218 Journal homepage: www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 A CAS E S TUD Y OF T HE J UICE-M AKI NG FAC TORY WAST EW ATE R TR EATM E NT A ND POS SI BLE W AYS O F ITS O PT IM I ZAT ION Alla CHOBAN1, *Igor WINKLER1 1Yu. Fedkovych National University of Chernivts, 2 Kotsyubynsky St., Chernivtsi, 58012, Ukraine, igorw@ukrpost.ua * Corresponding author Received August 31st 2013, accepted September 15th 2013 Abstract: A general analysis of the typical juice making factory wastewater composition and its treatment technology is carried out. Since the technology used at the moment does not ensure effective decontamination and complete renovation of the wastewater treatment equipment is not feasible, some simple actions are proposed to improve the treatment quality. Possible efficiency of these actions is also analyzed and discussed. Keywords: juice making; wastewater treatment; active sludge; biogenic components 1. Introduction Availability and quality of water resources are known to be the key factors of sustain- able development of any country and nor- mal health conditions of its population (World Health Organisation, 2010). Many water bodies in Ukraine have been degrad- ing because the natural self-cleaning pro- cesses cannot cope with the amount of pol- lution they receive. As a result, the quality of water in many reservoirs that were pre- viously used for drinking water supply has now dropped to the third class now (Dmitrieva et al, 2003). This process is caused mainly by massive discharge of un- treated or poorly treated wastewater and every effort should be made to minimize this wrong practice. Various food processing facilities are quite widely distributed in Ukraine and their wastewater treatment equipment is often very old and worn, which results in mal- functioning of the water cleaning technol- ogies. Besides, food factories are often equipped with the wastewater treatment lines that were projected for the public (municipal) wastewater that does not al- ways ensure the required cleaning of the industrial effluents. Juice making factories can be referred to as an example of such improper realization of the food processing wastewater treatment. The main problem is caused by the strong acid reaction of the wastewater and rather low content of the biogenic elements (mainly N and P). Under these conditions, “normal” biotreatment of the wastewater is too slow and inefficient. As reported (El-Kamah et al, 2010), the highest efficiency of the orange juice man- ufacturing wastewater decontamination can be achieved only in a combined tech- nology with initial treatment in a two-stage up-flow anaerobic sponge reactor followed by the activated sludge reactor with ap- proximately similar treatment periods in the both reactors. Traditional wastewater treatment technology includes only the lat- ter of the above mentioned operations. Therefore, it is obvious that even thorough planning and realization of such technolo- gy cannot ensure the required level of the juice manufacturing wastewater decontam- Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013 Alla CHOBSAN, Igor WINKLER, A case study of the juice-making factory wastewater treatment and possible ways of its optimization, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 219 ination. On the other hand, there are refer- ences (Shepherd et al, 2001, Mosse et al, 2011) to quite successful functioning of the simpler wastewater decontamination sys- tems. Shepherd et al (2001) reported a 98 % decrease in the chemical oxygen de- mand and 97 % in the total suspended sol- ids content for the high-strength acidic winery wastewater treatment at a simple wetland landfill processing system com- bined with the sand prefilter. Extended re- views related to various winery and distill- ery wastewater treatment problems and technologies (mainly, decolourization) us- ing various biological methods have been published by Pant, Adholeya (2007) and Mosse et al (2011). Juice factories production has good market and constantly growing demand, causing rise in the production capacities and the amount of wastewater formed and dis- charged by this branch. Therefore, insuffi- cient wastewater treatment seems quite a topical problem for any region of Ukraine with active fruit and vegetable processing. It should also be emphasized that more popular orange and some other tropical fruit juices technologies are analyzed in the majority of investigations related to this issue while many juice making facilities in Ukraine work with apple juice and their wastewaters are much more acidic and poorer with organic components. There- fore, it seems topical to investigate possi- ble advances in treatment of this type of wastewater. Some related and close problems of the wastewater treatment and its environmen- tal effects have been discussed by Choban and Winkler (2008, 2011, 2012), Choban et al (2012) In this paper we analyze gen- eral problems of the juice making wastewater treatment. Some solutions for the wastewater quality improvement are also proposed and discussed. 