case study on treatment of wastewater

• White Papers
• Industry News
• Global Thought Leaders
• Process Water
• Water Reuse
• Produced Water
• Technology Guide

Case Study: Biological wastewater treatment

A food and beverage manufacturer converts its wastewater into energy through biogas production, saving costs and reducing water consumption.

Food and beverage production is a strong water and energy consumer. Water consumption is usually measured using the concept “virtual water,” or the quantity of water needed to produce goods. The virtual water to produce one kilo of beef is about 15,500 liters, and for one kilo of sugar it is about 1,500 liters. On the other side, 1 to 7 liters of water is used in the process of refining about 1 liter of gasoline. It is evident that the food and beverage industry draws huge quantities of water and, with the water footprint becoming increasingly visible in the eyes of consumers, the industry is under pressure to reduce its consumption.

To reduce water consumption, companies should improve their manufacturing processes through a combination of changing behavior, adjusting and/or replacing equipment with water-saving equipment to reduce overall water consumption, and increase internal reuse. Internal reuse of wastewater from manufacturing is a valuable method to meet the current environmental standards and save on energy and operation, as well as maintenance costs.

The promise of biological wastewater treatment

Whether preparing for disposal or reuse, wastewater must be treated with the appropriate technologies. The wastewater from food and beverage manufacturing is especially turbid, high in total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demands (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), fats, oils and grease (FOG), and usually nutrients such as nitrogen (including ammonia) and phosphate. Because of the characteristics of these streams, biological treatment systems are the most suitable to recover the waste streams, treating them for discharge within law limits to reuse them. Biological wastewater treatment, particularly anaerobic digestion, is an excellent choice, and it is becoming popular because the investment in the technology pays for itself through biogas production.

Anaerobic digestion is the simple, natural breakdown of organic matter into methane, carbon dioxide and water by microorganisms. At the end of the process, we have a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide gases (called biogas) and suspension of organic material (digestate), which contains the organic material that has not been degraded, plus the anaerobic bacteria. Biogas can be burned to produce both heat and electricity, or it can be further purified to produce methane, which can be used as vehicle fuel or injected into the gas grid.

Aerobic system, including pumps, tubing and valves

The wastewater challenge for the food and beverage industry

Water consumption is a pressing matter for Italcanditi-Vitalfood, one of the biggest players in Europe for the production of glazed chestnuts, assorted candies, jams, and other ingredients for the food, bakery and dairy industries. Based in the north of Italy, the company is required to dispose of the increasing industrial wastewater effluents from fruit, candies and jam in a cost-effective way. Due to a production growth, Italcanditi-Vitalfood needed to boost its wastewater treatment capabilities. Based on the success of an earlier project, the company chose Fluence Corporation to install and operate a new system for turning wastewater into biogas.

Fluence, an international company with a wide range of solutions for wastewater, waste-to-energy, and food and beverage processing, has developed innovative technologies to transform biological waste – including wastewater – into energy through biological wastewater treatments.

The first challenge Fluence faced in working with Italcanditi-Vitalfood was handling the complicated wastewater streams and treating them for disposal within legal limits or for reuse. One advantage of this application was the COD levels, which made it a good fit for anaerobic digestion. The higher the COD, the higher the energy content of wastes and/or wastewater. It is useful to know that 1 kg of COD, treated by an anaerobic digestion process, produces 0.35 cubic meters of methane, which can be reused in the processing system as combustible.

Anaerobic digestion treatment and process

Italcanditi-Vitalfood chose anaerobic digestion as a way to exploit its wastewater for profit. First, the wastewater entering the system underwent an anaerobic pretreatment through an EFC (external forced circulation) reactor, generating biogas. A cogeneration system then turned the biogas into electrical and thermal energy, which was fed back into the plant, reducing energy costs.

The EFC reactor was an evolution of an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor completely designed and developed by Fluence. An increased flow velocity accomplished by incorporating an effluent recycle permitted partial expansion of the granular sludge bed, improving wastewater-sludge contact, as well as enhancing segregation of small, inactive suspended particle from the sludge bed. The anaerobic reaction was rapid because the large quantity of anaerobic activated sludge permitted abatement of the soluble organic contamination, with very low retention times (6 – 48 h) and with high organic loads (6 – 15 kg COD/m3/day).

The anaerobic digestion produced a pretreated wastewater stream with a specific level of COD and nitrogen. If disposed of without treatment, the nitrogen could penetrate the soil and contaminate groundwater. Therefore, the remaining wastewater was treated by an aerobic stage, supported by biological oxidation and final clarification. The output was water that is clean, reusable and safe for the environment.

External forced circulation (EFC) reactor

Considering space constraints

Another challenge in the design and construction of wastewater treatment plants for food and beverage industry is managing space constraints. These plants are usually located close to conurbations, meaning that land prices are high or land for expansion is not available at all.

In the case of Italcanditi-Vitalfood, located in the industrial area of a small city in the north of Italy, the available space was very limited and the production cycle of 16 hours a day, six days a week could not be affected. Fluence accomplished this by customizing the design and build to the client’s needs, employing an EFC reactor that is, in fact, easy to set up in limited spaces and/or in peculiar locations thanks to its simple design and resistance to disturbances.

Evaluate solutions for biological wastewater treatment

Biological wastewater treatment is the most suitable solution for treating wastewater with high carbon or nitrogen content, as in the food and beverage industry waste streams. And tightening regulations for wastewater treatment worldwide, as well as international commitments to reduce fossil fuels and address water scarcity, have created a growing market for biological wastewater treatment.

Biological wastewater treatment is the most suitable solution for treating wastewater with high carbon or nitrogen content, as in the food and beverage industry waste streams.

Meanwhile, the opportunity to produce renewable energy and cut energy costs make the production of biogas an appealing option for many industries. The advanced maintenance and operation skills necessary to maintain such systems could hinder their adoption, but thanks to Fluence’s skilled engineers and technicians, Italcanditi-Vitalfood was able to realize the benefits of biological wastewater treatment.

Compared to the use of sole aerobic solutions, adding anaerobic treatments also limits the problem of excess secondary sludge. It is usually produced with the use of aerobic systems, and its disposal represents an additional cost for the company. The sludge produced in the EFC reactor is only 5 percent of the destroyed COD – compared to the 40 to 45 percent of the aerobic process.

Final results

Italcanditi-Vitalfood saves about $400,000 each year with Fluence’s anaerobic digester, approximately 35 to 40 percent more compared to the previous treatment plant. After several years of operation, the plant still proves its efficiency with a flow rate of 1,200 m3/d or 50 m3/h, biogas production of 4,800 m3/d, and electricity generation of about 14 MWh/d. Chemical oxygen demand is measured at 12,000 mg/L.

Biological wastewater treatment tackles most wastewater challenges in the food and beverage industry. Difficult wastewater streams are converted into renewable energy, which can be fed back into the manufacturing process in the form of heat and electricity. The combination of aerobic and anaerobic solutions is a recipe to maximize energy production and minimize energy costs for the food and beverage industry. This solution is also relevant for other industries where high organic soluble compounds are found in effluents, such as paper mills.

Fabio Poletto is vice president of sales and marketing, Italy, for Fluence Corporation . With a background in water treatment technologies for the food and beverage industry, Poletto has carried out innovative research on nitrification and denitrification treatments, anaerobic digestion and chemical-physical wastewater treatments. He has a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Padua, specializing in innovative chemical technologies. He can be reached at [email protected] .

Continue Reading

Case study: First Ultra PX for wastewater treatment yields high-performance savings

Mobile nanobubble service provides seasonal and on-demand water treatment in North America

Sponsored recommendations.

NFPA 70B a Step-by-Step Guide to Compliance

How digital twins drive more environmentally conscious medium- and low-voltage equipment design

MV equipment sustainability depends on environmentally conscious design values

Social Distancing from your electrical equipment?

Latest in wastewater.

Common mistakes to avoid in industrial wastewater management

Debunking common myths about industrial wastewater

‘Head’ and ‘pressure’ in pumps

The role of reverse osmosis in wastewater treatment

Unlocking the power of corporate sustainability and active energy management

The Digital Solution: How Digitization is Driving Global Water Sustainability Goals

Team up with GMF to deliver climate adaptation training. Learn more

Wastewater case studies: Solutions and strategies

Best practices for meeting canadian municipal wastewater regulations.

Are you looking for technical information and examples of best practices to help you with your municipality's wastewater treatment initiative? We have developed case studies to help Canadian cities and towns of all sizes meet the wastewater regulations introduced by the federal government.  The case studies provide valuable information that you can apply to your own wastewater treatment plant projects and upgrades. They include technical information, project details, tips on best practices and the significant benefits gained by community members. Read the case studies to learn the steps you can take to:

• Upgrade, retrofit or replace your wastewater treatment system.
• Increase capacity and extend the service life of your wastewater treatment plant.
• Improve wastewater quality, reduce odour levels and eliminate chemical residues.
• Learn about alternative ways to minimize energy use.  

Each study also includes contact information so you can connect with people who have firsthand experience overcoming specific challenges and obstacles in these initiatives. Connect with them to ask for advice on projects in your municipality.

Read the case studies in our series

• Prince Edward County's new facility uses full cost recovery approach
• Amherstburg saves land, consolidating three sewage treatment plants into one
• Energy-efficient upgrades reduce operating costs at Wetaskiwin wastewater treatment plant
• New Chatham-Kent wastewater treatment facility reduces E. coli
• How Waterloo facility upgrades improve water quality and energy efficiency
• Brockville adds secondary and UV treatment to its wastewater treatment plant
• Greater water treatment capacity supports community growth in St. Louis
• St. Andrews revitalizes community after wastewater plant upgrades
• Upgrades allow Argyle to expand sewer system, reduce septic tank use
• New disinfection techniques improve public health in Kapuskasing
• How Barrie's new wastewater plant improves capacity and efficiency
• Facility upgrades help Cranbrook enhance agricultural production

Want to explore all GMF-funded projects? Check out the Projects Database for a complete overview of funded projects and get inspired by municipalities of all sizes, across Canada. 

Visit the projects database

Related Resources

Webinar recording: How to get a project started, tips for small francophone communities

If you’re a small francophone municipality looking to develop sustainability projects and access funding, watch this webinar to learn how others overcame common challenges.

Webinar recording: Become a Climate Champion for Your Community

Watch this webinar recording to see how community climate champions face unique challenges in their role as they drive forward new ideas, mobilize partners, build relationships, and make tough decisions.

Webinar Recording: Sustainable municipal water management

Watch the webinar recording to discover current trends and research on the importance of sustainable municipal water management.

Video: Yorkton meets their feasibility study goals by valuing community involvement

Glenda Holmes, Water Works Manager, explains how a feasibility study helped the City of Yorkton ramp up the environmental benefits of its new water treatment plant by treating the wastewater it produced.

Webinar recording: Take your project from study to capital

Watch this webinar recording and discover how others have successfully converted studies into a capital project that provides social, economic and environmental benefits.

Webinar recording: The 5 keys to a green municipal project business case

Watch this webinar recording and discover the five critical focus areas you need to address to get your project started, from financing and partnerships to integrating a triple-bottom-line approach.

Webinar recordings: Best practices in municipal sustainability

How are cities and communities of all sizes tackling their environmental challenges? Find out from our five-part webinar series on innovations and opportunities in municipal energy, waste, water, transportation and land use initiatives.

Report: Water management trends in Canadian municipalities

A snapshot of existing and emerging water management trends, best practices and opportunities for innovation.

Guide: 2018 Sustainable Communities Awards project guide: Water

Learn how to implement the best practices and strategies used by Okotoks, AB, our 2018 Sustainable Communities Awards water winner.

Webinar recording: How to prepare a GMF capital project application

Need advice for preparing your GMF capital project funding application? Watch our webinar recording to hear tips from our staff and find out what reviewers are looking for.

Guide: Best practices for scoping a wastewater upgrade project

Get your wastewater project off to a successful start with these best practices in defining project scope and engaging stakeholders. Part one in a three-part article series.

Guide: Lessons in planning and designing a wastewater plant upgrade

Learn how to avoid one of the most common mistakes in wastewater plant upgrade projects: insufficient planning and analysis. Part two in a three-part article series.

Guide: Tips for the building phase of a wastewater plant upgrade

Discover four practices that will help make the procurement, construction and start-up phase of your project a success. Part three in a three-part article series.

Six sustainability ideas that have gone mainstream in Canada: Article series

In a series of six articles, we explore inspiring projects and sustainability solutions being implemented in cities and towns of all sizes across Canada.

Tool: Checklist for a successful wastewater treatment plant upgrade

Follow this checklist based on best practices to help ensure success and address key issues during each phase of your project.

Article series: Tips for a successful wastewater treatment plant upgrade

Implement a successful wastewater treatment plant upgrade with help from this series of three articles packed with best practices from GMF-funded projects. Read the articles.

Webinar recording: Wastewater best practices, strategies and solutions

Watch the webinar recordings from our three-part, online workshop series on wastewater best practices, strategies and solutions for Canadian municipalities.

Guide: Sustainable Neighbourhood Development

This guide, Sustainable Neighbourhood Development: Practical Solutions to Common Challenges, is designed to help you re-imagine your municipality's approach to planning, development and regulation.

Webinar recording: Optimizing your wastewater treatment plant

Join our webinar to learn proven practices to help you identify ways to optimize your existing wastewater treatment resources. Speakers from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the Grand River Conservation Authority will share lessons learned that you can apply in your municipality.

Webinar recording: Managing stormwater through low impact development

Learn how to use green stormwater infrastructure, or low impact development, as an affordable alternative to grey stormwater infrastructure in your community.

Related Funding

Study: net-zero transformation.

Available funding: Assess new approaches and solutions to bring your community closer to net-zero.

Pilot: Net-Zero Transformation

Available funding: Evaluate innovative GHG reduction solutions in real-world conditions.

Capital project: Net-Zero Transformation

Available funding: Deploy a full scale best-in-class GHG reduction solution.

Plan: Net-Zero Transformation

Available funding: Conduct integrated planning exercises to support the municipal transition to net zero.

Related Projects

Case study: Two natural solutions to manage stormwater runoff

Case study: understanding climate change impacts key to prioritizing drainage infrastructure projects in vernon, bc, upcoming events, webinar: find support for your community building retrofits, webinar: inclusive engagement for net zero acceleration projects.

REVIEW article

Comprehensive assessment of microalgal-based treatment processes for dairy wastewater.

• 1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India
• 2 Division of Biotechnology, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, India

The dairy industry is becoming one of the biggest sectors within the global food industry, and these industries use almost 34% of the water. The amount of water used is governed by the production process and the technologies employed in the plants. Consequently, the dairy industries generate almost 0.2–10 L of wastewater per liter of processed milk, which must be treated before being discharged into water bodies. The cultivation of microalgae in a mixotrophic regime using dairy wastewater enhances biomass growth, productivity, and the accumulation of value-added product. The generated biomass can be converted into biofuels, thus limiting the dependence on petroleum-based crude oil. To fulfill the algal biorefinery model, it is important to utilize every waste stream in a cascade loop. Additionally, the harvested water generated from algal biomass production can be recycled for further microalgal growth. Economic and sustainable wastewater management, along with proper reclamation of nutrients from dairy wastewater, is a promising approach to mitigate the problem of water scarcity. A bibliometric study revealing limited work on dairy wastewater treatment using microalgae for biofuel production. And, limited work is reported on the pretreatment of dairy wastewater via physicochemical methods before microalgal-based treatment. There are still significant gaps remains in large-scale cultivation processes. It is also crucial to discover robust strains that are highly compatible with the specific concentration of contaminants, as this will lead to increased yields and productivity for the targeted bio-product. Finally, research on reutilization of culture media in photobioreactor is necessary to augument the productivity of the entire process. Therefore, the incorporation of the microalgal biorefinery with the wastewater treatment concept has great potential for promoting ecological sustainability.

1 Introduction

The exhaustion of fossil fuels in transportation and industrial sectors has resulted in the depletion of already available natural resources together with the emission of notable greenhouse gases. Nowadays, studies are focused on finding renewable energy feedstock to overcome the coming energy crisis and to lower down the footprint of global warming ( Chandra et al., 2021 ). Microalgae are gaining global recognition for their potential uses in several industries, including bioenergy, medicines, aquaculture, food, agriculture, and bioplastics ( Arora et al., 2021 ; Agarwalla et al., 2023 ; Ramírez Mérida and Rodríguez Padrón, 2023 ; Agarwalla and Mohanty, 2024 ). Furthermore, there is research going on the potential of microalgae to remove calcitrant and harmful compounds, with the aim of industrial wastewater treatment. Industrial-scale growth of microalgae necessitates the use of large quantities of water and nutrients. Utilizing nonpotable water for growing microalgae may reduce the need for freshwater. The lower biomass productivity and elevated expense of growth media are the challenges linked with the production of microalgal biomass for various applications. The utilization of industrial effluent for cultivating microalgae has become a substitute to decrease the costs of the process and to produce biomass. The dairy industries are operating worldwide, but the cost of manufacturing processes differs from area to area. India, with a large population dependent on livestock and agriculture for their income, has emerged as a significant hub for the dairy industry. Almost 200–10,000 mL of wastewater is produced/L of processed milk and it must be treated before discharging to water bodies ( Chandra et al., 2021 ). The effluent generated from the dairy industry has a high concentration of organic compounds and is not considered safe due to its high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Nevertheless, this dairy wastewater (DW) could be an excellent source of nutrients for microalgae which is rich in sugars, amino acids, ammonium, and phosphates sources ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). Cultivating the microalgae in dairy effluents has numerous benefits, including the ability to grow using available nutrients in the wastewater without adding additional nutrients ( Singh et al., 2023 ; Ravi Kiran et al., 2024 ). This process also reduces the COD and BOD of the effluent, providing a cost-effective method for treating dairy waste. Additionally, it offers the potential to extract valuable products like lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates for various applications ( Chandra et al., 2021 ). This review investigation aims to present recent studies in the area of microalgal-based dairy wastewater treatment. This is the first study to present a scientometric analysis of dairy wastewater treatment using microalgae. Also, a comprehensive assessment was conducted on previous studies in this review literature. In this literature, the importance of cultivation of microalgae in dairy effluent was highlighted as a source of growth media which can reduce the cost of the overall biomass generation process. Additionally, this review presents the characteristics of the different dairy wastewater and the efficiency of microalgae in the remediation of wastewater.

1.1 Background and significance of dairy wastewater

Due to the increased public awareness regarding nutrition and health over the past 45 years, the dairy industry has developed into a highly organized sector. There are over 101,000 number of milk co-operatives operating throughout the nation to provide milk processing, distribution, and large-scale production through a large number of dairies. With a milk production of 155.2 million tonnes in 2016–17, India has surpassed all other countries to take the lead globally. The cooperative/government and private sectors collectively operate over a thousand dairies that produce an estimated 100 million liters of milk daily ( Singh et al., 2023 ). Within the global food industry, the dairy market is one of the biggest sectors. The dairy farmers in the food industry use 34% of the water. The amount of water used is governed by the production process and the technologies used in the plant. The application of sufficient hygienic levels in manufacturing and the urge to decrease the usage of water and enhance the efficacy of the treatment of wastewater are challenges that demand different approaches. The dairy sector consumes between 1,000 and 10,000 L of water for processing 1,000 L of milk. Based on data from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), global milk production has seen a significant growth of over 59% in the past 30 years. Specifically, it has risen from 530 million tonnes in 1988 to 843 million tonnes in 2018. With a quarter of the world’s milk produced, India leads the world’s milk producers, followed by the US, China, Pakistan, and Brazil. DW refers to the effluent that is produced by dairy organizations ( Aziz and Ali, 2017 ). It has a whitish shade, accompanied by an unpleasant odor and a cloudy appearance ( Kolev Slavov, 2017 ). Dairy wastewater includes significant amounts of milk solids, fats, nutrients, lactose, detergents, and sterilizing agents which correspond to elevated levels of biological oxygen demand ranging from 40 to 48,000 mg L -1 , chemical oxygen demand ranging from 80 to 95,000 mg L -1 , and pH values that vary between 4 and 11. The difference in pH levels is attributed to the presence of different detergents in the water for cleaning ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). The inappropriate release of DW into water bodies without adequate treatment not only leads to environmental contamination but also impacts nearby groundwater and reservoirs of water, thus adversely affecting human health ( Garcha et al., 2016 ). This phenomenon arises from the rapid degradation of DW components. As a result, the concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the water bodies are depleted that receive these effluents. Consequently, these streams become breeding grounds for disease-carrying insects ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). Also, these industries generate effluents that include high concentrations of oils and greases, which have detrimental effects on wastewater treatment systems. The oil and grease content of raw dairy wastewater collected from an unorganized dairy industry of Patiala, Ludhiana, Shri Muktsar Sahib, and Bathinda (Punjab, India) was found to be within the range of 218–700 mg L -1 ( Garcha et al., 2016 ). These effluents often lead to foul odors and obstructions in pipes. The wastewater also includes significant levels of nutrients, which may support the growth of several unidentified bacteria. Therefore, to accomplish effective biological remediation, it is crucial to ascertain the bacterial composition in the wastewater ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). Dairy wastewater often includes a significant abundance of heterotrophic bacteria, including species such as Pseudomonas ( Alalam et al., 2021 ), Bacillus cereus ( Garcha et al., 2016 ), Enterobacter ( Alalam et al., 2021 ), Streptococcus ( Alalam et al., 2021 ), and Escherichia coli ( Boutilier et al., 2009 ). Microalgae can efficaciously utilize the nutrients available in DW and simultaneously produce valuable products. The amalgamation of algae cultivation with dairy wastewater treatment yields significant advantages, including the conservation of water resources, cost-effective bioremediation of the wastewater, generation of biomass suitable for bioenergy and animal feed, and the emergence of possibilities for the development of other high-value products ( Singh et al., 2023 ).

1.2 Importance of microalgal-based treatment processes

Microalgae are photosynthetic organisms, may exist as single-celled or multi-celled organisms, and survive in both freshwater and saltwater ecosystems. These can effectively use carbon dioxide, light, and water to produce a range of valuable bioactive chemicals, including carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids. Various studies utilize microalgal biomass for other commercially valuable purposes. These include extracting pigments and vitamins for animal feed ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ), and producing antioxidant, antitumor, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial compounds ( Divya Kuravi and Venkata Mohan, 2021 ; Kiran and Venkata Mohan, 2022 ), generating biofuels ( Singh et al., 2023 ; Ravi Kiran et al., 2024 ). Microalgae have been extensively employed for wastewater treatment. The two genera being the most extensively cultivated and studied worldwide in recent times were Chlorella and Spirulina ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). The process of phycoremediation involves first selecting the species and mode of cultivation, followed by pretreatment for product extraction and purification. However, the cost of cell productivity, contamination, and low yield are challenges that must be overcome to enable the scalability of this process ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). The primary physicochemical parameters that influence cell productivity are light intensity, nutrient, pH value, temperature, CO 2 amount, salinity, and aeration. The light intensity and concentrations of nutrients are limiting variables for the growth of microalgal cells during the cultivation period. The intensity and length of light throughout the photoperiod control the photosynthesis energy supply, whereas the nutrient content directly affects the cellular metabolism and structure. Carbon, phosphate, and nitrogen are regarded as the most vital components of the metabolic pathway for photosynthesis. The metal ions present in the wastewater help in osmoregulation and the molecular configuration of photosynthetic complexes. The most critical parameter to consider when cultivating the microalgae is the pH. Maintaining the pH within the optimal range for microalgal cultivation promotes biomass production, which is also an important factor in terms of the solubility of nutrients ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). These conditions account for 30% of production costs in large-scale microalgae production. The bioreactor design and harvesting method are also a crucial factors in influencing the efficiency of large-scale biomass generation and overall production cost ( Agarwalla et al., 2023 ; Agarwalla and Mohanty, 2024 ).

1.3 Importance of clean water generation and high-value product extraction

Post-harvesting represents an additional significant obstacle in the generation of microalgae biomass. Typically, biomass concentrations of microalgae cultures range from 0.5 to 18 g/L. As a result, a substantial quantity of water must be extracted to separate algal biomass ( Kumar et al., 2019a ). Two steps comprise the harvesting procedure: sedimentation/flocculation and dewatering. Microalgal cells have a very lower size range and, thus are impracticable to extract via conventional sedimentation. Centrifugation is the commonly used technology but it is a costly and energy-intensive process. Hence, there is a requirement for a secondary cost-effective process with the ability to harvest large-capacity culture. Flocculation is a process that can overcome such drawbacks and it involves the interaction between cell surface charges and flocculant charges. This process results in the generation of agglomerates in the medium which can be settled under the effect of gravity and can yield a concentrated algal slurry that contains at least 25% dry matter. For microalgae harvesting, numerous flocculation techniques have been documented; among these, chemical flocculation, bio-flocculation, and auto-flocculation have received the most research attention ( Kumar et al., 2019a ; Arora et al., 2021 ; Agarwalla and Mohanty, 2024 ). The economic and sustainable wastewater management along with proper recovery of nutrients from wastewater is a favorable outlook to mitigate the problem of water scarcity ( Yadav et al., 2022 ).

Microalgae are increasingly recognized as a highly promising and sustainable long-term renewable resource. Algae with a high lipid content and rapid growth rate are chosen for a variety of applications across industries, including the production of biofuel, exopolysaccharides, biopolymers, and biofertilizers ( Arora et al., 2021 ; Ramírez Mérida and Rodríguez Padrón, 2023 ). The increase in plastic usage in daily life leads to environmental pollution and these plastics are recalcitrant for degradation using microbes. Therefore, bioplastic can be an alternative to conventional plastics. These bioplastics raw materials can be obtained from biological sources like bacteria, microalgae, yeast, and transgenic plants. The biologically derived plastics are polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polylactic acid, starch, and carbohydrates. These polymers can be extracted from biomass; extracellularly and intracellularly produced by microorganisms; and synthesized by bio-derivatives ( Arora et al., 2021 ). Many microalgal strains are cultivated for polyhydroxyalkanoates production in different wastewater and stress conditions ( Laycock et al., 2014 ; Wicker et al., 2022 ; Kusmayadi et al., 2023 ). Laycock et al. reported the production of 10 wt% of polyhydroxyalkanoates from Spirulina platensis in the presence of acetate and CO 2 ( Laycock et al., 2014 ). In another study, a photosynthetic consortium was cultivated in raw aquaculture effluent for polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) production. The most significant amounts of PHB accumulation were seen under the high-intensity full-spectrum light treatment, which is correlated to biomass production, carbon utilization, and nutrient removal ( Wicker et al., 2022 ). PHA also has applications in the medical sector such as scaffolds, tissue engineering, and surgical sutures. Additionally, microalgae can be used as biofertilizers when cultivated on wastewater ( Arora et al., 2021 ). An experiment conducted by Das et al. (2019a) reported a yield of 650 mg L –1 of Chlorella sp. microalgae cultivated in municipal waste as a biofertilizer. Furthermore, the accumulated lipids in microalgae can be used as feedstock for biodiesel production ( Hemalatha et al., 2019 ) while the whole biomass can be converted into bio-oil via thermochemical methods ( Ravi Kiran et al., 2024 ). Also, the microalgae can undergo pretreatment for extraction of carbohydrates for bioethanol and biohydrogen production ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ; Bhatia et al., 2021 ). In this line, the studies should be focussed on the integration of dairy wastewater bioremediation using microalgae, recycling of water, and biomass processing into value-added products or fuel.

