This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna]

On: 08 October 2014, At: 02:14

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Case Studies on Biological Treatment of Tannery

Effluents in India
a

Vinod Tare , Sandeep Gupta & Purnendu Bose

Environmental Engineering and Management Program, Department of Civil Engineering ,

Indian Institute of Technology , Kanpur , India
Published online: 22 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Vinod Tare , Sandeep Gupta & Purnendu Bose (2003) Case Studies on Biological Treatment
of Tannery Effluents in India, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 53:8, 976-982, DOI:
10.1080/10473289.2003.10466250
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2003.10466250

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

TECHNICAL PAPER

ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 53:976 982

Copyright 2003 Air & Waste Management Association

Case Studies on Biological Treatment of Tannery Effluents in India

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

Vinod Tare, Sandeep Gupta, and Purnendu Bose

Environmental Engineering and Management Program, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a comparative assessment of the cost
and quality of treatment of tannery wastewater in India by
two common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) constructed
for two tannery clusters, at Jajmau (Kanpur) and at Unnao in
the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. The Jajmau plant is upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process-based, while the
Unnao plant is activated sludge process (ASP)-based. Investigations indicated that the ASP-based plant was superior in
all respects. Total annualized costs, including capital and
operation and maintenance costs, for the UASB and ASP
plants were Rs. 4.24 million/million liters per day (MLD)
and Rs. 3.36 million/MLD, respectively. Land requirements
for the two CETPs were 1.4 hectares/MLD and 0.95 hectares/
MLD, respectively. Moreover, the treated UASB effluent had
higher biochemical and chemical oxygen demand (BOD/
COD) and considerable amounts of other undesirable constituents, like chromium (Cr) and sulfide, as compared with
the ASP effluent, which had lower BOD/COD and negligible
concentration of sulfide and Cr. Sludge production from the
UASB-based plant was also higher at 1.4 t/day/MLD, in comparison to the sludge production of 0.8 t/day/MLD for the
ASP-based plant. Also, the entire sludge produced in the
UASB-based plant was Cr-contaminated and, hence, hazardous, while only a small fraction of the sludge produced in
the ASP-based plant was similarly contaminated. The results
of this study are at variance with the conventional wisdom
of the superiority of anaerobic processes for tannery wastewater treatment in tropical developing countries like India.

IMPLICATIONS
In the field of wastewater treatment, it is generally accepted
that anaerobic treatment is less energy-intensive and, hence,
preferable to aerobic treatment in tropical developing countries like India. While this is true in many cases, a blanket
preference for anaerobic treatment without due regard to
wastewater quality may be ill advised. This paper refers to a
comparative assessment of an aerobic and an anaerobic
treatment facility for treatment of tannery wastewater, which
shows that, at variance with the conventional wisdom, the aerobic treatment facility is superior in most respects, including cost.

976 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

INTRODUCTION
Tanneries are significant in terms of Indian exports and
employment opportunities for people of economically
weaker populations.1 However, sustenance of tanneries,
particularly of the small units, is becoming increasingly
difficult because of alarming levels of environmental pollution caused by various tanning operations and practices.2,3 Considering the financial and technological limitations of small tanning units, the general approach
adopted in India for treatment of tannery wastewater
from such units has been the commissioning of common
effluent treatment plants (CETPs) for tannery clusters.4,5
One significant stimulant for the emergence of CETPs is
the scheme announced by the central and state governments in India in 1989, providing 50% of the capital cost
of such CETPs as subsidy to the tanning industry.6
These CETPs have been constructed, operated, and
maintained by member tanneries through independent
companies set up for this specific purpose.7 The exceptions to this rule are the CETPs at Jalandhar in Punjab and
Jajmau (Kanpur) in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), which
are managed by government-sector enterprises.8 A review
of the tannery effluent characteristics in India9 indicate
that the pollutants of concern are high biological and
chemical oxygen demand (BOD/COD), sulfide, chromium (Cr), total suspended solids (TSS), and salt concentration. Most CETPs for treating tannery effluents specify
preliminary treatment in the tannery itself10 12 for removal of large suspended solids (grit) and Cr before conveyance of the wastewater for centralized treatment.
Though several sulfide-removal technologies exist,13 its
removal is generally not practiced in tanneries. After preliminary treatment, wastewater with high BOD/COD is
conveyed to CETPs, where it is treated by aerobic or anaerobic biological processes for destruction of biodegradable organic pollutants before release into the natural
environment.
The processes used most frequently for biological
treatment of tannery wastewater in CETPs in India are the
activated sludge process (ASP) and the upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) process.9,14 16 In general, ASPbased treatment is considered to be energy-intensive and
Volume 53 August 2003

