See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221964511

The treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse: State of the art

Article  in  Desalination · February 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.02.035

CITATIONS READS

186 32,294

7 authors, including:

Geoffrey S. Simate John Cluett

University of the Witwatersrand 63 PUBLICATIONS   283 CITATIONS   
78 PUBLICATIONS   1,612 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Sunny E. Iyuke Sehliselo Ndlovu

University of the Witwatersrand University of the Witwatersrand
161 PUBLICATIONS   2,786 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   1,589 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rare earth element extraction using pyrometallurgical processes View project

Bioprocessing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Cluett on 07 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

The treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse: State of the art

Geoffrey S. Simate a,⁎, John Cluett a, Sunny E. Iyuke a, Evans T. Musapatika a, Sehliselo Ndlovu a,
Lubinda F. Walubita b, Allex E. Alvarez c
a
School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, P/Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa
b
TTI - Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Magdalena, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The beer brewing process often generates large amounts of wastewater effluent and solid wastes that must be
Received 25 October 2010 disposed off or treated in the least costly and safest way so as to meet the strict discharge regulations that are
Received in revised form 11 February 2011 set by government entities to protect life (both human and animal) and the environment. It is widely
Accepted 12 February 2011
estimated that for every one liter of beer that is brewed, close to ten liters of water is used; mostly for the
brewing, rinsing, and cooling processes. Thereafter, this water must be disposed off or safely treated for reuse,
Keywords:
which is often costly and problematic for most breweries. As a result, many brewers are today searching for:
Brewery wastewater
Biological oxygen demand (1) ways to cut down on this water usage during the beer brewing process, and/or (2) means to cost-
Chemical oxygen demand effectively and safely treat the brewery wastewater for reuse. Based on the available documented literature,
Pretreatment this paper provides a review assessment of the current status of the brewery wastewater treatment processes
Treatment including potential applications for reuse. Key challenges for both brewery wastewater treatment and reuse
Reuse are also discussed in the paper and include recommendations for future developments.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2. Legislation and environmental management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
3. Conventional methods of pretreating brewery wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
3.1. Physical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3.2. Chemical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3.3. Biological methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3.3.1. Aerobic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3.3.2. Anaerobic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4. Treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4.1. Membrane filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4.2. Non-thermal quenched plasma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4.3. Membrane bioreactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.4. Combined anaerobic and aerobic treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.5. The use of carbon nanotubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
4.5.1. Nanosorbents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
4.5.2. Nanofilters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
4.6. Electrochemical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
4.7. Microbial fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
4.8. Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5. Discussion and synthesis of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.1. Comparison of processes and technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.2. Integration of processes and technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 27 11 717 7570, + 27 76 112 6959(Cell); fax: + 27 11 717 7599.
E-mail address: simateg@yahoo.com (G.S. Simate).

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.02.035
236 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Despite discharging large volumes of highly polluting effluents
throughout the year [1,2], the brewing industry constitute an
important economic segment of any country [3,4]. In fact, beer is
the fifth most consumed beverage in the world behind tea,
carbonates, milk and coffee [3]. Beer brewing involves two main
steps, i.e., brewing and packaging of the finished product [5]. The by-
products (e.g., spent grains from mashing, yeast surplus, etc)
generated from these steps are responsible for pollution when
mixed with effluents [5]. In addition, cleaning of tanks, bottles,
machines, and floors produces high quantities of polluted water [5]. It
is estimated that for the production of 1 L of beer, 3–10 L of waste
effluent is generated depending on the production and specific water
usage [1,3,6]. In other words, very large quantities of water are
consumed during the beer brewing process.
Similarly and because of voluminous water usage, the brewery
industry discharges large volumes of highly polluting effluents throughout
the year [1,2]. It must also be noted that effluents from individual process
steps are variable. For example, bottle washing results in a large
wastewater volume, but it contains only a minor part of the total organics
discharged from the brewery processes. On the other hand, effluents from
fermentation and filtering are high in organics/biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), but generally low in volume, accounting for about 3% of
the total wastewater volume but 97% of the BOD [7].
Wastewater from a brewery plant may be discharged in several ways
including the following [8,9]: (1) directly into a waterway (oceans, rivers,
streams, or lakes), (2) directly into a municipal sewer system, (3) into the
waterway or municipal sewer system after the wastewater has undergone
some pretreatment, and (4) into the brewery's own wastewater
treatment plant. The disposal of untreated (or partially treated) brewery
wastewater into water bodies can constitute potential or severe pollution
problems to the water bodies since the effluents contain organic
compounds that require oxygen for degradation [10]. For example, if
water of high organic matter content value flows into a river, the bacteria
in the river will oxidize the organic matter consuming oxygen from the
water faster than the oxygen dissolves back in the river from the air.
Furthermore, as regulations become more and more stringent and the cost
of water increases, the call for water recycling is currently gaining a lot of
momentum.
There are many papers, such as those reviewed by Fillaudeau et al. [3],
dealing with several aspects of brewery wastewater treatment. However,
a review of this literature shows that only in later years has information
become available on water treatment for reuse. It must be noted, however,
that wastewater reuse is not common in this type of the industry due to
public perception and the possible product quality deterioration problems
[11]. However, the future reuse of brewery wastewater seems to be
unavoidable, as the issue of water shortage has become a serious global
and environmental problem. This is particularly very critical in most
developing countries such as the sub-Saharan region where droughts are
perpetual, thus every drop of water must be preciously conserved.
In this paper, the potential opportunities that may be available for
treating brewery wastewater for reuse in two applications are
reviewed, namely: (a) primary water used in the production of
beer, and (b) secondary water that does not come in contact with
beer; e.g. utilities cooling, water used in the packaging process and
general cleaning water. Once technology improves and the percep-
tions have changed regarding the use of recycled water, beer to water
ratios is perceived may be reduced to the ratio of about 1:2. Pertinent
245
246
246
challenges as related to brewery wastewater reuse (or recycling) are
also discussed in the paper.
The treatment, recovery and applications of various brewery by-
products (e.g., spent grains, spent hops, surplus yeast, kieselghur
sludge, trub and waste labels) have been extensively documented
elsewhere [3,6,8,12–14], thus are not discussed in this paper.
Accordingly, the paper is organized as follows: a background of the
legislation and environmental management systems is presented first,
followed consecutively by brewery wastewater pre- and treatment-
methods. Challenges and future prospects are included in the
discussion towards the end. A summary is then provided to conclude
the paper.
2. Legislation and environmental management systems
Like any other industry, the brewing industry is subject to
extensive government regulations. Some of the regulations imposed
involve production, distribution, labeling, advertising, trade and
pricing practices, credit, container characteristics, and alcoholic
content requirements [9]. Governmental entities also levy various
taxes, license fees and other similar charges and may require bonds to
ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Furthermore, the management of environmental issues is of
growing interest nowadays. There is a need to understand the
important environmental impacts on the community and then
consider the advantages and disadvantages associated with various
levels of environmental management [15]. This means that the
brewing industry must also comply with numerous environmental
protection laws. In fact, the brewing industry has shown increasing
awareness for environmental protection and the need of sustainable
production processes [16]. Furthermore, most national governments
where these industries operate have signed and ratified the Kyoto
Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions [17]. Through
environmental management systems (EMS) such as, (1) ISO 14001,
(2) Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), and (3) Interna-
tional Safety Rating System (ISRS), breweries should be able to
proactively manage their impacts on the environment. In fact, EMSs
should help breweries focus on effective and efficient management of
both current and future environmental impacts. The International
Finance Corporation (IFC) also has environmental, health and safety
(EHS) guidelines for breweries [18].
3. Conventional methods of pretreating brewery wastewater
Brewery wastewater typically has a high chemical oxygen demand
(COD) from all the organic components (sugars, soluble starch,
ethanol, volatile fatty acids, etc) [9]. It usually has temperatures
ranging from 25 °C to 38 °C, but occasionally reaching much higher
temperatures. The pH levels can range between 2 and 12 [9] and are
influenced by the amount and type of chemicals used in cleaning and
sanitizing (e.g., caustic soda, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, etc.)
[9,16,19]. Sanitizing chemicals which include chlorine compounds
ensure that the surfaces are free of any microorganisms harmful to the
brewing industry and the public consuming the beer. Nitrogen and
phosphorus levels are mainly dependent on the handling of raw
material and the amount of yeast present in the effluent [9,16,19].
Table 1 is an example of the physicochemical characteristics of
brewery wastewater from the United Breweries in India [20].
 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247 237

