Water Purification: Processes, Applications and Health Effects 168507622X, 9781685076221

Citation preview

Water Resource Planning, Development and Management

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Water Resource Planning, Development and Management Water Purification: Processes, Applications and Health Effects Paul LeBlanc (Editor) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-622-1 (Hardcover) Solar Water Heating: Fundamentals and Applications Khalil Kassmi (Editor) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-53619-320-6 (Hardcover) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-53619-356-5 (eBook) Groundwater Quality: Assessment and Environmental Impact Rafael M. Vick (Editor) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-807-3 (Softcover) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-949-0 (eBook) Contaminated Water: Pollutants, Effects and Remediation Technologies Dominic O’Brien (Editor) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-459-4 (Hardcover) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-597-3 (eBook) Water Resources Management: Methods, Applications and Challenges Ana Milanović Pešić and Dejana Jakovljević (Editors) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-297-2 (Hardcover) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-381-8 (eBook) Drinking Water: Quality Control, Distribution Systems and Treatment Cécile Marcil (Editor) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-070-1 (Softcover) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-071-8 (eBook)

More information about this series can be found at https://novapublishers.com/product-category/series/water-resource-planningdevelopment-and-management/

Paul LeBlanc Editor

Water Purification Processes, Applications and Health Effects

Copyright © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: H%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Contents

Preface

.......................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1

Inactivation of Waterborne Pathogens by Copper and Silver Ions, Free Chlorine, and N-chloramines in Point-of-Use Technology: A Review .............................................................................1 Ana Estrella-You, Jamie Harris, Rekha Singh and James A. Smith

Chapter 2

Carbonaceous Adsorbents for the Removal of Water Pollutants..........................................................89 E. J. Jelmy, Rinku Mariam Thomas, V. S. Nisha, John Gerson Vijay and Honey John

Chapter 3

Biodegradable Polymer Membranes for Water Purification ...................................................149 V. Indira, Peter Anmiya, K. R. Resmi and K. Abhitha

Chapter 4

2D Semiconductors for Photocatalytic Water Treatment: Advances and Future ................................181 Nisha T. Padmanabhan, Jith C. Janardhanan and Honey John

Chapter 5

Dairy Effluents: Characteristics, Effects and Treatment Methods................................................211 S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

Index

.........................................................................................235

Preface

The overall wellbeing of a society depends on access to uncontaminated drinking water. However, the treatment of the water supply is made more complex by the presence of difficult-to-remove contaminants, such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which pose threats to human health. This volume includes five chapters that discuss water purification from several perspectives, including strategies for improving drinking water infrastructure and point-of-use water treatment applications. Chapter one provides a review of current knowledge of copper and silver ions, free chlorine, and N-chloramines in point-of-use drinking water treatment applications, including kinetics and mechanisms of inactivation of pathogens, toxicity, and synergistic effects produced by combinations of these chemical disinfectants. Chapter two addresses the adsorptive removal of water pollutants such as organic dyes, heavy metal ions, oil, and pharmaceutical products by carbonaceous adsorbents such as activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon aerogels, and biochars in detail. Chapter three includes information on recent advancements in bio-based polymer membranes for water purification, as well as various modification techniques, limitations, and future remarks. Chapter four deals with the emerging green technology of solar-driven water purification, reviewing current challenges and future perspectives of commercializing such technologies. Finally, chapter five covers the processes and units involved in the dairy industry, characteristics and composition of the dairy effluent and its effect on health, the environment, and the water supply if discharged without treatment. Chapter 1 - Consumption of untreated or partially treated water can result in gastrointestinal infections caused by pathogenic microorganisms. Point-ofuse (POU) water treatment, where water is treated in the home just before consumption, can at least partially address this problem in areas of the world that lack appropriate drinking water treatment and/or distribution infrastructure. In general, current technologies provide a low-cost solution to combat microbial pathogens and improve water quality. But they face

viii

Paul LeBlanc

technological or handling issues impacting their performance. The physicochemical quality of the water to be treated, the presence of inorganic and organic reduced compounds, and the aggregation of pathogens play important roles in the disinfection effectiveness of the chemical disinfectants used in POU technologies (e.g., silver and free chlorine). The use of combinations of these disinfectants in doses that meet the World Health Organization guidelines for drinking water have resulted in synergistic inactivation of bacterial species. And alternative technologies that include insoluble N-chloramines are also promising as effective water disinfectants since these polymers can provide very high effective chlorine (+1) ion concentrations. This chapter shows current knowledge of copper and silver ions, free chlorine, and N-chloramines in POU drinking water treatment applications, including kinetics and mechanisms of inactivation of pathogens, toxicity, and synergistic effects produced by combinations of these chemical disinfectants. With this, the authors aim to present the potential to improve POU technologies to increase the efficacy of inactivation of waterborne pathogens while avoiding or reducing the formation of disinfection byproducts and disinfectant residuals toxicity. Chapter 2 - To exist, humankind still reaches out for a DROP of water. Many purification techniques have moved to the frontline of research, development and application to project itself as a promising technology that may help resolve the global freshwater shortage. As several scientific and technological challenges, still hamper many purification techniques, these challenges have attracted scientists and engineers to achieve the best performance and/or module and process design. Many techniques such as coagulation, filtration with coagulation, precipitation, ozonation, adsorption, ion exchange, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation processes have shown varied levels of suitability and impropriety. Adsorption, by solid adsorbents plays a higher hand due to the simplicity in design and lower investment in terms of adsorbent materials. The adsorptive removal of water pollutants such as organics dyes, heavy metal ions, oil, and pharmaceutical products by carbonaceous adsorbents such as activated carbon, carbon nanotube, graphene, carbon aerogels, and biochars has been addressed in detail. Different types of water pollutants and their adverse effect on living beings also have been included. The adsorption of pollutants on carbonaceous materials is found to depend on many factors, such as reaction conditions during the synthesis of these materials and the reaction conditions during the adsorption process. The primary adsorption mechanisms reported in the

Preface

ix

literature include electrostatic interactions, van der Waals forces, π–π stacking, hydrogen bonding, etc. Chapter 3 - Nowadays, water quality is affected by contaminants such as industrial chemicals, heavy metals, pesticides, and insecticides. The health and safety of human beings is the most significant consideration for water purification, and the water quality directly affects well-being of people. Membrane technologies for water purification have been actively followed for decades because they are more energy-efficient, easy to maintain and of compact construction than various separation methods, which facilitate the production of high-quality water as well as waste water treatment. The other excellent properties of membranes, such as porosity and hydrophilicity, are significant for wastewater treatment. Biodegradability is an essential part of discussions on current membrane separation scenarios as they can be easily degraded by the microorganism. Moreover, biodegradable membranes provide the significant advantage of decomposing naturally, and they create a new way to advance membrane separation technology. The principle of the membrane separation process and the mission of biodegradable polymer membranes in water purification are reviewed in this chapter. The synthesis of different types of bio-based and petroleum-based biodegradable polymer membranes and their application in water purification are discussed. These biodegradable polymers include polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), chitosan, cellulose acetate, starch, etc. The present chapter also flows through the recent advancements in bio-based polymer membranes. Also discusses various modification techniques, limitations, and future remarks. Chapter 4 - Solar-driven water purification is an emerging green technology to tackle the significant global challenges of clean water scarcity and the energy crisis. Using the bountiful solar energy, the semiconductorbased photocatalytic water treatment approach is finding commercial applications in day-to-day life. Two-dimensional (2D) semiconductor nanomaterials specifically draw substantial attention for water purification mainly due to their strong visible light absorption by bandgap engineering, large surface area, and a high degree of functionalization. This chapter comprehensively presents the recent developments of 2D semiconductorbased photocatalytic water purification. Various approaches adopted to enhance solar-light photoactivity, including the formation of 2D semiconductor heterojunctions, composites, metal and non-metal doping, chemical functionalization, etc., are discussed in detail. Micro-reactor systems such as photocatalytic membranes, aerogels/hydrogels, microfluidic systems,

x

Paul LeBlanc

and optical fibres, together with pilot-scale reactors presently employed for wastewater treatment, are briefly acquainted. Besides, the current challenges and future perspectives of commercializing such materials for practical water purifications systems are overviewed. Chapter 5 - Dairy effluents are one of the industrial effluents that form a major fraction of pollution to the environment. A large quantity of effluent generated by dairy industries is rich in proteins, fats and nutrients with high biological and chemical oxygen demand. This chapter deals with the processes and units involved in the dairy industry, characteristics and composition of the dairy effluent and its effect on health and the environment if discharged without treatment. The treatment methods available for dairy effluents and the selection of appropriate technologies are discussed and the current developments in these areas are evaluated. Since a large quantity of water is needed for dairy industry operations, recycle and reuse option of the treated water is also discussed.

Chapter 1

Inactivation of Waterborne Pathogens by Copper and Silver Ions, Free Chlorine, and N-chloramines in Point-of-Use Technology: A Review Ana Estrella-You, Jamie Harris, Rekha Singh, PhD and James A. Smith*, PhD Department of Engineering Systems and Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Abstract Consumption of untreated or partially treated water can result in gastrointestinal infections caused by pathogenic microorganisms. Pointof-use (POU) water treatment, where water is treated in the home just before consumption, can at least partially address this problem in areas of the world that lack appropriate drinking water treatment and/or distribution infrastructure. In general, current technologies provide a low-cost solution to combat microbial pathogens and improve water quality. But they face technological or handling issues impacting their performance. The physicochemical quality of the water to be treated, the presence of inorganic and organic reduced compounds, and the aggregation of pathogens play important roles in the disinfection effectiveness of the chemical disinfectants used in POU technologies (e.g., silver and free chlorine). The use of combinations of these * Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: Water Purification Editor: Paul LeBlanc ISBN: 978-1-68507-622-1 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

2

Ana Estrella-You, Jamie Harris, Rekha Singh et al. disinfectants in doses that meet the World Health Organization guidelines for drinking water have resulted in synergistic inactivation of bacterial species. And alternative technologies that include insoluble Nchloramines are also promising as effective water disinfectants since these polymers can provide very high effective chlorine (+1) ion concentrations. This chapter shows current knowledge of copper and silver ions, free chlorine, and N-chloramines in POU drinking water treatment applications, including kinetics and mechanisms of inactivation of pathogens, toxicity, and synergistic effects produced by combinations of these chemical disinfectants. With this, we aim to present the potential to improve POU technologies to increase the efficacy of inactivation of waterborne pathogens while avoiding or reducing the formation of disinfection byproducts and disinfectant residuals toxicity.

