study on disposal of effluent treatment plant …karpagam academy of higher education, coimbatore,...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 215 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 2, February 2018, pp. 215–226, Article ID: IJCIET_09_02_021

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=2

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STUDY ON DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT

TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE OF TIRUPPUR

TEXTILE PROCESSING INDUSTRIES

K. Ravichandran

Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering,

Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

Dr. R. Sundararajan

Ph.D Supervisor, Department of Civil Engineering, KAHE, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

ABSTRACT

Textile processing industries generate large quantity of effluent from the

bleaching, dyeing and in printing process. The dyeing units in Tiruppur have

implemented ZLDS either individually or collectively (IETPs/CETPs) and the system

is in operation for the past ten years. The sludge generated from the ZLDs of textile

processing industries are classified as Hazardous waste as per Hazardous Wastes

(M&TBM) Rules. The approved Methods of disposal of solid sludge are incineration

& secured landfill (SLF). As incineration and establishing SLF is being costly, there

was stagnation in disposal of ZLDs sludge. Recently, the CPCB issued guidelines for

using hazardous waste in cement Kiln Power Steel Industry by Co-processing

technology. Co-processing is the use of waste as a source of energy, to replace natural

mineral resources and fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and gas in industrial

processes. On the basis of the Guidelines, a trial was carried out by M/s. Ultratech

Cement Limited, Reddipalayam, Ariyalur, Tamilnadu for check the feasibility of using

the said sludge in cement industries for co-processing. Thus, this study reveals the

feasibility of using sludge generated from Textile industries in Tiruppur by co-

processing technology in cement industry. This study also reveals the advantage of

Co-processing of sludge in cement industry over incineration and SLF.

Keywords: Textile Industry; ZLDs Sludge; Incineration; SLF; Co-Processing.

Cite this Article: K. Ravichandran and Dr. R. Sundararajan, Study on Disposal of

Effluent Treatment Plant Sludge of Tiruppur Textile Processing Industries,

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 2018, pp. 215–226.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste

K. Ravichandran and Dr. R. Sundararajan


1. INTRODUCTION

Tiruppur is a major knitwear centre in India with more than 9000 small scale Garment units

supported with 700 Textile and bleaching units and 250 printing units. The dyeing units

generate huge volume of effluent from the process and the units have provided zero liquid

discharge plants (ZLDS) for the treatment of wastewater and the treated wastewater after

membrane technology treatment is reused.

Currently, 18 common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) and more than 50 individual

effluent treatment plants (IETPs) are in operation in Tiruppur. About one crore litres of

effluent is treated and recycled in these plants. The treatment system comprises of physio

chemical treatment system followed by Reverse Osmosis Filtration System and Multiple

Effect Evaporation system. The physio chemical treatment system removes the colour and

other organic loading and it comprises of equalisation, coagulation, settling and aeration

system. The physio chemical treatment system makes the effluent fit for the subsequent

filtration process. The process of coagulation and settling in the said process removes the

colour and it generates large volume of sludge and the sludge is dewatered and dried either in

sludge drying beds or in Mechanical Filter press. In Tiruppur, about 100 Tonnes of Hazardous

ETP sludge is generated daily. The sludge generated from the ETP is considered as Hazardous

waste as per the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement)

Rules, 2016 under the category 35.3 (Chemical sludge from waste water treatment).

Secured Land Fill (SLF) and Incineration are the general approved methods for the

disposal of the dyeing effluent ETP sludge. In secured land fill, the sludge is dumped in pits

lined with double layer Geo membrane system with provision for collection and treatment of

leachate from the system. After filling with Hazardous sludge scientific closure of the pits are

carried out. Incineration is a waste treatment process that involves the combustion of organic

substances contained in waste materials. Incineration of waste materials converts the waste

into ash, flue gas and heat. The ash is mostly formed by the inorganic constituents of the

waste, and may take the form of solid lumps or particulates carried by the flue gas. The flue

gases must be cleaned of gaseous and particulate pollutants before they are dispersed into the

atmosphere. In some cases, the heat generated by incineration can be used to generate electric

power.

As incineration and establishment of SLF is being costly, there was stagnation in disposal

of ZLDs sludge. This leads to the search of alternate technology of disposal of hazardous

waste in a better way. In February 2010 CPCB has issued guidelines for co processing of

Hazardous waste in Cement Kiln-Power-Steel Industry. Co-processing is the use of waste as a

source of energy, to replace natural mineral resources and fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum

and gas in industrial processes.

