Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Treating and reusing wastewater generated by the washing operations in

the non-hazardous plastic solid waste recycling process: Advanced method
vs. conventional method
Valerio Guido Altieri, Marco De Sanctis, Damiano Sgherza, Simona Pentassuglia,
Emanuele Barca, Claudio Di Iaconi *
Water Research Institute, C.N.R, Viale F. De Blasio 5, 70132, Bari, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The effectiveness of an advanced treatment of wastewater generated by non-hazardous plastic solid waste (PSW)
Plastic recycling process washing, based on the Sequencing Batch Biofilter Granular Reactor (SBBGR), was assessed in terms of gross
SBBGR parameters, removal efficiencies and sludge production. The proposed treatment was also compared with the
Sludge production
conventional treatment, which was based on primary and secondary treatments, using the activated sludge
Washing water treatment
Wastewater recycling
process, performed by Recuperi Pugliesi, a leading company in the plastic recycling industry located in Bari,
Italy. The company produces low-density polyethylene (LDPE) regenerated granules from PSW used in agri­
cultural and floricultural greenhouse activities and industrial packaging after a washing stage in the aqueous
phase. The latter generates large volumes of wastewater, the conventional treatment of which is characterised by
large quantities of sludge and the associated disposal problems. Under steady-state conditions, the SBBGR pro­
vided impressive removal efficiencies regarding the main gross parameters (over 90% for COD and TKN, over
99% for BOD5, TSS, VSS and NH3, and over 80% for TN) with a statistically better effluent quality than that of the
conventional treatment. The SBBGR effluent quality was modelled in terms of washing water characteristics by
using generalized additive models (GAMs). The SBBGR treatment was characterised by a specific sludge pro­
duction five times lower than that of the conventional treatment (0.21 kg TSS vs. 1.0 kg TSS per m3 of waste­
water treated). Compared with the conventional treatment, the proposed process showed a five-fold reduction in
the cost of sludge disposal, which saved 50% of the operating cost.

1. Introduction
Since the 1960s, there has been a twenty-fold increase in the global
production of plastic materials, and production is expected to double in
the next two decades (European Commission, 2018). For this reason, the
EU has addressed the theme of the circular economy by planning a
reversal of the conventional “take-make-dispose” paradigm in the plastic
sector (European Commission, 2015). It has introduced a “waste hier­
archy” to foster virtuous practices (European Commission, 2008) and
outlined a zero-waste strategy for the future (European Commission,
2014).
In 2018, the worldwide production of plastic materials reached 360
million tonnes, more than 50% of which was produced in Asia; 17% was
produced in Europe. The annual European demand for the companies
involved in the transformation of plastic materials exceeded 50 million
tonnes, which was much higher in several segments, such as packaging
and construction as well as automotive, electrical, and electronic com­
ponents. In Europe, the plastics sector employs more than 1.6 million
people, includes 60,000 operating companies, and generates a turnover
of more than 360 billion euros (PlasticsEurope, 2019).
Virtuous waste management can benefit both environments and
economies (Cherubini et al., 2009). With regard to plastic solid waste
(PSW), from 2006 to 2018 in Europe there was a 44% decrease in the
amount of PSW intended for disposal, from 12.9 to 7.2 million ton­
nes/year. Since 1988, several high-income countries have been the
prevailing exporters of PSW (Brooks et al., 2018). Until 2017, China was
the top world importer of PSW, with approximately 10–12 million
tonnes/year. However, in 2018, China’s ban on foreign PSW imports
resulted in a net decrease in plastics exported from 2016 to 2018.
Moreover, a huge amount of plastic was sent to even less-regulated

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: claudio.diiaconi@ba.irsa.cnr.it (C. Di Iaconi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112011
Received 26 May 2020; Received in revised form 29 December 2020; Accepted 14 January 2021
Available online 27 January 2021
0301-4797/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.G. Altieri et al.
regions, such as those in South-East Asia (Greenpeace Report, 2019).
Regarding plastic valorisation, from 2006 to 2018 in Europe there
was a 19% increase in post-consumer plastic waste collection. Indeed, in
this period, the amount of recycled plastic increased by 100%, from 4.7
to 9.4 million tonnes/year. On a continental scale, approximately 29
million tonnes of post-consumer plastic waste were collected in 2018, a
third of which was destined for recycling (PlasticsEurope, 2019).
One of the most widely produced polymers is polyethylene (PE).
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is commonly used to produce reusable
bags, trays and containers. In Mediterranean countries (Scar­
ascia-Mugnozza et al., 2011), agricultural and food packaging films
account for 60% of the production of all agricultural plastic—more than
500,000 tonnes (Horodytska et al., 2018; Briassoulis et al., 2013).
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is used to produce toys, bottles, pipes
and housewares (PlasticsEurope, 2019). According to the Market Study
Report (2020), the global PE market will reach 117 billion dollars by
2025 from 108 billion dollars in 2019.
Plastic solid wastes undergo mechanical recycling, which allows
their reuse as raw products that are converted to new plastic materials.
The treatment stages in mechanical recycling include milling, washing,
agglutination, extrusion and quenching (Al-Salem et al., 2009; Aznar
et al., 2006). This process cannot be indiscriminately applied to any class
of polymers because each type of plastic responds differently depending
on its mechanical and thermal characteristics. The only polymers that
can undergo this treatment are PE and polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), which represent 37% and 9% of the annual production of plastic,
respectively (Garcia et al., 2017).
The preliminary stages of the mechanical recycling process are
particularly important, as they allow for obtaining a high-quality
product (Al-Salem et al., 2009). The washing stage plays a pivotal role
because the large volumes of water used produce great amounts of
wastewater to be treated. According to the literature, 3.48 kg of water
for each kg of recycled PET is used in the PSW mechanical recycling
process (Perugini et al., 2005). The latest generation of washing plants
has significantly reduced water consumption to 2–3 m3 of water per
tonne of plastic material (Hopewell et al., 2009). Regardless of the origin
of PSW, which varies substantially, washing is a necessary step in
removing residues such as wood, pulp fibres, food and adhesives, which
otherwise would have detrimental effects on the final regenerated
product (Delva et al., 2019).
As reported by Ragaert et al. (2017), the washing process is complex
and composed of several consecutive stages. The pre-washing steps are
combined with separation by gravitation, and the following washing
steps are enhanced by mechanical friction. Moreover, some plastic
materials, such as films from the agro-industrial sector, are rich in
organic matter residues. They produce heavily polluted wastewater, the
treatment of which by conventional methods is characterised by the
generation of large quantities of sludge, which causes disposal problems
(e.g., economic burden, environmental threats, health issues, etc.). The
relevance of this step was highlighted indepth by Soto et al. (2018,
2020), that emphasised some challenging issues (e.g., impurities or
contaminants on PSW and esthetical aspects) in a process that did not
include a similar step.
The quality of the water used in the washing stage is a critical factor
because it affects the operation of the extrusion stage in the PSW recy­
cling plant. After the washing stage, the plastic material is melted and
extruded in the recycling plant, which is equipped with a very low
porosity filter (usually below 100 μm) that operates under high pressure
(higher than 100 bar). The function of this filter is to retain impurities in
the solid phase. The presence of any particulate impurity on the surface
of PSW leads to the occlusion of the filter and the consequent increase in
the operating pressure (up to 400 bar) and in the frequency of regen­
eration operations. An effluent with low content of suspended solids is
highly desirable for reducing the filter regeneration frequency and
extending its life cycle. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge,
no international standards or national regulations have established
2
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
criteria for the quality of washing water reuse in PSW recycling plants.
Indeed, as far as water is concerned, the washing process is operated in
almost closed loop because the water is recycled, and no water fraction
is directly discharged. Nevertheless, some water is consumed by
lowering the extruder temperature, as well as lost due to evaporation
during the PSW washing operation and in the sludge generated by the
washing water treatment line. Therefore, the reduction in the quantity of
sludge produced during the washing water treatment and the
improvement in the quality of the effluent reused in the washing stage
are two major issues in the PSW recycling process.