Keywords: silver, copper, free chlorine, N-chloramines, water disinfection, point-of-use treatment, inactivation kinetics, inactivation mechanisms, disinfection residual, synergistic effects

Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that at least 2.2 billion people in the world lack clean drinking water at home. From these people, 579 million use surface water sources contaminated with fecal material or water from unprotected wells and springs. The contaminated water can transmit bacterial (e.g., E. coli, Vibrio cholerae, Shigella), viral (e.g., norovirus, poliovirus, rotavirus, adenovirus, hepatitis A and E) and protozoan (e.g., Giardia, Cryptosporidium) species that can cause severe diarrheal diseases (e.g., schistosomiasis, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, polio, and hepatitis) and lead to death and other health problems. Each year, diarrheal diseases associated with unsafe drinking water, sanitation, and hand hygiene claim the lives of around 829,000 people, from which more than one third are children aged under 5 years old (WHO 2019). Diarrheal diseases can also lead to decreased food intake and nutrient absorption, reduced resistance to infection, and impaired physical growth and cognitive development (Lantagne, Cardinali, and Blount 2010). However, with appropriate water management and disinfection, and sanitation services, these health risks and deaths can be prevented. Highly effective water disinfection can be achieved through different means such as chlorination, ozonation, UV radiation, etc. (Hassen et al. 2000).

Inactivation of Waterborne Pathogens by Copper …

3

Yet in many areas of the world, there is a lack of infrastructure to support these kinds of disinfection processes nor a distribution network with safe water because of insufficient funds (S. Jain et al. 2010; Patil et al. 2015). Therefore, one possible solution to this problem is to treat contaminated water in the households immediately before consumption. Such point-of-use (POU) water treatment along with safe water storage options have the potential to significantly improve the collected source water quality and reduce the risk of diarrheal diseases and death, especially in children (Jackson and Smith 2018; Singh, Rento, et al. 2019). Common POU technologies that have been developed, tested, and disseminated include porous ceramic tablets or filters infused with silver, chlorine tablets, and bleach or liquid chlorine (S. Jain et al. 2010). This chapter, which mainly considers selected field studies and publications of the past 20 years, is majorly focused on presenting an overview of silver, copper, and chlorine-based disinfectants (free chlorine, monochloramine and N-chloramines) when used as water disinfectants. More specifically, we discuss the outcomes of when these chemicals are used in POU drinking water treatment technologies. Then, we show research findings on kinetics and mechanisms of inactivation of pathogens, and toxicity of the chemical disinfectants are also discussed. Finally, information about synergistic effects of different combinations of these disinfectants are introduced. The importance of this chapter lies in addressing the knowledge gap and the potential to improve the technologies for POU drinking water treatment. We explore the synergism among chemicals, formation of disinfection byproducts, and potential for toxicity while considering affordability, accessibility, and the user experience for each POU technology.

Water Chemical Disinfectants Chlorine-Based Disinfectants Free Chlorine Free chlorine is the most widely used chemical for water disinfection (Pereira et al. 2008). It was first used for this purpose in the early 1900s and since then has contributed to substantial reductions in waterborne diseases (Lantagne, Cardinali, and Blount 2010). It has been proven that free chlorine can be very effective for deactivation of bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Legionella,

4

Ana Estrella-You, Jamie Harris, Rekha Singh et al.

Salmonella Typhi, and Shigella, and it can be reasonably effective for the inactivation of viruses such as adenoviruses, norovirus, and rotaviruses. Additionally, if free chlorine is used with the aid of turbidity reduction (i.e., keeping 4.2% respectively (Burke et al. 2018). The natural level of glucose in milk is around 10 mg/100 ml. To determine the quality of milk products, milk contents should be analyzed frequently, since the characteristics of milk are highly related to the health of the animal and the quality of its feed. The presence of added adulterants in the milk such as cane sugar, starch and cellulose, added urea, ammonium compounds and sulfates, gelatin, formalin, salicylic acids and foreign fats needs to be analyzed for determining the quality of milk.

Dairy Effluents Among different industries, dairy industries produce a large quantity of effluent (0.2 to 10 l of effluent per liter of processed milk) together with extensive water consumption (Vourch et al. 2008). Effluents are generated from almost all the units in the dairy industry beginning from milk receiving to production and processing of milk and milk products. The volume of effluent generated for the production of milk, cream and yogurt (known as the white products) is 3 liters per kg of processed milk. And, for the production of butter and cheese (known as the yellow products) and for special products (such as concentrated milk or whey and dehydrated milk products) 4 and 5 liters of effluents are generated per kg of processed milk (Galvão 2018). The dairy effluents are characterized by white in color having an unpleasant odor and higher temperature with fluctuations in pH (6.5-8.0), BOD, COD and TSS (Slavov 2017). These effluents mainly contain milk and milk products that have been lost at various processing stages. Milk loss to the effluent stream can amount to 0.5–2.5% of the incoming milk but can be as high as 3–4% (Bosworth, Hummelmose, and Christiansen 2001). The wastewater generated from the dairy industries also contains operational by-products, wastewater produced by washing cans and equipment, reagents and various additives used in the process.

Dairy Effluents

215

This effluent characterized by low alkalinity (Slavov 2017), constitutes a high concentration of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, grease, minerals, lactose and lactic acid, as well as sodium and it also contains detergents (Sodium hydroxide, Ethylene-diamine tetra-acetic acid) and acidic and caustic cleaning agents. These organic materials contribute to high COD and BOD values and require proper treatment to improve the quality before discharge. The biodegradability of these components is complex with easily degradable carbohydrates and comparatively less biodegradable protein and milk fats. One gram of milk protein and fat have BOD values of around 1.03g and 0.89g and COD values of 1.36 10-3g and 3 10-3g respectively (Birwal et al. 2017). The composition of the untreated dairy wastewater sample reported by Kurup et al. consists of 360 mg/l of fat, 388 mg/l of protein and 121 mg/l of carbohydrates (Gopinatha Kurup, Adhikari, and Zisu 2019). The characteristics of dairy effluents reported by Raghunath et.al (Raghunath et al. 2016) and Suman et.al (Suman et al. 2017) shows that the COD (mg/l), BOD (mg/l), pH, TSS (mg/l) and TS (mg/l) are within the range of 1400-2700, 10004000, 7-8, 1000-5000 and 1000-2000 respectively depending on the waste generated from various dairy industries. The consumption of water is also very large for dairy industries for cleaning and washing, heating and cooling, disinfection and maintaining food hygiene standards (Slavov 2017). The organic and inorganic contaminants in the dairy effluents can imbalance the ecosystem if discharged without treatment. Table 1 shows the characteristics of effluents discharged by various dairy industries in India (reported in the literature) and the permissible limits for the discharge by CPCB standards (B. S. and Shete and Shinkar 2013) and Indian standards (ISI) (Sharma, Chatterjee, and Bhatnagar 2013). The characteristics of the effluent depend on the climatic conditions, nature of the product (Tikariha and Sahu 2014) and the volume of the milk processed. By analyzing Table 1, it can be referred that the parameters such as pH, BOD, COD, Total suspended solids (TSS), Nitrate and Phosphate are not within the permissible limits. The acidic nature of dairy wastewater is due to the breakdown of lactose present in the milk to lactic acid (Tikariha and Sahu 2014). The BOD and COD values of dairy wastewaters are very much high due to the presence of fats, lactose, nutrients, detergents, casein, inorganic salts and sanitizing agents (Porwal, Mane, and Velhal 2015; Dhall et al. 2012). However, the pH range has only slightly deviated from the permissible limits. The high value of TSS could be due to the variation in environmental factors and this may result in the depletion of oxygen (Noorjahan, Sharief, and Dawood 2004).

216

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

The presence of chloride in the effluent is due to the salty whey and brine, the increased levels of nitrogen are attributed to the milk with 3.7% fat and, phosphate is due to the presence of detergents and soaps used for cleaning purposes (Sharma, Chatterjee, and Bhatnagar 2013). Table 1. Parameters analyzed for the characterization of dairy effluents Parameter

Composition in the effluent stream Ref. (Sharma, Ref. Ref. Chatterjee, (Tikariha (Noorjahan, and Bhatnagar and Sahu Sharief, and 2013) 2014) Dawood 2004)

CPCB standards (India)

ISI

-

-

Colour

Orange/Grey

Blackish

Temperature pH DO

19.9°C-22°C 7.6-8.2 4.5-4.6 mg/l

26.2-35.4°C 6.1-7.7 7.0 - 8.5 0.38-1.42 mg/l

34.4 10.06 1.21

6.5-8.5

6.5-8 4-6 mg/l

COD

432.5mg/l578.1 mg/l 236mg/l-289 mg/l

4958mg/l

300-450 mg/l 100-250 mg/l

1499

-

649.6

19-650 mg/l

-

100 mg/l (30 mg/l for effluent discharge into inland surface waters) 150 mg/l

250 mg/l 50 mg/l

0.02-0.06 mg/l 885 – 1950 µs/cm 350-400 mg/l 400-500 mg/l 200-435 mg/l 10-50 mg/l

2.6

10 mg/l

-

< 2250 µs/cm

BOD

Total suspended solids Oil and grease Electrical conductivity Hardness Alkalinity Chloride Nitrate Phosphate

210.6mg/l233.2mg/l 234.6mg/l289mg/l 391.8mg/l 402mg/l 11.2mg/l 14.9mg/l 1.6mg/l 2.7mg/l

9033mg/l

-

Milky and Greyish black

Ref. (Vishakha Sukhadev Shivsharan and Wani 2013) -

352.7-954 µs/cm 145.50293.40 mg/l 198.45376.80 mg/l 24.85-92.91 mg/l 10.24-15.52 mg/l 18.00-26.42 3-20 mg/l mg/l

-

-

151.6

-

-

-

-

-

600 mg/l 10 mg/l 2 mg/l

Dairy Effluents

217

Effect on Health and Environment Discharging of untreated effluents into the nearby water bodies is a serious issue, as it decomposes rapidly resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving water body forming the plethora of flies and mosquitoes. This forms the source of contagious diseases like malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, chikungunya, etc. It is reported that these effluents are toxic to certain varieties of fishes and algae. Also, they contains heavy black flocculated sludge masses due to the decomposition of casein content which is highly toxic to the life of fishes (Al-Wasify, Ali, and Hamed 2017) (Suman et al. 2017). The environmental problems caused due to the discharge of dairy effluents are very huge, as it exhibits high organic load due to the presence of milk components, fluctuations in pH due to the presence of caustic and acidic cleaning agents, high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus and fluctuations in temperature. The dairy effluents containing carbohydrates, proteins and fats cause eutrophication and nutrient loss when discarded into the environment (Luo et al. 2012). The effluents are generally low alkaline in nature due to the presence of CaCO3 (around 2.5 g/l) in the milk permeate. Lactose, a major constituent in the dairy effluent is known to promote bacterial colonies like sewage fungus growth in the discharging water bodies (Raghunath et al. 2016).

