Table 4 Result of different LWWT studies by using various treatment techniques and their limitations.
From: Laundry wastewater treatment using a combination of sand filter, bio-char and teff straw media
TS (mg∙L−1) | TSS (mg∙L−1) | TDS (mg.L-1) | pH | EC (µS.cm-1) | Total Alkalinity mg∙L−1 (CaCO3) | DO (mg∙L−1) | COD (mg∙L−1) | BOD5 (mg∙L−1) | Surfactants/LAS | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combined coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation process (C/F/S) and membrane separation | 500 | — | 435 | 6.8 | 278 | — | — | 83 | — | 5.1/NA | (Nascimento et al., 2019) |
Electrocoagulation/Electroflotation | — | 3 | — | 5.9 | 1.4 (mS/cm) | 11 | — | 80 | — | Methylene Blue Active Substances – MBAS = 5.3 | (Dimoglo et al., 2019) |
Modified laundry waste water treatment system | — | 40 | 380 | 7.7 | — | — | — | 310 | 40 | — | (Ahmad and EL-Dessouky, 2008) |
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) | — | 4 | — | 7.4 | 1275 | — | — | 140 | — | 1.6/NA | (Ciabattia et al., 2009) |
Hybrid System (MF and UF) with 157 days total operation time | — | 1.55 | — | — | — | — | — | 145–260 | — | 0.04/NA | (Babaei et al., 2019) |
Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) with 84 days of operational time | 5.79 | — | — | 8.0 ± 0.2 | — | 331 ± 99 | — | 68 ± 17 | — | NA/ 3.2 ± 1.7 | (Faria et al., 2019) |
A combined process of the up-flow multi-medium biological aerated filter (UMBAF) and the multi-media biological aerated filter (MBAF); 25% declination of LAS removal within 24 days. | — | — | — | — | — | — | 35 | — | 7 | (Ji et al., 2019) | |
Vertical-Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland system | — | 22.1–32.8 | 722–783 | 7.8 | — | — | — | 926–113 | 182–43 | — | (Watiniasih et al., 2019) |
Moringa oleifera Seeds | 5.77–7.01 | 0.37–0.11 | — | — | — | — | — | 277–313 | — | — | (Al-Gheethi et al., 2017) |
Integrated of sand-biochar-teffstraw | 224.3 | 25.4 | 198.9 | 6.5 | 372.5 | 118.9 | 5.8 | 840.8 | 398.9 | — | This study |