2 Characteristics of dairy wastewater

2.1 composition and properties of raw wastewater.

Nowadays, the dairy industry wastewater is surveyed as one of the most polluted effluents in terms of BOD, COD, and total suspended solids (TSS). However, the volume of wastewater and pollution load is dependent on the type of products produced and the production process. The sterilized packaging unit of the Saras dairy factory processes a total of 1,00,000 L of milk/day, whereas the facility’s processing capacity is 5,00,000 L per day. Brar et al. reported that wastewater generated from dairy wastewater from the Saras dairy plant, Jaipur has a COD of 1,280 ± 226.47 mg L −1 and BOD of 245.95 ± 8.48 mg L −1 . The total phosphate and nitrogen content of the dairy wastewater also has significant values of 19,583 ± 424 mg L −1 and 363.97 ± 23.93 mg L −1 , respectively ( Brar et al., 2019 ). Comparatively, the dairy wastewater at Jelgava, Latvia has a COD of 1,680 ± 20 mg L −1 and BOD of 1,196 ± 50 mg L −1 , which is higher than the permissible limits. The wastewater contains nitrogen and phosphate of 115 ± 30 mg L −1 and 22 ± 05 mg L −1 . Also, the wastewater reported the presence of lipids which was confirmed by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy ( Ekka et al., 2022 ). Qasim and Mane characterized the dairy wastewater of Pune City, Maharashtra, as having a COD of 8,960 ± 716.4 mg L −1 and BOD of 442 ± 3.1 mg L −1 ( Qasim and Mane, 2013 ). A study reported that wastewater generated from yogurt and buttermilk dairy wastewater has less pollution load in terms of COD and BOD. A dairy factory in Erbil City generates 40–50 tons of yogurt and buttermilk every day. The COD value ranges from 0.986 to 1.132 g L −1 and BOD ranges from 0.6 to 0.8 g L −1 ( Aziz and Ali, 2017 ). When the DW is released into the lakes and rivers without any treatment leads to eutrophication. This increases the growth of microorganisms that may deplete the dissolved oxygen in the water bodies. This makes the dairy sector one of the most notable contributors to the pollution of water bodies. pH is an important parameter in considering the quality of wastewater because microbial growth will depend on the pH of the wastewater. White wastewater produced after the cleaning of pasteurizers from both two Canadian dairy plants has an alkaline pH ranging from 8.23 to 12.45. However, the total solid from plant A (0.50 ± 0.04 g/L) was comparatively less than from plant B (3.12 ± 0.24 g/L), which signifies less dilution of later. Also, the alkaline and acidic wastewater were collected after second and fourth steps of the cleaning-in-place protocol and characterized for their chemical properties. The acidic wastewater generated from both plants A and B has very acidic pH (1.82 ± 0.06-plant A and 1.17 ± 0.01-plant B) with comparative electrical conductivity (5.35 ± 0.10 μS/cm -plant A and 14.25 ± 0.13 μS/cm -plant B). The comparative conductivity was observed due to significant calcium ions (177.04 ± 0.43 mg/L) reported from plant B acidic wastewater ( Alalam et al., 2021 ). The pH of Yoruksut dairy wastewater has a slight acid-to-neutral range (6.75–7.71) while the total solid was less (1,200 mg/L) in March compared to May month (3,900 mg/L), exceeding the EPA limit ( Aziz and Ali, 2017 ). Sawalha et al. characterized the dairy industry wastewater in Palestine and conducted an adsorption study using biowaste. Three samples were collected after pasteurization, cheese making, and washing process (soda washing and acid washing). The wastewater from different places was massively concentrated in terms of organics, chloride ions, pH, and TSS. However, the organics and TSS of cheese production wastewater were higher than those from the yogurt production process ( Sawalha et al., 2022 ). TSS are crucial polluting indicator that is used for evaluating DW pollution and to measure the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment plant. The suspended matter in wastewater comes from viscous milk and small fragments of curd or flavorings ( Garcha et al., 2016 ). The higher value of TSS and COD in cheese wastewater might be a result of whey protein, lactose, and fats ( Sawalha et al., 2022 ). Whey wastewater has a high level of organic matter and nutrients, which can be utilized by microorganisms for their growth and metabolism. In another investigation, de Andrade et al. collected and analyzed the curd cheese whey for microalgal bioremediation. The whey has COD of 52,886 ± 269.25 mg L −1 with total nitrogen and phosphate of 1.56 ± 0.035 g L −1 and 0.66 ± 0.012 g L −1 , respectively ( de Andrade et al., 2023 ). In a study conducted by Bharadwaj et al., 52 microbes which include both bacteria and fungi have been identified and subjected to a screening process to determine their efficiency in degrading dairy wastewater. The genera Serratia , Stenotrophomonas , Brachybacterium , and Cunninghamella were reported for their activity in degrading dairy wastewater. The COD level of wastewater was reduced to 58%–72% using these three native genera ( Bhardwaj et al., 2018 ). Overall, in both developed and developing nations, compliance with stringent environmental regulations has become obligatory for the discharge of effluents beyond the allowable limit. The initial physicochemical characteristics of different dairy wastewater collected is given in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Initial physico-chemical characteristics of different collected and synthetic dairy wastewater.

2.2 Evaluation of metals and organic matter present in the wastewater

The presence of organic matter like urea, carbohydrates, and fats also affects the quality of the wastewater. Various fatty acids were analyzed in wastewater from the dairy industry situated at Jelgava, Latvia. The wastewater comprises 65% hexadecanoic acid followed by 21% octadecanoic acid. Tetradecanoic acid was also present in wastewater in major amounts but oleic acid, linolenic acid, lauric acid, and linoleic acids were present in smaller concentrations. It was found that milk fatty acids majorly consist of saturated fatty acids. The presence of fatty acids in dairy wastewater offers a viable and cheap option for biodiesel production ( Ekka et al., 2022 ). The quality and treatment efficiency of dairy wastewater also depend on the types of organic matter present in them because these compounds can attach to particulates and can cause abrasion, deposition, and clogging of membranes and filters during operations. The examination of trace organic chemicals found in the effluent of a dairy plant revealed the presence of common milk degradation products as well as compounds that may be linked to their synthetic or agricultural origins. The compounds that were found to be highest in the effluent are 1-Methyl-5-oxo-L-proline methyl ester ( Verheyen et al., 2011 ). Zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), and lead (Pb) are among the prevalent heavy metal pollutants detected in DW, and they are significantly considered as most critical global environmental problems ( Table 2 ). Metals that are present in water bodies can persist for a prolonged amount of time or undergo biological transformations. Eventually, they accumulate throughout the food chain, presenting a significant threat to the ecology if not adequately removed. Removing heavy metals from wastewater is challenging due to their resistance to chemical or biological treatment. The chloride, iron, and fluoride concentrations of 199, 5.17, and 4.833 mg L −1 were addressed by Kumar et al. in raw dairy wastewater collected from Amul Dairy, Gujarat, India ( Kumar et al., 2019b ). Also, the dairy eluent collected from Pune City has a chloride level of 186.4 ± 3.4 mg L −1 ( Qasim and Mane, 2013 ), which is lower than EPA regulations. The DW obtained from Sarvottam Dairy effluent contained a high amount of sodium (345.65 mg/L). While little amount of nickel, copper, cobalt, iron, and chromium was observed in DW ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ). The elevated levels of sodium and chloride are attributed to the extensive use of alkaline cleaning agents in dairy facilities. Aluminum can come from aluminum sulfate which is frequently employed in water treatment facilities for the purpose of clarifying the water ( Qasim and Mane, 2013 ). Trace elements such as copper and zinc, as well as other heavy metals including cadmium, arsenic, chromium, and mercury, may be found in dairy wastewater. These elements enter the wastewater via therapeutic substances and organic molecules from pesticides ( Qasim and Mane, 2013 ).

Table 2 . Comparison of metals present in the different dairy industry generated wastewater. Every metals is reported in mg/L.

3 Dairy wastewater treatment technologies

Dairy wastewater has the potential to serve as a nutrient source for the production of biomass and recovery of value-added products. The complex characteristics of dairy wastewater make it a challenging category of industrial wastewater, namely, because of the high-fat content and high levels of COD. Dairy effluent is treated using four major different approaches: coagulation, membrane technology, biological methods, and hybrid methods in previous studies ( Table 3 ; Figure 1 ). Every technology has its advantages and disadvantages in treating dairy wastewater ( Table 4 ). The selection of technology and reactor required for the design of an effluent treatment plant is determined by the availability of land, infrastructure, and the efficiency of focused treatment ( Krishna B et al., 2022 ).

Table 3 . Treatment technologies reported for Dairy Wastewater.

Figure 1 . Various dairy wastewater treatment technologies.

Table 4 . Comparative table on advantages and disadvantages of various treatment technologies.

3.1 Physical treatment technology

As dairy industrial wastewater contains high amounts of dissolved organic matter, membrane technology offers many advantages, including a high degree of removing the dissolved, colloidal, and particulate matter; selectivity in the removal of contaminants based on size; and the possibility for extremely compact treatment facilities ( Turan, 2004 ). The dairy industrial wastewater is initially screened to remove the large debris that can clog the further treatment pipelines. The delay in the screening step may increase the COD of wastewater due to solid solubilization ( Zainab et al., 2019 ). Many studies have been reported earlier for the treatment of dairy wastewater using reverse osmosis (RO) ( Turan, 2004 ), nanofiltration (NF) ( Turan, 2004 ; Luo et al., 2012 ), and ultrafiltration (UF) ( Gong et al., 2012 ; Tayawi et al., 2023 ). RO membrane was used for the treatment of high-strength dairy industry wastewater (5,000 and 10,000 mg/L-COD) and showed excellent performance by removing 99.7% COD. While the nanofiltration membrane was used for low-strength wastewater (40 and 450 mg/L-COD), and showed a COD removal efficiency of 98%. The fouling of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis were also investigated by Turan (2004) . The reduction in filtration efficiency resulted from an increase in the fouling layer and concentration polarization layer. The fouling behavior of dairy wastewater treatment by nanofiltration was investigated in another study by Luo et al. A rotating disk laboratory module with high shear and pressure was applied to treat the dairy wastewater using the NF270 membrane. The flux profile and permeate quality were not significantly affected by the presence of lipids, although adsorption fouling was marginally increased. Concentration polarisation was reduced by increased shear rates, which resulted in higher permeate fluxes and reduced permeability loss. The inorganic ions form aggregates with milk proteins, causing negligible inorganic fouling and alkaline cleaning could remove surface fouling. A high and stable flux was observed in DW treatment by NF under an extremely enhanced shear rate ( Luo et al., 2012 ). Also, integrated membrane systems process in sequential form showed better performance in terms of COD, TOC, and nutrient removal. The integrated systems consist of the sequential use of microfiltration (MF) and nanofiltration (NF) and MF and reverse osmosis (RO) under varying pressures to treat dairy effluent. The MF + NF system resulted in a 100% reduction in turbidity, 96% in colour, 58% in total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and 51% in COD. The MF + RO system resulted in a 100%, 100%, 94%, and 84% reduction in turbidity, colour, total dissolved nitrogen, and TOC, respectively. Consequently, the MF + RO system was more effective in retaining organic matter and total solids ( Bortoluzzi et al., 2017 ). Floatation is also a technique used for the treatment of dairy wastewater but merged with chemical-based coagulants for better efficiency ( Pereira et al., 2020 ). Adsorption is a method of wastewater treatment that effectively removes a significant quantity of non-degradable organic components from wastewater. The most often utilized adsorbent is activated carbon. Low-cost adsorbents such as rice husk, coal fly ash, and straw dust are used for wastewater treatment ( Sinha et al., 2019 ). In a previous study, activated charcoal achieved a maximum removal efficiency of 65% for COD and 67% for BOD in dairy effluent ( Kanawade and Bhusal, 2015 ). With the advantages of low energy consumption and cost-effective treatment, the physical treatment technology set the major disadvantages of limited contaminant removal like suspended particles and space requirement for sedimentation and aeration ( Yonar et al., 2018 ).

3.2 Chemical treatment technology

Chemical treatment includes processes such as pH balance and reagent oxidation, which are beneficial for the removal of soluble contaminants and colloids in wastewater. The dairy industry effluent exhibits a pH range of 4.7–11 and extreme values can have adverse effects on microbiological cells in biological reactions and increase the corrosion of pipelines. Consequently, it should be adjusted to mitigate its harmful effects ( Zainab et al., 2019 ). One approach to treat DW is electrochemical treatment, which entails the utilization of an iron electrode to treat simulated dairy effluent. It is highly effective in the treatment of nutrient-rich wastewater by reducing the COD and oil–grease in the aqueous phase ( Şengil and özacar, 2006 ). In another study by Kushwaha et al. (2010) , COD removal efficiency of appx. 70% was observed using the electrochemical treatment method with iron electrodes. A combination of electro-coagulation, electro-floatation, and electro-oxidation mechanisms were hypothesized as the main routes for COD depletion in dairy effluent. In another electrochemical-based treatment, H 2 O 2 /Fe 2+ molar ratio and H 2 O 2 /dairy wastewater ratio (DW) (mL/L) obtained the maximum COD removal of 93.93% within 90 min ( Davarnejad and Nikseresht, 2016 ). On the other hand, aluminum electrodes in the electro-coagulation process removed 60% COD in dairy wastewater ( Tchamango et al., 2010 ) while only 39% COD was removed by chemical coagulation ( Hamdani et al., 2005 ). Dairy wastewater also contains major amounts of fat, oil, and grease which are generated during unskinned milk production. The separation of fats from the wastewater can be done by increasing the temperature. Similarly, the proteins and lipids components in wastewater can be eliminated by the coagulation process. The flotation process by dissolved air technique is more effective due to the reduction of organic load, protein, and lipid colloids through the use of flocculants and coagulants. This method utilizes synthetic and costly compounds, which result in environmental issues. The use of organic coagulants like polyacrylamide [PAA] and polyferric sulphate [PFS] reduced the COD and turbidity level of dairy wastewater, with less or no environmental damage ( Loloei et al., 2014 ). The maximum BOD 5 and chemical oxygen demand removal efficiency was achieved at pH 8 and with poly aluminum chloride in 60 min in dairy wastewater ( Bazrafshan et al., 2016 ). Also, the utilization of UV irradiation helps in reducing the microbial load and dissolved organic method of dairy wastewater ( Passero et al., 2014 ). In a study conducted by Qin et al., UV irradiation and sodium hypochlorite both were tested for their efficiency in the treatment of dairy wastewater. The COD, total phosphorous, and total Khejdhal nitrogen displayed a slight reduction in their level after UV treatment but increasing values were observed in ammonium nitrogen. A similar trend was observed in the case of sodium hypochlorite treatment ( Qin et al., 2014 ). In another study, a combined aerated electrocoagulation process also showed a COD removal efficiency of 86.40% in the case of Al-Fe electrode combination with aeration at optimized conditions ( Akansha et al., 2020 ). The chemical-based treatment has the advantage of removing a wide range of contaminants, including dissolved and colloidal substances within less time duration. Despite this advantage, this treatment process has major setbacks in sludge production and disposal, handling and storage of potentially hazardous chemicals, and the treatment cost due to expensive chemicals ( Mohammed Bello et al., 2019 ).

3.3 Biological treatment technology

The biological treatment process includes the use of microorganisms to reduce the organic load present in the wastewater. The physical condition of the treatment system will depend on many parameters like pH, temperature, and oxygen amount, which need to be controlled to avoid the death of the microbial community for treatment. Certain nutrient loads should not exceed the tolerance level of microbes before the treatment. Also, there can be a presence of heavy metals in the dairy wastewater, which can damage the cells during the treatment, and reduce the efficiency ( Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ). Aerobic and anaerobic are two types of biological treatment methods ( Goli et al., 2019 ). Many studies have employed individual aerobic and anaerobic treatment technology and numerous investigations have used combined strategies to overcome the limitations of individual processes ( Goli et al., 2019 ; Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ).

The aerobic technique reduces the biological oxygen demand as well as phosphorous and nitrogen content in dairy wastewater. This process is also effective in removing the fats from the wastewater. The odor of wastewater is reduced when the ammonium nitrogen is converted to nitrates. In addition, the aerobic procedure will require aeration which requires high energy demand. Activated sludge treatment is one of the aerobic treatment methods, which employs the introduction of microbes in the wastewater. The microbes are then isolated using a clarifier or filter, while a fraction of the sludge is returned to the reactor ( Goli et al., 2019 ). Research has shown that activated sludge (including both bacterial and protozoan) was reported to be successful in decreasing organic compounds in dairy wastewater, the best performance was obtained at 45.4 kg O 2 d −1 ( Tocchi et al., 2012 ). This process had the advantages of easy operation and a light footprint ( Goli et al., 2019 ). Low environmental shock tolerance and toxin buildup are common issues in activated sludge operations. Additionally, sludge settling might hinder biomass recovery. Granular sludge, which generates solid spherical granules from microbes and flocs, has been used to address these shortcomings. These granules have enhanced shock resistance and settling qualities. Another drawback of activated sludge systems is the disposal of sludge ( Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ). Sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) combine many processes in one bioreactor ( Goli et al., 2019 ). These phases are sequential: filling, reacting, settling, decanting, and idling. Filling involves adding microbe-containing DW and microbes. The reaction step may include aerobic and anaerobic cycles. To do this, aeration and no aeration can be performed. At the settling stage, aeration and mixing are halted to allow suspended particles to separate from the treated water. In the decanting step, the supernatant fluid (treated wastewater) is removed. The idle stage is particularly important in multi-reactor systems with a delay between filling stages ( Goli et al., 2019 ; Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ). Studies have shown that SBRs may decrease COD levels by as much as 90%, whereas COD concentration varies from 400 to 2,500 mg/L. One investigation has successfully treated dairy wastewater using a hybrid up-flow–downflow reactor, maintaining stability even with an average organic loading rate of 10,000 mg COD/L/day. This system showcases the versatility of an SBR system by including both downflow pre-acidification chambers and up-flow methanation chambers. The process successfully converted 98% of the chemical oxygen demand into biogas, while also removing over 90% of ammonia and total phosphorus ( Malaspina et al., 1996 ). Additionally, research has been conducted using a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) in conjunction with membrane filtration to address these constraints. Nevertheless, the use of a membrane presents the added obstacle of membrane fouling, necessitating the implementation of further measures to minimize this potential problem. One disadvantage of SBRs is that they operate as a batch system, meaning that the reactors need to be loaded, unloaded, and cleaned for each batch. This leads to decreased production compared to a continuous system ( Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ). In a membrane bioreactor, the membrane is submerged within the reactor and another configuration is one where the membrane is placed on the exterior of the reactor with a recycle loop. It has been reported that an aerobic MBR may reduce the BOD 5 level in DWW by up to 99% and the ammonium levels by up to 99.9% ( Stepanov et al., 2019 ). In another investigation, aerobic MBR treated ice-cream wastewater with high levels of contaminants, namely, 13,300 mg COD/L and 6,500 mg BOD 5 /L. This treatment resulted in a reduction of over 95% in COD and BOD 5 levels, an 80% decrease in TP, and a decrease of over 96% in TN ( Scott and Smith, 1997 ). Like other membrane filtering systems, the primary concerns for a practical MBR system are the cost of the process, membrane fouling, and methods to manage fouling ( Goli et al., 2019 ). Other types of aerobic treatment reactors include tricking filters ( Goli et al., 2019 ) and rotating biological contractors ( Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ). The average treatment efficiency of trickling filters was 87.3%, 78.3%, and 27.9% without recirculation for COD, BOD, and total phosphorous while this treatment efficiency increased when recirculation was applied ( Zyłka et al., 2018 ). A significant concern is that trickling filters may get obstructed by the accumulation of ferric hydroxide and carbonates, resulting in a decrease in the activity of microbes. When there is an excessive amount of dairy wastewater, the fluid will get obstructed by dense biological and fat films ( Goli et al., 2019 ). The design of the rotating biological contactor (RBC) involves the use of circular discs, which promote the growth of a biofilm on its surface to allow the oxidation of organic molecules in the wastewater ( Kadu et al., 2013 ). The maximum COD removal efficiency of 94% in dairy wastewater was observed using a 3-tank biological contactor reactor ( Asha and Elakkiya, 2014 ). The RBC method has some advantages over the ASP when it comes to the treatment of dairy wastewater. The primary advantages of the RBC process are little power consumption, straightforward operation, and minimal maintenance requirements. However, in comparison to the trickling filter, RBC requires less area for treatment and incurs reduced running expenses ( Goli et al., 2019 ).

While the anaerobic treatment is mainly focused on decreasing the amount of organic matter and treating high concentrations of organic substances in wastewater. Anaerobic treatment can generate methane from wastewater that is rich in organic matter. Anaerobic technology is often used in anaerobic filters, sludge blanket reactors, and packed bed digestors ( Goli et al., 2019 ). In a study conducted by Rajagopal et al. (2013) , a reduction in 80% COD was achieved when treating a DW stream using anaerobic filters. Contrarily, this technique does not show effective results in removing the fat, oil, and greases (FOG) from high-fat-containing dairy wastewater ( Omil et al., 2003 ). This highlights the requirement of alternative technology for treating high organic-containing wastewater. Anaerobic packed bed reactors are another technology that was highly effective at reducing COD, BOD, and suspended solids up to 96%, 93%, and 90%, respectively. Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors (UASBRs) are one of the most used for the treatment of dairy wastewater. UASB reactors are used for treating wastewater that has COD up to 40 g/L. The reactor showed a COD reduction of 96.3% in 3 h ( Passeggi et al., 2012 ). A major hurdle involved in these reactors is the accumulation of organic matter in the sludge blanket, making the difficult for anaerobic bacteria to break down the FOG. Implementing a hydrolysis stage before the reaction or increasing the reaction time of the reactor would resolve the difficulty ( Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ). Another important treatment method is anaerobic digestion, 95% of the organic load in a waste stream can be turned into biogas (methane and carbon dioxide), while the rest is used for cell growth and maintenance. In addition, a small amount of sludge is generated in the anaerobic digestion process, reducing the difficulties related to sludge removal. Anaerobic digestion (AD) systems need nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, at levels much lower than those required by aerobic systems. One of the simple designs for AD design is a stirred tank reactor. Continuous stirred-tank reactors are often used for treating highly concentrated effluents, especially those containing a significant amount of suspended solids and chemical oxygen demand values over 30,000 mg/L. Biomass is not retained in this reactor, which means that the hydraulic retention time (HRT) and sludge retention time (SRT) cannot be distinguished. Consequently, extensive retention durations are required, based on the growth rate of the slowest-growing bacteria involved in the digesting process ( Goli et al., 2019 ). The up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor is a very popular technique used for the treatment of wastewater. The advantage involved in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (ASBR) is less sludge production compared to an aerobic treatment system due to the slow growth rate of anaerobic organisms and good removal efficiency is achieved even at high loading rates and low temperatures. The procedure involves the use of anaerobic microorganisms in a single tank to treat wastewater, resulting in the near-total elimination of organic contaminants, solids, and oil and grease ( Sinha et al., 2019 ). COD and BOD removal of 77% and 87%, respectively was achieved in the reactor for the treatment of dairy wastewater. This technology removed the suspended solid and chlorides efficiently at the end of the treatment period ( Kavitha et al., 2013 ). The ASBR is a recently created batch reactor system that integrates the processes of digestion and the separation of particulates into a single vessel. The treatment of wastewater by anaerobic sequencing batch reactors involves four sequential steps: feeding, reaction, settling, and removal of treated wastewater. This form of reactor is widely used because of its notable advantages, such as its simplicity, effective quality control of wastewater, less settling time, and versatility in treating various types of effluents. Nevertheless, a significant drawback of ASBR is its suboptimal performance under heavy load conditions ( Sinha et al., 2019 ). At an organic loading of 1 g/L and a retention duration of 72 h, the COD reduction % at 35°C without additional seeds (pre-prepared culture media from synthetic milk waste and sewage) was reported to be 50%. While the COD removal efficiency of 83.33% with the addition of seeds was observed ( Dawood et al., 2011 ). Also, aerobic–anaerobic combined process allows the complete remediation of dairy wastewater as every stage focuses on different contaminants in the wastewater. The aerobic process reduces the ammonium, phosphate, hydrogen sulfide, and BOD of the wastewater while the anaerobic process reduces the COD and nitrate concentration in the effluent ( Ramsuroop et al., 2024 ).

3.4 Hybrid technology for dairy wastewater treatment

Biological approaches are often regarded as the most efficient means of treating dairy wastewater. Among these methods, aerobic systems are simpler to manage and regulate, while anaerobic systems generate less sludge and use less energy. It is advisable to construct a combined process that is particularly designed to meet the minimal criterion for discharging effluent ( Sinha et al., 2019 ). Many studies have used the hybrid or combined process for the effective treatment of dairy wastewater. Bazrafshan et al. used an inorganic prepolymerized-based coagulation and adsorption process on modified dried activated sludge for dairy wastewater treatment. The removal efficiency of most pollutants from raw dairy wastewater was high, still the coagulation process alone was not able to meet the discharge standards. The combination of adsorption in the treatment process enhanced the pollutant removal efficiency ( Bazrafshan et al., 2016 ). Another superior combination of chemical coagulation with the electro-fenton process was used by Zakeri et al. for the treatment of dairy wastewater. The removal efficiency of 90.3%, 87.25%, and 87% for COD, BOD 5 , and total suspended solids, respectively was noticed ( Zakeri et al., 2021 ). The catalyst-less and mediator-less membrane microbial fuel cell is a novel approach that allows for the simultaneous treatment of dairy sector effluent and the production of bioelectricity. In a study conducted by Mansoorian et al., two chambers, namely, an anaerobic anode and an aerobic cathode compartment were divided by a proton exchange membrane for dairy wastewater treatment. The findings indicate that the removal efficiency for COD improves from 78.21% to 90.46% and for BOD 5 it increases from 61.43% to 81.72% with increasing time ( Mansoorian et al., 2016 ). The ultraviolet (UV) photocatalytic treatment has the benefit of further eliminating organic compounds in wastewater, while its effectiveness is limited to low-strength effluent. Utilizing solar radiation for wastewater treatment shows potential for areas with abundant light. The treatment of wastewater with a combined anaerobic process (up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor) and advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) hold a promising route toward efficient wastewater treatment. The combination of anaerobic and solar photocatalytic treatment achieved a 95% reduction in COD levels in the dairy effluent ( Rajesh Banu et al., 2008 ). Electrocoagulation is a popular technique for treating water and wastewater due to its combination of coagulation, flotation, and electrochemistry. The addition of air during the electrocoagulation process has an enhanced effect on reducing the COD of wastewater. Studies also showed an effective result when aerated electrocoagulation is combined with phytoremediation, 97.9% COD reduction was observed in dairy wastewater ( Akansha et al., 2020 ). Another study combines the use of UV irradiation, and sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) as a pretreatment step before microalgae-based treatment of dairy wastewater. The highest biomass productivity and lipid productivity of C. vulgaris reached 0.450 g L −1 day −1 and 51 mg L −1 day −1 in dairy wastewater, respectively ( Qin et al., 2014 ). From this, it can be concluded that combined hybrid technology with microalgae produced significant biomass with high-value product accumulation for various applications.