The production of cement in India is about 200 Million tonnes per annum, for which

estimated coal and lime stone requirement are 40 Million Tons per annum and 320 Million

Tons per annum, respectively. The study was carried out by CPCB in order to check the

potential utilization of entire hazardous waste generation for co-processing. Apart from

Cement Industry, Thermal Power Plant, Iron and Steel Industry are other potential candidates

for co-processing for disposal of Hazardous waste.

Thus, this study reveals the feasibility of using said sludge generated from Textile

industries in Tiruppur by co-processing technology in cement industry. This study also

reveals the advantage of co-processing of sludge in cement industry over incineration and

SLF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solid_waste_treatment_technologies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerator_bottom_ash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_particulate_matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste

Study on Disposal of Effluent Treatment Plant Sludge of Tiruppur Textile Processing Industries


2. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

2.1. Materials

The ETP sludge was collected from CETPs and IETPs of dyeing units in Tiruppur. The

compositions of effluent from Tiruppur Industries were obtained from Tamilnadu pollution

Control board (TNPCB), Tamilnadu. The trail experiments were conducted by Ultra tech

Cement Ltd, Reddipalayam, Ariyalur was given permission by Tamilnadu Pollution Control

Board to conduct trial study by using the dyeing ETP sludge in their Kiln. The unit has

engaged with M/s Vimta labs, Hyderabad to monitor the various air quality parameters and to

make analysis of raw materials, product analysis and various process parameters and the

entire study was made under the supervision of TNPCB.

2.2. Methodology

1. This study was conducted for five day.

Pre-trial Day-1- Normal fuel and normal Raw material (to assess baseline

emission value)

Trial period Day-2,3,4- Normal fuel and Raw material mixed with CETP/IETP

waste.

Post-trial Day-5-Normal fuel and normal Raw material.

2. The CETP sludge was mixed with raw material to a percentage of 6.5% i.e at a

feeding rate of 14.5 TPD

3. The emission of various pollutants such as SO2, Nox, HCl, HF, Hydrocarbons, CO,

TOC,PAH, Dioxin and furan etc were monitored during co processing of hazardous

waste, pre and post trail of co processing.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Results

The ETP sludge was collected form CETPs and IETPs of dyeing units in Tiruppur. The

chemical composition of the ETP sludge was analysed and given in the Table 1. From Table

1, it was observed that the sludge is Hazardous in nature and should properly collected,

stored, treated and disposed as per the provisions of Hazardous and Other Wastes

(Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

Table 1 Chemical Characteristics of Dyeing Effluent Treatment Plant sludge

S.No Industry Name SiO2

(%)

Al2O3

(%)

Fe2O3

(%)

CaO

(%)

MgO

(%)

K2O

(%)

Na2O

(%)

SO3

(%)

Chlorides

(%)

1 S.S.M.Fine Yarns 2.12 32.20 0.16 1.33 0.01 0.10 0.73 6.91 0.24

2 Jasmine Towels Pvt.Ltd., 10.2 2.25 2.22 33.90 6.84 0.16 0.16 0.62 0.19

3 Jay Jay Mills (I) Pvt.Ltd., 2.41 0.45 28.90 1.61 2.01 0.58 1.47 2.73 2.02

4 United Bleachers (P) Ltd., 6.02 26.30 16.10 7.32 0.37 0.14 1.41 13.75 2.19

5 Victus Dyeing 1.72 0.34 17.53 28.72 0.96 0.19 1.67 1.47 2.14

6 Design Process 1.71 0.30 12.10 41.18 1.49 0.01 0.21 0.92 0.07

7 Rajalakshmi Textile Processors

Pvt Ltd 24.92 3.78 16.77 18.3 3.78 1.53 1.14 0.86 0.75

8 R.K.EXPORTS (Karur) PVT

LTD 17 9.92 0.72 3.66 0.44 0.54 1.00 4.81 0.54



9 Intermarket India Pvt Ltd 4.25 0.87 9.67 34.16 4.36 0.05 0.09 1.18 0.08

10 Shiva Sakthi Fashions (P) Ltd 11.8 11.20 3.63 14.4 1.18 0.14 0.95 2.19 0.27

Source: TNPCB

3.1.1. Current practice for disposal of ETP Sludge

Secured land fill (SLF) and Incineration are the general approved methods for the disposal of

the dyeing effluent ETP sludge in Tiruppur.

