted by different countries. Australia, which reused about 8% of the treated effluent in 2012, set the goal of increasing this quantity to 30% by 2030. In the case of Saudi Arabia, about 16% of the effluent was reused in of expansion to 65% by the end of 2016. Singapore, reuse 30% of the effluent and has a plan to reduce its dependence on external sources. Israel has achieved 70% reuse of

In the case of the fish processing industry, where water is used in abundance

 tons in the case of shrimp processing). The adoption of measures to reduce waste and effluent production are needed [11–14]. Under these circumstances, the use of reuse and recycling systems is promising to achieve these objectives and is important for achieving sustainable management [8]. In this industry, the large amount used leads to an increase in the volume of effluents generated, which, if not

Evaluating alternatives for treatment of effluents capable of meeting technical, environmental and economic criteria implies the feasibility of reducing effluents and improving quality. The adoption of technologies and procedures that reduce the amount of water used. As well as the increase in reuse can characterize the implantation of cleaner production technologies in the industries, which not only confers the reduction of the direct and indirect costs of the process through the management of the consumption of water, energy and raw material used, as well as

**2. Quality and requirements established for the practice of industrial** 

As for the water consumption in the fish processing industries, it is known that the greater use is concentrated in the washing and cleaning steps. However, volumes used for the storage and refrigeration of fishery products should be considered for reuse [16], both before and during processing, as an important lubricant in the various stages of fish handling [16, 17]. As well as in waste management, which consists of scales, meat, bones, cartilage and viscera [11] and of the effluents characterized by high organic load and salts, which result in higher volumes of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) [11, 16, 18, 19] reducing the quality of these effluents. They are still rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, which when discharged can lead to

Other factors to be considered in production that will influence the effluent characteristics are the types of fish to be processed, the water supply system used

ton of processed fish and

from commercial and residential water and sanitation facilities [5, 10].

in the various stages of production (an average of 11 m3

treated properly, lead to different impacts [7, 11–13, 15].

**80**

*Reuse and recycling quality requirements established by standards and regulations for industrial reuse.*

and the volume of effluent generated [16, 18, 20]. The occurrence of these variables in the operational conditions makes it difficult to plan a single treatment unit capable of meeting the necessary requirements for all types of effluents produced in this type of industry.

When it is intended to employ water reuse systems in meat product industries, account should be taken of the limitation imposed by the regulations. Reuse in these industries is generally restricted to direct or indirect reuse for operations where water does not come into contact with the product being processed or, in some situations, with whom it is handled. There are also other barriers to the large-scale operationalization of these systems, such as insufficient policies to support the reuse of reclaimed water; lack of public awareness and acceptance; failures in risk management systems, among others [6, 8]. However, each industrial plant is unique, with size and quality of different effluents, therefore, generalizations about the use and effluent characteristics are difficult to measure, making treatment complex.

Another barrier is the environmental regulations, which focus on the discharge of effluents into the water bodies, not being considered, in most of these documents, the necessary criteria for reuse and recycling [21]. However, there are efforts by several countries. In Europe, the countries with more specific reuse regulations are Greece, Spain and Portugal, and have applied in different reuse modalities. Italian regulations also describe urban, agricultural and industrial uses, but industrial use is permitted if there is no direct contact with food [5]. In the United States, regulations are developed according to the criteria of each state. In the case of Australia, government agencies initiated a reform in water management in 1994, when measures were adopted to use alternative water sources and the development of guidelines for obtaining recycled drinking water [22, 23]. In number of reuse projects, Japan leads, with approximately 1800; followed by Australia with more than 450; then Europe, with about 200; the Middle East, with more than 100; Latin America, over 50, and Sub-Saharan Africa, with just over 20 [5].

Despite the legal limitations of reuse, countries have been regulating the practice (**Table 1**). In these places, reuse water is mainly applied to urban uses and agricultural irrigation. Although effluent reuse is a widespread and widely applied practice, it is necessary to remember that the accomplishment of treatment to suit the requirements of the next use or to the related regulations is indispensable.

#### **3. Analysis of potential effluent reuse and recycling**

The industrial sector has adopted water reuse programs (**Table 2**), as a tool for the economy, for sustainability, and for the preservation of water resources. In order to comply with the regulations for industrial reuse and potability, joint systems of treatments are required. However, conventional effluent treatment is not suitable for the application of the effluent treatment, since the use of a less expensive technology for the treatment of effluents when the reuse option adopted is less restrictive [8, 24]. As well as the reuse and/or recycle systems when it comes to the food industry, since it is necessary to meet the specific criteria [16, 27, 28]. Advanced treatment techniques capable of removing high levels of pollutants should be used [29].

The choice of treatment technologies that best fits the reality of each industry does not depend exclusively on the level of removal to be achieved, since other technical, economic and environmental criteria also influence decision-making. In order to establish which treatment levels are adequate, tools capable of evaluating the technologies for applications in reuse projects can be employed. Compensatory models are an example; since they allow achieving results closer to what would be the ideal result, because they are more demanding in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each attribute, which characterizes a multicriteria analysis (MCA). These models can be divided into three subgroups: (i) scoring models (such as simple additive weighting); (ii) compromise models (such as TOPSIS); and (iii) concordance models (such as ELECTRE and PROMETHEE) [35].

**83**

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

**Type of water Subsequent use Reference**

cleaning and as water of constitution of boiler

does not require low concentration

and turbidity

Direct reuse in the crustacean cleaning step before cooking

Recycling, protein separation and subsequent incorporation into the

processing

Total solid suspended (SST)

Recycle [32]

[30]

[31]

[33]

[34]

Shower water from chiller Reuse as warm water for

Final effluent Reuse in operation that

The PROMETHEE is a non-parametric method of classification, which uses the principle of superior classification to formulate a ranking of alternatives, suitable for problems in which a finite number of alternatives must be classified in relation to several, sometimes-contradictory criteria [36]. The PROMETHEE approach has the advantage of being easier to use and less complex than the ELECTRE approach, although they are part of the same principles of agreement. For this reason, its

For the implementation of PROMETHEE, it is necessary to define the weights of the criteria adopted and the preference functions of the decision maker when comparing the contribution of the alternatives in terms of each separate criterion. ELECTRE is a method of overcoming based on the agreement analysis. The main

By optimizing the way in which the industries treat the effluents, a reduction of the operational costs of the plant can be obtained, besides minimizing the generation and the volume of effluents, without sacrificing the value or quality of the product [37]. The multicriteria analysis can subsidize the choice of the technology that satisfies the most possible criteria (objective and subjective), considering aspects competing in the decision of the managers of these types of establishments. Among the alternatives of effluent treatment systems for the fish processing industry, it is possible to choose the technologies that have the highest levels of removal (**Table 3**), capable of producing reuse waters with higher quality, or by better

From the removal rate obtained by the different treatment systems, multicriteria analysis (AMC) can be employed to support the decision on the choice of

application in solving environmental problems is increasing [3, 35].

Pre-chiller water, effluent from gutter gutter; cooling chamber water and thawing; filter washing water

Cooling water from crustaceans after

centrifugal pumping, evaporation (film evaporator or conventional) and drying (direct flame or steam)

cooking

Fish processing Process water from: vacuum or

*Industrial recycling and reuse of treated effluents in food processors.*

advantage is that it takes account of uncertainties and inaccuracies.

meeting the criteria of greater relevance [38].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

**Product or stage of processing**

Beef processing

Beef processing

Beef processing

Poultry processing

Fish processing Processing of crustaceans

*TSS, total suspended solids.*

**Table 2.**

Poultry processing


*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

#### **Table 2.**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

When it is intended to employ water reuse systems in meat product industries, account should be taken of the limitation imposed by the regulations. Reuse in these industries is generally restricted to direct or indirect reuse for operations where water does not come into contact with the product being processed or, in some situations, with whom it is handled. There are also other barriers to the large-scale operationalization of these systems, such as insufficient policies to support the reuse of reclaimed water; lack of public awareness and acceptance; failures in risk management systems, among others [6, 8]. However, each industrial plant is unique, with size and quality of different effluents, therefore, generalizations about the use and effluent characteristics are difficult to measure, making treatment complex. Another barrier is the environmental regulations, which focus on the discharge of effluents into the water bodies, not being considered, in most of these documents, the necessary criteria for reuse and recycling [21]. However, there are efforts by several countries. In Europe, the countries with more specific reuse regulations are Greece, Spain and Portugal, and have applied in different reuse modalities. Italian regulations also describe urban, agricultural and industrial uses, but industrial use is permitted if there is no direct contact with food [5]. In the United States, regulations are developed according to the criteria of each state. In the case of Australia, government agencies initiated a reform in water management in 1994, when measures were adopted to use alternative water sources and the development of guidelines for obtaining recycled drinking water [22, 23]. In number of reuse projects, Japan leads, with approximately 1800; followed by Australia with more than 450; then Europe, with about 200; the Middle East, with more than 100; Latin

America, over 50, and Sub-Saharan Africa, with just over 20 [5].

**3. Analysis of potential effluent reuse and recycling**

Despite the legal limitations of reuse, countries have been regulating the practice (**Table 1**). In these places, reuse water is mainly applied to urban uses and agricultural irrigation. Although effluent reuse is a widespread and widely applied practice, it is necessary to remember that the accomplishment of treatment to suit the requirements of the next use or to the related regulations is indispensable.

The industrial sector has adopted water reuse programs (**Table 2**), as a tool for the economy, for sustainability, and for the preservation of water resources. In order to comply with the regulations for industrial reuse and potability, joint systems of treatments are required. However, conventional effluent treatment is not suitable for the application of the effluent treatment, since the use of a less expensive technology for the treatment of effluents when the reuse option adopted is less restrictive [8, 24]. As well as the reuse and/or recycle systems when it comes to the food industry, since it is necessary to meet the specific criteria [16, 27, 28]. Advanced treatment techniques capable of removing high levels of pollutants should be used [29].

The choice of treatment technologies that best fits the reality of each industry does not depend exclusively on the level of removal to be achieved, since other technical, economic and environmental criteria also influence decision-making. In order to establish which treatment levels are adequate, tools capable of evaluating the technologies for applications in reuse projects can be employed. Compensatory models are an example; since they allow achieving results closer to what would be the ideal result, because they are more demanding in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each attribute, which characterizes a multicriteria analysis (MCA).

(such as simple additive weighting); (ii) compromise models (such as TOPSIS); and

These models can be divided into three subgroups: (i) scoring models

(iii) concordance models (such as ELECTRE and PROMETHEE) [35].

**82**

*Industrial recycling and reuse of treated effluents in food processors.*

The PROMETHEE is a non-parametric method of classification, which uses the principle of superior classification to formulate a ranking of alternatives, suitable for problems in which a finite number of alternatives must be classified in relation to several, sometimes-contradictory criteria [36]. The PROMETHEE approach has the advantage of being easier to use and less complex than the ELECTRE approach, although they are part of the same principles of agreement. For this reason, its application in solving environmental problems is increasing [3, 35].

For the implementation of PROMETHEE, it is necessary to define the weights of the criteria adopted and the preference functions of the decision maker when comparing the contribution of the alternatives in terms of each separate criterion. ELECTRE is a method of overcoming based on the agreement analysis. The main advantage is that it takes account of uncertainties and inaccuracies.

By optimizing the way in which the industries treat the effluents, a reduction of the operational costs of the plant can be obtained, besides minimizing the generation and the volume of effluents, without sacrificing the value or quality of the product [37]. The multicriteria analysis can subsidize the choice of the technology that satisfies the most possible criteria (objective and subjective), considering aspects competing in the decision of the managers of these types of establishments. Among the alternatives of effluent treatment systems for the fish processing industry, it is possible to choose the technologies that have the highest levels of removal (**Table 3**), capable of producing reuse waters with higher quality, or by better meeting the criteria of greater relevance [38].

From the removal rate obtained by the different treatment systems, multicriteria analysis (AMC) can be employed to support the decision on the choice of


*TSS, total suspended solids; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; Ntotal, total nitrogen; Ptotal, total phosphorus; UV, ultra violet. Source: [43].*

#### **Table 3.**

*Advanced treatment techniques for removal of high levels of pollutants.*

wastewater treatment systems for reuse, considering the economic, technological and environmental criteria.

The AMC tool was employed to determine the best wastewater treatment technology from fish processing industries. The Visual PROMETHEE 1.4 program (implementation software of both the PROMETHEE method and the GAIA method) was used.

Economic [construction cost (CC) and operation and maintenance cost (CO&M)], technological [pollutant removal capacity (CRP), system complexity (COMP) and specialized MO (MOE)] and environmental (potability) aspects were adopted. [(PO), energy consumption (EC) and odors (OD)] [38].

It was postulated that the best system comprises efficient and low cost treatment and it was admitted that the economic and environmental criteria have importance and greater weight in the analysis. When considering obtaining a wastewater for potable reuse, deployment costs and removal efficiency were prioritized. While operation and maintenance costs were of intermediate importance, followed by the other criteria in order of importance. If potable reuse was not necessary, its weight was redistributed, prioritizing cost and removal efficiency criteria.

To analyze effluent compliance for reuse, the following standards and regulations were adopted (**Table 1**): Brazilian NBR Technical Standards 13969: 1997 [24], European Standards: Spain, Royal Decree 1620, [25] and Greece, Ministerial Decree [26], American Guidelines [8].

When the intended reuse was drinking, the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS Ordinance No. 2914 [64]) was used, as well as to evaluate the potential for reuse of effluents in the most restrictive activities, such as preparation, handling and disposal fish packaging in processing industries.

For the use of potable reuse, from the effluent generated in the facilities of fish processing industries, the potability criterion (PO) was considered to be of greater

**85**

**Figure 1.**

*floc + Sludge + Filter + OsmRev + UV).*

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

relative importance, with a higher weight valuation than the others, given the

Among the alternatives of effluent treatment systems for the fish processing industry, the technologies that presented the highest levels of pollutant removal

After processing the data by the AMC program used, it can be verified that the alternative that best meets the criteria listed for the importance weighting adopted was the effluent treatment system composed by the following technologies: bioreactor; coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation; microfiltration by membranes (Bio + Coag/floc/sed + Memb) [15], followed by sedimentation/flotation systems; coagulation/flocculation; biological treatment by activated sludge process; sand filter filtration; reverse osmosis and UV disinfection (Sed/Flot + Coag/floc + Sludge +

It is noteworthy that the alternative Bio + Coag/floc/sed + Memb presented better overall performance, by better meeting the most relevant criteria adopted for drinking reuse. The criteria that most influenced the decision axes (**Figure 1**) were

For the reuse of non-potable water in less restrictive activities associated with the fish processing industry, such as use in water sanitation facilities, floor washing, garden irrigation and cooling and heating systems, potability requirements were not considered. Therefore, the valuation of the weights presented a redistribution of importance, prioritizing the criteria construction cost (CC), operation and mainte-

As alternatives for effluent treatment systems, the same technologies were adopted when considering potability. For this case, the alternative that best meets the listed criteria for the importance weighting adopted was the effluent treatment system proposed by Fahim et al. [39]: coagulation/flocculation with FeCl3 (Coag/ Floc), followed by the systems proposed by Artiga et al. [42]: bioreactor and ultra-

The reason for the alternative proposed by Fahim et al. [39] presented the best overall performance, by meeting the most relevant criteria adopted: construction cost (CC) and operation and maintenance cost (CO&M) and pollutant removal capacity (CRP). For and Artiga et al. [42] were the COMP, CC and EC criteria (**Figure 2**).

*Behavior of treatment alternatives proposed by Queiroz et al. [15], (a) bioreactor; coagulation/flocculation/ sedimentation; microfiltration by membranes (Bio + Coag/floc/sed + Memb), followed by the systems proposed by Cristóvão et al. [13]: sedimentation/flotation; coagulation/flocculation; biological treatment by activated sludge process; sand filter filtration; reverse osmosis and UV disinfection (Sed/Flot + Coag/*

restrictions imposed by the use itself and by rules and regulations.

pollutant removal efficiency (CRP) and potability (PO).

nance cost (CO&M) and pollutant removal capacity (CRP).

filtration by membranes (Bio + Memb).

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

were chosen (**Table 3**).

Filtr + OsmRev + UV) [13].

#### *Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

relative importance, with a higher weight valuation than the others, given the restrictions imposed by the use itself and by rules and regulations.

Among the alternatives of effluent treatment systems for the fish processing industry, the technologies that presented the highest levels of pollutant removal were chosen (**Table 3**).

After processing the data by the AMC program used, it can be verified that the alternative that best meets the criteria listed for the importance weighting adopted was the effluent treatment system composed by the following technologies: bioreactor; coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation; microfiltration by membranes (Bio + Coag/floc/sed + Memb) [15], followed by sedimentation/flotation systems; coagulation/flocculation; biological treatment by activated sludge process; sand filter filtration; reverse osmosis and UV disinfection (Sed/Flot + Coag/floc + Sludge + Filtr + OsmRev + UV) [13].

It is noteworthy that the alternative Bio + Coag/floc/sed + Memb presented better overall performance, by better meeting the most relevant criteria adopted for drinking reuse. The criteria that most influenced the decision axes (**Figure 1**) were pollutant removal efficiency (CRP) and potability (PO).

For the reuse of non-potable water in less restrictive activities associated with the fish processing industry, such as use in water sanitation facilities, floor washing, garden irrigation and cooling and heating systems, potability requirements were not considered. Therefore, the valuation of the weights presented a redistribution of importance, prioritizing the criteria construction cost (CC), operation and maintenance cost (CO&M) and pollutant removal capacity (CRP).