2. Materials and Methods General description of the actual wastewater collection and treatment technologies This investigation deals with an analysis of the wastewater treatment technology, prob- lems, environmental effects and possible ways of optimization on example of “BMB” juice making factory located in vil. Kobolchin, region of Chernivtsi, Ukraine. This is a typical juice manufacturer and many similar factories are still working all over Ukraine. The factory is equipped with separated sewage systems for industrial and public wastewaters collection and transportation. A composition of the public effluent is typical for the moderately pol- luted wastewater (BOD5 = 180 – 200 mg/l and pH = 6,5 – 8,5) while the industrial effluent is more concentrated and acidic (pH = 4,4 – 5,2; BOD5 = 3500 – 4000 mg/l). The total projected discharge is 168,57 m3/day with only 31,11 m3/day of the pub- lic wastewater. Therefore, industrial wastewater is a key factor that determines the quality and the quantity of the factory’s discharge. Untreated industrial wastewater quality parameters are shown in Table 1 (column 3). The general flowchart of the wastewater treatment technology is shown in Fig. 1. According to this technology, all collected wastewater is self-flowing to the treatment station. Then it is pumped to the receiver tank and then to the multisectioned settler- flotator. Apple peels and seeds are filtered out in the first section at the arch sieve and then removed periodically. Then the wastewater flows to the next section for the acidity neutralization and adding some phosphorus and nitrogen compounds. Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013 Alla CHOBSAN, Igor WINKLER, A case study of the juice-making factory wastewater treatment and possible ways of its optimization, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 220 Figure 1. A technological flowchart of the current wastewaters treatment technology Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013 Alla CHOBSAN, Igor WINKLER, A case study of the juice-making factory wastewater treatment and possible ways of its optimization, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 221 The maximum calculated daily load of the nitrogen compounds is 32 kg and phospho- rus compounds is 6,4 kg. Ammonia water (25 % of NH3 or 20,6 % of N) is mainly used as a source of nitrogen and the partial alkalization agent. The calculated amount of this reagent is 156,3 kg/day. Superphosphate (20 % of P2O5 or 8,7 % of P) is used as a source of phosphorus and the calculated daily consumption of this reagent is 73,6 kg. All amounts of the re- quired reagents are determined in fact by the periodical lab analysis of the wastewater compositions. Any overdose is unwanted since it causes raise in the con- tent of P and N in the treated wastewater. Caustic soda or lime water are used for the wastewater neutralization. Lab analysis of the wastewater is also involved in deter- mining the amount of these reagents re- quired to bring pH to the range 6,5 – 8,5. The combined settler-flotator (diameter 4,0 m) ensures removal of the coarse dispersed pollution by settling and then the remained suspended particles are removed by the pressure floatation with working liquid re- cycling. The required technological regime of the pressure floatation is maintained by saturation of the working fluid with air un- der pressure 0,4 MPa and its constant pumping to the floatation chamber. The working fluid is formed initially from the primary treated wastewater after the settler-flotator and then from the clarified wastewater taken from the upper part of the secondary settler at the second stage of bioaeration. Saturation of the working fluid with air is realized in the pressure tank. Biotreatment of the wastewater is realized by the two-stage technology. Most of the biopollution decomposes in the primary bioaeration tank while fine biocleaning and separation of the sludge mixture take place in the secondary bioaeration unit. A verti- cal baffle separates the latter unit into the central settling area and the peripheral area of aeration. The activated sludge does not receive high working load in this unit that ensures stabilization of the excessive sludge. Both primary and secondary bioaeration tanks are equipped with highly effective stream aerators, and the atmosphere air is being actively captured by the working liquid stream, which results in its good sat- uration. The near-bottom activated sludge mixture is pumped out from the bioaera- tion unit and used as the working liquid for biocleaning. An additional foamed polystyrene PSV filter equipped with the grains ranged from 8 to 20 mm is used for the wastewater fine cleaning. Finally, the solution of sodium hypochlorite