3.1.1.1. Secured Land Fill

For disposing the Hazardous sludge generated from CETPs and IETPs of dyeing units in

Tiruppur were directed to provide SLF individually or advised to send the waste to the

common TSDF established at Gummidipoondi. Establishing SLF individually requires vast

land area and involves high capital cost. In Tamilnadu only one common SLF at

Gummidipoondi is in function and Transportation of the sludge from dyeing units to the

common SLF at Gummidipoondi from Tiruppur involves huge transportation cost and there

was stagnation in disposal of ETP sludge from Tiruppur dyeing units.

Common TSDF at Gummidipoondi

Figure 1 Haz sludge Filling in SLF Figure 2 SLF after closure with Green Cover

In the year 2011, it was estimated about one lakh fifty thousand tonnes of ETP sludge was

accumulated and stored in Tiruppur. Improper storage and disposal of ETP sludge generated

from the dyeing units lead to generation of leachate and again it contaminated the surface and

the ground water. The accumulated quantity of ETP sludge stored in IETPs and CETPs is

given in Table-2

Table 2 Quantity of sludge accumulated in Tiruppur IETPS/CETPS in 2011

SL.No Name of the plant Quantity in Tonnes

1 M/s Veerapandy CETP 28500 Tonnes

2 M/s Kunnagalpalayam CETP 11000 tonnes

3 M/s Chinnakarai CETP 13500 Tonnes

4 M/s Andipalaym CETP 14500 Tonnes

5 M/s Angerpalayam CETP 23000 tonnes

6 M/s Mannarai CETP 18000 Tonnes

7 M/s Kasipalaym CETP 7800 Tonnes

8 Individual IETPs 35000 Tonnes

Total 151300 Tonnes

Source: TNPCB



3.1.1.2. Incineration

Incineration is also one of the approved methods of disposal of ETP sludge generated from

dyeing industry in Tiruppur. But the cost of providing incinerator would depend on its

capacity ranging from Rs 10 crores to 30 crores. Incineration cost of Incinerable hazardous

waste is about Rs. 16,000/- per MT and incinerator if not operated optimally may contribute

to emissions including toxic Dioxins and Furans. Further the incineration ash is also to be

disposed in secured landfill. This method also requires huge energy, skilled personnel, and

continuous maintenance.

3.1.2. Co Processing of ETP sludge in Cements Industry

Mixing ETP sludge with cement raw material(co processing) destroy the hazardous waste at a

higher temperature of around 14000C at longer residence time in the kiln and its inorganic

content of the sludge gets fixed with the cement clinker apart from using the energy content of

the wastes. Apart from this, no residues are left, which in case of incineration still requires

being land filled as incinerator ash. Further the acidic gases, if any generated during co-

processing gets neutralized, since the raw material is alkaline in nature. Such phenomenon

also reduces resource requirement such as coal and lime stone. Thus utilization of Hazardous

wastes for co-processing will be an environmentally safe procedure for destruction of

hazardous wastes. Further alternate raw mix also offers conservation of traditional raw

materials.

3.1.2.1. A Case Study: Co-Processing of Sludge in Cement Industry

Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB), in February 2010 has published ―Guidelines on co

processing of hazardous waste in cement industry‖ . As per the guidelines the cement plant

has to ensure that they meet the particulate matter emission standards during co-processing as

prescribed under consent order issued to the unit. For other pollutants such as CO, TOC ,

NOX, HCL , SO2 , HF , Total Dioxins and Furans, Cd + TI + their compounds, Hg and its

compounds, Sb + As + Pb + Co + Cr + Cu + Mn + Ni + V + their compounds, emission

values during co-processing shall not exceed the baseline emission. Baseline emission is

nothing but the emission range observed before trail.