As alternatives for effluent treatment systems, the same technologies were adopted when considering potability. For this case, the alternative that best meets the listed criteria for the importance weighting adopted was the effluent treatment system proposed by Fahim et al. [39]: coagulation/flocculation with FeCl3 (Coag/ Floc), followed by the systems proposed by Artiga et al. [42]: bioreactor and ultrafiltration by membranes (Bio + Memb).

The reason for the alternative proposed by Fahim et al. [39] presented the best overall performance, by meeting the most relevant criteria adopted: construction cost (CC) and operation and maintenance cost (CO&M) and pollutant removal capacity (CRP). For and Artiga et al. [42] were the COMP, CC and EC criteria (**Figure 2**).

#### **Figure 1.**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

Discontinuous mixed reactor and compact filter

Bioreactor; coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation;

Sedimentation/flotation; coagulation/flocculation; biological treatment by activated sludge process; sand filter filtration; reverse osmosis and UV disinfection

*nitrogen; Ptotal, total phosphorus; UV, ultra violet. Source: [43].*

*Advanced treatment techniques for removal of high levels of pollutants.*

microfiltration by membranes

reactor

Coagulation/Flocculation with FeCl3 SST

and environmental criteria.

[26], American Guidelines [8].

disposal fish packaging in processing industries.

method) was used.

**Table 3.**

wastewater treatment systems for reuse, considering the economic, technological

*TSS, total suspended solids; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; Ntotal, total* 

**Treatment Parameters Removal Reference**

Rotary bioreactor COD 98% [40]

Bioreactor and ultrafiltration by membranes COD 92% [42]

BOD COD Oils and greases

Ntotal Dissolved organic carbon

COD Dissolved solids Ntotal Ptotal

Dissolved organic carbon Oils and greases SST Anions and cations heterotrophic bacteria

95.4% 89.3% 87.5% 92%

99.9% 88%

100% 100% 93% 100%

99.9% 99.8% 98.4% 96% 100%

[39]

[41]

[15]

[13]

The AMC tool was employed to determine the best wastewater treatment technology from fish processing industries. The Visual PROMETHEE 1.4 program (implementation software of both the PROMETHEE method and the GAIA

Economic [construction cost (CC) and operation and maintenance cost (CO&M)], technological [pollutant removal capacity (CRP), system complexity (COMP) and specialized MO (MOE)] and environmental (potability) aspects were

It was postulated that the best system comprises efficient and low cost treatment and it was admitted that the economic and environmental criteria have importance and greater weight in the analysis. When considering obtaining a wastewater for potable reuse, deployment costs and removal efficiency were prioritized. While operation and maintenance costs were of intermediate importance, followed by the other criteria in order of importance. If potable reuse was not necessary, its weight

To analyze effluent compliance for reuse, the following standards and regulations were adopted (**Table 1**): Brazilian NBR Technical Standards 13969: 1997 [24], European Standards: Spain, Royal Decree 1620, [25] and Greece, Ministerial Decree

When the intended reuse was drinking, the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS Ordinance No. 2914 [64]) was used, as well as to evaluate the potential for reuse of effluents in the most restrictive activities, such as preparation, handling and

For the use of potable reuse, from the effluent generated in the facilities of fish processing industries, the potability criterion (PO) was considered to be of greater

adopted. [(PO), energy consumption (EC) and odors (OD)] [38].

was redistributed, prioritizing cost and removal efficiency criteria.

**84**

*Behavior of treatment alternatives proposed by Queiroz et al. [15], (a) bioreactor; coagulation/flocculation/ sedimentation; microfiltration by membranes (Bio + Coag/floc/sed + Memb), followed by the systems proposed by Cristóvão et al. [13]: sedimentation/flotation; coagulation/flocculation; biological treatment by activated sludge process; sand filter filtration; reverse osmosis and UV disinfection (Sed/Flot + Coag/ floc + Sludge + Filter + OsmRev + UV).*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Behavior of Fahim et al. [39] (a) coagulation/flocculation with FeCl3 (Coag/Floc), Artiga et al. [42] (b), Queiroz et al. [15] bioreactor and ultrafiltration by membranes (Bio + Memb) and their decision axes.*


**87**

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

Even if the desired level of pollutant removal is reached, the use of clean technologies, which promote green innovation, together with the production process, should favor the sustainability of product transformation [44, 45]. Complex or simple technological investments, such as segregation of effluent, in processing contribute to cleaner production [44, 46, 47]. Segregation facilitates the treatment of the generated effluents [17] and can occur in the processing, through optimiza-

In the case of the fish processing industry, several alternatives can be adopted such as alteration in the cutting machine; adjustment in the mechanized filleting machine; inclusion of waste separation ramp; [48] (**Table 4**). Allied operations are considered the minimization of waste generation, such as sieving; filtration; [49, 50] which reduce between 30% and 80% of the solid residues originated during fish processing [51, 52]. Studies of the valuation of by-products of fish processing indicate that these can be used in the elaboration of new products, with low raw material and production costs, increasing the industry profit and reducing the environmental impact caused [17]. Among the alternatives for the reuse of waste generated by fish processing are the use for animal and human consumption and for biodiesel generation, which may contribute to the establishment of a sector committed to environmental issues [59–63].

The precise characterization of the effluents, including the daily volumes, flow rates and associated pollutant load, is fundamental for an efficient design of the treatment systems. The determination of the performance requirements of the treatment systems depends directly on a detailed assessment of the quality of

The choice of the treatment system to be used with a view to reuse, capable of guaranteeing the project's profitability and sustainability, is not a simple decision process, depending on the number of possible alternatives and criteria to be evaluated (such as economic, technical, environmental and social). In order to choose the most appropriate technologies for the treatment of effluents, it is necessary to define the intended destination, either for discharge into the water sources or for the application in reuse and/or recycling systems. Based on related regulations, the

available technologies can be related to the levels of removal required.

Development for the productivity grant (Process 40.3291/2016-0).

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The authors thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

tions added to the production line.

**4. Conclusions**

the effluents to be treated.

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

#### **Table 4.**

*Segregation techniques and removal percentages achieved.*

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

Even if the desired level of pollutant removal is reached, the use of clean technologies, which promote green innovation, together with the production process, should favor the sustainability of product transformation [44, 45]. Complex or simple technological investments, such as segregation of effluent, in processing contribute to cleaner production [44, 46, 47]. Segregation facilitates the treatment of the generated effluents [17] and can occur in the processing, through optimizations added to the production line.

In the case of the fish processing industry, several alternatives can be adopted such as alteration in the cutting machine; adjustment in the mechanized filleting machine; inclusion of waste separation ramp; [48] (**Table4**). Allied operations are considered the minimization of waste generation, such as sieving; filtration; [49, 50] which reduce between 30% and 80% of the solid residues originated during fish processing [51, 52].

Studies of the valuation of by-products of fish processing indicate that these can be used in the elaboration of new products, with low raw material and production costs, increasing the industry profit and reducing the environmental impact caused [17]. Among the alternatives for the reuse of waste generated by fish processing are the use for animal and human consumption and for biodiesel generation, which may contribute to the establishment of a sector committed to environmental issues [59–63].

#### **4. Conclusions**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

**Total solids**

**Figure 2.**

**Organic matter**

**Oils and greases**

**Technician employed % Theoretical** 

Sieving conjugated with microfiltration, ultrafiltration,

*Segregation techniques and removal percentages achieved.*

nanofiltration and reverse osmosis

Screen 31% a 60% [46, 53] Linked screen with fil 40% a 70% [50] and catchment area 100% [54]

*Behavior of Fahim et al. [39] (a) coagulation/flocculation with FeCl3 (Coag/Floc), Artiga et al. [42] (b), Queiroz et al. [15] bioreactor and ultrafiltration by membranes (Bio + Memb) and their decision axes.*

Screens 25% a 60% [29] Rotary filter 15% [45] Rotary sieve 25% [45] Nanofiltration conjugated prefiltration 56%. [54] Ultrafiltration 36% [54] Nanofiltration 60% a 80% [54] Dissolved air flotation 30% a 90% [29, 55] Coagulation-flotation 90% [56] Reverse osmosis 97,50% [54]

Membrane filtration associated with electrocoagulation 65% [57] Ceramic membrane and electrocoagulation 50% [57] Ceramic membrane 2% [57] Dynamic membrane 10% [57] Flotation 37% e 63% [49] Screen 10% a 20% [49]

**adopted**

80% a 90% [49]

**References**

**86**

*Source: [58].*

**Table 4.**

The precise characterization of the effluents, including the daily volumes, flow rates and associated pollutant load, is fundamental for an efficient design of the treatment systems. The determination of the performance requirements of the treatment systems depends directly on a detailed assessment of the quality of the effluents to be treated.

The choice of the treatment system to be used with a view to reuse, capable of guaranteeing the project's profitability and sustainability, is not a simple decision process, depending on the number of possible alternatives and criteria to be evaluated (such as economic, technical, environmental and social). In order to choose the most appropriate technologies for the treatment of effluents, it is necessary to define the intended destination, either for discharge into the water sources or for the application in reuse and/or recycling systems. Based on related regulations, the available technologies can be related to the levels of removal required.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The authors thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development for the productivity grant (Process 40.3291/2016-0).

#### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

#### **Author details**

Fábio Henrique de Melo Ribeiro, Yeda dos Santos Silva and Liliana Pena Naval\* Federal University of Tocantins (UFT), Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil

\*Address all correspondence to: liliana@uft.edu.br

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**89**

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

[9] Angelakis A, Gikas P. Water reuse: Overview of current practices and trends in the world with emphasis on EU states. Water Utility Journal.

[10] Leung RWK, Li DCH, Yu WK, Chui HK, Lee TO, Van Loosdrecht MC, et al. Integration of seawater and grey water reuse to maximize alternative water resource for coastal areas: The case of the Hong Kong International Airport. Water Science and Technology.

[11] Anh P, Dieu T, Mol A, Kroeze C, Bush S. Towards eco-agro industrial clusters in aquatic production: The case of shrimp processing industry in Vietnam. Journal of Cleaner Production.

[12] Muthukumaran S, Baskaran K. Organic and nutrient reduction in a fish processing facility—A case study. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 2013;**85**:563-570

[13] Cristóvão RO, Botelho C, Martins R, Loureiro J, Boaventura R. Fish canning industry wastewater treatment for water reuse—A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; [S.I.], n. 87,

[14] Souza MA. Eficiência do processo de ultrafiltração seguido de biodigestão anaeróbia no tratamento de efluente de frigorífico de tilápia [thesis]. São Paulo: Universidade Estadual Paulista, São

[15] Queiroz MI, Hornes M, Manetti A, Zepka L, Jacob-Lopes L. Fish processing

wastewater as a platform of the microalgal biorefineries. Biosystems Engineering. 2013;**115**:195-122

[16] Chowdhury P, Viraraghavan T, Srinivasan A. Biological treatment processes for fish processing

2014;**8**:67-78

2012;**65**:410-417

2018;**19**:2107-2118

p. 603-612

Paulo; 2010

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

[1] EPA. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. 2004. Available from: https://www3.epa.gov/ region1/npdes/merrimackstation/pdfs/ ar/AR-1530.pdf [Accessed: 21 April

[2] Arevalo J, Ruiz LM, Parada-Albarracín JA, González-

Desalination. 2012;**299**:22-27

2013;**23**:69-78

2010;**54**:821-831

Pérez DM, Pérez J, Moreno B, et al. Wastewater reuse after treatment by MBR. Microfiltration or ultrafiltration.

[3] Sadr S et al. Appraisal of membrane processes for technology selection in centralized wastewater reuse scenarios. Sustainable Environment Research.

[4] Almeida CMVB et al. Identifying improvements in water management of bus-washing stations in Brazil. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[5] Alcalde-Sanz L, Gawlik BM. Water Reuse in Europe Relevant Guidelines, Needs for and Barriers to Innovation. Luxemburg, 48 p: Publications Office of

[6] Yi L, Jiao W, Chen X, Chen W. An overview of reclaimed water reuse in China. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2011;**23v**:1585-1593

[7] Hidalgo D, Irusta R, Martinez L, Fatta D, Papadoupolos A. Development of a multi-function software decision support tool for the promotion of the safe reuse of treated urban wastewater.

Desalination. 2007;**215**:90-103

[8] EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (USA), 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618. Washington, D.C., 643 p. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/ P100FS7K.pdf [Accessed: 12 April 2019]

the European Union; 2014

**References**

2017]

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

#### **References**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

**88**

**Author details**

Fábio Henrique de Melo Ribeiro, Yeda dos Santos Silva and Liliana Pena Naval\*

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Federal University of Tocantins (UFT), Palmas, Tocantins, Brazil

\*Address all correspondence to: liliana@uft.edu.br

provided the original work is properly cited.

[1] EPA. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. 2004. Available from: https://www3.epa.gov/ region1/npdes/merrimackstation/pdfs/ ar/AR-1530.pdf [Accessed: 21 April 2017]

[2] Arevalo J, Ruiz LM, Parada-Albarracín JA, González-Pérez DM, Pérez J, Moreno B, et al. Wastewater reuse after treatment by MBR. Microfiltration or ultrafiltration. Desalination. 2012;**299**:22-27

[3] Sadr S et al. Appraisal of membrane processes for technology selection in centralized wastewater reuse scenarios. Sustainable Environment Research. 2013;**23**:69-78

[4] Almeida CMVB et al. Identifying improvements in water management of bus-washing stations in Brazil. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2010;**54**:821-831

[5] Alcalde-Sanz L, Gawlik BM. Water Reuse in Europe Relevant Guidelines, Needs for and Barriers to Innovation. Luxemburg, 48 p: Publications Office of the European Union; 2014

[6] Yi L, Jiao W, Chen X, Chen W. An overview of reclaimed water reuse in China. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2011;**23v**:1585-1593

[7] Hidalgo D, Irusta R, Martinez L, Fatta D, Papadoupolos A. Development of a multi-function software decision support tool for the promotion of the safe reuse of treated urban wastewater. Desalination. 2007;**215**:90-103

[8] EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (USA), 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618. Washington, D.C., 643 p. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/ P100FS7K.pdf [Accessed: 12 April 2019] [9] Angelakis A, Gikas P. Water reuse: Overview of current practices and trends in the world with emphasis on EU states. Water Utility Journal. 2014;**8**:67-78

[10] Leung RWK, Li DCH, Yu WK, Chui HK, Lee TO, Van Loosdrecht MC, et al. Integration of seawater and grey water reuse to maximize alternative water resource for coastal areas: The case of the Hong Kong International Airport. Water Science and Technology. 2012;**65**:410-417

[11] Anh P, Dieu T, Mol A, Kroeze C, Bush S. Towards eco-agro industrial clusters in aquatic production: The case of shrimp processing industry in Vietnam. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;**19**:2107-2118

[12] Muthukumaran S, Baskaran K. Organic and nutrient reduction in a fish processing facility—A case study. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 2013;**85**:563-570

[13] Cristóvão RO, Botelho C, Martins R, Loureiro J, Boaventura R. Fish canning industry wastewater treatment for water reuse—A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; [S.I.], n. 87, p. 603-612

[14] Souza MA. Eficiência do processo de ultrafiltração seguido de biodigestão anaeróbia no tratamento de efluente de frigorífico de tilápia [thesis]. São Paulo: Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo; 2010

[15] Queiroz MI, Hornes M, Manetti A, Zepka L, Jacob-Lopes L. Fish processing wastewater as a platform of the microalgal biorefineries. Biosystems Engineering. 2013;**115**:195-122

[16] Chowdhury P, Viraraghavan T, Srinivasan A. Biological treatment processes for fish processing

wastewater—A review. Bio/Technology. 2010. [S.I.], n. 101, p. 439-449

[17] Arvanitoyannis ISE, Kassaveti A. Fish industry waste: Treatments, environmental impacts, current and potential uses. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2008;**43**:726-745

[18] Cristóvão RO et al. Chemical and biological treatment of a fish canning wastewater. International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics. 2012;**2**(4):237-242

[19] Cristóvão RO et al. Chemical oxidation of fish canning wastewater by fenton's reagent. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2014; [S.I.], n. 2, p. 2372-2376

[20] Alexandre VMF et al. Performance of anaerobic bioreactor treating fishprocessing plant wastewater prehydrolyzed with a solid enzyme pool. Renewable Energy. 2011; [S.I.], n. 36, p. 3439-3444

[21] Oliveira-Esquerre KP et al. Taking advantage of storm and waste water retention basins as part of water use minimization in industrial site. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2011; [S.I.], n. 55, p. 316-324

[22] Radcliff EJ. Water recycling in Australia—During and after the drought. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2015; [S.I.], 1v, n. 5, p. 554-562

[23] New South Wales Government (NSW). NSW Water reuse guideline for food businesses. NSW Food Authority, Sydney. [Internet]. 2008. Available from: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ topics/water/water-quality/protectingand-managing-water-quality/waterwayhealth [Accessed: 11 May 2017]

[24] ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). Tanque

sépticos—Unidades de tratamento complementar e disposição final dos efluentes—Projeto, construção e operação—NBR 13969. Rio de Janeiro; 1997

[25] ESPAÑA—Real Decreto 1620/2007 de 7 Diciembre, por el que se establece el regímen jurídico de la reutilización de las aguas depuradas. BOE n. 294. pp. 50639-50661. Madrid [Internet]. 2007. Available from: https://www.boe. es/eli/es/rd/2007/12/07/1620 [Accessed: 12 May 2017]

[26] Joint Ministerial Decree (JMD) 145116/2011: Definition of measures, conditions and procedure for wastewater reuse. Greek Government Gazette 354B. [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/16805c7703 [Accessed: 21 April 2017]

[27] EPA. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington, D.C. Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www3.epa.gov/ region1/npdes/merrimackstation/pdfs/ ar/AR-1530.pdf [Accessed: 21 April 2017]

[28] Norton T, Misiewicz P. Ozone for water treatment and its potential for process water reuse in the food industry. In: O'Donnell, C. et al. (Ed.). Ozone in Food Processing. 1. ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2012.p. 177-200, cap. 11

[29] Mittal GS. Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application—A review. Bioresource Technology. 2006;**97**(9):1119-1135

[30] Mavrov V, Chmiel H, Bélières E. Spent process water desalination and organic removal by membranes for water reuse in the food industry. Desalination. 2001;**138**:65-74

[31] Wu J, Doan H. Disinfection of recycled red-meat-processing wastewater by ozone. Journal

**91**

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

[40] Najafpour GD, Zinatizadeh AAL, Lee LK. Performance of a threestage aerobic RBC reactor in food canning wastewater treatment.