4 Role of microalgae in dairy wastewater treatment

4.1 an overview of the literature.

It was observed that research on dairy wastewater treatment was started initially in 1996 and started to increase tremendously from the 20th century. The publications of 12–24 documents on the treatment of dairy wastewater were published from 2019 to 2023 while only 3–7 documents were submitted from 2014 to 2018. A total of 127 research articles have been published as of the retrieval date of the data. India emerged as the market leader in the dairy industrial sector and its treatment, as evidenced by its increased involvement in this research domain. Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion has performed major work in this domain area of dairy wastewater treatment. With the increase in industrialization and urbanization, DW was listed among the polluted effluents. Dairy wastewater, on the other hand, is one of the most extensively researched and acceptable nutrient mediums that is utilized in the production and growth of microorganisms because it contains adequate amounts of phosphate and nitrogen sources ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ). There is a notable amount of studies being conducted at present to integrate microalgae with wastewater treatment. This shows that study in this area is becoming progressively more prevalent. It was also noted that over 34.90% of the study’s research was conducted in the field of Environmental science. This was followed by the fields of Chemical Engineering (16.73%), Energy (16.73%), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (9.12%), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (6.84%). This highlights that the field of dairy wastewater treatment primarily centers around the areas of Environmental Science, Chemical Engineering, and Energy (see Supplementary Tables S1–S4 ; Figure 2 ).

Figure 2 . Scientometric analysis obtained from scopus database for dairy wastewater treatment (A) Distribution of articles (B) countries active in the research area (C) research field area.

4.2 Keyword co-occurrence analysis

The search terms used throughout this area provide an in-depth understanding of disciplines that primarily focus on a certain domain. A network of interconnected keywords performs as an actual illustration of the interaction between them. The current study included the quantitative methods of “Author Keywords” and “Fractional Counting” in VOSviewer. A minimum criterion of five occurrences was established, resulting in the identification of 164 out of the total cumulative count of 1,688 terms. Afterward, the 164 keywords were refined by removing infrequent and repeated phrases such as “alga,” “animal,” “biofuels,” “biological oxygen demand analysis,” “fatty acids,” “effluent” and “biomass productions,” among others. Consequently, a total of 97 keywords were selected (see Supplementary Table S5 ) and represented in Figure 3 . The sizes of the vertices correspond to the frequency of occurrence of the keywords. Examples of bigger vertices in the graph are “wastewater treatment,” “wastewater,” “dairy wastewater,” and “microalgae,” indicating a greater frequency of occurrence. Moreover, it can be inferred that a major number of studies were conducted on dairy wastewater treatment using microalgae and biomass production. Moreover, the colors of the vertices distinguish the clusters; that is, every term is categorized into a unique group based on its distance from the other keywords. For example, the terms “dairy wastewater treatment,” “chemical oxygen demand,” “growth rate,” and “phycoremediation,” are represented by a single color, highlighting their significant interdependence. Furthermore, there might be a notable association between words that are part of other groups, such as “mixotrophy,” dairy wastewater,” “fermentation,” and “biofuel.” In many studies, DW was used as a nutrient source for microalgae growth and further, the biomass used for biofuel production ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ; Singh et al., 2023 ; Ravi Kiran et al., 2024 ). Singh et al. (2023) showed the potential of Monoraphidium sp. KMC4 biomass generated from DW towards bio-oil production. In another study, 29.6% of bio-oil yield was obtained from microalgae Messastrum gracile SVMIICT7 grown on dairy wastewater ( Ravi Kiran et al., 2024 ). Three major species, namely, Chlorella , Scenedesmus, and Acutodesmus were reported to be superior microalgae in DW treatment ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ; Daneshvar et al., 2019 ). Based on the grouping of keywords, the research on dairy wastewater treatment using microalgae may be categorized into three groups: chemical oxygen demand, biochemical composition, and biomass production.

Figure 3 . Significant keywords were observed in dairy wastewater treatment.

4.3 Mechanisms by which microalgae can treat wastewater

Microalgae cultivation and biomass production with the integration of wastewater treatment has garnered significant interest in the recent few years. Furthermore, the economic viability of the underlying methodology and operational procedures continues to pose challenges. Several investigations were conducted on the screening of potential microalgal strains ( Mohanty and Mohanty, 2023a ; Singh et al., 2023 ), the optimization of culture conditions ( Divya Kuravi and Venkata Mohan, 2021 ; Kiran and Venkata Mohan, 2021 ; 2022 ; Singh et al., 2023 ), the design of bioreactors for microalgal cultures ( Arora et al., 2021 ), and other factors to increase the lipid content of microalgae and promote their growth. To reduce overall costs, many studies were conducted on coupling microalgae growth with dairy wastewater treatment ( Singh et al., 2023 ; Ravi Kiran et al., 2024 ). The inorganic and organic nutrients present in the wastewater can be utilized by microalgae ( da Silva et al., 2021 ). Hence, this research topic has great potential and will be helpful in the development of a novel environmentally friendly method that combines both the production of microalgae and wastewater treatment ( Table 5 ).

Table 5 . Literature covering studies conducted on dairy wastewater treatment using microalgae.

4.3.1 Heterotrophic mode

In heterotrophic mode, the microalgae use the respiration process to obtain energy by organic compound oxidation ( Kim et al., 2019 ). Glucose, glycerol, and acetate are the main forms of carbon used for the cultivation of microalgae in heterotrophic mode. The use of glucose as an organic carbon source for microalgae culture has been widespread due to its superior energy in terms of adenosine triphosphate compared to other substrates. Acetate is also a common utilizable carbon source for growing microalgae in heterotrophic mode. Upon entry into the cytoplasm of microalgae cells, the process of acetate metabolism occurs via the acetylation of coenzyme A by acetyl-CoA synthetase. This reaction is a single-step process that utilizes a solitary ATP molecule, resulting in the formation of acetyl coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA). Two major pathways, namely, the glyoxylate cycle and Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA) further degrade the acetate to malate and citrate, respectively. Nevertheless, large amounts of acetate may exhibit toxicity against several cells, hence impeding their structure ( da Silva et al., 2021 ). Also, bacteria coexisting with microalgae were found to improve the degradation of nitrogen, phosphate, glucose, and chemical oxygen demand but with a trade-off in lipid productivity ( Zhang et al., 2012 ). Chlorella sp. HS2 high-density algal cultures were produced in heterotrophic cultivation mode using BG11 media with glucose in a fermenter with dark conditions. An increase of the model to a 5-L fermenter revealed that the culture depleted the phosphorus completely, which led to insufficient utilization of the nitrogen and carbon sources ( Kim et al., 2019 ). The respiration of organic-C during heterotrophic cultivation by microalgae generates CO 2 , which contributes to the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, the coexistence of heterotrophic and autotrophic microalgae in mixed cultures may result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. This is due to the mutually beneficial nutrient requirements of each microorganism, whereby the heterotrophic species consume oxygen and generate carbon dioxide. The high quantities of organic compounds in the growth medium used for cultivating heterotrophic microalgae provide the possibility of invasion by competing bacteria and fungus, which may compromise the quality of the process and products. Heterotrophic growth of microalgae thus demands sterilization of media which can incur energy costs ranging from 20% to 30% of the overall costs of the production process. This expense might be recouped if the heterotrophic microalgae produce products with high market value ( da Silva et al., 2021 ). For the generation of high-market-value products, there is a requirement for scale-up technology, namely, a raceway pond for microalgae cultivation. It is very difficult to sterilize a huge amount of cultivation media for large ponds in heterotrophic mode. Also, the risk of bacterial and fungal contamination will increase in such open reactors ( Singh et al., 2023 ). From our knowledge, there are no industrial plants that use heterotrophic mode of cultivation to treat DW. However, additional investigation is required to augment biomass productivity and the productivity of high-value-added compounds when DW is used as a nutrient source to overcome the high market value.

4.3.2 Mixotrophic mode

In comparison to the heterotrophic mode, mixotrophic cultivation facilitates a higher growth rate and biomass productivity. To produce biochemical compounds and accomplish maximum biomass productivity, a balance between photosynthesis and respiration is important ( Singh et al., 2023 ). The utilization of microalgae biomass as a source of renewable energy and its interconnection with numerous biological processes for the production of value-products for their subsequent reuse in a closed-loop biorefinery system facilitates many advantages and makes the process both sustainable and economically feasible ( Divya Kuravi and Venkata Mohan, 2022 ). Many studies have provided evidence of the proliferation of microalgae, lipid synthesis, and the production of high-value products using dairy wastewater (DW) as a nutrient source in a mixotrophic mode. Monoraphidium sp. SVMIICT6 was identified and cultured using a mixotrophic approach to treat synthetic dairy effluent. The growth of microalgae was facilitated by the removal of nutrients, as evidenced by the carbohydrate, protein, and lipid content (25%), in addition to biomass productivity of 0.05 g L −1 day −1 . From PSII to PSI, both the quantum yield and the electron transport rate (ETR) enhanced throughout time, and this rise was strongly correlated with chlorophyll pigments. Heptadecanoic acid and myristoleic acid were found as significant fatty acids which has numerous nutraceutical benefits ( Divya Kuravi and Venkata Mohan, 2022 ). Another species of Monoraphidium genera, Monoraphidium sp. KMC4 reported significant biomass production together with significant removal of pollutants from simulated synthetic dairy wastewater. This species also showed a good lipid profile and demonstrated its potential as feedstock for bio-oil ( Singh et al., 2023 ). Also, poly-culture was reported to produce better biomass yield compared to mono-culture in raw DW (RDW). Also, the addition of cyanobacteria in polyculture assimilates nitrogen at a better rate compared to control. It is noteworthy that the biomass yield of poly-microalgae cultures CNSS ( Chlorella minutissima + Nostoc muscorum + Spirulina sp.) and SNSS ( Scenedesmus abundans + Nostoc muscorum + Spirulina sp.) was relatively greater than that of polymicroalgae culture CS ( C. minutissima + Scenedesmus abundans ). Also, biomass and lipid productivity were greater in poly-microalgae cultures. This phenomenon could be attributed to the fact that strains belonging to the same group may have competed for substrates from the cultivation medium to generate energy for their metabolic activities, resulting in a reduced biomass yield compared to poly-microalgae cultures comprising strains from two distinct groups ( Chandra et al., 2021 ). The microalgae cultivation in outdoor open culture using RDW was also compared with indoor cultivation. The highest biomass production in indoor bench-scale cultures reached 0.26 g L −1 day −1 , whereas outdoor conditions only achieved 0.11 g L −1 day −1 . Also, saturated fatty acids, i. e., C16:0/C18:0 were dominant acids in outdoor biomass which indicates huge potential for cultivation of Chlorella sp. in RDW for high-quality biodiesel production with the trade-off in fatty acid methyl ester productivity compared to indoor cultivation ( Lu et al., 2015 ). Contrastingly, in another outdoor cultivation of Ascochloris sp. ADW007 in RDW, the biomass productivity was higher (0.207 ± 0.003 g/L/d) than in the indoor bench scale study (0.102 ± 0.003 g/L/d) ( Kumar et al., 2019b ). In many studies, consortia of microalgae/cyanobacteria and bacteria were used to treat dairy wastewater. One of the primary benefits of microalgae consortia in wastewater treatment is their ability to enhance resilience and compensate for the loss of individual algal species during culture. The consortium consisting of Chlorella sp. and C. zofingiensis had the highest biomass concentration and productivity, with values of 5.41 g L −1 and 773.2 mg L −1 day −1 , respectively. The growth of Chlorella sp. alone resulted in the highest total lipid content (21.09%) but the consortium ( Scenedesmus spp./ C. zofingiensis ) exhibited the best lipid productivity (150.6 mg L −1 day −1 ) ( Qin et al., 2016 ). Hence, the selection of microalgal consortia will depend on the final product requirement. The mixotrophic condition is not restricted to inorganic carbon only and sunlight because of the availability of organic carbon present in dairy wastewater. Still, microbial contamination is a major bottleneck in the case of mixotrophic cultivation. To overcome this drawback, a strategy to use extremophilic algae which could tolerate the inhibition and toxicity of high ammonium nitrogen and urea in dairy wastewater. Chlorella vulgaris CA1, isolated from dairy effluent, exhibited a remarkable tolerance to a significant concentration of ammonia nitrogen (2.7 g/L), surpassing the tolerance of other Chlorella species by more than 20 times. The resilience of the algae to withstand a significant concentration of ammonium nitrogen indicates the possibility of efficiently recycling nutrients from dairy effluent, while simultaneously generating algal biomass and valuable bioproducts ( Pang et al., 2020 ). It is also important to study pigment fluorescence and photosystem transients to estimate the photosynthetic efficiency of microalgae during DW treatment. The growth of Tetradesmus sp. SVMIICT4 is accompanied with a reduction in nutrients in wastewater and an improvement in photosystems electron transport and pigment biosynthesis in synthetic DW. The increase in chlorophyll content (18.94 mg g −1 ) was shown to be correlated with a greater absorption flux per reaction centre, increases electron transport and decreases non-photochemical quenching. In mixotrophic mode, the process of de-novo fatty acid synthesis occurs in the stroma of chloroplasts, followed by the assimilation of fatty acids from acyl Co-A into the glycerol backbone. This is followed by acyl transfers, resulting in the production of unsaturated fatty acids (55.55%) and saturated fatty acids (54.42%) ( Kiran and Venkata Mohan, 2022 ). The incorporation of biological methods into wastewater treatment within a biorefinery framework entails the creation of bio-based products that tackle environmental issues with remediation.

4.3.2.1 Influence of bacteria on cultivation and wastewater treatment

The bacteria-microalgae symbiotic association in wastewater treatment is complex and can have inhibitory and stimulatory effects. Due to the absence of sterile conditions in wastewater systems, the naturally existing bacterial consortium can dominate during the cultivation of microalgae. The presence of a consortium is influenced by factors such as the composition of the wastewater, conditions, reactor design, and operational circumstances ( Mathew et al., 2022 ). Bacteria and microalgae often engage in competition for the same nutrients within their surrounding ecosystem. When there is a scarcity of resources like nitrogen, phosphate, and carbon, bacteria have the potential to surpass microalgae in competition, resulting in a decrease in microalgal proliferation. However, the bacteria facilitate the proliferation of microalgae by supplying CO 2 , phytohormones, remineralized macro, and micronutrients. Microalgae, in turn, facilitate the growth of bacteria by providing O 2 and organic compounds ( Talapatra et al., 2023 ). Based on the circumstances of the growth conditions, a “natural” equilibrium is achieved between microalgae and bacteria. Nevertheless, the constitution of the consortia in this state of balance might vary significantly according to the existing circumstances inside the reactor. The composition of the consortium has a direct impact on the proportions of several phenomena, such as oxygen generation, CO 2 consumption, nitrogen, and phosphorus assimilation. Consequently, the levels of these processes fluctuate in accordance with the changes in consortia dynamics ( Mathew et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, microalgae may use inorganic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus that are generated as a result of bacterial metabolism. In many studies, the synergistic link between algae and bacteria has been shown to significantly improve the efficiency of nutrient removal. In addition to eliminating nutrients, the algal-bacterial consortium also has the ability to eliminate micropollutants, heavy metals, and pharmaceutical compounds. The mutual exchange of CO 2 and O 2 between algae and bacteria results in a significant reduction in costs due to the in-situ production of oxygen via photosynthesis by microalgae. Researchers have reported that nutrient or contaminant removal in the algal-bacteria consortium is superior in comparison to algal and conventional systems due to multiple pathways available via algal-bacterial symbiotic relations. Nitrogen is depleted due to nitrification-denitrification metabolism along with ammonium stripping when pH rises above 9. And, phosphorous gets assimilated into biomass through phosphorylation via a biological mechanism. The phosphorus gets precipitated at pH levels above and similar to 9. Despite owning several benefits, the competitive interaction and inhibitory mechanisms present in algal-bacterial systems are unclear ( Oruganti et al., 2022 ).

Certain bacteria synthesize products that can impede the development of microalgae. These chemicals consist of antibiotics, volatile organic compounds, or secondary metabolites that have a detrimental effect on microalgae. Another major hindrance is the availability of bacteria in wastewater which can form biofilm. These biofilms can obstruct the passage of light and the absorption of nutrients by microalgae, therefore impeding their growth. Also, bacteria can alter the pH, redox potential, or oxygen concentrations in the environment. For example, elevated rates of bacterial respiration may lead to a reduction in oxygen levels, resulting in anaerobic circumstances that are unfavorable for the growth of microalgae ( Mathew et al., 2022 ). However, selecting the inoculum size or ratio (microalgae to bacteria) can influence the overall microalgal biomass productivity and treatment efficiency. Many investigations have been reported by researchers on the effect of microalgae to bacteria/activated sludge ratio on wastewater treatment efficiency. Amini et al. examined the inoculum ratio of algae to activated sludge for domestic wastewater treatment. It was noted that the algae: sludge inoculum ratio of 5:1 compared with 1:1 and 1:5, has exhibited the highest levels of ammonium and phosphorus removal efficiency. This suggested that high inoculum levels of microalgae exhibit better results ( Amini et al., 2020 ). In a separate investigation, Kim et al. (2014) demonstrated that the presence of Rhizobium sp. in co-culture with Chlorella Vulgaris resulted in a 72% increase in cell count. This enhancement was attributed to the mutualistic interaction between the two organisms. Also, the biomass-settling properties of algal-bacterial cultures are enhanced by the formation of granules or aggregates. The downstream processing was facilitated by the extracellular polymeric substance formation, which was attributed to the mutual interaction between bacteria and microalgae ( Mathew et al., 2022 ). Another major concern during mixotrophic cultivation is parasitism, which can negatively harm the microalgae growth. Many bacteria produce enzymes like cellulases which can lyse the cell wall of microalgae, lead to the utilization of intracellular compounds of microalgae, and inhibit microalgal productivity ( Fuentes et al., 2016 ). Also, the nutrient competition results in the slow growth rate of particular strains and ultimately outperforms their existence after many growth cycles ( Ramanan et al., 2016 ). In one study by Zhang et al. (2012) , the Chlorella pyrenoidosa impeded the growth of bacteria under high carbon concentrations. Still, the mechanism of the consortium is unclear which represents mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism mechanism. A cell-to-cell signaling known as a quorum sensing (QS) system between bacteria and microalgae is important in response to better wastewater treatment efficiency and biomass productivity. Many bacteria secrete indole acetic acid, N-acyl-homoserine lactones, and auto-inducing peptides, which act as signaling molecules in a reactor system. In one study by Amin et al., indole-3-acetic acid secreted by Sulfitobacter bacteria enhanced the proliferation or cell division in diatoms ( Amin et al., 2015 ). According to Das et al., incorporating quorum-sensing molecules obtained from anaerobic sludge into the Chlorella Sorokiniana culture resulted in a 2.25-fold increase in algal production and a 1.8-fold rise in lipid content. The bacterial QS compounds were determined to be bacterial siderophores, autoinducing oligopeptides, N-Hexanoyl-L-homoserine lactone, and N-3-oxohexanocyl-L-homoserine lactone. The research also found that the algal cells released chemicals that disrupt quorum sensing (QS), such as β cyclodextrin, dimethyl sulphohonio propionate, 5-4-5-bromomethylene-3-butyl-2-5 H-furanone, and halogenated furanones, which deactivate bacterial toxins. Microalgae have self-protective reactions when faced with environmental constraints, such as bacterial competition ( Das et al., 2019 ). The QS molecules produced by wastewater-born microbial consortiums (activated sludge) enhanced the lipid productivity in Chlorophyta sp. culture and an insignificant reduction of biomass production was observed ( Zhang et al., 2018 ). In another study, Azospirillum brasilense secreted indole-3-acetic acid had promoted C. sorokiniana growth but at the expense of energy reserves such as neutral lipids and starch ( Peng et al., 2020 ). Unfortunately, there are still additional gaps in comprehending these interactions between algae and bacteria. There is a significant need to investigate the sensing processes between algae and bacteria, since this research may aid in establishing effective solutions for large-scale systems.

4.3.2.2 Mitigation strategies for enhancing microalgae cultivation in dairy wastewater: Addressing bacterial interference

Based on the above discussion it can be concluded that the presence of diverse bacterial communities in dairy wastewater poses a considerable challenge to the cultivation of microalgae as a competition for nutrients, produce inhibitory substances, and alter the overall microbial ecosystem. To enhance the efficiency and reliability of microalgae cultivation in this environment, various mitigation strategies can be implemented.

Pre-treatment processes are essential for reducing the bacterial load in dairy wastewater before it is introduced to microalgae cultivation systems. One effective pre-treatment method is physical filtration, which removes larger particles and a portion of the bacterial content, thereby decreasing nutrient competition. Additionally, UV irradiation is a non-chemical method that can significantly reduce microbial populations by damaging bacterial DNA. This approach is advantageous as it avoids introducing residual chemicals into the system. Chemical disinfection, using agents like chlorine or ozone, can also be effective in reducing bacterial counts. However, careful control is necessary to prevent residual chemicals from negatively impacting microalgae ( Passero et al., 2014 ; Qin et al., 2014 ).

Selecting microalgae strains that are naturally resistant to bacterial inhibition or that can coexist harmoniously with specific bacterial communities is another effective strategy. Strain screening involves identifying and using strains that have demonstrated resilience in mixed microbial environments ( Pintado et al., 2023 ). These strains can maintain high productivity even in the presence of potentially inhibitory bacteria. Additionally, genetic engineering techniques can be employed to develop microalgae strains with enhanced resistance to bacterial metabolites or other stress factors, thereby improving their suitability for cultivation in dairy wastewater.

Maintaining optimal environmental conditions can significantly influence the balance between microalgae and bacterial growth. Key factors to control include light intensity and photoperiod, pH, temperature, and nutrient management ( Andrade et al., 2021 ). Optimizing light conditions can enhance algal photosynthesis while inhibiting bacterial proliferation, as bacteria often have different light requirements ( Maltsev et al., 2021 ). Similarly, adjusting pH and temperature to levels optimal for microalgae but less favorable for bacteria can help reduce microbial competition ( Beltrán-Rocha et al., 2024 ). Fine-tuning the nutrient composition and concentration can support algal growth while limiting bacterial overgrowth, ensuring that microalgae have a competitive advantage.

In some instances, the use of selective antimicrobial agents can help control bacterial populations without harming microalgae. Algal-produced antimicrobials, which are compounds naturally secreted by certain microalgae strains, can be particularly effective in inhibiting specific bacterial groups. Additionally, the careful use of selective antibiotics can target harmful bacteria while minimizing impacts on microalgae. It is crucial, however, to ensure that the use of antimicrobial agents does not lead to resistance development or negatively affect the overall microbial ecosystem ( Mohanty and Mohanty, 2023b ; 2023a ).

Thus, addressing the challenges posed by bacterial interference in microalgae cultivation in dairy wastewater requires a multifaceted approach. By implementing a combination of pre-treatment processes, co-cultivation techniques, selective strain use, controlled environmental conditions, and the use of antimicrobial agents, it is possible to create a more favorable environment for microalgae growth. These mitigation strategies not only enhance the efficiency and productivity of microalgae cultivation but also contribute to the sustainability and feasibility of using dairy wastewater as a valuable resource for biofuel production and bioremediation. Continued research and optimization of these strategies will further improve the robustness and scalability of microalgae cultivation systems in wastewater environments.

4.4 Nutrient removal capabilities of microalgae

4.4.1 removal of n, p, and cod.

The organic matter present in dairy wastewater is the major contaminant that need to be treated in any wastewater treatment method ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). The ability of microalgae to treat DW has been studied by several researchers. COD quantifies the concentration of organic molecules in the DW. The COD of dairy effluent decreased by more than 90% (2,593.33 ± 277.37 to 215 ± 7.07 mg/L) using Acutodesmus dimorphus following cultivation for 4 days. The observed reduction in COD indicates that microalgal cells possess the ability to effectively use an organic form of carbon as a building block for their metabolism. Extending the treatment time did not have a substantial impact on decreasing the COD level ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ). Kuravi and Venkata Mohan reported a maximum removal efficiency of 75.5% of the organic content from synthetic dairy wastewater by microalgae contributing to its growth and photosynthetic activity ( Divya Kuravi and Venkata Mohan, 2022 ). Acetate undergoes metabolism via the glyoxylate route to produce malate, which serves as a precursor for the production of fatty acids ( da Silva et al., 2021 ). On the other hand, algae convert carbon dioxide into organic matter by harnessing ATP and NADPH via the Calvin cycle ( Mohsenpour et al., 2021 ). Microalgae use carbon dioxide as their primary source during photoautotrophic mode. The dissociation of gaseous CO 2 into bicarbonate and carbonate ions in water is dependent upon the pH level. The specific equilibrium between these ions is influenced by factors such as temperature, cations amount, and salinity. The carbon dioxide can simply pass through the plasma membrane of cells due to the non-polar nature of gas while the bicarbonate requires an active transport system. Through the enzymatic activity of carbonic anhydrase, bicarbonate is quickly catalyzed to CO 2 in the chloroplast, promoting the fixation of inorganic carbon. The majority of microalgae have developed carbon concentration mechanisms to mitigate the decline in photosynthetic performance, hence enhancing the rate of carbon dioxide accumulation. This adaptation is mostly driven by the low CO 2 concentration in water. The Calvin cycle converts an inorganic form of carbon to an organic form of carbon via CO 2 fixing to the acceptor molecule (Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate) in the presence of RuBisCo (Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase) enzyme to yield 2 molecules of 3-phosphoglycerate and is subsequently forming Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate. During this process, the production of four molecules of Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate occurs for every three molecules of carbon dioxide that are fixed, leaving just three molecules left in the cycle. The one molecule of Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate is either stored or further converted into pyruvate and then into the tricarboxylic acid cycle ( Mohsenpour et al., 2021 ). Prior research has shown that the quality of light has a significant role in determining the rate at which microalgae grows. The induction of high photosynthetic machinery is attributed to the high absorption of photosystems I and II for red and blue wavelengths, respectively. The impact of light wavelengths on the production and productivity of microalgal biomass in airy wastewater was found to be significant. Under cool-white fluorescent light, the highest yield of 673 mg L −1 was reported. The protein content in microalgae was highest under cool-white fluorescent light. In contrast, amber light increased carbohydrate content, whereas red light increased lipid composition. Cool fluorescent illumination outperforms other wavelengths because the photosynthetic rate is increased when the number of light-harvesting antennas increases and when the chlorophyll receives light at 600–700 nm ( Gatamaneni Loganathan et al., 2020 ).