As per the permission, M/s Ultratech cement Ltd has conducted trial run with ETP sludge

and the emission parameters are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Summary of average values of emissions during trial run with CETP sludge in cement kiln

SL.No Parameters Unit Pre-trial

Trial with CETP

sludge Post-trial

Average Range Average Range Average Range

1 Particulate matter mg/Nm3 22.3

17,3-

25.9 22.1

19.6-

25.1 24.4

24.4-

25.1

2 Sulphur dioxide mg/Nm3 <3-2 <3-2 <3-2 <3-2 <3-2 <3-2

3 Oxides of

Nitrogen(NOx) mg/Nm

3 1448

1382-

1585 1392

1317-

1567 1496

1368-

1644

4 Hydro carbons mg/Nm3 189.2

134.4-

244.0 172.9

128.2-

234.0 185.5

131-

240

5 Carbon

Monoxide mg/Nm

3 118.2

93.1-

128.6 101,6

93.8-

110.0 108.7

98.3-

115.3

6 Hydrogen

Chloride(HCL) mg/Nm

3 18.5

16.9-

20-4 18.3

17,5-

19,2 18.5

17.8-

19.1



7 Hydrogen

Fluride(HF) mg/Nm

3 2.5 2.0-3.2 2.0 1.8-2.3 2.1 2.0-2.1

8 Total Organic

Carbon mg/Nm

3 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.1-4.6 4.4 4.4

9 Poly Aromatic

Hydro carbons µg/Nm

3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

10 Volatile organic

compounds µg/Nm

3 4.9 4.7-5.1 4.5 4.2-4.8 4.2 4,5-4.9

11 Cyanide mg/Nm3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

12 Mercury mg/Nm3 0.003 0.003 0.002

0.001-

0.002 0.003 0.003

13

Cadmium +

Thalium (Cd +

TI)

mg/Nm3 0.005 0.005 0.003

0.002-

0.004 0.004 0.004

14 Total Metal mg/Nm3 0.329 0.329 0.312

0,309-

0.315 0.322 0.322

15 Total dioxins and

Furans ng/Nm

3 0.0049 0.0049 0.0047

0.0047-

0.0048 0.0048 0.0048

Fig 1 to 3 represents the emission trend during the co processing, pre trail and post trail.

Figure 1 Emission Trend (Particulate matter,HCL,HF,SO2)

Figure 2 Emission Trend (Hydro Carbon and Carbon Monoxide)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SPM HCL HF SO2

Pre trial

TrialwithwastePost trial

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

m

g/N

m3

EMISSION TREND

0

50

100

150

200

HC CO

Pre trial

Trial withwaste

Post trial

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

m

g/N

m3



Figure 3 Emission Trend (Mercury, Cadmium +Thalium, Total Metals)

From the table 3 and fig 1 to 3, the following were observed

1. The particulate matter emissions during the said three phases were always less than the

permitted value of 50 mg/Nm3

and maximum observed was 25.9 mg/Nm3.

2. Sulphur di oxide emission during entire trial co processing period with CETP sludge

was observed to be less than 3.2 mg/Nm3.

3. Oxides of nitrogen emissions, which were much dependent on the temperature, were

ranging between 1317 to1567 mg/Nm3 during trial co-processing with hazardous

waste. HCL and HF emissions values were found to be 17.5 to 19.2 mg/Nm3 and 1.8

to 2.2 mg/Nm3 respectively during trial co-processing with hazardous waste.

4. Volatile organic compounds were found to be 4.2 to 4.8 µg/Nm3 during trial co-

processing with hazardous waste. Poly aromatic hydrocarbon emissions were observed

to be less than < 0.01 µg/Nm3 during entire trial co-processing with hazardous waste.

5. Dioxins and Furans were found to be 0.0049 ng/Nm3 during pre trial period, 0.0047 to

0.0048 ng/Nm3 during co processing with waste and 0.0048 ng/Nm

3 during post trial

period.

6. The total heavy metals and mercury emission values are 0.309 to 0.315 mg/Nm3 and

0.001 to 0.002 mg/Nm3 during trial co-processing with hazardous waste.

7. Total organic carbon was 4.1 to 4.6 mg/Nm3

during trial co-processing with hazardous

waste. Ambient air quality was found to be normal representing the industrial waste.

8. No significant chemical composition variation and physical properties variation was

found in clinker produced with raw material mixed with CETP sludge of 6.5 %

9. As the results of the study were found encouraging Central Pollution Control Board

has given permission using ETP sludge in cement kiln.