Biochemical Engineering Journal. 2006,

[41] Huiliñir C et al. Simultaneous nitrate and organic matter removal from salmon industry wastewater: The effect of C/N ratio, nitrate concentration and organic load rate on batch and continuous process. Journal of Environmental Management 2001; [S.I.], n. 101,

[42] Artiga P et al. Use of a hybrid membrane bioreactor for the treatment of saline wastewater from a fishcanning factory. Desalination 2008;

[S.I.], n. 221, p. 518-525

2017;**46**:130-144

2015;**90**(1):234-243

[43] Ribeiro FHM, Naval LP.

Technologies for wastewater treatment from the fish processing industry: Reuse alternatives. The Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences.

[44] Bar ES. A case study of obstacles and enablers for green innovation within the fish processing equipment industry. Journal of Cleaner Production.

[45] COWI, Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Denmark. Cleaner production assessment a meat processing. Paris. UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. (ver. 2008) [Internet]. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency; 2008;**1**:83.

Available from: https://www3. https:// digitallibrary.un.org/record/441711.pdf

[46] Bezama A. Evaluation of the environmental impacts of a cleaner production agreement by frozen fish facilities in the Biobío Region,

[Accessed: 25 April 2017]

2006;**30**:297-302

p. 82-91

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

[32] Matsumura EM, Mierzwa JC. Water conservation and reuse in poultry processing plant—A case study.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[33] River L, Aspe E, Roeckel M, Mart MC. Evaluation of clean technology processes in the marine products processing industry. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 1998;**73**:217-226

[34] Roeckel M, Aspe E. Achieving clean technology in the fishmeal industry by addition of new process step. Journal Chemical Biotechnology.

[35] Kalbar P, Karmakar S, Asolekar S. Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: A scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. Journal of Environmental Management 2012; [S.I.], n. 113,

[36] Brans JP, Vincke PH, Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank project the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research.

[37] EPA. Emerging Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management. Washington, D.C.: Office of Wastewater Management U.S. Environmental

[38] Ribeiro MF, Naval LP. Reuse alternatives for effluents from the fish processing industry through multicriteria analysis. Journal of Cleaner

[39] Fahim FA et al. Evaluation of some methods for fish canning wastewater treatment. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution.

Protection Agency; 2013

Production. 2019;**19**:59-65

2001;**127**:205-226

of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 2015;**80**:828-833

2008;**52**:835-842

1996;**67**:96-104

p. 158-169

1986;**24**:228-238

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 2015;**80**:828-833

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

wastewater—A review. Bio/Technology.

sépticos—Unidades de tratamento complementar e disposição final dos efluentes—Projeto, construção e operação—NBR 13969. Rio de Janeiro;

[25] ESPAÑA—Real Decreto 1620/2007 de 7 Diciembre, por el que se establece el regímen jurídico de la reutilización de las aguas depuradas. BOE n. 294. pp. 50639-50661. Madrid [Internet]. 2007. Available from: https://www.boe. es/eli/es/rd/2007/12/07/1620 [Accessed:

[26] Joint Ministerial Decree (JMD) 145116/2011: Definition of measures,

wastewater reuse. Greek Government Gazette 354B. [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/16805c7703

[27] EPA. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington, D.C. Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www3.epa.gov/ region1/npdes/merrimackstation/pdfs/ ar/AR-1530.pdf [Accessed: 21 April

[28] Norton T, Misiewicz P. Ozone for water treatment and its potential for process water reuse in the food industry. In: O'Donnell, C. et al. (Ed.). Ozone in Food Processing. 1. ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2012.p.

wastewater from abattoirs before land application—A review. Bioresource Technology. 2006;**97**(9):1119-1135

[30] Mavrov V, Chmiel H, Bélières E. Spent process water desalination and organic removal by membranes for water reuse in the food industry. Desalination. 2001;**138**:65-74

[31] Wu J, Doan H. Disinfection of recycled red-meat-processing wastewater by ozone. Journal

conditions and procedure for

[Accessed: 21 April 2017]

1997

12 May 2017]

2017]

177-200, cap. 11

[29] Mittal GS. Treatment of

[17] Arvanitoyannis ISE, Kassaveti A. Fish industry waste: Treatments, environmental impacts, current and potential uses. International Journal of Food Science and Technology.

[18] Cristóvão RO et al. Chemical and biological treatment of a fish canning wastewater. International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics. 2012;**2**(4):237-242

[19] Cristóvão RO et al. Chemical oxidation of fish canning wastewater by fenton's reagent. Journal of

2014; [S.I.], n. 2, p. 2372-2376

p. 3439-3444

n. 5, p. 554-562

Environmental Chemical Engineering.

[20] Alexandre VMF et al. Performance of anaerobic bioreactor treating fishprocessing plant wastewater prehydrolyzed with a solid enzyme pool. Renewable Energy. 2011; [S.I.], n. 36,

[21] Oliveira-Esquerre KP et al. Taking advantage of storm and waste water retention basins as part of water use minimization in industrial site. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

2011; [S.I.], n. 55, p. 316-324

[22] Radcliff EJ. Water recycling in Australia—During and after the

[23] New South Wales Government (NSW). NSW Water reuse guideline for food businesses. NSW Food Authority, Sydney. [Internet]. 2008. Available from: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ topics/water/water-quality/protectingand-managing-water-quality/waterway-

health [Accessed: 11 May 2017]

[24] ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). Tanque

drought. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2015; [S.I.], 1v,

2010. [S.I.], n. 101, p. 439-449

2008;**43**:726-745

**90**

[32] Matsumura EM, Mierzwa JC. Water conservation and reuse in poultry processing plant—A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2008;**52**:835-842

[33] River L, Aspe E, Roeckel M, Mart MC. Evaluation of clean technology processes in the marine products processing industry. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 1998;**73**:217-226

[34] Roeckel M, Aspe E. Achieving clean technology in the fishmeal industry by addition of new process step. Journal Chemical Biotechnology. 1996;**67**:96-104

[35] Kalbar P, Karmakar S, Asolekar S. Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: A scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. Journal of Environmental Management 2012; [S.I.], n. 113, p. 158-169

[36] Brans JP, Vincke PH, Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank project the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research. 1986;**24**:228-238

[37] EPA. Emerging Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management. Washington, D.C.: Office of Wastewater Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2013

[38] Ribeiro MF, Naval LP. Reuse alternatives for effluents from the fish processing industry through multicriteria analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;**19**:59-65

[39] Fahim FA et al. Evaluation of some methods for fish canning wastewater treatment. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 2001;**127**:205-226

[40] Najafpour GD, Zinatizadeh AAL, Lee LK. Performance of a threestage aerobic RBC reactor in food canning wastewater treatment. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 2006, 2006;**30**:297-302

[41] Huiliñir C et al. Simultaneous nitrate and organic matter removal from salmon industry wastewater: The effect of C/N ratio, nitrate concentration and organic load rate on batch and continuous process. Journal of Environmental Management 2001; [S.I.], n. 101, p. 82-91

[42] Artiga P et al. Use of a hybrid membrane bioreactor for the treatment of saline wastewater from a fishcanning factory. Desalination 2008; [S.I.], n. 221, p. 518-525

[43] Ribeiro FHM, Naval LP. Technologies for wastewater treatment from the fish processing industry: Reuse alternatives. The Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2017;**46**:130-144

[44] Bar ES. A case study of obstacles and enablers for green innovation within the fish processing equipment industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;**90**(1):234-243

[45] COWI, Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Denmark. Cleaner production assessment a meat processing. Paris. UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. (ver. 2008) [Internet]. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency; 2008;**1**:83. Available from: https://www3. https:// digitallibrary.un.org/record/441711.pdf [Accessed: 25 April 2017]

[46] Bezama A. Evaluation of the environmental impacts of a cleaner production agreement by frozen fish facilities in the Biobío Region,

Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2012;**26**:95-100

[47] Denham FC et al. Environmental supply chain management in the seafood industry: Past, present and future approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015:82-90

[48] Watson R. Trials to Reduce Water and Effluent Charges in Fish Processing. The Sea Fish Industry Authority. Seafish Report N.SR; 2013;**1**:541

[49] Colic M et al. Case study: Fish processing plant wastewater treatment. Clean Water Technology, Inc. 2007:1-27. DOI: 10.2175/193864707787781557

[50] FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: opportunities and challenges. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. p. 233. [Internet]. 2004. Available from: http:// www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf [Accessed: 01 June 2018]

[51] Johanson K. Review of new segregation tester method by Dr. Kerry Johanson, P.E. Powder Technology. 2014;**257**:1-10

[52] Sutherland K. Filter media guidelines: Selecting the right filter media. Filtration & Separation. 2011;**48**(3):21-22. DOI: 10.1016/ S0015-1882(11)70195-1

[53] Almandoz MC et al. Composite ceramic membranes from natural alumina silicates for microfiltration applications. Ceramics International. 2015;**4**(41):5621-5633

[54] Gebreyohannes AY, Mazzei R, Gior L. Trends and current practices of olive mill wastewater treatment: Application of integrated membrane process and its future perspective. Separation and Purification Technology. 2016;**162**

[55] Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M. Slaughterhouse wastewater

characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat processing industry: A review on trends and advances. Journal of Environmental Management. 2015;**161**(15):287-302, set. 2015

[56] Lefebvre O, Moletta R. Treatment of organic pollution in industrial saline wastewater: A literature review. Water Research. 2016;**40**(20):3671-3682

[57] Yang T et al. Improving performance of dynamic membrane assisted by electrocoagulation for treatment of oily wastewater: Effect of electrolytic conditions. Desalination. 2016;**363**:134-143

[58] Silva YS, Naval LP. Segregation of solid waste from a fish-processing industry: a sustainable action. Rev. Ambiente e agua. 2018;**13**(2):e2155. DOI: 10.4136/ambi-agua.2155

[59] Alonso AA et al. Contributing to fisheries sustainability by making the best possible use of their resources: The be fair initiative. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2010;**21**(0):569-578

[60] Adeoti IA and Hawboldt K. Hawboldt, 2014. A review of lipid extraction from fish processing by-product for use as a biofuel. Biomass and Bioenergy 63, abr. 2014, p. 330-340

[61] Costa JF. Biodiesel production using oil from fish canning industry wastes. Energy Conversion and Management. 2013;**74**:17-23

[62] Feltes MCM et al. Alternativas para a agregação de valor aos resíduos da industrialização de peixe. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental. 2010;**14**(6):669-677

[63] Jayasinghe P, Hawboldt K. A review of bio-oils from waste biomass: Focus on fish processing waste. Renewable

**93**

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use…*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[64] Brasil, 2011. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria n. 2.914, dispõe Sobre Procedimentos Para o Controle e Monitoramento da Qualidade da água Para Consumo Humano e padrão de água potável. Jornal Oficial da União,

2012;**1**:798-821

Brasília; 2011

*Auxiliary Strategies for Water Management in Industries: Minimization of Water Use… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90281*

and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;**1**:798-821

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production.

characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat processing industry: A review on trends and advances. Journal of Environmental Management. 2015;**161**(15):287-302, set.

[56] Lefebvre O, Moletta R. Treatment of organic pollution in industrial saline wastewater: A literature review. Water Research. 2016;**40**(20):3671-3682

performance of dynamic membrane assisted by electrocoagulation for treatment of oily wastewater: Effect of electrolytic conditions. Desalination.

[58] Silva YS, Naval LP. Segregation of solid waste from a fish-processing industry: a sustainable action. Rev. Ambiente e agua. 2018;**13**(2):e2155. DOI: 10.4136/ambi-agua.2155

[59] Alonso AA et al. Contributing to fisheries sustainability by making the best possible use of their resources: The be fair initiative. Trends in Food Science and Technology.

[60] Adeoti IA and Hawboldt K. Hawboldt, 2014. A review of lipid extraction from fish processing by-product for use as a biofuel. Biomass and Bioenergy 63, abr. 2014,

[61] Costa JF. Biodiesel production using oil from fish canning industry wastes. Energy Conversion and Management.

[62] Feltes MCM et al. Alternativas para a agregação de valor aos resíduos da industrialização de peixe. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental. 2010;**14**(6):669-677

[63] Jayasinghe P, Hawboldt K. A review of bio-oils from waste biomass: Focus on fish processing waste. Renewable

[57] Yang T et al. Improving

2016;**363**:134-143

2010;**21**(0):569-578

p. 330-340

2013;**74**:17-23

2015

[47] Denham FC et al. Environmental supply chain management in the seafood industry: Past, present and future approaches. Journal of Cleaner

[48] Watson R. Trials to Reduce Water and Effluent Charges in Fish Processing. The Sea Fish Industry Authority. Seafish

[49] Colic M et al. Case study: Fish processing plant wastewater treatment. Clean Water Technology, Inc. 2007:1-27. DOI: 10.2175/193864707787781557

[50] FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: opportunities and challenges. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. p. 233. [Internet]. 2004. Available from: http:// www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf

2012;**26**:95-100

Production. 2015:82-90

Report N.SR; 2013;**1**:541

[Accessed: 01 June 2018]

2014;**257**:1-10

[51] Johanson K. Review of new

[52] Sutherland K. Filter media guidelines: Selecting the right filter media. Filtration & Separation. 2011;**48**(3):21-22. DOI: 10.1016/

[53] Almandoz MC et al. Composite ceramic membranes from natural alumina silicates for microfiltration applications. Ceramics International.

[54] Gebreyohannes AY, Mazzei R, Gior L. Trends and current practices of olive mill wastewater treatment: Application of integrated membrane process and its future perspective. Separation and Purification Technology. 2016;**162**

[55] Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M.

Slaughterhouse wastewater

S0015-1882(11)70195-1

2015;**4**(41):5621-5633

segregation tester method by Dr. Kerry Johanson, P.E. Powder Technology.

**92**

[64] Brasil, 2011. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria n. 2.914, dispõe Sobre Procedimentos Para o Controle e Monitoramento da Qualidade da água Para Consumo Humano e padrão de água potável. Jornal Oficial da União, Brasília; 2011

**95**

**Chapter 6**

**Abstract**

A Case Study

*Dariusz Sala and Bogusław Bieda*

contractor was POSCO E&C from South Korea.

exhaust aftertreatment process, heat, electricity

than a century in the industrialized world [3].

**1. Introduction**

**Keywords:** Poland, emission standards, waste incineration,

The Thermal Waste Treatment

The thermal waste treatment plant (TWTP) in Kraków (eco-incinerator) was created as a response to the energy and ecological needs of Kraków as part of the project "Municipal Waste Management Program in Krakow." The TWTP is able to process 220,000 tons of municipal waste during the year. Estimated values of the 65,000 MWh of electricity and 280,000 MWh of heat are produced as a result of the waste combustion. The energy obtained by way of the thermal transformation process is largely organic and renewable. The TWTP is equipped with a state-ofthe-art exhaust purification system that meets strict emission standards for air. The emission standards will meet the requirements the Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of November 4, 2014 on emission standards for certain types of installations, sources of fuel combustion and devices for incineration or co-incineration of waste (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 1546, including further amendments). The cleaning process takes place in the exhaust aftertreatment process and is based on the following steps: (*i*) denitrification of exhaust gases, (*ii*) flue gas cleaning by means of a semi-dry method and (*iii*) dust extraction. As the project's general

The term "thermal treatment" is used to describe a range of technologies that use heat to degrade the constitution of solid matter. These include incineration and its variations, as well as advanced thermal conversion (ATC) technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification [1, 2]. Incineration of waste has been practiced for more

For many people, thermal treatment technologies for waste management represent an image of hell on earth [2]. In line with Moberg et al. [4], waste is generated as a consequence of most of our daily activities. Waste incineration is often (but not always) the preferable choice when incineration substitutes landfill disposal of waste [5]. According to Hauck et al. [6], modern WTE facilities process approximately 13% of the total municipal waste in the United States. There is potentially more than 16,000 MW of electric power that currently a "missed opportunity" in the United States alone. The average gross and net electrical power generation of

Plant in Kraków, Poland:

#### **Chapter 6**

## The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study

*Dariusz Sala and Bogusław Bieda*

#### **Abstract**

The thermal waste treatment plant (TWTP) in Kraków (eco-incinerator) was created as a response to the energy and ecological needs of Kraków as part of the project "Municipal Waste Management Program in Krakow." The TWTP is able to process 220,000 tons of municipal waste during the year. Estimated values of the 65,000 MWh of electricity and 280,000 MWh of heat are produced as a result of the waste combustion. The energy obtained by way of the thermal transformation process is largely organic and renewable. The TWTP is equipped with a state-ofthe-art exhaust purification system that meets strict emission standards for air. The emission standards will meet the requirements the Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of November 4, 2014 on emission standards for certain types of installations, sources of fuel combustion and devices for incineration or co-incineration of waste (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 1546, including further amendments). The cleaning process takes place in the exhaust aftertreatment process and is based on the following steps: (*i*) denitrification of exhaust gases, (*ii*) flue gas cleaning by means of a semi-dry method and (*iii*) dust extraction. As the project's general contractor was POSCO E&C from South Korea.

