KenanZeynalov/petrol_data · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.75k
Petroleum refinery and petrochemical plants (PRPP) are a group of
industries that deal with the production of fuels, lubricants, petro
chemicals, and their intermediates. The global economic development
and increase in population have created a considerable demand for
PRPP products. The steps involved in crude-oil extraction and process
ing involve large quantities of water, resulting in the generation of a
significant volume of wastewater. The amount of wastewater generated
by PRPP is almost around 0.4 to 1.6 times the amount of crude oil
produced (Coelho et al., 2006). As per Energy Information Administra
tion (EIA), 2019 report world oil consumption was 99.93 million barrels
per day (mBPD) in 2018, indicating generation of about 6500 million
liters of PRPP wastewater per day (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2020). Furthermore, the world oil demand is expected
to rise to 102.22 mBPD and 107 mBPD in 2020 and 2030, respectively
(Diya’Uddeen et al., 2011; U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2020). This surge in the demand for PRPP products is making the sci
entists apprehensive about the safety of the environment. The PRPP
wastewater is composed of various toxic organic compounds, which
impose a significant threat to the aquatic environment. As a result, the
development of advanced strategies for PRPP wastewater remediation is
of utmost priority.
Large quantities of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds
are present in PRPP wastewater, which can significantly affect the
aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, oil being an immiscible liquid forms a
layer on the surface of water bodies and inhibits the entry of sunlight
and oxygen, leading to less dissolved oxygen (DO) and increased mor
tality rate of the aquatic species. Onwumere and Oladimeji (1990)
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Jain), [email protected] (A. Majumder), [email protected] (P.S. Ghosal), agupta@
civil.iitkgp.ac.in (A.K. Gupta).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111057
Received 2 May 2020; Received in revised form 29 June 2020; Accepted 3 July 2020
Journal of Environmental Management 272 (2020) 111057
2
showed that there was an accumulation of metals in Oreochromis nilo
ticus when the fish was exposed to treated petroleum refinery effluent
from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Kaduna. Uzoekwe
and Oghosanine (2011) studied the effect of petrochemical effluent on
the water quality of Ubeji Creek in the Niger Delta of Nigeria and sug
gested that the mixing of petrochemical effluent with brackish waters at
the lower reaches of the river was detrimental to aquatic life. Also, it has
been reported that exposure to these toxic hydrocarbons over a pro
longed period can also severely affect human beings (Zhang et al.,
2016). Furthermore, they are highly soluble and persistent and may
migrate into groundwater. As a result, PRPP wastewater should be
treated to meet the effluent standards before it can become detrimental
to the environment.
Numerous processes, such as membrane bio-reactor (MBR), moving
bed bio-reactor (MBBR), activated sludge process (ASP), up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), anaerobic membrane bioreactors
(AMBR), hybrid anaerobic reactor (HAR), up-flow anaerobic fixed bed
(UAFB) reactor, anaerobic-aerobic-biofilm reactor (A/O-BR), micro
aerobic hydrolysis acidification (MHA), membrane sequencing batch
reactors (MSBR) photocatalysis, electro-Fenton (EF), catalytic ozona
tion, membrane filtration, etc. have been generally used for the treat
ment of PRPP wastewater (Jafarinejad and Jiang, 2019; Tian et al.,
2019). However, such established technologies are characterized by
inherent limitations, such as high capital and operation/maintenance
cost, technical complexity, etc. These limitations reduce the technical
feasibility and economic viability of the treatment processes, especially
for developing countries (Ahmad et al., 2019). Also, the disposal of a
considerable amount of oily sludge generated after the conventional
treatment processes is a significant concern. PRPP wastewater comprises
of non-biodegradable, refractory, recalcitrant organic matters, which
are resistant to the existing technologies. Hence eco-friendly,
cost-efficient, easy-to-operate treatment technologies are required,
which can efficiently treat the various components of PRPP wastewater
and also not produce any harmful metabolites and sludge. Constructed
wetlands (CWs) have shown considerable viability for the treatment of
such contaminants due to the presence of multiple removal mechanisms,
such as phytoremediation, microbial degradation, substrate intercep
tion, etc. They do not require skilled labor, regular monitoring, high
initial, and operation cost, which add on to the numerous advantages of
these systems. Additionally, since PRPP wastewater comprises of
various organic hydrocarbons, it may act as a source of nutrients for the
plants and microbes (Martin et al., 2014).
Over the past few decades, numerous studies have been carried out
involving constructed wetlands and PRPP wastewater separately. Fig. 1
depicts that research involving PRPP wastewater treatment started back
in the late 1970s, and substantial work on constructed wetlands started
from the early 1990s. However, only a handful of studies have been
carried out involving the treatment of PRPP wastewater using CWs. Tian
et al. (2019) and Jafarinejad and Jiang (2019) reviewed the efficiency of
various biological methods and advanced oxidation methods in terms of
PRPP wastewater. However, constructed wetlands were not considered
in their study. On the other hand, various researchers reviewed the
performance of constructed wetlands in terms of removal of nitrogen,
phosphorous, COD and other nutrients from various types of wastewater
but did not focus on PRPP wastewater (Healy and O’ Flynn, 2011;
Lakatos et al., 2014; Valipour and Ahn, 2016; Vymazal, 2014, 2013,
2007). Mustapha and Lens (2018) addressed the role of various oper
ating conditions and performance of CWs in treating PRPP wastewater
but comparison of the performance of CWs with other treatment
methods was not addressed. Moreover, there is a lack of compiled
literature addressing optimum operating conditions, plants, and mi
croorganisms capable of degrading phenolic compounds, etc.
List of abbreviations