3.2. DISCUSSION

1. Disposal of ETP sludge in secured land fill requires vast land area and it involves high

capital and transportation cost. In case of common facility and if the transportation

cost is cheaper than the SLF disposal option can be considered.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Mercury Cd+ TI TotalMetal

Pre trial

Trial withwaste

Post trial

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON



2. As per CPCB guidelines for co processing of ETP sludge in cement Kiln trial study

for fixing the ratio of mix to be studied. Further the unit has to ensure the particulate

emission from the kiln should not exceed the permitted concentration of consent order

issued to the unit. Regarding the emission of other pollutants it should not exceed the

baseline concentration. The trial conducted at M/s Ultratech cements Ltd with 6.5 %

mix of sludge with raw material complied with the said directions of CPCB in terms

of emission level.

3. As on date more than 90% of the accumulated quantity of sludge stored in Tiruppur is

already disposed by Coprocessing in the following Cement plants.

a. M/s Ultratech Cement Industries, Reddipalayam , Ariyalur.

b. M/s Chettinad Cement Industries, Puliyur, Karur.

c. M/s India Cements Ltd. Sankari,

d. M/s ACC Ltd, Madhukarai , Coimbatore

4. CONCLUSION

Co processing of ETP sludge along with the cement raw material has negligible impact on

Clinker composition and the overall impact of the Hazardous waste co processing is beneficial

to environment in terms of disposal, air impacts and conservation of raw material.

Hence Co-processing is an Eco Friendly Technology for disposing the hazardous Waste

Technology.

REFERENCES

[1] Guidelines on Co‐ processing in Cement/Power/Steel Industry Published by Central

Pollution Control Board in February 2010

[2] Akbari V. Landfill site selection by combining Gis and fuzzy multi criteria decision

analysis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran, Journal of Department of Surveying and

Geomatics Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran, 2008.

[3] Akbari, V., Rajabi, M.A., Chavoshi, S.H., Shams, R. Landfill site selection by combining

GIS and fuzzy multi criteria decision analysis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran, World

Appl. Sci. J., Vol. 3, pp. 39- 47, 2008.

[4] Allen, A. R. Attenuation: A cost effective landfill strategy for developing countries,

Proceedings of 9th Congress of the international Association for Engineering Geology and

the Environment, Durban, South Africa, pp.16-20, 2002.

[5] Alumur, S., Kara, B.Y. A new model for the hazardous waste location-routing problem,

Comput. Oper. Res., Vol. 34, pp.1406- 1423, 2007.

[6] Baban, S.M.J. and Flannagan, J. Developing and Implementing GIS assisted Constraints

Criteria for Planning Landfill Sites in the UK, Plann. Prac. Res., Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 139-

151, 1998.

[7] Babu, B.V. and V. Ramakrishna. Positive Decision making in waste management towards

achieving Sustainable Development - A perspective, Proceedings of 14th National

Convention of Environmental Engineers, Institution of Engineers India), A.P. State

Center, August 7–9, pp. 9-15, Hyderabad, 1998.

[8] Barrett, A. and Lawlor, J. The economics of waste management in Ireland, Economic and

Social Research Institute, Dublin. pp. 129, 1995.

[9] Batstone, R., Smith, J.E. and Wilson, D. The Safe Disposal of Hazardous Wastes – The

Special Needs and Problems of Developing Countries, The World Bank Technical Paper

No. 93, Joint Study by World Bank, WHO, UNEP, Vol. I A, pp. 31-44, 1989.



[10] Bidwai, P. Toxic waste disposal: A ready dumping lot, in The Hindu Survey of the

Environment 96, Kasturi & Sons Ltd., Chennai, pp. 185-191, 1996.

[11] Bruno, K. Chemical pollution: Gujarat’s toxic corridor, in The Hindu Survey of the

Environment 1995, Kasturi & Sons Ltd., Chennai, pp. 163-166, 1995.

[12] Chang, N.B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J.B. Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria

decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region, J. Environ. Manage,

Vol.87, No.1, pp.139–153, 2007.

[13] Emek, E., Kara, B.Y. Hazardous waste management problem: the case for incineration,

Comput. Oper. Res., Vol. 34, pp. 1424-1441, 2007.

[14] Hamidi, A.A. Non-Biodegradable Industrial Waste, University Sains Malaysia, in

Effective Solid Waste Management, Ecotone. Manage. Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia, pp. 1-26,

1997.