Also, microalgae are capable of removing significant nitrogen and phosphate. Nitrogen is available in the form of ammonium, which can be toxic to microalgae. Therefore, strains that are tolerant to high concentrations of ammonium should be used to treat such effluent. Nitrogen is supplied as an important source of growth for microalgae during cultivation. Nitrate is used as a supplement in synthetic culture medium while ammonium form of nitrogen is present in effluent for microalgae ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). According to reports, ammoniacal nitrogen is the preferred nitrogen source for microalgae due to its direct metabolism and low energy requirements for absorption ( Singh et al., 2023 ). After 6 days of cultivation, all ammoniacal nitrogen was consumed by A. dimorphus from RDW (277.4 ± 10.75 mg/L) ( Chokshi et al., 2016 ). Kuravi and Venkata Mohan reported that the nitrogen was reduced from 165 mg L −1 –27.1 mg L −1 using Monoraphidium sp. in dairy wastewater, revealing a maximum treatment efficiency of 83.5% ( Divya Kuravi and Venkata Mohan, 2022 ). Singh et al. observed a significant reduction of ammonium-N in 50% simulated synthetic dairy wastewater (SSDW) using Monoraphidium sp. KMC4, resulting in a removal efficiency of 90.56%. Contrastingly, the lower removal efficiency was attained in 100% and 75% SSDW respectively. This can be explained that a high amount of ammonium-N in wastewater might have inhibited the viability and hampered the metabolism of cells ( Singh et al., 2023 ). A prior investigation has also shown that an elevated concentration of ammonium-N has the potential to impede the proliferation of microalgae ( Lin et al., 2021 ). In the mechanism of nitrogen absorption, the cellular uptake of nitrate occurs, followed by its reduction to nitrite by the action of the cytosolic-NADH-dependent nitrate reductase enzyme. Following this, the nitrite is sent to the chloroplast, and it undergoes reduction to ammonium by the catalytic action of NADPH-linked nitrite reductase ( Mohsenpour et al., 2021 ). Hemalatha et al. (2019) documented a nitrate removal efficiency of 65.5% through the cultivation of mixed microalgae in DW. In contrast, Kothari et al. (2012) observed a 90% nitrate removal from 75% DW using Chlamydomonas polypyrenoideum after 10 days. Phosphate is also found as an important nutrient for microalgae growth. The phosphate is found in the form of phosphate and inorganic salts in wastewater ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). In the investigation conducted by Singh et al., a removal efficiency of 84.13% was observed in 50% SSDW ( Singh et al., 2023 ). According to Kothari et al. (2012) , C. polypyrenoideum demonstrated a phosphate removal efficiency of 70% from 75% DW. The assimilation of phosphorus by microalgae has been classified as a component that limits their growth. The polyphosphate reserves are used to store surplus phosphorous for synthesizing phosphatides, proteins, and nucleic acids. Furthermore, phosphorous may facilitate the augmentation of cellular division and the production of ATP ( Singh et al., 2023 ). The Chlorella genera has shown promising results in removing the nutrients efficiently for its growth from dairy wastewater in several studies ( Mohanty and Mohanty, 2023b ; Maleki Samani and Mansouri, 2023 ). The biomass produced in effluent holds a promising avenue toward biofuel and livestock feed production. As seen through the removal efficiency of microalgae towards contaminants from wastewater, the DW industry has the potential to prevail over the high expense of biomass production. It is recommended to conduct the process of dairy wastewater treatment along with biomass production using toxicity-tolerant microalgal strains in a biorefinery approach.

4.4.2 Removal of heavy metals

An efficient, economical, and ecologically beneficial method of removing metal ions from wastewater is to employ algae for the biosorption process. However, to obtain the appropriate level of treatment with algal-based systems, it is important to have an understanding of the physiological characteristics of algae. At the microscale level, several different methods of heavy metal biosorption by algae are described. These mechanisms include ion exchange, complex formation, and electrostatic interaction. Many metals, including molybdenum, copper, zinc, nickel, manganese, iron, cobalt, and boron, are regarded to be micronutrients for cells. The trace elements play a crucial role in promoting the growth of cells by serving as essential components for cellular metabolism ( Figure 4 ). Conversely, heavy metals such as silver, gold, aluminum, Mercury, titanium, cadmium, lead, and arsenic are detrimental to the growth of microalgae and are classified as toxic heavy metals. Microalgae are widely recognized as highly effective remediators due to their remarkable tolerance capacity, ease of cultivation, strong binding affinity, higher surface area, and the ability to utilize dead biomass ( Priya et al., 2022 ). The microbe employs various mechanisms to protect itself from heavy metal exposure, such as gene regulation and chelation ( Chugh et al., 2022 ). The microalgae used two methods for heavy adsorption, bio-binding or bio-removal. The initial stage involves the adsorption of heavy metals onto the surface of the cell, on the different functional groups on their cell surface. The mechanism may or may not involve metabolism in cells. The metals binding to the surface of the cell occurs through the electrostatic forces of attraction and complexation. The process is classified as passive because of the non-requirement of any form of energy. In a study conducted by Buayam et al., the experimental findings indicate that Desmodesmus was able to achieve a copper removal efficiency of 80%. The efficiency of Cu removal was observed to decrease at pH 4 compared to 6, suggesting that pH has an impact on the ability to remove Cu. In addition, the presence of Cu had a negative impact on the growth of algae and resulted in alterations to their ultrastructure ( Buayam et al., 2019 ). Both living and non-living biomass can be involved in biosorption ( Abdel-Raouf et al., 2012 ). The bioremediation of chromium was observed in the dead cells of Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Navicula pelliculosa , with an efficiency ranging from 24% to 32%. However, the efficiency of chromium in the presence of extracellular polymeric substances covering the cells ranges from 27% to 37% ( Hedayatkhah et al., 2018 ). The binding process of metals to functional groups including sulphate, carboxyl, amino, and hydroxyl due to the presence of polysaccharides, lipids, and proteins causes flocs formation, which effectively reduces the concentration of metals. During this second phase, the method involves the movement of heavy metals through the cell’s membrane to either the cytoplasm or other organelles. The process of accumulating heavy metals inside algal cells is referred to as bioaccumulation ( Abdel-Raouf et al., 2012 ). The accumulation process is an active process because it requires energy. The accumulation remedial process can only be performed by living cells because it is based on metabolic activity. Following the process of bioaccumulation, these pollutants undergo the process of detoxification removal or generate a harmless complex through the mechanisms of detoxification, compartmentalization, or complexation ( Chugh et al., 2022 ). A study conducted by Wei et al. has reported that synthetic organic pollutants have been found to enhance the removal efficiency of heavy metals. The findings from the study indicate that exposure to Cr(VI) or o-nitrophenol resulted in a reduction in photosynthetic and superoxide dismutase activities of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii , while simultaneously leading to an increase in the generation of reactive oxygen species and malondialdehyde content. The rates of elimination of chromium (VI) and organic nitrogenous pollutants (ONP) by C. reinhardtii cells exhibited a substantial rise, ranging from 37.4% to 54.9% and from 35.8% to 45.9%, respectively ( Wei et al., 2020 ). This strategy of microbial based remediation of heavy metals helps elimination of contaminants from wastewater along with reduction in chemical oxygen demand and biomass production for various applications.

Figure 4 . Different mechanisms for removal of heavy metals by microalgae.

4.5 Different types of cultivation systems applicable for dairy wastewater treatment

In this part, we aim to explore the different modes of cultivation systems applicable to dairy wastewater treatment using microalgae. We will examine the principles behind each cultivation system, their advantages, challenges, and recent advancements. Additionally, we will discuss key research findings and case studies to provide insights into the performance and applicability of these systems in real-world dairy wastewater treatment scenarios. Microalgae cultivation can be conducted through both open and closed systems ( Figure 5 ). Open systems, naturally occurring in environments like ponds, lagoons, seas, and oceans, provide a habitat for microalgae growth. Conversely, closed systems such as photobioreactors offer controlled conditions of temperature, pH, and nutrient availability to optimize biomass yield. Microalgae may be grown in unconventional sources, such as industrial effluents, which is interesting since it makes them more useful for wastewater bioremediation ( Posadas et al., 2017 ).

Figure 5 . Open and closed pond system for algae cultivation.

4.5.1 Open systems

Open ponds represent the most simplest and convenient method for large-scale microalgae cultivation. They encompass natural bodies of water like lakes and ponds, as well as human-made structures such as circular and raceway systems. In this method, shallow ponds or raceways are utilized as the cultivation environment for microalgae, harnessing the nutrient-rich nature of dairy wastewater to promote algal growth. The process begins by introducing dairy wastewater into the open ponds, providing essential nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus required for microalgae growth ( Arora et al., 2021 ). Under natural sunlight, microalgae photosynthesize and utilize these nutrients, effectively removing pollutants from the wastewater. This bioremediation process helps in reducing the organic load, nitrogen, and phosphorus content in the wastewater, thus mitigating environmental pollution. In raceway ponds, mixing is typically facilitated by paddle wheels, while in circular ponds, rotating arms serve a similar purpose. Additionally, in larger ponds, mixing can be achieved in specific areas using impeller blades ( Yen et al., 2019 ). These mixing mechanisms play a crucial role in maintaining homogeneity within the pond environment, ensuring adequate nutrient distribution, and promoting optimal conditions for microalgae growth.

Open pond cultivation presents a viable and sustainable solution for treating dairy wastewater, offering economic, operational, and environmental advantages compared to other treatment methods. Its simplicity, scalability, and efficiency make it an attractive option for dairy facilities seeking cost-effective and environmentally friendly wastewater management solutions. Open pond systems are typically less expensive to construct and operate compared to closed systems such as photobioreactors ( Xiaogang et al., 2022 ). They require minimal infrastructure and maintenance, making them a cost-effective option for dairy wastewater treatment. Open ponds can be easily scaled up or down to accommodate varying wastewater volumes ( Gupta et al., 2019 ). This scalability makes them suitable for both small-scale dairy operations and large-scale industrial facilities. Open ponds utilize natural sunlight for photosynthesis, eliminating the need for artificial lighting. This reduces energy consumption and operational costs associated with providing light in closed systems. Dairy wastewater is rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which are essential for microalgae growth. Open pond systems leverage these nutrients, promoting robust algal biomass production. Open pond cultivation is relatively simple and straightforward, requiring minimal technical expertise. Operators can easily monitor and manage the system without sophisticated equipment or complex control systems. Open ponds can be adapted to cultivate various species of microalgae, offering flexibility in biomass production.

However, open systems come with certain limitations. They are susceptible to contamination by various microorganisms, including protozoa and bacteria, present in the surrounding environment ( Lam et al., 2018 ). These contaminants can compete with the desired microorganisms for nutrients and space, affecting the overall productivity and purity of the culture. Unlike closed or controlled systems, open systems lack precise control over growth parameters such as temperature, pH, light intensity, and nutrient availability ( Faried et al., 2017 ). As a result, fluctuations in environmental conditions can occur, leading to inconsistent growth and productivity of the microorganisms. Open systems are exposed to environmental factors such as weather conditions, seasonal changes, and fluctuations in water quality. These external factors can negatively impact the stability and reliability of the cultivation process, making it challenging to maintain optimal growth conditions. Scaling up open systems for large-scale production can be impractical due to space limitations and the need for extensive infrastructure ( Tan et al., 2018 ). Additionally, achieving uniform mixing and distribution of nutrients in large open systems can be difficult, leading to uneven growth and productivity across the system. Open systems are susceptible to pest infestations and predation by insects, birds, and other wildlife ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). These pests can damage the microorganism culture or consume the biomass, resulting in reduced yields and economic losses. The discharge of effluents from open systems into natural water bodies can have environmental consequences, such as nutrient runoff and eutrophication, which can disrupt aquatic ecosystems and degrade water quality.

4.5.2 Closed system (photo-bioreactors)

Given the limitations associated with pond systems, there’s a common preference to cultivate algae strains in photobioreactors. These systems allow for precise control and monitoring of operating conditions and nutrient levels through automated control systems, significantly reducing the risk of contamination ( Suparmaniam et al., 2019 ). An ideal PBR model should incorporate the following features: 1) efficient light-harvesting capabilities to facilitate the transport, channeling, and distribution of light among microalgal species for optimal biomass production; 2) the ability to maintain operational parameters feasibly to promote high utilization of light energy by the cells; 3) minimized investment and operational costs; and 4) reduced energy consumption ( Xiaogang et al., 2022 ). Two prevalent types of photobioreactors include straight tubes, which are either arranged horizontally on the ground or vertically in long rows called tubular bioreactors, and helical bioreactors, consisting of spirally wound tubes around a central support. These bioreactors commonly employ tubes made of glass or perpex. Tubular bioreactors are predominantly utilized outdoors and can be oriented vertically, horizontally, inclined, or helically to optimize sunlight exposure, thereby enhancing photosynthesis and maximizing algal biomass production ( Ting et al., 2017 ). Photobioreactors (PBRs) should be designed to be straightforward, cost-effective, and capable of achieving high volumetric productivity while remaining energy-efficient and suitable for scaling up to industrial levels. Tubular bioreactors exhibit a specific limitation in their photosynthetic efficiency, resulting in higher energy consumption. A significant drawback of these photobioreactors is the uneven concentration gradient along the lengthy tubes, leading to inadequate mass transfer (Tan et al., 2021). Furthermore, the growth of cells in the central region is hampered by reduced photosynthesis due to oxygen toxicity, which can manifest within just 1 minute in a tube lacking proper gas exchange ( Arora et al., 2021 ). Additionally, closed systems like tubular bioreactors are prone to uncontrolled proliferation of pathogenic microorganisms on inner surfaces, forming biofilms that impede reagent mass transfer due to external resistance at the biofilm interface ( Skoneczny and Tabiś, 2015 ). Plastic bag photobioreactors are gaining popularity for their cost-effectiveness and varying volumes, typically constructed from polythene ( Wang et al., 2012 ). However, challenges arise from difficulties in mixing components and the bags’ susceptibility to damage, potentially reducing the system’s longevity. Despite their benefits, closed systems incur high operational and construction expenses.

One major hurdle associated with photobioreactors (PBRs) in microalgal biomass production lies in the substantial expenses incurred in their construction and maintenance. While these high costs may render PBRs impractical for biodiesel production, they hold promise for producing high-value compounds with greater commercial potential. Researchers such as Nugroho and Zhu have suggested strategies to mitigate operational expenses, including the utilization of cost-effective materials like wastewater as a feedstock and the adoption of energy-efficient pumps for resource recovery ( Nugroho and Zhu, 2019 ). Another significant challenge faced by PBRs is the gradual limitation of light penetration on the surface where algal biofilms develop. However, advancements in bioengineered PBR designs offer solutions to operational issues while maintaining high efficiency and minimizing maintenance costs. For instance, Wu et al. (2019) developed an innovative algal biofilm photobioreactor using hog manure wastewater, resulting in significant C. vulgaris growth and easy harvesting via a scraping method. Additionally, in response to the light attenuation issue arising from suspended solids and contaminants in anaerobically digested wastewater (ADW), Chen et al. implemented a hollow fiber membrane (HFM) system within the photobioreactor. This setup enables nutrients to permeate from the inner chamber containing ADW to the outer chamber housing the algal culture medium via the HFM. Consequently, this configuration effectively controls pollutants, mitigating the inhibition caused by suspended particles ( Chen et al., 2018 ). One more significant disadvantage of using photobioreactors for treating dairy industry wastewater is the potential for fouling and clogging. Dairy wastewater contains organic compounds, nutrients, and suspended solids, which can accumulate and form biofilms on the surfaces of the photobioreactor, obstructing light penetration and inhibiting algal growth. This fouling can decrease the efficiency of the photobioreactor, leading to reduced wastewater treatment performance and increased maintenance requirements. Additionally, the presence of fats, oils, and proteins in dairy wastewater may further exacerbate fouling issues, requiring frequent cleaning and maintenance to prevent system failure. Therefore, managing fouling and clogging challenges is a crucial consideration when implementing photobioreactors for dairy wastewater treatment.

4.5.3 Case studies

Several researchers have investigated microalgae’s ability to remove nutrients from dairy effluent. For example, Huo et al. (2012) explored the outdoor cultivation of Chlorella zofingiensis and its effectiveness in nutrient removal from dairy effluent. They compared the impact of two pH regulation methods, 6% CO 2 and acetic acid, on the removal rates of total nitrogen (TN) and orthophosphate. Their findings showed that after 6 days of cultivation, the use of CO 2 resulted in higher removal rates for TN (51.7%) and orthophosphate (97.5%) compared to acetic acid (TN = 79.6%; orthophosphate = 42.0%) for pH control. Guruvaiah et al. (2015) conducted a study to evaluate the potential of Chloromonas playfairii and Desmodesmus opoliensis for nutrient removal from dairy effluent. Both strains achieved over 90% removal of COD, ammonium-N, and total phosphorus. After 15 days of cultivation, maximum biomass concentrations reached 1.7 g L −1 and 1.2 g L −1 , with corresponding maximum lipid concentrations of 15% and 12%. In a separate study, Lu et al. (2015) investigated Chlorella sp.’s nutrient removal capability from DW in indoor and outdoor cultures. Results indicated significant differences in nutrient removal rates between the two conditions. Indoor cultures showed notably higher removal rates for COD, total nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) compared to outdoor cultures. Specifically, indoor conditions exhibited removal rates of 88.38 mg L −1 d −1 for COD, 38.34 mg L −1 d −1 for total N, and 2.03 mg L −1 d −1 for P, while outdoor conditions showed rates of 41.31 mg L −1 d −1 for COD, 6.58 mg L −1 d −1 for total N, and 2.74 mg L −1 d −1 for P. Moreover, indoor cultures demonstrated higher maximum biomass productivity, with levels of 260 mg L −1 d −1 compared to 110 mg L −1 d −1 in outdoor cultures when cultivated in dairy wastewater. Pandey et al. (2019) conducted a study to assess the efficiency of effluent treatment and lipid accumulation by cultivating the microalgae Scenedesmus sp. ASK22 in DW. The findings demonstrated promising results for both effluent treatment and lipid productivity. The study reported significant removal efficiencies for various pollutants present in the dairy effluent, including 100% removal for nitrate, 98.63% removal for phosphorus, and over 99% removal for chemical oxygen demand (COD). These high removal efficiencies underscore the effectiveness of Scenedesmus sp. ASK22 in treating DW, thereby reducing pollutant levels and enhancing effluent quality. Additionally, the study observed a lipid productivity of 31.16 mg L −1 d −1 , indicating the potential of Scenedesmus sp. ASK22 for lipid accumulation. Given the interest in microalgal lipids for biodiesel production and other value-added products, the observed lipid productivity suggests that Scenedesmus sp. ASK22 holds promise as a candidate for lipid production using dairy effluent as a growth medium.

The above studies collectively illustrate the potential of microalgae-based treatment systems in remediating dairy effluent and sustainably producing valuable bioproducts. These findings underscore microalgae’s promising role in addressing dairy effluent challenges and suggest further research to optimize cultivation strategies and explore additional applications in wastewater treatment and biorefinery sectors. Various cultivation conditions, including indoor and outdoor cultures and different bioreactor setups, were explored to optimize biomass productivity and pollutant removal. Microalgae-based treatment effectively reduced pollutants like COD, nitrate, and phosphate, demonstrating their eco-friendly wastewater treatment potential.

4.6 Potential for biomass production and value-added products from microalgae cultivated in dairy wastewater

Microalgae are renowned for their capacity to generate bioactive substances, encompassing antibiotics, vaccines, antibodies, hepatotoxic and neurotoxic agents, hormones, enzymes, and various therapeutic compounds ( Rizwan et al., 2018 ). Additionally, the pigments found in microalgae have exhibited potential health benefits, including the prevention of cancer, mitigation of heart disease, support for neurological health, and prevention of eye diseases. Notably, microalgae possess advantageous traits such as rapid growth and the ability to thrive in uncomplicated, cost-effective growth media, rendering them optimal hosts for synthesizing recombinant proteins. Moreover, their post-translational modifications closely mirror those of mammalian cells, surpassing bacterial cells in this regard ( Khavari et al., 2021 ). Microalgae biomass produced from effluents is not directly suitable for human consumption but finds applications in energy, animal feed, and agriculture ( Acién Fernández et al., 2018 ). However, its utilization is hindered by the high biomass quantity and production costs ( Costa et al., 2019b ). Nutrient recovery from wastewater for microalgae production could enhance biomass availability for applications like fertilizer or biofuel production ( Figure 6 ).

Figure 6 . Applications of microalgae biomass grown in effluents.

4.6.1 Biofuel

Microalgae biomass derived from dairy effluents holds promise for energy applications, offering a CO 2 -neutral alternative to fossil fuels ( Pandey et al., 2019 ; Kumar et al., 2020 ; Shahid et al., 2020 ). These microorganisms demonstrate versatility in nutrition modes, encompassing autotrophic, heterotrophic, and mixotrophic modes, thereby enhancing their suitability for biofuel production ( Pandey et al., 2019 ). While biodiesel production from microalgae shows potential, its large-scale implementation faces challenges such as biomass generation with high productivity, lipid content, extraction methods, and water usage ( Yin et al., 2020 ). Pyrolysis presents an alternative approach for biofuel generation, yielding bio-oil, biochar, and biogas without biomass residue ( Li. et al., 2019 ). Fast pyrolysis is favored for microalgae, ensuring high bio-oil yields by minimizing secondary reactions through rapid heating rates and short residence times ( Bridgwater, 2012 ). Notably, the growth of Nostoc ellipsosporum in municipal wastewater has been investigated to optimize biomass production, nutrient removal efficiency, and bio-oil yields. Various formulations of municipal wastewater as growth media enabled biomass yield enhancement from 1.42 to 2.9 g L −1 post optimization and acclimation. The process achieved notable nitrogen and phosphate removal efficiencies of 87.59% and 88.31%, respectively, alongside a bio-oil yield of 24.62% at 300°C ( Devi and Parthiban, 2020 ). Microalgae species with high carbohydrate content (>40%) like Chlamydomonas, Spirulina, Euglena, Chlorella, Scenedesmus, and Dunaliella have been investigated for bioethanol production ( Mehar et al., 2019 ).

4.6.2 Biofertilizer

The escalating global food demand and environmental contamination from extensive chemical fertilizer usage underscore the significance of biostimulants, biopesticides, and biofertilizers ( Plaza et al., 2018 ; Costa et al., 2019a ; Castro et al., 2020 ; Kour et al., 2020 ). In sustainable agriculture, biofertilizers are increasingly recognized for enhancing vegetable crop productivity in eco-friendly and economically feasible manners, mitigating the adverse impacts of synthetic fertilizers. Among biofertilizers, those derived from photosynthetic organisms like microalgae are gaining prominence for their significant contributions to soil fertility and crop yield enhancement. Biofertilizers offer a favorable substitute for chemical fertilizers due to their lower toxicity and minimal side effects ( Li et al., 2017 ). Chlorella stands out as one of the extensively studied microalgae genera worldwide, particularly notable for its wide usage in agricultural applications and wastewater treatment due to its robust nutrient removal capabilities ( Garrido-Cardenas et al., 2018 ; Li et al., 2019 ). The research evaluated the impact of both fresh and dry C. vulgaris biomass as a biofertilizer on lettuce seedling growth, observing significant enhancements in seedling parameters and pigment content compared to unfertilized plants ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). Similarly, Uysal et al. (2015) , demonstrated the efficacy of C. vulgaris as an agricultural biofertilizer, reporting improved seed germination rates and enhanced growth in wheat and corn plants when treated with liquid-cultivated microalgae under autotrophic conditions. Another promising candidate for agricultural use is Spirulina , which has been employed since 1981 as a substitute for chemical fertilizers and for soil restoration ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ). Plaza et al. (2018) , investigated the effects of foliar spraying with S. platensis and Scenedesmus sp. on the development of Petunia x hybrida plants and leaf nutrient status. The study demonstrated that foliar application of Spirulina led to increased root dry matter, flower count per plant, and water content. Conversely, the application of Scenedesmus accelerated root growth, leaf and shoot development, and early flowering. Additionally, the study highlighted the potential of microalgae hydrolysate in enhancing plant nutritional status. Microalgae offer multiple benefits in organic agriculture, serving as a safe nitrogen source without causing pollution or toxicity to plants or consumers ( Manjunath et al., 2016 ). Additionally, they synthesize biopesticidal metabolites, aiding in pest control ( Costa et al., 2019a ). Moreover, microalgae contribute to soil recovery, agricultural wastewater treatment, and heavy metal removal from soil ( Abdel-Raouf N, 2012 ).

4.6.3 Pigments

Microalgae biomass grown in wastewater can be utilized for pigment production, offering valuable compounds like chlorophylls, carotenoids, and phycobiliproteins ( Daneshvar et al., 2019 ; Arashiro et al., 2020 ). Daneshvar et al., explored mixotrophic cultivation of Scenedesmus quadricauda and T. suecica in dairy industry effluent (DWW). Chlorophyll content significantly increased in both microalgae during the first cycle of mixotrophic cultivation with DWW, reaching 19.00 mg/g and 22.00 mg/g for T. suecica and S. quadricauda , respectively. Carotenoid content was also notable, with values of 6.90 mg/g for T. suecica and 7.76 mg/g for S. quadricauda . However, carotenoid concentrations decreased in the second cultivation cycle with dairy wastewater recycling, indicating potential pollutant removal efficiency. This suggests that reusing dairy wastewater in consecutive cultivation cycles can enhance pollutant removal and biomass production efficiency. Ribeiro et al. (2017) , investigated the use of ricotta cheese byproduct (scotta) for Chlorella protothecoides cultivation, enhancing carotenoid synthesis through stress induction. This led to significant carotenoid production, including astaxanthin and lutein/zeaxanthin accumulation. Arashiro et al. (2020) , studied Nostoc sp. , Arthrospira platensis , and Porphyridium purpureum cultivation in food industry effluents, achieving efficient pollutant removal and high-value phycobiliprotein extraction, highlighting microalgae’s potential for industrial wastewater treatment and phycobiliprotein production. These organisms demonstrated remarkable efficiency in removing up to 98% of COD, 94% of inorganic nitrogen, and 100% of phosphate. Additionally, successful extraction of phycocyanin, allophycocyanin, and phycoerythrin from the biomass yielded concentrations of 103 mg/g, 57 mg/g, and 30 mg/g dry weight, respectively.