Petroleum refinery and petrochemical plants (PRPP) are a group of

industries that deal with the production of fuels, lubricants, petro

chemicals, and their intermediates. The global economic development

and increase in population have created a considerable demand for

PRPP products. The steps involved in crude-oil extraction and process

ing involve large quantities of water, resulting in the generation of a

significant volume of wastewater. The amount of wastewater generated

by PRPP is almost around 0.4 to 1.6 times the amount of crude oil

produced (Coelho et al., 2006). As per Energy Information Administra

tion (EIA), 2019 report world oil consumption was 99.93 million barrels

per day (mBPD) in 2018, indicating generation of about 6500 million

liters of PRPP wastewater per day (U.S. Energy Information

Administration, 2020). Furthermore, the world oil demand is expected

to rise to 102.22 mBPD and 107 mBPD in 2020 and 2030, respectively

(Diya’Uddeen et al., 2011; U.S. Energy Information Administration,

2020). This surge in the demand for PRPP products is making the sci

entists apprehensive about the safety of the environment. The PRPP

wastewater is composed of various toxic organic compounds, which

impose a significant threat to the aquatic environment. As a result, the

development of advanced strategies for PRPP wastewater remediation is

of utmost priority.

Large quantities of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds

are present in PRPP wastewater, which can significantly affect the

aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, oil being an immiscible liquid forms a

layer on the surface of water bodies and inhibits the entry of sunlight

and oxygen, leading to less dissolved oxygen (DO) and increased mor

tality rate of the aquatic species. Onwumere and Oladimeji (1990)

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Jain), [email protected] (A. Majumder), [email protected] (P.S. Ghosal), agupta@

civil.iitkgp.ac.in (A.K. Gupta).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111057

Received 2 May 2020; Received in revised form 29 June 2020; Accepted 3 July 2020

Journal of Environmental Management 272 (2020) 111057

2

showed that there was an accumulation of metals in Oreochromis nilo

ticus when the fish was exposed to treated petroleum refinery effluent

from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Kaduna. Uzoekwe

and Oghosanine (2011) studied the effect of petrochemical effluent on

the water quality of Ubeji Creek in the Niger Delta of Nigeria and sug

gested that the mixing of petrochemical effluent with brackish waters at

the lower reaches of the river was detrimental to aquatic life. Also, it has

been reported that exposure to these toxic hydrocarbons over a pro

longed period can also severely affect human beings (Zhang et al.,

2016). Furthermore, they are highly soluble and persistent and may

migrate into groundwater. As a result, PRPP wastewater should be

treated to meet the effluent standards before it can become detrimental

to the environment.

Numerous processes, such as membrane bio-reactor (MBR), moving

bed bio-reactor (MBBR), activated sludge process (ASP), up-flow

anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), anaerobic membrane bioreactors

(AMBR), hybrid anaerobic reactor (HAR), up-flow anaerobic fixed bed

(UAFB) reactor, anaerobic-aerobic-biofilm reactor (A/O-BR), micro

aerobic hydrolysis acidification (MHA), membrane sequencing batch

reactors (MSBR) photocatalysis, electro-Fenton (EF), catalytic ozona

tion, membrane filtration, etc. have been generally used for the treat

ment of PRPP wastewater (Jafarinejad and Jiang, 2019; Tian et al.,

2019). However, such established technologies are characterized by

inherent limitations, such as high capital and operation/maintenance

cost, technical complexity, etc. These limitations reduce the technical

feasibility and economic viability of the treatment processes, especially

for developing countries (Ahmad et al., 2019). Also, the disposal of a

considerable amount of oily sludge generated after the conventional

treatment processes is a significant concern. PRPP wastewater comprises

of non-biodegradable, refractory, recalcitrant organic matters, which

are resistant to the existing technologies. Hence eco-friendly,

cost-efficient, easy-to-operate treatment technologies are required,

which can efficiently treat the various components of PRPP wastewater

and also not produce any harmful metabolites and sludge. Constructed

wetlands (CWs) have shown considerable viability for the treatment of

such contaminants due to the presence of multiple removal mechanisms,

such as phytoremediation, microbial degradation, substrate intercep

tion, etc. They do not require skilled labor, regular monitoring, high

initial, and operation cost, which add on to the numerous advantages of

these systems. Additionally, since PRPP wastewater comprises of

various organic hydrocarbons, it may act as a source of nutrients for the

plants and microbes (Martin et al., 2014).

Over the past few decades, numerous studies have been carried out

involving constructed wetlands and PRPP wastewater separately. Fig. 1

depicts that research involving PRPP wastewater treatment started back

in the late 1970s, and substantial work on constructed wetlands started

from the early 1990s. However, only a handful of studies have been

carried out involving the treatment of PRPP wastewater using CWs. Tian

et al. (2019) and Jafarinejad and Jiang (2019) reviewed the efficiency of

various biological methods and advanced oxidation methods in terms of

PRPP wastewater. However, constructed wetlands were not considered

in their study. On the other hand, various researchers reviewed the

performance of constructed wetlands in terms of removal of nitrogen,

phosphorous, COD and other nutrients from various types of wastewater

but did not focus on PRPP wastewater (Healy and O’ Flynn, 2011;

Lakatos et al., 2014; Valipour and Ahn, 2016; Vymazal, 2014, 2013,

2007). Mustapha and Lens (2018) addressed the role of various oper

ating conditions and performance of CWs in treating PRPP wastewater

but comparison of the performance of CWs with other treatment

methods was not addressed. Moreover, there is a lack of compiled

literature addressing optimum operating conditions, plants, and mi

croorganisms capable of degrading phenolic compounds, etc.

List of abbreviations