Methods Available for the Treatment of Dairy Effluents The treatment of dairy effluents is classified into different levels such as preliminary level, primary level, secondary and tertiary levels respectively. The preliminary level, also known as mechanical treatment includes the removal of suspended solids and inorganic particles using grit chamber or bar screens. The method also reduces the organic content in wastewater, as most solids settle at a slower rate (Slavov 2017). The treatment at the primary level is the chemical treatment, which focuses on pH control and sedimentation using coagulation and flocculation method and sludge digesters and drying bed. The pH of wastewater below 6.5 and above 10 needs to be neutralized as these effluents corrode the pipes and also a neutral pH is best for further treatment, which is biological. In the secondary level, known as the biological treatment, suspended growth, activated sludge process and membrane bioreactors are employed. The biological method is considered the most reliable technique, which includes both aerobic and anaerobic treatment

218

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

methods depending on oxygen requirements (Slavov 2017). The final treatment is tertiary, where advanced technologies are utilized and the wastewater is cleansed and quality is improved using chlorination and disinfection for reuse or discharge into the environment (Dahiya, Kaushik, and Sindhu 2020). Figure 2 shows the classification of techniques used for the treatment of dairy effluents.

Figure 2. Classification of the treatment techniques for dairy effluents.

The treatment techniques from preliminary to tertiary are required to be carried out for the safe discharge of the effluents to the environment. Table 2 shows the approximate percentage removal and/or efficiency of all the techniques. The advanced techniques used as the tertiary method effectively

Dairy Effluents

219

treat the dairy effluents by considerably reducing the BOD, COD and other parameters of the effluent, and makes the effluent capable of discharge, recycle or reuse. Table 2. Efficiency of various methods in the treatment of dairy effluents Treatment technique Precipitation Coagulationflocculation

Aerobic processes Anaerobic processes Physicchemical processes

Treatment method

% Removal/Efficiency

Ref.

Using FeSO4 Using FeCl3 The method uses Aluminum sulfate Al2(SO4)3 as the coagulant Using FeCl3, Fe2(SO4)3

BOD removal 64% BOD removal 85% Removed 33% of COD, 45% of the turbidity, 72% of suspended matter and 20% of total phosphorus.

(Yonar, Sivrioğlu, and Özengin 2018) (B. S. and Shete and Shinkar 2013)

COD removal >70%

Activated sludge Trickling filters Aerated lagoons Anaerobic filters

High COD, BOD and nutrient removal is achieved

(Yonar, Sivrioğlu, and Özengin 2018) (B. S. and Shete and Shinkar 2013)

Electrocoagulation

Adsorption

Membrane separation

Aerobic processes

Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)

Anaerobic processes

Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)

High COD removal with poor nutrient removal Depending on the type of electrode: 98% COD removal and 89% of Phosphorus, 81% nitrogen and 61% of COD removal (soluble aluminum anode) Adsorbents used are Lanthanum modified bentonite (100% phosphate removal) and Activated carbon (high TSS removal) >98% removal achieved for COD, conductivity, nitrogen and phosphorous >90% COD removal and nutrient removal and high phosphorous removal The removal efficiency of about 87.06%, 94.50%, and 56.54% for COD, BOD and TSS respectively

Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR)

COD and BOD removal rates of 62 and 75% (at laboratory scale)

Hybrid anaerobic digesters

COD removal efficiency: 78-90%

(Yonar, Sivrioğlu, and Özengin 2018)

(Demirel, Yenigun, and Onay 2005) (B. S. and Shete and Shinkar 2013; B. S. Shete and Shinkar 2017) (Demirel, Yenigun, and Onay 2005) (Lebrato et al. 1990)

220

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

Aerobic Processes Aerobic processes are the simple, efficient and promising technology for the treatment of wastewater producing quality effluent with the help of microorganisms in an oxygen-rich environment. This biological method oxidizes the organic matter present in the effluent stream into carbon dioxide, water and cellular materials, which can be removed easily. Oxygen is continuously supplied into the process tank using blowers or compressors. The activated sludge processes and conventional trickling filters come under the category of aerobic processes in the secondary treatment (Birwal et al. 2017). Activated sludge process operated with a retention time of 5 days removed BOD efficiently by 95% from dairy wastewater (Lateef, Chaudhry, and Ilyas 2013). The quality of sludge produced in activated sludge processes is high compared to that of trickling filters, however, the low energy requirement and easy maintenance are the advantages of tricking filters. The efficiency of trickling filters depends on microbial growth and its action on the filer media (Anusha et al. 2020). It is reported that the average removal efficiency of 90 l volume trickling filter is 87.3%, 78.3% and 27.9% for BOD, COD and total phosphorous respectively with the carrier material made of HDPE (Zyłka et al. 2018). Anaerobic Processes High-strength wastewaters are treated biologically using anaerobic treatment methods, in which microbes are utilized for the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Since the dairy effluents are high in COD content and warm and strong, anaerobic treatments are more ideal over aerobic (Demirel, Yenigun, and Onay 2005). The products of an anaerobic process are methane, biogas, CO2 and inorganic matter. Methane formed out of the treatment can be used as a heat source. Anaerobic processes are considered to be more economic than aerobic, as they do not require high energy for providing aeration (Rajeshwari et al. 2000). Another advantage of anaerobic over aerobic is that it generates less sludge with the absence of any bad odors and only requires less land area (Birwal et al. 2017). Anaerobic filters are conventionally used for the anaerobic treatment of dairy effluent containing a low concentration of suspended solids. It is reported that anaerobic filters can remove COD between 78 and 92%, at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 4 days (Demirel, Yenigun, and Onay 2005).

Dairy Effluents

221

Advanced Treatment Technologies The tertiary treatment of dairy effluents constitutes advanced treatment technologies such as electrocoagulation, adsorption, membrane separation and advanced aerobic and anaerobic processes.

Electrocoagulation The process of Electrocoagulation (EC) has gained considerable interest over a decade for the treatment of dairy effluents. Using electrodes, a current is passed through the effluent and the process removes dissolved organic waste, coloring matter and turbidity (Birwal et al. 2017). The operating parameters that have a direct effect on the process are applied voltage, the number of electrodes, pH and reaction time. The effectiveness of the EC process was analyzed by Bazrafshan et al. using aluminum electrodes and reported the removal efficiency of 98.84% COD, 97.95% BOD5, 97.75% TSS, and >99.9% bacterial indicators at 60 V during 60 min (Bazrafshan et al. 2013). The combination of aluminum and iron electrodes was explored by Chezeau et al. utilizing aluminum as the cathode and iron electrode as the anode. The removal efficiency was found to be the same as that of the aluminum electrodes with 55% of COD removal, 60% of total organic carbon removal, 90% of total nitrogen removal, and nearly 100% turbidity removal. Even though aluminum electrodes achieve fast removal, the utilization of iron electrodes reduces the cost, because of the low price of iron and hence economic feasibility is more (Chezeau et al. 2020). The researchers are working for new methods to enhance efficiency by coupling the EC process with other techniques. Torres-Sánchez et al. combined the EC process with advanced oxidation techniques, such as the Fenton reaction and ozone processing. it is reported that 40% of COD removal was achieved at a current density of 5 mA/cm2 and with the combination of the Fenton process, the removal efficiency increased by 25% and with the association of the ozone system, the removal efficiency of COD further enhanced by 30% (TorresSa´nchez et al. 2014). By coupling phytoremediation with aerated EC process, performed using the combination of aluminium-iron electrodes, Akansha et al. reported the COD removal of 97%, proving it a good method for the treatment of dairy effluents. The process was carried out at a voltage of 5 V, pH 7 with aeration for 120 minutes (Akansha et al. 2020).

222

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

Adsorption Among all the methods, adsorption is considered as the economically best method in operation with the use of low-cost adsorbents having effective removal efficiency. The most important parameter of the adsorption process is the solution pH, which controls the adsorptive-adsorbent and adsorptiveadsorptive electrostatic interactions. The other parameters include the dosage (solid to liquid ratio), organic load (initial concentration), stirring rate and contact time (Al-Jabari et al. 2017). Activated carbon is considered as the effective adsorbent for the removal of pollutants. Activated carbon developed from rubber seed shell is utilized for the removal of COD from the dairy effluent and 95% removal was obtained at the pH range of below 6 with the optimum dosage of 10g/100ml and the optimum time of 15min (Abhraham et al. 2020). But due to the high cost of activated carbon and the separation inconvenience, the application of bio-sorption is studied. Pathak et al. has utilized rice husk as the adsorbent for the treatment of dairy effluent and achieved the organic removal of 92.5% using an adsorbent dosage of 5 g/L, pH of 2, and temperature of 30°C. It is also reported that the adsorption was spontaneous and exothermic (Pathak et al. 2016). Another class of adsorbent that gained good attention is carbon nanotubes (CNTs). The amount of COD adsorbed on multi-walled CNTs was analyzed by Moradi and Maleki and found the direct effect of efficiency on temperature, CNT dosage and initial COD concentration, while the removal efficiency decreased with an increase in pH (Moradi and Maleki 2013). Graphene oxides are also highly recommended for the role of adsorbent, with the removal efficiency of 90%, 80%, 84%, and 94% for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, COD, and turbidity respectively at a dosage of 320 mg/l (Falahati, Baghdadi, and Aminzadeh 2018). The separation efficiency of other adsorbents such as marlstone particles (Al-Jabari et al. 2017) and calcium hydroxide coated biochar (Choi et al. 2019) were also investigated. While performing the adsorption studies, it is important to identify the suitable adsorption model (such as Langmuir, Freundlich, etc.) that describes the particular treatment process. Membrane Separation The application of membrane separation is an efficient method compared to other physic-chemical techniques (such as adsorption, flocculation, etc.), as those methods destroy fat and protein colloids present in the dairy effluent (Slavov 2017). The ultrafiltration process is commonly used for the separation of whey due to hydrostatic forces (Garg 2019) and the method can remove proteins in the range of 92% - 98%. A combination of UF and NF can be

Dairy Effluents

223

adopted since UF effectively removes proteins, whereas NF removes the lactose in the UF permeate (Catenacci et al. 2020). Different commercially available membranes were utilized for the removal of milk proteins. The polyethersulphone (PES-5) ultrafiltration membrane rejected 95% proteins from dairy effluents at an operating pressure of 2.5 bars. Regenerated cellulose membranes can also be utilized for the effluent treatment as it produces high permeate flux, but the quality of permeate is poor due to the presence of lactose and hence cannot be reused (Velpula et al. 2017). A spiral wound PVDF MF membrane having a pore size of 0.3 µm was utilized for the removal of serum protein from the pasteurized skim milk. A percentage rejection of 35.57 was obtained in a three-stage concentration process, with a high percentage of rejection in the first stage. This is due to the reduced gel layer formation and low rate of plugging and blocking of pores caused by casein micelles (Beckman and Barbano 2013). Zulewska et al. compared ceramic and polymeric membranes for the removal of serum proteins and observed higher rejection for ceramic membranes. It is also reported that the permeate flux is highly influenced by the membrane surface area (Zulewska, Newbold, and Barbano 2009). A major problem encountered in the protein separation is the reduction in permeate flux caused by the protein adsorption and deposition on the membrane surface resulting in cake formation. The hydrophilic membranes are a better alternative for the removal of proteins as they can reduce fouling and improves permeate flux. Membrane filtration can also be utilized for the fractionation and recovery of milk proteins as they are a balanced source of nutrients. All the components of proteins have specific nutritional, functional, and biological characteristics and hence, it is important to maintain the experimental conditions specifically to avoid the degradation or aggregation of proteins (Zydney 1998).