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

Tare, Gupta, and Bose

expensive from an operation and maintenance (O&M)
point of view. On the other hand, anaerobic processes
claim to offer several advantages, especially under tropical
climatic conditions.16,17 However, a comprehensive comparison of the relative merits of tannery wastewater treatment by these two processes with field data has not yet
been performed. As such, it is imperative that experience
and knowledge gained through the operation of full-scale
treatment plants treating tannery effluents employing
both ASP and UASB processes is properly utilized. The
thrust of this paper is on the analysis and comparison of
the field data obtained from operation of CETPs based on
ASP and UASB processes for treating tannery effluents. For
this purpose, the CETPs commissioned and being operated for two closely situated clusters of tanneries, one in
the Jajmau locality of Kanpur in UP, using UASB technology, and the other at Unnao, UP, using ASP, have been
considered. These two CETPs are located 2530 km apart,
and the infrastructural, climatic, socioeconomic, and political scenarios are similar in these two locations.
The specific objectives of the study were as follows.
The first objective was analysis and comparison of the two
CETPs in terms of capital and O&M costs and land area
requirement. The second was analysis and comparison in
terms of treated water quality and quantity and quality of
sludge produced.
DESCRIPTION OF CETPS
In Jajmau (Kanpur), 310 tanneries operate with an average daily rawhide processing capacity of 320 t.8 Approximately 295 tanneries convey 7.75 million liters per day
(MLD) of effluent to the UASB-based CETP at Jajmau,18
which was designed to treat 9 MLD of tannery wastewater

using the UASB process. Preliminary treatment of wastewater for removal of grit and Cr is performed in the tannery
itself. Because sulfate (SO42) concentration in tannery
wastewater being conveyed to the CETP was expected to be
high, this wastewater was mixed with domestic wastewater
in a 1-3 ratio before treatment, so as to increase the CODSO42 ratio, thus promoting methanogenesis of the influent
COD. This arrangement was also designed to minimize the
detrimental effects of the conversion of SO42 to sulfide
during UASB treatment. Hence, a UASB plant of 36 MLD
capacity had to be designed for treating 9 MLD of tannery
wastewater. A flow sheet for the adopted treatment scheme
is shown in Figure 1.
Average daily rawhide processing in Unnao is 47.5 t
from a cluster of 28 tanneries.8 The Unnao CETP, which is
an ASP-based plant, receives 1.9 MLD of tannery wastewater18 against a design flow of 2.15 MLD. As in previous
cases, preliminary treatment of this wastewater for the
removal of grit and Cr is performed in the tannery itself.
A process flow sheet for this CETP is shown in Figure 2.
Table 1 presents a comparative overview of the two CETPs.
RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT
The comparative assessment of the two CETPs described
previously has been conducted considering the following
major factors, namely, overall annual cost (including capital and operation and maintenance costs), land area requirement, treated effluent quality, and quantity and
quality of sludge produced.
Construction Costs
The construction cost data were taken from the implementing agencies as mentioned in their project completion