In the present study, an advanced wastewater treatment system, the
Sequencing Batch Biofilter Granular Reactor (SBBGR), was tested during
the PSW washing water treatment for its ability to reduce sludge pro­
duction and improve effluent quality. The SBBGR is an innovative bio­
logical system that exploits maintenance and uncoupling metabolisms to
significantly reduce sludge production (Di Iaconi et al., 2010, 2016). The
main feature of the SBBGR is a particular type of microbial architecture,
which consists of a mixture of a self-immobilised biomass and a granular
biomass, which is generated under specific operating conditions (Di
Iaconi et al., 2007; Winkler et al., 2018). Furthermore, the SBBGR
simplifies the wastewater treatment sequence because it allows the
entire depuration process to be conducted in the same basin.
So far, the SBBGR technology has been successfully applied to treat
several kinds of wastewater, such as municipal sewage (De Sanctis et al.,
2017; Di Iaconi et al., 2016), tannery and textile effluents (Lotito et al.,
2014; Di Iaconi et al., 2004) and municipal leachates (Del Moro et al.,
2013). An observed sludge growth yield of 0.05–0.15 kg of dried sludge
(TSS) per kg of chemical oxygen demand (COD) was obtained, which
was several times lower than that reported in traditional wastewater
treatment systems based on an activated sludge process (Foladori et al.,
2010). In addition to low sludge production, SBBGR applications have
shown better effluent quality compared with traditional treatment
methods. In the case of municipal sewage, the SBBGR effluent quality
was found to be very close to the standards suggested by the World
Health Organisation (WHO) for agricultural reuse (De Sanctis et al.,
2017).
In the present study, the SBBGR was applied to treat wastewater
produced in the washing step conducted in the PSW recycling plant
operated by Recuperi Pugliesi, which is a leading company in the plastic
recycling industry in Bari, Italy. The company produces LDPE-
regenerated granules from non-hazardous PSW after the washing stage
in the aqueous phase. The transformation process is carried out by the
latest generation plant for the extrusion and granulation of post-
consumer plastic materials, such as agricultural films, plastic sheets
and plastic packaging (23 tonnes/d). The plastic recycling process
generates approximately 200 m3/d of wastewater, which undergoes
primary and secondary treatments in a dedicated treatment plant, using
the activated sludge process. The effluent is recycled to the PSW washing
step after 15–20% of high-quality water is added. Because of the high
content of suspended solids in the washing water (i.e., much higher than
in municipal sewage), the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) gener­
ates approximately 0.45 tonne/d of sludge with a moisture content of
45% after centrifugation, which is currently destined for landfill.
In the present study, the effectiveness of the SBBGR technology in
treating the Recuperi Pugliesi company washing water was extensively
evaluated for approximately 12 months, regarding both sludge pro­
duction and effluent quality. The results were compared with those of
the Recuperi Pugliesi wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the
effluent quality statistically assessed by ANOVA. Finally, the SBBGR
effluent quality was modelled in terms of influent washing water char­
acteristics by using generalized additive models (GAMs).
V.G. Altieri et al.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. SBBGR setup and operating conditions
The SBBGR system used in this study was composed of a plexiglass
cylinder (height 100 cm, diameter 19 cm, and working volume 20 L).
Inside the reactor, the biomass was confined between two perforated
plastic plates in a region called bed (volume 11.5 L) using a wheel-
shaped plastic support material (TTB01 carrier of ThermoTrade, Italy),
randomly packed, with following specifications: height 9 mm, diameter
12 mm, specific area higher than 800 m2/m3, relative density 0.96 g/
cm3, and porosity 0.8. A plenum chamber located in the bottom of the
reactor is provided for wastewater distribution through the bed. As
shown in Fig. 1, the reactor was provided with two peristaltic pumps,
one for filling operations and the other for recirculating (at 90 L/h) the
liquid from the top to the plenum chamber, two blowers (flow: 150 NL/h
each) for the air supply, and a motorised valve for discharging the
treated effluent from a lateral port located above the upper containment
plate of the bed. The inlet and outlet of the reactor were connected to the
influent and effluent storage tanks. The influent storage tank was pro­
vided with a submerged pump to ensure proper wastewater homoge­
nisation during the filling phase.
A pressure metre is located at the bottom of the SBBGR reactor to
measure the bed head losses generated by the recirculation operation as
a result of biomass growth and suspended solids retained in the waste­
water. The SBBGR bed works as a filter to entrap particulate matter,
which, together with biomass growth, causes progressive bed clogging.
Thus, when the predetermined value of head loss was reached, a
washing step was carried out to remove the excess sludge and then
reduce the head loss value to a predetermined value. Based on previous
experiments, washing operations were carried out when the head loss
value was greater than 300 cm and stopped until this value reached
approximately 200 cm. It was important to reach the end-value of head
loss as closely as possible in all the washing steps to ensure that there
was no sludge accumulation in the SBBGR reactor. Washing operations
were conducted by means of compressed air (1.5 bar) that was blown
upstream from the bottom of the reactor. After each washing step, the
Fig. 1. Sketch of the SBBGR reactor.
3
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
removed sludge was collected, measured and characterised regarding its
dry and volatile content in order to calculate the specific sludge
production.
The operation of the SBBGR reactor was based on consecutive 8-h
treatment cycles, each of which consisted of filling, recirculation and
drawing phases. In the filling phase (duration: 15 min), a fixed volume of
wastewater was fed by means of the filling pump into the plenum
chamber of the SBBGR. During the recirculation phase (duration: 450
min), the biological degradation of the pollutants occurred. In this
phase, the recirculation pump allowed wastewater and oxygen to flow
through the bed. In the final drawing phase (duration: 15 min), a known
volume of treated wastewater (equal to the volume loaded in the filling
phase) was discharged by opening the motorised valve. At the end of this
phase, the next treatment cycle started with a new filling phase. A
programmable logic controller (PLC) was used to manage and control
the designed treatment cycle.
The experiment was split into two periods (A and B). Period A was
addressed to the acclimatisation of the biomass to the PSW wastewater
since a SBBGR plant already in operation for a different purpose was
used. Period B consisted of the steady-state run. SBBGR operated at room
temperature for the whole experimental period.
A long acclimatisation period (i.e., about 5.5 months) was necessary
to reach the constant organic content of the biomass. Because of the
previous SBBGR operation period, at the beginning of the present study
the organic content of the SBBGR biomass was 90–95% in terms of
volatile suspended solids (VSS)/total suspended solids (TSS) ratio.
Period A continued until a constant value of VSS/TSS ratio was ob­
tained. Based on the washing water composition, during Period A, the
SBBGR was designed to operate at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of
1.7 d, leading to an average organic loading rate (OLR) of approximately
1 kg COD/m3 in the range typically applied to the SBBGR in treating
municipal sewage (De Sanctis et al., 2016, 2020; Di Iaconi et al., 2010).