Advanced Aerobic Treatment The advanced aerobic processes utilize Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) technology, which is a modification of the activated sludge process. In this method, equalization, aeration and clarification occur in a single time, whereas in the activated sludge process, these steps occur sequentially. It is a fill and draw process, in which wastewater is added to a single batch reactor or a sequence of two or more batch reactors for the treatment and then, discharged. However, the land area required for SBR operations is high, due to the oversize effluent outflow and large-sized aerators. The treatment cycle consists of fill, react, settle, decant and idle for the biological treatment and removal. The average performance of SBR reported by Mahvi is as follows: BOD removal

224

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

of 89-98%, TSS removal of 85-97%, Nitrification of 91-97%, Total nitrogen removal of >75%, and biological phosphorous removal of 57-69%. The performance of SBR varies with the change in organic loading rate, HRT, sludge retention time (SRT), dissolved oxygen and the wastewater characteristics such as COD, solids content and carbon to nitrogen ratio (A. H Mahvi 2008).

Advanced Anaerobic Treatment The advanced anaerobic processes are successfully utilized for dairy wastewater treatment over two decades. The most important technique among them is employing Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for the treatment. These reactors make use of both physical processes by separating solids and gases from the liquid and biological processes by degrading organic matter anaerobically. Other advantages of UASB reactors are high loading capacity and simplicity in design. As anaerobic sludge possesses good settling properties, UASB reactors do not require any mechanical mixing (Bal AS and Dhagat NN 2001). It is reported that a UASB reactor of volume 120.12 m3 efficiently removed 87.06% of COD, 94.50% of BOD and 56.54% of TSS respectively, with average gas production of 179.35 mg/l. Similarly, COD removal of 98% was obtained in a UASB reactor of volume 10 l at an organic loading rate of 6.2 g COD/ l. D with an HRT of 6 days (Powar et al. 2013). Another important method for the treatment of dairy effluents is the utilization of an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR). This technology with a high rate overcomes the disadvantages of SBR such as high sludge volume index and increased sludge amount. Also, the efficiency of SBR is affected by salts, which are present in dairy effluents. The operating procedure of ASBR is similar to that of SBR. However, the first step in the cycle is maintained under anaerobic conditions in ASBR. The factors influencing its performance includes reactor geometrics (reactors with high length to diameter ratio have better performance), feeding strategy (which have a direct effect on F/M ratio), mixing (preferred over continuous mixing to improve biomass settling and thereby performance), temperature and HRT (Akil and Jayanthi 2012). The advantages of the technology include high efficiency for both COD removal and gas production with no primary and secondary settles with flexibility in control (Koobum 2007). Matsumoto et al. have utilized ASBR for the removal of organic matter (COD) from dairy effluents and reported 91% removal within a 24-hour cycle (Matsumoto et al. 2012). For further enhancement in the efficiency of anaerobic treatment, hybrid digesters are employed by combining various anaerobic techniques. The

Dairy Effluents

225

combination of UASB with anaerobic filters produced 0.354 m3 of methane per kg COD at an HRT of 1.7 days (Birwal et al. 2017). Similarly, the same combination, removed the organic matter of dairy effluent with a loading rate of 1 to 8g COD/l/day by 92%, which is higher compared to the removal efficiency of anaerobic filters alone (Córdoba, Francese, and Siñeriz 1995). With the combination of UASB and fixed-bed bioreactors, COD was found to be reduced by 91-97% along with the yield of 0.287 to 0.359 m3 methane per kg of COD removed (Strydom, Britz, and Mostert 1997). UASB coupled with ASBR can increase the biogas yield with the reduction in the overall reactor volume by 25% compared to conventional UASB (Koobum 2007). A recent development in hybrid reactors is the combination of UASB with an anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR). The combination achieved a substantial reduction in sludge with the COD reduction by 98%. With lower energy consumption, the system achieved stable operations for more than three years (Ji et al. 2020).

Reuse and Recycle Option The possibility of reuse or recycle of dairy wastewater has been extensively focused on by researchers across the globe. The large quantity of wastewater generated can be recycled or reused for no potable water applications after treatment, and thereby reduces the requirement for freshwater. In regions where the scarcity of water is huge, the wastewater can be used for gardening and other irrigation purposes after treatment. Kharwad et.al has utilized natural bioreactor (earthworm) for the treatment of dairy wastewater and reduced the wastewater BOD, COD, TSS, Alkalinity, TDS, Turbidity, MPN like up to 50%,60%,20%,40%,55%,15% (Kharwad et al. 2017). It is stated that vermifiltration technology is a cost-effective treatment method, as it does not require any sophisticated types of machinery and it is environmentally friendly with high efficiency and convenience. Similarly, utilizing an aerobic baffled bioreactor, dairy effluents were successfully treated and removed 90% of the organic matter and the treated water was reused for agricultural production with levels of microbial contamination below the permissible limit (Santos et al. 2020). Another effective method for the recycling and reuse of wastewater is the membrane separation process, particularly nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. The permeate water can be recycled to the feed stream (especially for washing and cleaning) or can be reused for irrigation and other domestic purposes. Approximately, 90% of the water can be recovered for reuse by the application of NF processes at pressures ranging from 5-12 bars (Koyuncu et

226

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

al. 2000). However, concentration polarization and membrane fouling (resistance to filtration and thereby reduction in permeate flux) occur due to the building of proteins present in the waste stream. It is reported that by integrating the NF process with isoelectric precipitation, most of the proteins can be removed at pH 4.8 followed by centrifugation (Ritambhara et al. 2019). The economic feasibility of coupling membrane bioreactors with the NF process was also studied to test the reusability of dairy effluent. The authors reported that the organic matter and color of the feed are successfully removed and the water could be reused for cooling, steam generation and cleaning of external areas (Andrade et al. 2015). Coagulation is also an excellent technique as a pre-treatment step before the RO process. Sarkar et.al has found chitosan as the good coagulant, which removed color and odor completely from the dairy effluent, and after the RO process, the treated water was found to be comparable to that of the process water used in dairy industries (Sarkar et al. 2006) and hence the water can be recycled. For the low-charged effluents, RO + RO cascade or a single RO is sufficient to improve the water quality and this treated water can be reused as a boiler feed (B. Balannec et al. 2005). Membrane operations are found to be the successful method for the treatment of dairy wastewater, in which a single NF process can concentrate the effluent/retentate, whereas RO operations are considered as the finishing step for the reuse or recycle of water. The processes can be carried out either in a cross-flow mode or dead-end filtration (Béatrice Balannec et al. 2002). It is reported that a 540 m2 RO unit can treat 100 m3/day of wastewater with an average permeate flux around 11 l/m2h with 95% water recovery (Vourch et al. 2008).

Conclusion This chapter discussed dairy industries, products produced and the characteristics of the effluents generated. The composition of the dairy effluents and the treatment techniques adopted for the removal of organic and inorganic pollutants present in the effluent stream is discussed in detail. It is important to choose the treatment method depending on the characteristics of the effluent and the quantity of effluent discharged. Anaerobic processes can be considered as the more efficient and economically viable treatment process for high organic loaded wastewater. As the quantity of sludge generated in this method is less, sludge management can also be minimized. Aerobic treatment methods can remove the pollutants effectively, but the energy requirement is

Dairy Effluents

227

high and hence process modification is required. Considering the recycling and reuse of the treated water, membrane technologies are found to be superior to other treatment methods, as this technology produces high-quality treated water. As dairy industries require a large quantity of water and produce a large quantity of wastewater, the recycling of the treated water should be implemented on large scale to minimize the need for freshwater for operations.

References Abhraham, Nitha, Amrutha Babu, Athira Gopi, Sonu Rajan, and TInsha Paul. 2020. “Adsorptive Treatment of Dairy Waste Water Using Rubber Seed Shell Activated Carbon.” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN 17 (4): 49–57. https://doi.org/10.9790/16841704014957. Akansha, J., P. V. Nidheesh, Ashitha Gopinath, K. V. Anupama, and M. Suresh Kumar. 2020. “Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater by Combined Aerated Electrocoagulation and Phytoremediation Process.” Chemosphere 253: 126652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126652. Akil, K., and S. Jayanthi. 2012. “Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactors and Its Influencing Factors: An Overview.” Journal of Environmental Science & Engineering 54 (2): 317–22. Al-Jabari, Maher, Hiba Dwiek, Nareman Zahdeh, and Nadia Eqefan. 2017. “Reducing Organic Pollution of Wastewater from Milk Processing Industry by Adsorption on Marlstone Particles.” Int. J. of Thermal & Environmental Engineering 15 (1): 57–61. https://doi.org/10.5383/ijtee.15.01.007. Al-Wasify, Raed S., Mohamed N. Ali, and Shimaa R. Hamed. 2017. “Biodegradation of Dairy Wastewater Using Bacterial and Fungal Local Isolates.” Water Science and Technology 76 (11): 3094–3100. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.481. Andrade, L. H., F. D. S. Mendes, J. C. Espindola, and M. C. S. Amaral. 2015. “Reuse of Dairy Wastewater Treated by Membrane Bioreactor and Nanofiltration: Technical and Economic Feasibility.” Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 32 (3): 735–47. https://doi.org/10.1590/01046632.20150323s00003133. Anusha, K. A., Kuldeep R. Patil, Faiz Ahmed Siddiqh K., Dilip Kumar, and Poornima Bk. 2020. “Treatment of Wastewater Using Trickling Filter : A Review.” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) 07 (05): 5411–15.

