4.

Details of Waste Management Processes

4.1. Nature and Characteristics of Industrial Waste

In the soft drink manufacturing industry, it is estimated that almost 50% of the waste water
produced during the beverage production comes from the bottle washing process. Caustic soda
and sugar are also released along with major water pollutants (Haroon, Waseem, & Mahmood,
2013). The Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI) plant located in Tulay, Minglanilla,
Cebu is a bottling plant with a facility for wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment facility
was designed to treat 113.55 m3 of raw wastewater per hour or 2725.2 m3 per day. The
characteristic of the wastewater generated by the PCPPI plant is presented in Table #.

Table 1. Characteristic of the wastewater generated by PCPPI

Parameter Concentration (mg/L)
pH 10
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 4.0
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 3868
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) 1522
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 500
Oil and Grease 50

The solid waste generated by the plant comes from domestic solid waste (from bins), the
coarse solids removed from the bottle washing wastewater, and the sludge generated from the
biological treatment of the wastewater treatment facility.

4.2. Baseline Data and Methodology on Acquisition of Baseline Information

4.3. Details of Unit Operations and Processes

To meet the standard values set by the DENR Administrative Order No. 2016 – 08 (DAO
2016-08) for discharge in class SB water bodies, PCPPI employ the scheme presented in Figure #
to treat the wastewater generated by plant. The raw wastewater flows into the sump pit equipped
with stainless steel basket to screen out the coarse solids in the raw wastewater. From the sump
pit, the wastewater is pumped into the Oil Removal Tank (ORT) equipped with corrugated inclined
plate oil separator. The wastewater then undergoes flow equalization in the equalization tanked
equipped with coarse bubble diffuser for mixing. From the equalization tank, the wastewater will
be pumped into the neutralization tank with pH dosing system that will add the neutralizing acid
into the wastewater. To remove the organics in the wastewater from leftover soft drinks, the
wastewater undergoes a biological process in two (2) aeration tanks connected in series to reduce
the COD and BOD of the wastewater. The wastewater then flows into four (4) settling tanks. Part
of the settled sludge is returned to the aeration tanks while the excess sludge is dried in six (6)
drying beds. The effluent from the settling tanks overflows to the effluent pit where it will be
chlorinated prior to discharge into a section of the Bohol Strait which is classified as class SC. The
block flow diagram of the water treatment facility is presented in Figure #.

Raw Treated
Wastewater Sump Pit Oil Activated Effluent Pit Effluent
Equalization Neutralization
(solids screening) removal sludge (chlorination)

Waste Activated Sludge) Dried

Sludge drying sludge
(Drying beds)

Figure 1. Process flow of PCPPI wastewater treatment

The characteristic of the treated effluent generated by the wastewater treatment scheme in Figure # is
presented in Table #.

Table 2. Characteristic of treated effluent in PCPPI wastewater treatment

Parameter Concentration (mg/L) DAO 2016-08 limits (mg/L)
pH - 6.5 – 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 3.2 -
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 57 60
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5.0 30
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 76 70
Oil and Grease <0.10 5.0

Most of the parameters in the treated wastewater effluent satisfy the limits for class SB water
bodies except for total suspended solids (TSS).
 Raw
wastewater
Oil Removal Equalization Neutralization Aeration Aeration
Sump Pit
Tank Tank Tank Tank 1 Tank 2

Effluent
Discharge
Settling Tank 1 Settling Tank 2 Settling Tank 3 Settling Tank 4 Effluent Pit

Return Activated Sludge (RAS)

Waste Activated Sludge (WAS)

Sludge Sludge Sludge Sludge Sludge Sludge

Drying Bed 1 Drying Bed 2 Drying Bed 3 Drying Bed 4 Drying Bed 5 Drying Bed 6

Figure 2. Block flow diagram of the current PCPPI wastewater treatment facility
5. Management Initiatives

5.1. Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization (P2/CP)

The activated sludge process used by the PCPPI wastewater treatment plant currently uses
two (2) aeration tanks in series and four (4) settling tanks in parallel, along with six (6) sludge
drying beds. These occupies most of the space in the treatment facility. Since most of the
parameters in the treated effluent already satisfies the standards set by DENR, our proposal for the
modification and improvement of the current wastewater treatment process used by Pepsi Cola
Products Philippines Incorporated will be aimed on the minimization of space requirement, cost,
and social impact of the treatment facility. Due to the reasons stated above, the modification will
therefore be focused on the removal of BOD and COD of the wastewater which currently uses
activated sludge aeration tanks that occupies most of the space, and has the highest capital and
operational cost in the treatment facility.