When a constant value of organic content in the biomass was
reached, Period B was started. During this period, which lasted 163 d,
lower hydraulic loading was used (i.e., 6 L/d), resulting in an HRT of 3.1
d and an average OLR of about 0.3 kgCOD/m3 in order to improve the
SBBGR treatment performances of period A. Furthermore, these new
V.G. Altieri et al. Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011

conditions enabled the HRT to approximate that of the wastewater conductivity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), soluble chemical oxygen
treatment plant (WWTP) in the Recuperi Pugliesi company (approxi­ demand (sCOD), percentage of particulate chemical oxygen demand (%
mately 5 d). pCOD), biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day test (BOD5), total suspended
In addition to HRT values, Periods A and B differed in the compo­ solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), total nitrogen (TN), total
sition of the wastewater, which was related to its origin. During Period Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia (NH3), nitrites (NO−2 ), nitrates
A, because wastewater was produced by the washing operations of PSW (NO−3 ), total phosphorous (P), and phosphate (PO3- 4 ). The effluent
derived from agro-industrial sector (i.e., plastic films from agricultural quality of the Recuperi Pugliesi company WWTP was also evaluated
and floricultural greenhouse activities), there was a high content of during Period B by measuring the same parameters described above.
solids and organic matter. Conversely, during Period B, the wastewater COD, BOD5, TN and P were determined by means of Hach cuvette
was produced in the washing operations of PSW derived from industrial tests (LCK314 or LCK514 for COD, LCK555 for BOD5, LCK138 or LCK238
activities (i.e., plastic packaging), and the content of solids and organic for TN, and LCK348 for P). sCOD was determined by filtering the sample
matter was less. This result was due to the prevalence of seasonal in­ using a 0.45-μm PTFE filter before the analytical determination; %pCOD
dustrial activities during the year. PSW from agricultural and floricul­ was calculated by the percentage ratio of the difference between COD
tural greenhouse activities were prevalent during the spring and and sCOD from COD. TSS and VSS were determined according to stan­
summer months, while PSW from industrial packaging was predominant dard methods (APHA, 2005). Nitrites, nitrates, and phosphates were
during autumn and winter (however, the company regularly mixes PSW determined after sample filtration with 0.22 μm-PTFE filters, using a
from different sources before starting the recycling process). Thermo Scientific Dionex Aquion ionic chromatograph (column Ion­
Table 1 shows the composition of the washing water used in each Pac™ AS23; sodium carbonate/bicarbonate as the eluent). TKN was
period in terms of mean values and standard deviations. More than 50 calculated by the difference between TN and nitrogen oxidised forms
washing water stocks were used during the experimental period. The (the sum of NO−2 and NO−3 ). All these analyses were performed in
composition of each stock is reported as supplementary material duplicate.
(Tables S1 and S2). Considering that some stocks were characterised by Ammonia was measured using an online water/liquid L800 ammonia
a very low ammonia and phosphorous content, it was decided to add to analyser (Hemera Analyzers, Meylan, France). The latter was operated
all stocks 10 mgN/L and 2.5 mgP/L of ammonium chloride and potas­ by purging the sample after its alkalinisation by adding sodium hy­
sium phosphate, respectively. droxide and analysing the absorbance spectrum of the resulting gas
phase. The instrument warms up water samples at 28 ◦ C in order to
2.2. Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP perform absorbance analysis at constant temperature. Samples analysis
were repeated until the variability between two measures were less than
During period B, the effluent composition of Recuperi Pugliesi 0.1 mgN/L. Conductivity and pH were measured by selective probes.
WWTP was also monitored to compare its quality with that of the Raw PSW washing wastewater was collected in 50–100 L stocks from
SBBGR. The WWTP treats 200 m3/d of wastewater produced in the the Recuperi Pugliesi plant and subjected to fine screening to remove
washing step of PSW in the company recycling plant. It is based on small plastic residues prior to supplying it to the SBBGR plant. In the
primary and secondary treatments. The primary sedimentation unit has SBBGR sampling operation, 1 L of influent was collected from the
a volume of 330 m3, followed by a biological unit and a secondary influent tank, simulating the filling phase of the reactor (i.e., turning on
clarifier having a volume of 650 m3. The effluent of the treatment plant the submerged pump for wastewater homogenisation; the same peri­
is recycled to the PSW washing step after the addition of 15–20% of staltic pump was utilised during the filling phase). The SBBGR effluent
high-quality water. The sludge produced in the primary and secondary analysis was performed by collecting the entire effluent volume dis­
treatments is sent to the centrifugal dewatering unit. The latter con­ charged during one cycle. With regard to the Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP
sumes approximately 45% of the total electricity demand, whereas the effluent, 2 L of the sample were collected using a tap located on the pipe
sludge disposal cost represents more than 70% of the total operating that collected the plant effluent.
costs of the WWTP. The specific sludge production (SSP) in the SBBGR treatment,
expressed in terms of kgTSS/kgCODremoved, was calculated from the
2.3. Analytical determinations and calculation procedures sludge and the removed COD mass balances carried out over during
Period B. In particular, assuming that there was no sludge accumulation
The SBBGR performances were evaluated for traditional gross in the reactor during Period B (confirmed by the same start and end-
parameter removal, effluent quality and sludge production. The values of head loss), SSP was calculated dividing the amount of sludge
following typical gross parameters were measured twice a week in leaving the reactor through the effluent and washing operation by the
influent and effluent samples taken from the SBBGR plant: pH, total amount of COD removed during Period B. The latter was calculated
based on the wastewater volume treated during Period B (i.e., 978 L)
and the average amount of COD removed. The amount of sludge lost
Table 1
with the effluent was calculated by multiplying the average concentra­
Average composition of plastic recycling washing wastewater used during the
two periods in terms of mean values and standard deviation of the typical gross
tion of the SBBGR effluent by 978. The sludge production per m3 of
parameters. wastewater treated (kgTSS/m3) was also calculated by dividing the
quantity of sludge lost in the effluent and washing operations by the
Parameter Period A Period B
volume of the wastewater treated.
pH 7.5 ± 0.4 7.7 ± 0.2
conductivity (μS/cm) 1425 ± 194 1466 ± 253
COD (mg/L) 1779 ± 1731 964 ± 545
2.4. Statistical analysis and mathematical modelling
%pCOD (%) 85.3 ± 9.5 89.5 ± 4.9
BOD5 (mg/L) 376 ± 455 420 ± 199 Statistical methods have been applied for data comparison and
TSS (mg/L) 2378 ± 2873 1352 ± 1009 modelling on the datasets referred to Period B of both SBBGR and
VSS (mg/L) 1286 ± 1390 808 ± 443
Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP.
TN (mg/L) 53.6 ± 30.2 37.1 ± 13.4
TKN (mg/L) 53.6 ± 30.1 35.6 ± 13.3 For comparing different kinds of wastewaters, ANOVA-like methods
NH3 (mg N/L) 21.8 ± 9.8 23.7 ± 11.7 can be used, but to be correctly applied, a couple of assumptions should
NO−2 (mg N/L) n.d. 0.2 ± 0.4 be checked, namely Gaussianity and homoscedasticity. Shapiro-Wilk
NO−3 (mg N/L) 0.0 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 1.5 test was selected to check Gaussianity and non-parametric Levene test
P (mg P/L) 11.3 ± 10.3 5.5 ± 2.5
was applied for homoscedasticity. Afterwards, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA

4
V.G. Altieri et al. Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011

has been applied to compare the effluent generated by the SBBGR and Table 3
the Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP. Recuperi Pugliesi company’s WWTP effluent quality during Period B in terms of
Furthermore, for modelling the SBBGR effluent quality in terms of mean values and standard deviations of the typical gross parameters.