**Keywords:** Poland, emission standards, waste incineration, exhaust aftertreatment process, heat, electricity

#### **1. Introduction**

The term "thermal treatment" is used to describe a range of technologies that use heat to degrade the constitution of solid matter. These include incineration and its variations, as well as advanced thermal conversion (ATC) technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification [1, 2]. Incineration of waste has been practiced for more than a century in the industrialized world [3].

For many people, thermal treatment technologies for waste management represent an image of hell on earth [2]. In line with Moberg et al. [4], waste is generated as a consequence of most of our daily activities. Waste incineration is often (but not always) the preferable choice when incineration substitutes landfill disposal of waste [5]. According to Hauck et al. [6], modern WTE facilities process approximately 13% of the total municipal waste in the United States. There is potentially more than 16,000 MW of electric power that currently a "missed opportunity" in the United States alone. The average gross and net electrical power generation of

WTE facilities has increased over the past decade to approximately 550 kWh per net ton of waste processed, assuming a typical municipal solid waste (MSW) heating value of 5000 Btu per pound (deg. F) (*Note: 5000 Btu per pound (deg. K = 20,934 kJ/ kg (deg. K) = 20.934 MJ/kg = 20.934 GJ/ton*) [6].

The first incinerators were developed in the United kingdom in the last part of the nineteenth century [3]. Germany introduced the technology in Hamburg in 1895 followed by Brussels, Stockholm and Zurich in 1904. British technology was used for the first plants in other parts of Europe. This includes Denmark where the first incinerators were constructed in the Copenhagen area in 1903 by the British company Hughes & Stirling and steam boilers from Babcock and Wilcox [3]. More reading on the history of waste incineration is available in Chandler et al. [7] and Kleis and Dalager [8].

The list of waste conversion technologies includes advanced combustion, anaerobic digestion, catalytic depolymerization, fermentation, gasification and pyrolysis [6]. Several cited technologies are currently being evaluated in various stages of testing, with funding provided by the US Department of Energy and private investors, and by 2020, it is possible that several of the presented above waste conversion technologies will advance to commercial status (HAUCK). The WTE industry is still evolving and be used and implemented into a municipal waste management process.

As reported by Chromec and Ferraro [9] in December 2007, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place in Bali. Key mitigation technologies in the waste sector, landfill gas (LFG) methane recovery, waste incineration with energy recovery, composting of organic waste, controlled waste water treatment, recycling and waste minimization, biocovers and biofilters to optimize methane oxidation have been proposed. In the presented above mitigation technologies for the waste sector, the categorization was carried out regarding specific waste treatment scenarios, whose efficiency is expressed in kg CO2 equivalent emitted per ton of waste. In the USA, with a population of over 300 million people, about 230 million tons per year of the waste are generated which represent about 760 kg per inhabitant per year (OECD). Based on the scenarios discussed above, if all wastes were landfilled, waste disposal would correspond to 425 million tons of CO2 equivalents. Furthermore, Chromec and Ferraro [9] presented the policies of the European Union (ΕU) on climate and energy. EU has proposed reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels. The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse gas *emissions* by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 [9]. In comparison with Europe, annual GHG emissions (CO2-eq/person year) in the USA today are on a level about double that of the Europe. Moreover, in the USA, the EFW concepts are based on the most advanced state of the art, solve a space and pollution problem and guarantee economical and environmentally robust processing and disposal [9].

Chromec and Ferraro [9] determined that if all wastes were incinerated in EFW plants, the emissions could be reduced by about 500 million tons of CO2 equivalents (about 9% of today's USA CO2 output) and make the waste management sector a GHG emission sink. Finally, the total electricity generated from EFW plants could be as high as 15,000 MW replacing about 50 standard 300 MW power plant units [9].

In the other paper, Chromec and Burelle [10] discussed that the maximum environmental benefits from a new EFW facility may require locating the new plant close to both the source of the waste and the potential energy customers. Placing the EFW facility directly into an urban community leads to the following: (*i*) minimizes the cost and the environmental impact of waste transport, (*ii*) allows electrical power to be generated at the point of consumption, (*iii*) provides thermal energy

**97**

**Figure 1.**

*Process flow diagram related to CLEANWEB and PREWIN projects [14].*

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

EFW plant in Paris and the EFW plant in London [10].

**2. Example of Incineration plants. Literature review**

for district heating and cooling, (*iv*) reduces the dependence on imported fossil fuel for electrical generation and for heating/cooling, (*v*) provides secure and wellpaying jobs for members of the community and finally reduces the carbon foot print of the community. The two case studies included in this paper described the Isséane

In Europe, the recovery of EFW has been adopted by the European

Waste incineration practices were discussed in the framework of project "QUOVADIS Waste-to-fuel Conversion — A Thinkshop," which took place in Ispra, Italy, between 28 April 2005 and 29 April 2005 [13]. Workshop was the forum for discussion and debate on the exchange of various experiences concerning the use of waste in waste-to-fuel conversion and its subsequent application [13]. In the draft paper untitled "Survey on the on-going scenario for SFR (solid recovery fuels) production and use in Italy" prepared by MP Maranzana presented 44 waste-to

With the introduction of legalization, the situation in the EU has been improved markedly, but with pressure to minimize landfill and limited option for recycling, thermal treatment occupies a key role in waste management [14] (ENERGY]. The main challenges to incineration plant operation are maximizing thermal efficiency for energy recovery [14]. The *Clean and Efficient Waste Incineration, Waste-to-Energy and Biomass Combustion* (CLEANWEB) project addresses these challenges. The other project *Performance, Reliability and Emission reduction in Waste INcineration* (PREWIN) Network provides the forum for collaboration among pan-European organizations for waste incineration [14]. One of the objectives of the project is to improve the performance, efficiency and reliability of thermal treatment plant

Commission as one of the sustainable waste management options, with the scope to decrease the amount of nonhazardous waste going to landfill [11]. In the context of waste-to-energy, it is worth noting the European Environmental Citizen Organization for Standardization (ECOS), nonprofit association established in 2002, funded by the European Commission and based in Brussels [12]. ECOS acknowledges that incineration of biomass contribute to climate protection, in addition ECOS admits that energy recovers only if performance is higher (LCA), and waste with low net calorific value or high level of pollutants shall not be

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

used as "fuel" [12].

energy plants in Italy [13].

(**Figure 1**).

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

Kleis and Dalager [8].

management process.

ing and disposal [9].

*kg (deg. K) = 20.934 MJ/kg = 20.934 GJ/ton*) [6].

WTE facilities has increased over the past decade to approximately 550 kWh per net ton of waste processed, assuming a typical municipal solid waste (MSW) heating value of 5000 Btu per pound (deg. F) (*Note: 5000 Btu per pound (deg. K = 20,934 kJ/*

The first incinerators were developed in the United kingdom in the last part of the nineteenth century [3]. Germany introduced the technology in Hamburg in 1895 followed by Brussels, Stockholm and Zurich in 1904. British technology was used for the first plants in other parts of Europe. This includes Denmark where the first incinerators were constructed in the Copenhagen area in 1903 by the British company Hughes & Stirling and steam boilers from Babcock and Wilcox [3]. More reading on the history of waste incineration is available in Chandler et al. [7] and

The list of waste conversion technologies includes advanced combustion, anaerobic digestion, catalytic depolymerization, fermentation, gasification and pyrolysis [6]. Several cited technologies are currently being evaluated in various stages of testing, with funding provided by the US Department of Energy and private investors, and by 2020, it is possible that several of the presented above waste conversion technologies will advance to commercial status (HAUCK). The WTE industry is still evolving and be used and implemented into a municipal waste

As reported by Chromec and Ferraro [9] in December 2007, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place in Bali. Key mitigation technologies in the waste sector, landfill gas (LFG) methane recovery, waste incineration with energy recovery, composting of organic waste, controlled waste water treatment, recycling and waste minimization, biocovers and biofilters to optimize methane oxidation have been proposed. In the presented above mitigation technologies for the waste sector, the categorization was carried out regarding specific waste treatment scenarios, whose efficiency is expressed in kg CO2 equivalent emitted per ton of waste. In the USA, with a population of over 300 million people, about 230 million tons per year of the waste are generated which represent about 760 kg per inhabitant per year (OECD). Based on the scenarios discussed above, if all wastes were landfilled, waste disposal would correspond to 425 million tons of CO2 equivalents. Furthermore, Chromec and Ferraro [9] presented the policies of the European Union (ΕU) on climate and energy. EU has proposed reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels. The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse gas *emissions* by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 [9]. In comparison with Europe, annual GHG emissions (CO2-eq/person year) in the USA today are on a level about double that of the Europe. Moreover, in the USA, the EFW concepts are based on the most advanced state of the art, solve a space and pollution problem and guarantee economical and environmentally robust process-

Chromec and Ferraro [9] determined that if all wastes were incinerated in EFW plants, the emissions could be reduced by about 500 million tons of CO2 equivalents (about 9% of today's USA CO2 output) and make the waste management sector a GHG emission sink. Finally, the total electricity generated from EFW plants could be as high as 15,000 MW replacing about 50 standard 300 MW power plant units [9]. In the other paper, Chromec and Burelle [10] discussed that the maximum environmental benefits from a new EFW facility may require locating the new plant close to both the source of the waste and the potential energy customers. Placing the EFW facility directly into an urban community leads to the following: (*i*) minimizes the cost and the environmental impact of waste transport, (*ii*) allows electrical power to be generated at the point of consumption, (*iii*) provides thermal energy

**96**

for district heating and cooling, (*iv*) reduces the dependence on imported fossil fuel for electrical generation and for heating/cooling, (*v*) provides secure and wellpaying jobs for members of the community and finally reduces the carbon foot print of the community. The two case studies included in this paper described the Isséane EFW plant in Paris and the EFW plant in London [10].

### **2. Example of Incineration plants. Literature review**

In Europe, the recovery of EFW has been adopted by the European Commission as one of the sustainable waste management options, with the scope to decrease the amount of nonhazardous waste going to landfill [11]. In the context of waste-to-energy, it is worth noting the European Environmental Citizen Organization for Standardization (ECOS), nonprofit association established in 2002, funded by the European Commission and based in Brussels [12]. ECOS acknowledges that incineration of biomass contribute to climate protection, in addition ECOS admits that energy recovers only if performance is higher (LCA), and waste with low net calorific value or high level of pollutants shall not be used as "fuel" [12].

Waste incineration practices were discussed in the framework of project "QUOVADIS Waste-to-fuel Conversion — A Thinkshop," which took place in Ispra, Italy, between 28 April 2005 and 29 April 2005 [13]. Workshop was the forum for discussion and debate on the exchange of various experiences concerning the use of waste in waste-to-fuel conversion and its subsequent application [13]. In the draft paper untitled "Survey on the on-going scenario for SFR (solid recovery fuels) production and use in Italy" prepared by MP Maranzana presented 44 waste-to energy plants in Italy [13].

With the introduction of legalization, the situation in the EU has been improved markedly, but with pressure to minimize landfill and limited option for recycling, thermal treatment occupies a key role in waste management [14] (ENERGY]. The main challenges to incineration plant operation are maximizing thermal efficiency for energy recovery [14]. The *Clean and Efficient Waste Incineration, Waste-to-Energy and Biomass Combustion* (CLEANWEB) project addresses these challenges. The other project *Performance, Reliability and Emission reduction in Waste INcineration* (PREWIN) Network provides the forum for collaboration among pan-European organizations for waste incineration [14]. One of the objectives of the project is to improve the performance, efficiency and reliability of thermal treatment plant (**Figure 1**).

**Figure 1.** *Process flow diagram related to CLEANWEB and PREWIN projects [14].*

#### **2.1 Maishima incineration plant**

Maishima ("dancing island" in Japanese) is a man-made Island in the Bay of Osaka. Osaka is Japan's third largest city, with a population of 2.6 million and with seven completed Von Roll plants [15]. Impressed by a facility in Vienna that had been embellished by the world famous Austrian artist, Osaka's planners decided to entrust him with the design and ornamentation of the building, the stack and the surrounding area (**Figure 2**). The facility consist of two waste processing lines, each of which is able to incinerate 450 tons of MSW every 24 hours, and is typical of today's large scale.

The energy produced in the incineration process is used to generate power in the power generator with a capacity of 32 MW [15].

#### **2.2 AVI Moerdijk incineration facility**

The Dutch provinces of Zeeland, North Brabant and Limburg funded study in 1990 to determine how much waste was being generated in the southern Netherlands. Based on the 600,000 tons of waste, new waste incineration plant AVI Moerdijk linked to thermal power plant was built. The facility being operation since 1996/1997 and consists of three separate lines. Waste heat generated in a year amounts to 2,000,000 tons of high-pressure steam at temperature of 400°C. The photo and schematic of the AVI Moerdijk incineration facility are presented in **Figures 3** and **4**, respectively [16].

#### **2.3 Bergen incineration facility**

In the Bergen region on the western coast of Norway, the city Bergen and neighboring communities founded Bergensområdets interkomunale Renovasjonsselskap (BiR) company with the objectives of managing the waste generated by the region's 280,000 inhabitants. The contract for erecting waste incineration plant was awarded to Von Roll Inova in 1997. Start of operation was in 1999. Energy recovery based on 90,000 tons of waste is about 60 GWh of electrical energy and 430,000 tons of process steam. The photo and schematic of the BiR Bergen incineration facility are presented in **Figures 5** and **6**, respectively [17], as well as in **Figure 7** [18].

**99**

**Figure 3.**

**Figure 4.**

*23-stack, 24-emission monitoring.*

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

*AVI Moerdijk incineration facility of 600,000 tons/year of waste [16].*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

**2.4 KEBAG waste incinerator plant, Zuchwil**

According to DOKA [19], Switzerland has 28 municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) plants in operation 1 (2000). The majority of them [23] have two or three furnace lines. All Swiss MSWIs utilize the energy contained in the waste to produce useful heat and/or electricity. In 2000, Swiss MSWIs gross production was 2,526,800 MWh heat and 1,284,200 MWh electricity, and the total energy input was 9,880,262 MWh [20]. **Figure 8** displays the general photo of the KEBAG waste incinerator plant in Zuchwil, Switzerland. In its four incineration lines, Zuchwiler KEBAG treats 220,000 tons of flammable domestic waste a year from the cantons of Berne and Solothurn—i.e., from around 473,000 residents in 208 municipalities, as opposed

*Scheme of the AVI Moerdijk incineration facility of 600,000 tons/year of waste [16]. 1-Tipping hall, 2-waste pit, 3-overhead crane, 4-crane pulpit, 5-feed hopper, 6-reciprocating grate, 7-primary air supply, 8-secondary air supply, 9-auxilary burners, 10-wet deslagger, 11-slag pit, 12-slag crane, 13-two-pass boiler, 14-boiler ash removal, 15-SNCR DeNOx system, 16-electrostatic precipitator, 17-ash silo, 18-gas-to-gas heat exchanger, 19-wet scrubber, 20-gypsum silo, 21-fabric filter with activated carbon injection, 22-inducted draft fan,* 

**Figure 2.** *Maishima incineration plant of 900 tons/24 hours of waste [15].* *The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

**Figure 3.** *AVI Moerdijk incineration facility of 600,000 tons/year of waste [16].*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

power generator with a capacity of 32 MW [15].

**2.2 AVI Moerdijk incineration facility**

**Figures 3** and **4**, respectively [16].

**2.3 Bergen incineration facility**

Maishima ("dancing island" in Japanese) is a man-made Island in the Bay of Osaka. Osaka is Japan's third largest city, with a population of 2.6 million and with seven completed Von Roll plants [15]. Impressed by a facility in Vienna that had been embellished by the world famous Austrian artist, Osaka's planners decided to entrust him with the design and ornamentation of the building, the stack and the surrounding area (**Figure 2**). The facility consist of two waste processing lines, each of which is able to incinerate 450 tons of MSW every 24 hours, and is typical of

The energy produced in the incineration process is used to generate power in the

The Dutch provinces of Zeeland, North Brabant and Limburg funded study

In the Bergen region on the western coast of Norway, the city Bergen and neighboring communities founded Bergensområdets interkomunale Renovasjonsselskap (BiR) company with the objectives of managing the waste generated by the region's 280,000 inhabitants. The contract for erecting waste incineration plant was awarded to Von Roll Inova in 1997. Start of operation was in 1999. Energy recovery based on 90,000 tons of waste is about 60 GWh of electrical energy and 430,000 tons of process steam. The photo and schematic of the BiR Bergen incineration facility are

presented in **Figures 5** and **6**, respectively [17], as well as in **Figure 7** [18].

in 1990 to determine how much waste was being generated in the southern Netherlands. Based on the 600,000 tons of waste, new waste incineration plant AVI Moerdijk linked to thermal power plant was built. The facility being operation since 1996/1997 and consists of three separate lines. Waste heat generated in a year amounts to 2,000,000 tons of high-pressure steam at temperature of 400°C. The photo and schematic of the AVI Moerdijk incineration facility are presented in

**2.1 Maishima incineration plant**

today's large scale.