228

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

Bal A. S., and Dhagat N. N. 2001. “Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor-a Review.” Indian J Environ Health 43 (2): 1–82. Balannec, B., M. Vourch, M. Rabiller-Baudry, and B. Chaufer. 2005. “Comparative Study of Different Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membranes for Dairy Effluent Treatment by Dead-End Filtration.” Separation and Purification Technology 42 (2): 195–200. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.seppur.2004.07.013. Balannec, Béatrice, Geneviève Gésan-Guiziou, Bernard Chaufer, Murielle Rabiller-Baudry, and Georges Daufin. 2002. “Treatment of Dairy Process Waters by Membrane Operations for Water Reuse and Milk Constituents Concentration.” Desalination 147 (1–3): 89–94. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0011-9164(02)00581-7. Bazrafshan, Edris, Hossein Moein, Ferdos Kord Mostafapour, and Shima Nakhaie. 2013. “Application of Electrocoagulation Process for Dairy Wastewater Treatment.” Journal of Chemistry 2013: 1–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1155/2013/640139. Beckman, S. L., and D. M. Barbano. 2013. “Effect of Microfiltration Concentration Factor on Serum Protein Removal from Skim Milk Using Spiral-Wound Polymeric Membranes 1.” Journal of Dairy Science 96 (10): 6199–6212. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6655. Birwal, Preeti, Deshmukh G, Priyanka, and Saurabh SP. 2017. “Advanced Technologies for Dairy Effluent Treatment.” Journal of Food, Nutrition and Population Health 1 (1): 3–7. http://www.imedpub.com/articles/advancedtechnologies-for-dairy-effluent-treatment.php?aid=18637. Bosworth, Michael E. D., Bent Hummelmose, and Kim Christiansen. 2001. “Overview of Dairy Processing.” In Cleaner Production Assessment in Dairy Processing, 7–16. United Nations Environment Programme. Burke, Niamh, Krzysztof A. Zacharski, Mark Southern, Paul Hogan, Michael P. Ryan, and and Catherine C. Adley. 2018. “The Dairy Industry: Process, Monitoring, Standards, and Quality.” In Descriptive Food Science, 3–25. https://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-biometrictechnologies/liveness-detection-in-biometrics. Catenacci, Arianna, Micol Bellucci, Tugui Yuan, and Francesca Malpei. 2020. Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816823-3.00009-5. Chezeau, Benoit, Lilya Boudriche, Christophe Vial, and Amel Boudjemaa. 2020. “Treatment of Dairy Wastewater by Electrocoagulation Process: Advantages of Combined Iron/Aluminum Electrodes.” Separation Science and Technology (Philadelphia) 55 (14): 2510–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01496395.2019.1638935.

Dairy Effluents

229

Choi, Yong Keun, Hyun Min Jang, Eunsung Kan, Anna Rose Wallace, and Wenjie Sun. 2019. “Adsorption of Phosphate in Water on a Novel Calcium Hydroxide-Coated Dairy Manure-Derived Biochar.” Environmental Engineering Research 24 (3): 434–42. https://doi.org/10.4491/EER. 2018.296. Córdoba, Pedro R., Alejandro P. Francese, and Faustino Siñeriz. 1995. “Improved Performance of a Hybrid Design over an Anaerobic Filter for the Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater at Laboratory Scale.” Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering 79 (3): 270–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0922338X(95)90615-7. Dahiya, Pooja, Roopsi Kaushik, and Anil Sindhu. 2020. “Physiological Analysis of Dairy Effluent.” International Research Journal on Advanced Science Hub 2 (Special Issue ICAET 11S): 20–29. https://doi.org/10.47392/ irjash.2020.228. Demirel, Burak, Orhan Yenigun, and Turgut T. Onay. 2005. “Anaerobic Treatment of Dairy Wastewaters: A Review.” Process Biochemistry 40 (8): 2583–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.12.015. Dhall, Purnima, T O Siddiqi, Altaf Ahmad, Rita Kumar, and Anil Kumar. 2012. “Restructuring BOD : COD Ratio of Dairy Milk Industrial Wastewaters in BOD Analysis by Formulating a Specific Microbial Seed.” The Scientific World Journal, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/105712. Falahati, Faezeh, Majid Baghdadi, and Behnoush Aminzadeh. 2018. “Treatment of Dairy Wastewater by Graphene Oxide Nanoadsorbent and Sludge Separation, Using In Situ Sludge Magnetic Impregnation (ISSMI).” Pollution 4 (1): 29–41. https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2017.233196.276. Galvão, Douglas Felipe. 2018. “Membrane Technology and Water Reuse in a Dairy Industry.” In Technological Approaches for Novel Applications in Dairy Processing, 163–77. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5772/intechopen. Garg, Minal. 2019. Advances in Biological Treatment of Industrial Waste Water and Their Recycling for a Sustainable Future. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1468-1. Gopinatha Kurup, Geethu, Benu Adhikari, and Bogdan Zisu. 2019. “Recovery of Proteins and Lipids from Dairy Wastewater Using Food Grade Sodium Lignosulphonate.” Water Resources and Industry 22 (March): 100114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2019.100114. Ji, Siping, Wuyi Ma, Qianwen Wei, Weishi Zhang, Fengzhi Jiang, and Jing Chen. 2020. “Integrated ABR and UASB System for Dairy Wastewater Treatment: Engineering Design and Practice.” Science of the Total Environment 749: 142267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142267. Kharwad, A. M., Mahanand Mandal, Kishor Nagose, Shubham Ghodkhande, and Pravin Parate. 2017. “Reuse & Recycle of Dairy Waste Water by Using

230

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

Natural Bio-Reactor.” International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development 4 (3): 743–49. Koobum, K. 2007. The Characteristic of the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR) and a Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor (SBBR). Koyuncu, I., M. Turan, D. Topacik, and A. Ates. 2000. “Application of Low Pressure Nanofiltration Membranes for the Recovery and Reuse of Dairy Industry Effluents.” Water Science and Technology 41 (1): 213–21. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2000.0031. Lateef, Ambreen, Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry, and Shazia Ilyas. 2013. “Biological Treatment of Dairy Wastewater Using Activated Sludge.” ScienceAsia 39 (2): 179–85. https://doi.org/10.2306/scienceasia15131874.2013.39.179. Lebrato, J., J. L. Pérez Rodríguez, C. Maqueda, and E. Morillo. 1990. “Cheese Factory Wastewater Treatment by Anaerobic Semicontinuous Digestion.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3: 193–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0921-3449(90)90017-X. Luo, Jianquan, Weifeng Cao, Luhui Ding, Zhenzhou Zhu, Yinhua Wan, and Michel Y. Jaffrin. 2012. “Treatment of Dairy Effluent by Shear-Enhanced Membrane Filtration: The Role of Foulants.” Separation and Purification Technology 96: 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2012.06.009. Macdonald, Lauren E., James Brett, David Kelton, Shannon E. Majowicz, Kate Snedeker, and Jan M. Sargeant. 2011. “A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis of the Effects of Pasteurization on Milk Vitamins, and Evidence for Raw Milk Consumption and Other Health-Related Outcomes.” Journal of Food Protection 74 (11): 1814–32. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP10-269. Mahvi, A. H. 2008. “Sequencing Batch Reactor: A Promising Technology in Wastewater Treatment.” Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng. 5: 79–90. Matsumoto, E. M., M. S. Osako, S. C. Pinho, G. Tommaso, T. M. Gomes, and R. Ribeiro. 2012. “Treatment of Wastewater from Dairy Plants Using Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR) Following by Aerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Aiming the Removal of Organic Matter and Nitrification.” Water Practice and Technology 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2012.048. Moradi, O., and M. S. Maleki. 2013. “Removal of COD from Dairy Wastewater by MWCNTs: Adsorption Isotherm Modeling.” Fullerenes Nanotubes and Carbon Nanostructures 21 (10): 836–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536383X. 2011.613547. Noorjahan, C.M., S. dawood Sharief, and Nausheen Dawood. 2004. “Characterization of Dairy Effluent.” Journal of Industrial Pollution Control 20 (1): 131–36.

Dairy Effluents

231

Park, Young W. 2016. Safety of Goat Milk Products, no. December 2015: 243– 63. Pathak, Uttarini, Papita Das, Prasanta Banerjee, and Siddhartha Datta. 2016. “Treatment of Wastewater from a Dairy Industry Using Rice Husk as Adsorbent: Treatment Efficiency, Isotherm, Thermodynamics, and Kinetics Modelling.” Journal of Thermodynamics 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/ 3746316. Porwal, H. J., A. V. Mane, and S. G. Velhal. 2015. “Biodegradation of Dairy Effluent by Using Microbial Isolates Obtained from Activated Sludge.” Water Resources and Industry 9: 1–15. Powar, Mrunalini M, Vijay S Kore, Sunanda V Kore, and Girish S Kulkarni. 2013. “Review on Applications of Uasb Technology for Wastewater Treatment.” International Journal of Advanced Science, Engineering and Technology 2 (2): 125–33. http://www.bipublication.com. Raghunath, B. V., A. Punnagaiarasi, G. Rajarajan, A. Irshad, A. Elango, and G. Mahesh Kumar. 2016. “Impact of Dairy Effluent on Environment—A Review.” In Integrated Waste Management in India-Status and Future Prospects for Environmental Sustainability, 239–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-27228-3. Rajeshwari, K. V., M. Balakrishnan, A. Kansal, Kusum Lata, and V. V. N. Kishore. 2000. “State-of-the-Art of Anaerobic Digestion Technology for Industrial Wastewater Treatment.” Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 4 (2): 135–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(99)00014-3. Ritambhara, Zainab, Sivakumar Vijayaraghavalu, Himanshu K. Prasad, and Munish Kumar. 2019. “Treatment and Recycling of Wastewater from Dairy Industry.” In Advances in Biological Treatment of Industrial Waste Water and Their Recycling for a Sustainable Future, 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-13-1468-1_9. Santos, K. A., T. M. Gomes, F. Rossi, M. M. Kushida, V. L. Del Bianchi, R. Ribeiro, M. S. M. Alves, and G. Tommaso. 2020. “Water Reuse: Dairy Effluent Treated by a Hybrid Anaerobic Biofilm Baffled Reactor and Its Application in Lettuce Irrigation.” Water Supply, 1–14. https://doi.org/10. 2166/ws.2020.276. Sarkar, Baisali, P. P. Chakrabarti, A. Vijaykumar, and Vijay Kale. 2006. “Wastewater Treatment in Dairy Industries - Possibility of Reuse.” Desalination 195 (1–3): 141–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.11.015. Sharma, Neha, Sreemoyee Chatterjee, and Pradeep Bhatnagar. 2013. “An Evaluation of Physicochemical Properties to Assess Quality of Treated Effluents from Jaipur Dairy.” International Journal of Chemical Environmental and Pharmaceutical Research Pharmaceutical Research Pharmaceutical Research Pharmaceutical Research 4 (3): 54–58.