influent variables used as predictors, a machine learning (ML) method Parameter Mean value ± standard deviation
has been selected, namely the Generalized Additive Model (GAM) COD effl. (mg/L) 240 ± 85
(Wood et al., 2016). The possibility of modelling the SBBGR effluent TSS effl. (mg/L) 211 ± 145
with ML methods to define the relationships between an effluent vari­ VSS effl. (mg/L) 169 ± 133
able in terms of influent variables does not need to be proved since it was TKN effl. (mg/L) 8.2 ± 13.8
NH3 effl. (mgN/L) 0.4 ± 0.4
already highlighted in some pioneering papers (Barca et al., 2015, 2016;
NO−2 effl. (mgN/L) 0.1 ± 0.2
Del Moro et al., 2016). NO−3 effl. (mgN/L) 1.0 ± 1.1
TN effl. (mgN/L) 9.1 ± 13.6
3. Results and discussion

As reported in section 2.1, during Period A, which focused on 3.1. COD removal
biomass acclimatisation, the SBBGR was operated at an HRT of 1.7 d in
treating wastewater originating from the washing of PSW derived from Regarding COD, Fig. 3 shows interesting results. During Period A, the
the agro-industrial sector (i.e., plastic films from agricultural and flori­ SBBGR treatment was characterised by a high average removal effi­
cultural greenhouse activities). In contrast, during Period B, which was ciency (i.e., 93.2%; see Table 2) that was always higher than 79% (see
the steady state period, the SBBGR was operated at an HRT of 3.1 d and Fig. 3) and average residual effluent concentrations of 77 mg/L (see
fed with wastewater from the washing of PSW that consisted of plastic Table 2). Nevertheless, Fig. 3 shows some scattering of the values. For
packaging. The performances of the SBBGR in both periods were instance, on days 134 and 154, the COD concentration in the effluent of
recorded. During Period B, the effluent quality and sludge production of the SBBGR was much higher than the average value (196 mg/L on day
the SBBGR and the Recuperi Pugliesi company WWTP were also 154). However, these values could not be ascribed to the high COD
compared. concentration of the influent fed to the SBBGR and then to the high
Table 2 summarises the SBBGR performances in each period, in applied organic loading value. On days 134 and 154, the influent COD
terms of mean values and standard deviations of the typical gross pa­ concentration was lower than the average value. These atypical values
rameters reported in section 2.3. The effluent quality of the Recuperi might have been due to an influent stock that was characterised by a low
Pugliesi company WWTP during period B is reported in Table 3. biodegradable organic content, as confirmed by the BOD5 values.
The higher effectiveness of the SBBGR can be easily highlighted Similar scattering was observed in the removal efficiency values. On
comparing the values reported in Tables 2 and 3. However, in order to days 31 and 50, although the influent fed to the SBBGR was charac­
support the significance of the differences between the characteristics of terised by low COD (i.e., 632 and 518 mg/L, respectively), the COD
the SBBGR and the Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP effluents, they were sub­ removal efficiency was slightly lower as well (i.e., 89% and 87.3%,
jected to ANOVA analysis. First of all, considering the main character­ respectively). In the effluent concentration, however, these values did
istics of the treated washing water, the Gaussianity of the following not produce any negative effect because the COD concentration was
variables have been tested: COD, TSS and VSS from both plants. The even lower than the average value in Period A (i.e., 77 mg/L).
Gaussian hypothesis has been rejected for all the three variables. Af­ Conversely, although Period B was characterised by more or less the
terwards, the non-parametric Levene test was applied to the same three same average removal efficiency, only slightly higher (i.e., 93.9%), very
variables and homoscedasticity was rejected for each variable. Finally, constant trends in COD removal efficiency were observed, and the per­
Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was applied to the two effluents and the hy­ formances were always higher than 90% and even higher than 95%. As
pothesis of statistical equality was rejected. To appreciate visually the shown in Table 2, these greater removal efficiencies provided an average
large difference between the SBBGR and Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP effluent concentration of 50 mg/L (i.e., nearly half of that reported for
effluent quality, the boxplot comparing the variables of the two effluents Period A). Specifically, only five values were higher than 60 mg/L (on
is reported in Fig. 2. days 169, 172, 192, 225 and 231), which remained lower than 90 mg/L.
Therefore, the adoption of a higher HRT in Period B (i.e., 3.1 vs. 1.7
in Period A) improved the SBBGR performances in both COD removal
efficiencies and residual effluent concentrations, which also ensured
greater stability, as shown by the lower standard deviation values re­
ported in Table 2. This stability can be observed also in the profiles re­
Table 2 ported in Fig. 3. The compared data were characterised by different inlet
The SBBGR performances and effluent quality in Periods A and B in terms of COD concentrations but almost identical outlet values. For example,
mean values and standard deviations of the typical gross parameters. days 276 and 280, which were two consecutive acquisitions, were
compared: on these days, the influent COD concentrations differed
Parameter Period A Period B
greatly (1726 and 743 mg/L, respectively), while the effluent COD
COD effl. (mg/L) 77 ± 27 50 ± 14
concentrations were virtually identical (39 and 35 mg/L, respectively).
rem. eff. (%) 93.2 ± 4.6 93.9 ± 2.2
BOD5 effl. (mg/L) 2±1 3±1 However, regarding improved performances during Period B, the role
rem. eff. (%) 99.4 ± 0.4 99.6 ± 0.6 played by the different wastewater compositions during the experi­
TSS effl. (mg/L) 27 ± 40 5±6 mental period was strictly related to its origin. It should be remembered
rem. eff. (%) 98.3 ± 3.3 99.6 ± 0.5 that the wastewater stocks feeding the SBBGR reactor during Period A
VSS effl. (mg/L) 23 ± 26 4±5
were derived from the washing of PSW from the agro-industrial sector.
rem. eff. (%) 97.2 ± 4.6 99.5 ± 0.6
TKN effl. (mg/L) 8.3 ± 7.6 2.9 ± 0.8 In contrast, the wastewater stocks employed in Period B were derived
rem. eff. (%) 83.3 ± 12.2 91.3 ± 3.3 from the washing of PSW from industrial activities (i.e., plastic pack­
NH3 effl. (mgN/L) 2.5 ± 5.7 0.1 ± 0.2 aging). In particular, Fig. 3 shows that the latter resulted in a percentage
rem. eff. (%) 97.4 ± 1.8 99.6 ± 0.8
of particulate COD that was always higher than 80%. From day 230
NO−2 effl. (mgN/L) 0.1 ± 0.2 0.0 ± 0.1
NO−3 effl. (mgN/L) 5.0 ± 4.0 3.2 ± 2.9 onwards, it was always higher than 90%. In contrast, during Period A,
TN effl. (mg/L) 13.1 ± 6.4 6.2 ± 2.7 the percentage of particulate COD was more scattered, ranging from
rem. eff. (%) 70.9 ± 16.2 81.7 ± 12.2 55% to 95%. Therefore, in Period B almost all the COD in the influent

5
V.G. Altieri et al.
Fig. 2. Visual comparison of the main characteristics of SBBGR (A) and Recuperi Pugliesi WWTP (B) effluent.
Fig. 3. Profiles of influent and effluent COD concentration, percentage of influent particulate COD and COD removal efficiency of the SBBGR over the entire
experimental period. The error bar represents the standard deviation of the analyses. The dashed line separates the two experimental periods (Period A on the left and
Period B on the right).
was in particulate form, whereas in Period A a greater content of soluble
COD was recorded. Considering that the SBBGR bed works as a filter in
which the biomass constitutes the filtering medium, when the suspended
organic material and the particulate COD were trapped in the biomass
during the filling phase, they were hydrolysed by the enzymes and then
metabolised. The higher the percentage of particulate COD in the
influent, the higher the COD removal efficiency and performance
stability.
Another difference that was considered in comparing COD removal
in both periods was the BOD5/COD ratio in the SBBGR influent. The
BOD5/COD ratio is an index that generally reflects the biodegradability
of the organic matter present in wastewater. Table 1 shows that Period A
was characterised by a lower BOD5/COD ratio compared to that in
Period B (i.e., 0.2 vs. 0.4). and then a lower residual COD concentration
was expected in the effluent of the SBBGR during Period B.
The average effluent COD concentrations obtained by the SBBGR
gained significance when they were compared with those of the Recu­
peri Pugliesi company WWTP, as shown in Table 3. Tables 2 and 3 show
that the conventional treatment train, which was based on primary and
secondary treatments and operated at an HRT of 5 d, produced an
effluent with an average COD concentration of 240 mg/L, which was
more than twice as much as that produced by the SBBGR in Period A (at
HRT of 1.7 d). Moreover, it was five times higher than that in Period B
(HRT of 3.1 d).