**98**

**Figure 2.**

*Maishima incineration plant of 900 tons/24 hours of waste [15].*

*Scheme of the AVI Moerdijk incineration facility of 600,000 tons/year of waste [16]. 1-Tipping hall, 2-waste pit, 3-overhead crane, 4-crane pulpit, 5-feed hopper, 6-reciprocating grate, 7-primary air supply, 8-secondary air supply, 9-auxilary burners, 10-wet deslagger, 11-slag pit, 12-slag crane, 13-two-pass boiler, 14-boiler ash removal, 15-SNCR DeNOx system, 16-electrostatic precipitator, 17-ash silo, 18-gas-to-gas heat exchanger, 19-wet scrubber, 20-gypsum silo, 21-fabric filter with activated carbon injection, 22-inducted draft fan, 23-stack, 24-emission monitoring.*

#### **2.4 KEBAG waste incinerator plant, Zuchwil**

According to DOKA [19], Switzerland has 28 municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) plants in operation 1 (2000). The majority of them [23] have two or three furnace lines. All Swiss MSWIs utilize the energy contained in the waste to produce useful heat and/or electricity. In 2000, Swiss MSWIs gross production was 2,526,800 MWh heat and 1,284,200 MWh electricity, and the total energy input was 9,880,262 MWh [20]. **Figure 8** displays the general photo of the KEBAG waste incinerator plant in Zuchwil, Switzerland. In its four incineration lines, Zuchwiler KEBAG treats 220,000 tons of flammable domestic waste a year from the cantons of Berne and Solothurn—i.e., from around 473,000 residents in 208 municipalities, as opposed

#### **Figure 5.**

*BiR Bergen incineration facility of 90,000 tons/year of waste with energy output about 60 GWh. Waste return in form of electricity and heat [17].*

#### **Figure 6.**

*Scheme of the BiR Bergen incineration facility of 90,000 tons/year of waste [17]. 1-Truck unloading area, 2-waste pit, 3-, 4-crane operating pulpit, 5-feed hopper, 6-primary air intake, 7-primary air fan, 8-primary air distribution, 9-recirculated flue gas fan, 10-ram feeder, 11-reciprocating grate, 12-wet deslagger, 13-auxilary burners, 14-four-pass steam generator, 15-steam drum, 16-feedwater storage tank, 17-electrostatic precipitator, 18-quench, 19-wet scrubber, 20-steam-to-gas heat exchanger, 21-fabric filter, 22-induced draft fan, 23-silencer, 24-emission monitoring, 25-stack, 26-ash removal system, 27-emergency water tank, 28-adsorbent metering station.*

**101**

**Figure 9.**

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

to 2002 year, when train 4 enters service, and the service area has around 350,00 habitants who generated some 200,000 tons of wastes. The energy produced in the incineration process is used to generate electricity and prepare hot water [21, 22].

*KEBAG waste incinerator plant, Zuchwil, Switzerland [20]. Note: The name KEBAG comes from the German* 

The KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant handles some 100,000 tons of combustible waste (domestic and bulky) a year. Thun is the city, located on Lake Thun, is the economic hub of the Bernese Mittelland and Oberland with the population of 300,000 residents in 150 communities. The facility produces about a third of the electricity consumed in the city of Thun, as well as provides district heating for different customers facilities (e.g., adjacent public sector facilities [23]). Energy recovery type is extraction-condensation turbine produced electric power of 12 MW (maximum) and district heating output about 25 MW (maximum) [23]. The photo and longitudinal section of the KVA Thun

energy-from-waste plant are presented in **Figures9** and **10**, respectively [22].

The applicable emissions guarantees are below Swiss air quality regulation

*KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant of 100,000 tons/year of combustible waste with energy recovery: electric* 

*power about 12 MW (maximum) and district heating output about 25 MW (maximum) [23].*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

**2.5 KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant**

**Figure 8.**

*words for waste disposal.*

(LRV) limits, as show in the **Figure 11** below [24].

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

*BiR Bergen incineration facility of 90,000 tons/year of waste with energy output about 60 GWh. Waste return* 

*Scheme of the BiR Bergen incineration facility of 90,000 tons/year of waste [17]. 1-Truck unloading area, 2-waste pit, 3-, 4-crane operating pulpit, 5-feed hopper, 6-primary air intake, 7-primary air fan, 8-primary air distribution, 9-recirculated flue gas fan, 10-ram feeder, 11-reciprocating grate, 12-wet deslagger, 13-auxilary burners, 14-four-pass steam generator, 15-steam drum, 16-feedwater storage tank, 17-electrostatic precipitator, 18-quench, 19-wet scrubber, 20-steam-to-gas heat exchanger, 21-fabric filter, 22-induced draft fan, 23-silencer, 24-emission monitoring, 25-stack, 26-ash removal system, 27-emergency water tank,* 

**100**

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 5.**

**Figure 6.**

*28-adsorbent metering station.*

*in form of electricity and heat [17].*

*View general of the BiR Bergen incineration facility (photo from 2018) [18].*

*KEBAG waste incinerator plant, Zuchwil, Switzerland [20]. Note: The name KEBAG comes from the German words for waste disposal.*

to 2002 year, when train 4 enters service, and the service area has around 350,00 habitants who generated some 200,000 tons of wastes. The energy produced in the incineration process is used to generate electricity and prepare hot water [21, 22].

#### **2.5 KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant**

The KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant handles some 100,000 tons of combustible waste (domestic and bulky) a year. Thun is the city, located on Lake Thun, is the economic hub of the Bernese Mittelland and Oberland with the population of 300,000 residents in 150 communities. The facility produces about a third of the electricity consumed in the city of Thun, as well as provides district heating for different customers facilities (e.g., adjacent public sector facilities [23]). Energy recovery type is extraction-condensation turbine produced electric power of 12 MW (maximum) and district heating output about 25 MW (maximum) [23]. The photo and longitudinal section of the KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant are presented in **Figures9** and **10**, respectively [22].

The applicable emissions guarantees are below Swiss air quality regulation (LRV) limits, as show in the **Figure 11** below [24].

#### **Figure 9.**

*KVA Thun energy-from-waste plant of 100,000 tons/year of combustible waste with energy recovery: electric power about 12 MW (maximum) and district heating output about 25 MW (maximum) [23].*

#### **Figure 10.**

*Longitudinal section of the KVA Thun [23]. 1-Tipping hall, 2-waste bunker, 3-waste pit ventilation, 4-waste crane, 5-feed hopper, 6-ram feeder, 7-hitachi zosen inova grate, 8-ram bottom ash extractor, 9-bottom ash handling, 10-primary air intake, 11-primary air fan, 12-primary air distribution, 13-secondary air fan, 14-recirculation fan, 15-four-pass boiler, 16-boiler, 17-electrostatic precipitator, 18-SCR DeNox with catalyst, 19-economizer, 20-gas/ gas heat exchanger, 21-quench, 22-wet scrubber, 23-fabric filter, 24-inducted draft fan, 25-silencer, 26-emissions measurement, 27-stack, 28-ash conveying system, 29-residue silo.*

**Figure 11.** *KVA Thun facility emission limits [24].*

#### **3. Forms of recycling in Poland**

One recycling method is energy (thermal) recycling, understood as total or partial energy recovery. The waste incineration process must take place under certain conditions due to the toxic substances formed during combustion, such as dioxins or furans emitted and polluting the atmosphere.

The choice of recycling method depends on the type and properties of the post-consumer product. Due to changes in the prices of raw materials and energy, limited possibilities of using material recycling, as well as the fact that raw material recycling can already be considered cost-effective, the role and importance of this form of recycling should increase.

**103**

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

The thermal methods of waste removal that we can distinguish are as follows: combustion, pyrolysis (degassing/gasification), hydrogenation and bios drying. The main waste disposal system is of course incineration, which removes waste that is

Incineration is intended to make the waste residues neutral to the environment and minimize waste gas emissions. It is also important to reduce the volume and use

The industry must also be guided by several important principles related to the

The pyrolysis process breaks down organic waste under the influence of temperature. The product is energy carriers useful for storage. Most combustion technologies are still in the testing phase and are being gradually introduced to the

and in some cases plastic waste. However, the goal of the bios drying process is the production of alternative fuel from a biodegradable fraction segregated from mixed municipal waste. The biological drying process is preceded by separation of biodegradable fraction (0–60/80 mm) from mixed municipal waste, followed by

**4. The thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow (eco-incinerator)**

The main objective of this study is to share the art knowledge about the TWTP (eco-incinerator) in Krakow, Poland, that has operated since 2016. Description of TWTP case study is based on the thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow presen-

In recent years, waste incineration has been frequently preferred to other waste treatment or disposal alternatives due to advantages such as volume reduction,

According to the study by Pfeiffer [30], energy recovery is a secondary goal of waste incineration: thermal waste treatment and energy recovery are "married" within the waste-to-energy plant [30]. From an economic point of view, a WTE

Thermal waste treatment plant (TWTP) in Krakow (eco-incinerator) is being constructed in answer to concepts link economic, ecological and social aspects and needs of Krakow as key factor of project "Waste Management Program in Krakow" under the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment 2007–2013 [27]. On October 31, 2012, a contract was signed with the POSCO Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., South Korean company, for delivery of a TWTP. On November 6, 2013 began the construction of the eco-incinerator. The contract covered delivery, installation and commissioning the entire electromechanical parts. Series of tests at the plant began from December 3, 2015 until June 27, 2016. According to [26], the total contract amount (net cost) of the project was approximately PLN 666 million (approximately PLN 819 million gross). The subsidy from the European

mechanical treatment of the dried fraction to produce fuel.

chemical toxicity destruction and energy recovery [29].

plant treating MSW is an enterprise using a special fuel [1].

Another thermal process to mention is hydrogenation, which uses refinery waste

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

unusable and cannot be managed further.

the energy generated during combustion.

• process efficiency and efficiency.

combustion of precipitation:

• operational safety

• investment value

market in mature forms.

tations given in [25–28].

• land demand

#### *The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

The thermal methods of waste removal that we can distinguish are as follows: combustion, pyrolysis (degassing/gasification), hydrogenation and bios drying. The main waste disposal system is of course incineration, which removes waste that is unusable and cannot be managed further.

Incineration is intended to make the waste residues neutral to the environment and minimize waste gas emissions. It is also important to reduce the volume and use the energy generated during combustion.

The industry must also be guided by several important principles related to the combustion of precipitation:


*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

**102**

**Figure 11.**

**Figure 10.**

**3. Forms of recycling in Poland**

*KVA Thun facility emission limits [24].*

form of recycling should increase.

or furans emitted and polluting the atmosphere.

*measurement, 27-stack, 28-ash conveying system, 29-residue silo.*

One recycling method is energy (thermal) recycling, understood as total or partial energy recovery. The waste incineration process must take place under certain conditions due to the toxic substances formed during combustion, such as dioxins

The choice of recycling method depends on the type and properties of the post-consumer product. Due to changes in the prices of raw materials and energy, limited possibilities of using material recycling, as well as the fact that raw material recycling can already be considered cost-effective, the role and importance of this

*Longitudinal section of the KVA Thun [23]. 1-Tipping hall, 2-waste bunker, 3-waste pit ventilation, 4-waste crane, 5-feed hopper, 6-ram feeder, 7-hitachi zosen inova grate, 8-ram bottom ash extractor, 9-bottom ash handling, 10-primary air intake, 11-primary air fan, 12-primary air distribution, 13-secondary air fan, 14-recirculation fan, 15-four-pass boiler, 16-boiler, 17-electrostatic precipitator, 18-SCR DeNox with catalyst, 19-economizer, 20-gas/ gas heat exchanger, 21-quench, 22-wet scrubber, 23-fabric filter, 24-inducted draft fan, 25-silencer, 26-emissions* 

• process efficiency and efficiency.

The pyrolysis process breaks down organic waste under the influence of temperature. The product is energy carriers useful for storage. Most combustion technologies are still in the testing phase and are being gradually introduced to the market in mature forms.

Another thermal process to mention is hydrogenation, which uses refinery waste and in some cases plastic waste. However, the goal of the bios drying process is the production of alternative fuel from a biodegradable fraction segregated from mixed municipal waste. The biological drying process is preceded by separation of biodegradable fraction (0–60/80 mm) from mixed municipal waste, followed by mechanical treatment of the dried fraction to produce fuel.

#### **4. The thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow (eco-incinerator)**

The main objective of this study is to share the art knowledge about the TWTP (eco-incinerator) in Krakow, Poland, that has operated since 2016. Description of TWTP case study is based on the thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow presentations given in [25–28].

In recent years, waste incineration has been frequently preferred to other waste treatment or disposal alternatives due to advantages such as volume reduction, chemical toxicity destruction and energy recovery [29].

According to the study by Pfeiffer [30], energy recovery is a secondary goal of waste incineration: thermal waste treatment and energy recovery are "married" within the waste-to-energy plant [30]. From an economic point of view, a WTE plant treating MSW is an enterprise using a special fuel [1].

Thermal waste treatment plant (TWTP) in Krakow (eco-incinerator) is being constructed in answer to concepts link economic, ecological and social aspects and needs of Krakow as key factor of project "Waste Management Program in Krakow" under the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment 2007–2013 [27]. On October 31, 2012, a contract was signed with the POSCO Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., South Korean company, for delivery of a TWTP. On November 6, 2013 began the construction of the eco-incinerator. The contract covered delivery, installation and commissioning the entire electromechanical parts. Series of tests at the plant began from December 3, 2015 until June 27, 2016. According to [26], the total contract amount (net cost) of the project was approximately PLN 666 million (approximately PLN 819 million gross). The subsidy from the European

Union amounted to approximately PLN 372 million (approximately 55.8% of eligible expenses). The contribution of Krakowskiego Holdingu Komunalnego S.A. (KHK) amounted to approximately PLN 294 million and was covered by its own resources and a loan from the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Waste Management (NFEP & WM). The plant is located in the district Nowa Huta, part of the Kraków city. General view and longitudinal section of the TWTP are depicted in **Figures 12** and **13**, respectively [27].

Eco-incinerator allows to process 220,000 tons of municipal waste a year. Selected by the inhabitants mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and other waste (e.g., resulting from mechanical processing of municipal waste) and following waste recovery processes (i.e., material waste, bulk, rubble) are subject to thermal processing. The wastes are collected only from the municipality of Kraków.

The emissions come from TWTP production process meet the requirements of the best available techniques (BAT), guaranteeing the highest standards of environmental protection.

#### **Figure 12.**

*The thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow [31].*

**105**

**Table 1.**

**Line 2**

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

and the process of managing residue after incineration [27].

**4.1 The TWTP-a cost-effective and safe solution**

tion system that meets strict emission standards for air.

• Flue gas cleaning by means of a semi-dry method

*Concentration magnitude 11% content of oxygen in flue gases (mg/m3*

securing energy to the city has increased.

alternative sources of acquiring gas [27].

• Denitrification of exhaust gases

**4.2 Emission standards**

• Dust extraction.

On October 1, 2016, the educational pathway, an integral part of the ecoincinerator, was launched in the eco-incinerator area with the goal of increasing the ecological knowledge of the inhabitants as well as bringing the technology and thermal plant operation processes closer to them. This educational pathway is the tour throughout the plant, showing the key steps of the system such as delivery and unloading of waste into the bunker, the process of thermal conversion of municipal waste, the flue gas scrubbing process, the electricity and heat production process

Naturally, very stringent environmental regulations are applied to the process. Using BAT, the TWTP in Krakow meets the highest environmental and legal standards applicable in the European Union. The amount of waste is limited, and thus

In the line of [27], energy security signifies a prospective condition of meeting consumer demand (including the citizens of Krakow) for fuel and energy through

According to [28], the plant is equipped with a state-of-the-art exhaust purifica-

**Line 1 Emission value Emission value Emission value Emission limit value** Date 27 July 2019 13 August 2019 20 August 2019 Standards Dust 1.070 0.990 1.090 30 Hydrogen chloride 0.300 5.500 1.500 60 Hydrogen floride 0.000 0.000 0.055 4 Sulfur dioxide 1.100 19.750 12.900 200 Carbon monoxide 12.200 7.850 6.300 100 Nitric oxide 138.200 127.400 87.500 400 Total organic carbon 0.300 0.300 0.600 20

Dust 1.250 1.220 1.060 30 Hydrogen chloride 0.100 0.500 0.300 60 Hydrogen floride 0.000 0.000 0.020 4 Sulfur dioxide 6.150 11.500 0.400 200 Carbon monoxide 18.750 21.900 20.100 100 Nitric oxide 163.400 154.600 114.100 400 Total organic carbon 0.000 0.600 0.400 20

*Emission values of the TWTP derived from measurements of 27 July and 13 August 2019 [28].*

*), on average in 30 minutes in mg/m3*

*.*

The exhaust aftertreatment process consists of the following stages:

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

**Figure 13.** *Longitudinal section of the TWTP plant in Kraków [32].*

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

On October 1, 2016, the educational pathway, an integral part of the ecoincinerator, was launched in the eco-incinerator area with the goal of increasing the ecological knowledge of the inhabitants as well as bringing the technology and thermal plant operation processes closer to them. This educational pathway is the tour throughout the plant, showing the key steps of the system such as delivery and unloading of waste into the bunker, the process of thermal conversion of municipal waste, the flue gas scrubbing process, the electricity and heat production process and the process of managing residue after incineration [27].