232

S. Nivedita and Shiny Joseph

Shete, Bharati S. and, and N. P. Shinkar. 2013. “Comparative Study of Various Treatments For Dairy Industry Wastewater.” IOSR Journal of Engineering 03 (08): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-03844247. Shete, Bharati Sunil, and N P Shinkar. 2017. “Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Industry Waste Water - Biogas Evolution-A Review.” International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences 12 (6): 1117–30. Slavov, Aleksandar Kolev. 2017. “General Characteristics and Treatment Possibilities of Dairy Wastewater -a Review.” Food Technology and Biotechnology 55 (1): 14–28. https://doi.org/10.17113/ft b.55.01.17.4520. Strydom, J. P., T. J. Britz, and J. F. Mostert. 1997. “Two Phase Anaerobic Digestion of Three Different Dairy Effluents Using a Hybrid Bioreactor.” Water SA 23 (2): 151–56. Suman, Gour, Mathur Nupur, Singh Anuradha, and Bhatnagar Pradeep. 2017. “Assessment of Toxicity in Dairy Waste : A Review.” IOSR Journal of Biotechnology and Biochemistry (IOSR-JBB) 3 (5): 6–10. https://doi.org/ 10.9790/264X-03050610. Tikariha, Ashish, and Omprakash Sahu. 2014. “Study of Characteristics and Treatments of Dairy Industry Waste Water.” Journal of Applied & Environmental Microbiology 2 (1): 16–22. https://doi.org/10.12691/jaem-21-4. Torres-Sánchez, Ana L., Sandra J. López-Cervera, Catalina de la Rosa, Mari´a Maldonado-Vega, Mari´a Maldonado-Santoyo, and Juan M. PeraltaHernández. 2014. “Electrocoagulation Process Coupled with Advance Oxidation Techniques to Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater.” International Journal of Electrochemical Science 9 (11): 6103–12. Velpula, Suresh, K. S; Umapathy, Aravind; Thyarla, Keerthi; Sreekanth, and Sripad Saraff. 2017. “Dairy Wastewater Treatment by Membrane Systems A Review.” International Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience 5 (6): 389– 95. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5540. Vishakha Sukhadev Shivsharan, S. W. Kulkarni and, and Minal Wani. 2013. “Physicochemical Characterization of Dairy Effluents.” Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2 (2): 182–91. Vourch, Mickael, Béatrice Balannec, Bernard Chaufer, and Gérard Dorange. 2008. “Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater by Reverse Osmosis for Water Reuse.” Desalination 219 (1–3): 190–202. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.desal.2007.05.013. Yonar, Taner, Özge Sivrioğlu, and Nihan Özengin. 2018. “Physico-Chemical Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewaters: A Review.” In Technological Approaches for Novel Applications in Dairy Processing, 179–91. https://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-biometrictechnologies/liveness-detection-in-biometrics.

Dairy Effluents

233

Zulewska, J., M. Newbold, and D. M. Barbano. 2009. “Efficiency of Serum Protein Removal from Skim Milk with Ceramic and Polymeric Membranes at 50°C.” Journal of Dairy Science 92 (4): 1361–77. https://doi.org/ 10.3168/jds.2008-1757. Zydney, Andrew L. 1998. “Protein Separations Using Membrane Filtration: New Opportunities for Whey Fractionation.” International Dairy Journal 8 (3): 243–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(98)00045-4. Zyłka, Radosław, Wojciech Dabrowski, Elena Gogina, and Olga Yancen. 2018. “Trickling Filter for High Efficiency Treatment of Dairy Sewage.” Journal of Ecological Engineering 19 (4): 269–75. https://doi.org/10.12911/ 22998993/89657.

Index

A acid, ix, 4, 9, 10, 26, 42, 47, 54, 56, 92, 94, 104, 109, 115, 116, 123, 125, 126, 139, 143, 146, 147, 150, 151, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 172, 176, 177, 186, 191, 215 acidic, 18, 34, 127, 161, 171, 191, 199, 215, 217 acrylic acid, 112, 133, 140, 179 acrylonitrile, 156, 168, 178 activated carbon, vii, viii, 35, 36, 59, 90, 98, 100, 101, 103, 110, 111, 114, 121, 123, 126, 129, 135, 136, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148, 222 active compound, 95, 144 acute toxicity, 50, 94 adenovirus (Ad2), 2, 23, 27, 29, 31, 47, 48, 60, 69, 71, 74, 87 adsorption dynamics, 96 adsorption isotherms, 97 aerogels, vii, viii, ix, 90, 98, 108, 109, 113, 117, 118, 129, 134, 138, 139, 141, 161, 182, 194, 195, 196, 201 Ag ion, 41, 60 aggregation, viii, 1, 25, 26, 28, 64, 104, 108, 223 aggregation of pathogens, viii, 1, 28, 64 aggregation or clumping of pathogens, 25 alkalinity, 18, 26, 38, 64, 86, 215, 216, 225 anaerobic digesters, 219 anaerobic digestion, 118, 142 anaerobic sludge, 219, 224 antibiotic, 15, 95, 121, 122, 123, 144, 145, 205

antibiotic resistance, 16 aquatic life, 93, 126 aquatic systems, 133 aqueous solutions, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 129, 134, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 158, 161, 163, 170 aqueous suspension, 17 aromatic compounds, 93, 127 aromatic hydrocarbons, 133 atmosphere, 19, 92, 103, 189 atmospheric deposition, 91, 93

B B. subtilis spores, 31, 73 bacteria, 3, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 31, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 65, 68, 70, 73, 75, 77, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 156, 167, 213 bacterial cells, 43, 44, 46 bacterial colonies, 198, 217 bacterial kinetics, 31 bacterial pathogens, 54 bacterial resistance, 24 bacterial species inactivation mechanisms, 41 bacteriophage, 21, 22, 23, 47, 49, 50, 59, 60, 87, 88 bacteriophage MS2, 34, 38, 47, 65 bacteriophage PR772, 29, 69 bacteriophage Qβ, 38, 49, 50 bacteriophage T4, 35, 38 bandgap, ix, 181, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 200

236 binding to the host cell, 46, 47 bioaccumulation, 92, 94, 131 biocidal, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 35, 38, 44, 66, 67, 72 biocidal polymers, 10 biocompatibility, 158, 184, 201 biodegradability, 126, 156, 163, 215 biodegradable materials, 162 biodegradable polymer membrane, v, ix, 149, 150, 156, 168, 172 biodegradation, 173 biogas, 220, 225 biological fluids, 158 biological processes, 224 biomass, 109, 121, 128, 129, 135, 136, 144, 224 biomass materials, 129 bionanocomposites, 174 biopolymers, 156, 173 black ceramic water filters (BCWF), 23, 69, 87 bonding, ix, 45, 90, 98, 105, 119, 121, 126, 127, 196 byproducts, 9, 14, 24, 40, 54, 55, 62, 129

C C. parvum oocysts, 10, 28, 30, 31 Ca(OCl)2, 4 calcium hypochlorite, Ca(OCl)2, 4 carbon atoms, 167 carbon dioxide, 183, 220 carbon materials, 145, 146 carbon nanotubes, vii, 100, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 158, 162, 177, 222 carbonization, 101, 108, 110, 117 carboxylic acid, 56, 115, 165, 191 carboxymethyl cellulose, 108, 206 cationic and anionic species, 34 cell membrane, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49 cell wall, 35, 41, 46, 52, 164 cellulose, ix, 11, 107, 109, 117, 134, 138, 139, 143, 145, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,

Index 177, 178, 179, 195, 198, 206, 209, 214, 223 ceramic, 3, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 59, 61, 83, 86, 87, 186, 192, 223 ceramic filters, 20, 22, 23, 59, 61, 66, 71, 87 ceramic silver-impregnated pot filter (CSF), 20, 21, 52, 77, 88 challenges, vii, viii, ix, 63, 64, 89, 91, 94, 124, 132, 133, 172, 181, 183, 201 chemical bonds, 46, 119, 186 chemical etching, 186 chemical functionalization, ix, 182, 200 chemical industry, 130 chemical properties, 98, 106, 139, 158 chemical reactions, 97 chemical vapor deposition, 104, 106 Chick-Watson linear model, 38 Chick-Watson model, 24, 25, 30, 33, 35 chitosan, ix, 98, 112, 115, 117, 118, 124, 128, 133, 135, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 150, 151, 156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 196, 226 chlorination, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 24, 40, 55, 56, 62, 65, 66, 72, 75, 218 chlorination byproducts, 14, 55 chlorination effectiveness, 5, 7, 8 chlorination field studies, 7 chlorine, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 79, 80, 83 chlorine dioxide, 9, 40, 42, 63, 66, 70, 72, 75 chlorine loading, 12 chlorine stability, 12 chlorine-based disinfection, 24 chromium, 104, 117, 136, 141, 143 chronic copper toxicity, 51 classification, 55, 95, 154, 167, 218 cleaning, 8, 183, 193, 194, 205, 206, 208, 215, 217, 225 Clostridium, 9, 10, 13, 82, 87, 88 Clostridium perfringens spores, 9, 10

Index composites, ix, 101, 106, 109, 115, 121, 135, 136, 137, 142, 146, 156, 170, 182, 190 composition, vii, x, 47, 61, 155, 164, 187, 211, 213, 215, 226 compounds, viii, 1, 10, 16, 20, 26, 46, 49, 50, 53, 56, 64, 90, 94, 95, 120, 132, 214 consumption, vii, 1, 3, 18, 23, 90, 92, 94, 214 contact time, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40, 57, 60, 62, 63, 80, 103, 105, 121, 123, 129, 193, 222 containers, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 80, 83, 87 contaminant, 16, 55, 56, 130, 162 contaminated sites, 131 contaminated water, 2, 3, 16, 19, 90 contamination, 17, 23, 35, 51, 90, 91, 92, 94, 121, 125, 131, 158, 201, 225 control group, 6, 22, 23, 80 copper, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 102, 136, 142, 162, 165, 170, 175, 177, 178 copper and silver ions, vii, viii, 2, 57, 60, 63 copper nanoparticles (CuNPs), 16, 19, 46, 59, 61, 68, 78, 83, 177 copper toxicity, 50, 51, 69 cost, vii, 1, 17, 36, 62, 95, 104, 119, 122, 123, 129, 132, 133, 139, 150, 158, 159, 172, 182, 196, 212, 221, 222, 225 Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts, 8, 9, 29, 65, 66, 67, 70, 78 crystalline, 162, 165, 168, 171, 188 Cu nanoparticles, 59 CuO nanoparticles, 35, 46 cycles, 13, 14, 109, 163, 164, 165, 166, 183, 195