Table 1 methods remove coarse solid matter, rather than dissolved pollutants. It
Characteristics of brewery wastewater [20]. may be a passive process, such as sedimentation to allow suspended
Parameter Value pollutants to settle out or float to the top naturally. In general, these
methods have yielded little success; most often resulting in incomplete
pH 3–12
Temperature (°C) 18–40 contaminant removal and/or separation. For example, sedimentation has
COD (mg L− 1) 2000–6000 been found to be unsatisfactory even with the addition of coagulants and
BOD (mg L− 1) 1200–3600 other additives [27].
COD:BOD ratio 1.667
VFA (mg L− 1) 1000–2500
Phosphates as PO4 (mg L− 1) 10–50 3.2. Chemical methods
TKN (mg L− 1) 25–80
TS (mg L− 1) 5100–8750 Different chemicals can be added to the brewery wastewater to
TSS (mg L− 1) 2901–3000 alter the water chemistry [22]. Chemical pretreatment may involve
TDS (mg L− 1) 2020–5940
pH adjustment or coagulation and flocculation. The acidity or
alkalinity of wastewater affects both wastewater treatment and the
environment. Low pH indicates increasing acidity while a high pH
In fact, the brewery wastewater is characterized by large variations indicates increasing alkalinity. The pH of wastewater needs to remain
in the parameters mentioned in Table 1 [21]. As a result, most large between 6 and 9 to protect organisms. Waste CO2 may be used to
breweries require some degree of wastewater pretreatment. In cases neutralize caustic effluents from clean-in-places (CIP) systems and
where the brewery does not discharge to the municipal sewer, then bottle washers [28]. The waste CO2 can also be used as a cheap
primary and secondary treatment of the effluent is required. However, acidifying agent for decreasing the pH of alkaline wastewaters before
if the brewery is permitted to discharge into a municipal sewer, the anaerobic reactor, thus replacing the conventionally used acids
pretreatment may be required to meet municipal bylaws and/or to [20]. Neutralization with H2SO4 and HCl acids is usually not
lessen the load on the municipal treatment plant. In some cases, sewer recommended because of their corrosive nature and sulfate and
discharge fees imposed on effluent volume, and on the suspended and chloride discharge limitations [29], which may add to the cost of
organic loads, by the municipality may encourage the brewery to effluent treatment operations [20].
install its own treatment facility. Pretreatment is meant to alter the Coagulation and flocculation are physicochemical processes
physical, chemical, and/or biological properties of feed water [22], commonly used for the removal of colloidal material or color from
thus improving the performance of upstream processes. Therefore, water and wastewater. In water and wastewater treatment, coagu-
pretreatment is done by physical, chemical, or biological methods, or lation implies the step where particles are destabilized by a coagulant,
by a combination of all these methods. Table 2 lists the unit operations and this may include the formation of small aggregates by Brownian
included within each category, and detailed schematic representation motion (perikinetic coagulation). On the other hand, the subsequent
of a conventional wastewater treatment processes can be found in process in which larger aggregates (flocs) are formed by the action of
Spellman's Standard Handbook for Wastewater Operators [23]. shear is then known as flocculation [30]. After small particles have
Table 3 is a summary of the generic advantages and disadvantages formed larger aggregates, colloidal material can then be more easily
of various wastewater treatment processes as shown in literature removed by physical separation processes such as sedimentation,
[24]. These characteristics (Table 3) generally relate to the cost of flotation, and filtration.
construction and ease of operation. Generally, the complexity and cost
of wastewater treatment technologies increase with the quality of the 3.3. Biological methods
effluent produced. In fact, the water management and waste disposal
in the brewery industry are considered as significant cost factors and Biological waste treatment processes play a central role in the way
important aspects in the operations of a brewery plant [25,26]. society manage their wastewaters. It is based on the activity of a wide
range of microorganisms, converting the biodegradable organic pollutants
3.1. Physical methods in the wastewaters. In fact, brewery effluents having both chemical (with
very high organic content) and microbial contaminants are generally
Among the first treatment methods used are physical unit operations, treated by biological methods [31]. Therefore, after the brewery
in which physical forces are applied to remove contaminants. Physical wastewater has undergone physical and chemical pretreatments, the
wastewater can then undergo biological treatment. Compared to
physicochemical or chemical methods, biological methods have three
advantages [32]: (1) the treatment technology is mature, (2) high
Table 2
Wastewater treatment unit operations and processes. efficiency in COD and BOD removal, ranging from 80 to 90%, and (3) low
investment cost. However, though biological treatment processes are
Physical unit operations - Screening
particularly effective for wastewater treatment, they require a high energy
- Comminution
- Flow equalization input [33]. Biological treatment of wastewater can be either aerobic (with
- Sedimentation air/oxygen supply) or anaerobic (without oxygen) [9]. The aerobic and
- Flotation anaerobic processes are shown graphically in Fig. 1 [34]. These processes
- Granular-medium filtration are discussed in more details in the subsequent sections. Generally,
Chemical unit operations - Chemical precipitation
- Adsorption
aerobic treatment has successfully been applied for the treatment of
- Disinfection brewery wastewater and recently anaerobic systems have become an
- Chlorination attractive option [9]. Table 4 presents a general comparison between
- Other chemical applications anaerobic and aerobic biological treatment systems such as activated
Biological unit operations - Activated sludge processes
sludge.
- Aerated lagoons
- Trickling filters
- Rotating biological contactors 3.3.1. Aerobic
- Pond stabilization Aerobic biological treatment is performed in the presence of oxygen
- Anaerobic digestion by aerobic microorganisms (principally bacteria) that metabolize
- Biological nutrient removal
the organic matter in the wastewater, thereby producing more
238 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247

Table 3
Generic advantages and disadvantages of conventional and non-conventional wastewater treatment technologies [24].

Treatment type Advantages Disadvantages

Aquatic systems Stabilization lagoons –Low capital cost Requires a large area of land
–Low operation and maintenance cost –May produce undesirable odors
–Low technical manpower requirements
Aerated lagoons Requires relatively little land area –Requires mechanical devices to aerate basins
–Produces few Undesirable odors –Produce effluents With a high suspended solids
concentration
Terrestrial systems Septic tanks –Can be used by individual households –Provides a low treatment efficiency
–Easy to operate and maintain –Must be pumped occasionally
–Can be built in rural areas –Requires a landfill for periodic disposal of sludge
and septage
Constructed wetland –Removes up to 70% of solids and bacteria –Remains largely experimental
–Minimal capital cost –Requires periodic removal of excess plant material
–Low operation and maintenance requirements –Best used in areas where suitable native plants
and costs are available
Mechanical systems Filtration systems Minimal land requirements –Requires mechanical devices
–Relatively low cost
–Can be used for household scale treatment
–Easy to operate
Vertical biological –Highly efficient treatment method –High cost
reactors –Requires little land area –Complex technology
–Applicable to small communities for local scale –Requires technically skilled manpower for operation
treatment and to big cities for regional scale and maintenance
treatment –Needs spare parts availability
–Has a high energy requirement
Activated sludge –Highly efficient treatment method –High cost
–Requires little land area –Requires sludge disposal area (sludge usually land-spread)
–Applicable to small communities for local scale –Requires technically skilled manpower for operation and
treatment and to big cities for regional scale treatment maintenance requirement

microorganisms and inorganic end-products (principally CO2, NH3 and
H2O). Aerobic treatment utilizes biological treatment processes, in
which microorganisms convert non-settle-able solids to settle-able
solids. Sedimentation typically follows; allowing the settle-able solids to
settle and separate out. Three options include:
Activated sludge process. In the activated sludge process, the
wastewater flows into an aerated and agitated tank that is primed
with activated sludge. This complex mixture containing bacteria, fungi,
protozoans, and other microorganisms is collectively referred to as the
biomass. In this process, the suspension of aerobic microorganisms in
the aeration tank is mixed vigorously by aeration devices, which also
supply oxygen to the biological suspension.
Attached growth (biofilm) process. The second type of aerobic
biological treatment system is called “attached growth (biofilm)
process” and deals with microorganisms that are fixed in place on
a solid surface. This “attached growth type” aerobic biological
treatment process creates an environment that supports the

sludge
50%

Aerobic
Electron acceptor:
process
O2, 1-2mg/L
50%
Heat
wastewater

methane
90%
Electron acceptor:
Anaerobic
SO4, PO4, organics
process

10%

sludge

Fig. 1. An illustration of aerobic and anaerobic processes [34].

 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247 239

Table 4 3.3.2. Anaerobic

Anaerobic treatment as compared to aerobic treatment [16]. Anaerobic wastewater treatment is the biological treatment of
Aerobic systems Anaerobic systems wastewater without the use of air or elemental oxygen. Anaerobic
treatment is characterized by biological conversion of organic compounds
Energy consumption - High - Low
Energy production - No - Yes by anaerobic microorganisms into biogas, which can be used as a fuel;
Biosolids production - High - Low mainly methane 55–75 vol% and carbon dioxide 25–40 vol% with traces of
COD removal (%) - 90–98 - 70–85 hydrogen sulfide [35]. In breweries, direct utilization of biogas in a boiler is
Nutrients (N/P) removal - High - Low
usually the preferred solution. The reason for this is that investment costs
Space requirement - High - Low
Discontinuous operation - Difficult - Easy for a combined heat and power unit (CHP) are higher and more extensive
biogas treatment is required [36]. In the context of decreasing fossil fuel
reserves, anaerobic wastewater treatment makes a brewery more
independent from external fuel supply. Furthermore, it contributes to a
more sustainable brewing process.
growth of microorganisms that prefer to remain attached to a solid
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket. One of the most popular anaerobic
material.
processes is the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB). In the UASB
reactor, the wastewater enters a vertical tank at the bottom. The
Trickling filter process. In the trickling filter process, the wastewater is wastewater passes upwards through a dense bed of anaerobic sludge
sprayed over the surface of a bed of rough solids (such as gravel, rock, where the microorganisms in the sludge come into contact with
or plastic) and is allowed to “trickle down” through the microorgan- wastewater substrates [34]. This sludge is mostly of a granular nature
ism-covered media. (1–4 mm) having superior settling characteristics (i.e., at a rate of
more than 50 m h− 1). The organic materials in the solution are
Biofiltration towers. A variation of a trickling filtration process is the attacked by the microbes, which release biogas. As the biogas rises, it
biofiltration tower or otherwise known as the biotower. The biotower is carries some of the granular microbial blanket. At the top of the UASB
packed with plastic or redwood media containing the attached microbial reactor, a so called three-phase separator separates the biomass from
growth. the biogas and wastewater [16]. The three-phase separator is also
known as the gas–liquid–solid-separator [34]. Fig. 2 shows a graphical
Rotating biological contactor process. The rotating biological contactor illustration of the UASB process [34].
process consists of a series of plastic disks attached to a common shaft.
Fluidized Bed Reactor. In a Fluidized Bed Reactor (FBR), wastewater flows
in through the bottom of the reactor, and up through a media (usually
Lagoons. These are slow, cheap, and relatively inefficient, but can be sand or activated carbon) that is colonized by an active bacterial biomass.
used for various types of wastewater. They rely on the interaction of The media provides a growth area for the biofilm. This media is
sunlight, algae, microorganisms, and oxygen (sometimes aerated). “fluidized” by the upward flow of wastewater into the vessel, with the
lowest density particles (those with highest biomass) moving to the top.
Sludge treatment and disposal. In general, aerobic treatment systems
like the activated sludge system produce relatively large quantities of 4. Treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse
sludge, which requires disposal. The sludge can undergo a dewatering
treatment either by reconsolidated centrifugation, vacuum filtration, The discharged wastewater from the biological pretreatment process-
or in a pressure filter. es can be further treated. In this section various methods that may be used