4.6.4 Animal feed

Microalgae biomass derived from dairy effluent holds the potential for animal feed production ( Labbé et al., 2017 ). Incorporating microalgae into animal feed improves animal health and enhances the quality of animal products like meat and eggs ( Yaakob et al., 2014 ). However, the high cost and limited availability of microalgae hinder widespread adoption. If costs decrease and availability increases, microalgae biomass could be initially integrated into the feed of young animals, with broader implementation later on. One approach to reducing production costs involves maximizing microalgae utilization, including its concurrent use in biofuels. This strategy would utilize wastewater nutrients for biomass production, which could then be used for lipid extraction for biodiesel and subsequently for producing protein-rich animal feed ( Gatrell et al., 2014 ). Microalgae biomass surpasses traditional animal feed sources like corn, grasses, and small fish in terms of nutritional content, including proteins, essential fatty acids, and carotenoids. Additionally, microalgae contain antioxidant and antimicrobial compounds vital for disease prevention and potentially extending animals’ life cycles ( Dineshbabu et al., 2019 ). Commonly utilized microalgae species in aquaculture include marine strains like Nannochloropsis and freshwater strains such as Chlorella, Spirulina , and Scenedesmus ( Vieira Costa et al., 2021 ).

5 Challenges in microalgal-based treatment processes and future research directions

An integrated algae system has two primary challenges: large-scale algae production and collecting algae for downstream processing into biofuels and other valuable bioproducts. Large-scale algae cultivation has issues in nutrient supply and recycling, gas transfer and exchange, light intensity, depth, culture age, land and water availability, and harvesting. Downstream processing, accounting for 40% of overall cost, is the key challenge owing to the inability to recover numerous microalgal a biological refinery products simultaneously. Recent research suggests algae might be an option for automotive fuels. Thus, microalgae cultivation has gained popularity due to its economic value as a feedstock ( Ramírez Mérida and Rodríguez Padrón, 2023 ). There has been a growing interest in the utilization of microalgae for wastewater treatment in recent years. Using microalgae biomass for CO 2 fixation helps preserve the carbon footprint. This creates a self-sustaining process that benefits the environment, industry, and global life. The right reactor together with its configuration is crucial for biomass to reach and absorb the maximum amount of substrate, ensuring good yields and productivity. Also, it is important to conduct industrial-scale research that will allow to understand microalgae behaviour under high-volume settings. Moreover, finding resilient strains that are well-suited to the particular level of pollutants that provide higher yields and productivity for particular bio-products is important. Lastly, there is a need to investigate studies on the reuse of culture media in photobioreactors to increase the efficiency of the overall process. Thus, the integration of the microalgal biorefinery with the wastewater treatment concept may have significant prospects for ecological sustainability. The conversion of contaminants included in wastewater is an inevitable process that aids in environmental improvement by stabilizing the compounds before their release into aquatic environments.

6 Conclusion

Biological wastewater treatment using microalgae benefits the technology economically and environmentally. It may deliver effective and inexpensive tertiary treatments that minimize nitrogen, phosphorus, and chemical oxygen demand levels. Simultaneously, microalgae can fix CO 2 which helps in the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases and the maintenance of carbon footprints. The utilization of microalgae has garnered significant interest in the past few years, owing to the noteworthy outcomes observed in microalgae biomass at the agri-food-fuel level. This not only offers commercial benefits but also facilitates the development of sustainable development processes by generating value-added products from biomass that can be applied in a variety of sectors. Notwithstanding this, the microalgal process encounters challenges pertaining to the design of reactors or culture systems, physicochemical control variables, scaling, and microalgae harvesting. The discipline of the microalgae-based process presents substantial prospects for improving the efficiency of dairy wastewater treatment and nutrient utilization in a biorefinery model. Consequently, there is still a need to conduct research on the large-scale cultivation of microalgae in addition to promoting awareness regarding the societal benefits associated with microalgae utilization.

Author contributions

PS: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. SM: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. KM: Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing–review and editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1425933/full#supplementary-material

Abdel-Raouf, N. (2012). Agricultural importance of algae. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 11. doi:10.5897/AJB11.3983

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abdel-Raouf, N., Al-Homaidan, A. A., and Ibraheem, I. B. M. (2012). Microalgae and wastewater treatment. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 19, 257–275. doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2012.04.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Acién Fernández, F. G., Gómez-Serrano, C., and Fernández-Sevilla, J. M. (2018). Recovery of nutrients from wastewaters using microalgae. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00059

Agarwalla, A., Komandur, J., and Mohanty, K. (2023). Current trends in the pretreatment of microalgal biomass for efficient and enhanced bioenergy production. Bioresour. Technol. 369, 128330. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128330

Agarwalla, A., and Mohanty, K. (2024). A critical review on the application of membrane technology in microalgal harvesting and extraction of value-added products. Sep. Purif. Technol. 344, 127180. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2024.127180

Akansha, J., Nidheesh, P. V., Gopinath, A., Anupama, K. V., and Suresh Kumar, M. (2020). Treatment of dairy industry wastewater by combined aerated electrocoagulation and phytoremediation process. Chemosphere 253, 126652. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126652

Alalam, S., Ben-Souilah, F., Lessard, M. H., Chamberland, J., Perreault, V., Pouliot, Y., et al. (2021). Characterization of chemical and bacterial compositions of dairy wastewaters. Dairy 2, 179–190. doi:10.3390/dairy2020016

Amin, S. A., Hmelo, L. R., Van Tol, H. M., Durham, B. P., Carlson, L. T., Heal, K. R., et al. (2015). Interaction and signalling between a cosmopolitan phytoplankton and associated bacteria. Nature 522, 98–101. doi:10.1038/nature14488

Amini, E., Babaei, A., Mehrnia, M. R., Shayegan, J., and Safdari, M. S. (2020). Municipal wastewater treatment by semi-continuous and membrane algal-bacterial photo-bioreactors. J. Water Process Eng. 36, 101274. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101274

Andrade, D. S., Amaral, H. F., Gavilanes, F. Z., Morioka, L. R. I., Nassar, J. M., de Melo, J. M., et al. (2021). “Microalgae: cultivation, biotechnological, environmental, and agricultural applications,” in Advances in the domain of environmental biotechnology. Environmental and microbial biotechnology . Editors N. R. Maddela, L. C. García Cruzatty, and S. Chakraborty (Singapore: Springer ), 635–701. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8999-7_23

Arashiro, L. T., Boto-Ordóñez, M., Van Hulle, S. W. H., Ferrer, I., Garfí, M., and Rousseau, D. P. L. (2020). Natural pigments from microalgae grown in industrial wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 303, 122894. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122894

Arora, K., Kaur, P., Kumar, P., Singh, A., Patel, S. K. S., Li, X., et al. (2021). Valorization of wastewater resources into biofuel and value-added products using microalgal system. Front. Energy Res. 9. doi:10.3389/fenrg.2021.646571

Asha, B., and Elakkiya, S. (2014). Feasibility studies on the treatment of synthetic dairy wastewater under variable experimental conditions. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 13, 851–854.

Google Scholar

Aziz, S. Q., and Ali, S. M. (2017). Characterization of municipal and dairy wastewaters with 30 quality parameters and potential wastewater treatment by biological trickling filters. Int. J. Green Energy 14, 1156–1162. doi:10.1080/15435075.2017.1370594

Bae, T. H., Han, S. S., and Tak, T. M. (2003). Membrane sequencing batch reactor system for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Process Biochem. 39, 221–231. doi:10.1016/S0032-9592(03)00063-3

Bazrafshan, E., Kord Mostafapour, F., Alizadeh, M., and Farzadkia, M. (2016). Dairy wastewater treatment by chemical coagulation and adsorption on modified dried activated sludge: a pilot-plant study. Desalin. Water Treat. 57, 8183–8193. doi:10.1080/19443994.2015.1018331

Beltrán-Rocha, J. C., Guajardo-Barbosa, C., Barceló-Quintal, I. D., Reyna-Martínez, G., Fariz-Salinas, E., Ramírez-Castillo, A., et al. (2024). Effect of natural increase of pH and microalgae cyclical re-cultivation on biomass production and polishing of municipal secondary effluent. Desalin. Water Treat. 317, 100103. doi:10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100103

Bhardwaj, A., Singh, J., and Chaman, S. (2018). Molecular characterization of native dairy wastewater degrading microbes isolated from dairy industry effluent. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 17, 517–523.

Bhatia, S. K., Mehariya, S., Bhatia, R. K., Kumar, M., Pugazhendhi, A., Awasthi, M. K., et al. (2021). Wastewater based microalgal biorefinery for bioenergy production: progress and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 141599. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141599

Bortoluzzi, A. C., Faitão, J. A., Luccio, M.Di, Dallago, R. M., Ste, J., Zabot, G. L., et al. (2017). Dairy wastewater treatment using integrated membrane systems. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 5, 4819–4827. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2017.09.018

Boutilier, L., Jamieson, R., Gordon, R., Lake, C., and Hart, W. (2009). Adsorption, sedimentation, and inactivation of E. coli within wastewater treatment wetlands. Water Res. 43, 4370–4380. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.06.039

Brar, A., Kumar, M., and Pareek, N. (2019). Comparative appraisal of biomass production, remediation, and bioenergy generation potential of microalgae in dairy wastewater. Front. Microbiol. 10, 678–712. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.00678

Bridgwater, A. V. (2012). Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading. Biomass Bioenergy 38, 68–94. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048

Buayam, N., Davey, M. P., Smith, A. G., and Pumas, C. (2019). Effects of copper and pH on the growth and physiology of Desmodesmus sp. AARLG074. Metabolites 9, 84. doi:10.3390/metabo9050084

Castro, J. de S., Calijuri, M. L., Mattiello, E. M., Ribeiro, V. J., and Assemany, P. P. (2020). Algal biomass from wastewater: soil phosphorus bioavailability and plants productivity. Sci. Total Environ. 711, 135088. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135088

Central Pollution Control Board (1986). General standards for discharge of environmental pollutants. Environ. Rules 2, 545–560.

Chandra, R., Pradhan, S., Patel, A., and Ghosh, U. K. (2021). An approach for dairy wastewater remediation using mixture of microalgae and biodiesel production for sustainable transportation. J. Environ. Manage. 297, 113210. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113210

Chen, X., Li, Z., He, N., Zheng, Y., Li, H., Wang, H., et al. (2018). Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from anaerobically digested wastewater by microalgae cultured in a novel membrane photobioreactor. Biotechnol. Biofuels 11, 190. doi:10.1186/s13068-018-1190-0

Chokshi, K., Pancha, I., Ghosh, A., and Mishra, S. (2016). Microalgal biomass generation by phycoremediation of dairy industry wastewater: an integrated approach towards sustainable biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. 221, 455–460. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.070

Chugh, M., Kumar, L., Shah, M. P., and Bharadvaja, N. (2022). Algal Bioremediation of heavy metals: an insight into removal mechanisms, recovery of by-products, challenges, and future opportunities. Energy Nexus 7, 100129. doi:10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100129

Costa, J. A. V., Freitas, B. C. B., Cruz, C. G., Silveira, J., and Morais, M. G. (2019a). Potential of microalgae as biopesticides to contribute to sustainable agriculture and environmental development. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part B 54, 366–375. doi:10.1080/03601234.2019.1571366

Costa, J. A. V., Freitas, B. C. B., Rosa, G. M., Moraes, L., Morais, M. G., and Mitchell, B. G. (2019b). Operational and economic aspects of Spirulina-based biorefinery. Bioresour. Technol. 292, 121946. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121946

Danalewich, J. R., Papagiannis, T. G., Belyea, R. L., Tumbleson, M. E., and Raskin, L. (1998). Characterization of dairy waste streams, current treatment practices, and potential for biological nutrient removal. Water Res. 32, 3555–3568. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00160-2

Daneshvar, E., Zarrinmehr, M. J., Koutra, E., Kornaros, M., Farhadian, O., and Bhatnagar, A. (2019). Sequential cultivation of microalgae in raw and recycled dairy wastewater: microalgal growth, wastewater treatment and biochemical composition. Bioresour. Technol. 273, 556–564. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.059

Das, P., Quadir, M. A., Thaher, M. I., Alghasal, G. S. H. S., and Aljabri, H. M. S. J. (2019a). Microalgal nutrients recycling from the primary effluent of municipal wastewater and use of the produced biomass as bio-fertilizer. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 3355–3364. doi:10.1007/s13762-018-1867-8

Das, S., Das, S., and Ghangrekar, M. M. (2019b). Quorum -sensing mediated signals: a promising multi-functional modulators for separately enhancing algal yield and power generation in microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 294, 122138. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122138

da Silva, T. L., Moniz, P., Silva, C., and Reis, A. (2021). The role of heterotrophic microalgae in waste conversion to biofuels and bioproducts. Processes 9, 1090–1124. doi:10.3390/pr9071090

Davarnejad, R., and Nikseresht, M. (2016). Dairy wastewater treatment using an electrochemical method: experimental and statistical study. J. Electroanal. Chem. 775, 364–373. doi:10.1016/j.jelechem.2016.06.016

Dawood, A. T., Kumar, A., and Sambi, S. S. (2011). Study on anaerobic treatment of synthetic milk wastewater under variable experimental conditions. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. , 17–23. doi:10.7763/ijesd.2011.v2.90

de Andrade, F. P., De Farias Silva, C. E., dos Santos, J., Ribeiro, T. R. M., Medeiros, J. A., do Nascimento, M. A. A., et al. (2023). Dairy wastewater treatment by Tetradesmus sp. in open system: molecular identification and the effect of light intensity and organic load in the process. Energy, Ecol. Environ. 8, 356–369. doi:10.1007/s40974-023-00278-5

Devi, T. E., and Parthiban, R. (2020). Hydrothermal liquefaction of Nostoc ellipsosporum biomass grown in municipal wastewater under optimized conditions for bio-oil production. Bioresour. Technol. 316, 123943. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123943

Dineshbabu, G., Goswami, G., Kumar, R., Sinha, A., and Das, D. (2019). Microalgae–nutritious, sustainable aqua- and animal feed source. J. Funct. Foods 62, 103545. doi:10.1016/j.jff.2019.103545

Divya Kuravi, S., and Venkata Mohan, S. (2021). Mixotrophic cultivation of isolated Messastrum gracile SVMIICT7: photosynthetic response and product profiling. Bioresour. Technol. 341, 125798. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125798

Divya Kuravi, S., and Venkata Mohan, S. (2022). Mixotrophic cultivation of Monoraphidium sp. in dairy wastewater using Flat-Panel photobioreactor and photosynthetic performance. Bioresour. Technol. 348, 126671. doi:10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2021.126671

Ekka, B., Mieriņa, I., Juhna, T., Turks, M., and Kokina, K. (2022). Quantification of different fatty acids in raw dairy wastewater. Clean. Eng. Technol. 7, 100430–100436. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2022.100430

Faried, M., Samer, M., Abdelsalam, E., Yousef, R. S., Attia, Y. A., and Ali, A. S. (2017). Biodiesel production from microalgae: processes, technologies and recent advancements. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 893–913. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.199

Fuentes, J. L., Garbayo, I., Cuaresma, M., Montero, Z., González-Del-Valle, M., and Vílchez, C. (2016). Impact of microalgae-bacteria interactions on the production of algal biomass and associated compounds. Mar. Drugs 14, 100. doi:10.3390/md14050100

Garcha, S., Verma, N., and Brar, S. K. (2016). Isolation, characterization and identification of microorganisms from unorganized dairy sector wastewater and sludge samples and evaluation of their biodegradability. Water Resour. Ind. 16, 19–28. doi:10.1016/j.wri.2016.10.002

Garrido-Cardenas, J. A., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Acien-Fernandez, F. G., and Molina-Grima, E. (2018). Microalgae research worldwide. Algal Res. 35, 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.algal.2018.08.005

Gatamaneni Loganathan, B., Orsat, V., Lefsrud, M., and Wu, B. S. (2020). A comprehensive study on the effect of light quality imparted by light-emitting diodes (LEDs) on the physiological and biochemical properties of the microalgal consortia of Chlorella variabilis and Scenedesmus obliquus cultivated in dairy wastewater. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 43, 1445–1455. doi:10.1007/s00449-020-02338-0

Gatrell, S., Lum, K., Kim, J., and Lei, X. G. (2014). NONRUMINANT NUTRITION SYMPOSIUM: potential of defatted microalgae from the biofuel industry as an ingredient to replace corn and soybean meal in swine and poultry diets12. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 1306–1314. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7250

Goli, A., Shamiri, A., Khosroyar, S., Talaiekhozani, A., Sanaye, R., and Azizi, K. (2019). A review on different aerobic and anaerobic treatment methods in dairy industry wastewater. J. Environ. Treat. Tech. 7, 113–141.

Gong, Y.-W., Zhang, H.-X., Cheng, X.-N., et al. (2012). Treatment of dairy wastewater by two-stage membrane operation with ultrafiltration and nanofiltration. Water Sci. Technol. 65, 915–919. doi:10.2166/wst.2012.937

Gupta, S., Pawar, S. B., and Pandey, R. A. (2019). Current practices and challenges in using microalgae for treatment of nutrient rich wastewater from agro-based industries. Sci. Total Environ. 687, 1107–1126. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.115

Guruvaiah, M., Narra, M., Shah, E., James, J., and Kurchania, A. (2015). Utilization of dairy wastewater for pollutants removal and high lipid biomass production by a newly isolated microalgal strains Chloromonas playfairii and Desmodesmus opoliensis. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. 3, 699–707. doi:10.3126/ijasbt.v3i4.13986

Hamdani, A., Mountadar, M., and Assobhei, O. (2005). Comparative study of the efficacy of three coagulants in treating dairy factory waste water. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 58, 83–88. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0307.2005.00198.x

Hedayatkhah, A., Cretoiu, M. S., Emtiazi, G., Stal, L. J., and Bolhuis, H. (2018). Bioremediation of chromium contaminated water by diatoms with concomitant lipid accumulation for biofuel production. J. Environ. Manage. 227, 313–320. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.011

Hemalatha, M., Sravan, J. S., Min, B., and Venkata Mohan, S. (2019). Microalgae-biorefinery with cascading resource recovery design associated to dairy wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 284, 424–429. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.106

Huo, S., Wang, Z., Zhu, S., Zhou, W., Dong, R., and Yuan, Z. (2012). Cultivation of Chlorella zofingiensis in bench-scale outdoor ponds by regulation of pH using dairy wastewater in winter, South China. Bioresour. Technol. 121, 76–82. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.012

Kadu, P. A., Landge, R. B., and Rao, Y. R. M. (2013). Treatment of dairy wastewater using rotating biological contactors. Pelagia Res. Libr. Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 3, 257–260.

Kanawade, S. M., and Bhusal, V. C. (2015). Adsorption on dairy industrial wastewater by using activated charcoal as adsorbent. Int. J. Chem. Material Sci. 3, 25–32.

Kavitha, R. V., Kumar, S., and Krishnamurthy, V. (2013). Performance evaluation and biological treatment of dairy waste water treatment plant by upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Int. J. Chem. Petrochem. Technol. 3, 9–20.

Khavari, F., Saidijam, M., Taheri, M., and Nouri, F. (2021). Microalgae: therapeutic potentials and applications. Mol. Biol. Rep. 48, 4757–4765. doi:10.1007/s11033-021-06422-w

Kim, B. H., Ramanan, R., Cho, D. H., Oh, H. M., and Kim, H. S. (2014). Role of Rhizobium, a plant growth promoting bacterium, in enhancing algal biomass through mutualistic interaction. Biomass Bioenergy 69, 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.07.015

Kim, H. S., Park, W. K., Lee, B., Seon, G., Suh, W. I., Moon, M., et al. (2019). Optimization of heterotrophic cultivation of Chlorella sp. HS2 using screening, statistical assessment, and validation. Sci. Rep. 9, 19383–19413. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-55854-9

Kiran, B., and Venkata Mohan, S. (2021). Photosynthetic transients in Chlorella sorokiniana during phycoremediation of dairy wastewater under distinct light intensities. Bioresour. Technol. 340, 125593. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125593

Kiran, B., and Venkata Mohan, S. (2022). Phycoremediation potential of Tetradesmus sp. SVMIICT4 in treating dairy wastewater using Flat-Panel photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 345, 126446. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126446

Kolev Slavov, A. (2017). General Characteristics and Treatment Possibilities of
Dairy Wastewater - A Review. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 55, 14–28. doi:10.17113/ftb.55.01.17.4520

Kothari, R., Pathak, V. V., Kumar, V., and Singh, D. P. (2012). Experimental study for growth potential of unicellular alga Chlorella pyrenoidosa on dairy waste water: an integrated approach for treatment and biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. 116, 466–470. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.121

Kour, D., Rana, K. L., Yadav, A. N., Yadav, N., Kumar, M., Kumar, V., et al. (2020). Microbial biofertilizers: bioresources and eco-friendly technologies for agricultural and environmental sustainability. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 23, 101487. doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2019.101487

Krishna, B. R., Bhuvaneshwari, S., Femin, M., Maneesha, M. M., Elsint, J., and Mohan, A. (2022). Different treatment methodologies and reactors employed for dairy effluent treatment - a review. J. Water Process Eng. 46, 102622. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102622

Kumar, A. K., Sharma, S., Dixit, G., Shah, E., and Patel, A. (2020). Techno-economic analysis of microalgae production with simultaneous dairy effluent treatment using a pilot-scale High Volume V-shape pond system. Renew. Energy 145, 1620–1632. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.087

Kumar, A. K., Sharma, S., Patel, A., Dixit, G., and Shah, E. (2019a). Comprehensive evaluation of microalgal based dairy effluent treatment process for clean water generation and other value added products. Int. J. Phytoremediation 21, 519–530. doi:10.1080/15226514.2018.1537248

Kumar, A. K., Sharma, S., Shah, E., Parikh, B. S., Patel, A., Dixit, G., et al. (2019b). Cultivation of Ascochloris sp. ADW007-enriched microalga in raw dairy wastewater for enhanced biomass and lipid productivity. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 943–954. doi:10.1007/s13762-018-1712-0

Kushwaha, J. P., Srivastava, V. C., and Mall, I. D. (2010). Organics removal from dairy wastewater by electrochemical treatment and residue disposal. Sep. Purif. Technol. 76, 198–205. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2010.10.008

Kusmayadi, A., Huang, C. Y., Leong, Y. K., Yen, H. W., Lee, D. J., and Chang, J. S. (2023). Utilizing microalgal hydrolysate from dairy wastewater-grown Chlorella sorokiniana SU-1 as sustainable feedstock for polyhydroxybutyrate and β-carotene production by engineered Rhodotorula glutinis #100-29. Bioresour. Technol. 384, 129277. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129277

Labbé, J. I., Ramos-Suárez, J. L., Hernández-Pérez, A., Baeza, A., and Hansen, F. (2017). Microalgae growth in polluted effluents from the dairy industry for biomass production and phytoremediation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 5, 635–643. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2016.12.040

Lam, T. P., Lee, T.-M., Chen, C.-Y., and Chang, J.-S. (2018). Strategies to control biological contaminants during microalgal cultivation in open ponds. Bioresour. Technol. 252, 180–187. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.088

Laycock, B., Halley, P., Pratt, S., Werker, A., and Lant, P. (2014). The chemomechanical properties of microbial polyhydroxyalkanoates. Prog. Polym. Sci. 39, 397–442. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2013.06.008

Li, F., Srivatsa, S. C., and Bhattacharya, S. (2019a). A review on catalytic pyrolysis of microalgae to high-quality bio-oil with low oxygeneous and nitrogenous compounds. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 108, 481–497. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.026

Li, K., Liu, Q., Fang, F., Luo, R., Lu, Q., Zhou, W., et al. (2019b). Microalgae-based wastewater treatment for nutrients recovery: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 291, 121934. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121934

Li, R., Tao, R., Ling, N., and Chu, G. (2017). Chemical, organic and bio-fertilizer management practices effect on soil physicochemical property and antagonistic bacteria abundance of a cotton field: implications for soil biological quality. Soil Tillage Res. 167, 30–38. doi:10.1016/j.still.2016.11.001

Lin, Y., Song, G., Ling, H., Ge, J., and Ping, W. (2021). Isolation of a high-ammonium-tolerant Monoraphidium sp. and evaluation of its potential for biodiesel production. Process Biochem. 111, 297–304. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2021.11.010

Loloei, M., Nekonam, G., Alidadi, H., and Kor, Y. (2014). Study of the coagulation process in wastewater treatment of dairy industries. Int. J. Environ. Health Eng. 3, 12. doi:10.4103/2277-9183.132684

Lu, W., Wang, Z., Wang, X., and Yuan, Z. (2015). Cultivation of Chlorella sp. using raw dairy wastewater for nutrient removal and biodiesel production: characteristics comparison of indoor bench-scale and outdoor pilot-scale cultures. Bioresour. Technol. 192, 382–388. doi:10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2015.05.094

Luo, J., Ding, L., Wan, Y., Paullier, P., and Jaffrin, M. Y. (2012). Fouling behavior of dairy wastewater treatment by nanofiltration under shear-enhanced extreme hydraulic conditions. Sep. Purif. Technol. 88, 79–86. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2011.12.008

Malaspina, F., Stante, L., Cellamare, C. M., and Tilche, A. (1996). CHEESE WHEY AND CHEESE FACTORY WASTEWATER TREATMENT WITH A BIOLOGICAL ANAEROBIC-AEROBIC PROCESS. Water Sci. Technol. 32, 59–72. doi:10.2166/wst.1995.0459

Maleki Samani, M. S., and Mansouri, H. (2023). The novel strategy for enhancing growth and lipid accumulation in Chlorella vulgaris microalgae cultured in dairy wastewater by monochromatic LEDs and melatonin. J. Appl. Phycol. 35, 593–601. doi:10.1007/s10811-022-02898-6

Maltsev, Y., Maltseva, K., Kulikovskiy, M., and Maltseva, S. (2021). Influence of light conditions on microalgae growth and content of lipids, carotenoids, and fatty acid composition. Biol. (Basel). 10, 1060. doi:10.3390/biology10101060

Manjunath, M., Kanchan, A., Ranjan, K., Venkatachalam, S., Prasanna, R., Ramakrishnan, B., et al. (2016). Beneficial cyanobacteria and eubacteria synergistically enhance bioavailability of soil nutrients and yield of okra. Heliyon 2, e00066. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00066

Mansoorian, H. J., Mahvi, A. H., Jafari, A. J., and Khanjani, N. (2016). Evaluation of dairy industry wastewater treatment and simultaneous bioelectricity generation in a catalyst-less and mediator-less membrane microbial fuel cell. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 20, 88–100. doi:10.1016/j.jscs.2014.08.002

Mathew, M. M., Khatana, K., Vats, V., Dhanker, R., Kumar, R., Dahms, H.-U., et al. (2022). Biological approaches integrating algae and bacteria for the degradation of wastewater contaminants—a review. Front. Microbiol. 12, 801051. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.801051