#### **4.1 The TWTP-a cost-effective and safe solution**

Naturally, very stringent environmental regulations are applied to the process. Using BAT, the TWTP in Krakow meets the highest environmental and legal standards applicable in the European Union. The amount of waste is limited, and thus securing energy to the city has increased.

In the line of [27], energy security signifies a prospective condition of meeting consumer demand (including the citizens of Krakow) for fuel and energy through alternative sources of acquiring gas [27].

#### **4.2 Emission standards**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

**Figures 12** and **13**, respectively [27].

mental protection.

**Figure 12.**

*The thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow [31].*

*Longitudinal section of the TWTP plant in Kraków [32].*

Union amounted to approximately PLN 372 million (approximately 55.8% of eligible expenses). The contribution of Krakowskiego Holdingu Komunalnego S.A. (KHK) amounted to approximately PLN 294 million and was covered by its own resources and a loan from the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Waste Management (NFEP & WM). The plant is located in the district Nowa Huta, part of the Kraków city. General view and longitudinal section of the TWTP are depicted in

Eco-incinerator allows to process 220,000 tons of municipal waste a year. Selected by the inhabitants mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and other waste (e.g., resulting from mechanical processing of municipal waste) and following waste recovery processes (i.e., material waste, bulk, rubble) are subject to thermal

The emissions come from TWTP production process meet the requirements of the best available techniques (BAT), guaranteeing the highest standards of environ-

processing. The wastes are collected only from the municipality of Kraków.

**104**

**Figure 13.**

According to [28], the plant is equipped with a state-of-the-art exhaust purification system that meets strict emission standards for air.

The exhaust aftertreatment process consists of the following stages:



• Dust extraction.

#### **Table 1.**

*Emission values of the TWTP derived from measurements of 27 July and 13 August 2019 [28].*

The emission standards comply with the Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of 4 November 2014 on emission standards for certain types of installations, sources of fuel combustion and devices for incineration or co-incineration of waste (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 1546, including further amendments).

Below you can find in **Table 1** [28] a sample of selected emission values derived from measurements of 27 July, 13 August and 20 August this year.

As mentioned above, the eco-incinerator was created as a response to the ecological and energy needs of Krakow as part of the project "Municipal Waste Management Program in Krakow*"* (TWTP). It is the latest and most important part of this system; it enables to utilize municipal waste generated by the inhabitants of Krakow and the recovery of energy from it.

The thermal recycling technology is the most mature and environmentally esponsible solution to waste. This is confirmed by many years of European experience in which thermal processing of waste with recovery of energy forms the basis of the entire waste management system.

The eco-incinerator allows to process 220,000 tons of municipal waste during the year. Approximately 65,000 MWh of electricity and 280,000 MWh of heat are produced as a result of the combustion. The energy obtained by way of the thermal transformation process is largely organic and renewable [27].

#### **4.3 Green energy factory**

The thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow called Green-energy factory [26] provides background material for this part.

Concept of the furnace-grate furnace integrated into the boiler.


#### **4.4 The TWTP receives**


#### **4.5 Selection of waste, unloading and loading in the combustion chamber**

The overall objectives of the TWTP are to increase thermal efficiency and heat recovery, as well as reduce emissions through improving and developing a better plant characteristics. For this purpose, the wastes are discharged in the unloading hall of the bunker that ensures stocking waste for 5 days. To obtain a uniform mixture, which improves incineration efficiency, the waste is mixed together in the bunker. Next the waste is mixed together in the bunker, and then the cranes equipped with 6-teeth grapple buckets transport mixed waste to feed hoppers where it feeds into the loading shaft [25].

In the TWTP were installed radioactive material detectors so as to protect the installations against damage. The TWTP also monitors waste delivered for thermal processing [26].

**107**

energy [26].

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

The concept of the thermal waste treatment process is based on the five follow-

Radiation or convection is used for the waste drying in the grate zone. Thanks to temperature at approximately 100°C the moisture through evaporation is elimi-

The waste continued heating at above 250°C is used to releases gases (e.g.,

Third grate zone is suitable for waste incineration where loss on ignition is below

This process achieves oxidation volatile products by molecular oxygen. The majority of the waste is oxidized at 1000°C in the upper section of the furnace

The carbon dioxide amount in the combustion gases is reduced in the recuperative thermal oxidation area. The standard operating procedure used secondary air for total incineration for the minimum at 850°C and trough minimum of

The chosen combustion technology provides in the combustion chamber the reduction of CO and NOx, dioxins and furans emission. Produced in this thermal waste processing energy is then optimally recovered in a heat recovery steam

Using innovative concept, the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) is based on natural circulation of exhaust gases. In the boiler after heat exchange, exhaust gases are cooled to approximately 180°C. In the next step, heat is used to convert water, via the boiler, into superheated steam. Superheated steam at a pressure of 40 bar and a temperature of 415°C is supplied to the electricity generation and transmission node. The produced electricity is used to drive a set of steam turbines. In the last step, the actuated turbine converts mechanical energy into electrical

According to [26], produced electricity is used (consumed) by the operator; on the other hand, energy excess is returned to the grid. Using proven cogeneration concept, produced heat is distributed to the municipal heating network [26].

generator (HRSG) integrated with the grate furnace [26].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

moisture and carbonization gases) [26].

0.5% of the mass share production [26].

**4.6 Facility (TWTP) concept**

ing steps:

nated [26].

*4.6.1 Drying process*

*4.6.2 Degassing process*

*4.6.3 Combustion process*

*4.6.4 Gasification process*

chamber [26].

2 seconds [26].

**4.7 Energy recovery process**

*4.6.5 After burning*

#### **4.6 Facility (TWTP) concept**

The concept of the thermal waste treatment process is based on the five following steps:

#### *4.6.1 Drying process*

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

Krakow and the recovery of energy from it.

of the entire waste management system.

provides background material for this part.

• Grate incinerator technology

where it feeds into the loading shaft [25].

**4.3 Green energy factory**

circulation

**4.4 The TWTP receives**

The emission standards comply with the Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of 4 November 2014 on emission standards for certain types of installations, sources of fuel combustion and devices for incineration or co-incineration of waste (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 1546, including further amendments). Below you can find in **Table 1** [28] a sample of selected emission values derived

As mentioned above, the eco-incinerator was created as a response to the ecological and energy needs of Krakow as part of the project "Municipal Waste Management Program in Krakow*"* (TWTP). It is the latest and most important part of this system; it enables to utilize municipal waste generated by the inhabitants of

The thermal recycling technology is the most mature and environmentally esponsible solution to waste. This is confirmed by many years of European experience in which thermal processing of waste with recovery of energy forms the basis

The eco-incinerator allows to process 220,000 tons of municipal waste during the year. Approximately 65,000 MWh of electricity and 280,000 MWh of heat are produced as a result of the combustion. The energy obtained by way of the thermal

The thermal waste treatment plant in Krakow called Green-energy factory [26]

• Boiler—drum-type heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with natural

• Municipal solid waste mixed with secondary raw materials separated.

**4.5 Selection of waste, unloading and loading in the combustion chamber**

• Combustible ballast from other installations for processing municipal [26].

The overall objectives of the TWTP are to increase thermal efficiency and heat recovery, as well as reduce emissions through improving and developing a better plant characteristics. For this purpose, the wastes are discharged in the unloading hall of the bunker that ensures stocking waste for 5 days. To obtain a uniform mixture, which improves incineration efficiency, the waste is mixed together in the bunker. Next the waste is mixed together in the bunker, and then the cranes equipped with 6-teeth grapple buckets transport mixed waste to feed hoppers

In the TWTP were installed radioactive material detectors so as to protect the installations against damage. The TWTP also monitors waste delivered for thermal

from measurements of 27 July, 13 August and 20 August this year.

transformation process is largely organic and renewable [27].

Concept of the furnace-grate furnace integrated into the boiler.

• Turbine—based on the extraction condensing process [26].

**106**

processing [26].

Radiation or convection is used for the waste drying in the grate zone. Thanks to temperature at approximately 100°C the moisture through evaporation is eliminated [26].

#### *4.6.2 Degassing process*

The waste continued heating at above 250°C is used to releases gases (e.g., moisture and carbonization gases) [26].

#### *4.6.3 Combustion process*

Third grate zone is suitable for waste incineration where loss on ignition is below 0.5% of the mass share production [26].

#### *4.6.4 Gasification process*

This process achieves oxidation volatile products by molecular oxygen. The majority of the waste is oxidized at 1000°C in the upper section of the furnace chamber [26].

#### *4.6.5 After burning*

The carbon dioxide amount in the combustion gases is reduced in the recuperative thermal oxidation area. The standard operating procedure used secondary air for total incineration for the minimum at 850°C and trough minimum of 2 seconds [26].

The chosen combustion technology provides in the combustion chamber the reduction of CO and NOx, dioxins and furans emission. Produced in this thermal waste processing energy is then optimally recovered in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) integrated with the grate furnace [26].

#### **4.7 Energy recovery process**

Using innovative concept, the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) is based on natural circulation of exhaust gases. In the boiler after heat exchange, exhaust gases are cooled to approximately 180°C. In the next step, heat is used to convert water, via the boiler, into superheated steam. Superheated steam at a pressure of 40 bar and a temperature of 415°C is supplied to the electricity generation and transmission node. The produced electricity is used to drive a set of steam turbines. In the last step, the actuated turbine converts mechanical energy into electrical energy [26].

According to [26], produced electricity is used (consumed) by the operator; on the other hand, energy excess is returned to the grid. Using proven cogeneration concept, produced heat is distributed to the municipal heating network [26].

#### **4.8 Emission treatment process**

In line with [26], carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, steam and unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons are generated during the waste combustion process. Pollution may be expressed both in the form of gas and dust [26].

Pollution control plays an important role in waste incineration. All existing emission limits are complied. Combustion gases pass first to the heat recovery steam generator. Next via emission treatment installation are transferred to gas exhaust fan and finally are removed to stack.

Procedure of the emission treatment consists of the following steps [26]:


Post-processing waste disposal:

According to the [26], by-products created during thermal processing of waste are as follows:


Each residue resulted from thermal waste processing shall be received by authorized external entities in accordance with the provisions of the IPPC standards [26].

#### **5. Conclusions**


**109**

**Author details**

Poland

Dariusz Sala\* and Bogusław Bieda

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to: dsala@zarz.agh.edu.pl

AGH University of Science and Technology, Management Department, Kraków,

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

Relevant figures are reprinted with given sources.

4.The main advantage that gasification has over incineration is its capability to retain (keep) the chemical energy of the waste in the produced syngas.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The research does not

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

involve human participants and/or animals.

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

4.The main advantage that gasification has over incineration is its capability to retain (keep) the chemical energy of the waste in the produced syngas.

### **Acknowledgements**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

In line with [26], carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, steam and unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons are generated during the waste combustion process. Pollution may be expressed both in the form

Pollution control plays an important role in waste incineration. All existing emission limits are complied. Combustion gases pass first to the heat recovery steam generator. Next via emission treatment installation are transferred to gas exhaust

Procedure of the emission treatment consists of the following steps [26]:

injection of aqueous urea solution containing 25% urea by weight.

impurities, as well as heavy metals, dust, furans and dioxins.

• Semi-dry method based on the use of lime slurry, together with the dry

• Exhaust gases denitrification used by primary and secondary methods based on the application of the selective nitrogen oxides reduction (SNCR) via the

entrained flow method with activated carbon. These methods reduced acidic

• Fabric filtration for the effective dedusting exhaust gases by means of fabric

According to the [26], by-products created during thermal processing of waste

Each residue resulted from thermal waste processing shall be received by authorized external entities in accordance with the provisions of the IPPC stan-

1.The use of waste as a fuel leads to saving of primary resources and the reduc-

2.From an economics point of view, it is clear that waste incineration is costly for

3.The use of waste as alternative fuels is carried out in total compliance with permits issues by relevant authorities and meets rigorous requirements according to EU and national law and regulations as well as according to the IPPC

**4.8 Emission treatment process**

fan and finally are removed to stack.

of gas and dust [26].

filtration [26].

• slag and bottom ash

are as follows:

• boiler dust

• fly ash

dards [26].

**5. Conclusions**

society.

Directive.

tion of CO2 emissions.

Post-processing waste disposal:

• solid residues from the emission treatment.

**108**

Relevant figures are reprinted with given sources.

## **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The research does not involve human participants and/or animals.

### **Author details**

Dariusz Sala\* and Bogusław Bieda AGH University of Science and Technology, Management Department, Kraków, Poland

\*Address all correspondence to: dsala@zarz.agh.edu.pl

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Bieda B. The role of thermal treatment in an integrated waste management. Waste recycling. In: Wzorek Z, Kulczycka J, Fečko P, Kušnierowa M, editors. Kraków, Poland: Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 2005. pp. 104-113

[2] Everard M. Hot Stuff!–The Role of Thermal Treatment in a Sustainable Society. Warlines Park House, Horseshoe Hill, Upshire, Essex, UK: Waste Management World, PennWell International Publications Ltd.; 2004. pp. 37-45

[3] Hulgaard T, Vehlow J. Incineration: Process and technology. In: Christensen TH, editor. Solid Waste Technology & Management. Vol. 1. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2011. pp. 365-392

[4] Moberg A, Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P. Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste–Part 2: Landfilling compared to other treatment methods. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;**13**(3):231-240

[5] Eriksson O, Finnveden G, Ekvall T, Bjorklund A. Life cycle assessment of fuels for district heating: A comparison of waste incineration, biomass- and natural gas combustion. Energy Policy. 2007;**35**(2):1346-1362

[6] Hauck P, Strobridge D, Sonawane A. Sustainable Solutions for the 21st Century. Santa Barbara, CA: MSW Management; Forester Media Inc.; 2012. pp. 12-21

[7] Chandler AJ, Eighmy TT, Hartlén J, Hjelmar O, Kosson DS, Sawell SE, et al. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues. Studies in Environmental Science 67. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The International Ash Working Group. Elsevier Science; 1997. p. 973

[8] Kleis H, Dalager S. 100 Years of Waste Incineration in Denmark. From Refuse Destruction Plants to High-Technology Energy Works. Copenhagen, Denmark: Babcock and Wilcox, Vølund and Rambøll; 2004. 51p

[9] Chromec PR, Ferraro AF. Waste-toenergy in the context of global warming. In: 16th Annual North American Wasteto-Energy Conference. 2008. DOI: 10.1115/NAWTEC16-1954

[10] Chromec PR, Burelle RJ. Integration of an energy from Waste facility into an urban environment. In: 17th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference. 2009. DOI: 10.1115/ NAWTEC17-2320

[11] Ciceri G. QUOVADIS-quality management organisation, validation of standards, developments and inquiries for SRF. QUOVADIS waste-to-fuel conversion?–A Thinkshop. DG JRC Workshop, Ispra, 28-29 April 2005. Workshop Proceedings. In: Gawlik BM, Ciceri G, editors. EUR Report 21756 EN. European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities; 2005. pp. 147-155

[12] Tebert C. Waste-to-fuel standarisation. The public confidence aspect. QUOVADIS Waste-to-fuel conversion?–A Thinkshop. DG JRC Workshop, Ispra, 28-29 April 2005. Workshop Proceedings. In: Gawlik BM, Ciceri G, editors. EUR Report 21756 EN. European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities; 2005. pp. 123-128

[13] Maranzana M. Survey on the on-going scenario for SFR (solid recovery fuels) production and use in Italy. In: Gawlik BM, Ciceri G, editors. QUOVADIS waste-to-fuel conversion?–A Thinkshop. DG JRC

**111**

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study*

Gewerbeabfälle, Berne, Switzerland. 2001. Available from: http://www. buwal.ch/abfall/docu/pdf/tab10\_d.pdf

[21] Contract successfully executed for KEBAG Zuchwil. 2012. Available from: https://www.alpiq.com/alpiq-group/ media-relations/news-stories/newsstories-detail/contract-successfullyexecuted-for-kebag-zuchwil/ and https://www.alpiq.com/search/ search-results/?L=0&id=119&tx\_ solr%5Bq%5D=zuchwil [Accessed:

[22] KEBAG Waste Incinerator Plant, Zuchwil, Schweitz. Available from: https://nightnurse.ch/en/portfolio/ project/kebag-waste-incineratorplant-zuchwil-schweiz-277 [Accessed:

[23] Thun/Switzerland. Hitachi Zosen Inova. Energy-from-Waste Plant. Available from: http://www.hz-inova. com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/

[24] Surber M. Thun Waste Treatment Facility. Flas VonRoll INOVA. Nr 20. Zurich, Switzerland: Von Roll Technology Environmental Ltd;

[25] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. ECO-INCINERATOR. Available from: https://khk.krakow. pl/en/eco-incinerator/ [Accessed:

[26] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. Green Energy Factory. Available from: https://khk.krakow. pl/en/eco-incinerator/green-energyfactory/ [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[27] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. Available from: https://khk.krakow.pl/en/eco-

incinerator/about-the-plant/ [Accessed:

hzi\_ref\_thun\_en.pdf [Accessed:

[Accessed: 10 August 2019]

08 August 2019]

10 August 2019]

10 August 2019]

08 August 2019]

08 August 2019]

2002. 5p

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

Workshop, Ispra, 28-29 April 2005. Workshop Proceedings. In: EUR Report 21756 EN. European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities; 2005. pp. 209-232

[14] McGarry D. Energy from Waste and Biomass for better Efficiency and a Cleaner Environment. European Commision-Directorate General, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy. Petten, NL: P.O. Public Relations and

[15] Ermel FW. Maishima-The Latest Technology and a Unique Design. Flas VonRoll INOVA. nr 21. Zurich, Switzerland: Von Roll Technology Environmental Ltd; 2003. 5p

Environnement SA. Hardturmstrasse 133, Case postale 760, CH-8037 Zurich. Available from: http://www.vonroll.ch/ inova [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[17] BiR Bergen. vonRoll INOVA's Leaflet. Von Roll Environnement SA. Hardturmstrasse 133, Case postale 760, CH-8037 Zurich Available from: http:// www.vonroll.ch/inova [Accessed:

[18] Ristesund A. Bellona jubler for BIRinitiativ. Foto: Forbrenninganlegget til BIR i Rådalen. 2018. Available from: https:// www.ba.no/nyheter/miljo/bir/bellonajubler-for-bir-initiativ/s/5-8-852769 [Accessed: 06 December 2019]

[19] Doka G. Part II Waste Incineration.

Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services.ecoinvent report No. 13, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, December 2003. Available from: https://www. doka.ch/13\_II\_WasteIncineration.pdf

[Accessed: 10 August 2019]

[20] BUWAL. Energieerzeugung und Nutzung in KVA 2000, Stand 11.12.2001. Industrie- und

08 August 2019]

Communication; 2005. p. 2

[16] AVI Moerdijk. vonRoll INOVA's Leaflet. Von Roll

*The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Kraków, Poland: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90254*

Workshop, Ispra, 28-29 April 2005. Workshop Proceedings. In: EUR Report 21756 EN. European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities; 2005. pp. 209-232

[14] McGarry D. Energy from Waste and Biomass for better Efficiency and a Cleaner Environment. European Commision-Directorate General, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy. Petten, NL: P.O. Public Relations and Communication; 2005. p. 2

[15] Ermel FW. Maishima-The Latest Technology and a Unique Design. Flas VonRoll INOVA. nr 21. Zurich, Switzerland: Von Roll Technology Environmental Ltd; 2003. 5p

[16] AVI Moerdijk. vonRoll INOVA's Leaflet. Von Roll Environnement SA. Hardturmstrasse 133, Case postale 760, CH-8037 Zurich. Available from: http://www.vonroll.ch/ inova [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[17] BiR Bergen. vonRoll INOVA's Leaflet. Von Roll Environnement SA. Hardturmstrasse 133, Case postale 760, CH-8037 Zurich Available from: http:// www.vonroll.ch/inova [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[18] Ristesund A. Bellona jubler for BIRinitiativ. Foto: Forbrenninganlegget til BIR i Rådalen. 2018. Available from: https:// www.ba.no/nyheter/miljo/bir/bellonajubler-for-bir-initiativ/s/5-8-852769 [Accessed: 06 December 2019]

[19] Doka G. Part II Waste Incineration. Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services.ecoinvent report No. 13, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, December 2003. Available from: https://www. doka.ch/13\_II\_WasteIncineration.pdf [Accessed: 10 August 2019]

[20] BUWAL. Energieerzeugung und Nutzung in KVA 2000, Stand 11.12.2001. Industrie- und Gewerbeabfälle, Berne, Switzerland. 2001. Available from: http://www. buwal.ch/abfall/docu/pdf/tab10\_d.pdf [Accessed: 10 August 2019]

[21] Contract successfully executed for KEBAG Zuchwil. 2012. Available from: https://www.alpiq.com/alpiq-group/ media-relations/news-stories/newsstories-detail/contract-successfullyexecuted-for-kebag-zuchwil/ and https://www.alpiq.com/search/ search-results/?L=0&id=119&tx\_ solr%5Bq%5D=zuchwil [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[22] KEBAG Waste Incinerator Plant, Zuchwil, Schweitz. Available from: https://nightnurse.ch/en/portfolio/ project/kebag-waste-incineratorplant-zuchwil-schweiz-277 [Accessed: 10 August 2019]

[23] Thun/Switzerland. Hitachi Zosen Inova. Energy-from-Waste Plant. Available from: http://www.hz-inova. com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ hzi\_ref\_thun\_en.pdf [Accessed: 10 August 2019]

[24] Surber M. Thun Waste Treatment Facility. Flas VonRoll INOVA. Nr 20. Zurich, Switzerland: Von Roll Technology Environmental Ltd; 2002. 5p

[25] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. ECO-INCINERATOR. Available from: https://khk.krakow. pl/en/eco-incinerator/ [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[26] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. Green Energy Factory. Available from: https://khk.krakow. pl/en/eco-incinerator/green-energyfactory/ [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

[27] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. Available from: https://khk.krakow.pl/en/ecoincinerator/about-the-plant/ [Accessed: 08 August 2019]

**110**

pp. 12-21

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

Kušnierowa M, editors. Kraków, Poland: Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 2005. pp. 104-113

[8] Kleis H, Dalager S. 100 Years of Waste Incineration in Denmark. From Refuse Destruction Plants to High-Technology Energy Works. Copenhagen, Denmark: Babcock and Wilcox, Vølund and Rambøll; 2004. 51p

[9] Chromec PR, Ferraro AF. Waste-toenergy in the context of global warming. In: 16th Annual North American Wasteto-Energy Conference. 2008. DOI:

[10] Chromec PR, Burelle RJ. Integration of an energy from Waste facility into an urban environment. In: 17th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference. 2009. DOI: 10.1115/

[11] Ciceri G. QUOVADIS-quality management organisation, validation of standards, developments and inquiries for SRF. QUOVADIS waste-to-fuel conversion?–A Thinkshop. DG JRC Workshop, Ispra, 28-29 April 2005. Workshop Proceedings. In: Gawlik BM, Ciceri G, editors. EUR Report 21756 EN. European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities; 2005. pp. 147-155

[12] Tebert C. Waste-to-fuel

standarisation. The public confidence aspect. QUOVADIS Waste-to-fuel conversion?–A Thinkshop. DG JRC Workshop, Ispra, 28-29 April 2005. Workshop Proceedings. In: Gawlik BM, Ciceri G, editors. EUR Report 21756 EN. European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities; 2005. pp. 123-128

[13] Maranzana M. Survey on the on-going scenario for SFR (solid recovery fuels) production and use in Italy. In: Gawlik BM, Ciceri G, editors. QUOVADIS waste-to-fuel conversion?–A Thinkshop. DG JRC

10.1115/NAWTEC16-1954

NAWTEC17-2320

[2] Everard M. Hot Stuff!–The Role of Thermal Treatment in a Sustainable Society. Warlines Park House, Horseshoe Hill, Upshire, Essex, UK: Waste Management World, PennWell International Publications Ltd.; 2004.

[3] Hulgaard T, Vehlow J. Incineration:

Christensen TH, editor. Solid Waste Technology & Management. Vol. 1. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.;

[4] Moberg A, Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P. Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste–Part 2: Landfilling compared to other treatment methods.

[5] Eriksson O, Finnveden G, Ekvall T, Bjorklund A. Life cycle assessment of fuels for district heating: A comparison of waste incineration, biomass- and natural gas combustion. Energy Policy.

[6] Hauck P, Strobridge D, Sonawane A. Sustainable Solutions for the 21st Century. Santa Barbara, CA: MSW Management; Forester Media Inc.; 2012.

[7] Chandler AJ, Eighmy TT, Hartlén J, Hjelmar O, Kosson DS, Sawell SE, et al. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues. Studies in Environmental Science 67. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The International Ash Working Group.

Elsevier Science; 1997. p. 973

Journal of Cleaner Production.

Process and technology. In:

2011. pp. 365-392

2015;**13**(3):231-240

2007;**35**(2):1346-1362

pp. 37-45

[1] Bieda B. The role of thermal treatment in an integrated waste management. Waste recycling. In: Wzorek Z, Kulczycka J, Fečko P,

**References**

[28] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. Available from: https://khk. krakow.pl/en/eco-incinerator/emission/ [Accessed: 10 August 2019]

[29] Sonnemann G, Castells F, Schumacher M. Integrated Life-Cycle and Risk Assessment for Industrial Processes. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press Company, Lewis Publishers; 2004. 392p

[30] Pfeiffer E. Waste or Valuable Product? Warlines Park House, Horseshoe Hill, Upshire, Essex, UK: Waste Management World, PennWell International Publications Ltd.; 2004. pp. 65-69

[31] Eco-Incinerator. Photos. Available from: https://www.google.pl/search?q= ekospalarnia+krak%C3%B3w&tbm=isc h&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ar1943G\_9 iQCM%253A%252ChQN9Zq2XdEMgs M%252C\_&vet=1&usg=AI4\_-kQEzyyzl0DkU7Xv8e9\_8A9ABJa9Q&sa=X&ve d=2ahUKEwis2tHQvJPkAhVRkMMKH VTsD54Q9QEwEnoECAUQBg#imgrc= sX8Vh7uDTuZQnM:&vet=1 [Accessed: 18 August 2019]

[32] POSCO Project Presentation. The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant Conference in Kraków. Public Presentation. Kraków, Poland. 3 December 2013

**113**

**Chapter 7**

**Abstract**

environmental risk.

waste management

**1. Introduction**

Management of Coal Fly Ash in

The present research relates to class of adsorbents obtained by systematic biopolymer modification of cenospheres transfigured from coal fly ash (CFA): an immense waste by-product of coal based thermal power plant, method of preparation thereof and their use in wastewater treatment contaminated by tanneries, distilleries, cosmetics, textiles, plastics, pulp and paper industries, paints, electroplating and food processing industries effluents. Removal percentage of disperse dyes had better correlated with Langmuir isotherm, tested among Freundlich, Temkin and Redlich-Peterson isotherm which indicated saturated monolayer attachment of dye molecules onto the surface of adsorbent with maximum capacity 500.4 and 500.0 mg/g for Disperse Orange 25 (DO) and Disperse Blue 79:1 (DB) dyes, respectively. The uptake rate of dye molecules followed pseudosecond order kinetics in all cases. Recovery of dye molecules was completed best in three cycles with acetic acid for CFA and cenospheres, with Di-chloromethane for CNAC and in four cycles with non-polar solvent (chloroform) for zeolite and CNCH nanocomposite. The used adsorbents could easily be dumped into landfill with in concrete pit liming, or can also be used in brick making to minimize the

**Keywords:** cenospheres, coal fly ash, disperse dyes, response surface methodology,

Management of coal fly ash (CFA) at 145 coal based thermal power plants in India is a difficult task as large quantity of ash being generated. MoEF & CC had fixed the target of 100% utilization of CFA in time bound manner [1]. The average utilization percentage of CFA in various fields is about 62% only. Remaining 90 million ton of CFA is disposed into holding ponds, lagoons, landfills and slag heaps which not only requires large area of precious land for its disposal but is also one of the sources of pollution of both air and water. The utilization of CFA in 1990s was 40 million ton (3% utilization) annually and about 147 million ton (62% utilization) in 2015s [2]. The land for creating ash dyke for ash disposal facilities at thermal power plants is becoming difficult to be acquired. Thereby, CFA, if not

managed well, may pose various environmental challenges.

Remediation Process

*Markandeya, S.P. Shukla and Devendra Mohan*

#### **Chapter 7**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

[28] The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Krakow. Available from: https://khk. krakow.pl/en/eco-incinerator/emission/

[Accessed: 10 August 2019]

2004. 392p

pp. 65-69

18 August 2019]

3 December 2013

[29] Sonnemann G, Castells F,

[30] Pfeiffer E. Waste or Valuable Product? Warlines Park House, Horseshoe Hill, Upshire, Essex, UK: Waste Management World, PennWell International Publications Ltd.; 2004.

[31] Eco-Incinerator. Photos. Available from: https://www.google.pl/search?q= ekospalarnia+krak%C3%B3w&tbm=isc h&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ar1943G\_9 iQCM%253A%252ChQN9Zq2XdEMgs M%252C\_&vet=1&usg=AI4\_-kQEzyyzl0DkU7Xv8e9\_8A9ABJa9Q&sa=X&ve d=2ahUKEwis2tHQvJPkAhVRkMMKH VTsD54Q9QEwEnoECAUQBg#imgrc= sX8Vh7uDTuZQnM:&vet=1 [Accessed:

[32] POSCO Project Presentation. The Thermal Waste Treatment Plant Conference in Kraków. Public Presentation. Kraków, Poland.

Schumacher M. Integrated Life-Cycle and Risk Assessment for Industrial Processes. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press Company, Lewis Publishers;

**112**

## Management of Coal Fly Ash in Remediation Process

*Markandeya, S.P. Shukla and Devendra Mohan*

#### **Abstract**

The present research relates to class of adsorbents obtained by systematic biopolymer modification of cenospheres transfigured from coal fly ash (CFA): an immense waste by-product of coal based thermal power plant, method of preparation thereof and their use in wastewater treatment contaminated by tanneries, distilleries, cosmetics, textiles, plastics, pulp and paper industries, paints, electroplating and food processing industries effluents. Removal percentage of disperse dyes had better correlated with Langmuir isotherm, tested among Freundlich, Temkin and Redlich-Peterson isotherm which indicated saturated monolayer attachment of dye molecules onto the surface of adsorbent with maximum capacity 500.4 and 500.0 mg/g for Disperse Orange 25 (DO) and Disperse Blue 79:1 (DB) dyes, respectively. The uptake rate of dye molecules followed pseudosecond order kinetics in all cases. Recovery of dye molecules was completed best in three cycles with acetic acid for CFA and cenospheres, with Di-chloromethane for CNAC and in four cycles with non-polar solvent (chloroform) for zeolite and CNCH nanocomposite. The used adsorbents could easily be dumped into landfill with in concrete pit liming, or can also be used in brick making to minimize the environmental risk.

**Keywords:** cenospheres, coal fly ash, disperse dyes, response surface methodology, waste management

#### **1. Introduction**

Management of coal fly ash (CFA) at 145 coal based thermal power plants in India is a difficult task as large quantity of ash being generated. MoEF & CC had fixed the target of 100% utilization of CFA in time bound manner [1]. The average utilization percentage of CFA in various fields is about 62% only. Remaining 90 million ton of CFA is disposed into holding ponds, lagoons, landfills and slag heaps which not only requires large area of precious land for its disposal but is also one of the sources of pollution of both air and water. The utilization of CFA in 1990s was 40 million ton (3% utilization) annually and about 147 million ton (62% utilization) in 2015s [2]. The land for creating ash dyke for ash disposal facilities at thermal power plants is becoming difficult to be acquired. Thereby, CFA, if not managed well, may pose various environmental challenges.

#### **2. Methodology**

Characterization and batch adsorption study with four modified CFA adsorbents has been presented in details (**Figure 1**).

Legislative council passed a law to eliminate color from their industrial effluent before discharging dye-containing effluents into water bodies because dyes have synthetic origin and fused complex aromatic structure making them more recalcitrant to biodegradation [3, 4] (**Figure 2**).

Adsorption has evolved into one of the most effective and feasible physical processes for decolorization of textile and dyeing wastewater [5–7]. Though there is no dearth of available adsorbents like activated carbon, economic factors force consideration of alternative low cost, eco-friendly and efficient adsorbents which are either naturally available or available as waste products from other manufacturing processes and which can be utilized for the treatment of industrial effluents by the entrepreneurs of small scale industries in developing countries like India [8, 9].

**115**

*Management of Coal Fly Ash in Remediation Process DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88984*

have also been done [10].

**3. Results and discussion**

**Figure 3.**

ite], respectively [10–12] (**Figure 3**).

the nature of the dye molecules (**Table 1**).

In this backdrop coal fly ash (CFA) has been actively pursued for its decolorizing characteristics on textile mill effluents but its relatively lower removal efficiency necessitates further modifications. Here the characterization and modification of CFA has been done to obtain the best adsorbent and the optimal conditions in which its removal efficiency for disperse dyes is maximum. To prove its efficiency, characterization of activated carbon and its comparison with our best found adsorbent

The major elemental leaching of CFA was found to be Fe > Mn > Mg. In the successive stages of research, CFA was modified and characterization studies including ATR-FTIR, SEM, EDX, XRD, TEM, CILAS and BET were conducted to analyze the adsorption potential of each modified form on the basis of its removal efficiency studied for both DO and DB dyes. From the obtained results it could be concluded that CFA has the potential to adsorb Disperse Orange 25 (DO) and Disperse Blue 79:1 (DB) dyes with 75 and 71% removal efficiency at optimized conditions and this percentage removal increased with each modification [81 and 78% in case of cenospheres, 79 and 75% for cenospheres activated carbon (CNAC) composite, 93 and 88% for zeolite, 90 and 87% for cenospheres chitosan (CNCH) nanocompos-

*Interaction between dye molecules and cross-linked natural polymer syntactic nano-foam.*

More particularly, the synthesized natural polymer syntactic nano-foam adsorbent displayed high adsorption capacities towards different class of organic dyes (hydrophobic and hydrophilic) via π-π or electrostatic interaction depending upon

In each case, it was found that the percentage removal of DO/DB dye had good vibes with Langmuir isotherm, which indicated saturated monolayer attachment of dye molecules onto the adsorbent with maximum capacity 1.70 and 1.55 mg/g in case of CFA, 33.33 and 32.26 mg/g in case of cenospheres, 90.91 and 83.33 mg/g

**Figure 2.** *Process of dye adsorption.* *Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

bents has been presented in details (**Figure 1**).

trant to biodegradation [3, 4] (**Figure 2**).

