Wastewater treatment in the pulp-and-paper industry: A review of treatment processes and the associated greenhouse gas emission.

Pulp-and-paper mills produce various types of contaminants and a significant amount of wastewater depending on the type of processes used in the plant. Since the generated wastewaters can be potentially polluting and very dangerous, they should be treated in wastewater treatment plants before being released to the environment. This paper reviews different wastewater treatment processes used in the pulp-and-paper industry and compares them with respect to their contaminant removal efficiencies and the extent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. It also evaluates the impact of operating parameters on the performance of different treatment processes. Two mathematical models were used to estimate GHG emission in common biological treatment processes used in the pulp-and-paper industry. Nutrient removal processes and sludge treatment are discussed and their associated GHG emissions are calculated. Although both aerobic and anaerobic biological processes are appropriate for wastewater treatment, their combination known as hybrid processes showed a better contaminant removal capacity at higher efficiencies under optimized operating conditions with reduced GHG emission and energy costs.

Application of dynamic models to estimate greenhouse gas emission by wastewater treatment plants of the pulp and paper industry.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in wastewater treatment plants of the pulp-and-paper industry was estimated by using a dynamic mathematical model. Significant variations were shown in the magnitude of GHG generation in response to variations in operating parameters, demonstrating the limited capacity of steady-state models in predicting the time-dependent emissions of these harmful gases. The examined treatment systems used aerobic, anaerobic, and hybrid-anaerobic/aerobic-biological processes along with chemical coagulation/flocculation, anaerobic digester, nitrification and denitrification processes, and biogas recovery. The pertinent operating parameters included the influent substrate concentration, influent flow rate, and temperature. Although the average predictions by the dynamic model were only 10 % different from those of steady-state model during 140 days of operation of the examined systems, the daily variations of GHG emissions were different up to ± 30, ± 19, and ± 17 % in the aerobic, anaerobic, and hybrid systems, respectively. The variations of process variables caused fluctuations in energy generation from biogas recovery by ± 6, ± 7, and ± 4 % in the three examined systems, respectively. The lowest variations were observed in the hybrid system, showing the stability of this particular process design.