Figure 1. Process flow diagram of CETP at Jajmau, Kanpur.19

Volume 53 August 2003

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 977

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

Tare, Gupta, and Bose

Figure 2. Process flow diagram of CETP at Unnao.19

reports.19 The capital cost for the UASB-based plant in

Jajmau (Kanpur) for treatment of 36 MLD common effluent containing 9 MLD of tannery effluent was Rs. 191.5
million or Rs. 21.3 million per MLD of tannery effluent
treated. The capital costs for the ASP-based plant in Unnao for treatment of 2.15 MLD of tannery effluent were
Rs. 19.3 million or Rs. 8.96 million per MLD of tannery
effluent treated.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
O&M costs were calculated based on information gathered from the site on the basis of actual working of the
plants. The details are presented in Tables 2a and 2b.
Based on this information, it was determined that annual
O&M costs for the Jajmau plant were Rs. 8.6 million or Rs.
0.98 million per MLD of tannery effluent treated/yr. This
figure was arrived at after subtracting Rs. 0.2 million/yr in

income generated from power production from methane

(CH4) generated in the plant. Similar costs for the Unnao
plant were Rs. 4.8 million or Rs. 2.25 million per MLD of
tannery effluent treated/yr.
Normalizing the capital and O&M costs for the purpose of comparison of the two CETPs of different sizes
results in a conservative estimate in favor of the UASB
plant at Jajmau (Kanpur). This is because the ASP-based
Unnao CETP is of smaller capacity, 2.15 MLD versus 36
MLD of the CETP at Jajmau, and, all other things remaining the same, is expected to be costlier considering the
efficiencies of scale of the larger Jajmau plant. In addition, cost calculations for UASB-based treatment assume
income from power generation as per design of the plant
while the actual power generation based on the field
performance is much less.

Table 1. An overview of the two CETPs.

UASB-Based CETP at Jajmau

ASP-Based CETP at Unnao

Purpose
Capacity
Date commissioned
Capital cost
Implementation
Financial

Treatment of wastewater from a cluster of 310 tanneries

36 MLD (9 MLD tannery effluent 27 MLD domestic wastewater)
December 1994
Rs. 191.5 million
Under Government of Netherlands line of credit
Government of India through Dutch loan: 65%
UP state government: 17.5%
Member units and UP government institution: 17.5%

Operating agency

Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam

Treatment of wastewater from a cluster of 21 tanneries

2.15 MLD tannery effluent
January 1996
Rs. 19.3 million
Under World Bank line of credit
Equity of member units: 20%
UP state subsidy: 25%
Government of India subsidy: 25%
IDBI term loan: 30%
Unnao Tanneries Pollution Control Company, Ltd.

978 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Volume 53 August 2003

Tare, Gupta, and Bose

Table 2a. Operation and maintenance costs for UASB-based CETP at Jajmau.
Rs. (million)/yr

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

Power cost
Wages and salaries
Chemicals
Maintenance
Electrical and mechanical
Civil structure at CETP
Oil and lubricants
Sludge disposal
Miscellaneous
Total

4.08
1.2
0.66
0.72
0.36
0.3
0.9
0.6
8.82

Table 2b. Operation and maintenance costs for ASP-based CETP at Unnao.
Rs. (million)/yr
Power cost
Electricity
Generator
Wages and salaries
Chemicals
Maintenance
Electrical and mechanical
Civil structure at CETP
Generator
Oil and lubricants
Sludge disposal
Miscellaneous
Total

2.52
0.54
0.84
0.036
0.18
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.06
0.3
4.776

Land Requirements
The UASB-based plant at Jajmau is constructed on an area of
12.5 hectares. Hence, 1.4 hectares of land is required per
MLD of tannery effluent treated in this plant. The land
requirement for the ASP-based plant at Unnao is 0.95 hectares per MLD of tannery effluent treated.
Treated Effluent Quality
The designed and actual levels of treatment for the two
CETPs are presented in Table 3. While the former values
are based on the original design calculations for CETPs,
the latter values were obtained from performance evaluation studies of the two plants.19 23 Data presented indicate that while the performance of the ASP-based CETP
was close to the predicted performance, the performance
of the UASB-based CETP was much poorer than the designed performance values. This poor performance can be
attributed partially to the presence of high levels of SO42
in tannery wastewater.
UASB performance data presented in Table 3 indicate
that, despite dilution with domestic wastewater, a large
Volume 53 August 2003