Characterization and batch adsorption study with four modified CFA adsor-

Adsorption has evolved into one of the most effective and feasible physical processes for decolorization of textile and dyeing wastewater [5–7]. Though there is no dearth of available adsorbents like activated carbon, economic factors force consideration of alternative low cost, eco-friendly and efficient adsorbents which are either naturally available or available as waste products from other manufacturing processes and which can be utilized for the treatment of industrial effluents by the entrepreneurs of small scale industries in developing countries like India [8, 9].

Legislative council passed a law to eliminate color from their industrial effluent before discharging dye-containing effluents into water bodies because dyes have synthetic origin and fused complex aromatic structure making them more recalci-

**2. Methodology**

**114**

**Figure 2.**

**Figure 1.**

*General layout of study design.*

*Process of dye adsorption.*

In this backdrop coal fly ash (CFA) has been actively pursued for its decolorizing characteristics on textile mill effluents but its relatively lower removal efficiency necessitates further modifications. Here the characterization and modification of CFA has been done to obtain the best adsorbent and the optimal conditions in which its removal efficiency for disperse dyes is maximum. To prove its efficiency, characterization of activated carbon and its comparison with our best found adsorbent have also been done [10].

**Figure 3.** *Interaction between dye molecules and cross-linked natural polymer syntactic nano-foam.*

#### **3. Results and discussion**

The major elemental leaching of CFA was found to be Fe > Mn > Mg. In the successive stages of research, CFA was modified and characterization studies including ATR-FTIR, SEM, EDX, XRD, TEM, CILAS and BET were conducted to analyze the adsorption potential of each modified form on the basis of its removal efficiency studied for both DO and DB dyes. From the obtained results it could be concluded that CFA has the potential to adsorb Disperse Orange 25 (DO) and Disperse Blue 79:1 (DB) dyes with 75 and 71% removal efficiency at optimized conditions and this percentage removal increased with each modification [81 and 78% in case of cenospheres, 79 and 75% for cenospheres activated carbon (CNAC) composite, 93 and 88% for zeolite, 90 and 87% for cenospheres chitosan (CNCH) nanocomposite], respectively [10–12] (**Figure 3**).

More particularly, the synthesized natural polymer syntactic nano-foam adsorbent displayed high adsorption capacities towards different class of organic dyes (hydrophobic and hydrophilic) via π-π or electrostatic interaction depending upon the nature of the dye molecules (**Table 1**).

In each case, it was found that the percentage removal of DO/DB dye had good vibes with Langmuir isotherm, which indicated saturated monolayer attachment of dye molecules onto the adsorbent with maximum capacity 1.70 and 1.55 mg/g in case of CFA, 33.33 and 32.26 mg/g in case of cenospheres, 90.91 and 83.33 mg/g



**Table 1.**

**117**

*Management of Coal Fly Ash in Remediation Process DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88984*

*Recovery and reusability of various adsorbents.*

in case of CNAC, 125.00 and 109.80 mg/g in case of zeolite and 500.40 and 500.00 mg/g in case of CNCH nanocomposite for DO/DB dyes, respectively. The adsorption of dye molecules followed pseudo-second order kinetics in all cases. Thermodynamic study showed that process of adsorption is exothermic in nature. Recovery of dyes was completed best in three cycles with acetic acid for CFA and cenospheres, with Di-chloromethane for CNAC and in four cycles with non-polar

**Adsorbents DO dye (%) DB dye (%) Solvents** Coal fly ash (CFA) 46 39 Acetic acid Cenospheres 48 43 Acetic acid Cenospheres activated (CNAC) composite 59 54 Di-chloromethane Zeolite 46 41 Chloroform Cenospheres chitosan (CNCH) nanocomposite 47 41 Chloroform Activated carbon 48 41 Acetic acid

solvent (chloroform) for zeolite and CNCH nanocomposite (**Table 2**).

by applying RSM. In case of zeolite, related R<sup>2</sup>

symbolic. The high R<sup>2</sup>

solutions.

**Table 2.**

**4. Conclusion**

After completing the analysis on the removal efficiency of each modified form of CFA, in the next stage of this work, optimization studies were done. The batch optimization process focused on effect of operating variables, such as contact time, pH, agitation speed, adsorbent dose and dye concentration using RSM with BBD. Furthermore, interactions among various parameters were investigated

obtained for DO and DB dyes respectively. Optimum results indicated that 119 min of contact time was required to achieve 96% of DO dye removal at zeolite dose 0.67 g/L, dye concentration of 38 mg/L and shaking speed of 158 rpm at pH 6.10. Whereas, 95.23% of DB dye removal was found at contact time of 122 min, adsorbent dose of 1.05 g/L, dye concentration of 26.72 mg/L, agitation speed of 145 rpm and pH of 5.68. Regression modeling and ANOVA showed contact time, adsorbent dose, dye concentration, agitation speed and pH have values of 'Prob. >F'< 0.0500, which indicated that model terms were significant for adsorption of the dyes. For CNCH nanocomposites, F-values 19.91 and 19.26 for DO and DB dyes have a low probability value (Prob. >F < 0.0001), which indicate model terms are

cance of applied model. The maximum percentage removal of dyes was found to be 97.30% (DO) and 94.22% (DB). From the optimization studies, it could safely be concluded that both zeolite and CNCH nanocomposite had high potential as an efficient, eco-friendly and economic adsorbent for dye removal from aqueous

Comparing the results of the characterization and optimization studies, it could be concluded that CNCH nanocomposite was a better adsorbent than all the other modified and native form of CFA. To validate the result, CNCH nanocomposite was compared with the most widely used commercial adsorbent i.e., activated carbon. Results concluded that adsorption capacity of our best found adsorbent was more than two times of activated carbon. To further vindicate the claim that CNCH nanocomposite had high potential as an efficient, eco-friendly and economic adsorbent,

value for DO (0.9409) and DB (0.9391) also showed signifi-

values of 0.9102 and 0.9038 were


*Management of Coal Fly Ash in Remediation Process DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88984*

#### **Table 2.**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

**116**

**Parameters**

**CFA**

> **DO**

> > pH

Adsorbent dosage (g/L)

Adsorbate conc. (mg/L)

Agitation speed (rpm)

Cont. time (min)

% Removal

**Table 1.**

100

74 *Effect of various parameters for the removal of dyes on various forms of adsorbents.*

71

80

79

79

75

93

89

90

87

81

77

120

100

120

100

120

100

120

90

120

100

120

40 140

40 140

40 140

40 140

40 200

40

140

60

80

2.0

3.0

0.3 AC + 1.0

0.4 AC + 1.0

2.0

3.0

0.2

0.4

0.7

CN

CN

**DB**

> 6.0

> 6.0

> 6.0

**DO**

**DB**

**DO**

**DB**

**DO**

**DB**

> 6.0

> 6.0

6.0

**DO**

**DB**

**DO**

**DB**

**Cenospheres**

**CNAC**

**Zeolite**

**CNCH**

**AC**

*Recovery and reusability of various adsorbents.*

in case of CNAC, 125.00 and 109.80 mg/g in case of zeolite and 500.40 and 500.00 mg/g in case of CNCH nanocomposite for DO/DB dyes, respectively. The adsorption of dye molecules followed pseudo-second order kinetics in all cases. Thermodynamic study showed that process of adsorption is exothermic in nature. Recovery of dyes was completed best in three cycles with acetic acid for CFA and cenospheres, with Di-chloromethane for CNAC and in four cycles with non-polar solvent (chloroform) for zeolite and CNCH nanocomposite (**Table 2**).

After completing the analysis on the removal efficiency of each modified form of CFA, in the next stage of this work, optimization studies were done. The batch optimization process focused on effect of operating variables, such as contact time, pH, agitation speed, adsorbent dose and dye concentration using RSM with BBD. Furthermore, interactions among various parameters were investigated by applying RSM. In case of zeolite, related R<sup>2</sup> values of 0.9102 and 0.9038 were obtained for DO and DB dyes respectively. Optimum results indicated that 119 min of contact time was required to achieve 96% of DO dye removal at zeolite dose 0.67 g/L, dye concentration of 38 mg/L and shaking speed of 158 rpm at pH 6.10. Whereas, 95.23% of DB dye removal was found at contact time of 122 min, adsorbent dose of 1.05 g/L, dye concentration of 26.72 mg/L, agitation speed of 145 rpm and pH of 5.68. Regression modeling and ANOVA showed contact time, adsorbent dose, dye concentration, agitation speed and pH have values of 'Prob. >F'< 0.0500, which indicated that model terms were significant for adsorption of the dyes. For CNCH nanocomposites, F-values 19.91 and 19.26 for DO and DB dyes have a low probability value (Prob. >F < 0.0001), which indicate model terms are symbolic. The high R<sup>2</sup> value for DO (0.9409) and DB (0.9391) also showed significance of applied model. The maximum percentage removal of dyes was found to be 97.30% (DO) and 94.22% (DB). From the optimization studies, it could safely be concluded that both zeolite and CNCH nanocomposite had high potential as an efficient, eco-friendly and economic adsorbent for dye removal from aqueous solutions.

#### **4. Conclusion**

Comparing the results of the characterization and optimization studies, it could be concluded that CNCH nanocomposite was a better adsorbent than all the other modified and native form of CFA. To validate the result, CNCH nanocomposite was compared with the most widely used commercial adsorbent i.e., activated carbon. Results concluded that adsorption capacity of our best found adsorbent was more than two times of activated carbon. To further vindicate the claim that CNCH nanocomposite had high potential as an efficient, eco-friendly and economic adsorbent,

it was used for the color removal from textile mill effluent. The adsorbent showed excellent removal efficiency and it was found that physico-chemical parameters also reduced after treatment of effluent. The effect of pH revealed that all the adsorbents produced good results at pH 6 implying that there was no requirement of any special acidic or basic chemical for dye removal. This pH 6 also falls within the limit of pH 5.5–9.0, i.e., industrial effluent discharge limit into the inland surface water as mandated by CPCB. Results also suggest that above CFA based adsorbents could be suitably used as alternative and effective resource materials as compared to the expensive commercial adsorbents for the removal of DO and DB dyes from colored effluents. The used adsorbents could easily be dumped into landfill with liming, in concrete pits or can also be used in brick making to minimize the environmental risk. The present work is also a forward step in reducing the pollution load by utilization of waste products in an eco-friendly manner to effectuate the goal of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

### **Acknowledgements**

The first author is highly grateful to Ms. Vibhuti Mishra for her valuable suggestions.

#### **Conflict of interest**

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

#### **Author details**

Markandeya1 \*, S.P. Shukla2,3 and Devendra Mohan1

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology-BHU, Varanasi, India

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow, India

3 Rajkiya Engineering College, Banda, India

\*Address all correspondence to: mktiwariiet@gmail.com; markandeya.civ@iitbhu.ac.in

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**119**

*Management of Coal Fly Ash in Remediation Process DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88984*

> [8] Markandeya, Dhiman N, Shukla SP, Mohan D, Kisku GC, Patnaik S. Comprehensive remediation study of disperse dyes containing wastewater by using environmental benign, low cost cenospheres

Production. 2018;**182**:206-216

2015;**2015**:1-8

[9] Tiwari M, Shukla SP, Mohan D, Bhargava DS, Kisku GC. Modified cenospheres as an adsorbent for the removal of disperse dyes. Advances in Environmental Chemistry.

nanosyntactic foam. Journal of Cleaner

[10] Kisku GC, Markandeya, Shukla SP, Singh DS, Murthy RC. Characterization

[11] Markandeya, Shukla SP, Dhiman N, Mohan D, Kisku GC, Roy S. An efficient

wastewater using zeolite synthesized

and adsorptive capacity of coal fly ash from aqueous solutions of disperse blue and disperse orange dyes. Environmental Earth Sciences.

removal of disperse dye from

from cenospheres. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste. 2017;**21**(4):04017017

[12] Markandeya, Shukla SP, Mohan D. Toxicity of disperse dyes and its removal from wastewater using various adsorbents: A review. Research Journal of Environmental Toxicology.

2017;**9**:01-18

2015;**74**(2):1125-1135

[1] Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests. Fly Ash Notification. 2009. Available from: http://dste.puducherry.gov.in/Flyash\_

[2] Central Electricity Authority of India. Annual Report on Fly Ash Utilization. 2015. Available from: cea. nic.in/reports/others/thermal/tcd/

**References**

notification2009.pdf

flyash\_final\_1415.pdf

2017;**7**:32866-32876

2017;**149**:597-606

Sciences. 2017;**76**:702-714

[3] Dhiman N, Markandeya, Fatima F, Roy S, Rout PK,

[4] Dhiman N, Markandeya, Singh A, Verma NK, Ajaria N,

Saxena PN, et al. Predictive modeling and validation of arsenite removal by one pot synthesized bioceramic buttressed manganese doped iron oxide nanoplatform. RSC: Advances.

Patnaik S. Statistical optimization and artificial neural network modeling for acridine orange dye degradation using in-situ synthesized polymer capped ZnO nanoparticles. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2017;**493**:295-306

[5] Markandeya, Dhiman N, Shukla SP, Kisku GC. Statistical optimization of process parameters for removal of dyes from wastewater on chitosan cenospheres nanocomposite using response surface methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production.

[6] Markandeya, Shukla SP, Dhiman N. Characterization and adsorption of disperse dyes from wastewater onto cenospheres activated carbon composites. Environmental Earth

[7] Shukla SP, Sonam, Markandeya, Mohan D, Pandey G. Removal of fluoride from aqueous solution using *Psidium guajava* leaves. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2017;**62**:418-425

*Management of Coal Fly Ash in Remediation Process DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88984*

#### **References**

*Innovation in Global Green Technologies 2020*

**118**

**Author details**

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

suggestions.

of interest.

\*, S.P. Shukla2,3 and Devendra Mohan1

21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

The first author is highly grateful to Ms. Vibhuti Mishra for her valuable

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict

3 Rajkiya Engineering College, Banda, India

provided the original work is properly cited.

markandeya.civ@iitbhu.ac.in

\*Address all correspondence to: mktiwariiet@gmail.com;

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology-BHU, Varanasi,

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

it was used for the color removal from textile mill effluent. The adsorbent showed excellent removal efficiency and it was found that physico-chemical parameters also reduced after treatment of effluent. The effect of pH revealed that all the adsorbents produced good results at pH 6 implying that there was no requirement of any special acidic or basic chemical for dye removal. This pH 6 also falls within the limit of pH 5.5–9.0, i.e., industrial effluent discharge limit into the inland surface water as mandated by CPCB. Results also suggest that above CFA based adsorbents could be suitably used as alternative and effective resource materials as compared to the expensive commercial adsorbents for the removal of DO and DB dyes from colored effluents. The used adsorbents could easily be dumped into landfill with liming, in concrete pits or can also be used in brick making to minimize the environmental risk. The present work is also a forward step in reducing the pollution load by utilization of waste products in an eco-friendly manner to effectuate the goal of Agenda

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology,

Markandeya1

Lucknow, India

India

[1] Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests. Fly Ash Notification. 2009. Available from: http://dste.puducherry.gov.in/Flyash\_ notification2009.pdf

[2] Central Electricity Authority of India. Annual Report on Fly Ash Utilization. 2015. Available from: cea. nic.in/reports/others/thermal/tcd/ flyash\_final\_1415.pdf

[3] Dhiman N, Markandeya, Fatima F, Roy S, Rout PK, Saxena PN, et al. Predictive modeling and validation of arsenite removal by one pot synthesized bioceramic buttressed manganese doped iron oxide nanoplatform. RSC: Advances. 2017;**7**:32866-32876

[4] Dhiman N, Markandeya, Singh A, Verma NK, Ajaria N, Patnaik S. Statistical optimization and artificial neural network modeling for acridine orange dye degradation using in-situ synthesized polymer capped ZnO nanoparticles. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2017;**493**:295-306

[5] Markandeya, Dhiman N, Shukla SP, Kisku GC. Statistical optimization of process parameters for removal of dyes from wastewater on chitosan cenospheres nanocomposite using response surface methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;**149**:597-606

[6] Markandeya, Shukla SP, Dhiman N. Characterization and adsorption of disperse dyes from wastewater onto cenospheres activated carbon composites. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2017;**76**:702-714

[7] Shukla SP, Sonam, Markandeya, Mohan D, Pandey G. Removal of fluoride from aqueous solution using *Psidium guajava* leaves. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2017;**62**:418-425

[8] Markandeya, Dhiman N, Shukla SP, Mohan D, Kisku GC, Patnaik S. Comprehensive remediation study of disperse dyes containing wastewater by using environmental benign, low cost cenospheres nanosyntactic foam. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;**182**:206-216

[9] Tiwari M, Shukla SP, Mohan D, Bhargava DS, Kisku GC. Modified cenospheres as an adsorbent for the removal of disperse dyes. Advances in Environmental Chemistry. 2015;**2015**:1-8

[10] Kisku GC, Markandeya, Shukla SP, Singh DS, Murthy RC. Characterization and adsorptive capacity of coal fly ash from aqueous solutions of disperse blue and disperse orange dyes. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2015;**74**(2):1125-1135

[11] Markandeya, Shukla SP, Dhiman N, Mohan D, Kisku GC, Roy S. An efficient removal of disperse dye from wastewater using zeolite synthesized from cenospheres. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste. 2017;**21**(4):04017017

[12] Markandeya, Shukla SP, Mohan D. Toxicity of disperse dyes and its removal from wastewater using various adsorbents: A review. Research Journal of Environmental Toxicology. 2017;**9**:01-18

**121**

Section 4

Global Green

Technologies – Economics

and Innovation

Section 4