D daily MCLG, 16, 17, 34 daily MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] for copper, 16

237 daily MCLG for copper, 16 dairy effluent, v, vii, x, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 dairy industry, vii, x, 211, 212, 213, 214 deactivation efficacy, 8, 13, 40 decomposition, 4, 217, 220 degradation, 4, 42, 43, 47, 52, 53, 94, 127, 145, 176, 178, 179, 183, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 223 degradation process, 190 degree of crystallinity, 156 delayed Chick-Watson model, 25, 30 density functional theory, 184 deposition, 51, 194, 198, 202, 223 diarrhea, 6, 7, 8, 21, 22, 23, 66, 68 diarrhea rates, 6, 7, 8 diarrheal diseases, 2, 3 dichloramine, 14, 15 diffusion, 26, 41, 63, 97, 98, 106, 114, 154, 189 disinfection, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 70, 162, 188, 203, 215, 218 disinfection by copper, 15, 34 disinfection byproducts, viii, 2, 3, 4, 24, 54, 56, 57, 63 disinfection byproducts (DBPs), viii, 2, 3, 4, 24, 54, 55, 56, 57, 63, 75 disinfection effectiveness, viii, 1, 14 disinfection efficacy, 16, 20, 26, 70 disinfection residual, 2 dissolved oxygen, 199, 217, 224 distribution, vii, 1, 3, 4, 14, 21, 57, 59, 63, 102, 122, 132, 155, 213 DNA, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 76 DNA damage, 42, 47 DNA replication, 44 doping, ix, 182, 185, 187, 188, 200 dosage, 5, 7, 28, 35, 80, 92, 106, 121, 123, 129, 222

238 drinking water, vii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35, 38, 40, 41, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 84, 91, 92, 131, 132, 150, 152, 154 drinking water disinfection, 4, 12, 72, 76 drying, 108, 119, 194, 196, 198, 213, 217 dyes, vii, viii, 90, 93, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 118, 129, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 161, 162, 169, 172, 174, 178, 179, 182, 190, 199, 205, 206

E E. coli, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 73, 74, 76, 80, 82, 85, 87, 88, 198 E. coli deactivation, 5, 9 E. faecalis, 17 echovirus 1, 47 effect of pH, 106 electrical conductivity, 15, 189 electron, 49, 64, 86, 119, 183, 189, 190, 191, 197 electrospinning, 158, 166, 170, 178 energy, ix, 23, 35, 95, 100, 108, 149, 167, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 189, 192, 194, 199, 206, 208, 220, 225, 226 engineering, ix, 15, 16, 72, 119, 130, 165, 181, 183, 187, 191, 200 Enterococcus, 13, 82, 85 environmental contamination, 50 environmental degradation, 90 environmental factors, 215 environmental impact, 23, 51 environmental sustainability, 23 environmental variables, 17 EPA standards for drinking water, 57, 63 equilibrium, 4, 26, 43, 96, 97, 98, 101, 105, 107, 134, 135, 136, 141, 144 exposure, 18, 36, 49, 50, 52, 92, 201 extracellular and intracellular membranebound proteins, 52 extraction, 98, 107, 125, 133

Index F fabrication, 140, 141, 152, 154, 156, 158, 169, 173, 193, 194, 196, 200, 208 Fenton mechanism, 39, 48, 64 Fenton type reaction, 42 fiber membranes, 166, 177 field studies, 3, 5, 12, 21, 23, 64, 79 filters, 3, 19, 20, 22, 23, 59, 61, 87, 88, 157, 219, 220, 225 filtration, viii, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 20, 56, 59, 89, 95, 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 166, 171, 192, 193, 194, 198, 206, 223, 226 flexibility, 98, 168, 171, 224 flocculation, 4, 95, 217, 219, 222 formation, viii, ix, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 24, 40, 44, 46, 50, 56, 63, 119, 123, 165, 181, 190, 193, 196, 200, 223 fouling, 155, 171, 172, 193, 201, 223, 226 free chlorine, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83 free chlorine residual, 5, 6, 7, 14, 55, 83 freshwater, viii, 89, 225, 227 functionalization, ix, 104, 113, 115, 123, 147, 157, 173, 181, 191, 194, 205

G gene expression, 52 gene transcription, 47 genome replication, 47 glass transition, 165, 167, 169 glass transition temperature, 165, 167, 169 global warming, 90 glucose, 51, 156, 172, 214 gram negative, 16, 167 gram negative bacteria, 16, 167 gram-negative bacteria, 31, 44 granular activated carbon (GAC), 17, 35, 36, 38, 59, 69, 76 graphite, 106, 121, 122, 123, 133, 186, 195 groundwater, 18, 34, 90, 93, 131

Index growth, 2, 7, 10, 12, 15, 22, 43, 44, 50, 99, 186, 198, 217, 220 guidelines, viii, 2, 17, 62, 63, 64, 78, 95

H hardness, 18, 26, 31, 34, 64, 86 harmful water chlorination byproducts, 54 health, vii, ix, x, 2, 5, 6, 15, 50, 54, 78, 80, 90, 91, 92, 113, 131, 132, 136, 149, 211, 214 health-based standard, 5 heavy metals, ix, 90, 92, 118, 129, 142, 143, 149, 154, 165 hepatitis, 2, 48, 49, 60 hepatitis A virus, 49, 60 hepatitis B virus, 48 high turbidity, 5 Hom models, 31 human, vii, ix, 7, 9, 15, 24, 29, 34, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 60, 63, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 120, 149, 173, 201 human health, vii, 15, 24, 50, 52, 53, 54, 90, 92, 93 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), 7, 8, 22, 23, 48, 65, 66, 72, 79 hybrid, 113, 115, 123, 141, 161, 163, 184, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200, 206, 224 hydrogels, ix, 122, 134, 144, 182 hydrogen, ix, 19, 39, 45, 49, 90, 98, 105, 110, 119, 121, 127, 129, 140, 159, 170, 183, 185, 196 hydrogen bonds, 159, 170 hydrogen peroxide, 39, 49, 140 hydrophilicity, ix, 149, 166, 168 hydrophobicity, 104, 166, 172, 194 hydroxyl, 39, 42, 48, 49, 117, 122, 156, 159, 161, 162, 183, 196 hydroxyl (OH) radicals, 39, 42, 48, 49, 183, 196 hydroxyl groups, 117, 156, 161, 162 hydroxyl radicals, 39, 42, 48, 183, 196 hypochlorite ion (OCl-), 4, 26, 42 hypochlorous acid (HOCl), 4, 26, 42

239 I ibuprofen, 120, 122, 123, 145, 188, 198, 199 inactivation curve, 9, 25, 26, 29, 33 inactivation kinetics, 2, 5, 9, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 69 inactivation mechanisms, 2, 14, 39, 41, 43, 47, 63, 78 inactivation rate, 25, 26, 29, 30, 36 inactivation rate constant, 25, 29, 30, 36 influenza, 48, 49, 50 influenza virus, 49, 50 inhibition, 42, 46, 47, 48, 52 intervention, 5, 6, 8, 22, 23, 80 intracellular, 41, 42, 44, 52, 70 ions, vii, viii, 2, 12, 31, 34, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 56, 57, 60, 63, 92, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 141, 142, 144, 146, 161, 165, 170, 175, 187 iron, 20, 26, 64, 80, 125, 136, 143, 145, 146, 175, 191, 205, 221 irradiation, 40, 189, 190, 191, 203, 205, 208 issues, viii, 1, 64, 126, 168, 172, 200

K kinetic model, 102, 107, 128 kinetic studies, 97, 102 kinetics, vii, viii, 2, 3, 5, 9, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 64, 96, 97, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 130, 135, 136, 137, 141, 161, 207 Klebsiella pneumoniae, 19, 85

L laboratory studies, 5, 12, 81, 83, 87 lactic acid, 156, 165, 168, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 215 Legionella pneumophila, 57, 60, 63, 66, 67, 73 light, ix, 176, 181, 183, 184, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209 liquid chlorine, 3 liquid phase, 96, 151, 186

240 low turbidity, 5

M magnetic properties, 107, 117 management, ii, 2, 131, 226 manufacturing, 15, 20, 23, 59, 192 maturation or assembly proteins, 47 mechanical properties, 107, 158, 165, 168, 169, 171, 178 mechanical stress, 119 media, 81, 108, 133, 145, 147, 161, 165, 220 medical, 15, 16, 51, 54, 91, 94, 122, 154, 165 melting, 165, 167, 169 melting temperature, 165, 167 membrane components, 41 membrane permeability, 43, 46 membrane separation processes, 131, 172, 173 mercury, 92, 114, 131, 142, 143, 198 metal ion, vii, viii, 49, 54, 56, 57, 90, 97, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 135, 139, 142, 143, 153, 158, 161, 163, 165, 169, 170, 174, 176, 198 metal nanoparticles, 51 metal oxides, 54, 56, 184 metals, 10, 20, 26, 34, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 147, 154 methylene blue, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 158, 161, 163, 166, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 187, 198 microbial community, 52, 143 microcrystalline, 162 microorganisms, vii, 1, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 35, 40, 48, 51, 53, 54, 64, 117, 150, 156, 167, 220 molecular dynamics, 138 molecular structure, 49 molecular weight, 94, 126, 147, 154 monochloramine, 3, 12, 14, 15, 40, 42, 43, 47, 55, 57, 60, 62, 67, 69, 71, 75 monolayer, 96, 100, 113, 121, 184, 185, 189 morphology, 46, 49, 154, 157, 171

Index MS2, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 23, 34, 47, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 73, 82, 87, 88 MS2 bacteriophage, 21, 22, 23, 59, 87, 88 MS2 coliphage, 9, 10, 60 MS2 phage, 21, 23, 87 multiwalled carbon nanotubes, 137

N NaDCC tablets, 4, 6, 7, 12, 79 nanocomposites, 105, 106, 116, 135, 136, 140, 162, 177, 197, 204, 208 nanofibers, 109, 110, 139, 170, 178, 192 nanofibrous membranes, 166, 170, 176, 177 nanomaterials, ix, 44, 45, 52, 102, 104, 108, 114, 123, 126, 127, 138, 159, 161, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 192, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 201 nanoparticles, 16, 19, 20, 35, 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 65, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 83, 87, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 123, 125, 127, 135, 140, 141, 143, 145, 146, 151, 161, 165, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 192, 202, 203 nanostructures, 102, 114, 184, 200 nanotechnology, 24, 69, 119, 193 nanotube, viii, 90, 98, 105, 114, 127, 137, 141, 144, 147, 148, 162, 177, 205 NaOCl, 4, 7, 79, 126 N-chloramine beads, 12, 13, 81 N-chloramines, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 40, 43, 47, 63, 81 nitrogen, 10, 64, 109, 131, 184, 187, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222, 224 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 95, 188, 203

