doi:10.1016/S1093-0191(02)00130-2
Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
On zero water discharge solutions in the process industry*1
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Anantha P. R. Koppola, Miguel J. Bagajewicz
,
, a, Brian J. Dericksb and Mariano J. Savelskib
a University of Oklahoma, Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, 100 E. Boyd Street, Norman, OK, USA
b Rowan University, Chemical Engineering, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA
Available online 6 March 2003.
Abstract
This paper presents a mathematical programming approach to analyze the feasibility of zero liquid discharge option in different industries. Mathematical programming methodologies are applied to four industrial cases—a tricresyl phosphate plant, an ethyl chloride plant, a paper mill and a refinery. In each case study various end of pipe and regeneration configurations using different treatment technologies are explored to determine the possibility of zero liquid discharge and its economical feasibility. The results show that the relationship between the cost of regeneration and the cost of freshwater as well as the discharge concentration of the treatment is the determining factor for the feasibility of zero liquid discharge.
Author Keywords: Water management; Zero liquid discharge
Fig. 1. Tricresyl phosphate solution network with reuse and end of pipe treatment.
Fig. 2. Tricresyl phosphate solution network with gas regeneration.
Fig. 3. Tricresyl phosphate solution network with oil regeneration.
Fig. 4. Freshwater reduction by addition of treatment process.
Fig. 5. Water regenerated by addition of treatment process.
Fig. 6. Regeneration cost vs. concentration.
Fig. 7. Total operating cost by addition of a treatment.
Fig. 8. Tricresyl phosphate solution network with reuse and distributed treatment.
Fig. 9. Ethyl chloride network with reuse and without regeneration.
Fig. 10. Ethyl chloride network with reuse and without regeneration.
Fig. 11. Ethyl chloride network with reuse and regeneration.
Fig. 12. Freshwater requirement by addition of air treatment.
Fig. 13. Total operating cost by addition of air treatment.
Fig. 14. Ethyl chloride network with air regeneration.
Fig. 15. Paper mill network with reuse and without regeneration.
Fig. 16. Paper mill network with physical treatment as regeneration.
Fig. 17. Paper mill network with membrane/physical regeneration.
Fig. 18. Freshwater reduction by addition of a regeneration process.
Fig. 19. Amount of water regenerated vs. concentration.
Fig. 20. Total operating cost vs. regeneration concentration.
Fig. 21. Refinery network with
end of pipe treatment.
Fig. 22. Refinery network with regeneration.
Fig. 23. Refinery network with reuse of
end of pipe treatments effluents.
Table 1. Data for Case #1

Table 2. Data for treatment

Table 3. Alternatives for tricresyl phosphate plant

Table 4. Data for Case #2

Table 5. Data for Case #2

Table 6. Alternatives for ethyl chloride plant

Table 7. Data for Case #3

Table 8. Data for Case #3

Table 9. Data for Case #3

Table 10. Alternatives for paper mill

Table 11. Process data for the refinery example

Table 12. Treatment data for the refinery example

Table 13. Alternatives for refinery

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-405-325-5458; fax: +1-405-325-5813
*1 Parts were first presented at Press 2001, Florence, Italy, May 2001. Other parts were presented at Empromer 2001, Santa Fe, Argentina.