is used for the bacterial de- contamination of the wastewater. This rea- gent is added directly to the decontamina- tion tank and its daily consumption is about 3,5 l/day (pure chlorine content is 170 g/l). The stabilized excessive activated sludge is collected from the secondary bioaeration tank and then returned to the receiving chamber of wastewater treatment station. This solution is effective for biocoagula- tion of the mechanical pollution and its better settling. Then excessive sludge is filtered out in the settler-flotator together with the rest of the coarse dispersed parti- cles. This equipment produces about 4,2 m3/day of the sediments and 0,2 m3/day of the floatation sludge. These components are being removed from the settler-flotator and sent for dehydration to the sludge stor- age area. The treated wastewater is discharged to a small pool connected to the nameless stream. The projected parameters of the treated wastewater quality are as follows: sedi- ments – under 6,0 mg/l; BOD5 – 6,0 mg/l; ammonia form of nitrogen – 0,5 mg/l; ni- trites – 0,08 mg/l; nitrates – 40 mg/l; solid Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013 Alla CHOBSAN, Igor WINKLER, A case study of the juice-making factory wastewater treatment and possible ways of its optimization, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 222 residue – 1000 mg/l; sulfates – 100 mg/l; phosphates – 0,17 mg/l and chlorides – 300 mg/l (see Table 1, column 4). However, our results of the wastewater quality control prove that the actual quality parameters are much worse than the planned values (see Table 1, column 5). Data in Table 1 show that the wastewater treatment equipment is far from its full ef- ficiency and this technology needs in seri- ous improvement and modification. Table 1 Some parameters of wastewater quality № Pollution agent Concentration, mg/l Before treat- ment After treatment Projected values Actual values of the treated wastewater Expected values after implementation of our suggestions 1 рН 4.4 – 5.2 6.5 – 8.5 5.8 6.5 – 8.5 2 Sediments 853.0 6.0 54.3 15.0 3 BOD5 3562 6.0 98,6 15.0 4 COD 8480.0 30.0 306.0 80.0 5 Nitrogen (ammonia form) 3.2 0.5 1.8 0.5 6 Nitrites 0.007 0.08 0 0.08 7 Nitrates 5.48 40.0 3.48 40.0 8 Solid residue 3226.0 1000.0 846.0 <1000 9 Sulphates 180.0 100.0 168.3 <500 10 Phosphates 0.625 0.17 5.8 0.5 – 1.0 11 Chlorides 629.0 300.0 172.0 <350 3. Results and Discussion In our opinion, the realization of the cur- rent wastewater treatment technology at this juice making factory is poor because it was initially planned and designed for meat processing factories wastewater con- taining much more easily oxidizable com- ponents, biogenic elements (aminoacids, proteins, etc.) and with substantially milder pH (Choban, Winkler, 2008, Zapolsky et al, 2000). Another wastewater treatment technology providing discharge of the ef- fluents with some amount of the added chlorella to the landfill areas seems more effective because this alga is capable to ensure biodegradation of the hardly oxi- dizable organics even in the acid solutions. The efficiency of this technology for the high-strength acid wastewater from wine producing factories has been reported by Shepherd et al (2001). On the other hand, complete renovation of the existing wastewater treatment equip- ment and technology would require very serious investments and does not seem fea- sible. Since similar situation is typical for many other juice making factories in Ukraine and some other countries, it is im- portant to pay attention to possible ways of improvement of the wastewater treatment using the existing equipment and technol- ogy. Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013 Alla CHOBSAN, Igor WINKLER, A case study of the juice-making factory wastewater treatment and possible ways of its optimization, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 223 Therefore, the following actions can be suggested to ensure the wastewater treat- ment improvement without major equip- ment renovation: 1. An equalizing tank should be added and used in the wastewater treatment; 2. Neutralization agents dosage should be automatically monitored and controlled; 3. The active sludge concentration should also be controlled automatical- ly. It is proposed to rise the activated sludge concentration at the biocleaning stage up to 4-6 g/l instead of the actual value 2,4 g/l. This suggestion is supported by the fact of better decontamination from the organic pollution performed by more concentrated sludge. BOD and COD values would de- crease as a result of this operation as well as the ammonia nitrogen concentration (in case of active propagation of nitromonads). However, some additional amounts of the biogenic elements should be provided by adding superphosphate and the ammonia water to ensure additional activated sludge propagation. On the other hand, excessive alkalization of the effluents disturbs normal develop- ment of the sludge (Zapolsky et al, 2000) and should be avoided. Acid reaction of the wastewater causes swelling of the sludge, which slips out from the secondary settlers and results in additional secondary mechanical pollution of the treated wastewater. So, the wastewater pH should be kept within the range 6,5-8,5 where the sludge is still active and can be effectively deposited under such values. Badly controlled mechanical dosage of the reagents often brings pH outside of this range with either passivation or swelling of the sludge. An accurate automatic reagents dosage and/or installation of the equalizing tank can mitigate this problem and normal- ize conditions of the active sludge propa- gation. 