Mehar, J., Shekh, A., Uthaiah Malchira, N., and Mudliar, S. (2019). “Potential of microalgae for integrated biomass production utilizing CO2 and food industry wastewater,” in Application of microalgae in wastewater treatment (Cham: Springer International Publishing ), 41–67. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13909-4_3

Melo, J. M., Telles, T. S., Ribeiro, M. R., de Carvalho Junior, O., and Andrade, D. S. (2022). Chlorella sorokiniana as bioremediator of wastewater: nutrient removal, biomass production, and potential profit. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 17, 100933. doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100933

Mohammed Bello, M., Aziz, A., Raman, A., and Asghar, A. (2019). A review on approaches for addressing the limitations of Fenton oxidation for recalcitrant wastewater treatment. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 126, 119–140. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.028

Mohanty, S. S., and Mohanty, K. (2023a). Production of a wide spectrum biopesticide from Monoraphidium sp. KMC4 grown in simulated dairy wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 374, 128815. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128815

Mohanty, S. S., and Mohanty, K. (2023b). Valorization of Chlorella thermophila biomass cultivated in dairy wastewater for biopesticide production against bacterial rice blight: a circular biorefinery approach. BMC Plant Biol. 23, 644–714. doi:10.1186/s12870-023-04579-z

Mohsenpour, S. F., Hennige, S., Willoughby, N., Adeloye, A., and Gutierrez, T. (2021). Integrating micro-algae into wastewater treatment: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 752, 142168. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142168

Nugroho, Y. K., and Zhu, L. (2019). An integration of algal biofuel production planning, scheduling, and order-based inventory distribution control systems. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 13, 920–935. doi:10.1002/bbb.1982

Omil, F., Garrido, J. M., Arrojo, B., and Méndez, R. (2003). Anaerobic filter reactor performance for the treatment of complex dairy wastewater at industrial scale. Water Res. 37, 4099–4108. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00346-4

Oruganti, R. K., Katam, K., Show, P. L., Gadhamshetty, V., Upadhyayula, V. K. K., and Bhattacharyya, D. (2022). A comprehensive review on the use of algal-bacterial systems for wastewater treatment with emphasis on nutrient and micropollutant removal. Bioengineered 13, 10412–10453. doi:10.1080/21655979.2022.2056823

Pandey, A., Srivastava, S., and Kumar, S. (2019). Sequential optimization of essential nutrients addition in simulated dairy effluent for improved Scenedesmus sp ASK22 growth, lipid production and nutrients removal. Biomass Bioenergy 128, 105319. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105319

Pang, N., Bergeron, A. D., Gu, X., Fu, X., Dong, T., Yao, Y., et al. (2020). Recycling of nutrients from dairy wastewater by extremophilic microalgae with high ammonia tolerance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 15366–15375. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c02833

Passeggi, M., López, I., and Borzacconi, L. (2012). Modified UASB reactor for dairy industry wastewater: performance indicators and comparison with the traditional approach. J. Clean. Prod. 26, 90–94. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.022

Passero, M. L., Cragin, B., Hall, A. R., Staley, N., Coats, E. R., McDonald, A. G., et al. (2014). Ultraviolet radiation pre-treatment modifies dairy wastewater, improving its utility as a medium for algal cultivation. Algal Res. 6, 98–110. doi:10.1016/j.algal.2014.09.008

Peng, H., de-Bashan, L. E., Bashan, Y., and Higgins, B. T. (2020). Indole-3-acetic acid from Azosprillum brasilense promotes growth in green algae at the expense of energy storage products. Algal Res. 47, 101845. doi:10.1016/j.algal.2020.101845

Pereira, S., Borges, A. C., Muniz, G. L., Heleno, F. F., Rita, L., and Faroni, D. A. (2020). Dissolved air flotation optimization for treatment of dairy effluents with organic coagulants. J. Water Process Eng. 36, 101270. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101270

Pintado, J., Ruiz, P., Del Olmo, G., and Makridis, P. (2023). Co-culturing microalgae with roseobacter clade bacteria as a strategy for vibrionaceae control in microalgae-enriched Artemia. Microorganisms 11, 2715. doi:10.3390/microorganisms11112715

Plaza, B. M., Gómez-Serrano, C., Acién-Fernández, F. G., and Jimenez-Becker, S. (2018). Effect of microalgae hydrolysate foliar application (Arthrospira platensis and Scenedesmus sp.) on Petunia x hybrida growth. J. Appl. Phycol. 30, 2359–2365. doi:10.1007/s10811-018-1427-0

Posadas, E., Alcántara, C., García-Encina, P. A., Gouveia, L., Guieysse, B., Norvill, Z., et al. (2017). “Microalgae cultivation in wastewater,” in Microalgae-based biofuels and bioproducts ( Elsevier ), 67–91. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-101023-5.00003-0

Priya, A. K., Jalil, A. A., Vadivel, S., Dutta, K., Rajendran, S., Fujii, M., et al. (2022). Heavy metal remediation from wastewater using microalgae: recent advances and future trends. Chemosphere 305, 135375. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135375

Qasim, W., and Mane, A. V. (2013). Characterization and treatment of selected food industrial effluents by coagulation and adsorption techniques. Water Resour. Ind. 4, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.wri.2013.09.005

Qin, L., Shu, Q., Wang, Z., Shang, C., Zhu, S., Xu, J., et al. (2014). Cultivation of Chlorella vulgaris in dairy wastewater pretreated by UV irradiation and sodium hypochlorite. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 172, 1121–1130. doi:10.1007/s12010-013-0576-5

Qin, L., Wang, Z., Sun, Y., Shu, Q., Feng, P., Zhu, L., et al. (2016). Microalgae consortia cultivation in dairy wastewater to improve the potential of nutrient removal and biodiesel feedstock production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 8379–8387. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-6004-3

Rajagopal, R., Torrijos, M., Kumar, P., and Mehrotra, I. (2013). Substrate removal kinetics in high-rate upflow anaerobic filters packed with low-density polyethylene media treating high-strength agro-food wastewaters. J. Environ. Manage. 116, 101–106. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.032

Rajesh Banu, J., Anandan, S., Kaliappan, S., and Yeom, I. T. (2008). Treatment of dairy wastewater using anaerobic and solar photocatalytic methods. Sol. Energy 82, 812–819. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2008.02.015

Ramanan, R., Kim, B. H., Cho, D. H., Oh, H. M., and Kim, H. S. (2016). Algae-bacteria interactions: evolution, ecology and emerging applications. Biotechnol. Adv. 34, 14–29. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.12.003

Ramírez Mérida, L. G., and Rodríguez Padrón, R. A. (2023). Application of microalgae in wastewater: opportunity for sustainable development. Front. Environ. Sci. 11, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2023.1238640

Ramsuroop, J., Gutu, L., Ayinde, W. B., Basitere, M., and Manono, M. S. (2024). A review of biological processes for dairy wastewater treatment and the effect of physical parameters which affect their efficiency. WaterSwitzerl. 16, 537. doi:10.3390/w16040537

Ravi Kiran, B., Singh, P., Kuravi, S. D., Mohanty, K., and Venkata Mohan, S. (2024). Modulating cultivation regimes of Messastrum gracile SVMIICT7 for biomass productivity integrated with resource recovery via hydrothermal liquefaction. J. Environ. Manage. 356, 120458. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120458

Ribeiro, J. E. S., Martini, M., Altomonte, I., Salari, F., Nardoni, S., Sorce, C., et al. (2017). Production of Chlorella protothecoides biomass, chlorophyll and carotenoids using the dairy industry by-product scotta as a substrate. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 11, 207–213. doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2017.07.007

Rizwan, M., Mujtaba, G., Memon, S. A., Lee, K., and Rashid, N. (2018). Exploring the potential of microalgae for new biotechnology applications and beyond: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92, 394–404. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.034

Sawalha, H., Al-Jabari, M., Zahdeh, N., Aburayyan, D., Jbour, M., and Abufarah, H. (2022). Characterization of wastewater from dairy industry in Palestine and its adsorption on biowaste. Desalin. Water Treat. 275, 278–283. doi:10.5004/dwt.2022.28744

Scott, J. A., and Smith, K. L. (1997). A bioreactor coupled to a membrane to provide aeration and filtration in ice-cream factory wastewater remediation. Water Res. 31, 69–74. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00234-5

Şengil, I. A., and özacar, M. (2006). Treatment of dairy wastewaters by electrocoagulation using mild steel electrodes. J. Hazard. Mater. 137, 1197–1205. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.04.009

Shahid, A., Malik, S., Zhu, H., Xu, J., Nawaz, M. Z., Nawaz, S., et al. (2020). Cultivating microalgae in wastewater for biomass production, pollutant removal, and atmospheric carbon mitigation; a review. Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135303. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135303

Singh, P., Venkata Mohan, S., and Mohanty, K. (2023). Dairy wastewater treatment using Monoraphidium sp. KMC4 and its potential as hydrothermal liquefaction feedstock. Bioresour. Technol. 376, 128877. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128877

Sinha, S., Srivastava, A., Mehrotra, T., and Singh, R. (2019). A review on the dairy industry waste water characteristics, its impact on environment and treatment possibilities. Emerg. Issues Ecol. Environ. Sci. 73–84. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99398-0_6

Skoneczny, S., and Tabiś, B. (2015). The method for steady states determination in tubular biofilm reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 137, 178–187. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2015.06.024

Stepanov, S., Solkina, O., and Stepanov, A. (2019). Dairy wastewater treatment using membrane bioreactor. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 272, 022249. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/272/2/022249

Suparmaniam, U., Lam, M. K., Uemura, Y., Lim, J. W., Lee, K. T., and Shuit, S. H. (2019). Insights into the microalgae cultivation technology and harvesting process for biofuel production: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 115, 109361. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109361

Talapatra, N., Gautam, R., Mittal, V., and Ghosh, U. K. (2023). A comparative study of the growth of microalgae-bacteria symbiotic consortium with the axenic culture of microalgae in dairy wastewater through extraction and quantification of chlorophyll. Mater. Today Proc. 80, 2268–2273. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2021.06.227

Tan, X. B., Lam, M. K., Uemura, Y., Lim, J. W., Wong, C. Y., and Lee, K. T. (2018). Cultivation of microalgae for biodiesel production: a review on upstream and downstream processing. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 26, 17–30. doi:10.1016/j.cjche.2017.08.010

Tayawi, A. N.Al, Gulyás, N. S., Gergely, G., Ferenc, Á., Szegedi, B., Hodúr, C., et al. (2023). Enhancing ultrafiltration performance for dairy wastewater treatment using a 3D printed turbulence promoter. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 108907–108916. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-30027-4

Tchamango, S., Nanseu-Njiki, C. P., Ngameni, E., Hadjiev, D., and Darchen, A. (2010). Treatment of dairy effluents by electrocoagulation using aluminium electrodes. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 947–952. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.026

Ting, H., Haifeng, L., Shanshan, M., Zhang, Y., Zhidan, L., and Na, D. (2017). Progress in microalgae cultivation photobioreactors and applications in wastewater treatment: a review. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 10, 1–29. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20171001.2705

Tocchi, C., Federici, E., Fidati, L., Manzi, R., Vincigurerra, V., and Petruccioli, M. (2012). Aerobic treatment of dairy wastewater in an industrial three-reactor plant: effect of aeration regime on performances and on protozoan and bacterial communities. Water Res. 46, 3334–3344. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.032

Turan, M. (2004). Influence of filtration conditions on the performance of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes in dairy wastewater treatment. Desalination 170, 83–90. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2004.02.094

Uysal, O., Uysal, F. O., and Ekinci, K. (2015). Evaluation of microalgae as microbial fertilizer. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 4. doi:10.14207/ejsd.2015.v4n2p77

Verheyen, V., Cruickshank, A., Wild, K., Heaven, M. W., McGee, R., Watkins, M., et al. (2011). Characterization of organic particulates present in milk factory process waters used for reuse along with aerobically digested effluent wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2118–2125. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.053

Vieira Costa, J. A., Cruz, C. G., and Centeno da Rosa, A. P. (2021). Insights into the technology utilized to cultivate microalgae in dairy effluents. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 35, 102106. doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2021.102106

Wang, B., Lan, C. Q., and Horsman, M. (2012). Closed photobioreactors for production of microalgal biomasses. Biotechnol. Adv. 30, 904–912. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.01.019

Wei, S., Cao, J., Ma, X., Ping, J., Zhang, C., Ke, T., et al. (2020). The simultaneous removal of the combined pollutants of hexavalent chromium and o-nitrophenol by Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 198, 110648. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110648

Wicker, R. J., Autio, H., Daneshvar, E., Sarkar, B., Bolan, N., Kumar, V., et al. (2022). The effects of light regime on carbon cycling, nutrient removal, biomass yield, and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) production by a constructed photosynthetic consortium. Bioresour. Technol. 363, 127912. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127912

Wu, X., Cen, Q., Addy, M., Zheng, H., Luo, S., Liu, Y., et al. (2019). A novel algal biofilm photobioreactor for efficient hog manure wastewater utilization and treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 292, 121925. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121925

Xiaogang, H., Jalalah, M., Jingyuan, W., Zheng, Y., Li, X., and Salama, E.-S. (2022). Microalgal growth coupled with wastewater treatment in open and closed systems for advanced biofuel generation. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 12, 1939–1958. doi:10.1007/s13399-020-01061-w

Yaakob, Z., Ali, E., Zainal, A., Mohamad, M., and Takriff, M. S. (2014). An overview: biomolecules from microalgae for animal feed and aquaculture. J. Biol. Res. 21, 6. doi:10.1186/2241-5793-21-6

Yadav, A., Rene, E. R., Sharma, M., Jatain, I., Mandal, M. K., and Dubey, K. K. (2022). Valorization of wastewater to recover value-added products: a comprehensive insight and perspective on different technologies. Environ. Res. 214, 113957. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113957

Yen, H.-W., Hu, I.-C., Chen, C.-Y., Nagarajan, D., and Chang, J.-S. (2019). “Design of photobioreactors for algal cultivation,” in Biofuels from algae ( Elsevier ), 225–256. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-64192-2.00010-X

Yin, Z., Zhu, L., Li, S., Hu, T., Chu, R., Mo, F., et al. (2020). A comprehensive review on cultivation and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: environmental pollution control and future directions. Bioresour. Technol. 301, 122804. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122804

Yonar, T., Sivrioglu, O., Nihan, O., et al. (2018). Physico-chemical treatment of dairy industry wastewaters: wastewaters: a A review . doi:10.5772/intechopen.77110

Zainab, R., Sivakumar, V., Prasad, H. K., and Munish, K. (2019). Treatment and recycling of wastewater from pharmaceutical industry. Adv. Biol. Treat. Industrial Waste Water their Recycl. a Sustain. Future , 267–302. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1468-1_9

Zakeri, H. R., Yousefi, M., Mohammadi, A. A., Baziar, M., Mojiri, S. A., Salehnia, S., et al. (2021). Chemical coagulation-electro fenton as a superior combination process for treatment of dairy wastewater: performance and modelling. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18, 3929–3942. doi:10.1007/s13762-021-03149-w

Zhang, C., Li, Q., Fu, L., Zhou, D., and Crittenden, J. C. (2018). Quorum sensing molecules in activated sludge could trigger microalgae lipid synthesis. Bioresour. Technol. 263, 576–582. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.045

Zhang, Y., Su, H., Zhong, Y., Zhang, C., Shen, Z., Sang, W., et al. (2012). The effect of bacterial contamination on the heterotrophic cultivation of Chlorella pyrenoidosa in wastewater from the production of soybean products. Water Res. 46, 5509–5516. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.025

Zyłka, R., Dabrowski, W., Gogina, E., and Yancen, O. (2018). Trickling filter for high efficiency treatment of dairy sewage. J. Ecol. Eng. 19, 269–275. doi:10.12911/22998993/89657

Keywords: biofuel, bio-products, dairy wastewater, microalgae, nutrient removal, photobioreactors

Citation: Singh P, Mohanty SS and Mohanty K (2024) Comprehensive assessment of microalgal-based treatment processes for dairy wastewater. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 12:1425933. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1425933

Received: 30 April 2024; Accepted: 11 July 2024; Published: 06 August 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Singh, Mohanty and Mohanty. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kaustubha Mohanty, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A case study of swine wastewater treatment via electrochemical oxidation by ti 4 o 7 anode.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. collection and analysis of swine wastewater, 2.2. ti 4 o 7 electrode fabrication, 2.3. electrooxidation experiments, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. changes in the colors, turbidity and ss in the eo treatment, 3.2. removal of the cod and toc in the eo treatment, 3.3. removal of the nh 3 -n and tp in the eo treatment, 3.4. changes in excitation-emission matrix and uv-vis absorbance in eo treatment, 3.5. stability characterization of anode, 4. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Wang, N.; Feng, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Liu, J.; Li, N.; He, W. Effects of ammonia on electrochemical active biofilm in microbial electrolysis cells for synthetic swine wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2022 , 219 , 118570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lou, Y.; Ye, Z.L.; Chen, S.; Wei, Q.; Zhang, J.; Ye, X. Influences of dissolved organic matters on tetracyclines transport in the process of struvite recovery from swine wastewater. Water Res. 2018 , 134 , 311–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, Y.; Cai, J.; Ye, Z.L.; Lin, L.; Hong, Z. Morphological crystal adsorbing tetracyclines and its interaction with magnesium ion in the process of struvite crystallization by using synthetic wastewater. Water Res. 2022 , 215 , 118253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, X.; Ye, Z.L.; Cai, J.; Lin, L. Quantification of DOM effects on tetracyclines transport during struvite recovery from swine wastewater. Water Res. 2021 , 206 , 117756. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fang, C.; Zhang, T.; Li, P.; Jiang, R.F.; Wang, Y.C. Application of magnesium modified corn biochar for phosphorus removal and recovery from swine wastewater. Int. J Environ. Res. Public Health 2014 , 11 , 9217–9237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Guo, J.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, J. Effects of hydraulic loading rate on nutrients removal from anaerobically digested swine wastewater by multi soil layering treatment bioreactor. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 2688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sun, L.; Zhao, H.; Liu, J.; Li, B.; Chang, Y.; Yao, D. A new green model for the bioremediation and resource utilization of livestock wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 8634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, J.; Shao, B.; Shen, J.; Wang, S.; Wu, Y. Occurrence of chloramphenicol-resistance genes as environmental pollutants from swine feedlots. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013 , 47 , 2892–2897. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, Z.L.; Ghyselbrecht, K.; Monballiu, A.; Pinoy, L.; Meesschaert, B. Fractionating various nutrient ions for resource recovery from swine wastewater using simultaneous anionic and cationic selective-electrodialysis. Water Res. 2019 , 160 , 424–434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tetteh, E.K.; Obotey Ezugbe, E.; Rathilal, S.; Asante-Sackey, D. Removal of COD and SO 4 2− from oil refinery wastewater using a photo-catalytic system—Comparing TiO 2 and zeolite efficiencies. Water 2020 , 12 , 214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, R.; Mosquera-Romero, S.; Ntagia, E.; Wang, X.; Rabaey, K.; Bonin, L. Review—Electrochemical separation of organic and inorganic contaminants in wastewater. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2022 , 169 , 033505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, D.B.; Arrais Junior, L.C.C.; Souza, A.A.G.; Silva, F.D.C.; Abrantes-Coutinho, V.E.; Santos, A.O.; Oliveira, T.M.B.F. Upcycling ferrous blast-furnace slag to design an effective ceramic anode for tartrazine yellow electrodegradation. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2022 , 31 , e00373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balu, S.; Chuaicham, C.; Balakumar, V.; Rajendran, S.; Sasaki, K.; Sekar, K.; Maruthapillai, A. Recent development on core-shell photo(electro)catalysts for elimination of organic compounds from pharmaceutical wastewater. Chemosphere 2022 , 298 , 134311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mojiri, A.; Ohashi, A.; Ozaki, N.; Shoiful, A.; Kindaichi, T. Pollutant removal from synthetic aqueous solutions with a combined electrochemical oxidation and adsorption method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 1443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Yang, J.I.; Wang, J.; Jia, J. Improvement of electrochemical wastewater treatment through mass transfer in a seepage carbon nanotube electrode reactor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009 , 43 , 3796–3802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Feng, Y.; Yang, L.; Liu, J.; Logan, B.E. Electrochemical technologies for wastewater treatment and resource reclamation. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2016 , 2 , 800–831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargas, R.; Borrás, C.; Méndez, D.; Mostany, J.; Scharifker, B.R. Electrochemical oxygen transfer reactions: Electrode materials, surface processes, kinetic models, linear free energy correlations, and perspectives. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2015 , 20 , 875–893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, M.; Dai, Q.; Lei, L.; Ma, C.A.; Wang, D. Long life modified lead dioxide anode for organic wastewater treatment: Electrochemical characteristics and degradation mechanism. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005 , 39 , 363–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, S.; Lin, H.; Yan, X.; Huang, Q. Electro-oxidation of tetracycline by a Magnéli phase Ti 4 O 7 porous anode: Kinetics, products, and toxicity. Chem. Eng. J. 2018 , 332 , 628–636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, W.; Liu, Y.; Ye, J.; Wang, G. Electrochemical degradation of azo dye methyl orange by anodic oxidation on Ti 4 O 7 electrodes. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2018 , 29 , 14065–14072. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, M.; Saunders, T.; Grasso, S.; Mahajan, A.; Zhang, H.; Reece, M.J. Magnéli phase titanium suboxides by Flash Spark Plasma Sintering. Scr. Mater. 2018 , 146 , 241–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Liu, Y.; Ye, J.; Lin, Z.; Yang, X. Electrochemical oxidation of methyl orange by a Magnéli phase Ti 4 O 7 anode. Chemosphere 2020 , 241 , 125084. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, H.; Chen, Z.; Wang, X.; Chen, S.; Crittenden, J. Electrochemical advanced oxidation for treating ultrafiltration effluent of a landfill leachate system: Impacts of organics and inorganics and economic evaluation. Chem. Eng. J. 2021 , 413 , 127492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hao, Y.; Ma, P.; Ma, H.; Proietto, F.; Prestigiacomo, C.; Galia, A.; Scialdone, O. Electrochemical treatment of synthetic wastewaters contaminated by organic pollutants at Ti 4 O 7 anode. Study of the role of operative parameters by experimental results and theoretical modelling. ChemElectroChem 2022 , 9 , e202101720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhi, D.; Zhang, J.; Wang, J.; Luo, L.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y. Electrochemical treatments of coking wastewater and coal gasification wastewater with Ti/Ti 4 O 7 and Ti/RuO 2 -IrO 2 anodes. J. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 265 , 110571. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Li, Z.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; He, X. Comparison of Ti/Ti 4 O 7 , Ti/Ti 4 O 7 -PbO 2 -Ce, and Ti/Ti 4 O 7 nanotube array anodes for electro-oxidation of p-nitrophenol and real wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021 , 266 , 118600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nidheesh, P.V.; Kumar, A.; Syam Babu, D.; Scaria, J.; Suresh Kumar, M. Treatment of mixed industrial wastewater by electrocoagulation and indirect electrochemical oxidation. Chemosphere 2020 , 251 , 126437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan-yang, C.; Yi, Q.; Mao-juan, B. Three advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of the wastewater from acrylonitrile production. Water Sci. Technol. 2009 , 60 , 2991–2999. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leshem, E.N.; Pines, D.S.; Ergas, S.J.; Reckhow, D.A. Electrochemical oxidation and ozonation for textile wastewater reuse. J. Environ. Eng. 2006 , 132 , 324–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fisher, R.; Le-Minh, N.; Alvarez-Gaitan, J.; Moore, S.; Stuetz, R. Emissions of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) throughout wastewater biosolids processing. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 616 , 622–631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cozic, A.; Viollier, E.; Chiffoleau, J.-F.; Knoery, J.; Rozuel, E. Interactions between volatile reduced sulfur compounds and metals in the Seine Estuary (France). Estuaries Coasts 2008 , 31 , 1063–1071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, L.; Cheng, S.; Zhuang, P.; Xie, D.; Li, S.; Liu, D.; Li, Z.; Wang, F.; Xing, F. Assessment of the nutrient removal potential of floating native and exotic aquatic macrophytes cultured in swine manure wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 1103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Wang, F.; Wang, Q.; Zeng, W. Pretreatment for dissolved organic nitrogen testing by gas stripping. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2016 , 98 , 679–688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jafvert, C.T.; Valentine, R.L. Reaction scheme for the chlorination of ammoniacal water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1992 , 26 , 577–586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.; Liu, Y. Ammonia removal in electrochemical oxidation: Mechanism and pseudo-kinetics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009 , 161 , 1010–1016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, A.E.S.; Ensano, B.M.B.; Yee, J.J. Fuzzy optimization for the remediation of ammonia: A case study based on electrochemical oxidation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 2986. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, J.; Mei, Y.; Jiang, J.; Xia, G.; Chen, J. Process optimization of electrochemical treatment of COD and total nitrogen containing wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, J.; Mei, Y.; Xia, G.; Lu, Y.; Xu, D.; Sun, N.; Wang, J.; Chen, J. Process optimization of electrochemical oxidation of ammonia to nitrogen for actual dyeing wastewater treatment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019 , 16 , 2931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Liu, D.; Zhu, H.; Wu, K.; Zhao, X.; Wang, F.; Liao, Q. Fines isolated from waste concrete as a new material for the treatment of phosphorus wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020 , 27 , 12539–12549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, D.; Quan, X.; Zhu, H.; Huang, Q.; Zhou, L. Evaluation of modified waste concrete powder used as a novel phosphorus remover. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 257 , 120646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hakimi, M.H.; Jegatheesan, V.; Navaratna, D. The potential of adopting struvite precipitation as a strategy for the removal of nutrients from pre-AnMBR treated abattoir wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 259 , 109783. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, H.; Tan, X.; Zhu, H.; Sun, T.; Wang, X. Effects of commonly occurring metal ions on hydroxyapatite crystallization for phosphorus recovery from wastewater. Water 2018 , 10 , 1619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Xing, C.; Shi, J.; Cui, F.; Shen, J.; Li, H. Fe 2+ /H 2 O 2 -Strengite method with the enhanced settlement for phosphorus removal and recovery from pharmaceutical effluents. Chemosphere 2021 , 277 , 130343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, J.; Liu, P.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Huang, X. Simultaneous recovery of phosphorus with nickel purification in nickel-plating wastewater via Fe/C activated H 2 O 2 oxidation. Chem. Eng. J. 2020 , 381 , 122702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, Z.; Sheng, J.; Qiu, C.; Wei, H.; Yang, Q.; Pan, J.; Li, J. A magic filter filled with waste plastic shavings, loofah, and iron shavings for wastewater treatment. Polymers 2022 , 14 , 1410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, M.T.; Selvam, A.; Wong, J.W. Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ‘struvite’ food waste composting by zeolite amendment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016 , 200 , 838–844. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.-T.; Chen, S.-Y.; Xu, Z.-X.; Li, Y.; Shuang, C.-D.; Li, A.-M. Characterization of dissolved organic matter in municipal wastewater using fluorescence PARAFAC analysis and chromatography multi-excitation/emission scan: A comparative study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014 , 48 , 2603–2609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, H.; Peng, H.; Feng, X.; Li, X.; Zhao, J.; Yang, K.; Liao, J.; Cheng, D.; Liu, X.; Lv, S.; et al. Energy-efficient for advanced oxidation of bio-treated landfill leachate effluent by reactive electrochemical membranes (REMs): Laboratory and pilot scale studies. Water Res. 2021 , 190 , 116790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, S.; Liu, Y.; Lian, L.; Li, R.; Ma, J.; Zhou, H.; Song, W. Photochemical formation of carbonate radical and its reaction with dissolved organic matters. Water Res. 2019 , 161 , 288–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tetteh, E.K.; Rathilal, S.; Naidoo, D.B. Photocatalytic degradation of oily waste and phenol from a local South Africa oil refinery wastewater using response methodology. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 8850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, H.J.; Luo, M.Q.; Yang, L.X.; Zeng, C.L.; Fu, C. A high strength and conductivity bulk Magnéli phase Ti 4 O 7 with superior electrochemical performance. Ceram. Int. 2022 , 48 , 25538–25546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Xiao, R.; Xu, J.; Lin, H.; Yang, K.; Li, W.; He, K.; Tang, L.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; et al. Interface engineering strategy of a Ti 4 O 7 ceramic membrane via graphene oxide nanoparticles toward efficient electrooxidation of 1,4-dioxane. Water Res. 2022 , 216 , 118287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lin, H.; Xiao, R.; Xie, R.; Yang, L.; Tang, C.; Wang, R.; Chen, J.; Lv, S.; Huang, Q. Defect engineering on a Ti 4 O 7 electrode by Ce 3+ doping for the efficient electrooxidation of perfluorooctanesulfonate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021 , 55 , 2597–2607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Wan, H.; Wang, R.; Wang, B.; Zhang, K.; Shi, H.; Wang, H. A Case Study of Swine Wastewater Treatment via Electrochemical Oxidation by Ti 4 O 7 Anode. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 13840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113840

Wan H, Wang R, Wang B, Zhang K, Shi H, Wang H. A Case Study of Swine Wastewater Treatment via Electrochemical Oxidation by Ti 4 O 7 Anode. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . 2022; 19(21):13840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113840

Wan, Hongyou, Ruifeng Wang, Beibei Wang, Kehao Zhang, Huanhuan Shi, and Hailong Wang. 2022. "A Case Study of Swine Wastewater Treatment via Electrochemical Oxidation by Ti 4 O 7 Anode" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 13840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113840

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

How well are you managing your wastewater? Take the assessment now

Resources / Case Studies

Case Study: A sustainable approach to brewery wastewater

This article is from issue Number 4, 2020, of a journal dedicated to the applied and practical science of the brewing industry published by the Master Brewers Association of the Americas, a non-profit professional scientific organization dedicated to advancing, supporting, and encouraging advances in the brewing of malt beverages and related industries.