amount of sulfide is produced from the reduction of

SO42 present in tannery wastewater. It is believed that
production of sulfide during anaerobic treatment results
in microbiological toxicity, production of hydrogen sulfide gas, production of black metal sulfide precipitates,
and reduction in anaerobic treatment efficiency and CH4
production.24,25
It was also noticed that despite the existence of Crremoval facilities in almost all tanneries discharging their
effluents to the CETPs, high Cr concentrations, on the
order of 55 mg/L, were observed in wastewater influent to
both CETPs. This Cr is expected to be present as chromium hydroxide (Cr(OH)3) precipitate, considering the
pH of wastewater and the reducing conditions that are
prevalent.13,26 Presence of a primary sedimentation tank
in the ASP-based CETP ensures that this Cr is removed
with the primary sludge before biological treatment.
Absence of a primary sedimentation tank in UASB-based
CETP, which is often touted as one of the advantages of
UASB treatment systems, results in large Cr loading to the
UASB reactor and, hence, high Cr concentration in the
UASB reactor effluent. The presence of precipitated trivalent Cr at concentrations mentioned previously in the
UASB reactor, however, is not expected to impact the
reactor performance substantially.2729
Sludge Production
Conventionally, lower sludge production is considered to
be an advantage of anaerobic treatment. However, in the
present comparison, it is seen that the total quantity of
sludge produced from UASB-based CETP is higher (1.4
t/day/MLD tannery effluent) compared with ASP-based
CETP (0.8 t/day/MLD tannery effluent). This is undoubtedly because of the necessity of adding 27 MLD of domestic wastewater to the tannery effluent before UASB treatment.
Chromium-contaminated hazardous sludge production in the ASP-based CETP is only a small percentage of
the total sludge produced in this plant, because only the
primary sludge in this CETP is Cr-contaminated. However, the absence of a primary sedimentation tank in the
UASB-based CETP results in Cr contamination of the entire sludge produced in this CETP. Also, poor settling
characteristics of the anaerobic sludge in the UASB-based
CETP result in loss of sludge and other suspended solids
with treated effluent, resulting in high Cr concentrations
in the treated effluent from the UASB plant.
DISCUSSION
A summary of the comparative assessment described in
the previous section is presented in Table 4. The cost
of treatment of tannery effluent is normalized in this
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 979

Tare, Gupta, and Bose

Table 3. Designed and actual influent and effluent characteristics for the two CETPs.
UASB-Based

COD
BOD5
TSS

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

SO42
Sulfide
Total Cr

Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent

ASP-Based

Designed
(mg/L)a

Actual
(mg/L)b

Designed
(mg/L)a

Actual
(mg/L)c

1875

775
30
1625
50
738
NCe
NC
NC
NC
NC

837.8 298.9 (148)

398.3 168.5 (148)
397.6 119.1 (148)
200 77 (148)
846.1 552.4 (148)
372.9 215.2 (148)
776.8 102 (42)
234.5 58 (42)
NA
113.9 36 (42)
61.2 15.2 (28)
7.9 3.2 (28)

4000
250
1800
30
2000
200
2000
1000
NC
NC
100
0.5

3600
200
1500
40
750
110
1500
NAd
NA
NA
56
0.8

From ref 19; bFrom refs 2123. Mean standard deviation. Number of data points in
parentheses. On daily composite samples collected for 5 consecutive days, 1997
1999; cFrom ref 19 and the logbook maintained at the Unnao facility, 19971999.
Only mean values reported, effluent characteristics being more or less unchanged over
the years; dNC not considered; eNA not available. Data not monitored during
performance evaluation of the treatment plants.
a

table in terms of annualized cost per MLD of tannery

wastewater treated and also as cost per hide processed.
Both values show that the ASP-based plant is less costly
than the UASB-based plant.
One criticism of this comparative assessment may be
that an outdated plant is being compared with a new
plant, or a poorly operated plant is being compared
with a well-operated plant. To rebut such criticism, the
following points can be made. As mentioned in Table 1,
the UASB-based CETP at Jajmau was installed in December 1994, while the ASP-based CETP was installed 1 yr
later, in January 1996. Thus, the plants are contemporary.
Also, because the design life of both plants is 15 yr, neither the UASB- nor the ASP-based system can be considered to be outdated. Additionally, both the CETPs are
being operated as per accepted operating procedures for
such plants prevalent in India. However, the actual influent wastewater flow and characteristics are somewhat different than the design values (see the comparison in Table
3) for both plants. This is because of underestimation in
the projections of influent wastewater quantity and organic strength and also because of inadequate pretreatment provided by the tanneries, as discussed earlier. However, this anomaly is unlikely to affect the conclusions of
this study substantially.
A further criticism may be that there is a design flaw
in the UASB-based plant and, hence, it is improper to
compare a flawed plant with a properly designed plant.
Attention may be drawn in this regard to the absence of a
980 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

primary sedimentation facility in the UASB-based CETP.

