Contemporary Carwash Wastewater Recycling Technologies: A Systematic Literature Review
Contemporary Carwash Wastewater Recycling Technologies: A Systematic Literature Review
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021-12-30
Authors
Agyen, K. G
Monney, I
Antwi-Agyei, P.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
World Environment
Abstract
Faced with dwindling freshwater resources globally, many industries, including the carwash industry, have
turned to wastewater recycling technologies. But the performance of these technologies, their environmental impacts, and
economic viability have not been extensively examined. This systematic review examined the treatment efficiencies of
modern carwash wastewater recycling technologies, their cost implications, and their by-products. The study drew on an
extensive literature search spanning the last decade and found 34 research articles suitable. The results showed combined
treatment methods as the most typical approach adopted for treating carwash wastewater. Combined technologies
incorporating membrane filtration process almost completely remove COD (99%) and turbidity (99%), but flux reduction and
membrane fouling present significant problems. Other technologies employing chemical or electrochemical coagulation
produce sludge containing hydroxide and oxyhydroxide ions. But this sludge is mainly landfilled. The highest capital and
annual operational costs for the technologies assessed are about US$10,000 and US$3000, respectively. The payback period
ranged between 5 and 140 months and saves up to 5000m3
of freshwater annually, translating into savings of about
US$20,000 yearly. This study generally observed an extensive focus on the treatment efficiencies of CWW recycling
technologies to the neglect of their economic viability and environmental impact. Areas for further studies are discussed in
the paper.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Agyen, K. G., Monney, I., & Antwi-Agyei, P. (2021). Contemporary Carwash Wastewater Recycling Technologies: A Systematic Literature Review. World Environment, 11(2), 83-98.