This file is posted with the authorization and permission of the Master Brewers Technical Quarterly Editorial Board.

Through the efforts of Master Brewers membership and authors, like those associated with this article, Master Brewers leverages the collective resources of the entire brewing community to continually improve the processes and products of our membership.

For more information on this and other topics related to the brewing industry, we invite you to visit Master Brewers at mbaa.com

SUPPLIER PERSPECTIVE

A Sustainable Approach to Brewery Wastewater

Orianna Bretschger Aquacycl, Escondido, CA 92029, U.S.A.

Orianna Bretschger is the CEO and Co-founder of Aquacycl, a wastewater technology company commercializing modular, plug-and-play systems for industrial wastewater based on microbial fuel cell technology. A native of the southwestern United States, she grew up appreciating water issues. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Southern California, where she studied how microbes remove pollutants from water and produce electricity at the same time. In 2016, she founded Aquacycl with her partners after 8 years of R&D into distributed wastewater treatment. Her research has resulted in 32 journal publications, three book chapters, and eight patent filings. E-mail: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1094/TQ-57-4-1207-01 © 2020 Master Brewers Association of the Americas

Wastewater management is never a primary consideration to breweries that are just getting started. However, as they grow, it can become a limiting factor. With the explosive growth of the brewing industry over the past decade, utilities are challenged to treat the high-strength wastewater and are limiting discharge levels or increasing rates. New microbial fuel cell (MFC) technology provides an option for onsite treatment of the ultra-high-strength (and most costly) streams, enabling brewers to meet their permitted levels, even while expanding production. While the technology is not applicable in all cases, brewers should understand how new MFC systems can be used to reduce wastewater management costs.

Whether you are just getting started or rapidly growing, the first step is to understand your wastewater and your options for managing it. Onsite treatment of wastewater has traditionally been cost prohibitive for breweries, but new microbial fuel cell (MFC) technologies offer promise to reduce costs and increase sustainability.

The Challenge of Brewery Wastewater

The brewing industry has almost doubled in the past 5 years, with over 8,275 craft breweries in 2019, up from 4,600 in 2015 (1). This has overwhelmed many small towns’ municipal infra- structure, resulting in limitations placed on brewers or surcharges to discharge to the sewer. This forces brewers to consider disposal or treatment of the highest-strength streams. Other factors for addressing wastewater management include sustainability, cost escalation, and permit risks. Off-grid breweries face even more challenging situations as they have no utility to discharge to.

Understanding Your Wastewater

For every gallon of beer produced, breweries generate between 3 and 10 gallons of wastewater. This wastewater has high concentrations of organic material, which is challenging to treat.

For brewers that are limited by permit levels or facing high surcharges, the first step to reducing the impact is to understand wastewater balance and sources. This includes testing to see what the current biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and other nutrients are, and where the highest strength sources are coming from.

The most important concepts to know about brewery wastewater are BOD and TSS. BOD is a measure of the amount of biologically degradable organic content (sugars, etc.) that exists in a wastewater stream. BOD levels will vary depending on a number of factors, including the type of beer, ingredients used, and whether the high-strength streams are separated out. In a typical brewery, BOD will range from 3,000 to 10,000 mg/L, which is up to 30 times higher than residential sewage (2). TSS is a measure of the concentration of solids in the wastewater and is typically less than 3,000 mg/L. Most publicly owned treatment works charge extra (surcharges) for any BOD and TSS over 300 mg/L.

Both of these factors can significantly impact the downstream treatment plant, resulting in unpermitted discharge. High BOD, TSS, and other nutrients will not only impact the treatment facility but also can become a problem to the waterways that they discharge into. If a treatment plant cannot handle the incoming high-strength wastewater, it will discharge partially treated waste- water into the waterway, creating anoxic conditions for the fish or algal blooms. Brewers are important members of the community and need to recognize that sustainable water and wastewater strategies are critical for the environment and a sustainable business.

High-Strength Defined

Utilities consider high-strength to be anything over 300 mg/L BOD, while technology providers consider high-strength to be anything over 1,000 mg/L and ultra- or super-high-strength to be over 10,000 mg/L BOD. In a brewery, the highest-concentration wastewater comes from spent yeast, the trub, waste beer, and the first rinse of the clean-in-place washdown of the equipment. Think of washing dishes: the first rinse will be the dirtiest and contain the highest levels of soluble organic matter, making it the most expensive and difficult part to treat. This volume tends to be just 20% of the total wastewater generated at the brewery, but it still poses a challenge to utilities as they may not be able to accept strong brewery wastewater and still serve residential customers. To put it into context, a brewery producing 5,000 barrels per year discharges the same amount of BOD as about 500 homes (2). Other factors to consider are pH, temperature, nitrogen, and phosphorus, all of which have limits set by the local utility.

A Practical Approach to Evaluating Wastewater Options

The Brewers Association’s Wastewater Management Guidance Manual (2) is an excellent resource that gives information about how to side stream the highest strength streams and re- duce the remaining wastewater BOD to levels that the utility can treat. For side streaming, the most common activities are to separate the process waste from the wastewater. Mash from spent grain can be picked up by farmers for animal feed and can be an additional revenue stream. Other leftover yeast and hops can be brought to a composting facility. Waste beer should be captured in a calamity tank.

Once breweries have implemented side streaming, initially the most cost-effective option is typically to segregate and transport the high-strength streams, but this can get expensive if they face significant growth. There comes a time when the only real option is to consider onsite treatment.

Before installing an onsite treatment system, talk with other brewers that have installed systems or experts in the field. Understand what your requirements are, and understand the differences, challenges, and benefits between various systems. These discussions will help you determine what the best system may be for your operations and financial situation. There is, however, a new treatment option that may be worth considering, described below.

MFC Technologies for High-Strength Wastewater Treatment

MFC technology is based on over 20 years of research and development efforts to produce electricity from wastewater. MFC uses naturally existing electrogenic bacteria that produce direct electricity while “eating” the carbon source. Wastewater from the food and beverage industry is an early use case for MFCs, as it is rich in carbon, providing good food for the bacteria.

How It Works

Until recently, most MFC technologies were not commercially scalable and addressed only a small part of wastewater treatment. Early efforts at commercialization were designed to maximize energy recovery rather than wastewater treatment and contained expensive components that limited the application. Aquacycl, a water technology startup, has developed the first commercially viable MFC for ultra-high-strength wastewater treatment.

The BioElectrochemical Treatment Technology (BETT®) is an anaerobic process of degradation, meaning no oxygen is added, which results in lower energy costs compared with aerobic treatment. The system contains an anode and a cathode in a single chamber. Locally sourced bacteria are selected and enriched to generate biofilms on the anode, and they begin degrading the sludge and soluble organic material contained in the wastewater. As the bacteria break down the carbon-based organic matter in the wastewater, they release electrons during the process of respiration. The bacteria use the conductive surface to breathe, and the system captures the electrons as they are discharged. The anode and cathode are electrically connected to allow the electrons to flow across the circuit at a fixed rate and produce direct current (DC).

Depending on the amount of energy generated, it can be captured for beneficial use (charge a forklift) or allowed to dissipate safely. Since most wastewater treatment is a huge energy-consuming activity, this system will make it energy neutral or generate DC power. By increasing the rate at which electrons are taken away, the treatment rate is significantly increased, taking hours instead of days or weeks. Removing electrons faster has the added benefit of effectively “starving” the microbes so they do not overgrow, meaning that they have minimal sludge production. Sludge removal is only needed one or two times per year and is included as part of the service fee. The low sludge management is critical to the success of the operation of the MFC system. The bioreactors are the size of a standard car battery and stack together like LEGOs® to increase treatment quality or capacity. This means that as production grows, the treatment can grow. Each reactor in the container is remotely monitored and controlled by Aquacycl in real time, resulting in the earliest indication of any issues and minimizing the need for a full-time onsite operator.

MFCs in Action

An example of a brewery that validated the MFC technology is one of the largest beer companies in the world. They had acquired a micro-brewery and were experiencing increased demand for the new brand. This led to the decision to add production capabilities to their mega-brewery line that produced the recipe from the acquisition. As the new beer had fruit flavors, the high-concentration streams were upsetting their onsite treatment facility. They were trucking the high-strength wastewater for disposal, and it was costing tens of thousands of dollars per month. They worked with Aquacycl to validate treatment of the high-concentration wastewater from the fruit beer, reducing the BOD and TSS to levels that could then be fed into their existing anaerobic digester. This provided enhanced flexibility in terms of production variation, allowing them to make production changes without impacting the downstream treatment.

Another application of MFC technology was a brewer that had to consider wastewater before they even opened. Joshua Tree Brewery was looking to expand their popular beers out of the garage and into a physical taproom. The town of 10,000 is a craft beer desert, with the nearest brewery located over 50 miles away. They were informed that they would require an onsite treatment system to comply with state, county, and local dis- charge requirements, as they had no utility to discharge to.

When they started looking at options to treat their wastewater, standard treatment systems were prohibitively expensive for a small company with small volumes. The treatment requirements came close to shutting down the entire business. Working with Aquacycl, they were able to affordably meet the county’s requirements for discharge, removing 99% of BOD, 85% of TSS, all sulfur, and about one-third of the nitrogen. Sulfur removal uses a biological process to convert all sulfates and sulfites into elemental sulfur. No hydrogen sulfide is generated, which means no odor from the system. Similarly, the microbes directly remove the nitrogen, converting it to ammonium. Aquacycl technology is typically applied as a pretreatment, removing bulk BOD, and depending on customer discharge requirements, will work with partner technologies as a polishing step.

Benefits and Challenges of MFCs

MFCs hold promise for distributed wastewater treatment, but they are not a fit for all brewers. The best application is small volumes of ultra-high-strength streams that cannot be discharged to sewer or treated by conventional systems, or that otherwise are transported off-site. By directly treating the most difficult portion of wastewater, brewers will significantly reduce costs from trucking, surcharges, and the risk of non-permitted discharges.

Here are some other benefits:

• Small footprint—because they are treating a small volume, they occupy a fraction of what a conventional system would require. As most brewers are located in cities, space constraints are a key consideration.
• No capital expenditures—the BETT systems are operated as a service contract, providing guaranteed performance without large installation costs.
• Scalable to meet changing production demands—onsite treatment is capital intensive and typically built for fixed production volume, so fast growth may exceed design capacity, limiting the new production volumes.
• Energy neutral and sustainable—by producing direct electricity without methane generation, they eliminate the need for complicated cogeneration facilities to burn the biogas. Combined with other technologies, they can enable water reuse.
• Cost-effective for rural breweries that are not able to discharge to a sewer

The main challenge of MFC systems is finding the right application where it is cost-effective to implement. They will not be competitive to treat entire brewery wastewater or high volumes of low-strength wastewater. The best application is where breweries are already side streaming the high-strength streams and would like to eliminate transport offsite. The other key consideration is costs to discharge or treat. MFC technologies will not be cost competitive in areas where surcharges are low.

While most brewers do not think about wastewater unless they are forced to, having a good understanding of your options and new technologies can be helpful to growing and new brewers alike. When your brewery gets to the point where you need to change the way you are managing wastewater, start with side streaming the highest strength streams. These can either be treated onsite with MFC systems or trucked offsite. While MFC systems are probably not a fit for all breweries, they have demonstrated significant cost reductions, smaller footprint, a hands-off wastewater treatment, and direct energy recovery, allowing brewers to focus on making beer instead of worrying about wastewater treatment.

• Brewers Association. 2020. Brewers Association releases annual growth report for 2019. https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-releases/brewers- association-releases-annual-growth-report-for-2019/.
• Brewers Association. 2017. Wastewater Management Guidance Manual. Brewers Association, Boulder, CO. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws. com/brewersassoc/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Wastewater_Management_ Guidance_Manual.pdf.

Additional Case Studies

Case Study: How Aquacycl Exceeded Wastewater KPIS For PepsiCo

A case study on how Aquacycl's wastewater treatment solution allowed PepsiCo to save 23% monthly on wastewater....

Case Study: Tank Terminal Wastewater Treatment

Aquacycl worked with a leading tank terminal to remove 100% of hydrocarbons and aromatics to ensure permit compliance....

Case Study: Joshua Tree Brewery

Onsite wastewater treatment used to treat high-strength wastewater for a new brewery, providing a cost-effective, sustainable solution....

Case Study: BETT installation demonstrating GHG emissions reduction of wastewater treatment

Wastewater treatment case study demonstrating 80-90% reduction in GHG emissions using Aquacycl's BETT technology....

Case Study: BETT installation treating discarded beverages at major F&B manufacturer

A major food & beverage company was looking for cost-effective and sustainable alternatives to improve their existing wastewater management at one of their...

Case Study: New perspectives in sugar industry wastewater treatment

Aquacycl's BETT system utilized in the sugar industry to reduce wastewater management costs by 20-60% relative to current practices....

Get the latest insights delivered to your inbox

Never miss an update from Aquacycl; receive new blogs, whitepapers, case studies and more directly in your inbox.

" * " indicates required fields

READY TO SIMPLIFY YOUR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT?

Unlock the power of microbes and address your wastewater and climate challenges – let’s make it happen.

Life cycle assessment, a decision-making tool in wastewater treatment systems: a case study wastewater treatment plant of Ahvaz, Iran

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2023
• Volume 13 , article number  145 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Fatemeh Tayyebi 1 ,
• Mona Golabi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9199-2628 2 &
• Neematollah Jaafarzadeh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2516-2340 3  

2818 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 21 December 2023

This article has been updated

The evaluation of environmental implications associated with wastewater treatment plants and developing strategies for reusing wastewater with minimal harm to the environment and human communities is critical. This study investigates the environmental impacts of Ahvaz’s wastewater treatment plant using life cycle assessment, employing SimaPro ® 9.0.0 software for two scenarios. The first scenario represents the current state of the plant, while the second considers reusing treated effluent in farms. This examination can lead to modifications within existing systems or selection of the best alternative treatment option, ultimately reducing potential environmental impacts. The CML2001 method identified human toxicity and global warming (4.29 × 10 13 and 3.67 × 10 13 , respectively), while the EcoIndicator99 method indicated ecotoxicity and carcinogens (5.2 × 10 −13 and 2.82 × 10 −13 , respectively) as the highest contributors to negative environmental impact per 1 m 3 treated effluent. The results demonstrate that although using treated sludge and effluent in agriculture conserves a significant amount of water, phosphorus, and nitrogen, it caused significant adverse impacts due to heavy metals present in the effluent and sludge. Additionally, the methane produced by sludge treatment, digestion, and disposal processes had the most harmful impact on global warming (0.577 (65%) in the CML2001 method). Comparing the two scenarios demonstrates that reusing effluent in farm irrigation is a more environmentally friendly technique, particularly in terms of eutrophication.

Similar content being viewed by others

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Case Study of Tehran, Iran

Comparison of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plants Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Mitigation of environmental impacts in warm-weather wastewater treatment plants using the life cycle assessment tool

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Although the wastewater treatment systems are used for improving the quality of wastewater, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, the use of chemicals, and some toxic emissions cause adverse impacts such as noise, odor, and sludge. However, the potential environmental impacts associated with wastewater treatment (WWT) systems are not considered. Recently, the WWT has improved in developing countries, but potential environmental impacts remain a significant challenge. Analyzing these impacts can help decision-makers choose the best treatment option, or modify existing systems to reduce the potential environmental impact of their activities. The life cycle assessment (LCA) method is the one that is most frequently used to assess a WWTP’s environmental impacts. This method stands out because it considers resource and energy consumption, air emissions, and waste creation in order to evaluate a WWTP beyond the trade-off between process efficiency and end effluent quality (Lopes et al. 2020 ). The first LCA for WWTs was published in 1997 (Roeleveld et al. 1997 ). Today, this method analyzes various environmental consequences related to all stages of a product, service, or process (Odum and Nilsson 1997 ; Buyukkamaci 2013 ). LCA has many strengths, including evaluating the material and energy efficiency of a system, solving environmental problems without creating another problem through pollution transmission, and providing a standard for improvement. The LCA’s superiority over other methods is due to its unique and comprehensive approach, strategic environmental assessment, cost–benefit analysis, material flow analysis, environmental assessment, or ecological footprint (Finnveden et al. 2009 ; Chen et al. 2012 ). In addition, a top-down comparison of different scenarios of wastewater and waste management systems in order to assess environmental impacts is done by this method (Zarea et al. 2019 ). (Resende et al. 2019 ) indicated that greenhouse gases produced from the septic tank and nutrients in the effluent have potential impacts on climate change, eutrophication, and photochemical oxidants. In addition, electricity consumption accounts for only 7% of the total impacts of climate change. Further, the exploitation stage has the most tremendous potential for environmental impacts by using open LCA software based on the environmental and economic performance of two small-scale decentralized WWT systems, along with constructed wetlands. Measured the total energy and GHG footprint from wastewater infrastructure, including energy consumption and emissions from the transmission and showed a two-way relationship between energy storage and environmental consequences and greenhouse gas emissions. Evaluated two energy-saving systems (wetland constructed with slow infiltration) and a conventional system for small and decentralized communities by indicating that the impact of energy storage in wastewater systems on the environment, especially the global warming index, is negligible. Comparing conventional WWTP systems with natural wastewater treatment systems such as hybrid wetland and high-speed algal pond systems showed that nature-based solutions are environmentally friendly options. However, the ordinary WWTP offers the weakest performance due to the high consumption of electricity and chemicals. Limphitakphong et al. 2016 studied the analysis of the environmental and economic performance of waste and wastewater management in Aarhus, Denmark, and the results showed that resource and economic efficiency, and collection and separate sludge transfer to biogas units are considered as the most sustainable solution. The results of a study of the carbon footprint of seven WWTPs with different technologies in Denmark and Sweden indicated that direct emission of greenhouse gases is the most critical factor in carbon footprint by using the life cycle assessment approach (Delre et al. 2019 ) focused on the life cycle of a WWTP unit in Brazil. They suggested that there is a two-way relationship between the use of materials and energy in the construction phase and between low energy consumption and materials in the operation phase in these systems, where the treatment process consisted of an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor followed by artificial wetlands. Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani 2019 conducted a comprehensive review of the main challenges and shortcomings identified in 43 LCA studies of wastewater treatment plants in developing countries. This study considered the main obstacles using LCA in developing countries such as the lack of specific databases, data transparency, exact life cycle index (LCI), and knowledge and interest in using LCA. The study of (Tabesh et al. 2019 ) about the important sources of environmental impact on WWTP Tehran by the LCA method showed that using biogas instead of natural gas plays a significant role in reducing the environmental impacts of WWTP Tehran.

Iran always had problems with the lack of a proper WWTP infrastructure. Only about 40% of domestic wastewater is wholly treated (Tabesh et al. 2019 ). The benefits of the LCA method are not correctly recognized, and the environmental approach to infrastructure construction is not adequately considered by policymakers and decision-makers. Thus, this method has been less used in solving the real problems of urban water and sewage, and most of the studies have been conducted in the field of waste management (Feizi Masoule and Tabesh 2013 ). Based on (Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani 2019 ), LCA research in wastewater is mainly spread in developed countries. Therefore, LCA studies for WWTPs in developing countries can be considered completely new and necessary. A sustainable approach to wastewater treatment strengthens the planning, design, operation, maintenance and management of treatment equipment which reduces the use of non-renewable resources, decreases environmental impact, and is economically and socially acceptable. The sustainability trend in the wastewater industry provides an opportunity for managers to rethink equipment management practices and use new methods for greater flexibility and improved performance.

The aims of present study are to analyze a wastewater treatment and reuse project in Iran (Ahvaz) as a developing country to clarify the benefits and impacts of the treatment plant and wastewater reuse by using the LCA method through combining process-based LCA and input–output LCA in one framework. Therefore, in this research, the existing challenges and shortcomings should be eliminated as much as possible. Furthermore, the role of two different scenarios (the first scenario represents the current state of the plant (discharge the treated wastewater to the river of Karun), while the second considers reusing treated effluent in farms. reusing treated effluent in farms) in greenhouse gas emissions, discharge to biological resources was compared.

Materials and methods

A brief description of wastewater treatment systems.

Ahvaz is located at an elevation of 12 m above sea level with a population of 1,303,000 people and an area of 185 square kilometers (Zahedi et al. 2018 ). The location of the city in Khuzestan plain has turned it into an area with almost flat topography. Climatically, the city of Ahvaz can be classified as a warm and semi-arid area, which is characterized by scorching summers and mild winters. The biological treatment plant of activated sludge, with an area of 12 hectares in the west of the city and adjacent to the largest river in Iran, Karun, and has been working since 2001 to treat part of the domestic sewage of Ahvaz city. Three modules were planned for implementation. Currently, only one module with an average capacity of 40,800 cubic meters per day and a maximum capacity of 60,000 cubic meters during floods is in operation (Fig.  1 ) The following are the key components of Ahvaz’s WWTP: pumping station, bar screen, grit chamber, primary clarifier, aeration lagoons, secondary clarifier, sludge treatment (anaerobic digestion), gas storage tank, and sludge drying bed (AWC 2019 ) (Fig.  2 ).

Location of Ahvaz city in Iran and location of the treatment plant in Ahvaz city

Flow diagram of West Ahvaz Wastewater Treatment Plant

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

The LCA method is used to assess the environmental impacts. According to LCA standards in the ISO Footnote 1 14000 series, this method has four main stages: goal and scope definition, the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis phase, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and the interpretation of results (Fig.  3 (ISO14000)).

The different stages of life cycle assessment (IS0 14040, 2006)

Goal and scope definition

In this study, the impact of the life cycle of the West Ahvaz Wastewater Treatment Plant was evaluated to estimate the environmental performance of the complex. In addition, some solutions were proposed to reduce the negative impacts using different scenarios. In the first scenario, the current state of the treatment plant and the discharge of treated wastewater into the Karun River were explained. In the second scenario, the treated wastewater is used after leaving the treatment plant to irrigate farms. The impact was evaluated by using two methods in CML2001 and Eco-Indicator99 in SimaPro ® 9.0.0 software. The reasons for choosing CML2001 and EcoIndicator99 as methods for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are that they are widely recognized and used, comprehensive in assessing a wide range of environmental impacts, have well-established databases that provide necessary data for the assessment, and have specific focuses that may align with the goals of the assessment. Additionally, these methods enable the comparison of results with other studies, and the findings can be more easily communicated and understood by stakeholders (Lopes et al. 2020 ). The functional unit is used to provide a reference for communicating between inputs and outputs to ensure that the results are comparable, and it was selected as “one cubic meter of treated effluent.” In this treatment plant, the final sludge after digestion and dewatering is used as fertilizer in the green space of the treatment plant and its surroundings. Therefore, energy transportation is insignificant. The treated wastewater was also discharged into the river. However, using sludge as a fertilizer due to its nitrogen and phosphorus leading to savings in the consumption of these substances, and discharging the treated effluent into the river saves water, they can have destructive impacts on soil and surface water sources due to the presence of heavy metals. Table 1 shows the savings of WWTP basic materials in Ahvaz. Although the produced gas in the digestion used to be collected, it now enters the air directly due to the poor performance of the digestion (AWC 2019 ).

System boundaries

Different system boundaries were selected for the LCA of WWTP systems. Most of the studies consider the decommissioning phase of WWTP systems and ignore the construction phase. Based on the studies related to the life cycle of the wastewater treatment plant, the operation phase has significant impacts compared to construction and end-of-life phases (Tabesh et al. 2019 ; Limphitakphong et al. 2016 ; Lopes et al. 2020 ; Garfí et al. 2017 ; Resende et al. 2019 ). The boundaries of the system expanded to include the sludge disposal phase as well as the use of treated sludge and effluent in green space fertilization and field irrigation, as shown in Fig.  4 .

Diagram of System boundaries and inputs and outputs studied

Life cycle inventory: LCI

The quantification process involves collecting data and computational procedures to quantify energy and raw material consumption, atmospheric emissions, release into the water, solid waste, and other materials released throughout the product life cycle. Life cycle inventory analysis creates a list including the amounts of pollutants released into the environment and the amount of energy and consumed materials. The results can be separated by life cycle stages, host environment (air, water and land), special processes or any other combination (Guinée and Lindeijer 2002 ).