Installation of such a facility, it may be argued, will ensure
that only the sludge captured in the primary sedimentation tank is Cr-contaminated, while the UASB reactor
sludge is free of Cr contamination. It may, however, be
mentioned at this point that the absence of primary sedimentation is not a design flaw. In fact, the nonrequirement of primary sedimentation is often touted as one of
the many advantages of the UASB system. Moreover,
UASB systems are expected to work better in most circumstances without a primary sedimentation tank. However,
it must be admitted that, in this case, primary sedimentation may be a welcome addition to the UASB process
train for the reason cited earlier. Nonetheless, installation
of a primary sedimentation tank is unlikely to substantially alter the main conclusions of the comparative assessment, though it is likely to improve the UASB reactor
effluent quality and lead to production of a lesser amount
of Cr-contaminated sludge from this plant.
Another point of criticism of the comparative assessment may be as follows. Together with 9 MLD of tannery
wastewater, 27 MLD of domestic sewage is being treated
in the UASB plant. This point was not considered when
making the comparative assessment. However, comparison of raw domestic wastewater and treated UASB effluent
characteristics, presented in Table 5, indicate that though
UASB treatment has resulted in partial reduction of BOD
and COD of domestic wastewater, TSS, sulfide, and Cr
concentration has increased after UASB treatment. In addition, the effluent quality after UASB treatment does not
satisfy Indian standards for discharge of treated domestic
wastewater into natural bodies of water. Under the
Table 4. Cost comparison of tannery effluent treatment by the two CETPs.

Wastewater quantity
Domestic wastewater required for dilution
Construction costa
Annual operation and maintenance costa
If power generation takes place, then
income/yrb
Annualized capital costa,c
Total annualized costa
Total hide production/yr from tanneries
discharging to CETPd
Cost of wastewater treatment per hide
produced
Sludge generation

UASB-Based

ASP-Based

9 MLD
27 MLD
Rs. 21.3 million/MLD
Rs. 0.98 million/MLD

2.15 MLD
0
Rs. 8.96 million/MLD
Rs. 2.25 million/MLD

Rs. 0.2 million

Rs. 3.46 million/MLD Rs. 1.46 million/MLD

Rs 4.24 million/MLD Rs 3.36 million/MLD
4.05 million

0.85 millon

Rs. 9.42
1.4 t/day/MLD

Rs. 8.50
0.8 t/day/MLD

Per MLD of tannery effluent; bIn actual practice, power generation does not takes
place but there is the potential; cAnnualized capital cost construction cost
{r(1 r) n/(1 r)n 1}, where r rate of interest (14%) and n design period of
CETP (15 yr); dAssuming a 20-kg hide.
Volume 53 August 2003

Tare, Gupta, and Bose

Table 5. A comparison of pollution parameters of treated effluents from 36 MLD UASBbased CETP at Jajmau (Kanpur) and untreated domestic wastewater.

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

COD
BOD5
TSS
SO42
Sulfide
Cr

Effluents from a 36-MLD

UASB-Based CETP (mg/L)

Raw Domestic
Sewage (mg/L)

398.3 168.5 (148)

200 77 (148)
372.9 215.2 (148)
234.5 58 (42)
113.9 36 (42)
7.9 3.2 (28)

534 226 (160)

283 107 (159)
633 549 (160)
148.3 32.1 (42)
5.8 3.2 (42)
1.8 0.6 (12)

Note: From refs 2123. Mean standard deviation. Number of data points in parentheses. On daily composite samples collected for 5 consecutive days, 19971999.