In the literature there is a scarcity of references on wastewater
similar in composition and characteristics, treated by aerobic biological
6
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
processes. The absence of data obtained using similar technologies
might suggest both the innovative aspect of the selected approach and
the lack of knowledge in this field. In the absence of a direct comparison,
we might consider industrial wastewater resembling to those investi­
gated in the present study.
According to Bielefeldt’s classification (2009) and Lin’s exhaustive
review (2012), several categories of industrial wastewater might be
comparable to the wastewater employed during the present study. These
wastewaters were produced by breweries and paper and tannery in­
dustries. Muhamad et al. (2012) obtained a COD removal efficiency of
97% with a comparable HRT (3 d) in treating recycled paper industry
wastewater (average inlet COD ranged between 800 and 1000 mg/L)
flowing out of a dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit and a clarifier tank
unit by means of granular activated carbon-sequencing batch biofilm
reactor (GAC-SBBR). In a study by De Gisi et al. (2009), the average COD
removal efficiency of a tannery wastewater treatment in an activated
sludge process that was enhanced by coagulation and reverse osmosis in
a 30-h HRT was only 67% ± 5%, although a higher inlet value (ranging
between 2000 and 7600 mg/L, 5538 mg/L average value). Better
average COD removal efficiencies but lower ruggedness (up to 81% ±
27%) were reported by Munz et al. (2007) in a study carried out with a
higher HRT (up to 100 h), using powdered activated carbon and mem­
brane bioreactors (MBRPAC) to treat tannery wastewater (inlet COD
ranging between 2400 and 6210 mg/L, 4051 mg/L average value). In a
study on brewery wastewater, Ling et al. (1999) compared a
suspended-growth and an attached-growth sequencing batch reactor at
V.G. Altieri et al.
different hydraulic retention times in treating medium-strength waste­
water (average COD inlet 2493.7 ± 64.7 mg/L) with a higher fraction of
biodegradable substrate (BOD5/COD ratio approximately 0.5). Using an
HRT similar to that used in Period B (3.06 d vs. 3.1 d), comparable COD
removal efficiencies (98.2% ± 2.5%) were obtained by the
attached-growth reactor, although the highest performing approach
seemed to be by the suspended biomass.
3.2. Suspended solids removal
The COD findings reported above are consistent with the suspended
solids content profiles shown in Figs. 4 and 5, which confirmed that
almost all the COD content of the influent was ascribable to particulate
material in the washing water. Figs. 4 and 5 show different contents of
the suspended solids in the wastewater feeding the SBBGR during both
periods, which was consistent with the influent COD value and waste­
water origin. In Period A, influent TSS and VSS ranged from 306 to
11263 mg/L (on average, 2378 mg/L) and from 210 to 5176 mg/L (on
average, 1286 mg/L). In Period B, they ranged from 581 to 5234 mg/L
(on average, 1352 mg/L) and from 336 to 2163 mg/L (on average, 808
mg/L), respectively.
Figs. 4 and 5 show similar removal efficiency profiles for TSS and
VSS. In Period A, the TSS and VSS removal efficiencies were always
between 95% and 100% (except on day 134, when they were 85% and
79%, respectively). The average removal efficiencies were 98.3% in TSS
and 97.2% in VSS. These performances produced an effluent with
average TSS and VSS concentrations of 27 mg/L and 23 mg/L, respec­
tively (see Table 2). Nevertheless, such high removal efficiencies did not
always ensure low effluent residual concentrations. For example, on
days 134 and 154, TSS concentrations between 170 and 193 mg/L were
measured in the SBBGR effluent. These results explain the relatively
high standard deviation shown in Table 2 for effluent TSS and VSS
concentration values (i.e., 40 and 26 mg/L, respectively).
Conversely, in Period B, the average removal efficiencies were even
higher (99.6% for TSS, 99.5% for VSS; see Table 2), and there was
virtually no scattering among the data, which were always between 97%
and 100% (Figs. 4 and 5). These high and stable performances generated
an effluent with TSS and VSS concentrations that were always lower
than 10 mg/L (on average, 5 and 4 mg/L, respectively), which were five
times lower than the average effluent concentrations obtained during
Period A (27 and 23 mg/L, respectively). The exception was on day 169,
when TSS and VSS concentrations of 34 and 23 mg/L, respectively, were
Fig. 4. TSS concentration profiles of influent and effluent with TSS removal efficiency of the SBBGR over the entire experimental period. The error bar represents the
standard deviation of the analyses. The dashed line separates the two experimental periods (Period A on the left and Period B on the right).
7
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
measured. The effectiveness of the SBBGR in removing suspended solids
can be appreciated in Figure S1, which provides a photograph of an
influent and effluent sample in Period B.
This result is of crucial significance if it is compared to the Recuperi
Pugliesi company WWTP. As reported in Table 3, this plant produced
average values of 211 mg/L for TSS and 169 mg/L for VSS, which were
five and forty times higher than those obtained in Period A and Period B,
respectively. The higher SBBGR removal efficiencies are explained by
the peculiar nature of the SBBGR biomass, which is composed of a
mixture of granules and biofilm (Winkler et al., 2018) that is spatially
confined in the reactor bed and acts as a filter in trapping suspended
matter.
Similar to COD, the adoption of a higher HRT during Period B also
improved the stability of the removal of suspended solids, as shown by
the lower standard deviation values. For example, on day 213 the
influent had a TSS concentration of 718 mg/L and a VSS concentration
of 475 mg/L, while the effluent concentration in both parameters was
only 9 mg/L. Even more significant is the result of the analysis on day
220, when the SBBGR reactor was fed with wastewater characterised by
a TSS concentration of more than 5 g/L and a VSS concentration of more
than 2 g/L, which provided an effluent with a concentration of only 5
mg/L in both parameters.
The SBBGR performance in removing suspended solids from PSW
washing water was in line with those obtained in other wastewater. The
SBBGR frequently provided very clear effluent samples with a remark­
ably low content of solids (less than 20 mg/L) in municipal and indus­
trial wastewater, even under slightly different operating conditions (De
Sanctis et al., 2020; Lotito et al., 2012a, 2012b). It was interesting to
compare the results obtained with the SBBGR technology used to treat
municipal wastewater (De Sanctis et al., 2020). In the present study,
similar performances were achieved, although the wastewater was
treated with inlet TSS concentrations that were more than four times
higher.
Compared with previous studies carried out using different tech­
nologies and similar wastewater in terms of TSS, the SBBGR showed
remarkable performances. Similar performances were reported by Cia­
batti et al. (2010), who treated dye wastewaters with TSS content
ranging from 100 to 400 mg/L with the addition of potassium ferrate. In
this research, several experimental conditions were tested (e.g., dosage,
grain size, and ultrasound). The best performances in terms of TSS
removal were comparable to those of the SBBGR, although chemicals
were used. The same category of wastewater was studied by El-Gohary
V.G. Altieri et al.
Fig. 5. VSS concentration profiles of influent and effluent with VSS removal efficiency of the SBBGR over the entire experimental period. The error bar represents the
standard deviation of the analyses. The dashed line separates the two experimental periods (Period A on the left and Period B on the right).
et al. (2009), who applied a combined treatment that consisted of
chemical coagulation and an SBR process, which resulted in significant
performances. In this research, the authors obtained an overall TSS
removal efficiency of 93.8% using a 6.35-h HRT, although the raw
wastewater treated was characterised by a significantly lower TSS
content (276 ± 76 mg/L). A similar pre-treatment step based on coag­
ulation and flocculation was used by Daud et al. (2015) to treat biodiesel
wastewater having a TSS content of 348 mg/L. Several coagulants and
dosages were investigated. The optimal TSS removal efficiencies ranged
from 88% to 97%. The brewery wastewater studied by Ling et al. (1999)
was characterised by an average TSS inlet value of 1044 ± 51.2 mg/L.