biogas

three phase
effluent separator

gas cap baffles

gas bubbles

sludge granules

Sludge bed

influent

Fig. 2. UASB anaerobic process [34].

240 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247
Table 5
Quality standards for rinse and cooling water, and aimed value for drinking water [1].
Quality standard Quality standard Quality standard
rinsing water cooling water drinking water
COD (mgO2 L− 1) 0–2 0–2 0–2
Na+ (mg L− 1) 0–200 / 20
Cl− (mg L− 1) 50–250 / 25
pH 6.5–9.5 6.5–9.5 6.5–9.5
Conductivity (μs cm− 1) / / 400
/: Not specified.
to treat brewery wastewater for reuse are explored. It must be noted,
however, that recycling of regenerated water as brewing water is
considered inappropriate and would require that drinking water
standards are complied with [1]. Table 5 shows the most important
standards for rinsing, cooling and drinking water [1]. Among the
parameters in Table 5, the most important parameter for recycling
water or required to be measured is the COD [1,37]. COD is a measure of
the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content of a sample that is
susceptible to oxidation by a strong oxidant [38]. The COD is considered an
appropriate index for showing the amount of organics in water [39]. The
COD value of a wastewater mainly represents the biodegradable and non-
biodegradable organic components (Fig. 3), although inorganic com-
pounds may be significant in certain cases [37]. However, in general,
brewery effluents are easily biodegradable with BOD/COD ratio in the
range 0.6–0.7 [19,20,36]. The organic components in the brewery effluent
(expressed as COD) consist of sugars, soluble starch, ethanol, volatile fatty
acids, etc [1,36].
4.1. Membrane filtration
The separation by porous membranes is of great interest in
environmental and chemical engineering processes [40–42]. In fact,
filtration technology is considered as an integral component of drinking
water and wastewater treatment applications [43]. Membrane filtration
can be divided into four categories, depending on the effective pore size of
the membrane, and hence the size of the impurities removed. In order of
decreasing pore size, they are as follows: microfiltration, ultra filtration,
nanofiltration, and hyperfiltration. Table 6 summarizes the essential
features of these processes, such as pore size and operating pressure [30].
However, the characteristics listed in Table 6 are not exhaustive, thus
different ranges may be quoted elsewhere.
Fig. 4 shows two ways of operating a membrane filter, i.e., dead end
filtration and cross-flow filtration. In dead-end filtration, all of the
feed water flows through the membrane (as permeate) so that all
impurities that are too large to pass through the pores accumulate in
the filter module. Some means of removing these is necessary. Cross-
flow filtration involves flowing the feed water parallel to the
membrane surface, with only a proportion passing through the
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
Chemically oxidisable
Non-oxidisable
Non-biologically degradable
Fig. 3. The relationship between the organic carbon fractions in wastewater.
Table 6
Typical characteristics of membrane processes [30].
Process Operating Pore size Molecular weight Size cut-off
pressure (bar) (nm) cut-off range range (nm)
Microfiltration b4 100–3000 N500,000 50–3000
Ultrafiltration 2–10 10–200 1000–1,000,000 15–200
Nanofiltration 5–40 1–10 100–20,000 1–100
Reverse osmosis 15–150 b2 b200 b1
(hyperfiltration)
membrane. The retained impurities remain in the retentate, which is
normally recirculated.
Membranes can be classified according to their material of
construction [34]. There is a variety of materials that are used for the
manufacture of membrane filters, e.g., ceramics and polymers [30,44].
Polymer materials used for membrane manufacture are, for instance,
cellulose acetate, polyamides, polypropylene, and polysulfone [34].
Ceramic membranes are usually manufactured from metal oxides, such
as alumina, often using some form of a sol–gel process.
In wastewater treatment, the use of nanofiltration/reverse osmosis for
organic/salt removal is normally practiced [45]. Nanofiltration (NF) is
actually a relatively recent membrane filtration process used most often
with low total dissolved solids water such as surface water and fresh
groundwater, with the purpose of softening (polyvalent cation removal)
and removal of disinfection by-product precursors such as natural organic
matter and synthetic organic matter [46]. The nominal pore size of the
membrane is typically about 1 nm. However, nanofilter membranes (just
like other membranes) are typically rated by nominal molecular weight
cut-off (MWCO) rather than nominal pore size. The MWCO is an
expression of the retention characteristics of the membrane in terms of
molecules of known sizes [44]. The nominal MWCO of the membrane may
be defined as the relative molecular mass of the component that is
rejected by 90% [47]. In other words, MWCO is an attribute of the pore size
and is related to the rejection of a spherical solute of a given molecular
weight [48]. The reason that the word ‘nominal’ is used is that the shape
and charge on the molecule will influence its rate of migration through the
membrane [44]. The MWCO is typically less than 1000 atomic mass units
(daltons). The NF is a cross-flow filtration technology which lies
somewhere between ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO)
(Table 6). These membranes are able to remove particles below 100 nm
in size. In addition, the transmembrane pressure (pressure drop across the
membrane) required (up to 3 MPa) is considerably lower than the one
used for RO, thus reducing the operating cost significantly.
Braeken et al. [1] used NF in an attempt to treat brewery wastewater
for recycling. The results of this study showed that the removal of COD,
Na+, and Cl− (averaging 100%, 55% and 70% removal, respectively) with
NF was sufficient for the biologically treated wastewater, whereas the
other three wastewater streams (bottle rinsing water, rinsing water of
(COD)
Biologically degradable
(BOD)
 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247
(a) pressure
Filte caker
membranes
permeate
Fig. 4. Two forms of membrane filtration, (a) dead-end and (b) cross-flow filtration.
the bright beer reservoir, and rinsing water of the brewing room) were
not suitable for recycling using NF. These results clearly show the
importance of pretreatment processes.
Though nanofiltration is vital for the treatment of wastewaters, the
major limitation is fouling. However, coagulation/flocculation can be
used to enhance nanofiltration performance towards water reuse and
minimization of fouling [49]. This is because coagulation/flocculation
reduce the concentration of impurities and hence improve the
permeate flux after sedimentation.
As mentioned earlier, RO is normally practiced for the removal of
organic/salt in wastewaters [45]. The RO is the tightest possible
membrane process in liquid/liquid separation and therefore produces
the highest water quality of any pressure driven membrane process
[34]. The RO membranes are classified by percentage rejection of NaCl
and ranges from 95 to 99.5% [34]. The success of RO in large-scale
desalination and municipal wastewater treatment has led many
industries to view this technology as a means of pollution abatement
and cost savings through reuse [50]. In fact wastewater treatment
using RO have been employed in chemical, textile, petrochemical,
electrochemical, pulp and paper, and food industries as well as for
municipal wastewater [51]. Madaeni and Mansourpanah [39]
reviewed several studies of RO applications and found that RO may
decrease the COD of the effluent by more than 90% or completely. In
fact, tests to reduce COD values showed that RO is the best method to
separate organics from water. RO is also usually combined with other
physical separation techniques, as well as biological and physiochem-
ical treatment, to produce effluents suitable for reuse. For example, a
combination of ultrafiltration (UF) and RO have produced high quality
water [52,53].
In studies by Madaeni and Mansourpanah [39], biologically treated
wastewater from an alcohol manufacturing plant having COD in the
range of 900 to 1200 mg L− 1 was treated by various polymeric RO and
NF membranes. The polyethylene terphetalate RO membrane yielded
outstanding results with higher flux (33 kg m− 2 h− 1) and extreme
COD removal (100%). In another study, brewery bio-effluent was
obtained using an internal aerobic membrane bioreactor (internal
MEMBIOR) [54]. In this study, the COD of brewery wastewater varied
strongly from 1500 to 3500 mg L− 1, but after the internal MEMBIOR
the COD was around 30 mg L− 1 regardless of the COD fluctuations of
the influent. The suspended solids were completely retained by the
flat plate membrane. This made the effluent perfectly suited for re-use
via reverse osmosis as process water, omitting the need for expensive
pretreatment methods.
In summary, a review of several literatures has shown that RO is a
preferred conditioning method for the brewing industry because of
its environmentally friendly applications, its simplicity regarding
automation, its user-friendly aspects, and the small amount of space it
241
pressure
(b)
retentate
feed
permeate
requires. Furthermore, it requires no regenerating chemicals, which
means no additional salts have to be added for wastewater
neutralization.
4.2. Non-thermal quenched plasma
Plasma is a highly ionized gas that occurs at high temperatures.
The intermolecular forces created by ionic attractions and repulsions
give these compositions distinct properties; for this reason, plasma is
described as a fourth state of matter [55]. Like gas, plasma does not
have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a
container; unlike gas, in the influence of a magnetic field, it may form
structures such as filaments, beams and double layers. Some common
plasmas are stars and neon signs. In summary, a plasma usually results
from the increase of the energy of a gas provided by various sources,
such as electric, magnetic, mechanical (shock waves and ultrasound),
thermal or even optical (laser) sources [56]. A part of the gaseous
matter is thus changed from the starting molecules or atoms to an
electrically neutral mixture of ions (anions and cations) and electrons,
involving other heavy species and photons [56].
Doubla et al. [5] reported the use of humid air plasma created by an
electric gliding arc discharge in humid air to lower organic pollutants
in brewery wastewater. The gliding arc discharge in humid air
generates .NO and .OH radicals, which have strong oxidizing
characteristics. The .OH radical is a very powerful oxidizing agent
[E0(.OH/H2O) = 2.85 V/NHE] and thus responsible for oxidation
reactions with organic targets, both due to its own properties and to
its derivative and/or parent molecule H2O2 as shown in Eq. (1) [5]:
H2 O2 ↔2
OH ð1Þ
Initially, NO leads to the formation of nitrite in neutral mediums,
but is further oxidized to nitrate ions as stable species. Additionally,
the high standard oxidation-reduction potentials of the HNO2/NO
(1.00 V) and NO− 3 /HNO2 (1.04 V) systems reflect the oxidizing power
of the nitrate ion [5]. In other words, the nitrate ions participate in the
oxidizing characteristics of the humid air plasma.
In the study by Doubla et al. [5], the BOD removal efficiency of the
process with brewery industrial waters of BOD values of 385 and
1018 mg L− 1 were 74 and 98%, respectively. The alkaline wastewaters
were also rapidly neutralized due to pH lowering effect of the plasma
treatment emanating from the production of nitrate ions [56]. This
process can be coupled with biological process treatments to further
lower the organic pollutant concentration more easily and rapidly to
an acceptable level for reuse [5].
242 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247