circumstances, it is debatable that any meaningful treatment of domestic wastewater has occurred in the UASB
plant.
Further, it may be suggested that sludge generation in
the UASB-based CETP is greater only because of the addition of domestic sewage, and this point is not given due
importance while making the comparative assessment. To
answer this criticism, it may be pointed out that unlike
sludge generated from treatment of purely domestic sewage, which is relatively nonhazardous and can be disposed of or used safely, the sludge from the 36 MLD
UASB-based CETP is contaminated with Cr and, hence, is
hazardous. Disposal of such sludge is problematic. Therefore, it is correct to classify entire sludge generated by the
UASB-based CETP as a byproduct of the tannery wastewater treatment process.
Regarding the overall environmental impact of the
two treatment plants, the following points are made.
Treatment of tannery effluents in CETPs involves collection, conveyance, and treatment, followed by final disposal of treated effluents and sludge to natural bodies of
water or on land. It is expected that construction and
operation of CETPs will result in beneficial impacts on the
environment and overall improvement in parameters determining environmental quality, as compared with the
situation before the construction of CETPs. Installation of
both CETPs described in this paper has resulted in reduction in organic loading to surrounding bodies of water.
However, such CETPs also tend to convert distributed
streams of pollutant loading into one large stream and
produce toxic sludge. In the case of the two CETPs studied, the Cr-contaminated sludge produced from both
CETPs is being disposed of without proper care with the
assumption that trivalent Cr is relatively nontoxic. However, there are reports indicating the possibility of trivalent Cr being oxidized to hexavalent Cr.30 Hexavalent Cr
is reported to be highly toxic and, hence, environmental
impacts of sludge disposal should be properly assessed. In
Volume 53 August 2003

this regard, preliminary analysis of leachate from the

dumping site for UASB sludge indicated the presence of
hexavalent Cr (data not shown), though fresh sludge from
the UASB plant contained trivalent Cr only. However, the
mode of conversion of trivalent Cr to the hexavalent form
in the sludge dumping sites has yet to be ascertained. Additionally, during anaerobic treatment of tannery effluents,
sulfates are converted to sulfide. Information currently available on the impact of sulfide presence in treated wastewater25,31 indicates that discharge of such effluent to natural
bodies of water result in exertion of instantaneous oxygen
demand because of rapid oxidation of sulfide to SO42.
CONCLUSIONS
The thrust of the present study was on the analysis of the
cost and performance data of two CETPs based on different
biological processes, namely, aerobic (ASP) and anaerobic
(UASB), being operated for two closely situated clusters of
tanneries, one in Jajmau (Kanpur), UP, and the other in
Unnao, UP. Comparative assessment of CETPs resulted in
conclusions at variance with the conventional wisdom regarding advantages of anaerobic over aerobic wastewater
treatment options in tropical and developing countries, as
far as treatment of tannery effluent is concerned. Specifically, the following conclusions were made from this study:
For the UASB-based treatment system studied, high
SO42 concentration in tannery wastewater necessitated dilution of the tannery effluent with domestic
wastewater containing a comparatively lesser amount
of SO42 to increase the COD-SO42 ratio for promotion of methanogenesis. This required the construction of a bigger reactor, resulting in enhanced construction and O&M costs, sludge production, and
land requirement.
Comparison in terms of total annualized cost, sludge
production, and land requirements indicates that the
normalized values of these parameters, that is, per
MLD of tannery effluent treated, were higher in the
case of the UASB-based process, in comparison with
the ASP-based process.
Despite the measures to promote methanogenesis in
the UASB system as described previously, a considerable amount of sulfide was still produced in the UASB
reactor, with associated impacts on the treated effluent quality. On the other hand, sulfide production
was not a problem for the ASP-based process. Also, the
treated effluent from the UASB-based treatment plant
had a higher Cr concentration, as compared with the
ASP-based treatment plant.
Presence of Cr in the tannery wastewater resulted in
production of Cr-contaminated hazardous sludge in both
CETPs. However, in comparison to the UASB process,
where the entire sludge produced was Cr-contaminated
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 981