[15] HPC. A Report of High Powered Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes,

available via internet athttp://www.cpcb.nic.in/hpcreport/, 2001.

[16] IANS Mercury Waste from India Heads for US, Indo Asian News Service, 2003.

[17] IGPA (International Green Productivity Association). Asian regional study identifies

green productivity as important strategy for hazardous waste management, International

Green Productivity Association Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.2-3, 2003.

[18] IPT report. Indian people’s tribunal on environment and human rights report on human

rights violations industrial pollution and the implications of the proposed Chemplast

Sanmar PVC factory in SIPCOT, Cuddalore, T.N‖, pp. 7, 2003.

[19] Kao, J.J. and Lin, H. Multifactor spatial analysis for landfill siting, J. Environ. Eng., Vol.

122, No. 10, pp.902-908, 1996.

[20] Kontos, T.D., Komilis, D.R. and Halvadakis, C.P. Siting MSW landfills on Lesvos Island

with a GIS-based methodology, Waste Manage. Res., Vol. 21, No. 3, 262-277, 2003.

[21] Kumar, D. and Alappat, B.J. Analysis of leachate contamination potential of a municipal

landfill using leachate pollution index, Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management,

pp. 147-153, 2003.

[22] Kurian, J., Esakku, S., Nagendran, R. and Viswanathan, C. A decision making tool for

dumpsite rehabilitation in developing countries Proceedings Sardinia 2005‖, Tenth

International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari,

Italy; pp. 3-7, 2005.

[23] Lakshmi, R. Remote sensing application in siting of waste disposal facilities with special

reference to hazardous wastes, Remote Sensing Applications in Applied Sciences,

Saumitra Mukherjee, Manak publications Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, pp. 141-179, 1999.

[24] Lane, W.N. and Mc Donald, R.R. Land suitability analysis: landfill siting, J. Urban Plann.

Develop., Vol.109, No.1, pp.50-61, 1983.

[25] Madhavan, N. Industrial pollution: Belligerent attitude, in The Hindu Survey of the

Environment ’99, Kasturi & Sons Ltd., Chennai, pp. 179-183, 1999.

[26] Mahini, A.S. and Gholamalifard, M. Siting MSW landfills with a weighted linear

combination methodology in a GIS environment, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 3,

No. 4, pp. 435-445, 2006.

[27] Miller, E.W. and Miller, R.M. Environmental hazards: toxic wastes and hazardous

materials reference handbook, ABC-CLIO Inc., California, U.S.A, 1991.

[28] Moore, W. A report on the potential for diversion from landfill of municipal solid waste in

Ireland, Tipperary Co. Council Report, 1994.

[29] Murali Krishna, K.V.S.G. Air pollution and control, Kaushal & Co., Kakinada (A.P),

India, pp. 307, 1995.

[30] Mutluturk, M., Karaguzel, R. The landfill area quality (LAQ) classification approach and

its application in Isparta, Turkey, Environ. Eng. Geosci., Vol. 13, pp. 229-240, 2007.



[31] Oweis, I.S. and Khera, R.P. Geotechnology of Waste Management, Butterworths, London,

pp. 273, 1990.

[32] Patil, M.P., Subramani, T., Patil, A. and Chakrabarti, T. Multi-level screening of a

proposed hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility site – a case study, Environ.

Monit. Assess., Vol. 76, pp.299-309, 2002.

[33] Ramakrishna, V. and Babu, B.V. Site selection criteria for hazardous waste treatment,

storage and disposal facility, Proceedings of National Seminar on Waste Management,

Samrat Ashok Technological Institute (Engineering College), Vidisha, India, pp. D2 (8-

15), 1999.

[34] Saxena, A.K. and Bhardwaj, K.D. Environmental Assessment and upgradation plan for

existing municipal waste disposal site – A case study, Proc. Workshop on Sustainable

Landfill Management, Chennai, India, pp. 287 - 301, 2003.

[35] Sumathi, V.R., Natesan, U. and Sarkar, C. GIS-based approach for optimized siting of

municipal solid waste landfill, Waste Manage., Vol. 28, pp. 2146-2160, 2008.

[36] Tchobanoglous, G. and Kreith, F. Handbook of solid waste management, McGraw Hill,

New York, pp.388, 2002.