4. Conclusion The general assessment of the results of the above mentioned steps realization is shown in Table 1 (column 6). It can be seen that the most dangerous parameters would drop after implementation of our suggestions while the increase of some other parameters (solid residues, sulphates content) would not bring them above of the maximum permissible levels. It should also be emphasized that the ammonia nitrogen content decreases too and this causes better protection of the natural water bodies from eutheriphication. Mathematical simulation of changes in the receiving water body proved that it would remain conforming to the fish-farming class even receiving dis- charged wastewater treated in the proposed way. 5. References [1] McDOUGALL F. R., WHITE P. R, FRANKE M. and HINDLE P. Integrated solid waste management: a life cycle inventory, Blackwell Publishing Company, Oxford, UK. doi: 10.1002/9780470999677, P. 33-85, (2007). [2] TROSCHINETZ A. M., MIHELCIC J. R. Sus- tainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries, Waste management. 29, 915-923, (2009). [3] WILLIAMS P. T. Waste treatment and dispos- al, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/0470012668, 375 p, (2005). [4] REINHART D. R. and AL-YOUSUFI A. B. The Impact of Leachate Recirculation On Mu- nicipal Solid Waste Landfill Operating Charac- teristics, Waste Manag. Res. 14, 337-346, doi: 10.1177/0734242X9601400402, (1996). [5] KORTE F. (ed). Environmental chemistry, Mir, Moscow. 396 p, (1996). [6] STOLBERG F. (ed). Municipal Ecology, Kharkiv, 560 p, (2000). [7] CHOBAN A. AND WINKLER I. Chemical and ecological problems of small reservoirs at designing of wastewater treatment installa- Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013 Alla CHOBSAN, Igor WINKLER, A case study of the juice-making factory wastewater treatment and possible ways of its optimization, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XII, Issue 3 – 2013, pag. 218 - 224 224 tions. In: Dangerous Pollupants (Xenobitics) in Urban Water Cycle, Hlavinek P., Bonacci O., Marsalek J., Mahrikova I. (Eds), Springer, The Netherlands, 257-265, (2008). [8] CHOBAN A. AND WINKLER I. Feather- Processing wastewater: composition, influence on the natural water objects and decontamina- tion technologies. Croatian Journal of Food Technology, Biotechnology and Nutrition. 6(1- 2), 58-62, (2011). [9] CHOBAN A, WINKLER I AND ROGOZYN- SKYI M. Environmental safety analysis of the projected municipal landfill area in a small city in Ukraine. Journal of Food and Environment Safety of the Suceava University. 11(3), 47-51, (2012). [10] CHOBAN A. AND WINKLER I. Juice making wastewater treatment problems. Noosfera. 6-7, 211-212, (2012). [11] DMITRIEVA O. O., KALASHNIKOVA V. O. and Koldoba I. V. Wastewater treatment in cities of Ukraine and possible ways of its enhancing. Environment protection and life safety, 3 (3), 63 – 68, (2003). [12] EL-KAMAH H., TAWFIK A., MAHMOUD M and ABDEL-HALIM H. Treatment of high strength wastewater from fruit juice industry using integrated anaero- bic/aerobic system. Desalination, 253, 158-163 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.11.013), (2010). [13] MOSSE, K. P. M., PATTI, A. F., CHRIS- TEN, E. W. AND CAVAGNARO, T. R. Re- view: Winery wastewater quality and treatment options in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 17, 111–122. (DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00132.x), (2011). [14] PANT D. AND ADHOLEYA A. Biologi- cal approaches for treatment of distillery wastewater: a review. Bioresource technology, 98, 2321-2334, (2007). [15] Progress and challenges on water and health: the role of the Protocol on Water and Health (2009) World Health Organization. 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. [16] SHEPHERD H. L., GRISMER M. E. and TCHOBANOGLOUS G. Treatment of high- strength winery wastewater using a subsurface- flow constructed wetland. Water environment research, 73, 394-403, (2001). [17] ZAPOLSKY N. A., MISHKOVA- KLIMENKO N. A., ASTRELIN I. M., BRIK M. T., GVOZDYAK P. I. AND KNYAZKOVA T. V. Physico-chemical prin- ciples of the wastewater treatment technolo- gies. Libra, Kiev, (2000).