O oil, vii, viii, 90, 93, 94, 100, 118, 125, 126, 128, 129, 134, 147, 148, 151, 152, 166, 171, 179, 193, 194, 195, 198, 206, 209 operations, x, 150, 211, 223, 225, 226, 227 optical properties, 185 optimal performance, 119

Index optimization, 21, 103, 129, 134, 136, 139, 204 organic chemicals, 16 organic compounds, 51, 94, 95, 133 organic DBPs, 54 organic matter, 9, 20, 26, 34, 35, 36, 54, 64, 69, 220, 224, 225, 230 organic polymers, 156 organic solvents, 171, 195 oxidation, viii, 41, 42, 44, 45, 52, 53, 89, 106, 126, 142, 183, 200, 207, 208, 221 oxidation of protein, 52, 53 oxidation potentials, 41 oxidative stress, 43, 52, 53, 54, 69 oxygen, x, 45, 46, 64, 101, 108, 114, 122, 127, 129, 183, 184, 187, 195, 196, 197, 207, 211, 215, 218, 220 ozone, 9, 40, 42, 63, 67, 75, 146, 221

P P. aeruginosa, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 88 pathogens, v, vii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 39, 40, 48, 54, 56, 57, 63, 64, 82, 85, 87 permeability, 40, 43, 46, 52, 71, 160, 163, 171, 175, 176 permission, iv, 11, 27, 28, 32, 33, 37, 48, 53, 58, 185, 193, 195, 197 petroleum, ix, 94, 150, 156, 168 pH, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 36, 46, 58, 64, 82, 86, 94, 96, 100, 101, 104, 107, 110, 114, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 127, 129, 141, 188, 189, 199, 214, 216, 217, 221, 222, 226 pharmaceutical, vii, viii, 90, 93, 95, 119, 120, 124, 125, 129, 144, 145, 146, 152, 164, 169 phosphate, 26, 27, 93, 131, 175, 216, 219 photocatalysis, 182, 183, 185, 186, 192, 196, 200, 201, 202 photodegradation, 165, 188, 189, 190, 191, 198, 201, 206, 209 physical interaction, 123

241 physical properties, 162, 168 physicochemical properties, 110, 121, 129 plants, 14, 40, 42, 51, 57, 63, 90, 93, 95, 119, 130, 156, 162 point-of-use (POU) water treatment, vii, 3, 12, 16, 21, 40, 51, 63 point-of-use treatment, 2 poliovirus, 2, 12, 28, 47, 60, 78, 82 pollution, x, 90, 91, 93, 99, 119, 120, 124, 130, 131, 150, 168, 172, 211 polyamine, 105, 106, 137 polybutylene succinate, ix, 150, 156, 168, 178 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, 132, 182 polylactic acid, ix, 150, 151, 165, 177 polymer, vii, ix, 10, 13, 81, 98, 104, 107, 109, 128, 135, 148, 150, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 192, 194, 198 polymeric membranes, 173, 223 polymerization, 10, 11, 140, 157, 165, 166, 169, 170 polymers, viii, ix, 2, 10, 11, 12, 40, 43, 63, 98, 128, 150, 154, 156, 161, 166, 168, 172, 173 polyvinyl alcohol, 109, 113, 141, 163, 171, 175 porosity, ix, 86, 104, 106, 108, 110, 113, 114, 117, 126, 127, 129, 149, 167, 168, 169 POU drinking water treatment, viii, 2, 3, 16, 41 POU technologies, viii, 1, 3, 40, 58 POU water chlorination, 6, 8 POU water disinfection, 4, 11 precipitation, viii, 89, 91, 114, 168, 169, 182, 226 preparation, iv, 10, 19, 100, 101, 107, 108, 110, 137, 151, 155, 156, 157, 161, 169, 173, 174, 179, 202, 213 protein unfolding or degradation, 42 proteins, x, 44, 47, 48, 49, 52, 135, 211, 215, 217, 222, 226 Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 22, 23, 31, 65, 74, 85, 87

242 purification, vii, viii, ix, 10, 89, 91, 119, 129, 149, 150, 153, 163, 168, 172, 173, 174, 181, 183, 194, 196 pyrolysis, 100, 101, 108, 110, 184

Q quantum confinement, 184, 185, 186

R radicals, 39, 42, 46, 48, 49, 183, 196 rate constant, 25, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 98, 188, 189, 198 reactions, 39, 41, 49, 50, 56, 171, 182, 184 reactive oxygen species (ROS), 43, 44, 46, 52, 53, 54, 64, 69, 70, 182, 183 recombination, 183, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 197, 200 recovery, 45, 108, 116, 128, 161, 223, 226 regeneration, 109, 119, 121, 122, 138, 140, 141, 208 remediation, 95, 106, 124, 130, 131, 145, 170 researchers, 5, 8, 40, 43, 58, 59, 64, 80, 92, 95, 128, 130, 183, 199, 221, 225 residues, 48, 95, 129, 132, 147, 163, 214 resistance, 2, 4, 15, 24, 25, 40, 44, 54, 60, 63, 168, 171, 193, 226 response, 34, 52, 102, 131, 136, 185, 191 reverse osmosis, viii, 89, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 172, 173, 225 rice husk, 62, 110, 113, 123, 125, 139, 222 risk, 3, 7, 16, 21, 51, 92, 131, 132, 136

S S. typhimurium, 13 safe water storage containers, 6, 7 Salmonella, 4, 10, 67, 82, 85 selectivity, 63, 155, 159, 160, 170, 193, 199 semiconductor, ix, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 192, 200 sewage, 13, 14, 82, 83, 84, 90, 120, 134, 182, 192, 217 silica, 98, 108, 125, 146, 158

Index silver ion, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 21, 35, 39, 42, 44, 48, 57, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 76, 77 silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), 19, 20, 38, 39, 41, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 87, 113, 123, 140, 141, 177, 178 silver nitrate, 20, 21, 22 silver release, 38, 39, 51, 65 silver toxicity, 51, 54 sludge, 110, 113, 114, 118, 132, 139, 142, 217, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226 social acceptance, 24 sodium, 4, 10, 11, 44, 79, 107, 108, 117, 138, 163, 179, 215 sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) tablets, 4, 6, 7, 12, 71, 79 sodium hypochlorite, 4, 10, 11, 79 solution, vii, 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 19, 22, 25, 34, 43, 79, 84, 87, 96, 103, 104, 107, 110, 117, 127, 129, 134, 135, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 154, 159, 163, 169, 175, 177, 178, 193, 198, 222 sorption, 109, 114, 116, 119, 124, 126, 127, 129, 142, 145, 147, 165, 222 source water, 3, 5, 6, 7, 62, 71, 80, 84, 87 specific surface, 102, 109, 156, 166 Staphylococcus aureus, 10, 19, 70, 71, 82, 85 storage, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 22, 24, 62, 81, 87, 167, 179, 194, 206 structure, 39, 41, 42, 45, 47, 49, 100, 104, 106, 108, 116, 126, 141, 154, 155, 157, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 177, 184, 187, 194 superoxide (O2-) radicals, 39, 49, 183 surface area, ix, 17, 20, 48, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 117, 119, 123, 126, 127, 129, 139, 160, 165, 172, 181, 183, 185, 189, 192, 193, 196, 223 surface chemistry, 126, 127, 138 surface modification, 100, 110, 114, 158, 194 synergistic effect, vii, viii, 2, 3, 14, 43, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 76, 115, 119, 144, 167

Index synthesis, viii, ix, 90, 103, 104, 107, 133, 134, 136, 138, 145, 150, 156, 171, 177, 179, 184, 200, 202, 203, 204

T taste, 4, 14, 15, 16, 24, 62, 95, 213 techniques, vii, viii, ix, 89, 119, 121, 131, 150, 183, 189, 199, 211, 213, 218, 221, 222, 224, 226 temperature, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 26, 29, 36, 64, 96, 100, 101, 104, 107, 110, 116, 121, 126, 129, 155, 189, 199, 214, 217, 222, 224 temperature dependence, 29 temperature effect, 27, 28, 29 tensile strength, 171, 196 testing, 18, 19, 22, 88, 94, 122, 200 thermal decomposition, 106 thermal properties, 104, 171 thermal stability, 165, 171 thermodynamic parameters, 101 thiol, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 64, 118, 142 thiol containing constituents, 43 total coliform bacteria, 13, 19, 22, 82, 85, 87, 88 toxicity, vii, viii, 2, 3, 34, 39, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 93, 94, 104, 146, 147, 163, 184, 201 transition metal, 186, 187, 188, 202 transport, 41, 46, 51, 122, 154, 155, 185, 196, 199, 206, 213 treatment methods, x, 40, 211, 218, 220, 226 treatment techniques, 211, 218, 226 turbidity, 4, 5, 7, 17, 18, 19, 26, 59, 64, 82, 84, 86, 169, 219, 221, 222, 225

243 V Vibrio cholerae, 2, 9, 13, 28, 67, 68, 82, 85 viral kinetics, 34 viral pathogens, 22, 62 viral species inactivation mechanisms, 46 viruses, 4, 5, 9, 16, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31, 34, 40, 47, 48, 49, 60, 63, 65, 73, 76, 77

W waste water, ix, 95, 110, 120, 141, 149, 150, 152, 153, 157, 159, 162, 163, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173 water absorption, 162 water chemistry, 16, 17, 34, 76 water disinfection, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25, 42, 55, 57, 60, 62, 69, 162 water permeability, 163, 171 water purification, v, vii, ix, 20, 24, 68, 74, 76, 91, 95, 100, 105, 127, 149, 150, 151, 158, 163, 165, 168, 169, 173, 179, 181, 182, 183, 192, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 205 water quality, vii, ix, 1, 3, 6, 8, 21, 23, 26, 38, 149, 226 water recycle, 211 water taste, 4 weak interaction, 126 weight ratio, 15, 190 wettability, 127, 148, 166 WHO drinking water guideline, 23 WHO guideline, 5, 6, 7, 14, 20, 62, 63 WHO guideline for monochloramine, 14 WHO guideline for silver, 20 WHO guideline of free chlorine residual, 6 WHO guidelines of free chlorine, 62

U

Z

ultrasound, 102, 136 UV irradiation, 40 UV light, 42, 191 UV radiation, 2, 76

zeolites, 113, 129, 146 zinc, 20, 50, 127, 143, 145, 158, 191, 205