Raw Treated
Wastewater Sump Pit Oil Activated Effluent Pit Effluent
Equalization Neutralization
(solids screening) removal sludge (chlorination)

Waste Activated Sludge) Dried

Sludge drying sludge
(Drying beds)

5.1.1.Selection of Organic Removal Process

Many treatment methods can be used for the removal of organic contaminants. Because of the
complex nature of dissolved organic contaminant, the treatment methods must consider the
specific characteristics of wastewater. Treatment processes used to remove organics contaminants,
and reduce chemical and biological oxygen demand include (1) carbon adsorption, (2) reverse
osmosis, (3) chemical precipitation, (4) advanced oxidation, (5) trickling filters. The selection
criteria for the modified organic removal process in the PCPPI wastewater treatment facility is
presented in Table # along with the rubrics presented in Table #.
Table 3. Criteria for the selection of the modified organic removal process for PCPPI wastewater treatment
facility
Criteria
Capital Cost
Maintenance and Operation
Cost, and Investment Payback
Product/Resource Recovery,
Effluent Reduction, Recycle
and Re-use
Environmental Compliance
Social Impact
Description Weight
The treatment process must reduce process stages,
reduce construction cost, minimal space 20%
requirement
The process must reduce effluent disposal cost,
reduce man-power requirement, reduce
maintenance and operation cost, reduce 25%
generation of by-product such as waste sludge,
and reduce energy consumption.
The process must generate excellent quality
effluent suitable for reuse with solids recovery 25%
suitable for on-site incineration.
The process must be efficiently remove the
contaminants to satisfy environmental legislations 20%
and effluent quality standards.
The process should have minimal noise and odor
generation that could affect the community in the 10%
proximity of the plant.

Table 4. Rubrics for the selection of the modified organic removal process for PCPPI wastewater
treatment facility
Criteria 1.0 – Poor 3.0 – Acceptable 5.0 – Excellent
Capital Cost High capital cost Moderate capital cost Low capital cost
Maintenance and Moderate
High maintenance
Operation Cost, and maintenance and Low maintenance and
and operational cost,
Investment Payback operational cost, operational cost, high
low investment
moderate investment investment payback
payback
payback
Product/Resource
Low quality effluent Moderate quality High quality effluent
Recovery, Effluent
and low solids effluent and moderate and high solids
Reduction, Recycle
recovery solids recovery recovery
and Re-use
High organic removal
Environmental
Low organic removal Moderate organic efficiency
Compliance efficiency removal efficiency Removal of other
contaminants
Generates odor and
Social Impact Generates bad odor Does not generate
noises that can be
and loud noises odor and noise
mitigated
 The rating for the processes for organic removal will be based on the rubric presented in
Table #. Tabulated in Table # are the comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the
different options for organic removal in the treatment of wastewater.

Table 5. Comparison of different organic removal processes

Process Advantages *(a)(b)(c) Disadvantages *(a)(b)(c)
Carbon Adsorption - Efficient for pollutants having high - Filters has to be replaced
affinity with activated carbon regularly
surface (non-polar compounds) - Skilled labor required
- Easy to install and maintain
- Materials are available everywhere
- Dissolved organics removal up to
99%
- Can remove some toxic metals
- Low space requirement
- No sludge production

Reverse Osmosis - Dissolved organics removal up to - High-cost of membranes

84% - Needs pre-treatment of
- No sludge production wastewater to avoid
- Low energy requirement membrane damage
- No sludge production - Highly susceptible to
- Low space requirement fouling
- No odor generation
- Able to remove microorganisms
- Modular design (easy maintenance
and system upgrade)
Chemical Precipitation - Increased Removal of BOD, TSS, - Can demand large amount
phosphorus, and metals of chemicals oxidants
- Depending on the reagent choice, thus higher cost
can be highly specific to a - Large quantity of
particular contaminant potentially toxic chemical
silt produced
Advanced Oxidation - Potential to reduce toxicity and - Can demand large amount
possibility of complete of chemicals oxidants thus
mineralization of organics treated higher cost
- Does not produce excess materials - Only removes organic
such as sludge and spent carbon material
- Non-selective (can take care of a - High sludge production
wide range of organics - Potential for odor
- Disinfects wastewater production
Trickling filters - Low energy requirement (50 – - Additional treatment may
70% less than conventional be needed for stricter
activated sludge) standards
 - Up to 95% BOD removal - Regular operator attention
efficiency needed
- Resilient to variable wastewater - Sludge generation
conditions - Potential for odor and
- Simple to operate vector problems
- Low sludge production which can
be thickened and dewatered easily
- Low space requirement
- Low operational cost
- Moderate technical expertise
required
*Sources: a (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003); b (Cheremisinoff, 2002); (Davis, 2011)

Based on the comparison presented in Table #, the rating sheet for the selection of the most-suitable
process for the modified organic removal process for the PCPPI wastewater treatment facility is
presented in Table #.