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] at 02:14 08 October 2014

Tare, Gupta, and Bose

and, hence, hazardous, only the primary sludge, which
was a small portion of the total sludge produced in
ASP-based system, was contaminated with Cr.
It must be admitted that the conclusions presented
here are based on a case study involving only two plants.
Thus, the resulting conclusions should not ordinarily be
extrapolated without citing more data from similar plants
from all across India. However, the review of tannery
wastewater characteristics from all over India32 indicates
that a remarkable similarity exists in the relative concentrations of various pollutants in tannery wastewater from
all across the country. Further, there is an inverse relationship between the concentration of individual pollutants and the degree of water utilization in the tanning
process in different parts of the country. Under the circumstances, it can be said with some confidence that the
conclusions of this study can be replicated in a larger
study involving more plants all across India.
In conclusion, it is emphasized that the results presented in this paper do not constitute a blanket criticism of
the UASB system of treatment. It is only suggested that,
according to data gathered during these case studies, the
UASB system may not be suitable for the treatment of some
tannery wastewater. This conclusion is drawn considering
the high SO42 content of tannery wastewater and taking
into account the lax regulatory environment in India,
which fails to check Cr being discharged to the CETPs constructed for the treatment of tannery wastewater.
REFERENCES
1. Sarkar, K.T. Theory and Practice of Leather Manufacture; Ajoy Sorcar:
Madras, India, 1981.
2. Ramasami, T., Rajamani, S.; Rao, J.R. Pollution Control in Leather Industry: Emerging Technological Options; CLRI: Adyar, Madras, India, 1995.
3. Naidu, A.S. Indian Leather Industry in 21st Century: Challenges and
Opportunities; Yojana 2000, March, 13.
4. Sahasranaman, A.; Buljan, J. Environment Management in Indian
Tanneries; Voice Leather Survey 2000, 34.
5. Mariappan, M. Environmental Protection Initiatives in Indian TanneriesA Perspective View. In Proceedings of the 31st Leather Research
Industry Get-Together; Central Leather Research Institute: Adyar, India,
1997; p 150.
6. Basu, S.K.; Chakraborty, S. Effluent Treatment in Leather Processing
Industries; Indian J. Environ. Protection 1989, 9, 904.
7. Rajamani, S.; Suthathrarajan, R.; Ravindranath, E.; Raghvan, K.V.
Common Effluent Treatment System for a Cluster of Tanneries in
BangaloreAn Appropriate Integrated Approach. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Appropriate Waste Management Technologies for Developing Countries, Nagpur, India, 1995; p 909.
8. Detailed Project Report on 36 MLD UASB Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Jajmau, Kanpur; UP Jal Nigam, Kanpur, India, 1991.
9. Jawahar, A.J.K.; Ponselvan, J.K.S.; Chinnadurai, M.; Annadurai, G.
Pollution from Tanneries and Options for Treatment of Effluent; Indian J. Environ. Protection 1998, 18, 672.
10. Babu R.; Bajpai, P.K.; Parwana, H.K. Characterisation and Pretreatment
of Tannery WastewaterA Case Study; Indian J. Environ. Protection
1994, 17, 175.
11. Basu, S.K.; Chakraborty, S. Effluent Treatment in Leather Processing
IndustriesPart II; Indian J. Environ. Protection 1990, 10, 661.
12. Prakash, N.B.; Ramamoorthy, V.; Lakshmanan, C.M. Primary Treatment of Tannery Effluent for the Removal of Chromium and Other
Toxic Substances; Indian J. Environ. Protection 1996, 17, 561.
13. Sekaran, G.; Mariappan, M. Treatment of Salt-Laden Wastewater from
Tanning Industry; Indian J. Environ. Protection 1994, 14, 801.
14. Kadam, R.V. Treatment of Tannery Wastes; Indian J. Environ. Protection
1990, 10, 212.