Table 7
Mean operating criteria of anaerobic digestion-ultrafiltration plants treating various
industrial effluents [45].

Operating parameter/ Brewery Wine Malting Egg Maize

results distillery process process

Volume of digester (m3) 0.05 2.4 3.0 80 2610

Operational period (month) 3 18 5 8 36
Feed COD (kg/L) 6.7 37 3.5 8 4–15
Permeate COD (kg/L) 0.18 0.26 0.80 0.35 0.30
COD removal (%) 97 93 77 95 97
Space load rates (kg COD/m3·d) 17.0 12.0 5.0 6.0 3.0
Sludge load rate (kg COD/kg VSS·d) 0.7 0.58 0.5 0.33 0.24
Fig. 5. Simplified schematic description of the MBR process [57]. HRT (day) 0.8 3.3 0.8 1.3 5.2
Temperature (°C) 35 35 35 30 35
MLSS (kg/m3) 30–50 50 10 10–30 23
4.3. Membrane bioreactor Membrane area (m2) 0.44 1.75 9.6 200 800
Flux (L/m2·h) 10–40 40–80 20–40 15–30 10–70
Depletion of water resources, increasing water price, and stringent Inlet pressure (kPa) 340 400 500 500 600
Crossflow velocity (m/s) 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.6
regulation has caused the development of various combinations of
Tube diameter (mm) 9.0 12.7 9.0 12.7 9.0
membranes with other conventional treatment components [45].
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is becoming one of such flourishing
technology in water and wastewater treatment fields [45]. The MBR
therefore need to be cleaned frequently [34]. Membrane fouling can be
combines two proven technologies, i.e., enhanced biological treatment
classified as reversible and irreversible [65]. It results from interaction
using activated sludge, and membrane filtration as shown in Fig. 5 [57].
between the membrane material and the components of the activated
Depending on how the membrane is integrated with the bioreactor,
sludge liquor, which include biological flocs formed by a large range of
two MBR process configurations can be identified: side-stream and
living or dead microorganisms along with soluble and colloidal
submerged (Fig. 6). In side-streams MBRs, membrane modules are placed
compounds. Fouling leads to a significant increase in hydraulic resistance,
outside the reactor, and the reactor mixed liquor circulates over a
manifested as permeate flux decline or TMP increase when the process is
recirculation loop that contains the membrane. In submerged MBRs, the
operated under constant-TMP or constant-flux conditions respectively.
membranes are placed inside the reactor, submerged in the mixed liquor.
The organic fouling of the membrane is mainly dependent on several
The side-stream MBRs are more energy intensive compared to submerged
factors including the following [65]: (1) the components of organic matter
MBRs [34,58] due to higher operational transmembrane pressures (TMP)
such as colloidal fraction and dissolved fraction, (2) organic characteristics
and the elevated volumetric flow required to achieve the desired cross-
such as hydrophobicity and molecular size and configuration, (3) solution
flow velocity [58]. However, submerged MBRs use more membrane area
chemistry such as pH, divalent ions concentration and ionic strength, and
and operate at lower flux levels [34].
(4) membrane properties such as pore size and surface roughness. In
The MBR has been studied not only for wastewater but also for
practice, membrane fouling can be controlled by two types of approaches,
drinking water treatment [59,60], and is applied to municipal wastewater
i.e., (1) periodical air scouring, backwashing and chemical cleaning [67],
treatment at full scale [61]. Li and Chu [59] found that nearly 60% of
and (2) the addition of adsorbents and pretreatment by coagulation
influent total organic carbon (TOC) was removed by MBR, accompanied
[68,69]. A recent study has shown that direct addition of a coagulant in the
by more than 75% reduction in trihalomethanes formation potential
bioreactor was able to mitigate membrane fouling [66]. The integration of
(THMFP). The MBR technology is also applied to the brewery wastewater
coagulation into MBR is termed membrane coagulation bioreactor
for reuse [32]. The COD reduction in MBR influent (i.e., UASB reactor
(MCBR). In fact, the most important trend in the development of
effluent ranging from 500 to 1000 mg O2 L− 1) of up to an average of 96%
membrane filtration for water treatment is the integration of different
was reported by Dai et al. [32]. Brewery wastewater was also conducted
pretreatment strategies to improve the performance of low pressure
by various other researchers [62–64]. In most of these studies, significant
membranes [22].
amounts of COD removals (~90%) were reported. With these promising
results, it can be concluded that the MBR process is an attractive option for
the treatment and reuse of industrial and municipal wastewaters. Table 7 4.4. Combined anaerobic and aerobic treatment
shows the operating parameters and some of the results of the anaerobic
digestion-ultrafiltration process [45]. Anaerobic and aerobic treatments are often combined in brewery
Just like other membrane separation processes, membrane fouling is wastewater treatment [16,70,71]. As shown in Fig. 7, there are essentially
the most serious problem affecting system performance of MBRs and, four types of integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactors [72]. The attributes

wastewater wastewater

membrane
unit
permeate

bioreactor permeate bioreactor

Side-stream MBR Submerged MBR

Fig. 6. Membrane bioreactor configurations [57].
 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247 243

Anaerobic-aerobic
treatment

Conventional Anaerobic-aerobic Integrated anaerobic-

anaerobic-aerobic system using high aerobic bioreactors
system rate bioreactors

Integrated bioreactors Integrated bioreactors Anaerobic-aerobic Combined anaerobic-

with physical separation without physical Sequencing Batch aerobic culture
of anaerobic-aerobic separation of anaerobic- Reactor (SBR) system
zone aerobic zone

Fig. 7. Types of combined anaerobic-aerobic system [71].

of integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactors are as follows [36]: Firstly, in
the anaerobic reactor the bulk of the COD, 70–85%, is converted into biogas
on a small surface area. Secondly, in an aerobic/anoxic post-treatment
step, up to 98% of the COD and nutrients are removed. Furthermore, some
of the important advantages of combined aerobic/anaerobic treatment of
brewery effluent over complete aerobic include a positive energy balance,
reduced (bio)sludge production and significant low space requirements
[16]. Recent development of tall slender anaerobic (e.g., internal
circulation reactors) and aerobic (e.g., airlift reactors) reactors allows for
extreme compact effluent treatment plant design still meeting stringent
requirements of surface water quality [16].
4.5. The use of carbon nanotubes
Since the ‘rediscovery’ of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in 1991 [73] by
Iijima [74], several researchers worldwide cutting across all disciplines
have embarked on stimulating research to utilize the myriad unique
properties of these nanomaterials. The CNTs consist of honeycomb
structures of graphene sheets rolled up into cylinders with a diameter of a
few nanometers, but length of many micron or even centimeters [75,76].
A lot of methods and carbon sources for the growth of carbon nanotubes
have been actively pursued in the past few years, and these have been
outlined in several review papers [77–82].
There are typically two forms of CNTs according to the number of
rolled up graphene layers that form the tube, i.e., single-walled carbon
nanotubes (SWCNT) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT).
The model representations of multi-walled CNT and single-walled
CNT are shown in Fig. 8 [83,84]. The unique properties of CNTs arise
from their special atomic and electronic structures [85]. Owing to
their unique structural, mechanical, and electronic properties, CNTs
possess great potential in a large variety of promising applications
such as chemical sensors, field emission materials and catalyst
supports [75,78,81,86]. Some of the important applications of CNTs
with respect to water treatment are discussed below.
functionalized CNTs to adsorb various impurities from wastewater
can be extended to the removal of COD from brewery wastewater.
A review of the literature has shown that although CNTs have been
proven to possess good potential as superior adsorbents, to the best of
the authors' knowledge no published work is available regarding their
use as coagulants and/or flocculants. However, it can be theorized that
if CNTs can adsorb on separate colloidal particles, then the particles
can be drawn together; a phenomenon known as bridging floccula-
tion. Furthermore, the adsorption of CNTs onto particle surfaces can
also result in charge neutralization, resulting in a near zero net charge.
Once the surface charge has been neutralized, the ionic cloud
dissipates and the electrostatic potential disappears so that the
contact among colloidal particles occurs freely. Charge neutralization
is easily monitored and controlled using zeta potential [97]. From the
two phenomena above (adsorption and coagulation), it can be
ascertained that for the treatment of wastewaters (including brewery
wastewaters) containing both dissolved and suspended organics,
CNTs may well be applied to remove dissolved organics by adsorption,
and suspended solid organic by heterogeneous coagulation (bridging
and neutralization), at the same time.
However, a lot of challenges arise in attempting to use CNTs in
their present state as coagulants or flocculants. Firstly, the CNTs lack
dispersion and solubility. However, there have been several successful
attempts to prepare water soluble carbon nanotubes by various
techniques [98–100], and improvements in their dispersivity through

4.5.1. Nanosorbents
Carbon nanotubes have shown exceptionally good adsorption
capability and high adsorption efficiency for various organic pollu-
tants [87–91] and inorganic pollutants such as fluoride [92]. The CNTs
have also been found to be superior sorbents for heavy metals
[89,93,94]. The CNTs are particularly attractive as sorbents because, on
the basis of mass, they have larger surface areas than bulk particles,
and can be functionalized with various chemical groups to increase
their affinity towards target compounds [95]. The CNTs also have
small size, and hollow and layered structures, which are very
important characteristic attributes for adsorption [96]. The ability of Fig. 8. Models and representation of multi-walled CNT and single-walled CNT [82,83].
244 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247
functionalization [101]. Secondly, the CNTs are very expensive, thus
they require to be regenerated after use. If the CNTs are applied in the
form of slurry, an efficient separation process downstream such as
membrane filtration is needed to retain and recycle the CNTs.
Retention of nanomaterials is critical not only because of the cost
associated with loss of nanomaterials, but also, and more importantly,
because of the potential impacts of nanomaterials on human health
and ecosystems [102–104].
4.5.2. Nanofilters
The successful fabrication of carbon nanotube filters have been
reported [105]. These filtration membranes consist of hollow cylinders
with radially aligned carbon nanotube walls. Srivastava et al. [105]
efficiently carried out filtration of heavier hydrocarbon species, CmHn
(mN 12), from hydrocarboneceous oil for example, petroleum CmHn
(n=2m+2, m=1 to 12), and in the removal of Escherichia coli from
drinking water and filtration of the nanometer-sized poliovirus. The high
organic content of brewery effluent is classified as high strength waste in
terms of COD, from 1000 mg L− 1 to 4000 mg L− 1 and BOD of up to
1500 mg L− 1 [6]. This makes brewery wastewater a good candidate for
treatment with these CNT filters.
Membranes that have CNTs as pores could be used in desalination and
demineralization. Billions of these tubes act as the pores in the membrane.
A membrane filter possessing both super-hydrophobicity and super-
oleophilicity was synthesized from vertically-aligned multi-walled carbon
nano-tubes on a stainless steel mesh for the possible separation of oil and
water [106]. Both super-hydrophobicity and superoleophilicity could be
obtained due to the dual-scale structure, needle-like nano-tube geometry
on the mesh with micro-scale pores, combined with the low surface
energy [106]. The nano-tube filter could separate diesel and water layers,
and even surfactant-stabilized emulsions. The successful phase separation
of the high viscosity lubricating oil and water emulsions was also carried
out. The separation mechanism can be readily expanded to a variety of
different hydrophobic and oleophilic liquids such as brewery wastewater.
4.6. Electrochemical methods
Electrochemical method of wastewater treatment came into existence
when it was first used to treat sewage generated onboard by ships [107].
Thereafter, the application of electrochemical treatment was widely
received in treating industrial wastewaters that are rich in refractory
organics and chloride content [108,109]. The electrochemical method of
treatment is well-suited for degrading biorefractory organic pollutants,
because it is possible to achieve partial or complete decomposition of the
organic substances. The electrochemical methods of treatment are
favored, because they are neither subject to failure due to variation in
wastewater strength nor due to the presence of toxic substances and
require less hydraulic retention time. Vijayaraghavan et al. [108]
developed a novel brewery wastewater treatment method based on in
situ hypochlorous acid generation. The generated hypochlorous acid
served as an oxidizing agent that destroyed organic compounds present in
the brewery wastewater. An influent COD value of 2470 mg L-1 was
reduced to 64 mg L− 1 (over 97% reduction). The hypochlorous acid was
generated using a graphite anode and stainless steel sheet as a cathode in
undivided electrolytic reactor. Initially, during electrolysis, chlorine was
produced at the anode and hydrogen gas at the cathode. Since the anode
and cathode were kept in an undivided electrolytic reactor, the chlorine
that was generated undergoes a disproportionation reaction, resulting in
hypochlorous acid [108] as indicated in Eq. (2) below:
Cl2 þ H2 O→HOCl þ HCl ð2Þ
Further disproportion of OCl− to ClO− 3 was accelerated at high
temperature (75 °C) and under alkaline conditions (Eq. (3)).
− − −
3OCl →ClO3 þ 2Cl ð3Þ
4.7. Microbial fuel cells
Recently, brewery wastewater has been simultaneously treated
while generating electricity from organic matter in wastewater
[33,110–112]. This device that treats wastewater and generates
electricity at the same time is termed microbial fuel cell (MFC)
[113,114]. The MFC is a combined system with anaerobic and aerobic
characteristics. They are designed for anaerobic treatment by bacteria
in the solution near the anode, with the cathode exposed to oxygen
(or an alternative chemical electron acceptor). Electrons released by
bacterial oxidation of the organic matter are transferred through the
external circuit to the cathode where they combine with oxygen to
form water [33]. Consequently, a combination of anaerobic–aerobic
processes can be constructed using a double-chamber MFC, in which
the effluent of the anode chamber could be used directly as the
influent of the cathode chamber so as to be treated further under
aerobic conditions to improve the wastewater treatment efficiency
[112].
Feng et al. [33] found that with an influent COD of brewery wastewater
of 2 250±418 mg L− 1, the COD removal efficiency was 85% and 87% at
20 °C and 30 °C, respectively. Performance of sequential anode-cathode
MFC achieved COD removal efficiency of more than 90% (e.g., COD of 1
250±100 mg L− 1 was reduced to 60 mg L− 1) [112]. Furthermore, up to
94% COD removal has also been reported by other researchers with this
method [111]. Since high COD removal efficiencies were achieved in these
studies, it can be concluded that MFCs, particularly, sequential anode–
cathode type, can provide a new approach for brewery wastewater
treatment while offering a valuable alternative to energy generation.
4.8. Carbon
The characteristics of a water treatment plant have a great
influence on the characteristic properties of the end product. Even
when the incoming process water is from a municipal drinking water
source, the water may contain residual tastes, odors, disinfection by-
products, and free and combined chlorine. Molecules with carbon–
sulfur bonds often smell and taste bad, but these are often
preferentially adsorbed on carbon. The same is true of molecules
with aromatic rings. Carbon's de-chlorinating capability results from
its ability to act as a reducing agent that reacts with strong oxidizing
agents such as hypochlorous acid or chlorine dioxide.
The treatment of tannic acid for flavor and odor removal is a process
application in brewing where carbon adsorption is used. Carbon is also
used to remove color from malts for use in clear beers and other flavored
malt beverages. Several granular and powdered products can be used for
this type of application. Activated carbons are an effective treatment to
assure water that is contaminant, taste, and odor free.
5. Discussion and synthesis of findings
This section provides a discussion and synthesis of the review
findings of this paper. This discussion includes a comparison and
possible integration of the processes and technologies. In a nutshell,
the discussion primarily addresses the following two fundamental
questions: (a) How do the processes and technologies compare with
each other? (b) Can they be integrated with each other, and if so, what
are the potential challenges and benefits?
5.1. Comparison of processes and technologies
This review highlighted the need for treatment of brewery
wastewater, and looked at various methods that may be used to
safely and cost-effectively treat brewery wastewater for reuse. In
addition, some challenges associated with these methods were
discussed. It should be noted and emphasized herein that the
treatment of brewery wastewater effluent is a costly and relatively
 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247 245