Although two different systems (a suspended-growth and an
attached-growth sequencing batch reactor) were used, the average TSS
removal efficiencies were always lower than the SBBGR ones, even at
longer HRTs (up to 6 d). The maximum removal efficiencies were 96.0%
± 3.7% and 97.0% ± 1.2% at HRTs of 3.06 d and 6.06 d, respectively.
These efficiencies resulted in average effluent TSS concentrations of
41.4 ± 38.4 mg/L (3.06 d HRT) and 30.8 ± 12.1 mg/L (6.06 d HRT),
which were significantly higher than those obtained in the present study
in Period B and were comparable to those obtained in Period A at an
HRT of 1.7 d. Better performances were reported by Munz et al. (2007),
who applied a two-step treatment based on powdered activated carbon
and membrane bioreactors (MBRPAC) to treat tannery wastewater (inlet
TSS ranged between 160 and 1840 mg/L, 976 mg/L average value, with
a considerable organic content due to a VSS/TSS ratio of 0.88). Only a
filtration step using submerged membranes was able to provide an
effluent with an average TSS concentration comparable to the one ob­
tained during Period B (approximately 5 mg/L) in the present study.
The overall outstanding performance of the SBBGR is significant
because the quality of the effluent from the treatment plant is crucial
both economically and environmentally in reducing the maintenance
costs of the LDPE extrusion plant and saving water resources. In the
mechanical recycling process, PSW washing requires large quantities of
water (Cascone et al., 2020; Jabłońska, 2018). Using treated water with
a lower content of solids prevents damage to mechanical equipment,
reduces energy consumption costs and extends the average life of filters.
Their frequent replacement due to clogging is costly (Cascone et al.,
2020). This aspect is particularly important for this type of wastewater,
which is characterised by organic pollutants in suspended form.
8
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
3.3. Nitrogen removal
As reported in section 2.1, considering that some washing water
stocks were characterised by a very low ammonia and phosphorous
content, it was decided to add 10 mgN/L and 2.5 mgP/L of ammonium
chloride and potassium phosphate, respectively, to all washing water
stocks.
Fig. 6 shows the profiles of TKN concentrations measured in the
SBBGR inlet and outlet and their removal efficiencies during the entire
experimental period. During Period B, the SBBGR provided higher
removal efficiencies than in Period A. The removal efficiencies were
always higher than 80% and even higher than 90% (on average, 91.3%;
see Table 2). The residual concentrations in the effluent were always
lower than 5 mg/L (on average, 2.9 mg/L; see Table 2). These high and
stable removal efficiencies indicated a stable and extended nitrification
process because, as discussed below, the nitrogen demand for biomass
growth was considered negligible because of the very low specific sludge
production.
In contrast, similar to the results for COD and TSS, lower and scat­
tered values were observed during Period A. The TKN removal efficiency
ranged from 50% to 96.6% (on average, 83.3%; see Table 2) with re­
sidual effluent concentrations between 1.7 mg/L and 29.2 mg/L (on
average, 8.3 mg/L; see Table 2). The reduced stability of the nitrification
process was indicated by the higher standard deviation value of the TKN
removal efficiency (12.2% vs. 3.3% in Period B; see Table 2). The profile
of effluent ammonia concentration (Fig. 6) showed that the low values of
TKN removal efficiency obtained on some days could be ascribed to the
limited ammonification process of organic nitrogen.
The TN profiles (see Figure S2) indicate the presence of a denitrifi­
cation process (although air was continuously supplied during the
recirculation phase of the SBBGR treatment cycle), which was extended
and more stable during Period B. The residual TN concentrations were
always lower than 15 mg/L (on average, 6.2 mg/L; see Table 2).
The comparison of TKN and TN concentrations in the effluent of the
SBBGR and the Recuperi Pugliesi company WWTP (see Tables 2 and 3,
respectively) showed that, during Period B, the SBBGR performed better
than the company WWTP, providing lower and stable residual values
(2.9 ± 0.8 mg/L vs 8.2 ± 13.8 mg/L and 6.2 ± 2.7 mg/L vs 9.1 ± 13.6
mg/L for TKN and TN, respectively) although the latter was operated for
a longer HRT (i.e., 5 vs. 3.1 d, respectively).
V.G. Altieri et al.
Fig. 6. Profiles of influent and effluent TKN concentration, effluent NH3 and TKN removal efficiency of the SBBGR over the entire experimental period. The error bar
represents the standard deviation of the analyses. The dashed line separates the two experimental periods (Period A on the left and Period B on the right).
3.4. Mathematical modelling
It can be useful having the chance of predicting the response
(effluent) of a treatment plant based on the knowledge of characteristics
of the wastewater to be treated. This can prevent malfunctioning of the
plant giving the operators the time of putting in place in advance re­
covery strategies (Barca et al., 2016; Del Moro et al., 2016). To reach this
aim, effluent characteristics should be put in relationship to those of the
influent through suitable functions. Due to the complexity of the
mentioned relationships, often usual linear multivariate functions fail in
capturing them, therefore more complex approaches are needed. Ma­
chine Learning (ML) is a research field that can provide very powerful
tools. For the case at hand, Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) have
been applied, which are capable to define relationships between effluent
and influent features not immediately perceivable. Three GAM models
therein SBBGR effluent characteristics, namely CODeffl, TSSeffl and
VSSeffl, have been modelled in terms of CODinf, sCODinf, %pCOD, TSSinf,
VSSinf. It is needed to say that GAM does not allow to add an indeter­
minate number of predictors to the model’s formula, but that number is
related to the number of observations available. Dataset size is of 30
observations, therefore the maximum number of allowed predictors is
three. Consequently, a feature selection is needed to extract the best
suited predictors among the five available. The association between the
effluent features and influent ones was made through the correlation
analysis and next it was refined by substituting some non-significant
predictors with one of the remaining variables.
The formulae of the three final models are the following:
VSSeffl ̃ s(TSSinf ) + s(VSSinf ) + s(%pCOD)
TSSeffl ̃ s(sCODinf ) + s(VSSinf ) + s(%pCOD)
CODeffl ̃ s(%pCOD) + s(VSSinf ) + s(sCODinf )
The s( ⋅) symbol in the formulae represents a mathematical operator
called spline, which is a smooth function that substitutes the usual
constant value β. Using a function rather than a value empowers the
model because makes it capable to represent point patterns different and
more complex than a line. Finally, all the influent variables involved in
each model resulted statistically (very) significant, namely their p-value
(much) lesser than 0.05. The value of goodness-of-fit, R2 , resulted equal
to 0.978, 0.953 and 0.970, respectively. The check for Gaussianity of
model’s residuals is usually performed to ensure that the white noise
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
contained in data is not comprised in the model. Shapiro-Wilk test
applied on all the three residuals, one for each model, confirmed the
Gaussianity of each one.
The relevance of %pCOD highlighted by the GAM models supports
the considerations reported in paragraph 3.1 about the higher treatment
efficiency of the SBBGR in Period B. Indeed, in this period wastewater
was characterised by a content of particulate COD (i.e., %pCOD value)
higher than in Period A. The SBBGR biomass acting as a filtering me­
dium was able to entrap and hydrolyze the particulate COD. Thus, the
higher the %pCOD value, the higher the COD removal efficiency and the
SBBGR performance stability.
3.5. Sludge production
As reported in section 2.1, an existing SBBGR that was already in
operation to treat glucose-based synthetic wastewater was used in this
study. Therefore, at the beginning of Period A, the SBBGR biomass was
characterised by an organic content of 90–95% in terms of VSS/TSS
ratio, which was consistent with the feed source. A long period (i.e.,
about 5.5 months) was required to reach a constant organic biomass
content between 46 and 48%.