982 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

15. Murugesan, V.; Elangoan, R. Biokinetic Parameters for Activated

Sludge Process Treating Vegetable Tannery Waste; Indian J. Environ.
Protection, 1994, 14, 511.
16. Rajamani, S.; Ramasami, T.; Langerwerf, J.S.A.; Schappman, J.E. Environmental Management in TanneriesFeasible Chromium Recovery
and Reuse System. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Appropriate Waste Management Technologies for Developing Countries,
Nagpur, India, 1995; p 965.
17. Rajamani, S.; Suthathrarajan, R.; Ravindranath, E.; Mulder, A.;
Groenestijn, J.W.V.; Langerwerf, J.S.A. Treatment of Tannery Wastewater Using Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) System. In Proceedings of the 31st Leather Research Industry Get-Together; Central
Leather Research Institute: Adyar, India, 1997, p 57.
18. Ganga Pollution Control Works, Kanpur; Ganga Pollution Control Unit:
UP Jal Nigam, Kanpur, India, 1991.
19. Performance Evaluation of Operational Projects (UP) on Common Effluent
Treatment Plants; Central Pollution Control Board: New Delhi, India,
1996.
20. Rajeshwari, R.S. Performance Evaluation of UASB-Based Treatment
Plant at Jajmau; M. Tech. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, 1998.
21. Tare, V. Water Quality Monitoring of River Ganga and Monitoring of 5 and
36 MLD UASB Plants at Kanpur and Oxidation Pond at Farrukhabad;
Annual Report Submitted to National River Conservation Directorate,
New Delhi, India, 1997.
22. Tare, V. Water Quality Monitoring of River Ganga and Monitoring of 5 and
36 MLD UASB Plants at Kanpur and Oxidation Pond at Farrukhabad;
Annual Report Submitted to National River Conservation Directorate,
New Delhi, India, 1998.
23. Tare, V. Water Quality Monitoring of River Ganga and Monitoring of 5 and
36 MLD UASB Plants at Kanpur and Oxidation Pond at Farrukhabad;
Annual Report Submitted to National River Conservation Directorate,
New Delhi, India, 1999.
24. Sekaran, G.; Chitra, K.; Mariappan, M. Removal of Sulphide in Tannery Effluents by Catalytic Oxidation; Indian J. Environ. Protection
1993, 13, 128.
25. Arceivala, S.J. Wastewater Treatment for Pollution Control, 2nd ed.; Tata
McGraw-Hill: New Delhi, India, 1999.
26. Sharphouse, J.H. Leathers Technicians Handbook; Leather Producers
Association: London, 1979.
27. Alkan, U.; Anderson, G.K.; Ince, O. Toxicity of Trivalent Chromium in
the Anaerobic Digestion Process; Water Research 1996, 3, 731.
28. Kouzeli, K.A.; Kartsonas, N.; Priftis, A. Assessment of the Toxicity of
Heavy Metals to the Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge; Environ.
Technol. Lett. 1988, 9, 261.
29. Mosey, F.E.; Hughes, D.A. The Toxicity of Heavy Metal Ions to Anaerobic Digestion; Water Pollut. Control 1975, 74, 18.
30. Chattopadhyay, B.; Datta, S.; Chatterjee, A.; Mukhopadhyay, S.K. The
Environmental Impact of Waste Chromium of Tannery Agglomerates
in the East Calcutta Wetland Ecosystem; J. Soc. Leather Technol. Chem.
2000, 84, 94.
31. Sivacoumar, R.; Kothandaraman, V.; Biswas, A.K. Performance Evaluation of Common Effluent Treatment Plant for Tanneries in Tamil
Nadu; J. Indian Assoc. Environ. Manag. 2000, 27, 127.
32. Jawahar, A.J.K.; Ponselvan, J.K.S.; Chinnadurai, M.; Annadurai, G.
Pollution Inventory for Tanneries in Ranipet and Vaniyambadi in
Tamil Nadu, Indian J. Environ. Protection 1998, 18, 418.

About the Authors

Dr. Vinod Tare is a professor and Dr. Purnendu Bose is an
assistant professor in the Environmental Engineering and
Management Program, Department of Civil Engineering,
at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, India.
Sandeep Gupta is a former postgraduate student in the
same department and is currently an assistant professor in
the Department of Civil Engineering at the Govind Ballabh
Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in Pantnagar,
India. Address correspondence to: Dr. Vinod Tare, Environmental Engineering and Management Program, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur 208016, India; fax: 91-512-597395; e-mail:
vinod@iitk.ac.in.

Volume 53 August 2003