complex activity; particularly with the need to meet governmental
regulations and environmental friendliness [6,115]. Conventional
separation methods such as coagulation/flocculation, centrifugation,
and gravity separation exhibit shortcomings including incomplete
COD removal. These methods are generally associated with low
separation efficiency, high operation costs, large setup size, and the
generation of secondary pollutants. It was also noticed that biological
treatment is widely applied as a pretreatment method. Generally,
aerobic treatment has been applied for the treatment of brewery
wastewater and recently, anaerobic systems have become an
attractive option, among other advantages, because of their high
COD content removal. Though these biological methods have found
widespread application for the treatment of the characteristically high
organic content of the brewery wastewater, further treatment is
required for water reuse.
Nevertheless, this review has shown some promising results with
quenched plasma, MBR, electrochemical methods, and microbial fuel
cells. These methods have great potential to be used to treat brewery
wastewater for reuse and needs to be further investigated with
respect to different challenges and opportunities involved. For
example, beer brewery wastewater might be a good source for
electricity generation in MFCs due to its nature of high carbohydrates
and low ammonium–nitrogen concentration. The authors have also
noted that recent advances suggest that many of the recent problems
involving water quality could be solved or greatly ameliorated using
carbon nanotubes as sorbents. Therefore, it is expected that the
brewery industry will also benefit from these discoveries. However,
the knowledge required for the large-scale design and application of
the processes discussed in this review is perhaps still lacking. It is
further recommended to carry out some studies to establish estimated
capital costs of these promising processes.
On the other hand, the application of membrane filtration (e.g., NF
and RO) to drinking water treatment and wastewater reuse, though
well established, has undergone accelerated development in the past
decade with the improvement in membrane quality and the decrease
in membrane cost. A very important trend in the development of
membrane filtration for water treatment is the integration of different
pretreatment strategies to improve their performance. The RO, in
particular, has been shown to be an efficient and cost effective process
for the treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse.
Table 8 shows a summary of some of the studies conducted on
brewery wastewater, showing the COD reductions, and whether the
effluent is suitable as a primary or secondary water based on the
criteria listed in Table 5. It must be noted, however, that these studies
had different experimental designs.
applications with good economics and high degree of energy
efficiency. Coupling these processes together as two or three stage
processes would be more appropriate. Subsequently, different process
combinations are proposed and discussed.
The demand for renewable energy in our society is ever increasing
[111]. Therefore, the MFCs is recommended to be the first pretreat-
ment stage of every integrated process particularly with filtration
techniques. MFCs have operational and functional advantages over
the technologies currently used for generating energy from organic
matter [111]. First, the direct conversion of substrate energy to
electricity enables high conversion efficiency, unlike the biological
processes reactors where the metabolized products (e.g., NH3) have to
be used in boilers for energy generation. Second, MFCs operate
efficiently at ambient temperature. Third, an MFC does not require gas
treatment because the off-gasses of MFCs are enriched in carbon
dioxide and normally have no useful energy content. Fourth, MFCs do
not need energy input for aeration provided the cathode is passively
aerated [116]. Fifth, MFCs have potential for widespread application in
locations lacking electrical infrastructures and can also operate with
diverse fuels to satisfy energy requirements. The high COD removal
efficiency (see Table 8) could also reduce the load in other coupled
stages. The uses of other techniques as first stages in an integrated
process do not offer any foreseeable benefits.
Electrochemical methods can be well suited to be coupled in the
latter stages of the integrated process. Sanitizing agents (often called
disinfectants) which are present in brewery wastewater contain
chlorine compounds. These compounds produce chlorine during
electrolysis and, thereafter, chlorine generates hypochlorous acid
which oxidizes organic compounds. Chlorine is one of the most widely
used disinfectants. It is very applicable and very effective for the
deactivation of pathogenic microorganisms. Therefore, electrochem-
ical methods if coupled in the latter stages can serve as an organic
oxidation and disinfecting stage.
Plasma methods though very effective (see Table 8), the process is
expensive because of the high energy requirements by the gas, and
the cost of energy sources such as laser. Therefore, if coupled with
other methods, the processes can be very expensive.
CNTs have shown remarkable adsorption power. Combining CNTs
with UF will result in substantial removal of organics. However, the
addition of CNTs would rapidly increase the transmembrane pressure
rapidly due to the formation of CNT cake on the membrane surface. In
this case, CNTs may need to be of large enough diameters to reduce
the transmembrane pressure effect. As for the MBR or filtration in
general, fouling mitigation can potentially be done by coupling
coagulation and flocculation to the process [117].

5.2. Integration of processes and technologies 6. Summary

It can be been seen in Table 8 that none of the methods (apart from Water is a common element in the lives of all people and societies.
RO) can be used individually in brewery wastewater treatment Water has been the foundation and sometimes, the undoing of many

Table 8
Summary of brewery wastewater treatment processes.

Process Initial COD Final COD COD Potential use Reference

(mg/L) (mg/L) reduction
Primary Secondary
(%)
(process water) (non-process water)

Quenched plasma 1018a 18a 98 No No [5]