Data quality requirements

Based upon the ISO 14040 (2006), data quality requirements are required in order to prove the reliability of the study results and perform the correct interpretation of the LCA. The data represent the actual scale of system utilization construction and operation, collected from the WWTP project (Guinée and Lindeijer 2002 ). The laboratory analyses of the raw wastewater and effluent contributed to the representation, consistency, and completeness of the study. For the LCI phase, the data were obtained from various sources, including Ahwaz Water and Wastewater Company, interviews with experts in the West WWTP of Ahwaz, field visits, tests on sewage and production sludge for the LCI phase. Thus, SPSS software was used to evaluate the data related to eight years of WWTP in West Ahvaz (2009–2017), including the amount of: ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, total nitrogen, phosphate, sulfate, total solids, organic nitrogen, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD). Experiments included the measurement of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC) at different stages of WWT and measurement of heavy metals in wastewater inlet and outlet of the treatment plant. In addition, the heavy metals in wastewater and sludge were determined using an ICP-OES device. Due to the limited information about soil properties and groundwater level, the impacts of field irrigation with treated wastewater on soil salinity, the transfer of heavy metals from sludge and irrigation water to groundwater were not considered. Furthermore, the most negative condition of sludge spreading in the green space, in which all the heavy metals transfer from the sludge to the environment, was considered. Therefore, more research is needed to determine the exact amount of heavy metal uptake by plants, as well as the amount transferred to another stage as leachate.

In addition, direct atmospheric CH 4 and N 2 O emissions were calculated based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reporting Algorithms (IPCC) (Hiraishi et al. 2014 ; Metcalf et al. 1991 ). Table 2 shows the amounts of gases emitted at different stages of treatment. The total energy used to perform various processes such as pumping, activated sludge, and nitrification in the studied treatment plant is about 650 kW, which is supplied from the municipal electricity network. Since energy impacts which are related to the municipal electricity network are taken into account in the capacity of the power plant, they have not been considered in the present project. No disinfection or chlorination process was conducted to preventing damage to the aquatic animals in the Karun. Therefore, no chemicals were used in this treatment plant during WWT, and all processes were completely biological.

Impact assessment life cycle

According to the ISO standard the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a life cycle assessment study that includes mandatory elements (classification and description) and voluntary elements (normalization and weighting).

There are different methods for LCIA. According to (Jolliet et al. 2003 ), life cycle assessment methods are divided into two main groups. In the midpoint method, modeling is stopped before the end of the work and the results of the catalog analysis are related to the middle groups. For each impact group, a reference index is assigned and the data related to the reference equivalent are converted. EDIP97, CML2001 and LUCAS are among the midpoint methods (Sala et al. 2012 ). In the endpoint method, the impacts group corresponds to the last step of the impacts path. In general, the final indicators are divided into human health, environmental health, and availability of resources (Bare and Gloria 2008 ). (Reap et al. 2008 ) EcoIndicator99 and Lime can be mentioned among the endpoint methods (Sala et al. 2012 ). Reap et al. ( 2008 ) reported that endpoint impact categories are more incomplete than midpoint and its uncertainty is more in comparison with the other group impacts. In contrast, the interpretation of midpoint impact categories is more difficult because they are not directly related to the scope of protection.

To cover the work categories types, the impact was assessed by using two methods including CML2001 from the midpoint group and Eco-Indicator99 from the endpoint group in SimaPro software. (Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani 2019 ) indicated that the CML impact evaluation method is considered as one of the most valid and established methods for performance estimation and is the most widely used WCTP LCA in developing countries. Therefore, CML can be considered a valuable LCA method. Eco-Indicator 99 is also one of the most widely used methods in LCA. Based on this method the impact was evaluated in two steps: (a) modeling the actual damage, (b) normalization and weighting (Tajrishy 2010 ). The advantage of these two methods is that they are available in SimaPro. SimaPro can effectively create and analyze LCA models and offer many analysis options to experts and decision-makers. In addition, SimaPro software can access life cycle inventory data at all stages of modeling and analysis (Audenaert et al. 2012 ). Thus, it is one of the most useful software for modeling many life cycle impacts and environmental performance.

Normalization

Normalization makes it possible to compare all environmental impacts on the same scale. Normalization of the impact category indicator results was done using the World, 1995 criteria in CML2001 method and European values in EcoIndictor99. Due to the most important environmental issues in the study area, impact categories in these methods were examined.

Result and discussion

In the last step, results interpretation, statistical analysis of data using SPSS software and the results of the experiments performed were presented in the form of graphs and tables. Further, the potential environmental impacts of WWT in the Ahwaz WWTP unit were calculated and some solutions were proposed in order to improve environmental sensitive points based on the study results.

Table 3 illustrates the characteristics of treated wastewater and the result of statistical analysis of the data. Figures  5 and 6 compare the quantity of heavy metals (the results of measurement tests) in the sludge and effluent with the different Iranian and American (EPA) standards. According to the standard of Iran Environmental Protection Organization the amounts of heavy metals in the treatment plant sludge were standard, except zinc. However, based on the Limits of Heavy Metals to discharge in surface water, the amounts of cadmium, lead, and zinc more than the allowable limit. Furthermore, the amounts of cadmium, lead, copper, zinc, and cobalt exceeded the Limits of Heavy Metals for Agricultural and Irrigation Purposes in Iran. On the other hand, all heavy metals in the effluent, except nickel, exceeded the standards in Iran and EPA (Fig.  6 ), so some solutions will be presented.

Comparison of heavy metals in sludge with standards

Comparison of heavy metals in effluent with standards

Based on the ISO 14040 (2006), the interpretation includes: (a) recognize considerable matters arising from the outcomes of the LCI and LCIA phases of an LCA, (b) assessment the study regarding the sensitivity, completeness, and compatibility; and (c) presenting conclusions, limits, and recommendations. The interpretation of the CML2001 and EcoIndictor99 methods is presented as follows.

Life cycle impact assessment (first scenario)

Life cycle impact assessment method cml2001.

Figure  7 shows the potential impact of LCA per WWT unit using the CML2001 method, which indicated the highest impact potential for human toxicity with a value of 4.29 × 10 13 and global warming with a value of 3.67 × 10 13 due to the presence of heavy metals in the treated effluent and dewatered digested sludge, respectively. Furthermore, the results indicated large volumes of methane released during anaerobic digestion, which are in line with those of the study of (Alanbari et al. 2015 ), which focused on the most effective category of work in WWTP Karbala, Iraq by using SimaPro7.0 global warming. As shown in Fig.  8 , in the human toxicity impact category, the figure for hydrogen sulfide had the most significant impact, with a percentage of 74%, in the air sector. The antimony (with 83%) in the water sector, and the chromium (with 43%) in the soil sector, ranked first. In general, the toxic impact of heavy metals in water was much greater than the other two sectors. The results show the treatment process was not effective in reducing and removing heavy metals; therefore, adding chemical and advanced treatment was proposed in this treatment unit. As shown in Fig.  7 , these elements in the treated effluent and dewatered digested sludge were responsible for the negative impacts (with 100%) on land toxicity, freshwater toxicity, and human toxicity. The concentration of heavy metals in fertilizers and effluent depends on the concentration of heavy metals in raw wastewater. Hence, controlling the source of input (raw wastewater) is the best solution. Figure  9 shows the direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases and compares the contribution of each stage of the WWT to the global warming impact. According to this figure, CH 4 with 0.577 (65%) had the largest share in global warming, and anaerobic digestion of sludge in digestions with 0.3 (52%) was the largest producer of this destructive gas. Treatment process units in WWTP, sludge digestions, and sludge receiving environment emit these emissions directly. It is claimed that there is a great deal of uncertainty in determining the amount of N 2 O emissions from biological nutrient removal processes. Foley et al. ( 2010 ) suggested that emission factors in N 2 O are lower in units with higher levels of nitrogen removal than in units with medium levels of nitrogen removal (Lopes et al. 2020 ). Biogas production is one of the most important characteristics of anaerobic reactors, which is mainly composed of CH 4 . Biogas production plays a pivotal role in two-stage anaerobic digestion reactors since it can be positive if recycled or negative if sent directly to the atmosphere. Unfortunately, biogas is sent to the atmosphere without any treatment in most WWTP networks built in developing countries (Lopes et al. 2020 ). Although in the past biogas was collected in special tanks and it provided the required energy for digesting the sludge and WWTP, now the biogas enters the atmosphere directly due to damaged digestions. Therefore, this problem should be given special attention and the practical solutions for the use of biogas should be found in order to increase the environmental productivity of this WWTP. However, how to use biogas energy in small WWTP without increasing operating costs is regarded as one of the major challenges in principled and economic implementation of circular digestion (Lopes et al. 2020 ). Direct emission from the operation stage of the WWTP is 0.885 kg/m3.eq (Fig.  8 ), which is slightly higher than what was mentioned in the literature (for example, 0.6 kg/m3.eq in (Foley et al. 2010 )). The production of CH 4 in the anaerobic process mainly depends on the amount of degradable organic matter in the wastewater inlet and temperature, and temperature increases the production of CH 4 (Hiraishi et al. 2014 ). Two-stage anaerobic digestion reactors have the greatest contribution to the emission of this gas, provided that CH 4 is not collected or ignited. According to (Bressani-Ribeiro et al. 2019 ), the use of thermal energy for biogas recovery (2000 ≥ PE) is a good alternative to reduce the environmental impacts of using anaerobic digestion reactors and WWTP on a small scale.

Description of the WWTP impacts with the CML2001 impact assessment method. Eu = Eutrophication, G.W: Global Warming, Acid = Acidification, T.E = Terrestrial ecotoxicity, F.W.E = Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, H.T = Human Toxicity

The contribution of each metal and emission in different environments in Human Toxicity

The contribution of each wastewater treatment unit in Global Warming

Life cycle impact assessment method eco-indicator99

Figure  10 shows the impact potential of each step of the WWT using the Eco-indicator99. In this method, different categories of impacts are examined. Further, the result of each impact category is normalized on the same scale to compare all environmental impacts. Based on the results, the “Ecotoxicity” with a value of 5.2 × 10 –3 and “Carcinogens” with a value of 2.28 × 10 –3 had the most negative impact on the environment due to the high amounts of heavy metals in the treated wastewater and dewatered digested sludge. Although using the treated sludge as a fertilizer saves the mineral fertilizers, it has pivotal impact potential in human toxicity and ecological toxicity impact categories. Therefore, it is strictly necessary to control the heavy metals in the sludge seriously. Reducing heavy metals in the wastewater sludge treatment process can significantly decrease the negative impacts of sludge use. Those mineral fertilizers also contain significant amounts of heavy metals. Incineration is one of the ways to reduce the negative impacts of landfills or the use of sludge as a fertilizer. However, this process itself releases toxic gases into the environment and requires energy consumption. Comparing the life cycle environmental burdens of sludge use scenarios in agriculture, incineration, and landfill can help decision-makers select the appropriate process. For example, (Xu et al. 2014 ) analyzed the life cycle of environmental and economic burdens in various scenarios of sewage sludge treatment (anaerobic digestion, dewatering, incineration, landfilling, and agricultural use technologies) in China. The results showed that waste incineration and disposal technologies had the lowest and highest environmental impacts, respectively. Furthermore, completely anaerobic digestion is the best option to reduce environmental and economic loads. In the latest UK study, performed life cycle environmental impacts for five sludge management options (i.e., (i) use the anaerobically digested sludge in agricultural; (ii) use the composted sludge in agricultural; (iii) incineration; (iv) pyrolysis; and (v) wet air oxidation), the use the anaerobically digested sludge with the recovery of nutrients and electricity had the lowest environmental impacts (Tarpani et al. 2020 ). However, use the anaerobically digested sludge in agriculture had the highest freshwater ecotoxicity owing to heavy metals. Hence, it is necessary that heavy metals in the sludge strictly be controlled for this alternative to reduce freshwater ecotoxicity in comparison with the thermal processes.

Description of the WWTP impacts with the Eco-indicator99 impact assessment method. Car = Carcinogens, Acid/Eu = Acidification/Eutrophication, C.Ch = Climate Change, Eco = Ecotoxicity, R.I = Respiratory Inorganics

Life cycle impact assessment (Second scenario)

Presently, the treated wastewater of Ahwaz is discharged into the Karun River. Therefore, it has destructive impacts on surface water resources. The second scenario is defined to store water and study the environmental impacts of using treated wastewater to irrigate fields, including the use of Ahwaz WWTP treated wastewater to irrigate farms. The results are compared with the first scenario (i.e., discharge in the Karun River). Since the Eco-indicator 99 method does not consider the impacts of nutrients and acids discharge into the water and soil (Frischknecht et al. 2007 ), only CML2001 was used to compare the two scenarios.

Table 4 shows the normalized results of the two scenarios. Eutrophication potential due to treated wastewater was 0.046 kg/m3 equivalent to phosphate. Eutrophication plays a crucial role in WWTP life cycle assessment studies since it can describe the balance between process efficiency and effluent quality (Hellström et al. 2000 ). Lack of discharging treated wastewater into water areas, increasing the degree of advanced purification to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, and reducing wastewater nutrients are three solutions for reducing the negative impact in the first scenario. It is worth noting that the consumption of materials and energy increases while increasing the degree of purification, leading to an increase in negative impacts in other groups. As shown in Table 4 , irrigation of farmland added to the previous impact categories using treated wastewater completely can eliminate the eutrophication impact category. Thus, the terrestrial ecotoxicity impact group is only related to the heavy metals in the treated wastewater (Table 4 ), which is negligible compared to the amount of drought toxicity due to heavy metals sludge. Eutrophication is one of the basic criteria for determining the sustainable treatment of wastewater. The results are consistent with those of (Tabesh et al. 2019 )’s study. (Miller-Robbie et al. 2017 ) found that emissions decreased by up to 33% throughout the life cycle system by comparing the effect of WWT-induced emissions by reusing untreated agricultural effluent at surface flows using the LCA method. Thus, discharging the treated wastewater to surface water sources has a significant (eutrophication, acidification, terrestrial ecotoxicity and so on) negative impact on the quality of these sources, which should be eliminated.

The aim of present study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts using the life cycle assessment method in the Ahwaz WWT system based on CML2001 and Eco-indicator99 methods. The most effective parts of the system and its inputs were identified on each impact category in the whole environment. Thus, the environmental impacts of using treated wastewater in agricultural irrigation were assessed and compared with the impacts of discharging treated wastewater into the river. The results obtained from the CML2001 database indicated that human toxicity and global warming are the most important impact categories, in which the heavy metals, especially antimony in the effluent and chromium in treated sludge, and methane were the most effective factors. The results of the Eco-indicator99 database indicated that ecological toxicity and carcinogenicity are the most effective impact categories. The heavy metals in the effluent which was discharged into the river and the sludge which was used as fertilizer played important roles in creating these categories. The results of the alternative scenario suggested that reusing treated wastewater in the irrigation sector could drastically reduce the destructive impacts on the environment. In addition, it can reduce the release of nutrient pollutants into the aquatic environment after resource recovery. In other words, it eliminates the eutrophication impact category, so it would definitely be better option. However, the scenario of discharging treated wastewater into the river has the worst impact on marine eutrophication and human health. In general, the results highlight the importance of profound control over the amounts of heavy metals in wastewater. Therefore, special attention should be paid to heavy metals to ensure that poisoning with effluent and sludge from sewage used for agricultural purposes cannot exceed the standard. The water and wastewater Company should invest in programs which prevent from entering heavy metal sources into municipal wastewater and seek to remove heavy metals and improve the quality of treated wastewater effectively. Further, the important impact of global warming should be highlighted. Two-stage anaerobic digestion can reduce the impacts of global warming since CH 4 is the most important air pollutant among emissions. Emissions (e.g., CH4 and N 2 O) have a significant impact on the WWTP operation phase. Therefore, WWT experts should not ignore air pollutants in evaluating the impacts of wastewater treatment, especially in the use of anaerobic processes for some treatment stages such as sludge digestion by emphasizing the need to reduce direct emissions. This type of information is necessary for water and wastewater companies to understand the environmental performance of their services better. Finally, the main challenges of LCA studies in developing countries i.e., the lack of complete and effective access to the required data, low quality of the data, and lack of native and regional databases, must be considered.

Change history

21 december 2023.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-023-02067-1

International Organization for Standardization.

Alanbari M, Alazzawi H, Al-Ansari N, Knutsson S (2015) Environmental assessment of Al-Hilla city wastewater treatment plants. J Civil Eng Archit 9:749–755

Google Scholar  

Audenaert A, De Cleyn SH, Buyle M (2012) LCA of low-energy flats using the Eco-indicator 99 method: Impact of insulation materials. Energy and Buildings 47:68–73

Article   Google Scholar  

(AWC), Ahvaz Wastewater Company (2019) Data and information on performance of WWTP of Ahvaz. Received in person from Ahvaz Wastewater Company

Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod 16:1021–1035

Bressani-Ribeiro T, Filho CRM, Rodrigues V, de Melo F, Bianchetti J, de Lemos Chernicharo CA (2019) Planning for achieving low carbon and integrated resources recovery from sewage treatment plants in Minas Gerais Brazil. J Environ Manag 242:465–473

Buyukkamaci N (2013) Life cycle assessment applications in wastewater treatment. J Pollut Eff Cont 1:2

Chen Z, Ngo HH, Guo W (2012) A critical review on sustainability assessment of recycled water schemes. Sci Total Environ 426:13–31

Delre A, ten Hoeve M, Scheutz C (2019) Site-specific carbon footprints of Scandinavian wastewater treatment plants, using the life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod 211:1001–1014

EPA, U.S. (2010) U.S. environmental protection agency (EPA) decontamination research and development conference, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-11/052, 2011.

Feizi Masoule M, Tabesh M (2013) A review on life cycle assessment and its application in urban wastewater treatment plants. In: First national conference on environmental protection and planning, 1–15

Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Environ Manage 91:1–21

Foley J, De Haas D, Yuan Z, Lant P (2010) Nitrous oxide generation in full-scale biological nutrient removal wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 44:831–844

Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Hischier R, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Wernet G, Nemecek T (2007) Overview and methodology. Data v2.0 2007. Ecoinvent report No. 1. In: Ecoinvent Centre

Gallego-Schmid A, Tarpani RRZ (2019) Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in developing countries: a review. Water Res 153:63–79

Garfí M, Flores L, Ferrer I (2017) Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment systems for small communities: Activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal ponds. J Clean Prod 161:211–219

Guinée JB, Lindeijer E (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards (Springer Science & Business Media)

Hellström D, Jeppsson U, Kärrman E (2000) A framework for systems analysis of sustainable urban water management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:311–321

Hiraishi T, Krug T, Tanabe K, Srivastava N, Baasansuren J, Fukuda M, Troxler TG (2014) 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. IPCC, Switzerland

Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330

Limphitakphong N, Pharino C, Kanchanapiya P (2016) Environmental impact assessment of centralized municipal wastewater management in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1789–1798

Liu B, Wei Qi, Zhang B, Bi J (2013) Life cycle GHG emissions of sewage sludge treatment and disposal options in Tai Lake Watershed, China. Sci Total Environ 447:361–369

Lopes TAS, Queiroz LM, Torres EA, Kiperstok A (2020) Low complexity wastewater treatment process in developing countries: a LCA approach to evaluate environmental gains. Sci Total Environ 720:137593

Metcalf L, Eddy HP, Tchobanoglous G (1991) Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal, and reuse (McGraw-Hill New York)

Miller-Robbie L, Ramaswami A, Amerasinghe P (2017) Wastewater treatment and reuse in urban agriculture: exploring the food, energy, water, and health nexus in Hyderabad, India. Environ Res Lett 12:075005

Odum HT, Nilsson PO (1997) Environmental accounting–EMERGY and environmental decision making. Forest Science 43:305–405

Racoviceanu AI, Karney BW, Kennedy CA, Colombo AF (2007) Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions inventory for water treatment systems. J Infrastruct Syst 13:261–270

Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388

Resende JD, Nolasco MA, Pacca SA (2019) Life cycle assessment and costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour Conserv Recycl 148:170–177

Roeleveld PJ, Klapwijk A, Eggels PG, Rulkens WH, Van Starkenburg W (1997) Sustainability of municipal waste water treatment. Water Sci Technol 35:221–228

Sala S, Pant R, Hauschild M, Pennington D (2012) Research needs and challenges from science to decision support. Lesson learnt from the development of the international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) recommendations for life cycle impact assessment. Sustainability 4:1412–1425

Tabesh M, Masooleh MF, Roghani B, Motevallian SS (2019) ‘Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of wastewater treatment plants: a case study of Tehran, Iran. Int J Civil Eng 17:1155–1169

Tajrishy M (2010) Wastewater treatment and reuse in Iran: Situation analysis. Tehran: Departement of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Environment and Water Research Center (EWRC)

Tarpani RR, Zepon CA, Hospido A, Azapagic A (2020) Life cycle environmental impacts of sewage sludge treatment methods for resource recovery considering ecotoxicity of heavy metals and pharmaceutical and personal care products. J Environ Manage 260:109643

Xu C, Chen W, Hong J (2014) Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge treatment in China. J Clean Prod 67:79–87

Zahedi A, Ghodrati S, Ahmadimoghaddam M, Jaafarzadeh N (2018) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions using emission factors from the sugarcane development company, Ahvaz, Iran. Environ Health Eng Manag J 5(1):9–14

Zarea MA, Moazed H, Ahmadmoazzam M, Malekghasemi S, Jaafarzadeh N (2019) Life cycle assessment for municipal solid waste management: a case study from Ahvaz, Iran. Environ Monit Assess 191:131

Download references

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

Fatemeh Tayyebi

Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

Mona Golabi

Environmental Technologies Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Neematollah Jaafarzadeh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatemeh Tayyebi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest in preparation of the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised due to change in second and third author affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tayyebi, F., Golabi, M. & Jaafarzadeh, N. Life cycle assessment, a decision-making tool in wastewater treatment systems: a case study wastewater treatment plant of Ahvaz, Iran. Appl Water Sci 13 , 145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-023-01958-7

Download citation

Received : 16 July 2022

Accepted : 23 May 2023

Published : 03 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-023-01958-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• CML2001 method
• EcoIndicator99 method
• Global warming
• Human toxicity
• Life cycle assessment
• Wastewater treatment
• Wastewater treatment management
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Rockwell Automation and SINCI develop a process control system

Share This:

SINCI is a Mexican company with nearly 35 years of experience in automation services, industrial process control and information systems. It is currently a Rockwell Automation Platinum System Integrator.

To integrate an automation and process control system into a new wastewater treatment plant for a multinational food company.

• PLC CompactLogix
• PanelView HMI Graphic Terminals
• PowerFlex 525 and PowerFlex 440 AC drives

To precisely and reliably measure the quality of the plant water in order to avoid penalties and/or fines in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.

SINCI is a technology company dedicated to the implementation of innovative solutions for digital transformation with a focus on process control, information systems and OT/IT convergence that link business management solutions to Industry 4.0 manufacturing.

The company began operations in 1989 in Guadalajara, Mexico, with the mission of offering complete “turnkey” projects for automation and industrial process control. It has developed projects in various locations in Mexico and currently has four offices: Guadalajara, Monterrey, Querétaro and Mexico City. The company has also implemented nearly 5,300 projects for more than 470 customers and is currently active in over 10 different types of industry.

One of its end customers is a US multinational dairy company that distributes natural cheese, processed cheese, cream cheese and yogurt under its own label, with operations in Mexico dating back more than 30 years. 

In 2022 the company opened an industrial plant in the State of Guanajuato. This is where the multinational has a wastewater treatment plan (PTAR) where a series of physical, chemical and biological processes are carried out with the aim of eliminating contaminants present in the wastewater.

Treatment plants usually operate four major processes including pretreatment (collection of wastewater using drainage); primary treatment (sedimentation in which the water passes to tanks where the solids settle on the bottom and the non-solids rise to the top); secondary treatment (degradation of biological content using aerobic and anaerobic treatments together with activated sludge); and tertiary treatment (complete elimination of microorganisms using filtration, ionization and decontamination).

Nearly four years ago in this plant, SINCI and Rockwell Automation initiated a greenfield project locally that consisted of the integration of a process control system capable of monitoring all the variables in the plant.

Experience and ability

It should be noted that this was the first initiative of its kind that the two companies (which have worked together for 32 years) had developed for the wastewater treatment sector, whether public utilities or private firms.  

According to Salvador Navarro (Bajio Zone Manager at SINCI), one of the first challenges was to adapt the preliminary design (developed in the US) to one suitable for this site, validate the capacity of the mechanical equipment and coordinate with the supplier of storage tanks, as well as with the plant specialist. 

“The major challenges with this kind of implementation are a need for a comprehensive knowledge of the process and being able to recognize the types of variables that we will encounter. Once familiar with these variables, getting them to a control system requires substantial experience and capabilities in liquid waste processing,” he explained. 

“The analytical instrumentation variables are a very specific and relevant element in wastewater projects, as are conductivity, dissolved oxygen, water hardness and pH, among others,” he added.

It was exactly this comprehensive experience and their knowledge of control automation that led the customer to choose the Rockwell Automation and SINCI proposal. It was also necessary to find a supplier with the technical and human resources to implement a proposal locally that was originally designed in the US. 

In this respect, said Navarro, “the prestige of the Rockwell Automation brand, along with the fact that SINCI had the highest certifications in the country, were key factors that significantly influenced the end user to select both companies to carry out this initiative.” “Basically what every customer is looking for from the company it hires is the certainty that the project will be executed on time and to spec,” Navarro added.

Precise measurement

The main benefit of this automation and control solution is that the customer has a precise measurement of water quality at all times. This helps them avoid penalties as a result of surprise inspections by government agents as allowed by law. “In this way, the possible fines or penalties that could arise from noncompliance with environmental standards can be avoided,” Navarro pointed out. 

It should be emphasized that the process control solutions offered by Rockwell Automation for wastewater treatment are highly reliable and flexible. They are not only capable of maximizing productivity, they also reduce implementation costs, minimize life cycle costs, validate compliance and provide for future expansion. 

Specifically with regard to the PowerFlex frequency drives, Navarro pointed out that these have been important due to their flexibility and precision in managing the dissolved oxygen process, which is an essential aspect to this type of plant. “Another important attribute is the processing of analytical instrument signals,” he added.

The general manager of SINCI stated that the technical support and backup of the Rockwell Automation brand ensures a major competitive edge for his company. This helps him face end customer requirements with greater reliability and confidence. “In this respect, our certifications and the power of the sales channel provided by the brand make us very strong,” stated Navarro.

“As a result of this type of project, we realized that there were several business lines that we hadn’t explored. Our idea now is to replicate it with other customers across different businesses,” concluded Navarro. 

Published March 26, 2024