[37] Tobin, P.J., Grontmij. and Cairns,R.P.S. Waste Management Strategy for the Cork

Region, pp. 84, 1995.

[38] Wentz, C.A. Hazardous waste management, McGraw Hill International editions,

Chemical Engineering series, McGraw Hill Inc., 2nd edition, Singapore, pp. 80-86, 296-

351, 1995.

[39] Aranda-Usón, A., Ferreira, G., López-Sabirón, A. M., Sastresa, E. L., & De Guinoa, A. S.

(2012). Characterisation and environmental analysis of sewage sludge as secondary fuel

for cement manufacturing. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 29, 457-462.

[40] Ali, M. B., Saidur, R., & Hossain, M. S. (2011). A review on emission analysis in cement

industries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(5), 2252-2261.

[41] Babu, B. V., & Ramakrishna, V. (2012). Hazardous waste management in India. Birla

Institute of Technology and Science Pilani–333,

[42] Bajaj, V. K. (2013). Solid Waste Management; Clean India by Reduce Solid Waste.

Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 13(5). Basel Convention. (2011).

[43] Bribián, I. Z., Capilla, A. V., & Usón, A. A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building

materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of

the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133- 1140.

[44] Bolwerk, R. (2004). Co-processing of waste and energy efficiency by cement plants.

[45] Bräutigam, K. R., Gleis, M., Hartlieb, N., Kupsch, C., Richers, U., & Stemmermann, P.

(2003). Heavy metals in cement and concrete resulting from the co-incineration of wastes

in cement kilns with regard to the legitimacy of waste utilisation.

[46] S. K., Upadhyay, V. P., & Sridharan, U. (2006). Environmental management of industrial

hazardous wastes in India. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 48(2), 143.

[47] Freeman, H. M., Olexsey, R. A., Oberacker, D. A., & Mournighan, R. E. (1987). Thermal

destruction of hazardous waste—a state-of-the-art review. Journal of hazardous materials,

14(1), 103-117.

[48] Hasanbeigi, A. (2013). International Best Practices for Pre-Processing and CoProcessing

Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge in the Cement Industry.

[49] Hashimoto, S., Fujita, T., Geng, Y., & Nagasawa, E. (2010). Realizing CO 2 emission

reduction through industrial symbiosis: a cement production case study for Kawasaki.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(10), 704-710.

[50] Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., Joshi, S., & Lave, L. (1998). Peer reviewed: economic

input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental science &

technology, 32(7), 184A-191A.



[51] Herczeg, M., Skovgaard, M., Zoboli, R., & Mazzanti, M. (2009). Diverting waste from

landfill. Effectiveness of waste management policies in the European Union. European

Environment Agency Report, (7).

[52] Hayashi, D., & Krey, M. (2005). CO2 emission reduction potential of large-scale energy

efficiency measures in heavy industry in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa

(No. 4-6). HWWI Research Paper.

[53] Ishak, S. A., & Hashim, H. (2014). Low Carbon Measures for Cement Plant–A review.

Journal of Cleaner Production.

[54] Kaddatz, K. T., Rasul, M. G., & Rahman, A. (2013). Alternative fuels for use in cement

kilns: process impact modelling. Procedia Engineering, 56, 413-420. Kara, M. U. S. T. A.

F.

[55] A., Günay, E., Tabak, Y., Yıldız, S., & Enç, V. O. L. K. A. N. (2008, August). The usage

of refuse derived fuel from urban solid waste in cement industry as an alternative fuel. In

The 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Innovation Heat Transfer, Thermal

Engineering and Environment (HTE’08) (pp. 20-22).

[56] Madlool, N. A., Saidur, R., Hossain, M. S., & Rahim, N. A. (2011). A critical review on

energy use and savings in the cement industries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 15(4), 2042-2060.

[57] Madlool, N. A. (2012). Investigation of Waste Heat Recovery in Cement Industry: A Case

Study. Morrow III, W. R. (2014). Assessment of Energy Efficiency Improvement and

CO2 Emission Reduction Potentials in India's Cement Industry.

[58] Mokrzycki, E., & Uliasz-Bocheńczyk, A. (2003). Alternative fuels for the cement

industry. Applied Energy, 74(1), 95-100.