UASB (*1) 1947–3079 Not given 73–91 No No [21]
Aerobic reactor Not given Not given 90–98 No No [16]
Combined bioreactor (*1) Not given Not given 98 No No [36]
Membrane bioreactor 500–1000 40 96 No No [32]
Electrochemical method 2470 64 97 No No [107]
Microbial fuel cells (*2) 1710 105 94 No No [110]
Nanofiltration 3692 143 96 No No [1]
Reverse osmosis 850 0 100 Yes Yes [39]
a
BOD figures; (*1) has added value of energy production from biogas; (*2) has added value of electricity production.
246 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247
great civilizations. Today, water continues to be essential for life
sustenance (both human and animals), agricultural, economic and
industrial activities that help society to develop. Less than a century
ago, it was widely assumed that there were enough freshwater
supplies in the world for everyone. Yet today, increased use of
freshwater for industrial, agricultural, and domestic use has created
acute water shortages in some areas of the world, particularly the
developing countries. These shortages are stimulating or worsening
international conflicts over water, which has joined oil as a major
commodity triggering wars. The presence of pollutants in raw water
due to human activities has also exacerbated the situation. On the
other hand, wastewater reclamation and reuse has become an
important option, since industrialization and urbanization have
accelerated environmental water pollution, making it a limited
resource for water supply [118]. When properly treated and recycled,
wastewater can be an alternative water source that can beneficially
and cost-effectively reduce the demands for fresh water.
It can be concluded that, along with the growing world population
and industrial activities coupled with stringent environmental
requirements, the cost of water is increasing. As a result, the demand
for water reuse in the brewery industry is expected to increase at an
unprecedented rate. Consequently, an increasing need of processes
capable of achieving an efficient treatment under extreme operational
conditions that simultaneously optimize operational costs can be
expected in the future. Information obtained from this review shows
that in order to remove impurities efficiently, integration of different
processes is recommended.
Disclaimer
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors who are
responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein and
do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of any agency or
institute. This paper does not constitute a standard, specification, nor
is it intended for design, construction, bidding, contracting, or permit
purposes.
References
[1] L. Braeken, B. Van der Bruggen, C. Vandecasteele, Regeneration of brewery waste
water using nanofiltration, Water Research 38 (13) (2004) 3075–3082.
[2] W. Parawira, I. Kudita, M.G. Nyandoroh, A study of industrial anaerobic
treatment of opaque beer brewery wastewater in a tropical climate using a
full-scale UASB reactor seeded with activated sludge, Process Biochemistry 40
(2) (2005) 593–599.
[3] L. Fillaudeau, P. Blanpain-Avet, G. Daufin, Water, wastewater and waste
management in brewing industries, Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006)
463–471.
[4] L. Fillaudeau, B. Boissier, A. Moreau, P. Blanpain-Avet, S. Ermolaev, N. Jitariouk, A.
Gourdon, Investigation of rotating and vibrating filtration for clarification of
rough beer, Journal of Food Engineering 80 (2007) 206–217.
[5] A. Doubla, A. Laminsi, A. Nzali, E. Njoyim, J. Kamsu-Kom, J.-L. Brisset, Organic
pollutants abatement and biodecontamination of brewery effluents by a non-
thermal quenched plasma at atmospheric pressure, Chemosphere 69 (2007)
332–337.
[6] K. Kanagachandran, R. Jayerantene, Utilisation potential of brewery wastewater
sludge as an organic fertilizer, Journal of the Institute of Brewing 112 (2) (2006)
92–96.
[7] Institute of Brewing and Distilling, Examiners reports 2005 to 2009, Diploma in
Brewing Module One, 2005–2009.
[8] N.J. Huige, Brewery by-products and effluents, in: F.G. Priest, G.G. Stewart (Eds.),
Handbook of Brewing, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2006.
[9] T. Goldammer, The Brewers' Handbook, 2nd editionApex Publishers, Clifton, 2008.
[10] Y. Sarfo-Afriye, 1999, A Study of Industrial Waste Management in Kumasi (Case
Study), Kumasi Breweries Limited, The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Ghana, 2009.
[11] T. Janhom, S. Wattanachira, P. Pavasant, Characterisation of brewery wastewater
with spectrofluorometry analysis, Journal of Environmental Management 90
(2009) 1184–1190.
[12] W. Fischer, Reprocessing or disposal of kieselguhr? Brauwelt International 1
(1992) 60–65.
[13] G. Hrycyk, The recovery and disposal of diatomaceous earth in breweries, MBAA
Technical Quarterly 34 (1) (1997) 293–298.
[14] V.I. Kaur, Incorporation of brewery waste in supplementary feed and its impact
on growth in some carps, Biosource Technology 91 (2004) 101–104.
[15] D. Norman, Norman environmental management systems, Glass Technology 38
(5) (1997) 146–149.
[16] W. Driessen, T. Vereijken, Recent developments in biological treatment of
brewery effluent, The Institute and Guild of Brewing Convention, Livingstone,
Zambia, March 2–7, 2003.
[17] UN, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, 19928 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html.
[18] IFC, Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Breweries, 20078 http://
www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_EHSGuidelines2007_
Breweries/$FILE/Final+−+Breweries.pdf.
[19] A.G. Brito, J. Peixoto, J.M. Oliveira, J.A. Oliveira, C. Costa, R. Nogueira, A.
Rodrigues, Brewery and winery wastewater treatment: some focal points of
design and operation, in: V. Oreopoulous, W. Russ (Eds.), Utilisation of By-
products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry, Vol. 3, Springer, New
York, 2007.
[20] A.G. Rao, T.S.K. Reddy, S.S. Prakash, J. Vanajakshi, J. Joseph, P.N. Sarma, pH
regulation of alkaline wastewater with carbon dioxide: a case study of treatment
of brewery wastewater in UASB reactor coupled with absorber, Bioresource
Technology 98 (2007) 2131–2136.
[21] C. Cronin, K.V. Lo, Anaerobic treatment of brewery wastewater using UASB
reactors seeded with activated sludge, Bioresource Technology 64 (1998) 33–38.
[22] H. Huang, K. Schwab, J.G. Jacangelo, The pretreatment for low pressure
membranes in water treatment: a review, Environmental Science and
Technology 43 (9) (2009) 3011–3019.
[23] F.R. Spellman, Spellman's Standard Handbook for Wastewater Operators, Vol. 1,
Technomic Publishers, Lancaster, 1999.
[24] United Nations Environment Programme, Source Book of Alternative Technol-
ogies for Fresh Water Augmentation in Latin America and the Caribbean,
Organisation of America States, Washington DC, 19978 http://www.oas.org/DSD/
publications/Unit/oea59e/ch25.htm.
[25] K. Unterstein, Energy and water go to make beer, Brauwelt International 18 (5)
(2000) 368–370.
[26] M. Perry, G. De Villiers, Modeling the consumption of water and other utilities,
Brauwelt International 5 (3) (2003) 286–290.
[27] G.J. Sheehan, P.F. Greenfield, Utilisation, treatment and disposal of distillery
wastewater, Water Research 14 (1980) 257–277.
[28] L. Lampinen, F. Quirt, Effluent neutralizing with flue gas, Technical Quarterly
Master Brewers Association of the Americas 24 (3) (1987) 86–89.
[29] T. Lom, A new trend in the treatment of alkaline brewery effluents, Technical
Quarterly Master Brewers Association of the Americas 14 (1977) 50–58.
[30] J. Gregory, Particles in Water: Properties and Processes, IWA Publishing/CRC
Press, London, 2006.
[31] Degrémont, Water Technical Handbook, 9th edition, Degrémont, Paris, 1989.
[32] H. Dai, X. Yang, T. Dong, Y. Ke, T. Wang, Engineering application of MBR process
to the treatment of beer brewing wastewater, Modern Applied Science 4 (9)
(2010) 103–109.
[33] Y. Feng, X. Wang, B.E. Logan, H. Lee, Brewery wastewater treatment using air-
cathode microbial fuel cells, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 78 (2008)
873–880.
[34] M. Seneviratne, A Practical Approach to Water Conservation for Commercial and
Industrial Facilities, Elsevier, Oxford, 2007.
[35] D.E. Briggs, C.A. Boulton, P.A. Brookes, R. Stevens, Brewing: Science and Practice,
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2004.
[36] Biothane, Biogas Production in Breweries, 20108 http://www.biothane.com/en/
articles/ 14856.htm.
[37] B.K. Ince, O. Ince, P.J. Sallis, G.K. Anderson, Inert COD production in a membrane
anaerobic reactor treating brewery wastewater, Water Research 34 (16) (2000)
3943–3948.
[38] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th
edition, American Public Health Association/Water Environment Federation,
Washington DC, 1996.
[39] S.S. Madaeni, Y. Mansourpanah, Screening membranes for COD removal from
dilute wastewater, Desalination 197 (1–3) (2006) 23–32.
[40] J.K. Holt, H.G. Park, Y. Wang, M. Stadermann, A.B. Artyukhin, C.P. Grigoropoulos,
A. Noy, O. Bakajin, Fast mass transport through sub-2-nanometer carbon
nanotubes, Science 312 (5776) (2006) 1034–1037.
[41] M.A. Shannon, P.W. Bohn, M. Elimelech, J.G. Georgiadis, B.J. Marinas, A.M. Mayes,
Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades, Nature 452
(7185) (2008) 301–310.
[42] X. Peng, J. Jin, Y. Nakamura, T. Ohno, I. Ichinose, Ultrafast permeation of water
through protein-based membranes, Nature Nanotechnology 4 (2009) 353–357.
[43] V.K. Gupta, Suhas, Application of low-cost adsorbents for dye removal—a review,
Journal of Environmental Management 90 (8) (2009) 2313–2342.
[44] T.D. Brock, Membrane Filtration: A User's Guide and Reference Manual,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983.
[45] C. Visvanathan, D. Pokhrel, Role of membrane bioreactors in environmental
engineering applications, in: S. Roussos, C.R. Soccol, A. Pandey, C. Augur (Eds.),
New Horizons in Biotechnology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 2003.
[46] R.D. Letterman (Ed.), Water Quality and Treatment, 5th ed., American Water
Works Association and McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999.
[47] S. Lee, G. Parka, G. Amy, S.-K. Hong, S.-H. Moon, D.-H. Lee, J. Cho, Determination of
membrane pore size distribution using the fractional rejection of nonionic and charged
macromolecules, Journal of Membrane Science 201 (1–2) (2002) 191–201.
[48] L. Malaeb, G.M. Ayoub, Reverse osmosis technology for water treatment: state of
the art review, Desalination 267 (2011) 1–8.
 G.S. Simate et al. / Desalination 273 (2011) 235–247
[49] A.Y. Zahrim, C. Tizaoui, N. Hilal, Coagulation with polymers for nanofiltration
pre-treatment of highly concentrated dyes: A review, Desalination 266 (1–3)
(2011) 1–16.
[50] C.S. Slater, R.C. Ahlert, C.G. Uchrin, Applications of reverse osmosis to complex
industrial wastewater treatment, Desalination 48 (1983) 171–187.
[51] A. Ghabris, M. Abdel-Jawad, J. Aly, Municipal wastewater renovation by reverse
osmosis: state of the art, Desalination 75 (1989) 213–240.