During Period B, which was the steady-state operation of the SBBGR
in treating PSW washing water, the specific sludge production (SSP) was
calculated from sludge and removed COD mass balances carried out over
the period B. In particular, SSP was calculated by dividing the amount of
sludge leaving the reactor through the effluent and washing operations
by the total amount of COD removed during Period B. The sludge lost
(1) with the effluent, which was calculated by multiplying the average TSS
concentration (i.e., 5 mg/L; see Table 2) by the volume of wastewater
(2) fed to the SBBGR during Period B (i.e., 978 L), amounted to 4.9 g. The
amount of sludge expelled by the washing operations was equal to
(3)
196.6 g. Based on the average influent and effluent COD concentrations,
which are reported in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and on the volume of
treated wastewater (i.e., 978 L), the amount of COD removed during
Period B was equal to 894 g. Therefore, a SSP value of 0.23 kgTSS/
kgCODremoved (or 0.11 kg VSS/kg CODremoved) was obtained, which
corresponded to 0.21 kg of dried sludge (i.e., TSS) per m3 of treated
wastewater. This value was 5–6 times lower than that recorded in the
Recuperi Pugliesi company WWTP during the same period (i.e., Period
B), which corresponded to 1.38 kgTSS/kgCODremoved or 1.00 kg of dry
sludge/m3. The primary treatment of the company WWTP contributed
to 73% of the total amount of sludge produced.
9
V.G. Altieri et al.
The SSP of the SBBGR recorded during Period B was slightly higher
than that obtained during the treatment of municipal, tannery and
textile wastewater using the same system, where a SSP of 0.05–0.15 kg
TSS/kgCODremoved was obtained (Di Iaconi et al., 2004, 2010; De Sanctis
et al., 2017; Lotito et al., 2014). This result could be attributed to the
higher concentration of suspended solids occurring in PSW washing
water and their lower organic content.
3.6. Economic evaluation
The first economic assessment of the two different approaches (i.e.,
conventional vs. the SBBGR technology) to treat and reuse PSW washing
water is reported in Table 4. The evaluation included electric energy and
sludge disposal of WWTP, and maintenance costs of the LDPE extrusion
plant incurred by the extrusion filter. In the conventional WWTP, the
data reported in Table 4 were provided by the Recuperi Pugliesi com­
pany, whereas the data on the SBBGR-based plant were estimated from a
scaled-up design.
Table 4 shows that the proposed treatment (i.e., the SBBGR-based
WWTP) was able to reduce the energy consumption and the mainte­
nance cost of the extrusion filter by 50% and the cost of sludge disposal
by 80%.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the effectiveness of an advanced treatment of waste­
water generated by non-hazardous plastic solid waste (PSW) washing,
based on the Sequencing Batch Biofilter Granular Reactor (SBBGR), was
tested for over one year. This treatment was compared with the con­
ventional treatment, which is based on primary and secondary treat­
ments, using the activated sludge process, to treat the same wastewater.
The main results were as follows:
- The SBBGR guaranteed remarkably high removal efficiencies in the
main gross parameters monitored, especially COD (93.9%), BOD5
(99.6%), TSS (99.6%), VSS (99.5%), TKN (91.3%) and NH3 (99.6%),
even at HRT much lower than that of the conventional treatment
plant (3.1 d vs. 5 d).
- The effluent quality of the SBBGR was better than that of the con­
ventional treatment plant. Noteworthy significant differences were
reported for COD (a five-fold decrease), TSS and VSS (a forty-fold
decrease) concentrations.
- The SBBGR effluent quality was modelled in terms of the influent
characteristics by using Generalized Additive Models (GAMs).
- The SBBGR performances were better than those reported in the
literature on biological processes used to treat comparable industrial
wastewater, even those obtained by means of combined and more
complex treatment schemes.
- The specific sludge production was five times lower than that ob­
tained by the company WWTP (0.21 kg TSS/m3 vs. 1.00 kg TSS/m3
wastewater treated).
- A reduction of 50% in operating costs was estimated in comparison
with the Recuperi Pugliesi company WWTP.
Credit author statement
Valerio Guido Altieri: Investigation, laboratory analysis, writing,
data evaluation, Marco De Sanctis: Investigation, writing contribution,
Damiano Sgherza: writing contribution, Simona Pentassuglia: writing
contribution, Emanuele Barca: mathematical modelling, Claudio Di
Iaconi: Conceptualization, Supervision, writing contribution
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
10
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
Table 4
Operating costs evaluation of the Recuperi Pugliesi company WWTP and the
SBBGR-based WWTP.
Parameter Recuperi Pugliesi SBBGR-based
WWTP WWTP
WWTP capacity (m3/d) 200 200
WWTP energy consumption (kW/ 500 240
d)
Sludge disposal costs (€/d) 49 10
Extrusion filter lifetime (d) 15 30
Extrusion filter costs (€/d) 460 230
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was partially supported by Polieco, the Italian consortium
for the recycling of polyethylene-based goods. Furthermore, the authors
would like to thank Recuperi Pugliesi for willingness to participate in
this study, in particular for wastewater supply and for providing all the
information regarding PSW recycling and wastewater treatment plant.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112011.
References
Al-Salem, S.M., Lettieri, P., Baeyens, J., 2009. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic
solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Manag. 29, 2625–2643. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.004.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005. Standards Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water, twenty-first ed. American Public Health Association, Washington DC https
://www.standardmethods.org/.
Aznar, M.P., Caballero, M.A., Sancho, J.A., Francés, E., 2006. Plastic waste elimination
by co-gasification with coal and biomass in fluidized bed with air in pilot plant. Fuel
Process. Technol. 87, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.09.006.
Barca, E., Del Moro, G., De Sanctis, M., Mascolo, G., Passarella, G., Di Iaconi, C., 2016.
Managing the touristic pressure: performances prediction of an advanced biological
system by means of regression trees. Biochem. Eng. J. 111, 43–53. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bej.2016.03.005.
Barca, E., Del Moro, G., Mascolo, G., Di Iaconi, C., 2015. Gross parameters prediction of a
granular attached biomass reactor through evolutionary polynomial regression.
Biochem. Eng. J. 94, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2014.11.016.
Bielefeldt, A.R., 2009. Wastewater treatment, industrial. In: Schaechter, Moselio (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Microbiology, third ed. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 569–586.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.13124-3.
Briassoulis, D., Babou, E., Hiskakis, M., Scarascia, G., Picuno, P., Guarde, D., Dejean, C.,
2013. Review, mapping and analysis of the agricultural plastic waste generation and
consolidation in Europe. Waste Manag. Res. 31 (12), 1262-1278. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X13507968.
Brooks, A.L., Wang, S., Jambeck, J.R., 2018. The Chinese import ban and its impact on
global plastic waste trade. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat0131 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
aat0131.
Cascone, S., Ingrao, C., Valenti, F., Porto, S.M.C., 2020. Energy and environmental
assessment of plastic granule production from recycled greenhouse covering films in
a circular economy perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 254, 109796. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109796.
Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste
management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34,
2116–2123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.023.
Ciabatti, I., Tognotti, F., Lombardi, L., 2010. Treatment and reuse of dyeing effluents by
potassium ferrate. Desalination 250, 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2009.06.019.
Daud, Z., Awang, H., Nasir, N., Ridzuan, M.B., Ahmad, Z., 2015. Suspended solid, color,
COD and oil and grease removal from biodiesel wastewater by coagulation and
flocculation processes. Procedia-Soc Behavior Sci. 195, 2407–2411. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.234.
De Gisi, S., Galasso, M., De Feo, G., 2009. Treatment of tannery wastewater through the
combination of a conventional activated sludge process and reverse osmosis with a
plane membrane. Desalination 249, 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2009.03.014.
Delva, L., Kets, K.V., Kuzmanovic, M., Demets, R., Hubo, S., Mys, N., De Meester, S.,
Ragaert, K., 2019. An introductory review mechanical recycling of polymers for
dummies. Capture, Plastics Res. 1–25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
333390524.