Table 6. Rating sheets for the selection of the modified organic removal process for PCPPI wastewater
treatment facility
Criteria Weight Carbon Reverse Chemical Advanced Trickling
Adsorption Osmosis Precipitation Oxidation Filters
Capital Cost 20% 5 1 3 3 5
Maintenance and
Operation Cost,
25% 5 3 1 3 5
and Investment
Payback
Product/Resource
Recovery,
Effluent 3 5 3 3 5
25%
Reduction,
Recycle and Re-
use
Environmental 20% 3 3 3 5 3
Compliance
Social Impact 10% 5 5 1 1 3
Weighted 4.3
100% 4.1 3.3 2.3 3.2
Average

Based on the rating sheet presented in Table #, trickling filters is the most-suitable
alternative for the conventional activated sludge process employed by PCPPI in their wastewater
treatment facility. The modified process flow diagram for the wastewater treatment facility is
presented in Figure # and the modified block flow diagram is presented in Figure #.

Raw Treated
Wastewater Sump Pit Oil Trickling Effluent Pit Effluent
Equalization Neutralization
(solids screening) removal filtration (chlorination)

Waste sludge Dried

Sludge drying sludge
(Drying beds)

Figure 3. Modified process flow diagram for the PCPPI wastewater treatment facility
 Raw Effluent
wastewater
Oil Removal Equalization Neutralization Trickling Discharge
Sump Pit Settling Tank
Tank Tank Tank Filter

Return Sludge
Waste Sludge

Dried Sludge
Sludge Drying
Bed

Figure 4. Modified block flow diagram for the PCPPI wastewater treatment facility
Design of Tricking Bed Filter

The modern trickling filter consists of a bed of highly permeable medium to which
microorganisms are attached and through which wastewater is percolated or trickled. The filter
media usually consists of either rock or a variety of plastic packing materials. The depth of rock
varies but usually ranges from 3 to 8 feet (0.91 to 2.44 m). Trickling filters are generally circular,
and the wastewater is distributed over the top of the bed by a rotary distributor. Filters are
constructed with an underdrain system for collecting the treated wastewater and any biological
solids that have become detached from the media. This underdrain system is important both as a
collection unit and as a porous structure through which air can circulate. The collected liquid is
passed to a settling tank where the solids are separated from the treated wastewater. In practice, a
portion of the treated wastewater is recycled to dilute the strength of the incoming wastewater and
to maintain the biological slime layer in a moist condition.

Figure 5. Cutaway view of a trickling filter(Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)

The organic material present in the wastewater is degraded by a population of

microorganisms attached to the filter media. Organic material from the wastewater is absorbed
onto the biological slime layer. As the slime layer increases in thickness, the microorganisms near
the media face lose their ability to cling to the media surface. The liquid then washes the slime off
the media, and a new slime layer starts to grow. The phenomenon of losing the slime layer is called
“sloughing” and is primarily a function of the organic and hydraulic loading on the filter.
 To design the trickling filter for the PCPPI wastewater treatment facility, the NCR
(National Research Council of USA) equation presented in Eq. 1 will be used.
100 Eq. 1
𝐸=
𝑊
1 + 0.0561√𝑉𝐹

Where W = BOD loading in kg/day, V = the volume of the filter bed in m3, and F is the recirculation
factor.

Calculation of the overall efficiency of the trickling filter

𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐵𝑂𝐷 − 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐵𝑂𝐷 Eq. 2
𝐸= × 100
𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐵𝑂𝐷

Based on the mass balance, effluent BOD = 414.78 kg/day and influent BOD = 4147.75 kg/day
𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔
4147.75 − 414.78
𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦
∴ 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = × 100
𝑘𝑔
4147.75
𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 90.0%
Estimation of the recirculation factor F:
1+𝑅 Eq. 3
𝐹= 2
𝑅
[1 + (10)]

Where R = recirculation ratio (Qr/Q), typically having a value of 2.0

1 + 2.0
∴𝐹=
2.0 2
[1 + ( 10 )]

𝐹 = 2.083
Substituting these values to Eq. 1, the volume of the filter bed can be calculated
100
90 =
4147.75 𝑘𝑔/𝑑𝑎𝑦
1 + 0.0561√
𝑉(2,083)

∴ 𝑉 = 507.6161 𝑚3

The typical bed height for trickling bed filters is within the range of 0.91 – 2.44 m averaging at
1.68 m (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). This value will be adapted for the calculation of the area and
diameter of the circular trickling filter.

Trickling filter area

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒, 𝑉
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝐴 =
𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡, 𝐻

507.6161 𝑚3
𝐴=
1.68 𝑚

∴ 𝑨 = 𝟑𝟎𝟐. 𝟏𝟓𝟐𝟒 𝒔𝒒. 𝒎

Trickling filter diameter

4𝐴
𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝐷 = √
𝜋

4(302.1524 𝑚2 )
𝐷=√
𝜋

𝐷 = 19.6141 𝑚

In practice, the diameter of a trickling bed filter is rounded off to accommodate standard rotary
distributor mechanism.

∴ 𝑫 = 𝟐𝟎 𝒎