SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Science / 2026 / Volume: 23 Issue: 2

Seasonal Water Footprint Assessment For A Paint Industry Wastewater Treatment Plant

Pelin Yapıcıoğlu(Harran University)0000-0002-6354-8132
Pages
—
Publication Date
2019-04-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, maximum grey water footprint was measured in May as the value of 2455.840352 m 3 .month -1 .

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Paint manufacturing industries have many unfavorable environmental impacts such as freshwater consumption.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results, maximum grey water footprint was measured in May as the value of 2455.840352 m 3 .month -1 .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results reveal that for decreasing water footprint, COD removal efficiency should be increased and wastewater reuse alternatives should be implemented.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:paint industry wastewater · water footprint

Abstract

Paint manufacturing industries have many unfavorable environmental impacts such as freshwater consumption. Especially, paint industry wastewater treatment plants consume huge water volumes. Water footprint is described as the total volume of water required for a concept. The main aim of the study is to determine the seasonal variation of water footprint for a full-scale paint industry wastewater treatment plant which locates in Turkey. Grey water footprint was evaluated by Water Footprint Network methodology. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and Grease (O&G) are the pollutant parameters to detect it. Water consumption of the plant contains sludge treatment, process water usage and other residential activities are defined as the component of blue water footprint. According to the results, maximum grey water footprint was measured in May as the value of 2455.840352 m 3 .month -1 . The least total grey water footprint is related to August as 536.7118464 m 3 .month -1 . Total blue water footprint is 4866.9 m 3 .year -1 and the peak value is 421.7 m 3 .month -1 in March. According to the study, the grey water footprint is higher than blue footprint. The results reveal that for decreasing water footprint, COD removal efficiency should be increased and wastewater reuse alternatives should be implemented.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yapıcıoğlu, P. (2019). Seasonal Water Footprint Assessment For A Paint Industry Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sakarya University Journal of Science, Volume: 23 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.411137

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. J. Yao, D. Wen, “Zero Discharge Process for Dyeing Wastewater Treatment,” Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 98-103, 2016.
  2. P. Yapıcıoğlu, “Investigation of Environmental-friendly Technology for a Paint Industry Wastewater Plant in Turkey,” Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, online published, 2018. Doi: 10.19113/sdufbed.22148.
  3. S. Morera, L. Corominas, M. Poch, M.M. Aldaya and J. Comas, “Water footprint assessment in wastewater treatment plants,” Journal of Cleaner Production,vol. 112, pp. 4741–4748, 2016.
  4. World Resources Institute, WRI, 2015. Available: http://www.wri.org/. [Accessed 11 July 2017]
  5. A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung, “A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade,” Water Research, vol. 49, pp. 203–209, 2002.
  6. F. Gnehm, The Swiss Water Footprint Report A global picture of Swiss water dependence. pp. 36, Swiss, 2012.
  7. F. Pellicer-Martinez and J.M. Martinez-Paz, “The Water Footprint as an indicator of environmental sustainability in water use at the river basin level,” Science of Total Environment, vol. 571, pp. 561–574, 2016.
  8. A.Y. Hoekstra and M.M. Mekonnen, “The water footprint of humanity,” PNAS, vol. 109, pp. 3232–3237, 2011.
  9. D. Lovarelli, J. Bacenetti and M. Fiala, “Water Footprint of crop productions: A review,” Science of Total Environment, vol. 548-549, pp. 236–251, 2016.
  10. Water Footprint Network, WFN, 2014. Available: http: //http://waterfootprint.org/. [Accessed 20 May 2017]
  11. A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung, “Globalisation of water resources: International virtual water flows in relation to crop trade,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 15, pp. 45–56, 2005.
  12. A.K. Chapagain, A.Y. Hoekstra, H.H.G. Savenije and R. Gautam, “The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries,” Ecological Economics, vol. 60, pp. 186–203, 2006.
  13. A.Y. Hoekstra and A.K. Chapagain, “Water footprints of nations.Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern,” Water Resources Management, vol. 21, pp. 35–48, 2007.
  14. A.K. Chapagain and S. Orr, “An improved water footprint methodology linking global consumption to local water resources: A case of Spanish tomatoes,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, pp. 1219–1228, 2009.
  15. K. Feng, Y.L. Siu, D. Guan and K. Hubacek, “Assessing regional virtual water flows and water footprints in the Yellow River Basin, China: A consumption based approach,” Applied Geography, vol. 32, pp. 691–701, 2012.
  16. D. Guan and K. Hubacek, “Assessment of regional trade and virtual water flows in China,” Ecological Economics, vol. 61, pp. 159–170, 2007.
  17. I. Cazcarro, R.D. Pac and J. Sánchez-Chóliz, “Water consumption based on a disaggregated social accounting matrix of huesca (Spain),” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 14, pp. 496–511, 2010.
  18. Y. Yu, K. Hubacek, K. Feng and D. Guan, “Assessing regional and global water footprints for the UK,” Ecological Economics, vol. 69, pp. 1140–1147, 2010.
  19. Z.Y. Zhang, M.J. Shi, H. Yang and A. Chapagain, “An input-output analysis of trends in vitual water trade and the impact on water resources and uses in China,” Economic Systems Research, vol. 23, pp. 431–446, 2011.
  20. H. Dong, Y. Geng, J. Sarkis, T. Fujita, T. Okadera and B. Xue, “Regional water footprint evaluation in China: A case of Liaoning,” Science of Total Environment, vol. 442, pp. 215–224, 2013.
  21. T. Okadera, Y. Geng, T. Fujita, H. Dong, Z. Liu, N. Yoshida and T. Kanazawa, “Evaluating the water footprint of the energy supply of Liaoning Province, China: A regional input-output analysis approach,” Energy Policy, vol. 78, pp. 148–157, 2015.
  22. T.C. Official Gazette, Water Polllution Control Procedure, Ankara, Turkey, 2004. Available: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.7221&sourceXmlSearch=&MevzuatIliski=0 [Accessed 20 May 2017]
  23. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, USA, 1999.
  24. EPA, United States. Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency. (4303). February 2010. Method 1664, Revision B: n-Hexane, 2010.
  25. J. Yao, D. Wen, “Zero Discharge Process for Dyeing Wastewater Treatment,” Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 98-103, 2016.