[52] I. Koyuncu, F. Yalcin, I. Ozturk, Color removal of high strength paper and
fermentation industry effluents with membrane technology, Water Science and
Technology 40 (11–12) (1999) 241–248.
[53] F. Yalcin, I. Koyuncu, I. Oztürk, D. Topacik, Pilot scale UF and RO studies on water
reuse in Corrugated Board Industry, Water Science and Technology 40 (4–5)
(1999) 303–310.
[54] E.R. Cornelissen, W. Janse, J. Koning, Wastewater treatment with the internal
MEMBIOR, Desalination 146 (2002) 463–466.
[55] A.P. Sutton, Electronic Structure of Materials, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.
[56] B. Benstaali, D. Moussa, A. Addou, J.-L. Brisset, Plasma treatment of aqueous
solutes: some chemical properties of a gliding arc in humid air, European
Physical Journal Applied Physics 4 (1998) 171–179.
[57] http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/MembraneBioreactor.
[58] D. Jeison, Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: feasibility
and potential applications. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands, 2007.
[59] X.Y. Li, H.P. Chu, Membrane bioreactor for drinking water treatment of polluted
surface water supplies, Water Research 37 (19) (2003) 4781–4791.
[60] F.S. Fan, H.D. Zhou, Interrelated effects of aeration and mixed liquor fractions on
membrane fouling for submerged membrane bioreactor processes in wastewa-
ter treatment, Environmental Science and Technology 41 (7) (2007) 2523–2528.
[61] S. Lyko, D. Al-Halbouni, T. Wintgens, A. Janot, J. Hollender, W. Dott, T. Melin,
Polymeric compounds in activated sludge supernatant-characterisation and
retention mechanisms at full scale–scale municipal membrane bioreactor, Water
Research 41 (17) (2007) 3894–3902.
[62] S. Kimura, Japan's aqua renaissance '90 project, Water Science and Technology
23 (7–9) (1991) 1573–1582.
[63] A. Nagano, E. Arikawa, H. Kobayashi, The treatment of liquor wastewater
containing high-strength suspended solids by membrane bioreactor system,
Water Science and Technology 26 (3–4) (1992) 887–895.
[64] A. Fakhru'l-Razi, Ultrafiltration membrane separation for anaerobic wastewater
treatment, Water Science and Technology 30 (12) (1994) 321–327.
[65] B. Tansel, W.Y. Bao, I.N. Tansel, Characterisation of fouling kinetics in
ultrafiltration systems by resistances in series model, Desalination 129 (2000)
7–14.
[66] J. Tian, H. Liang, X. Li, S. You, S. Tian, G. Li, Membrane coagulation bioreactor
(MCBR) for drinking water treatment, Water Research 42 (2008) 3910–3920.
[67] W.S. Ang, S. Lee, M. Elimelech, Chemical and physical aspects of cleaning of
organic-fouled reverse osmosis membranes, Journal of Membrane Science 272
(1–2) (2006) 198–210.
[68] A. Bagga, S. Chellam, D.A. Clifford, Evaluation of iron chemical coagulation and
electrocoagulation pretreatment for surface water microfiltration, Journal of
Membrane Science 309 (1–2) (2008) 82–93.
[69] J.S. Kim, Z.X. Cai, M.M. Benjamin, Effects of absorbents on membrane fouling by
natural organic matter, Journal of Membrane Science 310 (1–2) (2008) 356–364.
[70] W. Driessen, L. Habets, T. Vereijken, Novel anaerobic and aerobic processes to
meet strict effluent plant design requirements, Ferment 10 (4) (1997) 243–250.
[71] W. Driessen, P. Yspeert, P. Yspeert, T. Vereijken, Compact combined anaerobic
and aerobic process for the treatment of industrial effluent, Environmental
Forum, Columbia–Canada: Solutions to Environmental Problems in Latin
America, Cartegena de Indias, Columbia, May 24–26, 2000.
[72] Y.J. Chan, M.F. Chong, C.L. Law, D.G. Hassell, A review on anaerobic–aerobic
treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater, Chemical Engineering Journal
155 (1–2) (2009) 1–18.
[73] M. Monthioux, V.L. Kuznetsov, Who should be given the credit for the discovery
of carbon nanotubes? Carbon 44 (2006) 1621–1623.
[74] S. Iijima, Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon, Nature 354 (1991) 56–58.
[75] H. Dai, Carbon nanotubes: opportunities and challenges, Surface Science 500
(2002) 218–241.
[76] D. Tasis, N. Tagmatarchis, A. Bianco, M. Prato, Chemistry of carbon nanotubes,
Chemical Reviews 106 (3) (2006) 1105–1136.
[77] C. Journet, P. Bernier, Production of carbon nanotubes, Applied Physics A 67
(1998) 1–9.
[78] M.S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, P. Avouris (Eds.), Carbon nanotubes: Synthesis,
Structure, Properties and Applications, Springer, New York, 2001.
[79] C.E. Baddour, C. Briens, Carbon nanotube synthesis: a review, International
Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering 3 (2005) R3.
[80] A.E. Agboola, R.W. Pike, T.A. Hertwig, H.H. Lou, Conceptual design of carbon
Xnanotube processes, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 9 (2007)
289–311.
[81] M. Paradise, T. Goswami, Carbon nanotubes—production and industrial applica-
tions, Materials and Design 28 (2007) 1477–1489.
[82] G.S. Simate, S.E. Iyuke, S. Ndlovu, C.S. Yah, L.F. Walubita, The production of
carbon nanotubes from carbon dioxide: challenges and opportunities, Journal of
Natural Gas Chemistry 19 (5) (2010) 453–460.
[83] A. Merkoci, Carbon nanotubes in analytical sciences, Microchimica Acta 152 (3–4)
(2006) 157–174.
[84] R. Liu, The functionalisation of carbon nanotubes. PhD Thesis. University of New
South Wales, Australia, 2008.
View publication stats
247
[85] B.K. Teo, C. Sigh, M. Chowalla, W.I.J. Milne, Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology, vol. 1, American Scientific Publishers, Los Angeles, 2003.
[86] J. Robertson, Realistic applications of CNTs, Materials Today 7 (10) (2004) 46–52.
[87] C. Lu, Y.-L. Chung, K.-F. Chang, Adsorption of trihalomethanes from water with
carbon nanotubes, Water Research 39 (2005) 1183–1189.
[88] J. Goering, U. Burghaus, Adsorption kinetics of thiophene on single-walled
carbon nanotubes (CCNTs), Chemical Physics Letters 447 (2007) 121–126.
[89] Y.-H. Li, Y.M. Zhao, W.B. Hu, I. Ahmad, Y.Q. Zhu, J.X. Peng, Z.K. Luan, Carbon
nanotubes—the promising adsorbent in wastewater treatment, Journal of
Physics: Conference Series 61 (2007) 698–702.
[90] C. Lu, F. Su, Adsorption of natural organic matter by carbon nanotubes,
Separation and Purification Technology 58 (2007) 113–121.
[91] Y. Shih, M. Li, Adsorption of selected volatile organic vapours on multiwall
carbon nanotubes, Journal of Hazardous Materials 154 (2008) 21–28.
[92] Y.-H. Li, S. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Wei, C. Xu, Z. Luan, D. Wu, Adsorption of fluoride
from water by aligned carbon nanotubes, Materials Research Bulletin 38 (3)
(2003) 469–476.
[93] Y.-H. Li, J. Ding, Z. Luan, Z. Di, Y. Zhu, C. Xu, D. Wu, B. Wei, Competitive adsorption
of Pb2+, Cu2+ and Cd2+ ions from aqueous solutions by multiwalled carbon
nanotubes, Carbon 41 (2003) 278–2792.
[94] Y.-H. Li, Y. Zhu, Y. Zhao, D. Wu, Z. Luan, Different morphologies of carbon
nanotubes effect on the lead removal from aqueous solutions, Diamond and
Related Materials 15 (2006) 90–94.
[95] N. Savage, M.S. Diallo, Nanomaterials and water purification: opportunities and
challenges, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7 (2005) 331–342.
[96] C.H. Wu, Adsorption of reactive dye onto carbon nanotubes: equilibrium,
kinetics and thermodynamics, Journal of Hazardous Materials 144 (2007)
93–100.
[97] Zeta-Meter Inc., Everything You Need to Know About Coagulation and
Flocculation-guide, Zeta-Meter Inc., Virginia, 1993.
[98] B. Zhao, H. Hu, R.C. Haddon, Synthesis and properties of a water-soluble single-walled
carbon nanotube-poly(m-aminobenzene sulfonic acid) grafted copolymer, Advanced
Functional Materials 14 (1) (2004) 71–76.
[99] B. Zhao, H. Hu, A.P. Yu, D. Perea, R.C. Haddon, Synthesis and characterization of
water soluble single-walled carbon nanotube graft copolymers, Journal of the
American Chemical Society 127 (2005) 8197–8203.
[100] T. Zhang, M. Xu, L. He, K. Xi, M. Gu, Z. Jiang, Synthesis, characterization and
cytotoxicity of phosphoryl choline-grafted water-soluble carbon nanotubes,
Carbon 46 (2008) 1782–1791.
[101] N. Zhang, J. Xie, V.K. Varadan, Functionalisation of carbon nanotubes by
potassium permanganate assisted with phase transfer catalyst, Smart Materials
and Structures 11 (2002) 962–965.
[102] M.N. Moore, Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the
aquatic environment, Environmental International 32 (2006) 967–976.
[103] S.K. Smart, A.I. Cassady, G.Q. Lu, D.J. Martin, The biocompatibility of carbon
nanotubes, Carbon 44 (2006) 1034–1047.
[104] M.R. Wiesner, G.V. Lowry, P. Alvarez, D. Dionysiou, P. Biswas, Assessing the risks
of manufactured nanomaterials, Environmental Science and Technology 40 (14)
(2006) 4336–4337.
[105] A. Srivastava, O.N. Srivastava, S. Talapatra, R. Vajtai, P.M. Ajayan, Carbon
nanotube filters, Nature Materials 3 (2004) 610–614.
[106] C. Lee, S. Baik, Vertically-aligned carbon nano-tube membrane filters with
superhydrophobicity and superoleophilicity, Carbon 48 (8) (2010) 2192–2197.
[107] J.O.H. Bockris, Environmental Chemistry, Plenum Press, New York, 1977.
[108] K. Vijayaraghavan, D. Ahmad, R. Lesa, Electrolytic treatment of beer brewery
wastewater, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 45 (2006)
6854–6859.
[109] C. Barrera-Díaz, I. Linares-Hernández, G. Roa-Morales, B. Bilyeu, P. Balderas-
Hernández, Removal of biorefractory compounds in industrial wastewater by
chemical and electrochemical pretreatments, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research 48 (2009) 1253–1258.
[110] X. Wang, Y.J. Feng, H. Lee, Electricity production from beer brewery wastewater
using single chamber microbial cell, Water Science and Technology 57 (7)
(2008) 1117–1121.
[111] A.S. Mathuriya, V.N. Sharma, Treatment of brewery wastewater and production
of electricity through microbial fuel cell technology, International Journal of
Biotechnology and Biochemistry 6 (1) (2010) 71–80.
[112] Q. Wen, Y. Wu, L. Zhao, Q. Sun, F. Kong, Electricity generation and brewery
wastewater treatment from sequential anode-cathode microbial fuel cell,
Journal of Zhejiang University: Science B 11 (2) (2010) 87–93.
[113] H.P. Bennetto, Microbial fuel cells, in: A.M. Michelson, J.V. Bannister (Eds.), Life
Chemistry Reports, Vol. 2, Harwood Academic, London, 1984.
[114] W. Habermann, E.H. Pommer, Biological fuel cells with sulphide storage capacity,
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 25 (1) (1991) 128–133.
[115] R. Reed, G. Henderson, Water and waste water management—its increasing
importance to brewery and malting production costs, Ferment 12 (6) (1999)
13–17.
[116] S.E. Oh, B. Min, B.E. Logan, Cathode performance as a factor in electricity
generation in microbial fuel cells, Environmental Science Technology 38 (2004)
4900–4904.
[117] T. Leikness, The effect of coupling coagulation and flocculation with membrane
filtration in water treatment: a review, Journal of Environmental Sciences 21
(2009) 8–12.
[118] G.T. Seo, Y. Suzuki, S. Ohgaki, Biological powdered activated carbon (BPAC)
microfiltration for wastewater reclamation and reuse, Desalination 106 (1996)
39–45.