Wastewater Treatment Methods

Wastewater Treatment Methods

(A Comparative Study of Conventional and Biological Approaches)

Nishchith Gosala J

Department of Biotechnology Sapthagiri College of Engineering Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Teju H M

Department of Biotechnology Sapthagiri College of Engineering Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Abstract – Appropriate management of wastewater is greatly needed for the maintenance of a healthy environment and the preservation of public health. Several methods of wastewater treatment for the reduction of pollutant content to a minimal level, necessary for their discharge into natural water reservoirs, have been identified and developed. This paper makes a comparative analysis of physical-chemical methods and biological methods of wastewater treatment. Based on the analysis, it has been revealed that biological methods are effective compared to traditional methods in purifying organic matter and possess high sustainability benefits.

Keywords – Wastewater management, physical treatment, biological processes, organic pollution, sustainability

1. INTRODUCTION

   The availability of freshwater resources is increasingly threatened by swift industrial development, urban sprawl, and population growth. A large amount of wastewater produced from household and industrial sources contains organic materials, suspended solids, and chemical pollutants. If this wastewater is released untreated, it can harm aquatic environments and present significant health hazards. Wastewater treatment facilities are established to reduce these adverse effects by eliminating contaminants before they are released or reused. Wastewater treatment technologies can typically be categorized into physical-chemical methods and biological techniques, each varying in approach, effectiveness, and operational complexity.

2. CONVENTIONAL AND BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS
   1. Conventional Wastewater Treatment Processes

      Conventionally, wastewater treatment methods include physical and chemical processes such as screening, sedimentation, coagulation, flocculation, and precipitation. These methods are normally employed in the preliminary and primary stages of wastewater treatment processes to remove suspended substances and large suspended matters. Although conventional methods are very effective in methods aiming at reducing suspended matter, turbidity, and suspended substances, they are inefficient in the processes meant to remove organic compounds from water and tend to generate a lot of sludge.

   2. Biological Wastewater Treatment Methods

   Biological processes for treating wastewater use microbes to degrade organic pollutants to more stable compounds. Biological methods can be described by the following processes; the activated sludge process, sequencing batch reactor, trickling filter, and the anaerobic digestion process. Biological methods are often preferred because of the efficiency of these processes in reducing the biochemical demand of oxygen and improving the quality of the effluent. Biological methods are environmentally sustainable because of the reduced use of chemicals.

3. METHADOLOGY

   The research work relies on the comparative study through which the necessary secondary data is collected from prestigious texts of the same field, technical journals, as well as views of environmental bodies. The comparative study is done based on the critical parameters such as the efficiency in the degradation of the organic pollutant, amount of sludge generated, complexity of the process, as well as the environmental issues. The final report identifies the efficiencies of the conventional as well as biological processes for wastewater treatment.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

   From the comparative study, it is evident that biological treatment methods are more effective for removing organic pollutants compared to conventional treatment methods. Although conventional treatment methods are effective for pollutant removal, they require larger quantities of chemicals and produce higher sludge. The biological process provides higher quality and helps in improved environmental performance by proper regulation. The result hypothesizes that a combination of conventional preliminary treatment with biological treatment would be effective.

5. CONCLUSION

The study provides a comparative assessment of conventional and biological methods used for removing wastewater. Biological methods prove more effective in removing organic pollutants and serve as a sustainable alternative for long-term waste water management. Conventional methods are still indispensable for primary treatment; however, biological

processes are necessary for satisfying rigors of strict environmental discharge standards. Adoption of a holistic Styles for Tables.

A. FIGURES AND TABLES

TABLE I. Comparison of Conventional and Biological Wastewater Treatment Methods

Fig. 3. BOD Removal Efficiency Comparison

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer wishes to extend heartfelt thanks to the Department of Biotechnology at Sapthagiri College of Engineering in Bengaluru for the essential academic support and resources that facilitated this research. The writer also appreciates the advice and motivation received from the faculty during the development of this paper.

REFERENCES

Fig. 1. BOD Removal Efficiency Comparison

1. G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, and H. D. Stensel, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th ed. New York, NY,

   USA: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014

2. F. R. Spellman, Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2013.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wastewater Treatment Manuals, EPA, Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep., 2012.
5. M. Henze, M. C. van Loosdrecht, G. A. Ekama, and D. Brdjanovic, Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design. London, U.K.: IWA Publishing, 2008.
6. World Health Organization, Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2006.

Fig. 2. COD Removal Efficiency Comparison