V.G. Altieri et al.
Del Moro, G., Mancini, A., Mascolo, G., Di Iaconi, C., 2013. Comparison of UV/H2O2
based AOP as an end treatment or integrated with biological degradation for treating
landfill leachates. Chem. Eng. J. 218, 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2012.12.086.
Del Moro, G., Barca, E., De Sanctis, M., Mascolo, G., Di Iaconi, C., 2016. Gross parameters
prediction of a granular-attached biomass reactor by means of multi-objective
genetic-designed artificial neural networks: touristic pressure management case.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 23 (6), 5549–5565. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-015-5729-3.
De Sanctis, M., Del Moro, G., Levantesi, C., Luprano, M.L., Di Iaconi, C., 2016.
Integration of an innovative biological treatment with physical or chemical
disinfection for wastewater reuse. Sci. Total Environ. 206–213. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.006.
De Sanctis, M., Del Moro, G., Chimienti, S., Ritelli, P., Levantesi, C., Di Iaconi, C., 2017.
Removal of pollutants and pathogens by a simplified treatment scheme for municipal
wastewater reuse in agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 580, 17–25. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.002.
De Sanctis, M., Altieri, V.G., Piergrossi, V., Di Iaconi, C., 2020. Aerobic granular-based
technology for water and energy recovery from municipal wastewater. N. Biotech.
56, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2019.12.002.
Di Iaconi, C., Bonemazzi, F., Lopez, A., Ramadori, R., 2004. Integration of chemical and
biological oxidation in a SBBR for tannery wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol.
40 (10), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2004.0621.
Di Iaconi, C., Ramadori, R., Lopez, A., Passino, R., 2007. Aerobic granular sludge
systems: the new generation of wastewater treatment technologies. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 46, 6661–6665. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie061662l.
Di Iaconi, C., De Sanctis, M., Rossetti, S., Ramadori, R., 2010. SBBGR technology for
minimising excess sludge production in biological processes. Water Res. 44,
1825–1832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.12.007.
Di Iaconi, C., Del Moro, G., Bertanza, G., Canato, M., Laera, G., Heimersson, S.,
Svanstrom, M., 2016. Upgrading small wastewater treatment plants with the
sequencing batch biofilter granular reactor technology: techno-economic and
environmental assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 606–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.02.034.
El-Gohary, F., Tawfik, A., 2009. Decolorization and COD reduction of disperse and
reactive dyes wastewater using chemical-coagulation followed by sequential batch
reactor (SBR) process. Desalination 249, 1159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2009.05.010.
European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives (Waste
Framework Directive). https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/.
European Commission, 2014. Towards a Circular Economy: a Zero Waste Programme for
Europe. COM/2014/0398 final. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-ec
onomy/pdf/circular-economy-communication.pdf.
European Commission, 2015. Closing the Loop – an EU Action Plan for the Circular
Economy. COM/2015/0614 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614.
European Commission, 2018. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy.
COM/2018/028 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM
%3A2018%3A28%3AFIN.
Foladori, P., Andreottola, G., Ziglio, G., 2010. Sludge Reduction Technologies in
Wastewater Treatment Plants. IWA Publishing, London. https://doi.org/10.2166/
9781780401706.
Garcia, J.M., Robertson, M.L., 2017. The future of plastics recycling. Science 358 (6365),
870–872. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0324.
Greenpeace Report, 2019. Data from the Global Plastics Waste Trade 2016-2018 and the
Offshore Impact of China’s Foreign Waste Import Ban. https://secured-static.gree
npeace.org/eastasia/Global/eastasia/publications/campaigns/toxics/GPEA%20Plas
tic%20waste%20trade%20-%20research%20briefing-v2.pdf.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., 2009. Plastics recycling: challenges and
opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
364, 2115–2126. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.
11
Journal of Environmental Management 284 (2021) 112011
Horodytska, O., Valdes, F.J., Fullana, A., 2018. Plastic flexible films waste management –
a state of art review. Waste Manag. 77, 413-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.04.023.
Jabłońska, B., 2018. Water consumption management in polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) bottles washing process via wastewater pretreatment and reuse. J. Environ.
Manag. 224, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.054.
Lin, H., Gao, W., Meng, F., et al., 2012. Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater
treatment: a critical review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (7), 677–740.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2010.526494.
Ling, L., Lo, K.V., 1999. Brewery wastewater treatment using suspended and attached
growth sequencing batch reactors. Journal of Environmental Science & Health Part
A 34 (2), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529909376840.
Lotito, A.M., Fratino, U., Mancini, A., Bergna, G., Di Iaconi, C., 2012a. Is a sequencing
batch biofilter granular reactor suitable for textile wastewater treatment? Water Sci.
Technol. 66 (7), 1392–1398. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.312.
Lotito, A.M., Fratino, U., Mancini, A., Bergna, G., Di Iaconi, C., 2012b. Effective aerobic
granular sludge treatment of a real dyeing textile wastewater. Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegrad. 69, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.01.004.
Lotito, A.M., De Sanctis, M., Di Iaconi, C., Bergna, G., 2014. Textile wastewater
treatment: aerobic granular sludge vs activated sludge systems. Water Res. 54,
337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.055.
Market Study Report, 2020. Global Polyethylene Market Growth 2020-2025. https:
//www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-polyethylene-market-growth-2020-
2025.
Muhamad, M.H., Sheikh, A.S., Mohamad, A.B., Rahman, R.A., Kadhum, A.A., 2012.
Performance evaluation of a granular activated carbon-sequencing batch biofilm
reactor pilot plant system used in treating real wastewater from recycled paper
industry. Environ. Technol. 33 (8), 915–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2011.602434.
Munz, G., Gori, R., Mori, G., Lubello, C., 2007. Powdered activated carbon and
membrane bioreactors (MBRPAC) for tannery wastewater treatment: long term
effect on biological and filtration process performances. Desalination 207, 349–360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.08.010.
Perugini, F., Mastellone, L.M., Arena, U., 2005. A life cycle assessment of mechanical and
feedstock recycling options for management of plastic packaging wastes. Environ.
Prog. 24, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10078.
PlasticsEurope Market Research Group (PEMRG) and Conversio Market & Strategy
GmbH, 2019. Plastics – The facts 2019. https://www.plasticseurope.org/it/resource
s/publications/1804-plastics-facts-2019.
Ragaert, K., Delva, L., Van Geem, K., 2017. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid
plastic waste. Waste Manag. 69, 24–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2017.07.044.
Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., Sica, C., Russo, G., 2011. Plastic materials in European
agriculture: actual use and perspectives. J. of Ag. Eng. - Riv. di Ing. Agr. 3, 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2011.3.15.
Soto, J.M., Blázquez, G., Calero, M., Quesada, L., Godoy, V., Martín-Lara, M.A., 2018.
A real case study of mechanical recycling as an alternative for managing of
polyethylene plastic film presented in mixed municipal solid waste. J. Appl. Polym.
Sci. 203, 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.302.
Soto, J.M., Martín-Lara, M.A., Blázquez, G., Godoy, V., Quesada, L., Calero, M., 2020.
Novel pre-treatment of dirty post-consumer polyethylene film for its mechanical
recycling. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 139, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2020.04.044.
Winkler, M.-K.H., Meunier, C., Henriet, O., Mahillon, J., Suárez-Ojeda, M.E., Del
Moro, G., De Sanctis, M., Di Iaconi, C., Weissbrodt, D.G., 2018. An integrative review
of granular sludge for the biological removal of nutrients and recalcitrant organic
matter from wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 336, 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2017.12.026.
Wood, S.N., Pya, N., Saefken, B., 2016. Smoothing parameter and model selection for
general smooth models (with discussion). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 111, 1548–1575.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1180986.