[59] Ngwuluka, N., Ochekpe, N., Odumosu, P., & John, S. A. (2009). Waste management in

healthcare establishments within Jos Metropolis, Nigeria. African Journal of

Environmental Science and Technology, 3(12).

[60] Ngwuluka, N. C., Ochekpe, N. A., & Odumosu, P. O. (2013). An assessment of

pharmaceutical waste management in some Nigerian pharmaceutical industries. African

Journal of Biotechnology, 10(54), 11259-11264.

[61] Oleniacz, R., & Kasietczuk, M. (2012). Co-incineration of large quantities of alternative

fuels in a cement kiln-the problem of air pollutant emissions. Geomatics and

Environmental Engineering,

[62] Oliveux, G., Dandy, L. O., & Leeke, G. A. (2015). Current status of recycling of fibre

reinforced polymers: Review of technologies, reuse and resulting properties. Progress in

Materials Science, 72, 61-99.

[63] Oppelt, E. T. (1986). Hazardous waste destruction. Environmental science & technology,

20(4), 312-318.

[64] Potgieter, J. H. (2012). An Overview of Cement production: How ―green‖ and

sustainable is the industry?. Environmental Management and Sustainable Development,

1(2), p14-37.

[65] Punmathari, T., Rachakornk, M., Imyim, A., & Wecharatan, M. (2010). Coprocessing of

Grinding Sludge as Alternative Raw Material in Portland Cement Clinker Production.

Journal of Applied Sciences, 10, 1525-1535.

[66] Radwan, A. M. (2012). Different possible ways for saving energy in the cement

production. Advances in Applied Science Research, 3(2), 1162-1174.

[67] Rahman, A., Rasul, M., Khan, M. M. K., & Sharma, S. C. (2012). Industrial waste as

alternative fuel in cement industry: its impact on environment. In Recent researches in

environmental and geological sciences: proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International

Conference on Energy & Environment (EE'12), WSEAS Press,



[68] Rahman, A., Rasul, M. G., Khan, M. M. K., & Sharma, S. (2013). Impact of alternative

fuels on the cement manufacturing plant performance: an overview. Procedia Engineering,

56, 393-400.

[69] Saygin, D., Patel, M., & Gielen, D. (2010). Global Industrial Energy Efficiency

Benchmarking–An Energy Policy Tool. Vienna, Austria (UNIDO) and Utrecht, the

Netherlands (UU): United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and

Utrecht University.

[70] Schoenberger, H. (2009). Integrated pollution prevention and control in large industrial

installations on the basis of best available techniques–The Sevilla Process. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1526-1529.

[71] Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., & Bolio, H. (2011). Sustainable cement

production—present and future. Cement and Concrete Research, 41(7), 642-650.

[72] . Routledge. Seemann, A. (2007, September). Co-incineration of Municipal solid waste in

cement industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid

waste Management (pp. 5-7).

[73] Sreekanth, K., Gupta, N. V., Raghunandan, H. V., & Kashyap, U. N. (2014). A Review

on Managing of Pharmaceutical Waste in Industry. International Journal of PharmTech

Research, 6(3).

[74] Teller, P., Denis, S., Renzoni, R., & Germain, A. (1999). Comparison between the

incineration and the co-combustion in cement plants of industrial wastes using a life cycle

approach. In 7th LCA Case Studies Symposium SETAC-Europe.

[75] Tiwary, A., Sharma, G., & Gupta, P. K. (2014). Quantification of the Reduced

Environmental Impacts with Use of Co-Processing in Cement Kilns in India.

Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 69(3), 5-16.

[76] Uson, A. A., López-Sabirón, A. M., Ferreira, G., & Sastresa, E. L. (2013). Uses of

alternative fuels and raw materials in the cement industry as sustainable waste

management options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 242-260.

[77] Vicente, J., Gortazar, C., Acevedo, P., Carrasco, R., & Montoro, V. (2011). Big game

waste production: sanitary and ecological implications. INTECH Open Access Publisher.

[78] D. H., Karstensen, K. H., Huang, Q. F., Wang, Q., & Cai, M. L. (2010). Coprocessing of

industrial and hazardous wastes in cement kilns: a review of current status and future

needs in China. Environmental Engineering Science, 27(1), 37-45.

study on disposal of effluent treatment plant …karpagam academy of higher education, coimbatore,...

Documents